“He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth.”
-Goethe
The Republican Party Platform: Small government/big business (read: caring for the rich), low taxes, sole personal responsibility, militant, and apparent disdain for the idea of empathy ("You be da man, Michael Steele!” to paraphrase the nut job Congresswoman from Minnesota, Michelle Bachmann)
The Democratic Party Platform: Equal rights, social programming, fair wages (read: caring for the poor), healthcare reform, education, non-militant, peace-promoting, government responsibility, “radical” social activism.
So... it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to decipher which of these two parties Jesus of Nazareth would have belonged to in today’s day in age, right?
Wrong. Yet again, the Republican party still hasn’t gotten it. Since they seem to believe that they are the party of morality, the party which “claimed” Christianity some time ago.
While on some level this has always perplexed me, it is becoming more and more obvious to me in light of all of the war, torture, economic corruption, etc. thrown in our faces every time we turn on the television that this is the case-- that in a sick twist of irony, the party that has attempted to build itself on Christian ideals and morals has become the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I can’t understand how people who belong to a party who cry out over women who have been raped having abortions, who oftentimes appear giddy with excitement over the prospect of impending war (read: death, destruction, annihilation of families, despair, etc.), and who get more riled up over taxes and economic wealth than any other single political issue, is also supposedly the party which embodies the morals and teachings of Jesus Christ, one of the most peaceful, loving, empathetic, unselfish people who probably ever walked the Earth.
I find myself thinking, “Do the Republicans actually, on any level, understand the man they label as their savior?”
When Jesus Christ became a well-known figure in his time, people very obviously admired him and looked up to him as a type of savior. However, he was not exactly the savior they were expecting.
During Jesus’ time, Palestine was under the rule of the Romans, who had imposed their culture and laws on the Jews. While the Jews were “tolerated” and they were generally allowed to practice their religion, they understandably wanted to Romans out. Over time, the people began to look for a “savior” of political and military nature, to run the Romans out so they would once again enjoy the political control and religious freedom they once had. Upon the advent of Jesus’ teachings, people did see him as a savior of sorts, but not necessarily what they had expected. What is important here, is although they were not seeking a man to “save” them in the way Jesus preached of, there was something about this man that caught everyone’s attention. While the obvious answer is his religious role, the other half of that which most people don’t seem to pay enough attention to is the fact that he was peaceful, simple, loving, compassionate, and forgiving to the extent that he was seen as radical. In fact, his persecution was in all likelihood not a direct manifestation of his religious teachings, rather, the fact that his teachings were at odds with so many interests and power factors-- the priests, lawyers, scribes, etc. This did not sit well with those in power, this radical out there, exposing politicians’ hypocrisy, and suggesting that all people, in the end, answer to a power much greater than that of those with any political power in their day.
Again, what’s important here is that Jesus was persecuted and killed because he (God forbid!) promoted peace, unconditional understanding and forgiveness of others (who are ALL brothers and sisters, united as children of God), and care for the poor. Before Jesus, the law operated on something more in-line with the old “eye for an eye” mentality. Among Jesus’ “radical” teachings were loving one’s neighbor as thyself, “neighbors” including: the poor, the imprisoned, the sick, the disabled, the foreigner, the enemy, the sinners, and the imprisoned...
Part of what made Jesus so important is how he was able to radically change the broader social context of political and social thought. He turned the military war cries into social and political cries of justice, peace, and compassion for all people walking the Earth. He was a genius of his time, and whether you believe he was the Son of God or not, there is no denying that his life, or the story of his life, had a lasting impact on the way we understand the social and political context of our time. A true social activist, Jesus preached of things that are very much in-line with the political platform of today’s Democratic Party.
As of now, the Republican party is defined roughly by the championing of torture, war, greed, hate, intolerance, and inequality-- and their defamation is rooted mostly in the fact that they are are different from them, and since they can’t understand it, or more likely don’t even try to, they become the new enemy.
It is my firm believe, that if Jesus Christ were to descend from the heavens today and take one look at the exploitation of his name and teachings for the interests of those with the most wealth and power, he would not only be ashamed and disgusted, but pissed off beyond belief. You want to talk about taking his name in vain? How about killing and torturing his children, creating a social and political structure which makes it nearly impossible for factions of the world to ever find their way out of extreme poverty and suffering, and astronomical levels of lying, deception, and corruption... all pushed forward using HIS NAME as a pawn in their master plan? I think it’s safe to say he might whip out the ol’ fire and brimstone to teach them all a nice little lesson.
Today’s Republican Party is (sadly) relying solely on the ancient tactics of the Romans in Jesus’ time-- slandering those who promote peace, compassion, and understanding for those who are unlike us as “radicals” and painting them as “dangerous” figures who will destroy everything they have come to know. Of course, they are correct in that these “radical” ideals have the potential ability to change everything on such a large scale it WILL change things forever. What is especially troubling to me, is how a) anyone in this day in age could think this could possibly be a bad thing, and b) how people are still falling for this nonsense.
Perhaps the next time a Republican politician walks out to the pulpit, prepared to give his campaign speech appealing to neo-conservative hatred and vilification of outsiders, when senators cast their vote for or against healthcare reform, or when CIA operatives and government interrogators walk into a jail cell contemplating which path they should take in obtaining that oh-so-important information, perhaps they should ask themselves one simple question:
What Would Jesus Do?
