home
We Have No King but Caesar (John 19:15)
Introduction
This essay was written in the mid-eighties. At that time I
was a rector of St. Mark's, Haines City, Florida, and a member of
the Social Concerns Committee of the Diocese of Florida. Prior
to my position in Florida, I was in California working on my
Ph.D. There I had done some work on behalf of a Nuclear Freeze,
a national effort asking the United States government to freeze
nuclear weapons production. Once in Florida I continued that
effort, principally as a member of the Social Concerns Committee.
We presented a resolution to the Diocese of Central Florida in
favor of a freeze. This turned out to be a rather painful
enterprise. At first we were successful, but eventually, the
clergy and laity defeated our efforts. In the process I ran into
a wall of resistance, hypocrisy on the part of the clergy,
indifference, and some low-grade antipathy. To make sense of
this, I wrote the following essay. I was, even at that time,
still haunted by the horror of the things that I had experienced
in the late sixties in regard to nuclear war and universal
suffering. link Some of that is
reflected in the essay. I was also influenced by Karl Barth,
especially his essay Community, State, and Church.(1)
It was there that I made a connection between justification and
the role of the state. These ideas, coupled with the ideas of
Jerome Frank, led to the present essay.
The Essay
Dr. Jerome Frank, a psychiatrist, has written a book
entitled Sanity and Survival.(2) He presents the
results of a number of psychological and
historical studies which investigate how people feel and behave
toward their country, and how this relates to the arms race.
The aim of this essay is to take his data and
conclusions and coordinate them with a number of biblical ideas.
My primary conclusion is that citizens attribute functions to the
state that properly
belong only to God, and that the resulting idolatry increases
the probability of destructive conflict between nations.
How do people feel about their country? There are, of
course, varied answers to this question.
There are always a minority of super-patriots who identify
intensely with their country, just as there is a minority of
people who do not like their country or affirm its values. The
majority of the population, though not as vociferous as the two
extremes, are generally quite positive in their
estimation of their country. They affirm its way of life and
espouse its values. In times of national danger, the
overwhelming majority of a country's citizens can be expected to
rally to the defence of their country, regardless of whether it
is right or wrong.
Why do most people have such a positive regard for their
country? The state is a social entity that creates a sense of
community, protects the individual from foreign threats,
affirms and celebrates values that its citizens have learned to
love, and gives a sense of meaning that
transcends the individual.(3) Religion provides transcendent
meaning and social unity as well. Since the state's functions
are similar to those of
religion, the state is usually fortified by religious ideologies
and clothed with divine attributes. Although
these divine attributes may not always be consciously affirmed,
they do,
however, function as such in the feelings and thought of a
country's citizens. I
must now examine how this is so, but first a short biblical
excursus is in order.
From the point of view of the state, the Hebrew religion, at
least initially, represented a radical departure from the
religions of the surrounding nations. The dominant religious
ideologies of the time affirmed the state,
represented by the king and his attendant priestly and military
class, as
the expression of a eternal divine order. link The king himself was the
representative of the gods, and as such, the owner of the land
and its
people. By contrast, Hebrew religion rejected the belief that
the state or its
representatives could in any sense be proclaimed as divine.
Only Yahweh
was King. Even under the davidic kingship, the King was never
the epiphany
of God, but always subject to the Word of God which could and
did, as seen in the witness of the prophets, come upon the king
and the state as a word
of judgment. Jesus was in this tradition. He represented the
will of Yahweh as a Word against the sin of his time and its
embodiment in the social and personal relationships of his
day. As a
result of his prophetic ministry, he was put to death. It is
no accident
that Jesus was put to death by his government -- by the
Sanhedrin (the
ruling religious/governmental Jewish body), the foreign Roman
power, and
the consent of the people who clamored for his crucifixion.
The circumstances of Jesus' death reveal a fundamental
human idolatry. Human beings
prefer the rule of the state, its decisions and its
righteousness, to the
rule of God as manifested in and proclaimed by Jesus Christ.
Although
Pilate sought to release Jesus, the chief priests, with the
backing of the
multitude, cried out "We have no king but Caesar," and thereby
denied the
Lordship of Yahweh as their only King, and the depth of their
and the
world's sin in that it affirms its leader's judgments as the
embodiment of
the right, rather than believing in Jesus Christ as God's
righteousness
made manifest.
Why does this occur? Why was Jesus put to death by the
representatives of the state with the consent of the multitude?
As an institution, the state is well suited to solve a
fundamental human problem. That problem is the problem of evil.
