Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
“Jesus for President”
Christian activist Shane Claiborne is staying busy this election year traveling around the country stumping for his candidate of choice: Jesus. The co-author of Jesus for President, Claiborne wants to see young evangelicals get politically and personally involved on issues of justice and move beyond the typical platform of the religious right. And as large crowds flock to hear him speak, it seems Claiborne’s message is resonating with young evangelicals, who represent important swing votes this fall.
… Claiborne said, “This is not about going left or right, this is about going deeper and trying to understand together. Rather than endorse candidates, we ask them to endorse what is at the heart of Jesus and that is the poor or the peacemakers and when we see that then we’ll get behind them.”
Claiborne says the movement of younger evangelicals is growing and looking at the Bible in more holistic terms. He is quick to say the call of Christ has more to do with how people live their lives on November 3 and 5 than how they vote on November 4.
Claiborne, who is also one of the founding members of a New Monastic community called The Simple Way in Philadelphia, says the whole “Jesus for President” project is about provoking Christians’ political imaginations: “The language of Jesus as Lord and savior is just as radical as it would be to say ‘Jesus as our commander in chief’ today.”
back to top71 Comments to ““Jesus for President””
“But these voters say views on abortion and homosexuality won’t define them in November. The environment and social justice are moving to the forefront of their discussions.”
This isn’t about Jesus. This is about using Jesus to further political goals. This is about compromise. Jesus never compromised. This is about cherry-picking the Gospel and applying it to politics, not salvation.
This is about trying to make Jesus an American. He is not.
Report comment to moderator
“This is about trying to make Jesus an American. He is not.”
It doesn’t take too much reading of Shane Claiborne to realize he is not trying to Americanize Jesus.
The Democratic and Republican platforms are ultimately based on economics. Claiborne is about community and the poor, serving with Mother Teresa was his highest education.
When I read Claiborne I feel old. There is that middle-aged tsk-tsking when Claiborne is so obviously full of himself and self-congratulatory. I see the pit falls that lie ahead of his idealism. But then, as a Boomer, I remember that wansting-to-change-the-world energy and wonder when my generation gave up on it.
“It is the folly of youth to think they can change the world; it is the folly of old age not to try.”–Winston Churchill
Report comment to moderator
I noticed this from the “simple way”:
A number of people have asked us to come up with some simple, practical ideas around social justice
The ideas include beating a war machine into a plow (plan on spending time in jail), reading only women authors for a year because most of our problems stem from men, and many other really stupid ideas.
we ask them to endorse what is at the heart of Jesus and that is the poor or the peacemakers
Okay. It’s not about left or right. It’s about the radical left. When it comes to them calling people to transform their neighborhoods through using their own time and money and property and efforts, fine. But what do they actually propose the government do? “Social justice”? That’s likely an oxymoron, depending on what they mean by that. If I’m helping the poor, it’s not “social justice”, it’s charity. If help is owed to and deserved to the poor, then it sounds like entitlement. Does God owe us, poor in spirit as we are, salvation?
I guess I’m not sure where this guy is going, but it sure seems like a gospel of materialism. What’s the focus? Things (or lack thereof) or Christ?
Report comment to moderator
Adios, I, too, am a boomer, but in my family, it was my sister who was the “idealistic” one, the one who was following RFK to the ends of the earth. I read the words “social justice” and I see a distortion of the Gospel, people who want the US government to do what it wasn’t designed to do. It makes them feel better, and moreso, it lets them off the hook. Pay your taxes and your good deeds are done for you. It’s easy. Social justice may be a by-product of the Gospel, but it is not the Gospel. The Gospel is not about changing the government.
Report comment to moderator
But these voters say views on abortion and homosexuality won’t define them in November. The environment and social justice are moving to the forefront of their discussions.”
Sounds just like Christian Obama supporters to me. I suspect Claiborn and the Simple Way were created by Christian who also happen to be Socialists.
Report comment to moderator
Wiglaf, NJL, Llama,
You are all saying very similar things and it hits on my problem with Claiborne. I love the work the Simple Way does in Philly, but I don’t see it as a model for government.
The best US model we have for socialism is the public school system. Do we want to do that to health care? I’m all for community schools, but our current system has become ridiculously top heavy.
Mother Teresa accepted gifts from the Indian government and from others, but in the meantime her leper community, by way of example, tries to be self-sustaining. If the Indian government stepped in it would become a nightmare of ineptness and corruption.
Social justice programs should be a temporary leg up to self-reliance, unless the program is a hospice.
Report comment to moderator
Why vote for Jesus as POTUS when He is already King of kings and Lord of lords? He already once humbled Himself to become a man, so I doubt He would humble Himself again (dare I say, further?).
Report comment to moderator
So if I’m understanding … a person’s position on abortion and homosexuality — two issues that Jesus said exactly nothing about — determine whether or not that person is a real Christian.
And a person’s position on social justice and poor — topics that Jesus spoke about often and at great length — is irrelevant.
