Jesus Was a Lefty Liberal
It suppose it is no secret that conservative and evangelical Christianity has been on the rise in this country for two or three decades – increasing in numbers, in confidence, and in influence. They have grown churches, colleges, radio and television ministries, political action networks. They have published best-selling books. They put on huge and spectacular conferences.
As always, they aim to win people’s hearts and minds to the true faith and salvation, as they see it.
But their mission is by no means limited to the realm of private spirituality. They have mobilized their resources in service of a great public mission – to claim (or “reclaim”) the United States for Christ. To Christianize its institutions and establish Christian values and practices as normative (if not legally mandated).
Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, James Kennedy, and Ted Haggard are captains of this movement. The president, and the leaders both houses of Congress are its lieutenants. They claim that America is rightfully a Christian nation and that it should be run by Christians according to Christian principles. They don’t mean the milque toasty believe-in-Jesus,-go-to-church,-and-be-nice religion of mainline nominal Christians.
They envision an America in which laws and court decisions and political choice are made explicitly on the basis of “true Christian” beliefs. A re-Christianized America is to be God’s instrument in the world, spreading His dominion unto all the lands.
Putting aside their theological beliefs, religious practices, and private moral disciplines, we might wonder what they have in mind for the public sphere of our nation and world once they have established Christ’s sovereignty.
And when we have taken stock of their priorities in the public sphere, it may not be too much to wonder, “What the heck does this have to do with the life and teaching of Jesus!?”
Quite apart from the fact that you or I may not like some of their visions for public life, it’s about time somebody started calling them on their betrayal and perversion of everything Jesus stood for!
That is what I aim to do today. Putting aside all other arguments, I want to hold the conservative Christian agenda up to the standards established by Jesus. You or I may not consider ourselves accountable to Jesus, but I think it’s fair to say that they ought to.
To hear the far-right tell it, you’d think Jesus was an empire-building, commander-in-chief, a great family man and relentless enforcer of sexual purity, a champion of market competition and “richly deserved rewards.”
This could hardly be farther from the truth.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Naturally, if your aim is to establish an evangelical Christian social and legal order, one of the first things you would want to work on would be relaxing the separation of church and state. And indeed, this is a prime focus of the conservative Christian movement.
They promote prayer in schools. They press for display of the Ten Commandments in court rooms. They push for state funding of religious schools and service organizations. They strive to inject religious controversy into the scientific teaching of evolution.
Putting aside all arguments about how the separation of church and state helps preserve the church from corruption, and about the dangers theocracy presents to human rights, and so on and so forth, what may we suppose Jesus’ position would be on the issue?
Well, the relationship of government and religious institutions was not something Jesus addressed directly, as far as I know. But we can get some sense of where he was on the matter.
Jesus made frequent reference to coming of the Kingdom of God. Some try to make this out to be a reference to an earthly government under God’s direct guidance.
But time and again Jesus emphasized that he was talking about a very different kind of thing. “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say ‘lo, here it is!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” [Luke 17:20-21]
He’s saying it’s a spiritual reality. It takes gross distortions to find anything in Jesus’ career that suggests he was trying to establish an earthly kingdom or government or institution of any kind, or that he hoped others would.
His emphasis was always on the individual getting straight with God in heart and in deed, never on establishing a social order for enforcing religious law.
He even disregarded religious law when it contradicted the spiritual law of compassion – as when he healed a sick man on the Sabbath.
Once his opponents quizzed him on the matter of whether it is proper for a Jew to pay tax to the Romans. They knew of his low regard for the authority of government and they hoped he would say people should not pay their taxes. That would bring the wrath of Rome down on him quick.
Noting the image of Caesar on the coin, he famously said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.”
A splendidly enigmatic response! It’s hard to see this as suggesting that God’s kingdom should replace the government of Rome, but it is perfectly consistent with the theme of, “Don’t worry about wordly government. Attend to your spiritual relationship with God.”
