Jesus has been kidnapped. His captors are dressing him as a CEO, in pinstriped suits and Italian leather shoes, using him to ‘inspire’ the poor. Others, reacting in anger to this gussied-up Jesus, have no idea what he really looks like and have decided they hate him. If you see Jesus on the loose, he’s a short Middle-Eastern guy with a long beard. He’ll be the wild-eyed guy preaching about the corruption of wealth. Please, if you should happen to come across him, just let him go.
Seriously, what the hell has happened to Jesus? A few weeks ago in Texas, Rick Perry and some Christians called a prayer meeting for their state and our nation. The United States is apparently on the wrong track, and these folks decided we need to ask God to bring it back. So what did they do? They rented a stadium, dressed up in expensive suits and prayed that God would save the country from the Democrats. Then, a few days ago, Rick Perry was asked about Dr. King’s civil rights work, the furnace for which was Christian churches. In response, Perry proudly proclaimed that America ought to be about freedom. “Freedom from over-taxation, over-regulation…” He took a question about civil rights in the U.S. and shifted it to ultra-conservative tax policy. Stay classy, governor.
But Perry isn’t the only one who is holding Jesus against his will. Every Sunday, mega-preachers gather in mega-churches and get paid mega-salaries to tell people that if they just pray hard enough and give some cash, Jesus will bless them with untold wealth and physical healing. This is something Jesus evidently did not have the power to do for himself, as, to quote Jesus, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” That’s what happens to revolutionaries. They end up homeless and hijacked.
The reaction to Jesus by progressives is just as sad. Often, liberals are angry at the Jesus created by conservatives, so they berate him and declare themselves free of superstition. But that’s like writing Harry Potter a hate letter. The pinstripe Jesus is not real! The Jesus some liberals dislike is, in large part, a creation of fiscal and social conservatives whose position has more to do with culture than faith. Instead of railing against a make-believe Jesus, we liberals ought to take a look at the Gospel of Luke.
I’ve been using Luke 6 in my meditation time this week, and wow, did Jesus have it in for wealthy folks. “Woe to you who are full now,” he says, “for you will be hungry… Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.” The Jesus Seminar scholars translate ‘woe’ as ‘damn you.’ Yikes.
Remember that Jesus lived in a politically dangerous time. He was on what he probably began to see was going to be the losing side of the fight for Jewish independence from Rome. So he began talking about the Kingdom of God, this state of wholeness (like Shalom in a way) which is “inside you,” but is also a future hope for a better state of affairs in the world. Those who are rich and in charge now? Damn them, Jesus said. It’s the poor who are closest to realizing the kingdom of God, because they know what’s really important.
Now THAT Jesus has a message for our time. The homeless Palestinian peasant and martyr Jesus reminds us over and over again that being rich shouldn’t be our goal. Shalom, the Commonwealth of God, that’s the objective. What would Luke’s Jesus say to a nation which has declared that the ‘American Dream’ is to accumulate enough wealth to rent a stadium for a meeting during which a prayer about tax policy is offered? I think he’d say it’s time for a come-to-Jesus meeting.
Have you ever seen “The Gospel of Supply-Side Jesus”? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7M
Thanks Andy, for the reminder that the version of Christianity that so often annoys me these days is based on the Jesus that is a “creation of fiscal and social conservatives”. In my more reflective moments, I remember that Jesus preached a gospel of compassion. I read into your blog post that true compassion necessarily includes sharing wealth rather than accumulating wealth.
Jesus supported Liquidation of the Kulaks too.
Jim:
Although I agree that Jesus may have encouraged the faithful to “share the wealth” I don’t recall anytime where he said that a minority of people should use the government and the threat of prison to take from some and give to others. Also, Peter said something to the affect that those that don’t work shouldn’t eat and he was tapped by Jesus to be the leader of the church.
