What would Jesus do?

I don't know that any true Christian Conservative willingly supports the notion of "embracing war and profit." Are there people who do? Well, maybe, but do you see them as being either Christian or Conservative? Sure, maybe they "vote" that way... according to current preconceived notions of what that might be or the party that might tend to fall under in our time, but... is that legitimate? Isn't spirituality based a bit more in truth than those amorphous social and political labels?

My question is, what's your definition of Christian Conservative? The problem is, these political parties group people into bunches that, when it comes down to it, don't necessarily see all issues and things the same way... but due to priorities and wanting to win elections and popular support, concessions are made and groups formed.

There are many that consider themselves Christian and Conservative, but perhaps not in the same sect or sense to which you're referring, that are not staunchly opposed to some of the trends occurring in our country and government right now that so many are labeling as Socialist. Does this make them better Christians? Better Conservatives? Maybe you're just not referring to them in your definition of "ultimate irony." Regardless, spirituality, to me, does not come from a group, and to be honest, neither does conservatism, generally speaking. These things are based on the ideals and actions of any given individual.

My point is, things are never as clear cut as they seem... Christian, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Socialist... so much room for inclusion, exclusion, fluctuation of actual ideals and actions. While I understand your point and question, that many do fit the current stereotypical or ideological mold that you're referring to, I don't think that the labels are productive, and therefore categorizing people in groups becomes quite the quagmire in terms of discussion. Further, equating Socialist values and Socialism with Christian beliefs, while seemingly appropriate in some ways, just doesn't really sit well with my perspective. Again, generalization of labels and equating political and religious values just seems a slippery slope to me.

What would Jesus do? While I am always curious how people aspire to know save for example by scripture, I'm not sure that question applies to what's happening in our country's economic and political climate, at least not without clarification, nor do I think He would fit into any of our socio-politically labeled groups and/or support one label over another.

 

Irreligious people who think they know the minds of Christians can rationalize their way into strawman dilemmas such as the one posed in this thread.

Christians probably shouldn't get so worked up about the government taking or redistributing their money. But, paying taxes is not giving money to charity. And, Christians were not asked to surrender their responsibilities in voting when they were told to render to Caesar. They have an opinion on our governance and should be heard in proportion to their voting power.

 

Interesting thread.

There is a basic problem with comparing what was the political situation in first Century Judea with what exist now. The concept of separation of church and state didn't really exist then so in that sense Jesus was as much a political philosopher as he was religious. The other problem is to the extant that Jesus was a political and economic philosopher his view was an extremely utopian view even for his times. Communism or laissez faire capitalism are utopian views also and none of them have proven to be practical in a real world application. So while there are some lessens to be learned from Jesus' teaching I'm not sure how much could be directly applied to current economic debates.

 

Jesus would sell all his earthly possessions and go around the country preaching the kingdom of God


so what?

 

Jesus would say:

Why do you remember my name when you push your political agenda, but completely abandon me when you're ordering the kill of my children???!!
Even the Beard that lives in the island that you drool over, does not kill under my name....(long pause) but my father forgives you.

Come forth my little right winger, follow me, and you too can spread my message. All I ask... is.... to give to the other countries, what belongs to the other countries, for ambition has blinded you.

-Jesus would then go hang out with marcos in mexico.. catch a chivas game, and then travel to el salvador. Once there, He would give a speech at archbishop romero's tomb, where he would quote the great archbishop:

""Those who surrender to the service of the poor through love of Christ, will live like the grains of wheat that dies. It only apparently dies. If it were not to die, it would remain a solitary grain. The harvest comes because of the grain that dies We know that every effort to improve society, above all when society is so full of injustice and sin, is an effort that God blesses; that God wants; that God demands of us". "I am bound, as a pastor, by divine command to give my life for those whom I love, and that is all Salvadoreans, even those who are going to kill me."


Then some young kid with a camera would post the speech on youtube, where it would get more hits than a lady gaga video, only to have some intern at the CIA flag it.

