Nurturing Justice 1 (2008)
Last December, in the previous edition of Nurturing Justice, I referred readers to Kevin Rudd's important essay "Faith in Politics". I then indicated that in 2008, I would give some consideration to his essay as a contribution to specifically Christian political reflection.
In recent times, discussion of Biblical principles has re-emerged as a part of public debate. It may not be a dominant part, but it is a significant change in the way we publicly discuss how our political community ought to be governed. Of course, there are still those who insist that religion is merely an activity practiced by consenting adults in private and should therefore be kept out of politics. But proponents of that view, for all their appeals to majority sentiment, are increasingly sidelined, if not out of their depth, when elected representatives show they have been reading the Scriptures and want to tell their voters how they understand the relation of the Bible's teaching to their official responsibilities. Of course, there is continuing appeal to other, non-Biblical, authorities. Humanist-inspired politicians appeal to the confessions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau to insist upon their faith in secularist majoritarianism, The libertarians call upon Tom Paine for the liberty of excluding religious commitment from public administration. These faiths too are part of our heritage.
So, when Kevin Rudd in "Faith in Politics" tells us, with help from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, of how his Christian socialism appeals to Jesus Christ, then we should sit up and take notice. His essay is a reminder - and I think it is fair enough to say that the writer has written it as a reminder to himself - that professing faith in the Messiah is not something that Jesus allowed His disciples to take lightly. "Taking up the cross", as Dietrich Bonhoeffer obviously did, shows a willingness to follow and, if necessary, die for one's faith. When Christ calls someone, he bids that person to come and die. Discipleship is no gold medal - it is more like a noose. It is costly. There is a cost to Christian discipleship and Christian politicians, like everyone else, have to heed Jesus' words on that. And when politicians like the current PM remind voters of this divinely-given limit to the way we refer to God's will in our politics, then we are all better off for having once again been confronted with this truth.
To actually stress this point, Kevin Rudd highlights the fact that Dietrich Bonhoeffer repudiated the Lutheran interpretation of the doctrine of the "two kingdoms" which allowed German Christian ministers (and, it must be said, many more elsewhere in all denominations) to retreat into "a politically non-threatening quietism". Rudd, following Stanley Hauerwas, insists that the value of Bonhoeffer's view of discipleship is to be found in the view "that truth and politics, particularly in democratic regimes in which compromise is the primary end of the political process, do not mix." In other words, politics descends to a level where truth is too costly.
From there, Rudd continues to outline what are for him the glaring realities that result from an approach to politics which, when overtaken by its quietism, allows itself to become blind to truth, blind to the call for justice, blind to the burgeoning problems of the world. At this point in his essay, Rudd's accusation is specific. The Howard government, during its time in office, has continually tried to marginalise those who were seeking to speak up for the marginalised - aboriginals, asylum seekers, the poor. And thus he appeals for an approach to politics in which the Gospel is both a spiritual Gospel and a social Gospel, and "if it is a social Gospel then it is part a political Gospel, because politics is the means by which society chooses to exercise its collective power."
Politically, we might want to suggest that Kevin Rudd's essay conveniently forgets that in this country Howard's Liberal-National Coalition built upon the neo-liberalism initiated by Hawke/Keating Labor in which it was given a social democratic "smiley face". And I, for one, would accept that as a fair criticism, even if it is argued by proponents of "Rudd Labor" that he is restoring the true social democratic values that were sidelined by the previous Labor régime. But, at the very least, the Christian Socialist strand within the ALP has re-emerged with Kevin Rudd after it was effectively suppressed by the alliance of Hawke's post-Christian sentimentalism and Keating's Bog-Irish-Catholic "economic rationalism".
The value of Rudd's "Faith in Politics" is in his recognition that the religion of Jesus Christ is centre-stage in human life, politics included. It is God who calls us to loving citizenship by doing justice to our neighbour, and in this Rudd has indeed sounded a welcome note that must work as a yeast in political life at all levels.
But I can't leave it there. I have a problem with his interpretation of the famous passage in the Bible where Jesus was asked, in the Temple precincts, whether taxes should be paid to Caesar. Rudd's comments go like this:
Where does Bonhoeffer's teaching fit within the history of Christian thought on church-state relations? This history begins with the great exchange, recorded in the New Testament, in which Jesus of Nazareth instructed people "to render under Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." The Nazarene, of course, had the good sense not to define precisely what each could lay claim to: which things uniquely belong to Caesar, and which to God. Therein lies the dilemma that has confounded Christians of all persuasions who have engaged with the political process in the intervening 20 centuries.
