In 2004, Jesse Jackson wrote a newspaper column titled “There's no shame in being liberal”, in which he argued that some of the many of the leading lights throughout history—Moses, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson--were liberals too. One name, however, stood out from among the rest:
Think about it: A conservative Christian is a contradiction in terms. Christ wasn't a conservative. He fed the hungry simply because they were hungry. He didn't require that they go to work first. He healed the sick, simply because they were sick. He didn't push them into an insurance company, or let the drug companies gouge them on prices. Jesus was a liberal; Herod was the conservative.
Jesus fed crowds of people exactly two times. It's not like he was running a food kitchen for free-loaders who refused to work. And while he healed the sick, he also admonished them to change their lives and stop committing sins. Is that what Jesse thinks modern liberals should do? To me it sounds like Jesus was running the sort of the Religious Right's “faith-based charity” programs.
Beneath Jackson's typical sloppy reasoning lies an interesting question. How would we evaluate whether Jesus was a liberal by the standards of American liberalism?
The problem is that the term “liberal” is too vague and undefined. Fortunately, Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, provides a least a partial answer. In a recent article, “What it means to be a liberal”, Stone attempts to “articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define "liberal" today.”
After reading through list of propositions I began to wonder how they would apply to Jesus. Would Jesus fit the mold of a modern liberal? Let's examine the evidence to find out what happens if we put Him to the Liberal Test:
1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others.
Jesus said, “"I am the way and the truth and the life.” He doesn't appear to have doubted his own truth or to have been open-minded to the “truths of others.”
Verdict: Not Liberal
2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)
Jesus appears to have been tolerant of just about everything but sin. Modern liberals, however, seem to be tolerant of nothing but sin.
Civil rights is too vague but Jesus was for natural rights, since he gave them to us. As for affirmative action, it's hard to tell. The parable of the workers in the vineyard seems to show that Jesus supported arbitrary, seemingly unjust, hiring practices so maybe he would have been in favor of affirmative action. The ERA question is inconclusive, though I suspect since Jesus is a complementation that he would oppose the legislation. As for the rights of gays and lesbians, Jesus would say that they have rights as human beings, not as a subset of sinners who engage in sexual practices that he abhors (see Leviticus).
Verdict: Based on the standard of modern liberalism, “Not Liberal”
3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate.
Jesus excelled in public debater, as did his apostle St. Paul. He would probably be broadly in favor of this “right and responsibility.”
Verdict: Liberal
4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind.
This one is rather tricky, after all, Jesus is no secularist. Jesus is the head of his own kingdom—the very King of Kings—so he is, broadly speaking, a monarchist. As for earthly government, he appears not to have had much problem with the Roman system. In fact, when he was accused of subverting the empire and refusing to pay taxes to Caesar (Luke 23:1) he was found not guilty. Pontius Pilate didn't think he was much of a democratic revolutionary.
Verdict: Not Liberal
5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society.
If this makes one a liberal, than Jesus definitely fits the bill.
Verdict: Liberal
6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate.
Jesus believed that “neighbors”, not government, are the ones who have the responsibility to help those in need.
Verdict: Not Liberal
7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.
Jesus would have a fit if he heard that the government was telling children that they couldn't speak to him (Mark 10:14). He was also the Creator of the universe (Col. 1-16) so he'd probably believe in teaching some form of “creationism.” He would probably be fore funding of ethical stem-cell research (ASCR) while opposing that which requires the taking of a human life (ESCR). And he would be rather intolerant of homosexual behavior and abortion. On this point, Jesus would be worse in the minds of liberals than any fundamentalist Christian.
Verdict: Definitely Not Liberal
8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law.
In the one time Jesus stood before a court, he was treated unjustly. He would probably, therefore, be in favor of a court that protected liberties that were granted by him while excluding those created by man.
Verdict: Liberal
9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible.
Other than anarchists, who believes that government shouldn't protect the safety and security of the people? Jesus was no anarchist so this is a gimme.
Verdict: Liberal
10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants.
Would Jesus be a reasonable, decent human being? Yes? Okay, we'll give them this one too.
Verdict: Liberal
By my tally, that is five “Liberals” and five “Not Liberal.” That leaves just enough room for us to argue over which side Jesus would eventually land. Would he be a modern secular liberal posing as a religious figure ala Jesse Jackson or a well-meaning liberal evangelical like Jim Wallis. Or would he lean more toward the model of a right-thinking, traditionalist/conservative like…well, like me?
Perhaps, though, that is the wrong question. The Gospels don't have much to say about how Jesus would vote or what political party he'd prefer. Maybe we shouldn't be asking whether Jesus fits our pre-fabricated political mold but rather questioning how we could be more like Him. Instead of testing Christ's liberal bona fides we should be more liberal about following his example.