It’s almost funny how detached from reality you guys are. You don’t even feel a need to actually heed the words of the one you call savior.
Report comment to moderator
All of this talk about “Jesus for president” is silly. Several of you said it isn’t about Jesus, it’s about politics. And Peter L says he is already King of Kings. When politicians talk about “social justice” they are talking socialism. This is a way to convince naive Christians to think they are doing something good. To them social justice is:
Freedom of choice (abortion), marriage equality (homosexual marriage), open borders, government medical insurance (socialized medicine), fair taxation (income redistribution), etc.
The Bible says social justice is: Impartial judgment, “Woe to them who call evil good, and good, evil” etc. (Is. 5:20), “It is joy to the just to do justice”. Prov. 21:15.
There is no way we can support any type of civil government from scripture.
I believe that Christ will someday establish His kingdom on earth, but that’s another subject. Jesus is certainly not going to be president subject to the whims of polls, a congress and supreme court. As Wiglaf says, If I’m helping the poor, it’s charity, not “social justice”.
It’s ridiculous on the face of it.
In the story, Amy Coffin (27) has the right idea. Help a church in India. That’s her part of putting conviction to work.
Report comment to moderator
So, SteveG, exactly what words of the One I call Savior are you referring to?
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Chas, you hit the problem with SteveG’s attempt at a zing exactly.
Jesus never attached his work among the poor to government and many of us who heed his words follow his example.
It’s almost funny how SteveG misses the point most of the time.
Report comment to moderator
Every time I read comments about Shane Claiborne, one theme appears with amazing consistency: almost no one who comments has ever read anything Shane has ever written. However, that sure doesn’t stop people from assuming the title of expert and criticizing him to no end. Of course, I went to a very conservative Christian college, so I’m really not that surprised at all.
“This is about trying to make Jesus an American. He is not.”
The entire book Jesus for President is a revolt against the Americanization of Jesus. No one would agree with the fact that Jesus is not an American as would Shane Claiborne.
“The Gospel is not about changing the government.”
Yet another point Shane Claiborne would agree with completely. Here is a quote from the book…
“This is what Jesus had in mind: folks coming together, forming close-knit communities and meeting each other’s needs – no kings, no major welfare systems, no presidents necessary. His is a theology and practice for the people of God, not a set of suggestions for Empire.”
If you read any of his books, I’m sure there will be tings you will disagree with. There are a lot of things I disagree with, but please read before being so quick to bring him down.
Report comment to moderator
Everything(Do you hear the sound of screaming?) Democrats do involves them putting their hands in my wallet because “they can fix anything if you just give them enough time and enough money!” (Thomas Sowell)
STEVEG, HRW, ANLIR and friends, Say it ain’t so!
Report comment to moderator
JCMcLendon,
It is good to see that no one has said he is part of the Emergent church or associated with Willow Creek, blah, blah, blah, which is a common way of dismissing a person as unorhodox and therefore unhearable.
I am glad the thread so far is just wrestling with his ideas and ways of following Christ.
Report comment to moderator
jpmclendon,
Thanks for answering my question. That helps. I think it’s unfortunate that he and others choose to use a phrase like “social justice.” It will likely hurt his cause with many who associate it with liberation theology and socialism. Social justice is often associated with government enforced wealth redistribution through progressive taxation, nationalization, and other socialistic mechanisms employed for the purposes of “freeing the working man from bondage.” If he really is embarking on something “new”, he should abandon the use of the term “social justice.” Also, he should refer to it as something “old” and not “new.”
Report comment to moderator
JPMClendon, you may be correct. When discussing ideas proposed in a book, etc., we can only go on the data we are given in the posting and relevant links. I read both. That’s what I commented on. I haven’t read Clairborne’s book, and I’m afraid I’m already three books behind on my “must read” list. As Wiglaf says, this talk about “social justice” just pulls the wrong chain.
Report comment to moderator
I have read Irresisitable Revolution
Report comment to moderator
And I can even spell irresistible when given a few chances;)
Report comment to moderator
i had enough- i have now endured over 13 months on this net being ignored or deleted by every arrogant organization such as myspace and “we can solve it dot org” etc etc run by humans and just regular folk like you who have always ignored my messages since my time upon the net-
WHY- because I introduce myself as a messenger of god- my free will to believe in my inner voice- your FREE WILL to ignore me even if I bring the gift of clean abundant energy to planet earth- Over 13 months as our soldiers fight for it- our planet dies by it- and our economy is about to collapse from it
well i am done with your stupidity-
let your oil prices go up- let your food prices go up- watch your economies crumble- see your jobs lost- get rid of all your pet animals as you cannot feed your family and pet dog as so many are giving them to the pound-
I have come openly with a solution 13 months ago only to be ignored-
now a gluttonous world playing on the internet shall all learn how primitive man is and must be civil to one another- instead of shunning someone bringing forth a solution- in the months to follow- you will learn there is no alternative fuel- panic mode will set in very soon-
when you understand clearly how important energy is- i guess your arragance will stop and just implement my scientific deeds – as for my messenger duties- it will make sense in time- all is well-
time will tell
solomon azar noblefuse.com
Report comment to moderator
Adios at #11: Jesus never attached his work among the poor to government and many of us who heed his words follow his example.
