May 12th Sermon Q&R: We Have no King But Caesar

If Pilate finds no guilt in Jesus, why does he have him flogged?

There is no direct explanation for Pilate's motives for having Jesus flogged in John 19, so any explanation is speculative. That said, as the text tells us explicitly that Pilate didn't think Jesus deserved to be executed for treason against Rome, it is plausible to me that he was attempting to placate or appease the Jewish leaders by having Jesus publicly beaten. It's possible he was hoping to punish Jesus "enough" that they would let go of their desire to have him killed, and that the whole issue would blow over. This would also make some sense of Pilate's decision to dress him in a "robe" and "crown" and publicly display him before those demanding crucifixion, even though they never asked him to do that. As I mentioned, this is a speculation based on what we do know from the text, but I think it is very plausible.

Why does God give authority to those who he knows will abuse it? Even looking back to Jeroboam King of Israel, who was given authority, then immediately made idols that led people away from God. (see 1 Kings 12) God's justice against him then raised up other people who also abused their authority (and so on, and so on....).

This question gets right at a core issue in all political theology, which is the tension between God's sovereignty, God's knowledge of the ongoing sinfulness of humanity, and God's decision to continue to give humans real authority and stewardship in creation. And this isn't to deflect the question, but I would say it ultimately works back to an even deeper issue in all theological reflection, which is: why does God allow sin and evil at all? In other words, this question could be re-framed as: "Why did God give Adam and Eve the choice to eat of the tree of knowledge, if he knew they would do just that, and all these terrible things would flow out of it?" The example of Jeroboam, who was indeed one of the many, many wicked kings in Israel's history, is a microcosm of the bigger question of sinful humans acting sinfully, and God nevertheless allowing those sinful humans to have an impact in creation, which is all downstream (as Christians believe) of the rebellious act in the Garden of Eden.

While I certainly can't provide a neat-and-tidy explanation that resolves these deep tensions, I can offer a few reflections that help me wrestle with this stuff. First, I believe the Bible presents the overarching reality that God desires to share in the rule of creation with humanity. Among other things, this means that God desires for humanity to take ownership of our authority in creation (to "rule," "subdue," "have dominion" in the language of Genesis). Second, the incursion of sin, evil and death into that creation has tainted the authority God desires for us to share, and in certain times and certain places, that distorting effect is pronounced in horrific ways (the twentieth century is littered with terrible atrocities that humans inflicted on each other and creation itself, examples of our God-given authority gone awry). Third, even though we will never fully cure ourselves of our sin, Jesus is God-come-to-us right in the middle of our mess. Jesus provides hope for our world, and provides us a way to live now, and a promise to come again to set everything right (and part of that, by the way, includes holding all those earthly leaders to account for the ways they misused their authority). One day, I believe, we will exercise our authority and dominion that God always intended for us to have, but we will do so in ways that are uncorrupted by sin, in the new heavens and the new earth! And all of the suffering we experience now, even at the hands of unjust rulers, will be wiped away.

There are many Christians in our culture who, in practice, have "no king but Caesar". Is it our responsibility to call them out so that people don't follow them unknowingly? Or is doing so too divisive to the body of Christ?

Wow, I love this question, and it's really hard to answer! The reason it's hard to answer is because it's really a question about when it's appropriate to confront brothers and sisters in the faith, how to discern when to speak, when to listen, how to do so maturely and lovingly, and especially how to do so without unnecessarily dividing the church (in this case, the question is pointing to politics as a source of confrontation, but it can really apply to all areas of life). Ultimately, finding answers to these questions relies on prayer, discernment, and especially wisdom. I will offer just a few thoughts that I hope are helpful....

First, and I can't really emphasize this enough, I think it's crucially important to limit our actions of "calling others out" to in-person venues and within the context of real relationships. In other words, NOT on the internet or social media! It's all-too-easy to fall prey to the temptation to get into online arguments, and I don't think that's ever fruitful. Second, I do pick up on a shepherding concern within this question, connected to the desire to keep people from being pulled astray by overly-politicized Christian voices. While I resonate very much with that concern (I am sorely grieved by those I know who have gotten pulled into politics as an unhealthy source of identity and purpose), I always come back to the question of relationship - am I actually in-relationship with (and do I have any actual influence or credibility with) the people I'm feeling an urge to confront? If I don't have any meaningful connection, then why do I feel this desire to "call them out?" (Typically, it has something to do with the internet, or maybe a news-media source, in which case, see point #1 right above!) But, on the other hand, if I DO have a meaningful connection with this person (or people) and I continue to feel a burden to confront them about their language or rhetoric or influence on others, then it's possible a confrontation is indeed necessary, and maybe something God is calling me towards. In this case, there are biblical examples and principles for how to do this well (notably Matthew 18, but also see Galatians 2 for Paul's reflections on his confrontation with Peter). I believe it's very possible to confront a person you are in genuine relationship with, and to do so with conviction and love and mercy, in a way that does not result in division in the body of Christ, but this is not easy! And it certainly will not involve shaming or harsh rhetoric. If anything, it will involve honest curiosity ("How did you arrive at your political opinions? Tell me why this is so important to you."), vulnerable confession ("Can I honestly tell you why it is hard for me to see you say these things, about my own past with political ideas and how I've been hurt? Can I tell you about my concerns about how you are influencing other people?") and humility ("I could very, very possibly be wrong about what I think!").

In my experience, it is possible to have good, healthy confrontation within the body of Christ that does NOT necessarily result in division, but it is hard work! And in our time, politics is especially fraught, though it can also be the source of deep, redemptive growth, since it is such a cultural lightning rod. My hope and prayer is that we can be a community that models all these things well! I believe that would be a profound counter-witness to the rest of our surrounding culture, that is so bitterly divided and sees no hope for change.

Thank you for the great questions!!