1
He would not have been either a modern secular liberal or a right-wing pro business conservative. He would have been something more akin to an oldtime liberal who was more conservative on social matters and nearly socialist in economic matters. I'm talking about something similar to the systems of Ireland and Italy today where there are a huge number of social programs and yet divorces are extremely hard to get.
"Neighbors" could mean neighbors with their tax money and a government to distribute it evenly and efficiently. "Neighbors" in the bible refers to fellow man and the government is made up of fellow citizens.
Jesus Christ was also very pacifist and there is not one single time where he ever advocated violence, war, etc. This would make him clearly a liberal. I really seriously doubt Jesus Christ would have wanted to bomb Iraq.
posted on 10.17.2006 12:25 AM2
I'm talking about something similar to the systems of Ireland and Italy today where there are a huge number of social programs and yet divorces are extremely hard to get.
3
Doesn't this just show us, once again, that Jesus can't be "pegged"? In other words, no one party can use Jesus as their mascot. Jesus isn't for sale to any certain political ideology. thus spoke churchpun dit!
posted on 10.17.2006 4:53 AM4
"Instead of testing Christ’s liberal bona fides we should be more liberal about following his example."
Great post Joe!
posted on 10.17.2006 5:18 AM5
UK politics is different to the US so i don't feel fit to comment.
Just came across your blog today.
God bless you,
Maria Toth
www.inhishands.co.uk
6
Great post.
As churchpundit said, Jesus will always frustrate our attempts to shoehorn Him into our neat (or, in this case, not so neat) categories.
I'm not sure I'd like a God who could so easily be pegged. After all, we're talking about trying to squeeze the infinite creator of the universe into a category created by his creations.
It fits people's (whether liberal or conservative) political agenga, but it doesn't make much sense.
7
The last sentence of your post is what we should all be concerned about.
Good post
posted on 10.17.2006 7:06 AM8
The last sentence of your post is what we should all be concerned about.
Good post
posted on 10.17.2006 7:07 AM9
Good post, and some interesting things to think about.
I am not sure about Item 6, however, largely because it's so difficult to consider the Roman Empire in modern political terms. I think we can reach a limited conclusion from Jesus' own teaching and that of his disciples about how his followers should view 1st century Rome. What he would think of a modern democracy, where the people (including his followers) choose their leaders, is a different matter. If one assumes the unity of Scripture (big assumption, I know - my dispensational brothers might disagree) and considers the government mandated for Israel by God in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, there were quite a few "social programs" for the poor and less fortunate built into the structure of the society. For example, the Jubilee (debt fogiveness every 7 years - Deut. 15; redistribution of wealth every fifty years - Lev. 25:8ff) and the tithe (Deut. 14:22ff - each family giving up a tenth of their assets - not income - every year so that, in part, widows and orphans could eat well) are far more "liberal" than even universal health care. Then again, as with the Roman Empire, the church+state government of ancient Israel just doesn't fit into modern political terms.
posted on 10.17.2006 7:12 AM10
The discussions of Jesus and "liberal" as used as a wedge to separate the evangelical vote from anyting "conservative", apparently the opposite of "liberal". The modern social dialectic liberal is ignoring a great deal of history and current events in order to reframe a discussion on the character of Jesus.
IOW, it's all about modern politics, and nothing more.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
posted on 10.17.2006 9:08 AM11
First, as some wag has previously noted and accurately so, Jesus was a monarchist. There are no votes in he Kingdom of God.
Second, I think it is likely that Jesus Christ believed every single moral lesson of what we know today as the Pentateuch. He says explicity that He was not here to change the Law. I'm not sure which Laws the left does not wish to revoke or modify beyond recognition. Conservatively [ahem] speaking, Commandments 1,2, 3, 4, and 7 are on the chopping block for sure, as is any non-private display or discussion of same.
Third, in the quote from Jackson, it is important to note that HE fed the poor, HE healed the sick, and HE comforted the distressed. He didn't lobby Caesar, Herod, or Pilate to raise taxes and redistribute the wealth. As as Christians it is OUR job to go to the ghettos, the hospitals, the hospices, and the prisons to "feed [His] sheep."
Hiring some "professional" social workers to serve as a barrier between us and the poor is, as far as I know, not part of the plan. "Hire some guys to do good" is, as far as I know, not part of the red-letter text. Doing so does, however, salve the consciences of those whose moral preening trumps actually coming face-to-face with people one would never invite to the banquet.
posted on 10.17.2006 9:36 AM12
1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others.Jesus said, “"I am the way and the truth and the life.” He doesn’t appear to have doubted his own truth or to have been open-minded to the “truths of others.”