It’s almost funny how SteveG misses the point most of the time.
Nah, I wasn’t saying anything about government. I was commenting on the notion expressed by NJLawyer, Llama and Wiglaf in the posts above mine that two hot-button conservative issues which Jesus never talked about are somehow a better definer of authentic Christianity than issues that Jesus did talk about.
Funnily enough, now you’ve come along to tell us how Jesus didn’t connect social ideals to government, although the conservative Christian positions on both homosexuality (or at least the marriage part of it) and abortion are entirely about having government enforce one particular set of moral ideals.
So put away the mistaken idea that I was talking about government in that particular post and tell me how I’ve missed the point exactly?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know about the rest of you, but in a thread about “Jesus for President,” government seems to be at issue.
Anyway, Adios, I agree with your posts at 6 and 11.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG, IN ACCORDANCE WITH MY EARLIER ADVICE TO MYSELF, I’M WRITING TO YOU IN ALL CAPS. PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. YOU’VE DONE THAT REPEATEDLY, AND NOW, AT THE RISK OF BEING ACCUSED OF YELLING, I’M ASKING YOU TO STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
Thank you.
Now, I recommend that the scepter holder strike comment number 19, by NOBLEFUSE from the record. He’s expecting it anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Wiglaf: Having re-read the original comment (#3), I see I was indeed mistaken to lump you in with the others.
I apologize for the error.
Report comment to moderator
Shane Claiborne says, “the whole “Jesus for President” project is about provoking Christians’ political imaginations”
That pretty much says it all.
Jesus never did anything political. His kingdom is not of this world. So they’re gonna have to have very vivid imaginations.
He never ran for office; never campaigned to feed the hungry or clothe the poor; never held rallies to clean up Rome or bring home the military; he didn’t institute healthcare or call for higher taxes to promote wealth redistribution.
He fed a few, helped a few, forgave a few. He taught people about God and then he died.
Report comment to moderator
XION,
I’m not sure Jesus didn’t do anything political.
Some could argue, quite well I would think, that Jesus’ form of ‘unusual’ politics of non violently upsetting the status quo of both the Jewish religious and Roman social ‘politicians’ got Him hung quite quickly. He was not hung as a criminal like the others crucified on a cross that day. Both Roman and Jewish politicians certainly thought Him to be a serious political and religious threat.
I think that if Jesus was not political, neither was Gandhi, or MLK and they both were political. You do not have to be voted into office to be political or a politician in the loosest sense of the word.
Report comment to moderator
Llama, I would have to agree with Xion that Jesus was not political. Where is his teachings do you find him arguing with or about the Jewish or Roman authorities? Where are his acts against these political authorities?
I could see you arguing that he might have been seen that way by the Jewish and maybe the Roman authorities because they were interested in political power, but where is it from Jesus’ perspective?
Report comment to moderator
Well, Shane is an interesting guy. I’m all for anything that breaks the mold. The Republican Party is the “pimp” and the conservative Christians are the “ho’s”. Some young folks are refusing to go quietly into that relationship. Good for them!
Report comment to moderator
Well let’s just click our heels together three times and then come back to planet earth.
Not acknowledging that abortion and homosexuality are hot button issues is denying reality.
Here’s a reality that I acknowledge every time I vote…does the candidate worship at the feet of baby-murderers (abortion lobby)?
Or does the candidate worship at the feet of the homosexual lobby?
If so, then I vote for the other candidate. I don’t sit around and write in “Jesus” on the ballot, because that’s a vote for the baby-killers.
Reality. Get some before it’s too late.
Report comment to moderator
Someone above criticized, rightly, those who are speaking against Shane Claiborne having not read his books. I have read one of his books. And I am not going to say anything too negative about him.
Someone has to stand up for the rights of the poor, the oppressed, the lowly, the helpless. Many, typically those on the left and those concerned with social justice, think that this is accomplished through the intervention of the government. Those on the right say that it’s going to happen through the free markets. So, someone above was right when they said it all boils down to the economic perspective of the speaker.
Where does that leave us? While we’re fighting over the role of government and the nature of economics, people are starving, homeless, and dying. I am strongly of one of the above economic persuasions, but whether I think government is or isn’t the solution to all of the world’s problems shouldn’t matter.
The church, and other NGO’s not necessarily associated with a particular worldview, ought to be on the streets trying to alleviate the suffering. Individuals and small groups running shelters and food banks in local areas are going to be the most effective solution, because they can build the personal relationships with those who need assistance. They can help guide them out of need and into a fulfilled life.
I think what Claiborne means by saying we should have Jesus for President is that we Christians should be living by the ideals that Christ preached. And he did live a radical life. He cared for the lost and tried to save them — not through government intervention or market access, but through getting into the trenches with them and caring for and loving them.