A primary human need is to be loved, to know oneself as good and
right, and
to believe and feel that oneself, and others like oneself, are
worthwhile and good. The major obstacle to feel good about
oneself is sin. People are evil. They do evil things,
they do not love and affirm each other, and they are terribly
vulnerable to
the guilt and self-denigration that results from
seeing themselves as evil. It is one of Frank's most documented
facts that
the state can and does work to solve this problem. How does
that happen?
The state provides the rhetoric and behavior that affirms
its citizens as good and worthwhile while, at the same time,
disguising the evil that afflicts them.(4) It does so by
identifying the self with the state's way of life
which is then celebrated as the good, and by projecting the
nation's social evil, as well as the personal evils of its
citizens, onto the enemy. "Unlike animals, humans can
discharge
their aggression on substitute victims by 'projecting' onto
the object
their own unacceptable feelings and attacking him for
harboring them. Projection justifies and intensifies their
hostility, and relieves their own feelings of guilt."(5)
When the enemy is seen as evil, it can be blamed
for both social and personal wrongs, and the wretched feelings of
sin and guild can be alleviated.(6) Governmental rhetoric
plays an important role in creating and maintaining these
projections.(7) The enemy is consistently depicted as the
source of evil in the modern world, while the home country is
seen as exactly the opposite, the patron of freedom, benevolence,
and virtue. The vociferous super-patriots seize upon this
rhetoric with intensity. They have an excessive need to use the
state for the maintenance of their sense of worth and
goodness.(8) Conversely, there is usually a dissident minority
who, with equal intensity, use their own country in exactly the
opposite fashion. They project their own and the world's evil
onto their own country, and utilize other movements or countries
as the focus of the good. These two extremes carry on a
verbal, and sometimes violent, battle with each other,
predicated on the belief that the other is the "true enemy."
Under normal circumstances the less vociferous majority is less
swayed by the official rhetoric, or by the pros and
cons of the minority positions. Most of the time they are too
busy worrying about their own needs and wants to investigate
the various positions. By and large, however, and especially in
times of crisis, they identify with their country, and they
usually make good use of the projects offered them by their
government. They usually make little effort to know the truth
or falsity behind their government's official rhetoric, nor do
investigate the morality of government action.
Most people do not want to assess the moral integrity of
their collective behavior for two principle reasons. First, the
state possesses tangible, real power. To scrutinize a nation
from an ethical perspective is to run the risk that its
collective behavior may actually be evil. At that point one is
faced with the unpleasant prospect of having to do something
about it.(9) This may entail saying and doing things that
the majority of the public, as well as the state itself, would
prefer to have left unsaid or left undone. In the face of
state power, the individual, as well as institutions such as the
Church, may well feel powerless, if not actually subject to
reprisals. Secondly, to judge the state on the basis of right
and wrong means that the state can no longer function as a means
of justification. One can no longer tacitly believe that one's
way of life and national activities are good, and thereby
identify oneself with its goodness while projecting
one's evil onto the enemy. As a result, most people prefer
to avoid the messy and
complicated business of sorting out the rhetoric, making value
judgements, and attempting to discover what their country is
really doing.
Is there really any pleasure in discovering that one's
nation is in the wrong? Can people actually continue to feel
good about themselves when they realize that they are
participating in national evil? Suppose, for example, that we
discover that our nation has consistently expanded its nuclear
arsenal and avoided a sustained effort to impose limits on the
arms race. Would we feel happy about the tax money we have
poured into armaments, and might we not wonder about the words
of Jesus when he told us to be peace-makers, or that we should
first take out the beam in America's eye before screaming about
the mote in the Soviet's eyes? Is it not possible that there may
be a conflict between what God in Jesus Christ is calling us to
do, and what the state is actually doing? These questions are
best left unanswered, and they are left unanswered. The result
is public apathy.
There is, however, an alternative to public apathy. The
public could believe that God justifies in Jesus Christ. God
justifies by exposing our sin and proclaiming His forgiveness.
In Jesus Christ He tells us that we are free to see ourselves
just as we are, and that we have no need to hide from our
national shortcomings. On the whole, the public does not want
to hear this message. It prefers to allow the state to hide its
sin and to project its evil onto the enemy. By giving the
state the power to justify, rather than granting God the sole
right of justification, the public tacitly attributes to the
state a divine function and thereby makes it an idol. Normally,
the citizens don't consciously deny God, they simply use the
state to justify themselves, and avoid learning the truth about
the state's actions on any issue that might endanger their belief
in their nation's inherent goodness. Usually, this public
idolatry, manifested as public apathy, remains hidden. But
there are times when the idolatry bears its inevitable fruit.