Verdict: Not Liberal
As I recall from Sunday School, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus pretty much doubted everything about himself and his beliefs. He even listened fairly to Satan's temptations, although he eventually rejected his point of view.
2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)
There are plenty of conservatives who support these things too, so I think your point here is rather meaningless. No one would call Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater a liberal, yet both of them supported the recognition of the rights of gay and lesbian Americans.
posted on 10.17.2006 10:16 AM13
"Hiring some 'professional' social workers to serve as a barrier between us and the poor is, as far as I know, not part of the plan... Doing so does, however, salve the consciences of those whose moral preening trumps actually coming face-to-face with people one would never invite to the banquet."
Straight to the heart, George! I think a great majority of us are guilty on that one. It's hard to directly love the "unlovable," the poor, etc.
posted on 10.17.2006 10:18 AM14
George,
You have a point, but I think you are missing something. Jesus was not a modern individualist. He wasn't, for instance, calling just individual people in the nation of Israel to be the light of the world, he was calling for Israel to be the light of the world. If you have a KJV, look around and see how often he uses "ye" rather than "thou". Forming our institutions and communal life around his commands is essential to obeying them.
I'm as conservative as the next guy, by the way.
posted on 10.17.2006 10:24 AM15
Excellent post, Joe. So such that I am reminded, on a Tuesday no less, of how far I am from being like Jesus, and how far I have to go. If this means I must consider that being 50% liberal and 50% conservative could be a worthy goal to strive for, then I can live with that.
As George points out, it's difficult to compare the society back then to modern day America; however, I do find this post another encouragement for me to maintain my independent status where the U.S. pol. parties are concerned. Neither comes very close to really representing my values..occasionally you find individuals within who do, at least as advertised.
posted on 10.17.2006 10:51 AM16
Lincoln's quote about God and sides seems apt here (I'm sure I'm butchering this):
"We shouldn't say that God is on our side, but ask whether we are on God's side."
Jesus doesn't fit neatly into the left or the right camp. For instance, he probably wouldn't be too hot on conservative support for corporations that exploit the poor. I'm not talking necissarily about raising the minimum wage, but at the same time, I doubt he's a fan of sweatshops, and conservative policies tend not to ask questions about sweatshops. On the other hand, Jesus isn't a fan of abortion either, which the left takes as an essential point. The question to ask is this: are we supporting candidates that support the things that honor God?
posted on 10.17.2006 10:55 AM17
In all this discussion it would be interesting to know which of the posters etc had a 'high' view of Scripture; IOW they acknowledge that all of Scripture is God's Word, not just the 'red letters'. Once you do that, it takes major ignorance of Biblical principles and common sense to use Scripture to justify government efforts to feed the poor, educate children, etc. Scripture never calls for the majority to take money from themselves and an unwilling minority to feed someone else that the majority deems worthy. That would be called 'theft' by Jesus, and I think He sorta frowns on that. Feeding the poor is to be done by family, neighbors, and the church. Government's purview is defence and law enforcement (Carries the sword, remember? These days the swords are somewhat more powerful.). Government involvement in health care should be limited to containing epidemics. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, etc. Charity begins at home, then neighbors, then the church. Government doesn't belong in the equation.
To all who are tempted to despair at the continued efforts to shoehorn Jesus into the typical socialist/liberal mode, take heart: the average 'rightwing' conservative Christian is faaar outbreeding his liberal brethren, which means in 20 years the church will suffer much less of such claptrap. And if we can just break free of the public school mindset, and stop turning our precious children's minds over to secular/atheist/liberal teachers and curriculum, we'll be able to accelerate that trend significantly.
My wife and I have 4 children, all homeschooled. My oldest just started college after scoring 34 on his ACT (I'm not trying to brag, just providing a testament to homeschooling). He is articulate, a leader (already elected to the freshman council, has met the governor of the state and numerous other elected officials despite never having been involved with organized politics before), politically possibly even more conservative than I am, and says he's going to have at least 6 kids himself. And he has 3 siblings coming up behind him. Guess who's ideas will be propagated into the next generation?
posted on 10.17.2006 11:08 AM18
"Neighbors" could mean neighbors with their tax money and a government to distribute it evenly and efficiently. "Neighbors" in the bible refers to fellow man and the government is made up of fellow citizens.
Jesus's admonitions to care for the poor and less fortunate were directed toward the hearts of individuals and the generosity, or lack thereof, that existed there. Tax money is paid with the State holding a gun to your head. Whether one feels generous or not because he pays taxes, the question of generosity is moot. You're forced to pay taxes. Jesus's teachings were about giving that comes volitionally, not giving where we have no choice in the matter anyway.
As has been said about liberals, "They sure are generous...with other people's money!"
Jesus Christ was also very pacifist and there is not one single time where he ever advocated violence, war, etc. This would make him clearly a liberal. I really seriously doubt Jesus Christ would have wanted to bomb Iraq.