And it’s hard to imagine that Jesus’ became more enthusiastic about mixing religion and government as a result of being tortured and executed by the state at the behest of religious fanatics.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Another major theme of conservative Christian activism centers around “family values” – defending the institutions of marriage and family.
Now family is a fine thing in my book, and marriage has much to recommend it personally, socially, and spiritually.
But conservatives are not just talking about marriage and family, they mean certain traditional forms of marriage and family. In particular, they mean certain gender-specific power arrangements in marriage and family. They mean that the man is the head of the family and the woman is the helper and it’s all quite authoritarian and, of course, heterosexual.
Conservative reverence for this notion of the family borders on idolatry. I have little doubt Jesus would think so.
Look at Jesus’ own behavior in this regard. According to tradition, he never married. Some hold that Mary Magdalene, the reformed prostitute, was his common-law wife. In any case, he appears not to have had a big church wedding or to have laid much emphasis on marriage and family.
On the contrary, Jesus could be said to be disdainful of family attachments. One would-be disciple said he wanted to follow Jesus, but asked for leave to go and bury his father, a son’s sacred duty toward his father. Seems reasonable enough, but Jesus says, “Leave the dead to bury the dead.” Not a very family-oriented response. [Luke 9:59]
And then there is the rather jaw-dropping verse, little-quoted, strangely, in which Jesus says, “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” [Luke 13:26]
I think he is saying in a kind of exaggerated manner that his way demands renouncing all worldly attachments, even those of personal affection and loyalty, and focusing completely on God. Now I wonder about the wisdom of saying it that way, but I have to say that if the founder of my religion said that, I would have a hard time making preservation of traditional family arrangements a centerpiece of my social agenda.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Now we come to the matter of righteous violence.
As long as we are talking about war in the abstract, everyone is against it. But when it comes to any specific war, conservative Christian leaders wax enthusiastic. If we went right now to the parking lot outside a conservative or evangelical church, is there any doubt we would see a very large number of “Support our troops” stickers?
Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and all wars in between, the most prominent spokespersons of the Prince of Peace, and most of their followers, make haste to justify war and rally to the cause. Beyond this, they demonize any who dare to publicly question the righteousness of the cause or the morality of war itself.
Then too, the death penalty is most prevalent and widely practiced in the states most dominated by conservative Christians. How peculiar to support the death penalty while still mourning fact that your religion’s founder was subjected to the death penalty 2000 years ago.
When it comes to righteous violence, conservatives all of a sudden become very interested in the Old Testament and seem to see no relevance in Jesus’ teaching and example on the subject.
He could not have been more explicit in denouncing righteous violence. “You have heard it said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you ‘Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also.”
He goes on, “You have heard that, ‘you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.’”
Not a lot of wiggle room there that I can see. Granted, it is a difficult standard to live up to, but if I were a devout Christian it would have to be my standard. With Jesus being so clear on the matter, I could not very well go fishing around in the Old Testament for something to justify my desire for righteous violence.
Remember, Jesus explicitly rejected the Old Testament ‘eye for an eye’ standard of justice.
And there is the example of his life. He submitted without protest to horrible abuse, and ultimately execution, despite the fact that he was completely innocent and had numerous followers eager to take arms on his behalf.
The early Christian community understood this and was entirely pacifist. There is not a single Christian writer in the first three centuries who supported the notion of a Christian serving in battle.
When the emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, ending the persecution of Christians and offering a privileged status instead, the tide swiftly turned. Very quickly violence in the service of empire was justified by Christian leaders. Later on, participating in crusades (explicitly Christian wars) was not only justified but glorified.
If Jesus is anywhere looking on at the violence of the world, it has got to tear at his heart. Can it be imagined how he would have to feel about seeing his self-appointed spokespersons cheerleading the carnage?
“What part of ‘turn the other cheek’ don’t you understand!?”
As I watched the Mel Gibson film, The Passion of the Christ, the awful tragedy of it hit me: Just as when the abused child grows up to be themselves an abuser, a large and powerful segment of the Christian community became fixated on and identified with the torture-murder of Jesus and that tragically it grew up to be a torture-murderer itself – on a grand scale and over several centuries.