There is the question as to whether the quote itself is a correct rendering (!) of any of the three accounts - Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26. It probably should simply be as the NRSV reads: "Give to the emperor … Give to God" rather than "Render under Caesar …". But, more importantly, the idea that Jesus answered in an equivocating way needs to be carefully examined. [Here is my own account of this exchange.] I don't think Kevin Rudd is right on this, but it is an issue that should be explored and it should be explored because of its bearing upon the resultant Christian understanding of political life. Maybe Rudd is leaning too heavily on Bonhoeffer's reading of this exchange? But even so, I would suggest that this interpretation make Jesus somewhat afraid of saying what needed to be said in the interests of justice. And perhaps, critically, we might want to suggest that the answer as Rudd suggests it, is conveniently consonant with his own efforts to hold the social and the spiritual together in one political programme. The question remains as to what Jesus meant and what that means for us in our political tasks today! We note the interpretation of the Christian politician who, some time after publishing this essay, became leader of the Labor Party and then Prime Minister. In our efforts to interpret the Gospel record we give the PM his due because we owe everything to Jesus Christ.
But then, for all the short-comings of this exegesis, we still note that Kevin Rudd leaves the question open. What then shall we say of Jesus' teaching when he came to the Temple and threw out the money changers? He was being confronted by those who wanted to have him killed. They ask him about taxation in order to trip Him up.
This was an attempted hijacking of the Rabbi in the class-room He claimed as His own. He replied by asking for a coin: "Whose portrait is this? Whose inscription?" (Matt 22:20). Everyone knew who it was. Everyone knew the inscription: "Tiberius Caesar Augustus. Son of the Divine Augustus". But this is the Temple. What was that idolatrous image doing there in those precincts, in those pious hands? Here is another interpretation. Alan Storkey in Jesus and Politics (Baker 2005), p. 226, puts it like this:
It is like a game of chess, the small sacrifice and then the mate. The small coin goes to Caesar; but every Jew would have to acknowledge that since everything belongs to God (eg Ps 24:1), everything else goes to God. Technically, the Herodians and the Pharisees cannot charge him. This is game, set and match to God, with Caesar eliminated. Or to retain the earlier metaphor, Jesus takes the Roman emperor with a pawn. Here something magnificent has happened. In the middle of the Roman Empire's oppressive taxation system, Jesus requires that all issues of tax be laid before God and God's requirements of justice and help for the poor.
This great denouement has reverberations. Heavy taxation arising from the opulence of the political leaders, overlords, or colonial powers has dominated much of history, including even the twentieth century. Jesus' statement puts this extortion in sharp relief and requires a review of taxation that we in part now carry out and still need to. The prior question is what God requires. All the priorities of the Mosaic law reverberate. Do taxes serve the people, especially the poor; or do they line the pockets of elites? Care of the poor, widows, neighbours, and aliens is what God requires. On this hinge our whole perspective on taxation swings. It is no longer about ruling powers and their petty demands, but about the sweeping requirements of God (cf Rom 13:7-10).
It is sad that some people and latter-day representatives of Caesar are too literalistic to hear what is going on. They claim that this text is some kind of quid pro quo, as if Jesus us saying, "Caesar should get his bit, and God should get his. That's fair, isn't it?" It is as though Jesus us proclaiming a balanced dualism. Are we so thick? The crowd at least sees the point. "When they heard this, they were amazed" (Matt 22:22).
What then should we say about this essay? Australia can be grateful to Kevin Rudd, the Christian politician, for having forthrightly put forward his view about faith and political service. This viewpoint is now "out there" in the public arena for the consideration of all electors. It raises important issues, not just for Christians, but for all voters. It invites us to apply certain standards to the policies and governance of the Rudd Government. We should therefore give Rudd his due for this contribution. And we should have no hesitation in ceding to Jesus Christ what is rightfully His, the allegiance of our hearts and lives, seeking to follow the One who, as Ruler of all Prime Ministers, presidents and Monarchs, and calls us to political obedience. We stir up one another to love and good works, even meeting together politically to reflect and formulate policies and marshal resources to join with and support programmes that advance public justice. It is simply another aspect of our discipleship and we do so "all the more as we see the Day drawing near" (Hebr 10:23-25).
Nurturing Justice
August 2008 ©
The contents of this email are copyright. Documents may be photocopied or
retransmitted in their entirety but not otherwise reprinted or transmitted
without permission. "Nurturing Justice" is a project to encourage
Christian political reflection based upon wise and loving civic participation.
Comments are welcome and should be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au