I don't exactly know what the scene was like in Heaven when it was decided that the armies of Israel should go out and slaughter its enemies, but I highly doubt Jesus got outvoted 2-1 by the Father and Holy Spirit. (Aside: this tells us nothing about the Iraq war, but it does show that the idea of Christian pacifism was dead before Jesus was born).
posted on 10.17.2006 12:52 PM19
So Jesus would not be in favor of the year of Jubilee? Or keeping the Sabbath? Or the temple tax? After all - it wasn't voluntary.
I don't know that the existance of holy war in the OT negates Christian pacifism. I am not a pacifist, but one should understand the strength of one's opponent's arguments before dismissing them out of hand.
Whether Jesus would want to bomb Iraq is an open question. We do know that he felt a bombing of Jerusalem was inevitable.
posted on 10.17.2006 1:18 PM20
Does it amaze anyone just how much we can all presuppose on Jesus' world view? Does it bother anyone?
21
Haven't you learned anything from what is going on? You probably can't watch any news, except Fox, because of all those darn libs.
posted on 10.17.2006 1:56 PM22
"Jesus Christ was also very pacifist and there is not one single time where he ever advocated violence, war, etc. This would make him clearly a liberal. I really seriously doubt Jesus Christ would have wanted to bomb Iraq." - Ryan
Wow. Jesus a cut and run liberal?
How about King David, an architype of Christ who fought all kinds of wars on God's behalf. Or the times Christ meets with soldiers and is impressed by their faith but never once tells them to lay down their arms (Matthew 8:10; Luke 3:14), or all that Jesus-led warfare in Revelations 14 or Chapter 19:
11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
He's both the Lamb of God and the Lion of Judah. Meekness, not weakness; peacemaking, not pacifism. There's a difference.
posted on 10.17.2006 2:10 PM23
It's pretty obvious Jesus was a conservative. He didn't feed all the hungry, just the ones that happened to be around at the time when he split the loaves and fishes. All those starving Israelites and Amorites and Jebusites (Palestinians all), he basically told them to eat cake. Why? Isn't it obvious? He just didn't care. Same goes for all the lepers and cripples and demon-possessed; if they didn't cross his path, he didn't heal them because he just didn't care about them. Conservatives don't care about others, therefore, Jesus was a conservative. In fact, Jesus left the world pretty much a mess, didn't he? He had the power and the money to heal all ills, conquer all disease and make everyone as rich as Bill Gates, but he didn't. Just like a conservative.
Santa Claus is the liberal. He is much nicer than Jesus. He always gives everyone everything they want. Sure he checks his list to see who's been naughty and nice, but he never enforces it and he never lets it influence his lavish gift giving. He can't heal the sick or raise the dead, but in his heart he really wants to and he wears a red suit to raise the awareness of sickness and death and lack of internet access. He is, in fact, completely ineffective in everything but giving away gifts which his elves stole from the rich. He is overweight, but it's not his fault because that's just the way he's always been. He was born that way: just like a liberal.
posted on 10.17.2006 3:01 PM24
jd, that is the best post ever. Congrats for nailing it.
posted on 10.17.2006 4:09 PM25
Don I think Jesus was a pacifist too. The scripture you quote was old testament or Revelations, and really contradicts Jesus's philosophy. The eye for an eye philosophy is out, and the love your enemies is in. One can not read the Gospels and come away with a war like attitude or you missed something. War evil was Jesus's game.
posted on 10.17.2006 4:52 PM26
"... the search for continuity with the "real Jesus" reveals an attempt to recast him in the role of one we would be most likely to accept had we been there and had our wits about us..."
-Gerhard Forde
posted on 10.17.2006 8:00 PM27
Moby,
Appreciate your thoughts. How could Jesus possibly be the same guy in Revelations that he is in Matthew? How could God be the same God of both the Old and New Testament? I guess because he says he is.
The Jesus of the Gospels is Christ being the Lamb led to the slaughter for our sins. This is foretold all over the Old Testament, including the Psalms. You've obviously got the point of this picture, which is fine. But just like you're not going to understand the majesty of the life of Uberblogger Joe Carter over one cup of coffee or one post, judging Christ by his 3 year ministry, death and resurrection puts Christ in a rather small box.
Look - John knew him better than about anyone. He writes about the same Christ in his gospel, his letters, and in his vision of Christ in Revelation. Both John's gospel and the events of Revelation are supported by what's foretold by Daniel, Isaiah and elsewhere. He's the same guy in both places. So how could the warrior Jesus of Revelation and he who cleared the money changers out of the temple be the same meek Christ crucified at Calvary? It's because he is.
