News

Should we always obey the governing authorities? Ask Donald Trump that, and you’d get a predictable answer! Ask Rishi Sunak and you’d probably get a rather different one. Ask Green Peace of Stop Oil, and the answer may be somewhat radical.

It’s a tricky one, especially when the governing authority is doing things we don’t approve of, or not doing the things we should. An interesting issue for the week of the general election, and one prompted by the second reading this afternoon.

One person who often had somewhat strained relationships with the authorities was St Paul.  He wrote in one of his letters about having had countless floggings and imprisonments by the Jewish authorities. But, with the Romans, the governing authority, it was far worse. On one of his middle-eastern journeys, the Roman magistrates had him flogged and imprisoned in Philippi. And in Cyprus, at Paphos, tradition is that there was another flogging, lashed to a stone pillar, that still stands outside the beautiful Agia Kyriaki church, which is now used by the Anglican community there. In fact, Paul finished his days in prison in Rome itself, and the tradition is that he was incarcerated in what is called the Mamertine Prison (a nasty dank cave-like place that I’ve been inside), before he was beheaded in one of the Emperor Nero’s persecutions of Christians.

Earlier on, it was to the Christians in Rome that Paul wrote the letter from which this afternoon’s reading came.  And, somewhat at odds with his behaviour, Paul wrote this:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.

So what are we to make of all this?   What about all the martyrs for faith over the centuries, who have defied the governing authorities, even to the point of death?  What about those who continue to defy the authorities in totalitarian states and religiously fundamentalist states?  What about Greenpeace and other climate protestors?  Is it never acceptable to defy the state, however good the cause? Do we have to differentiate in some way?

To find an answer, some teaching by Jesus will help. He certainly differentiated between what was properly owed to the state and what wasn’t. Some people tried to trap him with a trick question about whether taxes should be paid to the Roman authorities, you’ll remember. Jesus’s differentiation was this:

Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.

Or, in the more traditional words:

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.

I’m sure that Jesus wasn’t just referring to money, but setting out a principle, a principle of conscientious differentiation. And this applies, I’m sure, to our attitude to political government policies and actions. The question is how to differentiate, between what is properly Caesar’s and what is properly God’s.

A basic principle of Jesus was to love your neighbour as yourself. Originally in the Hebrew book Leviticus, in our Old Testament, and then for Jesus this command, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’, was a hallmark of his teaching, especially in his famous story of the Good Samaritan.  It’s clear from this story that our neighbour can be anyone: anyone of the same race and religion as us, anyone of a different race or religion, in fact anyone in genuine need and distress, wherever in the world they are.  So this is one of God’s special concerns.

In 1970, the UN resolved that all developed countries should devote 0.7% of GDP to international development.  The UK met this target for the first time in 2013.  But you’ll remember that the 0.7% has more recently been reduced by roughly a third to 0.5%, with a devastating effect on communities in Africa and elsewhere.  The reason is of course obvious: the claims on the national budget for defence, health, education and other needs.  But for a rich country like ours, half of 1% is hardly loving our neighbour as ourselves.  And it seems to me it’s a case of Caesar appropriating something that’s properly God’s.

To be fair, all three of the main political parties have stated in their election manifestos an aim to restore the level of giving to the original 0.7%.   But none of them have stated when they will do it, so it could be a long time off.  For completeness, I need to add that the Green Party would increase the proportion to a full 1%, Reform would reduce aid by half, and the SDP would abolish the percentage commitment altogether.

I emailed the local candidates for the three main parties to seek clarification on the timescales for restoring the original 0.7%, and the two in most serious local contention replied carefully and at length. (Sadly, the third party said they would get back to me, but didn’t.) For the Conservatives, Flick Drummond directed me to a recent Government White Paper, which clearly sets climate change control as a main thrust of overseas aid. I couldn’t at first find anything about overseas aid in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, but Danny Chambers pointed me to the section headed ‘Climate Change and Energy’, with a similar intention of restoring the 0.7% for overseas aid, but, like the Conservatives, with a climate change priority.

And I thought, ‘Yes, that’s good’. Many people, especially young men, are driven into dangerous migration simply to find work and safety, because of the effects of climate change as well as to escape persecution and violence. For them, and for countless others, international development must include international climate change mitigation. Christians and others of faith believe our planet to be a gift from God, entrusted to humankind to enjoy, to develop and to preserve.  We’re in danger of wrecking it with our materialistic greed. So finding our way to improving the lot of all humanity without destroying all that is marvellous and necessary for life is another sacred task. So all this is another area where Caesar is in danger of encroaching on God’s preserve for lack of commitment.

And now back to St Paul’s letter to the Romans.  ‘Let every person be subject to the governing authorities’, he wrote. ‘Well, yes’, we can respond, ‘but with limitations’.  There might be points when, like St Paul himself, we decide in all conscience that the governing authority is overstepping the mark, or failing to step up to the mark – in other words, encroaching on sacred ground.

Later in the passage we heard, St Paul wrote this.

Pay to all what is due to them – taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due.

Paying taxes? – well, honestly if reluctantly, and yes even when they are increased by whoever forms the next government, as seems to be likely.  Respect and honour? – well, yes certainly, provided they earn it and respect the proper implications of loving neighbour as ourselves.  But that certainly doesn’t rule out challenging politicians, the governing authority and each other when the principle of loving our neighbour is forgotten. And challenging, whether by word or even by demonstration, may be important in achieving the differentiation between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God.

But first we’ve got to vote.  It’s important that we do if we haven’t already by postal ballot.  We have influence we can use.  God bless our country; God bless the whole world that God has made and entrusted to us, and God bless everyone who lives in it.