Thus Spake Me: January 27, 2006. "Jesus is a Liberal"
Friday, January 27, 2006
(God's column appears in this space every Friday.)As I continue to acquaint Myself with the "blogosphere," I note that an awful lot of these blogs seem to espouse what you call conservative politics, while suggesting that supporting conservative causes is the Christian thing to do. Paradoxical that, because presumably it is obvious that the boy was a liberal, not a conservative. A heart-on-his-sleeve, bleeding heart, liberal. Indeed what could be a greater "bleeding heart" act than to die for your sins?
The boy, first of all, was a hippie. Long hair, beard-- have you ever seen Godspell? Fed the hungry, healed the sick, clothed the naked. Does this sound like a conservative agenda? Does it make any sense at all to suggest that if Jesus, the ultimate man of peace, was alive today, he'd be hawkish on Iraq? Wasn't there something about turning the other cheek...
Jesus walked among the lepers, and he eschewed the money changers. If he was alive today, he'd be in favor of cutting taxes? Here's a clue. Jesus would be in favor of the state doing whatever it could to take extra money from the unnecessarily wealthy and use it to provide food, clothing, shelter, and education to all. Ted Kennedy would be way to the right of Jesus. Oh, and he'd be in favor of gay marriage too. Live and let live. Do unto others.
And the sad thing is, you humans seem to need Me to point all this out. When it should be painfully obvious from even a cursory read of the bible, limitations and all.
So you have to really wonder about the zealous Christians who are also political conservatives. Well, to be fair, not all of them. Just the ones who think the two are linked; that Christ wants them to be conservative. Because when he comes back (Put it in your Palm Pilot: December 21, 2012. And note the sub-head of the article at that link; should "sun" have been writ "son?"), a whole lot of you are going to be in for a rude awakening. Especially those of you who think Christianity translates into any other politics but liberal politics. Oh-- and also, anyone who doesn't expect him to be the Aztec God, Quetzlcoatl.
Till next time, this is The Big Guy signing off.
Posted by: --josh-- @ 10:48 PM
Actually, some of these family values people do want to clothe the naked. Imagine Billy Graham in a titty bar. Of course, Jesus would actually have bought the clothes for the naked; I'm sure the neo-coms don't want to spend that kind of money.
you are not alone in your frustration with conservative claims on jesus.
Rocket in the Bocket
Good post and a pleasant change from the right wing christian agenda of so many US blogs.
You definitely must have read or need to read "Blue Like Jazz". A couple of things I believe. I agree with Dr. Tony Evans who has said "God doesn't ride on the backs of Donkey's or Elephants". And I also believe that we can't make people become Christians by first making the Republicans (or Democrats).
But on the other hand, I will say that I intend to continue to go through life attempting to have a Biblical reason for every political view I have. Just to address the 3 or 4 things you mentioned:
I never see any indication that Jesus thought the government should be responsible for "feeding the hungry", "cloth the naked", etc... he specifically gave that instruction to His followers. If the church is falling down in this area (and in many ways they are and some they aren't) why should we espose the government doing it? The government is not the Body of Christ. But to suggest that the church isn't performing any of these tasks and that the solution is to spend more inefficient and wasteful government money is wrong. A majority of the organizations in this country who feed, cloth, house, help, visit (in jail), etc... are Christian organizations.
I believe the governments responsibility and the church's responsibility are different. The government provides a framework to protect us from those that would seek to harm us and to provide a platform for people to freely live out their lives.
I don't believe Jesus ever indicated that a "progressive" income tax was fair or unfair. I know that Bible teaches tithing and equal sacrifice and yet you seem to be espousing the idea that those who have managed to accumalate more wealth or obtain greater income should be punished by paying more than their fair share. Jesus did say to render unto Caesar... so we are to pay our taxes and to yield those in authority over us (unless we are specifically instructed to do something against God).
On gay marriage, I think it's obvious what God thinks based on the plethora of Old Testament verses as well as the New Testament (Romans 1:24-32). If we believe God created marriage we need to continue to support it the way we see He created it and not for something else.
On abortion, again I think it's extremely clear. Babies leaping in the womb... references to being knit together by God in the womb. The same use of the world "child" whether born or unborn. It's very clear in my mind.
On Iraq: This is not as clear but you have to ask whether it's as simple as "turning the other cheek" as you describe. Should we have done the same for Hitler? What about the American Revolution? How many bone yards have to found? What level of turture to people have to endure? What amount of deceipt, threats, support of terror, death, oppression must other governments commit before those with the means to defend the defenseless can rightly come to the rescue? We need to be careful to neither be swayed by the "kick butt" crowd nor the vogue Hollywood anti-Vietnam nostaglia of "make love not war". Personally, I believe I would have done the same thing if I had been president given what was known at the time. Everything else is just playing Monday morning quarterback.
To SCW:
Well, I was there, remember, so when I tell you Jesus was a liberal, take it to the bank. That said, We give you credit for attempting to find biblical reasons for your political views; altrhough of course they aren't reasons, thgey're more like justifications. And too, you're the first one We've seen actually offer some biblical sourcing for anti-choice.
You say you see no indication in the bible that Christ would want the government to clothe the naked or feed the sick. But the religious right today seems to think the government should embody (what they think are) the teachings of Christ. It seems very convenient to find rationale in the bible for the polarizing, sort of nutty things like opposition to gay marriage (what did Jesus have to say about the state defining marriage? I'm guessing, nothing), but suddenly coming up short when pressed to find a biblical justification for the government treating people with kindness.
The deeper problem, though, is that Literalism (the taking literally of the 21st century, English lanuage bible without historical context) is a losing porposition. There is very little teaching of Christ left in your bible, and a whole lot of suppression and politcking by men with agendas. From Paul to Constantine and onward, men were using the institution of the church and bible to manipulate people who were worshipful on "good" faith.
The teachings of Christ have been lost to the teachings of Paul and his successors. Look outside the bible for the truth.
And finally, consider that the bible is really just a mirror; whatever you bring with you when you go lookinng through it, chances are, that's what you'll find there.
Thanks for writing, and cheers!
God
You're right - I can't imagine anyone more selfless than Jesus. I believe he said "'go learn what this means, I desire mercy, not sacrifice' for I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
I also read that He said, 'If you want to enter into life, obey the commandments' and I think that includes the second one about 'do not misuse the name of the Lord your God'.
But if sin is the problem, His words also give us the solution.
Post a Comment
<< Home