To say Christ is a pacifist is a mistake to me, just like it's a mistake to say Christ/God is a horrific, vengeful, legalistic being slaughtering the enemies of Israel. Christ is both the Lamb and the Lion, on his terms and at the pleasure of his divine will. As he put it via King Solomon, there is "a time for war and a time for peace." (Eccl 3:8).
By the way, I think it's also a liberal failing to only see Jesus as meek, and conservative failing thing to see Jesus as a kick-a$$ and take names Jesus who is more concerned with our personal prosperity than those po'folks. Since he is "full of grace and truth" the bottom line is he's 100% both. Difficult for Christians to measure up to, but we're supposed to be the same way too.
That ought to give us great joy, and put the true fear of God in us at the same time.
posted on 10.17.2006 8:52 PM28
Don I think Jesus was a pacifist too. The scripture you quote was old testament or Revelations [sic], and really contradicts Jesus's philosophy. The eye for an eye philosophy is out, and the love your enemies is in. One can not read the Gospels and come away with a war like attitude or you missed something. War evil was Jesus's game.This is an attempt to recast Jesus as a pacifist. "Jesus' philosophy" was aleady stated explicitly: the law stills stands.
How can the Ceator of the Universe change? Jesus is the same God who sent Israel into war, and our view of him must allow for this. The absence of a "war-like attitude" isn't the point: he's not talking about war explicitly. That's faulty reasoning.
You also show a negligle understanding of the circumstances surrounding the giving of the law and the "eye for an eye" constraint. This injuncture teaches proportionality, not revenge. It is a non-sequiter to contrast it against "love you enemies."
I'm afraid you're the one who's missing something (besides a couple of words in that last sentence). It's a holistic view of Jesus Christ. Your view is very fashionable, and therein lies its fault.
P.S.— It really undermines your arguments to quote from the book of "Revelations." The book of Revelation is singular.
posted on 10.17.2006 9:17 PM29
Don, Thanks for giving me such a honest and thought out response. That I think Jesus is meek acting is not my intention. He treats the Devil with nothing but great courage. I sounded like in my last post, I see, that Revelations is contradictory, but meant only that it is contradictory, if one uses it to preach aggression. "As he put it via King Solomon, there is "a time for war and a time for peace." What Jesus says trumps all in my book, "Blessed are the peace keepers, and Love your enemy."
posted on 10.17.2006 9:33 PM30
Thanks again Joe for a thouroughly thought provoking post. However, me thinks that we are all missing the point here & it begins with granting Mr. Stones premise.I don't. Is Mr. Stone correct in giving the definition he gives?
Is he giving an accurate & acceptable definition of what a "liberal" is or rather what someone who believes in "Liberalism" as dogma should look/act like? Does Mr. Stones version of Liberalism ring true or is it in itself a "liberal" telling us what he wishes Liberalism could/should be?
From my own humble view of such things, his "top ten list" is fraught with what he wishes a liberal should look like but in reality, they mask the real ideologies that lurk underneath the surface. To name just a few:
Liberlaism is Marxist/Socialist in its basic approach to economics.
Liberalism is Freudian in its understanding of the individual and is psychosexual in nature.
Liberalism is Nietzcheian in its effort toward will to power.
Liberalism is existentialistic in its approach to making any type of decision/choice.
Liberalism is modern man attempting to understand his place in the universe by positing Darwinianism as to origins and thinking macroevolution is the best explaination.
Liberalism is understanding mans history as a process of Bultmannian "demythologization."
This worldview that is expressed by these ideologies will lead to a hedonistic self-actualization and a radical/autonomous individualization seen in a reductive naturalism which ultimately results in absolute moral relativism.
To quote a child of Liberalism who drank deep from the well of these ideologies but who drinks no more:
"What often passes itself off as avant garde within [liberal] acedemia is nothing more than a bald man wearing a toupee'. It maylook fetching and neat, but underneath there is sparce growth with no regenerativity."
Kicking the Post Out of Modernity - T. Oden
31
J.J.:
You're right. The Bible is not pacifist, especially the old testament. But Jesus was pacifist. There is not one single scripture where he advocated any type of violence and more than you can count where he advocated peace and understanding. Given that being Pro-War or Anti-war is the defining characteristic of a conservative vs. liberal today, Jesus would have been closer to the liberal view.
posted on 10.18.2006 12:13 AM32
winsome:
An "eye for an eye" is the old testament. Jesus said "turn the other cheek".
posted on 10.18.2006 12:16 AM33
3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate.
Except on liberal college and university campuses (i.e. except when liberals control the environment.)
I'm not going to go through all your definitions of what liberals are, but you are rather off-the-mark in a big way. It makes your entire post meaningless.