Report comment to moderator
Some random thoughts:
*It’s funny that the same people who decry outspoken Christians who support the Republican Platform just adore outspoken Christians who support the Democratic Platform.
*It’s sad that liberal Christians put money issues above life issues.
*It’s disingenuous for Claibourne to claim that he is not talking about political parties. He’s not considering voting Republican, is he?
*I’s a bit heavy handed for non-Christians to say that the only thing that Christians can be concerned with are things that Jesus specifically mentioned. It also shows ignorance about what Chrsitianity is, which is not merely about the exact words of Jesus but about the precepts of the Bible as a whole and the application of what Jesus said to all areas of life.
Report comment to moderator
Llama #25. Well, he came to destroy the prince of this world and establish his kingdom, but Rome was insignificant in that regard. He had the hosts of heaven at his command, but never called on them.
I agree with NJL’s answer in #26. Jesus certainly did cause political upheaval, but it was not politically motivated.
Ghandi and MLK specifically used religion to seek political results as Obama does. Jesus never once mentioned changing a single thing Rome did. Nor did he ever complain about Rome. He praised a Roman soldier, healed his child and spoke respectfully to Caesar. He paid taxes and obeyed the laws. He submitted willingly to wrongful beatings and death.
Christians should follow his lead and be model citizens. Anyone who drags the church into politics isn’t acting like Christ. He kept a clear separation between his prechurch followers and the state.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A at #30:
Some random thoughts:
Some non-random responses.
*It’s funny that the same people who decry outspoken Christians who support the Republican Platform just adore outspoken Christians who support the Democratic Platform.
And vice-versa.
*It’s sad that liberal Christians put money issues above life issues.
From my POV, it’s sad that conservative Christians elevate abortion and (especially) homosexuality above all other issues. Poverty, health and some other supposedly “liberal” issues are life issues.
*It’s disingenuous for Claibourne to claim that he is not talking about political parties. He’s not considering voting Republican, is he?
No comment here. I know nothing about him or his work.
*I’s a bit heavy handed for non-Christians to say that the only thing that Christians can be concerned with are things that Jesus specifically mentioned. It also shows ignorance about what Chrsitianity is, which is not merely about the exact words of Jesus but about the precepts of the Bible as a whole and the application of what Jesus said to all areas of life.
Which I understand. But I also think it is questionable to mock people who think poverty, health and other so-called “money issues” are important, when those are what Jesus, Paul, and pretty much everyone else in the Bible spent a lot of time talking about.
Read the New Testament, read the Old Testament prophets … you’ll find homosexuality mentioned a handful of times, abortion almost not at all (though I realize much can be inferred from the injunctions abaout murder), and poverty, justice (even “social justice” issues if not the term), love, mercy and other squishy liberal concerns talked abou over and over.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, Good works are what Christians are to do (Eph 2:10), but those things are secondary to spiritual issues.
Nowhere does the Bible advocate using political power to achieve those things, but the power of God. That is not to say Christians can’t be political, but it is not a mission of the church.
Obama on the other hand, promised to do just that, if we will only make him the most powerful man on earth. He said this in Oct 2007:”
“I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God … We’re going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.”
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
With your first response, “And vice-versa,” I agree in principle. However, I challenge the implication that conservative Christians do the converse. We certainly disagree with our liberal brothers and sisters, but I’ve never heard a fellow conservative challenge their right to voice their faith-based opinions.
Concerning abortion, other than the murder of fully born people, it is in my mind the most egregious act a person can commit. By the way, I don’t say that based on the biblical prohibition of murder but rather on the biblical precept that people are created in God’s image and on the passages that speak of God’s knowing and calling people while still in the womb. The next baby that you kill might be the one who would grow up and solve the energy crisis or find a cure for cancer.
Concerning homosexuality, I think most Christians would be content to leave the issue alone, but once it becomes a question of public policy, then they have every right to speak about it and work to shape those policies. I can’t think of any anti-homosexual activism until there was pro-homosexual activism.
You have a strange way of interpreting the Bible. It doesn’t matter if something is mentioned 100 times or 1 time. It’s all the word of God, and every biblical precept is important. Perhaps some are more important than others, but God never indicates that we should ignore things He only mentioned a few times.
Poverty and health care are not “life” issues in the same way that abortion is. True, poverty and lack of good health care can lead to premature death, but abortion always does. And when I wrote about money issues, what I meant was that liberals seem to care more about redistributing money than about the sanctity of life itself. A living poor person is better than a dead one whose mother got “government” money to pay for an abortion.
Steve G: “I know nothing about him or his work.”
Don’t be coy. When a person downplays abortion and emphasizes “social justice,” do you think that person sounds like a devout Republican?
Did Paul ever say that the imperial government of Rome should be spreading wealth around, or did he say that the church should be helping those in need? Did he ever say that people should be forced to support others, or did he say that people should give voluntarily? Did he say that all indigent people should be given free food and housing, or did he say that all able-bodied people should work and that families should support their own family members in need?
