Psalm 99
Matthew 22:15-22

I grew up in a staunchly Republican family. My grandfather and my father both were elected to public office as Republican candidates. Politics and religion were often subjects of conversation in my home of origin. The first major political campaign with which I had any serious awareness was the 1960 Presidential Campaign. Religion was a significant issue in that campaign and the principle of separation of church and state was center stage in the campaign. That was neither the first nor the last time that religion would play a significant role in politics.
           
The religious affiliation of Alfred Smith was a significant handicap to him becoming the Democratic Presidential nominee in 1924.  Although he was the nominee in 1928, the fact that he was Catholic was a major contributing factor to his defeat in the race for President. 
           
That issue raised its head again in 1960 when John F. Kennedy was a candidate for President.  John F. Kennedy gave two speeches during the 1960 campaign for president that affirmed his support for church-state separation and to disavow any allegiance to the Catholic hierarchy that would supersede his commitment to defend the Constitution.  In the better known of the speeches addressed to the Houston Ministerial Association, the Catholic candidate stated the importance of “not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me—but what kind of America I believe in.”
           
Kennedy then opined: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President…how to act, no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners how to vote… and where no man is denied            public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”
           
Lesser known and appreciated was Kennedy’s speech earlier that year just before the West Virginia primary to the American Society of Newspaper Editors.  In that speech he said:
           
“I want no votes solely on account of my religion.  Any voter, Catholic or otherwise, who feels another candidate would be a superior President, should support that candidate…there is only one legitimate question: would you as President of the United States, be responsible in any way to ecclesiastical pressures or obligations that might…influence or interfere with your conduct of         that office?  I answer that ‘No.’”
           
In his book, titled Counselor, Ted Sorenson says that religion was the chief obstacle to Kennedy’s election. Sorenson concludes his chapter on Kennedy’s religion by observing an ironic twist of history: many conservative Protestants who opposed Kennedy and his Catholicism relying on the separation of church and state to make their case are the same ones, more than a half century later, who are trying to infuse religion into the public square and tear down the wall of separation for their own political benefit. (Reported by Brent Walker in “John F. Kennedy’s church-state legacy,” Report from the Capital, June 2008, 3 and 7)
           
In recent political campaigns, in particular the last Presidential Campaign, there has been much rhetoric about religion and politics.  There has been an increasing insistence by many that political candidates are expected to have a religious affiliation and even insistence by some that the religious affiliation must be Christian.
          
Efforts were made by some who opposed Barack Obama to identify him as a Muslim with the implication that being a Muslim would disqualify him from being President in the mind of the average voter.  To a lesser degree Mitt Romney experienced similar judgment because he is a Mormon.  It is conventional wisdom that a person who claims no religious affiliation cannot be elected President of the United States.  Unfortunately, for all practical purposes, there often is a religious test in the minds of many voters as they make their choices for elected officials although there is a ban on religious tests stated in Article IV of the Constitution. 
           
William Willimon told about an evening, in a dormitory Bible study group with students, they were taking apart Matthew 22, Jesus and Caesar's coin.
            "Jesus, should we pay taxes to Caesar?"
            Jesus says, "Who's got some of that idolatrous coinage on him? My pockets are empty."
            A nickel is produced.
            "Whose picture is on it?"
            "Er, uh, Thomas Jefferson," we say.
           
Jesus says, "Well, give it to him. But you be careful. Don't give to Caesar that which belongs to God. End of the lesson."
           
A student asks, "Did I miss something? He didn't answer the question! Should we pay taxes or not?"
          
  "Yea," said another. "What is Caesar's and what is God's?"
          
  There was widespread frustration with Jesus in the group.  Finally, a student said something quite wise.   "Perhaps," she said, "when it comes to what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, we never can be too sure. Maybe Jesus wants us to be permanently uneasy."
           
Permanently uneasy. That's not a bad theology of church and state. Pity Thomas Jefferson for not having the moral courage to release his slaves, even though he knew slavery was evil. Yet before he died, as he considered this peculiar institution, Jefferson said, "I tremble when I remember that God is just." At least Jefferson had the ethical insight to be able to tremble.        Thank God that Abraham Lincoln learned enough backwoods Calvinism to admit, in his Second Inaugural address, the ambiguity of even his righteous cause, the tragedy of violence, especially violence in the service of good. God save us from becoming too easy, too sure, too smug in our sense of righteousness.
           
There continue to be those who want to unite and equate love for God and love for country.  It continues to be a dilemma for people.  While it is vital that our politics be informed and influenced by our faith, it is essential that church and government be separate. Thomas Jefferson had it right when he said that a wall of separation must be erected between church and state. 
           
In the words of Frances Coleman for those who insist on trying to mingle religion and politics, how about at least agreeing to some ground rules?  Such as:
   -Neither pastors nor politicians should assign blame, responsibility or culpability to God for cataclysmic events here on Earth.  This would include (but would not be limited to) Aids epidemic, destruction of the twin towers in New York on 9/11/01, Hurricane Katrina, the Holocaust, and the earthquake in China.
  
Whenever religion and politics are intimately involved, neither is well-served.
           