Riding above all this, conservatives are classical liberals. The liberals you are posing against conservatives are statist (tending towards fascist when they can get away with it) and socialist. They believe in coercive, policed environments. Their values are those of the world and the flesh and, yes, of the devil.
This is a totally meaningless post.
The way you define what is the best system of government in biblical terms is what is most conducive to spreading the Word of God. So-called 'liberals' and the systems of government they promote (and put in place when they get the power to do it) are not conducive to that.
posted on 10.18.2006 1:43 AM34
Ryan:
I think "turn the other cheek" has more to do with pride than with self-defense or war or pacifism. Slapping you in the face has more to do with humiliation than with doing serious injury. Turning the other cheek can defuse a situation, sort of disarming the offender, and keep a bad situation from escalating to real violence. If a person wants to kill you, he isn't going to slap you in the face. Jesus did not advocate giving up your other arm, if someone cuts one off. Nor did he say to the headless man, "Turn the other head." Christ was not a pacifist. He took up weapons in the temple. He said, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." We can argue about what exactly that means, but those are not the words of a pacifist.
I totally reject your simplistic notion of pro-war vs. anti-war. I resent your notion that I am pro-war, and the connotation that I am a warmonger looking for someone to attack. Conservatives are anti-war except as a necessary evil. Liberals are simply anti-war, until they are attacked. Then they are anti-matter.
posted on 10.18.2006 7:48 AM35
Moby,
Sorry, bro - Jesus says "Blessed are the peacemakers," not peacekeepers [eirenopoios, Strong's #1518]. Important distinction. Christ doesn't expect us to protect an already-intact worldly peace, but rather to bring peace to a strife-filled world through the power and love of Christ. Eirenopoios is a masculine adjective in the Greek, important because the masculine form implies deliberate action, not (feminine) passive abstention (see: apechomai, Strongs #567, as in 1 Thes 5:22).
Maybe I don't know which definition of pacifist you're using. Is it opposing war as a way of settling disputes? If that's the case, I'd agree with you. It should be our last resort, the way it is for Christ who waits until the end of the age to finally destroy the Enemy, and gives all of those who follow that path every opportunity to repent first.
Or is yours the absolute opposition to the use of violence/force under any circumstances, including defense of the innocent, because war itself is morally wrong? If it's the latter, then why didn't Christ condemn soldiers for being soldiers, and why would he tell his disciples to go and buy swords? (Luke 22:35-36) Why wouldn't he just forgive satan and his followers and let them go rather than fight Armageddon? As long as there are sinful men in the world starting wars and killing the widow and the defenseless, a warrior response will be needed when it's appropriate.
I don't see any problem with this "tender warrior" paradox, but that may be where you and I will have to agree to disagree. Interesting discussion, though.
posted on 10.18.2006 8:02 AM36
Don, Nice again to respond to you. I agree with you. For example, the US had every right to fight WW II. The Amish, after their sad event at their school, have really impressed me. Forgiving that man, and the older school girl who told the gunman to shot her first. There is no meekness in being passive in that context. Like in the movie with Harrison Ford, when the town people think he is Amish and he hit back, although I liked what he did, who in actuality was more Christ like?
posted on 10.18.2006 8:29 AM37
Ryan: You say, "There is not one single scripture where he advocated any type of violence".
John 2:15 says "And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables."
posted on 10.18.2006 8:30 AM38
You know, actually whereas you are all correct that it is rather silly to try to pigeon-hole Jesus into a poltical party.......the original post actually does indict the majority of Christians I know who assume that Jesus would be 10 for 10 not liberal.
posted on 10.18.2006 8:51 AM39
While I would not label Jesus as a liberal, I wouldn't say that he is a militaristic right-wing authoritarian politician who favors the rich over the poor and doesn't have a problem with pre-emptive wars that cause the needless deaths of a half million people either.
Question for everybody-conservatives or more precisely the conservatives with the loudest voices in our country's corporate media and christian political organizations have sought to make the word "liberal" equivalent to "godless", "evil", or even "unchristian": Why is that?
I'd like to know.
jwyatt1963@yahoo.com
40
>Question for everybody-conservatives or more precisely the conservatives with the loudest voices in our country's corporate media and christian political organizations have sought to make the word "liberal" equivalent to "godless", "evil", or even "unchristian": Why is that?
Because modern day 'liberals' are really socialists and worse masquerading under the term liberal. They ARE godless, evil and anti-Christian. Just because you say "peace, peace" and "love, love" doesn't give you a free pass (anyway the Bible itself warns about such people saying such things). When the chips are down 'liberals' are for the forces of anti-Christ every time. In every era. Wow, they piggy-back on really difficult stands like "clean water!" and "children shouldn't be harmed" (but don't take away their ritual child murder called abortion). Popular Front communists never had any problem adopting terms such as democratic and free speech and so on. This should not be news to a Christian audience.
posted on 10.18.2006 10:54 AM41
"Blessed are the peacemakers" not "Blessed are the pre-emptive war makers who lie about WMD to get us there"
posted on 10.18.2006 11:50 AM42
David,
Thanks for your comments about why the word "liberal" should be considered the equivalent of "godless", "evil", and "unchristian".
