“Give
therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the
things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)
This is
the lectionary text, and a very well-known, oft quoted one it is. I confess I
remember it in the language of older translations of the Bible —“Render unto
Caesar what is Caesar’s”.
In the story, Jesus had been asked
if it was lawful to pay taxes to the emperor. His response had been to request
a coin and asked of those questioning whose head was depicted on it. This
elicited the response quoted above.
A seemingly simple statement, yet so complex. In the United States separation of church and state has
long been accepted. It is part of the first amendment to the constitution
(adopted 15 December 1791).
Thomas
Jefferson reinforced it in a letter to Danbury Baptist Church, “I contemplate with sovereign
reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation
between Church & State.” 1 January 1802. (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
It has
been challenged several times in the Supreme Court. Perhaps one of the more
significant times was in 1971 when Lemon
v. Kurtzman was argued in the Supreme Court. Very simply the case was about
salaries and other payments in religious schools. The crux was should
government money be used to fund programmes that teach religious-based lessons?
In 1968 Pennsylvania had passed a law that allowed this. Lemon contended that
the state was in violation of the first amendment as the state’s general
population did not benefit from these preferential religious programmes. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/602/)
Lemon won the
case. The Supreme Court found that it was a violation of the first amendment to
enact state laws that establish a religious body. This case led to the
establishment of the Lemon Test which sets criteria to help determine whether state
laws regarding funding for religious bodies violate the constitution. (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lemontest.html)
I think
the separation of church and state is a good thing. It is another safeguard
that protects minorities. It prevents any religious entity from getting too
powerful.
Now I want
to jump —and I know it is a huge leap—to thinking about the idea of giving “to the emperor the
things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s” in my
personal everyday life.
Do I make
a separation there?
Do I compartmentalize
my life?
This bit
of my life is for God (or a higher being) and this bit is for the state (or the
people).
Am I two
separate people?
Am I
different in varying settings?
We have
long talked about no division between sacred and secular. It is the Celtic Way.
That life is lived as a one whole complete span not a dichotomy.
In the
Understandings of the community number six says “. . . There is a need to break
down the difference between the sacred and the secular; to be the same on
Monday as Sunday; to be the same at work as at home; to be the same with our
family as with our friends and colleagues.” (Way of Living, 19)
So, as I
ponder “Give
therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the
things that are God’s.” My conclusion is that for the nation I welcome the
separation of church and state, but in my personal life I don’t think I want to
make that division. I want to live my life the Celtic way making no distinction
between sacred and secular. Striving to live the best life I can. To quote our
community prayer a life trying to be “as Christ to those I meet” and “to find
Christ within them.” (Way of Living, 16)
(Photo: Sunset NE Ithaca: 22 October 2017)