The crucifixion of Jesus was such a time. Because of their
apathy, the crowds did not follow Jesus as the truth, and did
not know him as the truth. They followed him because he healed
them of their physical and emotional problems. He even fed
them in the wilderness. They shouted "Hosanna in the highest"
when he came riding into Jerusalem, and a few days
later they insisting they had no king but Caesar. They wanted
Caesar to live and Christ to die. Since they didn't really know
how he differed from the powers that be, they were putty in the
hands of their chief priests who stirred them up to agitate
for Jesus' death. Consequently they killed him. In the
moment of crisis the Son of God himself became the enemy, and
bore in his own flesh the hostility and anger of the multitudes
who clamored for his crucifixion. The Sanhedrin and Roman state
received the sanction of a public who really didn't care to know
the Truth, about themselves, their governments, and about Jesus.
In this way, through these events, God revealed the idolatry that
lies hidden in every national state. It was a time of judgment,
not only on individuals, but on the state, represented by the
Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate.
What happened then goes on today. The amount of
public ignorance and apathy in the face of the nuclear weapons
build-up has been extraordinary. We may well be destroyed by
these weapons, but it is still assumed that the fault for their
continued creation and production lies with the enemy. By
believing these claims, generally put forward by politicians and
promoted by those who profit from arms production, the citizens
are doing today what was done in the time of Jesus. It seems
obvious to me that we have enough bombs to destroy the world many
times over, but still, we do not have enough. The American
public believes government rhetoric in regard to the arms race
because they do not want to complicate their lives, they need an
enemy to bolster their sense of goodness, and finally, it
requires going against the grain of public opinion.
It is not my purpose, in this article, to argue the
"relative fault" of the Soviets and the United States as to what
degree each is at fault for the arms race. The point here is
that the official justification for such a terrifying buildup
should not be accepted at face value. We are deceiving ourselves
as to our real motives when we, without examination, blame the
enemy for the present state of affairs. Perhaps God in his
mercy will spare us the time of crisis which can result from
America's general apathy and indifference. This is possible,
God is merciful. But God is also just. Judgment has already
occurred in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. There we can see
what we have done and are doing. There we were forgiven, and
this forgiveness can be actualized today. Apathy is a sin. We
are called to repent. There are choices that lie before us. The
choice is to accept God's justification, or to continue
using the state's rhetoric as a means of escaping responsibility
for our collective and personal behavior. Repentance means
making the effort to find out what is going on, and then acting
in light of our best sense of God's call on our lives in this
matter.
Finally, what does the Church need to do in these
circumstances? The Church needs to proclaim justification, that
God forgives sinners, not only for their personal day-to-day sin,
but for their social and collective sins as well. We are far
better off knowing the truth about ourselves and joyfully
receiving forgiveness, than avoiding the truth or even engaging
in exercises to convince ourselves that we are the best of all
possible people. We have received the freedom of Jesus who,
though he made it clear to those around him that they were
sinners, did not hesitate to forgive, and counted it a privilege
of his ministry that he could associate with his forgiven
friends. His associates were far better off in his
presence as forgiven sinners than the chief priests and
Pharisees who preferred to justify themselves by other means.
Furthermore, we are better off as people, even thought it is
uncomfortable, and may even appear to be of no immediate benefit
to us, to begin to act as forgiven people in this matter of the
arms race. Jesus was put to death by the state, its tangible
and real power meant crucifixion. But the fact that God raised
him from the dead means that he lives on in victory in his
Church, people whose actions are made effective in the world by
his presence in the Spirit. For this reason, the Church is not
powerless. There are things to do. Jesus Christ has overcome
the world, and he continues to overcome the world. Therefore,
the Church, as the community of forgiven people, needs to go
forward in that victory by seeking God's will for what we do in
the public arena. The Church needs to be the place where people
stop using the state, whether overtly or tacitly through
indifference, as a means of justification. In this way
Christians are given the freedom to scrutinize the state more
carefully and to participate more effectively in its political
processes. The task is to see a bit more clearly, to recognize
not only the nation's positive possibilities, but also its evil,
and to not only recognize the evil of the enemy, but also
recognize that they are human and under God's providential care.
God can use all things for good, and that path needs to be
discerned. Unless a nation can see that path, it will
inevitably create its own destruction. It will be blind to the
evil effects of its own actions, and fail to recognize
opportunities for good which may emerge from the other side.
When that happens, suffering is the inevitable result.
Nuclear weapons are a terrible threat, and therefore they
represent a significant pastoral problem. A growing
number of people, especially children, have become
psychologically disturbed on account of the nuclear terror.