I have a different view on this. I am 43 years old and a christian. Prior to 2004, I consistently voted republican, however as a christian, I can no longer in good conscience do so. What changed my mind? Our republican president, a self proclaimed born-again christian, who took our country to war under false pretenses causing the needless deaths of approximately one half million people, and who glories in being a "war time" president in a never ending "war on terror".
Unfortunately, today "evangelical" is assocatied with being blindly partisan follower of our right-wing authoritarian President, George W. Bush. It sickens me that the message of Jesus Christ, the Son of God who died for us on the Cross, is being co-opted for narrow partisan and evil political purposes in America.
Personally, I would rather be labelled "liberal" instead of "evangelical".
I have another question for everyone-Should Ann Coulter be embraced as a spokesperson for Christianity? I ask because she has been presented as such by prominent religious and political organizations in the last few months (most recently at the Values Voter Summit).
posted on 10.18.2006 1:12 PM43
"Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate."
What's that about? Is American politics really that strange? Do liberals really like their all ideals to be challenged, and do non-liberals always avoid debate?
posted on 10.18.2006 1:20 PM44
>Our republican president, a self proclaimed born-again christian, who took our country to war under false pretenses causing the needless deaths of approximately one half million people, and who glories in being a "war time" president in a never ending "war on terror".
Being a Christian unfortunately doesn't prevent a person from writing sentences that contain a litany of left-wing propaganda and ignorance.
Anyway, the fact that George W. Bush is a Christian doesn't mean he has to act in a manner that would please the average visitor of Atrios' blog or the Daily Kos.
Bush's only fault in Iraq is he's been too soft on the devil's followers... Confront the devil and he will flee. Play games with him, and he'll cause death and chaos and give evil liberals and dumb Christians reasons to say really evil and dumb things.
posted on 10.18.2006 2:31 PM45
>I have another question for everyone-Should Ann Coulter be embraced as a spokesperson for Christianity? I ask because she has been presented as such by prominent religious and political organizations in the last few months (most recently at the Values Voter Summit).
She's a Christian. She doesn't present herself as a "spokesperson for Christianity." The Pope presents himself as a "spokesperson for Christianity."
Coulter presents herself as a non-lukewarm, non-politically-correct speaker of common-sense to stupidity and evil. With a take it or leave it attitude.
posted on 10.18.2006 2:44 PM46
David, regarding your comments:
(Bush is) "too soft on the devil's followers... Confront the devil and he will flee. Play games with him, and he'll cause death and chaos and give evil liberals and dumb Christians reasons to say really evil and dumb things".
Let me get this straight-the Iraq war is really just a struggle against Satan and the resulting half million or so deaths don't matter because most of them are Moslems anyway? And President Bush is leading our nation in a crusade to rid the world of evil?
Did I understand you correctly?
John Wyatt
posted on 10.18.2006 3:28 PM47
David,
Regarding Ann Coulter. I know Ann Coulter doesn't present herself using the phrase, "spokesperson for Christianity.".
I don't go around judging people's faith, however Ms. Coulters whole persona is decidely unchristian-her demeanor, her tone, and her outrageous statements. When I hear her speak, I don't sense the love of God. Do you? Are people drawn to Christ by her?
Actually, I believe she is doing the work of the Devil. Satan is the father of lies who likes to spread hatred, lies and confusion). When you try to share your faith with others and they all think christian are like Ann Coulter, is this going to help spread the Gospel.
(I would recommend that everyone google "the gospel of ann" and take a look at this presentation of her public statements).
John Wyatt
posted on 10.18.2006 3:43 PM48
Well, if you're going to go down this road, you could ask "Is Jesus a Capitalist?" and come up with a clear "no" answer. "Would Jesus support democracy?" No. And, of course, religious conservatives like to brush under the rug the things Jesus had to say about public prayer, harsh judgmentalism, capital punishment, etc.
posted on 10.18.2006 4:10 PM49
#35 It was mentioned that Jesus was not a pacifist and this passage was given. One can decide for themselves.
Luke 22:35-38
[35] Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.
[36] He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. [37] It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
[38] The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.
It was also said Jesus went about upsetting things in the temple, true, but it never said he slashed out with a sword killing people, like a cowboy. When you has to work so hard to disprove Christ's basis tenets, kindness, love, forgiveness, one needs to go back to the basics, the gospels.
posted on 10.18.2006 8:51 PM50
Half million deaths? You liberals say something then you expect Reality to follow along? This is what being the 'reality based community' is all about?
