August 11, 2016
My 2016 Ongoing Journey: Exploring Matthew to
discover what following Jesus and becoming more like him would look like.
Matthew 17:24-18:5 ~ This is a strange text: it’s got corrupt
religious officials, religious taxes, a rabbinic riddle, a Hans Christian
Anderson-like fairy tale solution; then it ends with a discussion about
politics.
At some point the the tithe had become a
legally binding “Temple Tax.” That’s just one of the ways religion is corrupted
when it attains political power. Jesus compares the temple tax with tribute
exacted by a conquering king.
The clear implication is that the temple
tax is illegitimate and thus not binding. But, in order to avoid any occasion
for valid criticism of his movement, Jesus performs the old “coin-in-the-fish’s-mouth”
trick and sends Peter off to pay the tax.
In context, this event immediately
follows the transfiguration, the disciples' failed healing, and the second
prediction of the passion. It then leads to the disciples’ question
about who will be greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Do you grasp the irony? They’ve just
encountered the corrupting results of political power, and their next response
is to ask, essentially, “What positions of political power will we have in the
kingdom?” It wouldn’t be the last time they made such an inquiry.
I sincerely believe the greatest human
problems—individually, relationally, politically and globally—emerge out of
issues of power and control. The relationship between government and any other
social manifestation always has been (and, apparently, always will be) a bone
of contention among people.
The question of centralized government (The
Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, George Washington, James
Madison, et. al.) versus states’
rights (The Anti-Federalists, led by Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason,
James Monroe, et. al.) almost
derailed the ratification of the US Constitution. Indeed, it was essentially that
same debate that precipitated the secession of the Confederacy scarcely ¾ of a
century later. It’s at the root of today’s political belligerence.
Political debate always has been about
who will control who. At the infamous bottom line, while it may seem a simple lust for power, its root is fear
and an absence of trust. (Whether the fear and absence of trust is justified is
a valid issue for another discussion.)
Jesus’ response to the disciples’ lust
for power? “Truly
I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter
the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child
is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (18:3-4). How’s that for a political
platform?
If I am to follow Jesus, what does that say
about my political stance? What would you do if you weren’t afraid?
That's the way it looks through the flawed glass that is my world
view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim
Accurate and eloquent.
ReplyDeleteTo answer, what I have learned from history is that states' rights has always been a fig leaf for maintaining dominance of the white social paradigm.
Although mostly deists, the writers of the Constitution wrote into it an idealism they must have known would have to evolve. To me, that idealism is expressed in Matthew 25:31ff. This teaching was to become the foundation of public policy, a policy expressing a united people sharing the goals stated in the Preamble.
Accurate and eloquent.
ReplyDeleteTo answer, what I have learned from history is that states' rights has always been a fig leaf for maintaining dominance of the white social paradigm.
Although mostly deists, the writers of the Constitution wrote into it an idealism they must have known would have to evolve. To me, that idealism is expressed in Matthew 25:31ff. This teaching was to become the foundation of public policy, a policy expressing a united people sharing the goals stated in the Preamble.
Thank you for the remarks--also eloquent, I should say, and arguably accurate, in my opinion. While I like your take on the idealism of the writers of the Constitution, and especially your connection with the "goals stated in the Preamble," it's sad that what was to become "the foundation of public policy" has become, instead, a point of division, rather than unity, among the people.
ReplyDelete