THINKING to trap him, Herodians and Pharisees once asked Jesus Christ whether it was right to pay taxes to Rome.
It was a cunningly laid trap so that either a “yes” or a “no” would get
Jesus into trouble – on the one side with his own rebellious Jewish
people who opposed Roman rule and, on the other, with Julius Ceasar who
ruled Judea with an iron fist.
Jesus gave the matter some thought and then asked to see a Roman
coin.
When he was shown it, presumably a Roman denarius which was legal
tender at the time and which had the engraved head of Caesar on one
side, he said: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and
unto God the things that are God’s (Matthew 22:21).”
The incident is reported in three of the four
Gospels (Mathew, Mark and Luke).
There are many interpretations for this quote but the most popular of
them is a clear separation of church and secular state affairs.
By those words, Jesus indicated for all posterity that church and state
have separate spheres of influence; that they should not intermingle.
Jesus seems to be instructing that one ought to give to Caesar that
which has his image (the coin) and to God that which is created in his image (man).
The great teacher re-emphasised this point elsewhere when he told
Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea at the start of his
crucifixion: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of
this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be
delivered over to the Jews.
“But now, my kingdom is not from the world (John 18:36).”
Again, he distinguished matters that are secular which included his
pain and suffering and matters that are divine which Christians believe
is the miraculous cleansing effect, or the redemption of sin, by his
supreme sacrifice.
We have been receiving increasing number of correspondences from people
throughout the country who hold a dim view towards men of the cloth
entering elections to become politicians.
Indeed, priests, pastors and other ordained members of Christian churches have always been popular candidates in many elections.
It is easy to see why.
They are seen to represent all the good attributes the people want to
see in a leader – God-fearing, honest and fair with a heart for the
people.
Whether or not the men of God exhibit any of these attributes once they gain membership to parliament is another story.
People have had enough of them in parliament to be able to form their own judgment.
By and large, with the exception of a leaders such as John Momis,
formerly a Catholic priest who has won every Bougainville election
since pre-independence days prior to the crisis, the people have
rejected church leaders after a single term.
Jesus’ message remains. Religious teaching does not praise wealth or
politics but, today, religious practice would appear to be the shortcut
to both.
Take, for example, the slender almost-starved bible-wielding preacher at the market place.
He only remains starved for the time it takes to gather enough followers.
Once he has the necessary following, he forms a splinter church group
under some nice sounding name, acquires land in the name of God, builds
a church which provides accommodation and transfers land titles to
himself and then he grows fat on tithes with an attempt at politics a
distinct possibility.
Yes, churchmen and women are citizens with equal rights including the right to stand for public office but they must be genuine.
If they are serious, they must stand down as church leaders, resign their church positions and enter politics.
Politics and religion, ever since the great teacher himself ruled those dimensions apart, can never be united.
The attempts by churchmen and women to enter politics are based on
selfishness, pride and greed – which do not belong to religion.
Politics and religion do not mix. And that is all there is to it.