Report comment to moderator
Let me start by admitting that I only read a portion of Claiborn’s book. I didn’t and wouldn’t continue to read it because the little portion that I read (mostly his views on war and killing) seemed stupid and childish to me. Ironically, his outrage against killing revolved only around circumstances of war.
Steveg: Nobody I’ve met (including leftards who don’t know how to truly help the poor) is against compassion and helping the poor. So your tirade against those who consider giving “irrelevant” is… well… irrelevant.
Btw following your logic, do we then consider God neutral on issues (say, like the halfway delivery of a baby, then the puncture of it’s skull, and subsequent extraction of it’s brain and innards) just because it wasn’t spelled out for you by Jesus? I wonder what your opinion is on slavery, illegal drug use, child abuse, spousal abuse, sex outside of marriage, and many more, since Jesus said nothing specifically against these things either.
Report comment to moderator
Back to Claiborn. I think there is a generation of people who are ultra-juiced up on good intentions so much, that they are free to forego prudence. Claiborn and current pro-obama young Christian movement is an example of it. But it shouldn’t come as a surprise. These are kids. Speaking as a kid, I can say simply, we go for hype. Obama is hype. The kids are simply a shoo in after that.
Report comment to moderator
LOL. The worm turns and Conservative Evangelicals have only themselves to blame. This is what happens when you mix the Church itself with politics and power.
Report comment to moderator
I note that no one has been able to point out where Jesus took a political position.
Report comment to moderator
NJlawyer,
From wikipedia on Politics, definition:
“Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. Politics consists of “social relations involving authority or power” and refers to the regulation of a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.”
Jesus was very political, but his kingdom is not of this world. Of course, he surely upset the politics of the pharisees and sadducees. He upset the politics of the temple and money changers. He was intimately involved with the affairs of Israelite politics throughout the old testament.
NJLawyer, maybe you have a narrower definition, but I think the Triune God has plenty to say about politics in all spheres. Christ’s action on the cross itself could be considered “political” in regards to the kingdom of God. It seems an inappropriate usage of the word because of how we view politicians, but it can still apply.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne, Jr (haven’t seen you around much. Glad you are back) #35- You said Jesus did not say much about several things, including “sex outside of marriage,” but in the story about the woman caught in adultery, he told her to “go and sin no more.” Thus he declared sex outside of marriage a sin.
NJL #38- I note that no one has been able to point out where Jesus took a political position.
How about “Render unto Caesar…”? Isn’t that telling us to pay taxes?
Report comment to moderator
Regarding ‘Jesus for President’.
Isn’t voting for Obama the next best thing? In Oct 2007 he said wants to be an instrument of God to bring heaven on earth.
Report comment to moderator
#37 CB – “Conservative Evangelicals have only themselves to blame”
You are mixing two issues here. My beef is not that Obama is expressing his faith in public. My issue is with the brand of religion he is preaching for political gain.
Government is required to stay out of religious matters. The gag order of the Establishment Clause was supposed to be on government, not the people.
What I object to is Obama’s gospel of self promotion, promising heaven itself if you will only vote for him.
Promising heaven in exchange for power is akin to selling indulgences. Who will nail 99 theses on the White House door?
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A at #34: Did Paul ever say that the imperial government of Rome should be spreading wealth around, or did he say that the church should be helping those in need?
The problem with the comparison is that the government of Rome, and in fact, every government of the ancient world, was conducted under a very different mindset than that of America.
Ancient Greece may have been the closest thing to a fair comparison, and even that’s a far stretch.
Most governments have existed to allow a small number of people to have power and authority over the masses. They have chosen leaders through hereditary succession, by means of coup d’etat or other means.
America, in contrast, is as Lincoln put it, “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Our leaders come to power because the put them there, not because they inherit the office. Presidents do not have the divine right of kings, as in Olde Englande, and the government has power only by “the consent of the governed.” (Declaration of Independence.)
Because of this fundamental difference, I think the question is fundamentally changed. In a despotic Empire such as Rome, the government had no commonality with the citizenry. In America, the government is drawn from the ranks of the citizenry, selected by vote of the citizenry. The government is the citizenry, or a subset of same, and as such, has more of both a legitimate role and a duty born of common cause to provide some support for the poorer citizens.
And it is not an either/or question. The church can and should help all it can. But the church lack the resources, the infrastructure and, in too many cases, the passion to do more than make a small dent here and there in the true need.
If the church COULD solve it, I’d be more than happy to let it. Obviously, it cannot, or will not.
Report comment to moderator
Telling you to paying your taxes is telling you to respect the governing authority. It doesn’t challenge that governing authority.
But you forget the other half of the sentence, the thing Jesus was really after “… and render unto God what is God’s.” Paying taxes is great, but rendering unto God requires an act by the individual.
When Jesus “upset” the Pharisees and the Sadducees, it was about their duty, etc towards GOD, not the government. Turning over the moneychanging tables was purifying the temple, teaching them that they’d disrespected God. Jesus was offended that the House of Prayer had been used for other purposes.