Bottom line: Like parties in an amicable divorce, these two get along best when they’re in a friendly yet hands-off relationship.  Each side can keep its independence while sharing common goals with the other.  So let the breakup proceed, and let our nation be better off because of it. (“Breaking up is hard to do,” Report from the Capital, June 2008, Frances Coleman, columnist for The Press-Register, Mobile, AL )
           
A rabbi and a minister were talking about Jews and sports. "Basketball, baseball, just about everything except hunting," the rabbi noted.
            "Why not hunting?" the minister asked.
         
   "Jews don't hunt," he said authoritatively. "We are permitted to kill animals, but never for joy, never out of pleasure. We can kill only with regret."
          
  “Regret? Isn't that a bit weak to serve as a basis for morality?” the minister asked.
          
  "Don't knock regret," said the rabbi. "It's tragedy's cousin. There are some things that are not so much right or wrong as deeply, unavoidably, regrettable."
           
The present context helps reveal the rabbi's wisdom. Don't knock regret. In a context in which nine out of ten Americans were able, without a twinge of regret, to march forth with banners flying and flags unfurled in righteous indignation to once again have the war to end all wars; where we can urbanely cite some normative doctrine as our justification and then roll over and go back to sleep. God grant us someone who, in the words of that sophomore, has the grace to be "permanently uneasy" about the confusion of human life, the injustice that infects our earnest efforts to work justice, in short, our sin.
           
When, after the horrid events of September 11 nine years ago, the people of the United States were cast down into great grief, when we needed help and hope, to whom did we turn? Americans reached, from what I observed, not for the cross but rather for the flag. After all, the unfortunate attitude seems to be that if right is to be done in our world, if we are to be secure, if we are to have confidence in the future, where will that be given to us if not from the hands of the all powerful state? We seem to believe that it is up to the government to work peace, security, and justice, or peace, security, and justice won't be done.  We seem not to learn that whatever peace is obtained by force must be maintained by force and that can hardly be described as peace.  
           
After President Bush gave his famous speech to Congress, shortly after September 11, 2001, a commentator said, "The American people desperately need to believe that the President has the character, the power, the intelligence, and the wisdom to bring us through this crisis safely." We tend to imbue our governmental leaders with divine attributes because we need a god to save us, even if we have to make up our gods for ourselves.  This is so reminiscent of the Israelites in the wilderness. In a time of crisis when Moses was gone too long, they prevailed on Aaron to make them a god they could see, in essence to make up a god.  
           
So that day, when asked about Caesar's tax, Jesus didn't tell us exactly what belongs to the government and what belongs to God. He did note that, whereas the coin was stamped with the image of Caesar, you and I are created in the image of God. It is no simple matter.          When do we cross that line between valid affection for and loyalty to the state and idolatry to the state? I don't know. These matters are not that clear.
           
Perhaps the worst sin is not to give to Caesar that which ought only to be given to God. Perhaps the greatest sin is not to care, to act as if there is no problem, no cause for concern.
           
"This is not a time for nay saying and criticism of the administration's foreign policy," said a letter to a preacher by a parishioner, complaining about his pastor’s sermon. "This is a time for Americans to stand together, to stand with our leaders, and to show that we are loyal Americans," the member wrote.  
           
Such sentiments may be fine for those who are not trying hard to follow Jesus. For those of us who identify ourselves as Christians, we cannot afford to stand back, we cannot fail to consider, to critique, to bring judgment to bear when we think our nation is wrong, to seek to rectify those wrongs because our love for God is stronger even than our affection for our country.
           
So, when our flag passes by, when we vote, when we are asked to support some government policy, when we are considering the future of our nation, our village, and what we ought to do about it, we must be careful! We must not give to the state that which we ought to give to God!
           
I can't tell you exactly where that line lies, can't tell you in every case just what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God. All I can do is to pray that God will grant us the grace to be permanently uneasy!
           
In today's gospel lesson, Jesus is asked to judge between the comparative worth of two valuable things: God and Caesar. Perhaps one of the reasons why we come to church is to ascertain the relative worth of the conflicting values in our lives. There are those singular moments when, in a flash, the true value of things comes into focus and we see what is valuable. Fred Craddock illustrates such a moment in an illustration in one of his sermons:
           
Glenn Adsit, a schoolmate of Craddock’s from years ago, ministered mostly in China. He was under house arrest in China when the soldiers came one day and said,    "You can return to the United States."
           
They were celebrating, and the soldiers said, "You can take two hundred pounds with you."
           
Well, they'd been there for years. Two hundred pounds. They got out the scales and started the family arguments: two children, wife, husband. Must have this vase. Well, this is a new typewriter. What about my books? What about this? And they weighed everything and took it off and weighed this and took it off and weighed this and, finally, right on the dot, two hundred pounds.
          
  The soldier asked, "Ready to go?"
            "Yes."
            "Did you weigh everything?"
            "Yes."
            "You weighed the kids?"
            "No, we didn't."
            "Weigh the kids."
          
  And in a moment, typewriter and vase and all became trash. Trash. It happens. (Fred B. Craddock, Craddock Stories, Mike Graves and Richard F. Ward, eds. [St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2001], pp. 22-23)
          
  We wrestle with the issue of loyalty.  If our loyalty to our nation supersedes our loyalty to God, we have crossed the line and made an idol of our nation.  We are invited to be loving critics of our country to help nudge and nurture the nation to grow and move and develop toward maturity.  May God grant us the grace to be permanently uneasy. This is how we can, in the midst of the God and country dilemma, give to country what belongs to country and to God what belongs to God.