At a recent conference of the Texas Faith Network, a panel of religious experts attempted to tackle the question “How would Jesus vote?” James C. Moore, co-author of "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George Bush Presidential," made an interesting claim that is reminiscent of a recent remark made by Jesse Jackson.
"If ever there were a bleeding-heart liberal, it was Jesus Christ," said Moore. "I think the carpenter from Galilee was the original Democrat."
While the remark was (hopefully) made in jest, it raises the question of whether Jesus could support some of the positions of the Democratic Party platform.
Would Jesus support “legislation barring workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation”? (p. 41)
Would Jesus support the destruction of human embryos in order to reverse the “wrongheaded policy” against embryonic stem cell research and to “push the boundaries of science in search of new medical therapies and cures”? (p. 33)
Would Jesus “stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose” to have an abortion? Would he support government funding of abortions for women who can’t afford them? (p. 40)
Would Jesus put “science ahead of ideology in research in policymaking”? And would “universal access to broadband services” really be a high priority on the Lord’s agenda? (p. 25)
But more importantly, would the Democrats accept Jesus as one of them if he were to tell them that the “under God” they claim to believe in refers to Him? (p. 6)
1
While such comparisons are pretty silly, from what little we know of Jesus' politics, he would have more closely resembled a Communist (or, at least, a socialist) than a Democrat or Republican as we might know them.
Jesus did seem to favor the redistribution of wealth (Luke 18:22; Mark 10:21; Matt 19:21), but there's legitimate question as to whether he would make this redistribution mandatory. It seems it's mandatory if you want to be his disciple (Luke 14:33).
And in general, he was fairly critical of earthly wealth (Matt 6:24; Matt 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luk 18:25; Luke 6:24; Luke 12:15; Luke 16:15), which would make him highly critical of both our current candidates.
However, there are some Republican leanings. Cheating with money seems to be okay, if Luke 16:1-9 is to be believed, for example.
posted on 08.20.2004 3:33 AM2
Jesus was critical of those who serve money as a master, not of wealth itself. Money is dangerous, since it can distract one from more important things and become an end in itself or a means to other ends that aren't good as ends in themselves. That doesn't mean Jesus would be critical of anyone just for being rich. Anyone who knows the Hebrew canon well enough knows that wealth was often seen as a sign of God's blessing, and in many cases it simply was. Jesus never reversed that. He just warned of the dangers.
The only seeming exceptions to this have to be seen for what they are -- poetic and proverbial statements and not case law or theological principles. Take the woe to the rich in Luke 6:24 that you cited. If you take this woodenly, you also have to take him as thinking anyone who ever has received a compliment from someone will have the same fate as false prophets (Lk 6:26).
The last sentence seems to me to support Democrats as much as Republicans, assuming your false premise that Luke 16:1-9 has to do with cheating people. The point at the end is that worldly people tend to be shrewder than people of the light, and people of the light ought to learn to be shrewd. There's no endorsement of the particular means given in the parable anymore than Jesus was telling people to walk around with seeds throwing them on the ground when he told the parable of the seeds. Even if it endorsed corruption, you can't expect anyone to believe that Republicans have a monopoly or even a majority of the corruption among politicians. Until Republican Governor Lincoln Almond, Rhode Island had the reputation of being the most corrupt state in the country, and it's not exactly a bastion of conservatism.
posted on 08.20.2004 10:03 AM3
I don't know how enthusiastic Jesus would be in a Communist Party rally to hear that his Dad doesn't exist, and that everyone who believes in Him should be shipped off to the gulags.
posted on 08.20.2004 10:04 AM4
Joe, do you really think Jesus would support mistreating people simply because they're gay? He railed against the Pharisees and scribes for mistreating sinners like prostitutes and tax collectors. He'd say the same about discriminating against gay people. He'd be happy about righteous people opposing such things through the political voice that ordinary righteous people didn't have in Roman-occupied Judea.
posted on 08.20.2004 10:10 AM5
"However, there are some Republican leanings. Cheating with money seems to be okay, if Luke 16:1-9 is to be believed, for example."
What a joke this comment is. Thousands of years of biblical expositon and some unbelieving scoffer is the one with the "true" meaning of Christ's words...
