By Mariawan Lyngdoh
The question of taxation has long occupied a complex space within Christian thought, not merely as an economic obligation but as a moral and theological concern. Open-minded Christians have discussed it for centuries, blending theology, ethics, and practical governance. For quite some time I have been pondering this question from the Christian perspective and I realised that one need not go far for an answer. We need only to turn to the teachings of our Lord Jesus and there, in plain and simple language, lies the answer.
The teachings of Jesus Christ offer a well-reasoned framework that neither rejects civic responsibility nor allows it to overshadow ultimate devotion to God.The most well-known articulation of this balance appears in the Gospel of Matthew (22:21), where Jesus responds to a politically charged question with: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” This statement is neither a simple endorsement of state authority nor a passive acceptance of unjust systems. Rather, it establishes a dual responsibility acknowledging the legitimacy of civic obligations while affirming the primacy of divine allegiance.Jesus’ intention is clear, pay your taxes but don’t let worldly obligations replace your devotion to God.
To appreciate the depth of this teaching, one must consider the historical context of Roman taxes imposed upon the Jews. In the first century, taxation under Roman rule was not merely administrative but deeply symbolic of subjugation. Taxes such as the poll tax (tributumcapitis) and the Jewish tax (Fiscus Judaicus) imposed financial burdens that many Jews perceived as both exploitative and religiously offensive. The requirement to pay using Roman coins bearing imperial images and divine claims intensified this tension, contributing to widespread resentment and resistance movements such as that of the Zealots.
It is within this fraught context that Jesus’ response gains significance. His teaching does not deny the injustice embedded within the system; rather, it redirects the question from political rebellion to ethical discernment. Paying taxes, in this sense, becomes part of participating responsibly in society, without conceding one’s ultimate loyalty to God.
This principle is further expounded in Matthew 17:24-27, where Jesus instructs Peter to pay the temple tax. We read that collectors of the temple tax approach Peter the Apostle and ask: “Does your teacher pay the temple tax?”Peter replies “Yes.” Moments later when they entered a house, Jesus asks Peter: “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their own sons or from strangers?” Peter answers: “From strangers.” Jesus asserts: “Then the sons are exempt.”
Notably, Jesus questions the obligation, indicating that, as the Son, He is exempt. Yet, He chooses compliance. So He tells Peter: “Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.”
By saying “lest we offend them,” Jesus means that they should not create trouble over minor issues and damage relationships by arguing or witnessing over something small. He means that although you may have the right not to, it is wiser to cooperate. This moment reveals a profound ethical posture of freedom exercised through humility. The decision to comply is not born out of compulsion but out of a desire to maintain peace and avoid unnecessary conflict. This is about wisdom and peace, not just rules. Jesus Christ teaches us to show respect to religious and civic systems. Even though the system may be imperfect, He does not reject it outright. He favours peaceful participation in society. He teaches us that God is the provider even in obligations. The miracle (piece of money in the fish) shows that God can provide for responsibilities – even mundane ones like taxes.
Such an approach challenges rigid interpretations of rights and obligations. It suggests that moral wisdom often lies not in asserting entitlement but in discerning when cooperation serves a greater good. At the same time, it emphasizes that participation in civic systems does not equate to uncritical acceptance.
The Apostle Paul develops this perspective further in Romans 13:1-7, where he calls for submission to governing authorities and explicitly links taxation to moral responsibility: “For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually for this very thing.” Paul’s argument is not that governments are inherently just, but that social order needs to be established. Taxes, in this framework, sustain the functioning of that order. Importantly, Paul grounds this obligation not merely in fear of punishment but in conscience. Christians are thus called to be law-abiding citizens not out of passive conformity, but as an expression of ethical responsibility. Yet, this submission is not absolute. The broader biblical witness affirms that obedience to God remains the highest standard, and civil disobedience becomes necessary where laws directly contradict faith.
Against this theological backdrop, Christian contemporary practices invite critical reflection. In many contexts, churches have sought legal recognition by registering themselves as associations/societies, often to avail financial or administrative benefits – income tax exemption being one of the most sought after benefits. While such registration grants institutional legitimacy, it also confers a distinct legal identity – one that carries both autonomy and independent responsibility – and this does not bode well for the structural fabric of a church that has conciliar government, graded structure and established doctrines. The “bode well” issues stem from the high level of regulatory interference, strict compliance, and democratic structures that may not align with religious leadership models. Registered Churches should know that there’s a price to pay for wanting to have their bread “buttered on both sides.”
Be that as it may, let us reflect upon the legal framework concerning registration of societies– in our State, we have the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act, XII of 1983 – which ensures that registered bodies operate as independent entities, governed by their own constitutions, rules, and internal mechanisms. This framework is crucial for protecting the autonomy of registered bodies and ensuring they can pursue their objectives without undue external influence. The autonomy is fundamental as it ensures that decisions regarding administration, membership, and governance remain typically internal, subject only to regulatory oversight for legality and transparency. However, this autonomy is increasingly tested when external bodies and, arguably, registered societies attempt to interfere in the internal matters of other registered societies without legal basis. Such actions not only undermine institutional independence but also contradict the very legal structures that grant these organizations their standing.
The issue, therefore, extends beyond legal technicalities. It raises deeper questions about the relationship between authority, responsibility, and restraint. Just as the teachings of Jesus caution against conflating civic obligations with ultimate allegiance, so too must institutional actors recognize the limits of their authority. Interference, even when well-intended, risks eroding the principles of order and respect that both theology and law seek to uphold. It creates unnecessary conflict, diverts administrative resources, obstructs the progress of the society in the pursuit of its aims and objectives and ultimately weakens the integrity of the institutions involved. What emerges from both scripture and legal reasoning is a shared ethic: Responsibility must be accompanied by restraint and authority, whether civic or institutional, is not a license for intrusion but a call to uphold order, justice, and mutual respect.
In light of this, there is a pressing need for clearer reinforcement of these boundaries in our State, where there are glaring reported incidents of unrestrained interference in the affairs of a registered society by other societies/external bodies, in total disregard of the existing institutional legal framework. The Registrar of Societies, as the statutory authority responsible for administering and enforcing the State legal framework, is expected to play a constructive and decisive role in reminding registered entities of their distinct legal identities and the limits of their jurisdiction. Such measures would not only prevent conflict but also strengthen the framework within which these institutions operate. Failure to act would be seen as failure to demonstrably exercise a legal duty, that is, an obligation to uphold the autonomous functioning of registered societies within the boundaries of the law.
All things considered, the enduring relevance of “rendering unto Caesar” lies precisely in its refusal to offer simplistic answers. It calls instead for discernment, a careful balancing of duty and devotion, freedom and responsibility, and authority and humility. It acknowledges that obligations to institutions – laws, governments, social systems – are real and often necessary, yet not absolute. At the same time, it guards against the opposite extreme, that is, the use of personal conviction as a blanket justification to ignore shared responsibilities.
In an age marked by both institutional assertion and ethical ambiguity, this balance remains as vital as ever to a Country of diverse cultures, religions, languages, traditions, and landscapes–our India, often described as a land of “Unity in Diversity”
For those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, let me remind them of His resounding words: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
You can’t have your bread buttered on both sides, can you?
