The role of the Church and the place of religion in the conduct of the State has become a matter of public discourse in recent times. There are those who have been irked by the public posture of some religious personages, especially those who come out openly to denounce what they perceive as unjust policies on the part of the state machinery, or the foul conduct and lack of vision of the political class. We remember the protracted "KUKAH DEBATE" in The Guardian On Sunday that spanned between February and May, 1996. More recently, a number of critical articles have appeared in various papers on the so-called Liberation Theology. Some of them have sought to present the Latin American initiative as a veiled form of atheistic communism that preaches class struggle and promotes violent revolution. The writers therefore feel obliged to warn innocent but ill-informed Nigerian Christians to beware of priests and other religious leaders who pose as social crusaders.
Some priests and religious leaders who are also social crusaders have been accused of dabbling into politics which is supposed to be a secular domain that should not be mixed with religion. The priests are often advised to stick to the pulpit and to concentrate on prayer, their true vocation, and leave politics to the politicians. The critics sometimes remind the preachers that Jesus said one should give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Even in the ongoing debate over the return of seized schools of voluntary agencies to their legitimate owners, there are those who hold the position that the Church has no part to play whatsoever in the education of the citizens. The State they say has the sole responsibility of educating its citizens. Such are the diverse opinions that exist on the place of religion in society, or the relationship between the Church and the State.
The logic of giving to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's which Jesus Christ enunciated in the gospel of Matthew has been given a variety of interpretations all through the history of Christendom. The discourse on the payment of taxes to Caesar and the celebrated response of Jesus Christ in the gospel of Matthew is certainly one of the most controversial texts of the New Testament. It has served as a veritable justification on the one hand for those who wish to engage in spiritual and ideological syncretism, and on the other hand by those who perceive human existence in terms of two separate and unrelated compartments - the spiritual and the material, the sacred and the secular, the religious and the political, the Church and the State. One interpretation of this text has been identified as the altar and the throne theology, which is the extreme separation of Church and State to the ridiculous extent whereby the Church is expected to have no say whatsoever on how civil society is run.
This kind of thinking reached its peak during the Nazi period in Germany when religion was kept so completely out of politics and politics was so devoid of religion and morality that an evil genius (or do we say a devil incarnate) such as Adolf Hitler, could rule a so-called Christian Germany, pontificating over the Jewish holocaust and supervising the Auschwitz torture chambers that remain the greatest shame of modern humanity. True, in the history of humanity, politics and religion have often been uncomfortable bed-fellows. They do not always make a good mix, yet they must both exist, and one must exert its influence on or impact the other in some way. The issue is not about forgetting one or ignoring the other. It is not about one overthrowing or subduing the other. It is about putting first things first and allowing other things to follow. It is about serving the Supreme God and at the same time giving due regard to the exigencies of human existence, with particular reference to the authority structures of human society.
It is true that Caesar has a limited sphere of authority. Caesar has some control on human beings and human society. Yet the limited control which Caesar exercises over human beings, he exercises on behalf of God to whom Caesar is ultimately accountable, since according to the Judeo-Christian tradition, God is the only true ruler of his people. Caesar's authority is as it were a delegated authority that is valid only if its exercise is subject to, and in accordance with the will of the one who delegates the authority. Caesar, that is the State and its authority structure, must maintain law and order and promote the security and welfare of its citizens. To the extent that Caesar pursues this agenda truthfully, judiciously and responsibly, the citizens owe Caesar obedience and respect in return. Since just and God-fearing rulers share in the authority of the Supreme God, they deserve the obedience of citizens. A real problem however arises in the case of unjust rulers, oppressors, tyrants, dictators and impostors when there is often an obvious clash of interest between Caesar and God. Here we are faced with a troublesome dilemma, for this kind of rulers do not share legitimately in the authority of God who is the good shepherd. This kind of rulers are simply usurpers of the place of God and of the people's sovereignty. They are the ones referred to by Jesus as thieves, rogues and brigands. Most Christians believe that where there is a clash of interest between Caesar and God, they must choose to obey God rather than men!
When St. Paul says that all authority comes from God, it is not to be understood as a blanket approval of, and sheepish submission to all forms of rulership in the human society. The authority that comes from God and is exercised in the name of God is not to be understood to include genocidal dictatorship, murderous tyranny and repressive militarism, the type the world has witnessed in Adolf Hitler's Germany, in Apartheid South Africa, in Idi Amin's Uganda, in Kamuzu Banda's Malawi, in Ferdinand Marcos' Philippines, in Pinoche's Chile, in Fara Aideed's Somalia and in Sese-Sekou's Zaire. In the unfortunate circumstances such as the above listed, Caesar did not accept his limitations. He did not take what belongs to him alone. He took everything. In such circumstances Caesar usurped God's place and arrogated to himself the power of life and death, of hunger and satisfaction, of prosperity and doom and of war and peace. The resulting holocaust, genocide, starvation, impoverishment and massive degradation of human life and destruction of the environment in these places, are not an act of God, but that of some evil genius. The authority they exercised is not that of God, but that of the devil who in the words of Christ "only comes to steal, to cheat and to destroy." Yes, the authority that abuses, manipulates, degrades and destroys the people is not from God, for God on His part is the true Shepherd who lays down his life for His sheep.