I really don't have the time or inclination to unspool your statements and counter them. This is what I'd expect on the dumbest of left-wing blogs and forums.
Suffice to say if what a Christian says makes you worried what people will think about Christianity then you really ought to be concerned with alot more people and groups than little ol' Ann Coulter. How about those Christians who went to Iraq to be human shields to 'protect' the Iraqi people against the Americans who the Iraqi people themsleves, at their liberation, called 'wankers'? They didn't make Christianity look very good, did they? How about Christians who make homosexuality a part of the faith rather than condemning it as the Bible does? How about Christians who use their church as a cover to molest children? That's a good liberal church, isn't it? How about TBN? How about liberal mainstream Protestants who blame Israel first for everything? Why can this list go on forever?
A Christian who speaks common sense to such devilish idiocy is a rarety.
America liberates 50,000,000 human beings living under the most horrific tyranny this planet can know, and all you can do is channel the devil's displeasure. Sound like Ann Coulter? No, just speaking truth to evil.
posted on 10.18.2006 9:06 PM51
David,
Man originally ate from the tree of knowledge, to be like God and judge good from evil. I would be wary of becoming too enamoured of your own moral certainties. Jesus tends to turn our paradigms upside down -- as Joe's original article concluded.
52
David,
Wow! You seem pretty angry. "you liberals"?
The 500,000 deaths number is the midrange of a scientifically based estimate of Iraqi deaths caused by our act of agression. Let's just say it was 30,000 (our president's estimate of deaths), it's still EVIL.
God loves those Iraqis just as much as he loves you.
posted on 10.18.2006 9:55 PM53
We liberated 50 mill? Of the tens of thousand that have left Iraq, or been killed, or tortured, the majority that are left want the US to get out. Fox news you do your job well.
posted on 10.18.2006 11:05 PM54
Because tyranny can be overturned with dialogue. And a bloodless war is the only kind of war worth fighting.
Man originally ate from the tree of knowledge, to be like God and judge good from evil. I would be wary of becoming too enamoured of your own moral certainties. Jesus tends to turn our paradigms upside down
Your reading of Genesis there is genius level.
And about moral certainties: yes, where did I get the idea that tyranny was bad, and freedom good.
Listen, there is currently a wave on Christian blogs and forums across the internet - and I don't mean obviously liberal sites - where the liberal, morally inane views is nothing less that apostasy showing its face. I welcome it. The more of you that finally come out of your closet the quicker the end nears. Have fun, while you have still have time to have fun.
posted on 10.18.2006 11:11 PM55
David, I just can't believe you really mean all these things you've been writing here. I could be wrong, but it seems you are just throwing out rhetorical bombshells.
Ann Coulter is not a christian, Come on. I think I'm done with my discussion here.
56
This discussion is a good example of why the bible is such a terrible moral guide. True believers can use it to justify absolutely anything.
posted on 10.20.2006 1:48 AM57
I think it's Ellul who said that Jesus was not apolitical but antipolitical...
posted on 10.21.2006 12:03 PM58
I often wonder if I, as a political Liberal – even if the term does mean something different here in the UK, can still be a Christian given that 'liberal' is a term of abuse among so many who also call themselves Christians. Can we really be 'brothers in Christ'?
Your piece is a considerable encouragement – 5:5 isn't a bad start from someone who clearly isn't a natural liberal! Thank you.
Modern democracies, on either side of the Atlantic, are already very 'liberal' societies, built as they on Christian roots which enshrine the value of the individual into their system of law and justice.
While society can and should legislate against vice, it is very difficult to enforce righteousness through the law and most attempts to do so result in very unpleasant and repressive societies.
However, I can't help thinking that right-wing economics is about personal greed and Christians should be very wary of something so completely at odds with God's concern for the needs of the poor through both OT and NT and should take careful note of the the warnings about the risks that wealth can bring as well as the blessings.
Personally, I don't have any problem with government acting on my behalf when it comes to providing services for everyone, whether they are rich or poor. For example, I would much prefer my health insurance scheme to include all my fellow-citizens, not just the better-off ones like me. That seems closer to 'loving my neighbour' than personally dispensing largesse to any 'poor' who I may happen upon in my locality.
59
While Jesus didn't believe most of the things you said he didn't, most of those things aren't things you have to believe to be liberal but is just what many liberals believe aside from the core beliefs of liberalsism.
And yes, there are better things about Jesus to worry about, but reading the Sermon on the Mount alone it's easy to see most of modern "Christianity" has lost sight of most of Christ's teachings (the ones that don't benefit the bishops and popes and deacons and pastors).
posted on 04.03.2007 11:43 PM