Now, I understand what Wiglaf is telling me in #39, but when you attempt to substitute the government for Christ’s Kingdom, you have forgotten the “not of this world” part. Christ requires the individual to act, not pawn it all off on the government.
Report comment to moderator
And in response to SteveG, I would submit that the “people” in this country, given their druthers, would not accept the redistribution of their wealth to those who will not work. They don’t have a problem with those who can’t work, but they do have a problem with those who won’t. Nor is it in the Constitution — the document the people signed onto — that it is the government’s duty to redistribute the wealth of the citizenry. It’s just not there. Nor is there anything in there that requires the donations of the “Global Poverty Act.”
Not that any Democrat will ever speak honestly about that.
Report comment to moderator
when you attempt to substitute the government for Christ’s Kingdom
No where did I suggest we ought to do that.
Christ requires the individual to act, not pawn it all off on the government.
I don’t disagree with you. The question of whether or not Christ was “political” is an important one, though, because it can help address what IS the responsibility of good government and why some things should not be pawned off on government.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer, perhaps you thought I was stating something I wasn’t. I’m not into “social justice” as my previous comments make so very clear.
Report comment to moderator
Wiglaf, I put two comments by you and PeterL together. And I am guilty of using the word “you” improperly. I should have used “one” instead. I also added in the social justice stuff of the liberal posters. My comment was not really directed at any one posted, but rather the overall discussion.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAwyer: The levers or buttons of the voting machine are as open to as they are to me. Vote for the people whose views best represent yours, and I will do the same, and we’ll see who wins.
Ancient Romans didn’t have that freedom.
Nor is it in the Constitution — the document the people signed onto — that it is the government’s duty to redistribute the wealth of the citizenry. It’s just not there.
No, but neither does anything there forbid it. It remains open for legislative and judicial decisions.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L: My point is that in one way or another Jesus confirmed the rules of the old testaments without expressly mentioning it. My point is also that he didn’t have to. Therefore, the lazy Bible reader’s “Jesus didn’t talk about…” is a weak excuse.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr.: Do you believe, then, that Christians today should take the Old Testament moral laws as a guide?
Report comment to moderator
But SteveG, what happened to government by the people? The people granted certain powers to the federal government and reserve the balance to the states. I realize the Constitution gets in the way of the socialist agenda, I don’t think you can create powers, which are different than rights, without a constitutional amendment.
Report comment to moderator
And right now in NJ, probably not in time for November, the voting machines purchased by Democrats specifically because the model doesn’t have a paper trail (when one with a paper trail was available) are being challenged. Not a lot of confidence there.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg: Why do you ask?
Report comment to moderator
Oh, oh. Fyne Jr. is about to get an earful about stoning kids and beating slaves.
Let me head this off by correcting one little word. Jesus did not confirm the OT, he fulfilled it. In other words, the laws there were not models for people to follow for all time, but were a temporary illustration to teach God’s people about their Messiah (Gal 3:24,25)
A good God, a really, really good God, cannot tolerate anything that is not good. That is just, but also really, really severe. Jesus fulfilled the law and abolished it. Why? Because once the object of the lesson arrived, there was no more need for the lesson.
Report comment to moderator
XION: Why d’you think I asked, instead of giving him an answer to a phony question that was simply intended as the set up to a belligerent tirade?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: The Constitution does give the federal government the power to levy taxes and raise revenue. The income tax specifically was added later by amendment.
The management of social welfare programs is neither required nor forbidden in the Constitution. It’s not mentioned at all. If it were clearly unconstitutional, the courts would have ruled it such by now.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr.: It wouldn’t have been a “belligerent tirade” … I am far calmer than that … but Xion did see through my little ruse, I admit.
Xion, you do get to the heart of the matter. The New Testament, to me, seems to say that morality is not about following codes and rules, it is about following the spirit of the law. But many Christians will reach back to the Old Testament to cite this law or that as evidence that something is sin … but ignore much else that is there on the grounds that Christ fulfilled and abolished it.
So some people say that if Jesus didn’t talk about a particular thing, it wasn’t a priority of his (that doesn’t mean he approved it, just that it wasn’t high on his list of things people need to be admonished about), and others respond that just because he didn’t mention it doesn’t mean it’s not important, because we have to take the Bible as a whole as the guide to God’s moral laws.
OK, fair enough … but then, what does that actually mean in practice? The commandment to kill your children for pursuing another religion is in the Bible and is a command of God. So we can say we no longer have to do that (or enforce the death penalty for a lot of other sins as commanded in the OT), because of what Jesus did, but then any sense of consistency is broken because inevitably an Old Testament passage will get cited as authoritative AND as still operative, in some other debate.
It seems to me to be based on pragmatism. Want a clear and unambiguous declaration that homosexuality is a sin? Leviticus is your go-to. But then, why do we no longer have to obey any of a hundred other commandments we find in the Old Testament? Well, because Jesus fulfilled the Law and put it away, don’t you see?
As the Church Lady might say, How conveeeeeenient!
