A Reconciling United Methodist Congregation
Christ's Economy |
||
| Presented by lay speaker Scott Probst on October 26, 2008. |
||
| Return to Messages Main Page | ||
Matthew 22:15-22: Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said. So they sent
their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying "Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the
way of God in accordance with the truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with
partiality. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?" But Jesus,
aware of their malice, said, "Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for
the tax." And they brought him a denarius. Then he said to them, "Whose head is this, and whose title?" They
answered, "The Emperor's." Then he said to them, "Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the
emperor's, and to God the things that are God's." When they heard this, they were amazed; and they left him
and went away."Matthew 22:36-40: "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all of the law and the prophets." I don't think anyone takes pleasure in paying taxes. Candidates for office definitely don't want to tell us that they are going to raise our taxes. If they must raise taxes to pay for their proposals, then it is better to say that they will raise someone else's taxes. Usually our government doesn't raise enough money to pay for all of the things in the budget so we have to borrow money. At the moment, the United States has a 10 trillion dollar debt, and I often wonder how we are going to pay that off. The conventional wisdom seems to be that in the future things will be better and we will be able to pay down our debt then. I hope so. I hope that my son Luke is a lot smarter than me and he will figure out how to pay down the national debt. Perhaps he will say the same thing about his son? I can complain about debt and about taxes, but I am represented. I choose to live in this democratic republic in which bills are passed by a majority vote by our elected officials. I'm sure I don't want to pay for all of the things our government pays for, but if I want to be part of the team, I need to take the bad with the good. If I don't like something, I have the right to exercise my vote and raise my voice in protest. The Jews living in Palestine in Christ's day didn't have a voice. They weren't represented. Rome had a Senate comprised of plutocrats, but there was no one there to represent the Jews, and the influence that the Senate had on Caesar was marginal anyway. The Roman Empire had a largely agrarian economy. It was expensive to support the legions fighting campaigns at the far corners of the Earth. A very large portion of the gross domestic product was committed toward supporting the military. Therefore, the tax burden was high, and the people were not receiving many services in return. In fact, to the Palestinians of that day, paying taxes meant supporting the very troops that were occupying their country. It's no wonder that there was heated debate among the Jews in Palestine regarding whether or not they should pay taxes. Paying taxes to Caesar meant that they were submitting to the Roman authority instead of submitting solely to God's authority. Refusing to pay the tax was civil disobedience that could result in grave consequences when dealing with an occupying force as vicious and ruthless as the Romans. The Pharisees thought they were in a no-lose situation by asking Jesus whether or not it was lawful to pay taxes. If Jesus said that they shouldn't pay taxes, then they could hand him over to the Romans on charges of subversion, and he would almost certainly be executed. If Jesus said that Jews should pay taxes, then he would likely lose support among his followers by supporting such an unpopular position and appearing to undermine God's authority. Jesus asks to see the Roman coin and says, "Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's." As is often the case in the Gospels, Jesus' response can be interpreted in different ways. The Roman tax could only be paid in denarii, the Roman currency. Tithes for the temple could only be paid in the temple currency. So the coins were different. On the most fundamental level, the money paid to Caesar looked different than the money paid to "God" to support the temple, priests, and staff. On a different level, Jesus' response implies that this is not an either-or situation. Paying the Roman tax did not undermine God's authority. Even Caesar was under God's authority, whether he acknowledged it or not. Paying the tax just meant compliance with the prevailing laws of the day. Jesus defines a separation of church and state, and by drawing this line, He gets himself out of the trap the Pharisees had planned for him. I feel that there is a deeper meaning in this message that I find most intriguing. What does it really mean to "Give to God the things that are God's?" Does it mean "to seek justice, and love kindness, and walk humbly with your God?" How much does that cost? Does it mean to "Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind?" How much does that cost? Does it mean to love your neighbor as yourself?" How much does that cost? When I reflect more on this passage, I think an alternate response could have been, "Don't worry about what you have to pay Caesar, it is nothing compared to what I am asking of you." The summer before my senior year in high school, I attended Pennsylvania Free Enterprise Week at Lock Haven University. It was a program designed to teach business concepts and promote entrepreneurship among young people. The first day, our group sat in a circle, and we answered some "ice breaking" questions to get to know one another. One of the questions was, "Who is the most important person in your life?" As we went around the circle, the other students responded, "my parents," "my boyfriend," "Ronald Reagan," and "Mikhail Gorbochov." None of these answers seemed right to me. These kids were not being completely truthful. This seemed to be the type of question in which there was a "right" answer. When it was my turn, I said "at risk of sounding conceited, I am the most important person in my life." There were giggles, then silence, then the next student in the circle answered. |