 

You would make a good pastor.

 

I still don't see that. The government was under Roman rule - Caesar (who was not religious). The religious people in Jesus' region were mostly Jewish. The Roman's weren't Jewish and the Jewish weren't Roman (for the most part). Maybe though if you think about the Romans tolerated the Jewish leaders because they seemed to keep the crowd in control. And in order to keep the Romans happy and visa versa, they may have done some favors for the Romans and the Romans in turn may have looked the other way on some of thier laws. But I still don't see the religious people as the government because the Jewish people of the time did not run the government.

 

You keep on saying that and I tell you it ain't going to happen. I'm not about to give you and MadMax any competition.

 

I'm with you...when I have more time I'll post on this.

The idea that spirtuality and politics are separate was not one that first century Judaism or Christianity would support.

 

But the Romans had to sanction the temple. As I already said they kept the Jewish leaders religious outfits locked away, and decided what holidays they would allow them use the outfits for.

The Roman Garrison was directly adjacent to the Jewish Temple. The Romans shut down certain holidays because those religious celebrations had the possibility of being too dangerous politically.

It is true that Ceasar wasn't Jewish. But Judaism was officially allowed by the Roman Govt. Paul's letters as he was establishing the church go directly to the point. The guy was writing from Jail. He was in jail in part because of the intertwining of politics and religion at the time.

It is true that the Jewish people didn't completely run the government, but they were clearly part of an alliance that had substantial sway in politics they were heavily involved. That's how they they persuaded the govt. to capture Jesus in the first place. The leaders of the temple wanted something done. They went to the rulers, and it was the will of those leaders that was carried out. It leaves little doubt they held political sway. It wasn't a secret. It was the way things worked back then.

 

you're arguing an entirely different point.

 

Hmmmm... I'm really confused. I think everyone should define politics (as they see it) before proceeding.

I don't think politics mattered to Jesus. Was he being political unintentionally? I can see that. But intentionally? I don't know about that.

Very interested to hear more on this.

 

Jesus would wear a tuxedo t-shirt because it says, "hey, I'm formal but I like to party."

 

Not really. The OP presented two ideas, the definition of a Christian and a Christians responsibility towards government. I was pointing out that regardless if a Christian should steer towards socialism or the sort, it really doesn't matter as this country was not found on the princles of Christianity, but freedom.

 

The biggest problem with saying that Jesus wasn't political is that there simply isn't a context for the notion that the spiritual and the political aren't connected....whether you were first century Jew or a first century Roman. Both groups connected religion and politics. The idea that some things are spiritual and some things aren't would be completely foreign.

For me personally...Jesus absolutely invades my political thought. He doesn't ask for branches of my life...the things that are easy. He's busy chopping away at the whole tree. I don't know that it means that people who follow Christ have to end up in the same place politically, though...because voting always involves some compromise of one value in hopes of pursuing another.

A lot of what is below is taken from "Jesus for President"...but the sources contributing to that are many.

Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God in stark contrast to the "kindgom" of Caesar. To earthly kindgoms.

The word gospel (evangelion) meant an imperial pronouncement that was good news. These pronouncements carried with them political ceremonies to celebrate the idea that an heir to the throne was born...or that a battle had been won. The early church co-opted the word in direct juxtaposition to signal the news that the Kingdom of God is at hand.

The Gospels, particularly Luke, present the idea that the political authorities were shaking in their boots at the notion of the birth of the Christ.

"Christ" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word, Messiah. This was the name known by the Romans as the name Jews used for their leader, annointed by God and the people. Herod was King of the Jews...so it was a political issue when Jesus was considered to be the same. To use the word "king" or "savior" at that time about someone who was not....was criminal.

Son of God was a title often used by emperors...the early Church ascribed it to Jesus, instead. Alexander the Great called himself the King of Kings as well as Son of God. Remember again the verse Jesus speaks about "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's"...the very notion that Caesear and God were someone distinct entities was heresy to Rome.

