"WHAT WOULD JESUS LEGISLATE?"

First, a little background.

In the first few weeks of Real Art's existence, I posted an essay called "Jesus Was a Capricorn. No, wait, that's not it..." I was trying to show that, if one actually reads the Gospels instead of having them interpreted and read to him piecemeal by a fundamentalist preacher, it's pretty clear that Jesus advocated what we might call today a progressive political philosophy. Of course, I'm biased, but I think I did a pretty good job. After all, Jesus said "love your neighbor," and was compassionate toward the poor and marginalized. This wasn't a really difficult argument to make, and it's been made many times before by many others. However, given my own Southern Baptist upbringing, given my own disgust with the rise of American cutthroat conservatism, I really wanted to speak out, and that's what my blog is all about. "Jesus Was a Capricorn" was a defining moment for Real Art.

To be honest, even though I no longer consider myself to be a Christian, I pretty much do support the teachings of Jesus as I understand them, and I think the world would be a better place if everyone else did, too. It's a shame that so many Christians don't seem to actually read their Bibles.

Flash forward to a couple of weeks ago. My former student, Miles, posted a slightly abridged version of the essay over at his blog, My Left Shoe, under the title "What Would Jesus Legislate?" (You can read the essay on his blog here, or the uncut original version here.) Miles gets a lot of conservative Baytown traffic because he posted a link on his local newspaper's discussion boards, and I've had a bit of fun on his comment boards making inflammatory statements, playing like a liberal Bill O'Reilly. When he posted my essay, I was hoping for some right-wing outrage, but it never showed up. That is, until now.

This was waiting for me in my email inbox when I got home Friday:

I tried to post this in response to your article on My Left Shoe '04 but I was restricted to 1,000 characters. I wish I had known that beforehand. If you would like you can see that it gets posted, but I won't be expecting to see it up there. Since I went to the trouble of writing it, though, I figured I would send it to you.

Ron - I commend you for a well written article. Although I did not agree with your conclusion, I enjoyed reading it. It easy to understand why Christianity draws so much fire. The Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells represent a fraction of the Christian population, but they get the most press and are the most visible since sensationalism gets better ratings.

I realize this is a waste of time since you would "like to hear what lame comeback they have when confronted by their own damned Bible". I guess when you say "It is undeniable: according to Christ, individual wealth is so immoral that it will send a wealthy individual to the eternal torment of Hell." Let's forget the fact that Jesus was pointing out the man's greed and not his material wealth. As you say it is undeniable. And "Jesus seemed to have some sort of problem with the concept of making a profit without actually producing anything". Obviously, according to your story, making a profit is sinful. If we can neglect to study the context of the temple, a history lesson I know you have no interest in reading so I will omit for the sake of brevity, then we can clearly see that Jesus was in fact angry at people doing business, not the people taking advantage of the situation to line their own pockets, i.e. Jim Bakker.

But perhaps instead of debating the bible, pointless since neither side will ever be convinced that the other is right, we can pull one of your own quotes and comment on it.

"But when you think about the concept of ?render unto Caesar,? Jesus clearly shows that he believed that the state has an obligation to levy taxes in order to conduct the people?s business; this concept is mentioned in the same breath that he speaks of humanity?s obligation ?to render unto God.? That is to say, he seems to give equal importance to both ideas. Okay, I know it?s a stretch to call the business of the Roman Empire ?the people?s business,? but they did build damned fine roads."

Obviously Jesus was not against paying taxes. Conservatives aren't as well. Especially when those taxes are used in much the same way as the Roman Empire used their taxes, building roads and for building an army. The latter Jesus never seemed to have problem with but liberals always want to demonize. Armies can be used for evil purposes, but are not in themselves bad.

"Jesus owned nothing. Jesus slept in the homes of friends and followers. Jesus recruited his Apostles from the ranks of the working class. Jesus was loudly critical of his era?s institutions of power. Jesus championed the poor. Jesus healed the sick. Jesus fed the hungry. Jesus was imprisoned and executed because he challenged the powerful elite."

One thing is that to state that Jesus was killed because he challenged the powerful elite is grossly over-simplifying the state of affairs, but maybe gross over-simplification is required. Anyway this quote put with the rest of your article seems to imply that if Jesus were in charge of the government he would take everybody's money through taxes and redistribute it evenly. Although Jesus never marched into Rome to start up the first Communist government. Instead he challenged the individuals to take care of needs as they saw him. Relying on the government to do this for us is to shirk personal responsibility. I personally enjoy being able to help someone else in need when I have the ability. If Christian followed that teaching, including myself in that group because I know could do more, there would be no need for government interference. And I resent the government when they want to take my expendable income because they know how to spend it better than I do. Obviously creating a system which rewards poverty level single mothers for continuing to have more children is how Jesus would set up the world. Isn't that right my liberal brothers?

