Taxes and Jesus

Unfortunately for some of us, we cannot contain Jesus and the message he bears within a framework that narrows the scope of His ministry to personal salvation by faith for the forgiveness of sins, without omitting significant aspects of the broader meaning of the incarnation. Jesus' life and message speaks deeply to economics and politics by exposing dynamics of power and authority that are corrupted and misused for selfish ambition, malice, and exploitation of the weak.
A good example of how Jesus speaks truth to power,uncovering the reality of the reign of God, is in his response to Pharisees and Herodians in the gospel of Matthew chapter 22. They seek to trap Jesus in a divisive public,socio-religious, economic issue. is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor? They asked. Jesus, perceiving their malicious intent, says, "Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites. Bring me a coin." They bring him a denarius. "Whose head and inscription are found on it?" he asks. The emperors, they respond. "Give to the emperor that which belongs to the emperor and to God that which belongs to GOD."
In this season where politics and economics are being debated as abstractly as they can be by men who are not the least bit affected by the decisions being made by powerful bureaucrats, such as they are, Jesus has something to offer that is not unreasonable. Even on taxes. so if you're wondering whch candidate has the best tax policy for the American economy, pay attention.
The tax in dispute was a loyalty tax, called the census tax of the year 6 CE. It was required of all imperial subjects to pay this tax with Roman coinage as a sign of ones allegiance to the Emperor, as to a god. Did this tax require that jews break the first commandment, to have no other gods? Some Jews in Jesus' day violently opposed pagan, gentile rule, especially by the tyrannical Romans. They were people who sought to regain power through a nationalist revolutionary movement called the zealots. Others, like the Pharisees, took the political approach of resenting the tax and paying it. They found no illegality in payment, and found it possible to live a consistently righteous life in the midst of foreign rule. They might hearken to the ancient days of babylonian exile as a model for living amidst foreigners. There were other Jews who found that working with the Romans was beneficial. The Herodians would represent this constituency; people who were treated well by the Romans by participating in their bureaucracy. Roman rule utilized this form of selective empowerment of local leadership as a way of maintaining order and peace within the context of non-Roman cultures. I might suggest that U.S. colonial efforts have been similar in both Afghanistan and Iraq as Americans have selected and anointed certain leaders from within Iraq and Afghanistan to create a kind of home rule, or self-governance facade. The herods were Puppet rulers, whose territorial authority or power was always superceded by Roman imperial rule. if Jesus rejected the tax, he could be arrested by the Herodians as a revolutionary and enemy of the empire. If he was accepted the tax, he would be villified by the revolutionaries, who sought a charismatic figure head to lead the impending anti-imperial revolt. Jesus was neither of these people. he was not for or against the tax. Why?
Jesus had no Roman coinage. is Matthew indicating that, unlike his counterparts, he was incapable of paying the tax because he had no money? And his ambiguous response about giving to the emperor what belongs to the emperor and to God what belongs to God is important. Jesus is not arguing for the separation of church and state or the division of the sacred and the secular. Jesus' reality is holistic. So, might he be saying that it is possible to do both? To live in the context of Rome and pay the tax, while also living within the greater context of the Kingdom of GOD, in which all things belong to GOD--including Rome itself!
Jesus has no stake in the argument. because he has no money he is not invested in either sytem, Roman or anti-Roman. One must have a coin to pay or to withold. he can do neither, because he has no coin.
Why don't the political candidates today speak about the poorest of the poor, the least, the last, the lowest? Because they are invested in a power political/economic system that has already exiled them. Non-taxpayers, non-workers, people who live below the system are so insignificant they are not worth acknowledging. Jesus embodies that depth of poverty. What might a church look like who is not invested in the current economic system look like? Would we take out loans to live above our means? Would we compete for clients or members they way we have? Would we seek an attractional, programmatic ministry that connects with modern people?
Is it possible thatwe are unable to getting closer to Jesus withour divesting ourselves of the economic self-interest inherent in the American system?
I realize that the alternatives are considered evil--socialism and communism, both antithetical to free market capitalism and economic growth. But I also wonder if there is a third way? Poverty. Only by choosing a form of poverty can one become exempt from the market mentality that drives everything. Of course, this might sound absurd, radical, and superior. Billions of people do not choose simplicity, poverty, or hunger. They are born to it. So how does one's choice of these things make a difference? I think it may be a sign of the Kingdom to give up, to surrender in such a way. As those who are poor are called to surrender envy, fear, and entitlement, those who are rich are called to surrender their wealth, their privileges, their resource capacity to sustain themselves.
There are huge economic implications for living within the system as it is. And there are huge implications for rejecting the system. How might we do both? A form of voluntary poverty or excessive generosity?