Ekklesia is a Greek word used for a local public assembly within the Roman Empire...like a town meeting. They performed political AND religious duties, because there was no separation seen between the 2. The Early Church co-opted this word for the the Church, itself. They set themselves up as local communities of an alternative society to the Roman imperial order.

Savior - a title given to Caesar Augustus....a title given to Jesus Christ. Rome already had a savior..it was Caesar. He had a gospel. They adopted his birthday as the beginning of their new year. It was said he brought an end to war and set things in order. The Church establishes that there is another...with an entirely different banner and agenda. And the early Church rejects like CRAZY the notion that Caesar is superior to Jesus...or that his agenda is.

The writings of the early Church reflect not only an abandonment of the State...but a complete opposition to it. To join the Way, as it was called, was to abandon any post of political power....any role in its military or instruments of death....and to abandon it's marketplaces in exchange for the abundance of interdependence. Jesus tells them and demonstrates to them again and again that they are to be shaking off nationalism...and the early Church talks about being born again into a new identity and a new family...where nations and borders are of no concern. Where the leader rides in on a donkey instead of a war horse...where the sufferer is victorious. Where power is measured in terms of mercy instead of might. Where violence is made a spectacle of. Quote after quote from letters of early church leaders and those outside the Church commenting on it prove that up.

Letter to Origen: "The Christians form among themselves secret societies that exist outside the system of laws...an obscure and mysterious community founded on revolt and the advatage that accrues from it."

Tertullian: "We are charged with being irreligious people and, what is more irreligious in respect to the emperors since we refuse to pay religious homage to their imperial majesties and to their genius and refuse to swear by them. High treason is a crime of offense against the Roman religion. It is a crime of open irreligion, a rasing of the hand to injure the deity...Christians are considered to be enemies of the State. We do not celebrate the festivals of the Caesars. Guards and informers bring up accusations against the Christians...blasphemers and traitors...we are charged with sacrilege and high treason...we give testimony to the truth."

Justin - "He called Abraham and commanded him to go out from the country where he was living. With this call God has roused us all, and now we have left the state. We have renounced all the things the world offers."

[Origen, quoting Celsus] - "If everyone were to act the same as you Christians, the national government would soon be left utterly deserted and without any help, and affairs on earth would soon pass into the hands of the most savage and wretched barbarians. [Origen] - Celsus exhorts us to help the Emperor and his fellow soldiers. To this we reply: "you cannot demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests." We do not go forth as soldiers with the Emperor even if he demands this. [Origen goes on to say that if the Romans followed the teachings of Jesus, there would be no more barbarians]

Speratus - "I recognize no empire of this present age."

Hippolytus - "The professions and trades of those who are going to be accepted into the community must be examined. The nature and type of each must be established...brothel, sculptors of idols, charioteer, athlete, gladiator...give it up or be rejected. A military constable must be fobidden to kill, neither may he swear; if he is not willing to follow those instructions, he must be rejected. A proconsul or magistrate who wears the purple and governs by the sword shall give it up or be rejected. Anyone taking or already baptized who wants to become a soldier shall be sent away, for he has despised God."

Tatian - "I do not wish to be a ruler. I do not strive for wealth. I refuse offices connected with military command. I despise death."

Justin Martyr - "We ourselves were well conversant with war, murder and everything evil. But all of us through the whole wide earth have traded in our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for plowshares, our spears for farm tools....now we cultivate the fear of God, justice, kindness, faith and the expectation of the future given us through the crucified one...the more we are persecuted and martyred, the more do others, in ever increasing numbers, become believers."

 

Madmax-I would like to read this book. ( I better buy a copy)

While in no way do I personally see following Christ having political motivations- so to speak with a primary object to shape the government or decide it's policy, Christian faith affects every single thing a Christian does from voting to paying taxes to writing or contacting representatives etc.- so there is not a separation in the impact a Christian's faith makes on government from anything else in his life. In that way Christians impact the policy and governance of people.

