I grew up with a version of Christianity that had no political content whatsoever. If anyone had suggested there was any relationship between religion and politics I think the reaction would have been bafflement. As I grew older I became aware of the many linkages between Catholicism and politics, historic and current, from the close ties in fascist Spain and right-wing South American dictatorships, to the left wing radicalism notably of Jesuits in South America and protestors against the Vietnam war in the US. However in England, politics and religion were rarely linked (which might be considered strange in a country with an established Church, in which the Head of State and the Head of the Church are one and the same person.)
It was with some surprise that I discovered the extent to which in the USA, with a constitution which explicitly separates Church from State, religion and politics were mingled – to the extent that one can be used as a recruiting call for the other, and religion be used as an explicit basis for political policies.
None of this would have surprised Jesus. He lived in a society where there was no distinction between politics and religion. Religious leaders and secular leaders were one and the same, until Israel was colonized by the Romans. After that they existed in an uneasy truce until radical terrorist elements caused the Romans to obliterate the Jewish political structures.
For those of us brought up with the notion of an apolitical church it’s easy to see Jesus as supporting such an apolitical view. After all, isn’t that what today’s gospel demonstrates?
I think there is an alternative view.
Firstly, let’s note the context for today’s account is the ongoing battle between Jesus and “the elders of the people” (Mt 22:15-21). That has now devolved into open warfare – the Pharisees are out to trap Jesus so they can get him executed. And, on the other hand, while it’s hard for us to appreciate, Jesus’ attacks on the Pharisees absolutely were political. Calling them whitened tombs and telling them prostitutes would get into heaven before them was exactly the same as saying those things about members of Congress. Political speech by any standard.
But, but, but, … Isn’t Jesus separating the political and religious in what he says about giving to Caesar vs giving to God. Yes separating, in a very clever way, but disconnecting? Maybe not.
Let’s look for a moment at our first reading… This may also need a little context (Is 45:1, 4-6). Cyrus is a major figure in ancient history, with an unusually large amount of contemporaneous material about him. He radically changed ideas about how countries and empires could and should be governed. Without going into detail, the reason Isaiah suggests he is following God’s will (even while being completely unaware of it) is that his policies allowed the Jewish people to reestablish a semi-independent state with freedom to practice their religion.
Isaiah is pointing out how the will of God and political affairs are linked, even if the rulers involved are completely unknowing. It’s reasonable to assume Jesus would have a similar attitude to the Romans, and there are hints of this in his conversation with Pontus Pilate. Jesus’ teaching in general suggests that political and social issues inform and are informed by our faith. In one direct example, Luke records specific instructions that John the Baptist gave to soldiers (i.e. Roman soldiers) on how to behave (Lk 3:14).
So yes, we shouldn’t confuse our religious obligations with our secular ones, or our faith with our political beliefs, but to imagine that they occupy separate worlds with no connection is not what today’s readings are telling us.