Homily for 29th Sunday in Ordinary Time
In 1979 the Irish monetary system severed the link with British sterling and the new Irish punt was born. The monetary independence last a short three years, when we aligned our system with the European currency instead. However, that three years of monetary independence happened to coincide with the most intense period of the Northern troubles, as we all them, the period from 1979-1983. The period will have included of course the notorious Hunger Strikes of 81. When the Irish Punt emerged as an independent entity, no long linked to sterling and the Queen, Dr. Ian Paisley issued an appeal to all the British citizens of Northern Ireland to boycott the Punt. Northern citizens should not accept it, he said. If citizens of the south drive north to purchase goods that are cheaper there, insist that they pay for those good in sterling, the good Doctor whispered softly.
A few days later, a Dublin man, a private citizen, decided to test the sincerity of the good doctor. (It was the TV presenter, Frank Hall, in fact. But he kept his cover). He placed ten single punts in an envelope, enclosed a covering note informing wishing Dr. Paisley and his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist Party well, and he hoped that the enclosed would help facilitate the efficient running of a modern political party. Some days later the sender received a most gracious reply from the grateful recipient. Dr. Paisley thanked the donor for his generous gift, complemented him on his sound political judgment, and he expressed the wish that the present correspondence would be fruitfully sustained to their mutual benefit, and for the overall good of the island of Ireland. Needless to say, the correspondence quickly made its way into the national consciousness via Frank Hall's weekly TV programme, much to the embarrassment of Paisley, we must presume (or should we presume anything there?). But it would appear that his principles had a price, and that price was not particularly high!
Today's gospel story revolves around an almost identical wrangle about money and authority. Approaching Jesus with insincere flattery, the Pharisees attempt to place him in a dilemma with their question about paying taxes to the emperor. If Jesus says yes, he will be seen to be capitulating to the hated Romans and accepting the legitimacy of their occupation. But if he says no, he can be reported to the governor for treason, and some followers of that governor, Herod (the Herodians) are brought along just in case he does make a statement to that effect. Within the Jewish context there was an additional layer of problems: Because to book of Leviticus prohibited the making of all images: "Thou shalt not worship graven images..." And under the image of Caesar on the denarius was the inscription: 'The Divine Caesar'. The very ones who ordered other to uphold this law went around with the pockets filled with money that violated the very law they purported to uphold. Hypocrisy is never too far removed from the minds of legal-minded religious people.
Jesus himself is not carrying the coinage. He asked his tormentors for a coin, and they give him a denarius, the very coin that is used to pay the Roman taxes. Having been shown the coin with Caesar's image on it, he replies: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar, to God what is God's." This response can be read on a number of levels. On the first level, it is simply a crafty answer. He had fielded a very dangerous ball indeed and he kicked for touch with some dexterity. Jesus does not take it upon himself to justify Roman dominance; he bases himself simply on the recognition that his questioners have already implicitly recognised Rome. For, clearly, by the very fact that they carry around Roman coinage, they are already involved in the Roman system of government.
On a second level, a theory of politics may be sought. Indeed this biblical statement is elevated to the level of dogma by those who would advocate a radical separation between Church and state. "To Caesar what is Caesar's, to God what is God's", implying that the bible posits a clear line of demarcation between both spheres of operation. That some recognition is accorded to civil government by this statement of Jesus is clear enough. He positively states that there are some obligations towards Caesar. He does not simply denounce Rome. Still, to seek to justify a whole political philosophy on such a narrow biblical foundation is entirely spurious. It is reading too much entirely into one harmless, throwaway remark of Jesus.
Finally, on a third level, an underlying irony appears when the response is examined more closely. Consider the concluding clause: Give to God what belongs to God. Is anything excluded from that? Obviously,nothing. Recalling the first reading, "all nations are in the hand of God: he creates all and nothing escapes his providence."
The relation of Church and State has been a bone of contention in recent years. On the one hand, some church people overstep their area of competence entirely. They will presume to pronounce in the name of the Church (and God!) on delicate questions of political and social fact, for which the Church possesses no special competence. On the other hand, too many Christians believe that religion has nothing to do with social or political questions, which denies that ultimately everything belongs to God.