But at the same time the motive to live in the Kingdom of Heaven where Jesus is King bears no responsibility to change or affect politics where belief in the good news of the gospel itself cannot. That is an idea to ponder.

Since I have not read this book I risk misunderstanding I would like to express opinions and comments as food for thought- Madmax I always appreciate your declaration of Christian views and faith please comment or email

-awesome

Herod mistakenly made it a political issue as did others, Jesus never made it a political issue because He contrasted the Kingdoms, one kingdom had observable politics the other kingdom in contrast existed in the heart. This is why Jesus entire focus was a change of heart not a change of policy or goverance. Without a spiritual dynamic of change internally Jesus stated that men were building without a foundation. This contrast was seen in many examples, for instance Jesus said in the political kingdoms masters ruled, in the Kingdom of Heaven masters served. This required a spiritual dynamic in the heart of man. Love did not need a politic because there was no other governing rule, creed or constitution- it is not consistent IMHO to suggest that Jesus made His being King of the Jews or the Son of God a political issue, and the same could be said for Paul, Peter and John by their testimony- Paul especially faced several government inquiries and specifically made a case that His beliefs were non-political emphasizing instead that a change of heart was needed. He pleaded with government leaders to embrace the message of Jesus, and he did not once bring up a policy or politic. Instead of addressing the tax system, Jesus asked for honest hearts, especially from the tax collectors.

. this makes Jesus the anti-political figure since he took no earthly seat of government; what was important to the politics of that day was who sat on the throne of government. Politics in the first century rested solely on who sat on the thrones and who they placed in positions of power. Jesus reference to being King clearly was connected to a position not on the earth (throne if you will)

this is making a broad assumption that a local church assembly for fellowship of the believers is 'like a town meeting' when in fact town meetings were held to affect goverance and decide political opinion, action and sects and discuss local problems and national issues.- nothing could be further from the purpose and actual substance of an Ekklesia. The fact that the church recognized Jesus as King and superior to all other Kings affected how Christians lived, served and obeyed their government, or did not obey their government, so while it would obviously be perceived by those outside as political for the believers at least in the bible it was simply choosing to obey Jesus regardless of the politics of the day. They would obey God rather than man even if it upset the apple cart of the political governments. This is not the same as establishing governing policy for others.

definately

cost many of them their lives

I think a better statement than opposition would be they saw their allegiance to Jesus primary to their government ... opposing implies working against, again the simple truth is in matters of belief and conscience the church refused to obey the government over the commands of Christ, Jesus was their King- I see a subtle but important difference in implication

I am not sure what is being said here but there were some great Roman soldiers who had powerful testimonies of their persecution and even death as Christians- The Theban Legion comes to mind but I haven't read those stories in a while so I would need to check that out....

. I myself cannot justify war as a Christian, to participate in such violence and death upon others goes against my King, but I know there was great controversy on this among the early Church leaders- I personally agree wholehearted with this statement

. couldn't agree more

Again I may not understand the thought of this author, but I have not found any political direction in the bible except to obey Jesus as king, regardless of what any government policy may be. I am sure that could be extrapolated to various degrees of influence in politics but not from a motive of proclaim the gospel message. To proclaim the message of Jesus requires neither politics or religion IMO

And if the author and I are saying the same thing, just reply 'fail' on this post.

 

Yes, you're really saying what the author is saying.

Ultimately he's saying that we serve a king and that king's agenda...whether that be Jesus, or some idea of ourself, or a government, etc. And he's calling out the dangers of associating the cross and the flag when the flag stands for some things that are direct opposition to the things you and I believe about what God values.

You would like this book...and you'd like more that the authors are very intentional about seeking to live a life they feel called to in response.

I can tell you it is among the most challenging books I've ever read.

 

"Jesus For President" is an awesome book. The artwork is almost as impressive as the written content.

 

I just ordered this book. If the whole thing is as awesome as this post, I'm going to love it.