 |
Later that week, all of the students participating in the program gathered in an auditorium for a seminar. At the beginning of the
seminar, the speaker asked us how we responded to the question, "who is the most important person in your life?" Then he pointed
directly at me, and I told him that I thought I was the most important person in my life. Again, a few kids giggled and he asked a
few other students how they responded. After his informal poll, he then said "The answer I got first was really the answer a wanted
to get last ." and the speaker proceeded to tell us how we should view ourselves, at least as teenagers, as the most important people
in our lives. Our capitalist economy is built on the notion that we each are the most important people in our lives. That is what inspires us to work hard and innovate. We go out and compete for resources so to that we can thrive. We collectively form corporations so that we can be even more competitive in obtaining resources, generating wealth, and securing our futures. The leaders of these corporations realize they can increase their personal wealth even more by implementing good strategies and efficiently managing the contributions of their employees. We respect the people who have the sharpest competitive edge, who know how to strike good deals, and who know how to lead us to prosperity - as long as they are leading us to prosperity. This system got us into the financial mess we are in today, but we are also counting on it to regain the wealth that has been lost and to grow our wealth in the future. Consider how the commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" defines a different type of economy. If you loved your neighbor as yourself, would you use a weapon against your neighbor? Certainly not. If you had no use for a weapon, would it be necessary to produce weapons? No. If we had no weapons, would we have to train and retain young people to use them? No. We would have no need for the military industrial complex or our armed forces. You might say that we would put a lot of people out of work, but perhaps we would just find different ways to grow our economy? We could use our resources differently and market different products. We could beat swords in to plowshares. The costs we incur from using our weapons are even higher. Lives are lost, families are destroyed, and people are disabled or disfigured for life. You cannot have a robust economy in a war zone, and you cannot attract the necessary investment to grow your economy. The cost of supporting wars and military activities, which can be counted in trillions of dollars each year worldwide, is small compared to opportunity cost of lost economic growth because of war. Imagine a world in which we had all of that money back. Imagine the type of abundance all citizens of the world would enjoy. Even in Christ's day, the world would have been a utopia if everyone had loved their neighbors as themselves. If we loved our neighbors as ourselves, would we let the bank foreclose on a property, or would we rally around that family and help to keep them in their home? If we really loved our neighbors as ourselves would we make a predatory loan or take a loan that we didn't think we could pay back? This behavior is more consistent with the "I am the most important person" frame of mind. "Love your neighbor as yourself," has impact on other sectors of the economy as well. My company makes a drug for hemophiliacs. There are other companies that serve the same market, and we compete for market share. There are people in those other companies who are working on things that are very similar to the things I am working on. However, we are competing, so we can't collaborate. In fact, the law prohibits us from collaborating. We view competition as good to keep costs low and to drive innovation, but it is inefficient in the sense that work is being duplicated in different companies and folks in different companies aren't allowed to communicate with each other. However, if we loved our patients as we love ourselves, we wouldn't need competition to drive innovation and keep costs low. We would do it naturally out of love. We wouldn't have to duplicate resources, and skilled employees would be able to pursue the development and production of other low-cost drug products. This is just an example of how Christ's economy is different from our economy. What backs up currency in Christ's economy? What would make us take the risk to take care of another the way that we take care of ourselves? It is only the faith that if we take care of others, God will take care of us with the help of other faithful people. The faith that God will adorn us at least as well as the "lilies in the field." In our Living the Questions 2 class earlier this month, we learned that if God were truly omnipotent, then God would really have very little power. His power would be only the ability to manipulate an impossibly complicated, but still deterministic, machine of His own creation. It would be like a child playing with a very complicated toy. The speaker said that true power is born out of our relationships, and it is measured in our ability to influence the behavior of beings who have free will. I found this notion fascinating, and it made me think of the contrasting powers of Caesar and Jesus. Caesar tells you exactly what you owe in taxes and enforces his edict through the brute force of his legions. Jesus challenges us to act, but allows us to select the specific actions we need to take. In Christ economy, we determine how much tax we pay, so unlike Caesar's economy, there is no retribution if we don't pay or don't act. It is only up to our own conscience. Jesus seeks to influence us by showing us the path and then challenging us to follow it. The challenge to "love your neighbor as yourself" is far beyond anything Caesar could even conceive of asking. Caesar's power to influence was only as strong as the muscles of his soldiers. God's power to influence is derived from the love in your own heart. Perhaps someday that love will be the engine of our economy? Amen. |
| 2362 Bancroft at Dana |
| Berkeley, California |
| Phone: 510-548-4716 |
| Fax: 510-548-4717 |