Chris

Chris went through a lot of trouble to respond to my essay, and it's only fair that he gets a response. So here it is.

Thanks for taking the time to write.

Yes, the haloscan 1,000 character limit thing has annoyed me, too, but you can get around it by breaking up your post into shorter parts. I've even done it, myself, here. I don't have the keys to Miles' blog, but he might post a link to this post if he's so inclined. However, you'll note that I am posting your email on Real Art. Like I said, it's only fair that you get a response.

Please understand that my beef is not with all Christiandom. While not a Christian, myself, I understand how utterly subjective spiritual views can be: every man is entitled to his own understanding of the universe. It's the Christians who I believe aggressively offer a harmful philosophy to the world that I condemn. Indeed, Robertson and Falwell are the poster children for this movement, and sadly, they are the most vocal of those who call themselves Christians--they get the most press because they try to get the most press; Robertson even has his own television network, and Falwell beams himself into numerous homes every week. I wish that those Christians who disagree with their dark view of God would speak more loudly.

Please forgive the comment I made on Miles' comment board about "lame comebacks" and "damned Bibles." As I said above, I was having a little inflammatory fun. In fact, I like the Bible, especially the Gospels, and much of the rest of it, too, but I also must be honest, and condemn the portions that I believe to be immoral, such as the genocidal behavior mandated by God in the Old Testament.

I take issue with your statement "that Jesus was pointing out the man's greed and not his material wealth." Jesus clearly states that the way for the rich man to gain entry into heaven was to sell all his possessions, give the money to the poor, and follow Him. He doesn't speak about greed; He speaks about possessions. It is clear that greed is an underlying issue here, but to abstract the passage and make it only about greed is quite a stretch. You are interpreting His words to mean something other than what they actually say. Go check your Bible. I'm right about this.

And I didn't say that Jesus believed that profit is sinful: I said that Jesus seemed to believe that making a profit without producing anything is somehow unsavory, but not necessarily sinful--indeed, the Christian church for hundreds of years outlawed usury for exactly that reason. Actually, I am interested in that history lesson about the temple and business. Perhaps there's some angle there that I haven't considered, but for now it sounds like a pretty squirrely argument: it seems to me that Jesus believed that making a profit by skimming off the top doesn't mix well with spirituality, and just for argument's sake, Bakker would fall under the banner of false prophet, not money changer.

Taxes. Of course, conservatives aren't against taxes in concept, but the rhetoric really does belie that. The phrase "tax relief" clearly denotes that taxes are bad; one does not need relief unless one is under duress. C'mon. Conservatives have been blasting taxes for years now, and one rarely hears them say anything even coming close to "render unto Caesar." The reality, as you clearly state, is that conservatives don't want taxes to be spent on what Jesus advocated, that is, compassion toward the poor. For conservatives, taxes are for roads and armies, and that's about it: a society that only wants to build roads and raise armies is a stark society, indeed. A third world society, in fact, and that's exactly where the failed conservative policies of President Bush have us heading. I fear for our children.

I also take issue with your assertion that Jesus said nothing about armies. Jesus said to love your neighbor; he did not say to kill your neighbor. That's about as clear as it gets. Trying to get an approval of war out of that is a pretty wild interpretation. In fact, it's not even an interpretation; it's a straight up misrepresentation. "Love your neighbor as yourself." It's a simple statement. Why do conservatives try to make it mean the opposite?

Finally, it is not a simplification to say that Jesus died because he challenged the powerful elite: the high priests wanted him dead, and Pilate had him killed. I don't even know what you're talking about here. And, to be honest, I have no idea of what sort of government Jesus would advocate, but I'm sure that it would be somehow based on the principles that he espoused, such as compassion, love, and justice. But your brief lecture on "personal responsibility" complete with a condemnation of welfare for single mothers places you squarely in the middle of the audience to whom I originally addressed my essay. That is, conservatives who warp the teachings of Jesus, conservatives who preach the harsh discipline of the marketplace, conservatives who blame the poor for their poverty, conservatives who demand death for criminals. I'm all for "personal responsibility" myself; even Karl Marx believed that we all must work. However, when "personal responsibility" means providing for a family on a Wal-Mart income, with no health insurance, struggling on a month to month basis just to keep from drowning, I'm against it.

And if you really are a Christian, you should be, too.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$