Christians! Christians! Everywhere! Listen! tgirsch finds Christ teaching all of us to steal and lie. Quick now, run to the bank...
posted on 08.20.2004 10:18 AM6
Those of us who live in Chicago know Jesse Jackson to be a "shake down artist" and a street hustler.
posted on 08.20.2004 10:25 AM7
Jeremy,
That's great that you want to help tg "understand" (or other unbelievers) but I'm sure you know that if they (unbelievers) have no intention of repentance and just want to mock - it falls on deaf ears.
I'll help clarify misconceptions about scripture and talk all day with someone that is seeking Christ and is genuinely interested.
But scoffers, mockers? Pearls before swine my friend.
tg, if you like that parable so much, read what Christ, God in the flesh, teaches about the unrepentant sinner's eternal destination.
I'm not saying to go there ;) I'm saying that Christ says you WILL go there (unrepentant).
8
ceptions about scripture and talk all day with someone that is seeking Christ and is genuinely interested.
posted on 08.20.2004 10:42 AM9
Jeremy, Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Therefore the death penalty for homosexuality in the Torah, and the utter condemnation of it in the New Testament, are fully Jesus' views.
I don't think that either of the major parties are all that close to what the Bible teaches about politics, although the GOP is closer than the DNC. A little.
posted on 08.20.2004 10:42 AM10
The danger of trying to describe Jesus' views in a political manner is that in doing so, we tend to say that we are more like him than those with whom we diagree. We are all so far from his holiness that our political preferences matter no one little bit. Perhaps even more dangerous, is that we may be tempted to use God to justify our own opinions about politics. I don't think God would want to be used that way.
posted on 08.20.2004 11:27 AM11
What about lying? Is Jesus okay with lying? Because Bush and Cheney lie all the time, especially about John Kerry, with whom they seem to be particularly obsessed these days.
Also, now that's crystal clear that these Swift Boat guys are liars (i.e., I was right about them) the only left to discover is whether Rove's ploy will blow up in his face. That "liberal" paper, the NYT, has a write-up today which falls far short of making clear UP TOP in the HEADLINES that the SBV loonies are liars, which is pretty much just how Herr Karl and the SBV's would like it. A moron who glances at the headline will realize that "there is a controversy" but he will need to be able to read complete sentences to understand that, in fact, there is no controversy whatsoever.
posted on 08.20.2004 12:34 PM12
Jeremy says:
"Joe, do you really think Jesus would support mistreating people simply because they're gay?...He railed against the Pharisees and scribes for mistreating sinners like prostitutes..."
Considering that one of the root meanings of the word "faggot", as an epithet used for gay men, is "prostitute", I find that particularly apt.
Puzzled Pontificates:
"Jeremy, Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Therefore the death penalty for homosexuality in the Torah, and the utter condemnation of it in the New Testament, are fully Jesus' views."
Then go out and kill some homosexuals. You've been given instructions by God to do so. Or are you a moral relativist? Afraid to practice what you preach? Or are some things in the Bible less "right" than others?
posted on 08.20.2004 1:16 PM13
Jeremey,
Joe, do you really think Jesus would support mistreating people simply because they're gay?
No, I don’t. But I also don’t think “discrimination” is necessarily a form of mistreatment either.
He'd say the same about discriminating against gay people. He'd be happy about righteous people opposing such things through the political voice that ordinary righteous people didn't have in Roman-occupied Judea.
What if an openly homosexual were to apply for as a professor of theology at an evangelical college? Do you think Jesus would really be “happy” that his followers supported legislation to ensure that the gay professor couldn’t be barred from teaching?
I have no problem with sexual orientation, just homosexual behavior. But I don’t think orientation should be a protected category. I also can’t find any biblical warrant that claims that a homosexual orientation exist as a natural state, much less that we are required to respect and support it.
posted on 08.20.2004 1:23 PM14
cdm:
Pheh. Garbage in, garbage out. Joe's post was impossible to take seriously (and, in fact, I don't think he intended it to be taken seriously), so I don't see why I shouldn't run with it and have a little fun. Of course, if you can show me where I claimed to be the premier authority on the meaning of scripture, you might have a point.
Meanwhile, as you scoff at the scoffers and mock the mockers, you might recall the whole "judge not" stuff, as well as the bit about the log in your own eye.
Assuming hell exists, I'll probably wind up there, but at least I'll get to see my friends again. ;)
All:
The last dig on Republicans was a joke, folks. Get over it. :)
Puzzled:
To be fair, the GOP is closer in some ways than the DNC, but not in others. Go with what Lincoln said: We don't claim that God is on our side, but humbly pray that we are on His.