The fascination continues to this day. Perhaps you have heard of the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins? They are novels set in the end times of Jesus’ return in glory and they have sold over sixty million copies.
They describe the unfaithful being slain in Jesus name: “Their innards and entrails gushed to the desert floor, and as those around them turned to run, they too were slain, their blood pooling and rising in the unforgiving brightness of the glory of Christ.”
It’s like a world of fun-house mirrors. Everything appears the opposite of reality. The Jesus of mercy without limit and forbearance beyond all reason is morphed into an avenging warrior, a hanging judge and conquering emperor.
Pastor Ted Haggard of the New Life church in Colorado Springs is head of the National Association of Evangelicals, with 45,000 churches and 30 million members. Outside his church he put a banner: “Siege this city for me, signed, Jesus.”
Have these people reading a completely different Bible? Or are their pages scrambled in some strange way so that Jesus is thrown back into the book of Exodus?
Siege this city for me!? Is there anything more antithetical to what Jesus was about?
Christians, given Jesus’ radical message of forgiveness and nonviolence, ought to be the very last ones to rally for righteous violence. Instead, the most energetic and outspoken of them lead the charge.
Who would Jesus execute?
What nations would Jesus invade?
What weapons systems would Jesus develop?
- - - - - - - - - - -
And finally we come to what may be Jesus’ most persistent and clear area of teaching – the matter of wealth and the poor.
Jesus is everywhere decrying concern for property. He is everywhere insisting on the centrality of feeding the hungry, and clothing the poor, and caring for the sick.
“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” [Luke 18:25, Matt 19:24, Mark 10:25]
“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal… No one can serve two masters… You cannot serve God and mammon.” [Matt 6:19-24]
“Lend expecting nothing in return.” [Luke 6:35]
“Forgive us our debts, as we have forgiven our debtors.” [Matt 6:12]
A rich man came to Jesus and asked what he must do to enter the kingdom of god. Jesus said he should obey the commandments. The man said he had done that, what else?
Jesus said, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor… and come follow me.” [Matt 19:16-22]
According to the Gospels, Jesus spent a good deal of his time healing the sick and lame, and urged his disciples to do so in his name.
On another occasion, speaking of who will be saved, Jesus said, “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.”
As for who is going to be damned, he said, “I was hungry and you gave me no food” and so on through the whole litany.
And if you protest that you never saw Jesus in any of those conditions, he will say, “As you did to the least of my brothers, so you did to me.” [Matt 25:34-46]
Taking care of those in need, not accumulating wealth, and relinquishing of possessions – these were Jesus’ key talking points. And action points.
So his most ardent proponents today, must surely be working toward an egalitarian socialist order, right? Or at least they must stress modesty in lifestyle and great generosity toward the poor.
No, we find that the very ones who would conquer America for Christ view material prosperity as a sign of God’s favor. They zealously oppose taxation of the rich and view government assistance for the poor and the disabled as rewarding the irresponsible and encouraging sloth.
Last year, Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition declared its number one legislative priority was making permanent the 2001 tax cuts for the rich. Another high priority is the partial privatization of Social Security.
Although the Old Testament and Jesus agree we should lend our money out without charging interest, and that, indeed, to charge interest is the sin of usury, the economic agenda of conservative Christian leaders is focused on ensuring that interest income is not even taxed.
Jesus, the supposed founder of Christianity said give up your property and serve the poor. These people not only don’t’ do that (understandable) the exalt unfettered free-market competition and the accumulation of private property.
We American like to pat ourselves on the back for being generous with foreign aid. But as a portion of our economy, we are second to last among industrialized nations. Only Italy gives less. While the decidedly irreligious nations of Scandinavia give far more.
I realize that the partisans of every faith fall short of their ideals. But we have a situation where in Jesus’ name religious leaders pursue a public agenda practically the opposite of what he stood for, and I think it’s time somebody pointed that out.