Notes from the Wayside: Introspection: Lines in the Sand

I share these thoughts hoping they are of help to someone else.

Comments are always welcomed.

If you find these thoughts helpful, please share.

Lines in the Sand

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:28 (NRSV)

We reject the either or

They can't define us anymore

'Cause if it's us or them

It's us for them

From "Us for Them" by Gungor

When Jesus enters Jerusalem, tensions escalate between Him and the religious leaders. First, He throws the whole city into an uproar when He rides into town on a donkey. Next, He barges into the temple and turns over the tables of the merchants and money changers, proclaiming that the temple, which was meant to be "a house of prayer," has become instead "a den of robbers." After that, He levels some extremely harsh criticisms against the religious leaders in the form of parables.¹

At this point, the religious leaders start striking back, asking Jesus loaded questions in the hopes of getting Him into trouble. The Pharisees, who are normally opposed to the Roman occupation, find some unlikely allies in the supporters of King Herod, Rome's puppet ruler of Galilee.² It is said that "politics makes strange bedfellows." People from both groups approach Jesus, feigning respect and humility, and ask Him, "Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?"³

The question represents a highly contentious political issue of the day, and it was strategically chosen to force Jesus into a dilemma. Answering either in the affirmative or in the negative will cost Him greatly. If Jesus says that it is lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, He will lose the faith of those who hate the Roman occupation and look to Him as their liberator. On the other hand, if Jesus says that it is not lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, He will be arrested as an enemy of the Empire.⁴

Basically, the Pharisees and the Herodians draw a line in the sand and try to force Jesus to pick a side. The two groups are not unlike modern-day Christians who draw lines in the sand and then vehemently try to convince themselves and others that Christ is on their side and that to disagree with them is to set oneself up as an enemy of Christ Himself.

Jesus understands what the Pharisees and Herodians are trying to do, and He refuses to play their treacherous game. He borrows a coin that would be used to pay the tax, holds it up, and asks, "Whose head is this, and whose title?" Someone replies, "The emperor's." Jesus then says, "Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's." Jesus doesn't give his critics an answer they can use against Him but instead gives them an answer that leaves them scratching their heads.⁵

Six years ago, I delivered a sermon about this very story at my home church. I noted that people have a propensity to draw lines in the sand and divide themselves into diametrically opposed groups based on things like political leanings, religion, skin color, and economic status. Christians with such divisive inclinations love to claim that God is on their side. The truth, I proclaimed, is that God is bigger than any of the things we use to divide ourselves. Christ calls us out of our us-versus-them mentality, uniting us around a greater purpose, as evidenced by the fact that He called one disciple who violently opposed the Roman Empire and another disciple who was employed by the Roman Empire.

My sermon focused especially on political divisions between Christians. I must admit that, at that time, I was rather ambivalent, apathetic, and cynical regarding all things political. What I really hated was how bitterly people are divided over politics. I had never even voted at that time, and I would not have voted the following year, were it not for some unexpected nagging from friends. I went to the voting booth, and, taking a cue from the 1985 comedy Brewster's Millions, I wrote in "NONE OF THE ABOVE" on every ballot that allowed a write-in vote. It was, for me, a protest vote against a broken system, a vote against corruption, pandering, mudslinging, and partisanism.

My perspective has changed quite a bit since then. During the 2016 election, I found one of the two major presidential candidates so utterly vile, repugnant, and dangerous that I was compelled to go to the voting booth on Election Day and cast my vote for the other major candidate, even though I wasn't a particularly huge fan of that person either. I realize that, like me, a lot of people voted not for the candidate they liked but against the candidate they hated and that both candidates had qualities to hate. Still, I've found myself questioning the rationality and even the spirituality of those who would vote for candidate who so obviously emerged from the very bowels of hell.

To put it bluntly, I've drunk the partisan Kool-Aid. I've gotten caught up in the us-versus-them game I critiqued six years ago, and I've chosen a side. That said, I'm not sure I could still deliver with any sense of integrity the same sermon I wrote years earlier. I struggle to agree with what I said back in 2011 when I was still ambivalent toward politics, but I will admit that what I said back then, before I was corrupted by the 2016 election, was probably right. Not all changes in perspective are necessarily for the better.

Last year, on the evening of Election Day, there was a service of Holy Communion at my church. Normally, during Communion services at my church, there are two stations at which someone may receive the elements. One station is to the left of the Communion table and the other is to the right of it. The election night service was a bit different, as there was only one station, meaning that people on both the left and right sides of the sanctuary had to come together in the middle to partake of the one loaf and the one cup.⁶ One thing I think Holy Communion teaches us is that it is the broken body and spilled blood of our Savior that brings a broken humanity back together at one table.

Six years ago, I noticed that Jesus didn't really seem to answer His critics' question, for He did not explicitly say what rightfully belongs to the emperor. I wondered if, by diverting attention from what belongs to the emperor to what belongs to God, Jesus is suggesting that His critics are asking the wrong question. Perhaps he is saying that people should be less concerned with what they are expected to give to the government and more concerned with what they are called to give to God.

What I had not considered back then is that, if Jesus is indeed implying that a coin that bears the image of the emperor belongs to the emperor, then we could deduce that something that bears the image of God must belong to God.⁷ On what then do we see God's image? At the beginning of the Bible, we read, "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."⁸ If you're still not quite sure what Jesus is saying you should give to God, go and take a look in the mirror.

At a time when the divide between the political Left and the political Right is more bitter than ever, we Christians who find ourselves on either side of the aisle politically must remember that our loyalty is not to an elephant or a donkey but to a Lamb, namely Christ. To paraphrase St. Paul, there is no longer Conservative or Liberal, and there is no longer Democrat or Republican, for all of us are one in Christ Jesus.

Notes:

Matthew 21:1-22:14
William Barclay. The New Daily Study Bible: The Gospel of Matthew, Volume Two. 2001, Saint Andrew Press. p. 318
Matthew 22:15-17 (NRSV)
Barclay, p. 317
Matthew 22:18-22 (NRSV)
Jonathan Tompkins. "How Can I Practice Politics and Keep the Faith?" Travelers Rest United Methodist Church podcast, 04/03/2017.
Amy Piatt. "Paying What Is Due." First Christian Church of Portland, Oregon podcast, 10/19/2014.
Genesis 1:27 (NRSV)