Dave S.:
Outstanding point. Even as an unbeliever, I can appreciate the accuracy of what you say.
Joe:
Do you think Jesus would really be “happy” that his followers supported legislation to ensure that the gay professor couldn’t be barred from teaching?I would think that Jesus would stay away from the legislative aspects entirely ("Render unto Caesar," and all that). I also think he would view the gay professor's gayness as largely irrelevant. The log in the eye thing, again. posted on 08.20.2004 2:52 PM
15
I always figured Jesus would treat homosexuals the same as the woman caught in adultery, which is to say with 2 messages: 1) "I, who could condemn you, do not. Go..." and 2) "...and stop your sinful behavior."
Apparently, to Jesus, identifying sinful behavior and admonishing it was not the same as judging. By today's standards, he claims he isn't going to judge her (#1) and then goes and does it anyway (#2)! Would that line "go and sin no more" open him up to a Hate Crimes lawsuit under some of today’s court systems?
To paraphrase Inego Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
posted on 08.20.2004 3:30 PM16
"I have no problem with sexual orientation, just homosexual behavior. But I don’t think orientation should be a protected category."
So Joe, if you do accept that there is a such a thing as a homosexual orientation, in your universe, what are gay and lesbian people to be exactly, celibate worker drones?
Flippancy aside, this is a serious question that no Christian has ever answered me on.
What do you want from Gay and Lesbian people?
If say, you got everything you wanted. Sodomy criminalized. No protection for homosexuals from discrimination in the workplace or in housing or any place else. No right to adopt children. And if we do have children, you would have the right to rip them from our arms. You could eliminate any mention of us from books, TV, movies, etc., unless portrayed as villains and degenerates.
Gay and Lesbian people would still exist. And more would be born into the next generation, as it always has been. The next generation of gay and lesbian Americans is in the wombs of current evangelical women.
What would you do with them? You oppose any attempt for us, in the name of fairness, to try and put our sexual orientation on the same level as yours, so what level do you want us to live on?
What kind of life do you think a gay or lesbian person should lead? Is it one you would be willing to live yourself?
Tell me, What is your final solution for the "homosexual menace"?
posted on 08.20.2004 3:40 PM17
Patrick:.
What kind of life do you think a gay or lesbian person should lead? Is it one you would be willing to live yourself?
I know you asked this question of Joe, but for what it's worth: I'm a heterosexual person who's never been married. As a Christian, I am called to live in fidelity within marriage and chastity outside of marriage. What is asked of homosexuals is no more than is asked of single heterosexuals: Celibacy. It's not any easier to resist temptation to heterosexual activity than (I imagine) it is to resist temptation to homosexual activity.
I'm not in a position to judge whether I'm a "celibate worker drone." But I don't believe a sexual relationship is necessary to give one's life meaning.
That's my stance as a Christian ... which IS different from a political stance (sort of the point of this post, it seems to me). I would not support the draconian measures you suggest. But I do think it's appropriate to ask questions about anti-discrimination laws, especially as they apply to private religious institutions. In my denomination, we have for the time being a ban on the ordination of "self-affirming, practicing homosexuals." Whether that's right or wrong, surely that's a decision for the denomination to make, not the state.
posted on 08.20.2004 7:56 PM18
"Gay and Lesbian people would still exist. And more would be born into the next generation, as it always has been. The next generation of gay and lesbian Americans is in the wombs of current evangelical women."
That's a bit of a stretch-if there were always more gay people, you'd think we'd have a lot more by now then we do. Actually, there have been more and more proclaimed homosexuals lately because its becoming more of a glamorous lifestyle-like it or not, homosexuality, like most genetic conditions (I don't really like that word in this case, its rather harsh, but I can't think of another) seems to be formed by a combination of genetic and social factors.
This is shown by research on identical twins-identical twins are twice as likely to both be homosexual, but the rate is still fairly low (sixty percent, off the top of my head), indicating that there is more to homosexuality (like many things) that we do not yet know.
All of that being said, the anti-discrimination laws are difficult. It seems that there is no fair middle ground-either homosexuals live in fear of being fired, or Christians and conservatives do... I think, in general, that the government is interfering too much in the workplace in recent years, but I have no particular solution to it.
posted on 08.21.2004 12:09 AM19
I think you misinterpret Patrick's statement, David. I don't think he meant that the percentage of homosexuals is constantly increasing, but that homosexuality occurs at a constant rate generation after generation.
posted on 08.22.2004 8:04 AM