Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 1 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 1
In Dean Taylor’s psychologist interview, she tried to expose “inconsistency” by asking, “Do you pay taxes?”—how does his answer (“the Bible instructs me to love my enemies and pay my taxes”) redraw the line between Caesar and God in a way that challenges how Christians today justify their political or military choices?
Another way to ask: When asked “Do you pay taxes?” Taylor said the Bible tells him to love his enemies and pay his taxes. How does that change how we think about what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God when Christians defend political or military actions?

Direct Answer Dean Taylor’s answer says Christians can “render to Caesar” in limited, obedient ways (like paying taxes) without giving Caesar their allegiance, conscience, or participation in violence. That redraws the line by making Scripture—not national loyalty—the controlling authority, even when the state uses your money or expects your support.

Support from Transcript:

  • The psychologist argues, “Do you pay taxes?” then concludes, “You’re inconsistent,” assuming taxes equal full support of the military.
  • Taylor replies, “I live by the ways of a book… the Bible… instructs me to love my enemies and pay my taxes.” He treats both as direct Christian obedience.
  • He connects this to Matthew 22: “Render unto Caesar… and… unto God,” noting the church often struggles to know “which things go to Caesar.”
  • He says the early church drew the dividing line “with a pretty decisive stroke,” implying a clearer separation than later Christianity.
  • He warns that mixing kingdoms turns the Bible into something “used by empires and leaders” rather than by “people who want to follow Christ in a radical way.”
Discussion Follow-ups Taylor’s framing presses hard on common arguments like “my job is justified because I’m a good citizen.” What choices would you stop defending if “love your enemies” became the non-negotiable boundary?