Before I read the Gospel reading, I want to introduce it a little.

The land in which Jesus lived was an occupied country. It was occupied by the Roman empire, who governed it for imperial goals, not the goals of the local people. And there were soldiers there to make sure people didn't get out of line. It was a very conflicted situation, and there was constant unrest. There was probably no more resented a symbol of that occupation than taxes. There were a number of different taxes, but Jesus is asked a question about the poll tax, which is a head tax. Everybody had to pay it regardless of how rich or poor they were.

This story mentions two groups, so I am going to suggest you imagine yourselves as one of these two groups. The first group is the Pharisees. The word Pharisee means "separated one," so we are going to call you the "Separatists." What distinguishes you as a group is that you try to separate very clearly what God does not want from what God does, what is lawful from what is not. And you go into great detail in specifying what can and can't be done. You resent the Roman occupation because it means that Roman law is set alongside Jewish law and there are compromises between the two. You don't like compromises. And you don't like the tax because it infringes on Jewish law.

The second group is the Herodians, or the party of Herod. Herod had been the king for quite a while, and his relatives and friends were still very powerful. Herod had been Jewish, but he was a collaborator with the Roman empire. He had helped keep the peace, and in turn they had made him fabulously wealthy. So you Herodians are making a fair bit of money off the Roman occupation. You are comfortable and content with the Roman occupation, and you're suspicious of anything which strikes you as threatening to the nice cozy relationship you have with the Roman Empire. So we are going to call you the "United Empire Loyalists!"

Just like in Canadian history the United Empire Loyalists and the Separatists are quite different, opposed groups, so in ancient Palestine, these these two groups are opposed, and for Jesus to say something that pleased one group would naturally antagonize the other group.

So with that background, let's listen to the gospel reading:

Then the Pharisees met together to think of a way to trap Jesus into saying something for which they could accuse him. They decided to send some of their disciples, along with the supporters of Herod, to ask him a question: "Teacher, we know how honest you are. You teach about the way of God regardless of the consequences. You are impartial and don't play favorites. Now tell us what you think about this: Is it right to pay taxes to the Roman government or not?" But Jesus knew their evil motives. "You hypocrites!" he said. "Whom are you trying to fool with your trick questions? Here, show me the Roman coin used for the tax." When they handed him the coin, he asked, "Whose picture and title are stamped on it?" "Caesar's," they replied. "Well, then," he said, "give to Caesar what belongs to him. But everything that belongs to God must be given to God." His reply amazed them, and they went away.

What we have here is a really conflicted situation, a potentially violent situation. Is there something in what Jesus does here that might help us understand what it means to deal with conflict in a way that builds peace?

Each of the sides of this conflict, both Herodians and Pharisees, want Jesus to answer in an either/or way. Either you are loyal to your faith or you are loyal to the empire. What Jesus does is to acknowledge that there is a tension between those two loyalties, but they aren't completely incompatible. Disciples are loyal to God above all, and are committed to God's kingdom, God's empire, which is greater than the Roman empire. But an allegiance to God's empire doesn't rule out a more limited allegiance, to the worldly powers that be.

The Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn once said that the line that divides good and evil runs through the heart of each of us. In situations of conflict, whether it is at home, school, work or on the international stage, it is worth remembering that your opponent is not completely wrong and you aren't completely right. It is only by testing both sides of any conflict against the highest good, the highest truth we know that we are able to find what really is true and what really is false.

It is often true in conflicted matters that those who are the most angry at each other are those who actually have quite a lot in common. It often happens that people agree on matters of principle, but disagree on how those principles should be applied in particular cases. If we can step back from our conflict long enough to find the principles that we agree on, then we can often discuss more rationally how to apply those principles in any specific situation. Sometimes, by doing that, we are able to come up with a better solution than either of us started with.

Jesus' answer affirms that God is the ultimate object of our loyalty. In this story the Roman emperor, Caesar, is the symbol of all those things which are important, but which are easily given too much importance: nation, culture, religion, even family. If those things were not good, no one would think they were worth fighting over. It is good to be patriotic. It is good to have a sense of pride in your ethnic or cultural heritage. It is good to be devoted to your own faith tradition. It is good to protect your spouse and your children and your family. But an exclusive loyalty to any of those things can become idolatrous and evil. It is too easy for a narrow patriotism to overlook the legitimate rights and needs of other nations. It is too easy for narrow ethnic pride to become racist and bigoted. It is too easy for narrow religiosity to believe that it alone has the truth and other faith traditions are demonic and evil. It is too easy for a narrow commitment to family to be corrupted into a zealous attack on other families in the name of defending our own (think Mafia! think those Hockey Moms that are like Pit Bulls with lipstick!). In a world of many different goods, sometimes our loyalties are divided and we need to put them in the context of a wider and deeper loyalty to give them perspective. So render to nation, to family, to faith, to ethnicity what belongs to nation, faith, ethnicity, family, but keep your ultimate loyalty for that which transcends all lesser loyalties. That is the first commandment: have no other gods before God, don't let any of your other loyalties usurp the place of God.