I am not just trying to be snarky here. It really does look to me like simple pragmatism at work. When the Old Testament supports your argument, bring it in. When it doesn’t, or when it requires something that no longer sounds reasonable (like parents executing their own children) then, “it no longer applies.”
I’ve yet to hear any clear explanation for how that works.
Report comment to moderator
It is amazing how the liberals on this board avoid answering the simple question of whether or not they believe Jesus is the Way, that he is who he says he is. Instead, the play these “argument” games.
Report comment to moderator
#56 I know. I know. I’m just tired of tirades.
Report comment to moderator
#58 SteveG
True for the most part, but you are confusing faith and practice. I agree with nearly every criticism you have of Christians. We’re no better than anyone and sometimes worse. Christ is all we’ve got.
Plenty of Christians misuse and misunderstand the law. I’m the first one to point out that ministers love certain things in the law like tithing, which we are told conveniently still apply.
On the other hand, there is nothing unjust in the law. It is horrible and offensive and bloody and awful and for the most part bizarre. But that simply illustrates that to be on the wrong side of an all powerful God of perfection is also horrible and bloody and awful. Aren’t you glad Christ provides a way of escape?
As far as what is right and wrong, the principles of the law are still valid. Homosexuality is still wrong as Paul explains. But so is lusting after people you’re not married to. Jesus condemned far more than the law ever did. What has changed is the penalty, which Christ paid for us.
I am against the disproportionate war against homosexuality while ignoring worse sins. The worst sin of all is religious folks claiming to be better than any one else. It is a putrid false and hellish lie. It is the only sin that really ticked Jesus off. We’re all on the same level before God. We differ only in whose penalty was paid off or not – through faith.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer $59: The problem is, you assume that because the gospel of John records Jesus saying “I am the way, the truth,” etc., that Jesus did say it. And to you the question is just, do you believe Jesus is who he said he is.
To me the prior question that has to be answered is, did Jesus really say that?
That is no game, it’s a totally legitimate point.
Report comment to moderator
As to the assertion that Jesus was apolitical: Such a reading is only possible if one maintains an a priori position that Jesus’ words must be extracted from his socio-historical context and universalized into “spiritual speak” thus becoming a circular argument.
Jesus, as some of you have pointed out, certainly spoke to spiritual realities however to suggest that his concerns weren’t also with the affairs of this present world (political, economic, religious, etc.) is naive and disingenuous. (As an aside, I should also point out the assumption that the political, economic, and religious structures of our would are somehow distinct from or not infused with the spiritual comes not from the bible but from Platonic philosophy.)In fact, I believe the socio-historical context of Jesus incarnation to be of such import that it is quite difficult (perhaps impossible?) to understand Him outside of it. In order to appropriately understand the scriptures we need both the Holy Spirit and an understanding of what the words meant to those who first heard them. As we have heard, “a text out of context is a pretext” I would also argue that interpreting Jesus out of his historical context is a pretext or at least a prescription for misunderstanding.
Take for example the criticism He had for the pharisees, I think a valid argument could be made that His criticism for them resided explicitly on their socio-political-religious position in society and the ability to misgovern and exploit the people that that position afforded them.
How bout that ole’ rugged cross?… Did Jesus turn a blind eye to its barbarity? Or did he in fact engage it politically? John Howard Yoder points out, “…the titulon on the cross is sufficient testimony…Jesus’ public career had been such as to make it quite thinkable that he would pose to the Roman Empire an apparent threat serious enough to justify his execution.” (The Politics of Jesus p.50 (A good book on this subject))
So, yes, he was executed on the cross; but the question remains, did he engage it politically? Paul claimed in Colossians 2:15 that through the cross, Christ exposed and disarmed the principalities and powers–that is striped them of their pretense of power. Sounds like a political act to me. “Christ is Lord” is a direct affront to every and all powers that vie for our allegiance. This is half of the proclamation of the Church. But, did Jesus speak to the cross? Yes, he spoke directly to it both in word and in deed. He said, “If a man will come after me, let him take up his cross and follow me…” The cross, as his execution made abundantly clear, was the result of social nonconformity, of challenging the injustices of the status quo, of failing to give hommage to the powers that be. Jesus invited those that would follow him to count the cost of following him. We are called to imitate Jesus and while he is in some sense inimitable we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to follow.
Jesus made clear our choice would have consequences both positive and negative. Positive in that a group of people living as a renewed humanity (i.e. the Church) is in fact a political act. A group living according to Jesus ethic and example cannot help but impact the world in positive ways. Negative in that the powers that be will rightly interpret this way, as the early Christ followers called it, as an affront to their sovereignty and methods and hurl all kinds of brutality against such a group. As we have seen with Jesus and throughout the life of the faithful church God consistently uses this, the worlds violence and brutality, to unmask the world. Taking up the cross is a political act.
Shalom
Report comment to moderator
Guttermonks #53. Yeah, but what’s your point? You make a lot of clouds and wind in your speech, but no rain. Explain how taking up the cross is a political act.