Further, the possibility of no earthly future undermines
people's efforts to create a better life for themselves
and their offspring. The Church is pastorally responsible for
its people's problems, both individual and social. It needs to
clearly and gladly proclaim that Jesus Christ has risen from the
dead and conquered all death and destruction, including nuclear
holocaust. This does not mean that nuclear destruction will
not occur, but it does mean that we have hope and meaning even
beyond atomic death. Our lives are meaningful and worthwhile
even if they are blown away tomorrow. This message needs to be
proclaimed as the one message of hope that can counter the
profound paralysis and pessimism that is gradually eating
away at the roots of our civilization. The Church needs to
proclaim the Kingdom of Heaven, that God has already reconciled
all people, even our nation's enemies, and that we may go forward
with joy even in these dark times. As our Savior once said: "Be
of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."
Questions for Discussion
1. Does the state really claim to be good? Have you, for
example, ever heard a president publicly admit that what we are
doing is evil? Should they? What would be the political
consequences? Do people really identify with their country, and
have you amassed any evidence that people actually project their
evil onto the enemy? Does projection take place in terms of
interpersonal relationships?
2. Have you noticed any resistance in yourself or your
parishioners to investigating whether or not the Christian
faith has relevance for social and political issues? If so,
what are the reasons for this resistance?
3. Have you noticed parishioners expressing any fear over the
fact that they may be destroyed in a nuclear war? If there
has been little discussion of this fear, does this mean they
have internalized the good news of God's salvation, or is this
fear suppressed, but still operative in their lives? If they
have received the good news, how has it manifested itself
in their response to the arms race? Does the Church have a
responsibility to pastorally address this problem? If so, how
can this be done in the local parish?
4. The disciples deserted Jesus for fear of the state, the
crowds demanded his crucifixion because of their prior apathy
and indifference. Do the
circumstances of the crucifixion of Jesus really tell us
something about the nature of sin in our time, and if so, how
should we respond to this sin today? Was Jesus a prophet, and
does the Church have a prophetic role in
society? If so, how can it be exercised? Would such a
prophetic ministry be something that appeals to the average
parishioner, and if not, why not? Should parishioners be called
to this form of ministry?
5. Do people scrutinize their collective behavior from a
Christian perspective? For example, the idea of "separation of
church and state" has often been used to prohibit religious
"interference" in the political realm. As a result,
governmental actions are often not seen from a Christian
perfective. Have people really investigated the original meaning
of this idea? Or, has the Church, clergy and laity,
investigated, in light of the entire biblical revelation, whether
or not the idea of separation of church and state has any
biblical foundation? Are there biblical norms for
governmental behavior? Have you, or your parish, investigated
these questions? If so, why, if not, why not? Are these
questions really worth investigating, or are there other more
pressing matters? If so, what are they, and why are they more
pressing?
Endnotes
1. Community, State, and Church. Translated
by A. M. Hall, G. Ronald Howe, and Stanley Godman. Garden City:
Doubleday and Company, 1960.
2. See Jerome Frank, Sanity and Survival.
New York: Random House, 1967. All the footnotes in this
article refer to this book. Dr. Frank, earned his Ph.D. in
psychology from Harvard, he is the author of a number of books
and articles, a professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins
University, and a
veteran of World War II.
3. See chapter six, especially the section on
national ideologies, pp. 106f.
4. See the chapter entitled "The Image of the Enemy,"
p. 115f.
5. P. 67.
6. This is not to say that foreign governments are
incapable of evil. They are always evil to some degree, and
sometimes, dreadfully so. But,
as long as nations projects their evil on to the "enemy," they
will fail to see the
consequences of their own evil, or to perceive positive
opportunities for
reconciliation which may issue from the other side. They will
be tempted
to follow a policy of increasing belligerence, and this will lead
to war.
7. Frank documents this historically. For example,
an analysis of John Foster
Dulles' speeches between 1953 and 1959, reveals that he
interpreted every
Soviet action as an expression of their inherent bad faith.
(p. 128.) "Experts about an enemy nation often show
particular reluctance to modify their image to fit new, more
favorable
information. This apparent paradox is easily understood
if it is
remembered that they have a vested interest in maintaining their
original
impression intact, since it was the source of their
prestige and
influence." (p. 129.)
8. Studies show a positive correlation between the
authoritarian personality and jingoism. (p. 122-123.)
9. Chapter two describes a number of typical
psychological mechanisms for avoiding unpleasant facts and
realities.
The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D.
robertsanders@iglide.net
Copyright, May, 2003.
home