Rev. Andy:
Do you not find it a but hypocritical to ridicule conservatives for co-opting Jesus for their purposes while simultaneously doing the same thing to support your politics? Does this society place too much value on wealth? Yes. But that is not the exclusive domain of conservatives.
Preach it, brother Andy.
Wes: No, I don’t find it hypocritical at all. I am arguing that Jesus had much to say about the dangers of wealth. That’s theology. It leads to action in the world. You may call that politics, I suppose. That right-wing politicians are doing theology poorly to justify policy and pander to their constituents is sad to me. And I don’t find it necessary to always insist that each side is equally guilty of every transgression. I don’t think liberals are co-opting Jesus in the political arena to the degree that ultra-conservatives are.
And as far as your comment to Jim, I didn’t hear him say anything about throwing anyone in jail. If you believe that people who need help from the government only need help because they don’t work hard enough, we have a fundamental disagreement. Peter was talking about people who were being lazy, then taking charity that should have gone to someone else. I have needed government help, and it wasn’t because I wasn’t working. Both my wife and I were working pretty hard at the time, actually. I believe that wealthy people in a society should share with those who are struggling, just as happened in Acts 2. Most wealthy people aren’t wealthy because they work so hard, you know.
Rev. Andy: Thank-you for your comments. I appreciate your values even if I don’t share them in total. However, although I do agree with you that Jesus had many dire warnings for the wealthy I feel that many who believe as you do take His words to mean that government should compel certain people to contribute more. I do believe that Christians should share what they can and help others but to be compelled to do it is not charity. Likewise simply because we feel a certain segment of society is over-blessed doesn’t give us a moral right to take extra from them. Which was what I was alluding to in my comment to Jim in that failure to comply with the governments tax policy can result in prison. I know I don’t feel particularly devout when I pay my taxes.
With regard to who is more guilty of using (or mis-using) Christian scripture to support their political agendas I submit that liberals are less guilty of it for no other reason than Jesus is somewhat less popular with them. Throughout Christian history everyone has assumed that Jesus was on their side. Taken too far and it leads to violence and hatred as has so often been the case. That is why Jesus taught people to have faith, to voluntarily share or give up their wealth. “All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need.” That is beautiful but to be successful it has to be based on freewill.
One last thought and then I will leave you in peace. Instead of wasting time and money going to war against the wealthy, a war that we are always going to lose without resorting to violence, why not influence the people you can? Encourage them to read what Jesus said and to put that into practice in their daily lives. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked and house the homeless. Instead of saying “some-one should do something” say “what can I do”.
Thank-you again for the thought provoking words. I hope I have not given offense as that was not my intent. Shalom.
Greetings, Rev. Andy:
While no Christian can argue that Jesus doesn’t want His followers to feed, clothe and comfort the poor, some Christians do argue that Jesus opposes PUBLIC assistance to the poor. The rationale is that public assistance is compulsory, and thus robs us of the opportunity to be charitable as private individuals.
My feeling is that this is little more than a plausible rationalization of an ideology that opposes cooperative, civic ventures.
What do you think about Jesus and public assistance?
Wes: Absolutely no offense taken at all by me. You’re welcome here anytime. I’m glad you stopped by.
I will say I believe one of your arguments tends toward a logical fallacy. When one groups makes a claim about Jesus, say that he doesn’t like public assistance, another group which values Jesus might argue the opposite. The second group, the respondents, is accused of ‘doing the same thing’ as the first group. That’s not the case. That argument is a good way to allow the first group access to Jesus while denying it to anyone who disagrees with them.
Overalls: I can’t say what Jesus would think of public assistance himself. As one who has been influenced by Jesus’ teachings, I believe we must use our tax system as one method among many to ensure economic justice. If we can’t ask government to ensure economic justice, then government also can’t prevent crime (often caused by economic inequalities), for example. Many other pieces of civil society hinge on economics.
The argument against government action here seems to be that people should give voluntarily. That doesn’t seem to happen on a large enough scale. Government is, in my opinion, required to act.