Well, as with most important discussions, the media has passed on to other things (‘Did you see what J Lo wore to the Oscars?!’) and the argument between Church and State, about employers paying for birth control and other controversial healthcare, has been pushed to a back burner. But let's not move on too quickly.
- Does the government have the right to dictate to employers what healthcare measures they must pay for?
- Does a religion, or a religiously motivated employer, have the right to dictate to their employees – or to the government - what health care measures they will not pay for?
Let’s look at the first question, Does the government have the right to impose its thinking? Of course it does. (Romans 13:1) The government can impose pretty much anything it wants to. If those being governed object, their remedy is to vote in a new government. But while the government governs, there is a social contract that the governed will obey.
In Jesus’ day, the Jewish nation was under occupation by the Romans. A Roman soldier could grab the nearest Jewish man and demand that he carry something for him. In fact, on the day of Jesus' execution, having been severely beaten he needed help carrying the telephone pole-like implement on which he was to be killed. The Roman soldiers forced a man in the crowd name Simon of Cyrene to assist. Perhaps Simon was opposed to capital punishment. Could he have refused? Well, he could, but he probably wouldn’t like the consequences. Thus Jesus’ advice was,
“If someone in authority shall compel you to convey his goods one mile, go with him two.” (Matthew 5:41)
What about our second question, though? Perhaps you are an employer with religious objections to contraception, abortion, blood transfusion, prescription medicines or psychoanalysis. Can you refuse the government’s mandate that you pay for these treatments for your employees?
No. In fact, your refusal would be tantamount to forcing your religious beliefs on your employees.
A group of the Jews in Jesus’ day tried to get him into this self-same argument. That group was a political party referred to as the “Herodians.” They were neither Pharisees nor Sadducees (the Republicans and Democrats of their day). They disliked Roman rule; but they did not believe in throwing off the Roman yoke in favor of a Jewish king in the line of David. They believed that Herod the Great – the guy who had murdered all the babies in Bethlehem shortly after Jesus’ birth – had been the greatest thing since corn flakes, and they wanted one of his descendants to rule over Judea. So, they supported the current Herod’s efforts to curry favor with Rome, hopeful that he might be given more territory, and more autonomy.
So, they slyly asked Jesus where he stood on the issue of paying tax to Caesar. They were for it, but they knew that Jesus’ Jewish audience was against it. As Alfred Edersheim put it:
“There was a strong feeling in the land with which, not only politically but religiously, many of the noblest spirits would sympathize, which maintained that to pay the tribute-money to Caesar was virtually to agree to his royal authority, and so to disown that of Jehovah, who alone was Israel's King.”
Jesus’ famous answer, ‘Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God,’ (Mark 12:17) was not a compromise. As Edersheim put it, his answer “settles to all time and for all circumstances the principle underlying it. Christ's Kingdom is not of this world; a true Theocracy is not inconsistent with submission to the secular power in things that are really its own.”
So, what is “its own,” and what is God’s? Well, suppose that Roman soldier’s demand was, not that Simon carry Jesus' stake, but that he carry his unit’s vexillum? Each unit of the Roman army had a flag or standard, a pole topped by a representation of something, such as an eagle, that identified the unit. (Nothing like sports teams nowadays calling themselves ‘The Eagles,’ or ‘The Bears,’ etc. Instead, more like a segment of an army bearing their unit's flag. Note the eagle in the photo above.) It was the rallying point for the soldiers in the heat of battle. But it was more than that, and far more than a mascot. It was treated as sacred, decorated with garlands and anointed with holy oil on special feast days, and jealously protected as if it were a god. Soldiers would die to protect it. It was given reverence similar to a national flag or regimental colors today.
Most Jews, rightly, viewed such standards as disgusting violations of the commandment against idol worship at Exodus 20:4,5,
‘Thou shalt not make thyself any graven image, or any form of what is in the heavens above, or what is in the earth beneath, or what is in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not bow to them nor serve them.’
So, the principle Jesus laid out, of giving Caesar’s things to Caesar but God’s things to God, would help a Christian decide what obedience he owes to the government, and where he must draw the line. If the government wants an employer to give an employee health benefits, he gives them health benefits.
If the employee chooses to use those benefits for contraception or abortion, blood transfusion or psychoanalysis, hair implants or breast implants, that decision rests on the conscience of the employee, not the employer.
The Church, or course, can't resist meddling in the consciences of individuals, just as they've been doing for thousands of years.
Now, if the government wants to require an employer to display a flag, or the church wants the employer to display a cross, that’s a vexillum of a different color…
Please leave a polite comment. To read Part One of this series, click here.
Bill K. Underwood is the author of several books, all available
at Amazon.com. You can help support this site by purchasing a book.
No comments:
Post a Comment