From the Roman perspective, defying Pilate and Herod may have appeared political. They may have seen Jesus’ crucifixion as justice for insurrection. But God dying on the cross had nothing to do with politics, unless you call heavenly justice in the court of God political.
The church has nothing to do with politics. Churches that become political have lost site of their mission.
Report comment to moderator
The problem, Xion #64, I think, is twofold. First, our ability to understand the political nature of Jesus’, the gospel writers, and all the authors of the New Testament is hindered by our lack of being up to speed in all that was going on in the times in which they lived and wrote (that was my point with respect to the context of Jesus’ words).
Second, our imaginations have been so captivated by the ideas and rhetoric of empire that we cannot rightly understand politics, freedom, economics, etc. apart from the status quo. For instance, when I say politics the first thing that comes to most peoples minds is probably the US presidential election. While that is politics it hardly exhausts what politics is.
The clarification of these misunderstandings and the result–that is an apolitical Jesus–is the task that Claiborne and Haw have set out to clarify and in so doing reawaken the political imagination of the Church.
Samuel Wells puts it much better than I can:
“Politics is a day-to-day matter for every person, not a specialist subject for the argumentative and opinionated, or a dirty business for the manipulative or unfortunate. Politics is not an inappropriate intrusion into a spiritual conversation, nor is it an introduction of unnecessary controversy into an otherwise harmonious discourse. Politics is the careful negotiation of passion and interest that pays due respect to different degrees and kinds of power. In other words, politics is a dimension of every interaction, from a parent encouraging a child to share, to a group of housekeepers demanding a minimum wage, to a superpower trying to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the developing world. As is often said, everything is politics, but politics is not everything. As soon as one acknowledges that everyone has something to gain and something to lose from a change in the status quo, one has accepted that politics is a part of every aspect of life.
And the gospel of Jesus Christ is deeply concerned with how individuals and groups use their power, how they form their passions, and how society is going to change radically. It is not a question of getting involved in politics; everyone already is. It is more a question of becoming wiser and more conscious and more faithful in one’s politics. The only Christians who say we should keep politics and th gospel apart are those who enjoy a comfortable social and economic status and assume the point of Christianity is to underwrite the privileges they already have.” (Power and Passion: Six Characters in Search of Resurrection p. 19-20)
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer, I think it’s a little late for you to be arguing that Jesus wasn’t political. The Right has invoked Political Jesus for almost 30 years now. WORLD mag invokes Political Jesus in its mission statement and in every issue.
Regardless of that, I agree with your (newly adopted, as far as I can tell) position. Jesus made personal, not political, claims and commandments. Jesus did not command governments to provide subsidized housing or to fight the spread of communism.
But in as much as I, personally, have influence over my government, I would prefer that they provide for the poor rather than invade foreign nations.
Report comment to moderator
#65 Holy cow Guttermonks! Can you hear yourself?
So then, the first reason I don’t see the political nature of Jesus is because I don’t see his political nature. OK.
The second reason is that I don’t understand the meaning of the word ‘politics’. Then you redefine the word ‘politics’ to mean everything. It is a part of every aspect of life.
Well, if you put it that way … I suppose dictionaries need only contain a single word. You can try to win any argument by redefining any word to mean anything.
I cannot deny that Jesus was political in your world because you have defined everything there to be political. Wow!
How about telling us what Jesus did to change Rome? I suppose that riding into Jerusalem was political in some sense, declaring himself king, but that did not gain him the throne in this world.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, #67, Perhaps it is you that didn’t hear me… My point was not, as you assert, that in order to see the political nature of Jesus we much see the political nature of Jesus. Rather my point was that in order to understand His political nature, the political nature of His words and actions, and of those of His followers we must understand His socio-historical context.
Nor am I attempting to redefine the word political, rather I am making the same point as that of Wiglaf, #39, who cited: Politics consists of “social relations involving authority or power” and refers to the regulation of a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.”
Jesus established the church which is to live within the rule of God. It is the church that is to be the community of those called out and set apart to be a holy nation. However you define the words politics and political I think ones allegiances must relate. The church’s allegiance is with Jesus and the Kingdom he rules. As the church, our politics should be about praying, proclaiming, and embodying heaven (or the rule of God) on earth as it is in heaven.
With that said, you do err when you assert that Jesus did not gain the throne of this world. Jesus did in fact gain the throne of this world a Lordship that Christians should be the first to recognize and proclaim.
Report comment to moderator
#68 GutterMonks – Can you please tell me what seminary you attended? Was it Andover-Newton? I know some people from there who talk like you do. Just curious.
Report comment to moderator
no seminary training here.
Report comment to moderator
Xion (55): Jesus fulfilled the law and abolished it.
Frank: “Fulfilled,” without a doubt.
But “abolished”?!
Jesus makes it quite clear that He did not do that:
Wouldn’t you agree that His “I have come to fulfill, not abolish, the law” and your “Jesus fulfilled and abolished the law” are vastly different propositions?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!