John Lennon, in his famous song "Imagine," dreams of a world without nations or religions and therefore without conflict. I think that it is hopelessly idealistic to imagine a world in which conflicts of loyalties don't exist. Such a world would be a world in which nothing is important, nothing is worth our allegiance, nothing is valued.

I think it is unrealistic to try to imagine a world in which there is no conflict. I think it is only worth imagining a world in which the things which divide us are put in their proper place as less important than the things which unite us: our common humanity, our common status as creatures of God.

M. Scott Peck, in his book on community and peace says that there are stages in the formation of any community. The first is what he calls "pseudo-community" when everyone is nice and polite to each other. People in pseudo community ignore their differences. Lots of churches are pseudo communities, because they avoid anything that might cause conflict. They don't talk about controversial issues, about the really important things in people's lives because they don't want to hurt anybody. That kind of community is a nice, safe place to be, but it isn't a real community, and as a result it is dull.

The second stage is a time of conflict. This stage can often feel like the community is disintegrating because people's differences and diverse loyalties are coming out and they are in conflict. This stage is a time of squabbling and struggle for control. It isn't fun, but ultimately it is closer to community than the safe, boring pseudo community. Because, Peck says, it is only after we have encountered our differences, that we really know each other at all. Until we discover our differentness, we haven't really recognized the other person as another person. And it is only when we've recognized others as genuinely different that we get to the stage of real community.

The third stage is the most difficult stage. It is a time of emptiness. Emptiness comes when we let go of our expectations, preconceptions, and prejudices about each other, when we let go of our need to heal, convert, fix each other, and when we let go of the need to control and keep things safe. Then, and only then, do we arrive at a real community. Community exists when we share their own truth with deep honesty, humility, and vulnerability, when we reveal our true selves in ways that we may never have done before, when we are prepared to really listen and encounter others at the deepest level of their being. Community exists when we are able to acknowledge our loyalties to different Caesars, but also see in one another the image of the one God.

So what kind of church do you think this one is? Is it one of those safe, boring, nice pseudo-communities. The test, I guess, will be how we deal with disagreements and differences. Do we shove them under the carpet? Do we disappear and avoid congregational life entirely when it becomes uncomfortable? Do we just try to get our own way? Or can we take the risk of really meeting each other, really sharing who we really are, being willing to meet people where they really are, and being open to being transformed by that terrifying, holy encounter?

It is an important question. Over the past several years, in renovating this building, adding to our staff, discussing same sex marriage and now discussing becoming an affirming congregation, we have developed a way of making decisions that is consultative and respectful of difference. Can we continue that as we deal with financial and other challenges, as we decide whether we will become affirming or not? I believe that in God's eyes, the real test of what kind of community we are is not what we decide, but how we decide it. How do we deal with our differences respectfully? Can we disagree about important issues without needing to leave or condemn each other?

The little story from Exodus that we heard this morning is a strange one. What can it possibly mean for Moses to have seen "God's back" as he passes by? And why would Moses die if he saw God's face, but live if he saw God's backside? Does anybody really believe that God has a backside? This is clearly a situation in which a literal reading of the Bible raises such difficult questions that we have to abandon a literal reading entirely. Over the centuries, Jewish rabbis have come up with an explanation for this that I think is very meaningful. They teach that speaking of God's after parts is a symbolic way of speaking of the after-effects of God, the signs God that leaves behind after passing. We can't see God directly, but we can see God indirectly, by seeing the signs that God has passed by. When we experience compassion and caring then God has passed by. When we find true community, there God has passed by. When we encounter another person and are able to share a moment of deep honesty, then God has passed by. So perhaps it was not only Moses who has the opportunity to see God's back. Each of us can, like Moses, recognize the after-effects of God, whenever we experience real community, real honesty, real compassion, real love. "For anyone who truly loves is a child of God, because God is love."

When we do that, respecting our differences, paying to Caesar what is due to Caesar, and yet go beyond and render to God what is due to God, then it seems to me that we have started down the path which leads to Shalom, to genuine peace.