The Christian who lives in a land where such rulers exist who have overstepped their bounds and taken the place of God is really faced with a tricky dilemma. The Christian leader in such circumstances is compelled to reflect upon and provide suitable answers to the same questions that the followers of Jesus Christ asked him about paying taxes to an oppressive occupation force symbolised by Caesar. When faced with this dilemma, it is often difficult to define what exactly belongs to Caesar, for as the Psalmist says "the Lord's is the earth and the fullness thereof." We are obliged to render to Caesar only the things that are Caesar's, not the things that are God's. The power of life and death for example belongs to the Supreme God, not to Caesar, and so when a human authority ascribes such power to itself, it may be pointed out that such a human authority is overstepping its legitimate bounds.
Shall the messengers of God sit and fold their arms when they see Caesar usurping God's sovereignty and appropriating the things that belong to God, or shall they just pray? What about prophetic denunciation, the type for which John the Baptist was beheaded? Reacting to the abuses of the leaders of Israel in his day the prophet Ezekiel warned that the curse of Yahweh is upon the shepherds who instead of feeding the sheep under their charge, feed fat on the sheep, and treat them harshly and cruelly. True, God's authority comes with a corresponding responsibility. God's authority comes with a divine imperative, the imperative of service and not lordship over the people.
When responding to the tricky question of whether or not to pay taxes to an oppressive political structure such as the Roman occupation force in the Israel of his day, Jesus told his adversaries to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. It is to be noted that Jesus himself did not carry on him the coin which has Caesar's image on it. For him, anyone who is willing to carry around the coin which has Caesar's effigy or image on it should be willing to give back to Caesar what truly belongs to Caesar. Yet he challenged his adversaries and his disciples with a more fundamental obligation - they were obliged to recognise God as the Supreme Sovereign and render Him his due.
Rendering to God his due has many implications that go beyond praying in Church and offering sacrifices to Him. Giving God his due is more than just paying one's tithe. If every human being has been created in the image and likeness of God, and if everyone is a child of God, dear to His heart, then giving God his due implies also respecting the image of God in the neighbour. Therefore to treat the neighbour unjustly or cruelly, to oppress or marginalise the neighbour, to abuse or dehumanise the neighbour, to cheat or manipulate the neighbour, and to kill or maim the neighbour will be to deny God His due, a serious offence that carries with it unwholesome consequences for the culprit. The offence of denying God his due is particularly grave when committed by those in authority, since by such conduct they challenge the very sovereignty of God.
Our country has seen too many self proclaimed Christians whose conducts in political and economic affairs are clearly at variance with Christian spirituality and morality. Ours is a country with a sad history of a corrupt and irresponsible leadership, yet a large percentage of our successive leaders have been religious people. What it means is that they have often given more to Caesar that he legitimately deserves. Christians in positions of authority in this country have often been too greedy to fight for the poor, too timid to stand up for truth and justice and too cowardly or faint-hearted to deny Caesar his unjust claims and render to God the things that truly belong to God.
The dialectics of rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's is perhaps the main predicament of the present day Nigerian politics and economics. Yes, the problematic of giving to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's is a major part of the exigencies of our troubled motherland. The continued existence of structures of violence and of unredressed injustices; the continued violation of truth and the manipulation of the population; the continued denial of the inalienable rights of free human beings created in the image and likeness of God; the continued appropriation by a greedy few of the abundant resources bestowed by God on our land and the consequent progressive impoverishment of the multitude of Nigerian people who are dear to God's heart -- all these and others together constitute a reckless, reprehensible and damnable usurpation by Caesar of God's sovereign position.
No society which nurtures these evils can prosper. The empire which neglects the spiritual, moral and religious dimension of human existence is surely on its way to ruin. The empire which gives everything to Caesar and neglects to pay God his due is digging its own grave. The fate that has befallen atheistic communism in our own century is a case in point. St. Augustine of Hippo had said that the greatest threat to human fulfilment and societal prosperity is the want of order in the soul. We also learn that human history has recorded the rise and fall of about twenty six or so civilizations. Their successive collapse was not due to external attack, but internal decay. It is this and similar thoughts that were put together by Mahatma Gandhi, the legendary Indian nationalist and philosopher in what he identified as THE SEVEN DEADLY SOCIAL SINS: politics without principle; wealth without work; commerce without morality; pleasure without conscience; education without character; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice.
November 1996