Erin, you make some good points in this in blog however I think you omit some important distinctions. I do agree with you that many of the philosophies and teaching of Jesus coincide with the current agenda of the Democratic party, but you have to understand the Republican side and where they are coming from too. First and foremost, the bible is incredibly explicit on its stance toward gay marriage as well as abortion, condemning both as sin, while on other matters such as welfare, healthcare, and the general treatment of the poor, Jesus and the Bible are more vague. Not to imply that they don't point in a general direction, in that both Jesus and the Bible teach humbling yourself, helping the poor, and making yourself a servant to the world, but there aren't specific instructions on how to do these directives. For example, it never says that "Health care should be provided to the general populus" or, "Those who are unemployed should receive $15,000 a year", where as it does define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I think that because of this you see a lot of Christians also follow the republican view, since they encompass those explicit instructions and teachings from the Bible and Jesus; while the democrats MAY be right on the other social issues that are open to interpretation, these two issues (abortion and gay marriage) are set in stone and as clear as night to any casual follower of Christ. As such, you get many more Christians following the republican party. Now I'm not advocating one side over the other, I think that both the republicans and democrats have beliefs that coincide with the teachings of Jesus. How would Jesus deal with the poor today? How would Jesus deal with any of the other complex social problems that or culture face today? Who knows. It is almost futile to speculate as both sides have respectable points that are based in the Word. What is important is that both sides listen to each other with open hearts, and without weapons or defenses. Since we don't have Jesus here with us today to be like 'Yo, do this', the only way to make progress in this world is to have an open mind, an open heart, and an open hand; the second that you begin to close any one of those is the moment that conflict arises and learning ceases.
ReplyDeleteHey Dave- thanks for the comment!
ReplyDeleteI do concede that abortion rights is not an issue that Jesus would necessarily align himself with the Democratic Party on, but I am skeptical about the gay marriage debate. However, I would need some time to collect my thoughts on that before I could respond thoroughly.. perhaps it will be the topic of another entry down the road :)
I also agree with you that it is important to, as you put it, "have an open mind, and open heart, and an open hand." My main purpose in writing this entry was not necessarily to vilify the Republican Party but rather to point out some obvious hypocrisy in their political philosophies. And obviously the world we live in today is very different from the world Jesus lived in, and you are right, it is impossible to speculate the nuances of policies Jesus Christ Himself would propose if he were to drop down here today. But I think the big point I was trying to address here is that, even though today's world IS very different, it is also very much the same. We are still struggling with social and economic injustice and inequality, and since the Republican Party went ahead and branded themselves the "Christian Party," I feel like it's fair to point out some major holes in their argument as such. While you may be right on abortion, that is one issue, whereas all of the other issues I addressed are seen on a much larger social scale, not only throughout the United States, but throughout the world. So, if they are going to call themselves the Christian party, I feel like they should align their policies with more issues than abortion alone (or in your opinion, gay marriage). Again, abortion I concede to you on, as it can be argued that this is murder-- something punishable by the law. However, even if it WERE the case (which I don't believe it to be) that Jesus believes all homosexuals are sinners and condemned to an eternity in Hell (because then why would he MAKE them that way?), this isn't something that should be determined by federal law. It is a deeply personal issue, and two gay people marrying each other will do no harm to anyone else. They will then just simply be an unmarried couple rather than a gay couple-- the point is they WILL continue to be gay, whether they can marry or not. Allowing them to marry or not allowing them to marry will not change anything, so why not extend to them the same rights the rest of us exercise without question? It's a civil rights issue, not a religious issue, and that is where the problem lies. People continue to argue it's a religious issue, but nobody is trying to force churches into conducting marriage ceremonies they do not deem appropriate. Rather, people are advocating for gay people to have the same federal rights as a couple as married couples do. When people get married, the government is always involved to some extent. They are married under LAW. In addition, they chose whether to simply be married in a City Hall, or to have it performed in a Church or another religious venue. If gay marriage were legalized, this would not mean churches would have to perform them. It would only mean that it would now be recognized by the government, just like any other couple's marriage would be. And since this country was founded on the separation of church and state, religious beliefs have no place in deciding these types of political debates, in my opinion. But I digress-- what I was trying to articulate earlier is simply that, yes, things are different now, but we still deal with the same social problems. Like they say-- Everything changes, everything stays the same. So we need to find a way to deal with these issues, and my point was that since the Republicans are supposedly aligning their politics with Christianity, then shouldn't their policies reflect this on more than just abortion and gay marriage?
Anyway, I appreciated your response and hope my entry didn't offend you in any way(!), but I sincerely believe that there are far too many hypocrisies on display here when you dissect the Republican platform and compare it to their supposed religious ties, and if they expect the people to take this connection seriously, they need to extend Jesus' work into more than just two political debates.
The gay marriage debate is definetly an interesting and challenging one. I actually strongly support a civil union in where people who are gay would receive the same benefits entitled to those who are married, however, since the title marriage is a religious tradition, and is defined as being between a man and a woman I don't think it should be called a 'marriage'. The history of how marriage as an institution is actually quite interesting; the reason that it is an adopted state practice is that back in the 1800's or so I think, they wanted to promote the creation of families. Giving all the discounts in taxes, benefits and services to married couples encourages marriage and was believed to push men to get married (I remember all this vaguely from some college class). However I don't think this is such a need today (well perhaps it is considering the divorce rate sadly), and see no reason why these same benefits cannot be extended to two people who choose to live together under the same house.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I was asked once by a fellow RA that I worked with at Geneseo, "How can you love me, and treat me with kindness even though you know I am a lesbian?" I think this is a point that has been lost due to so many fanatical Christians sadly. Point one: Everybody sins. I sin all the time. I lie, I cheat, I do tons of crap that I am not proud of. Tons! Yet Jesus accepts us despite of all these inadequacies, and even more than accepts us, loves us unconditionally! I am no better than some thief in prison, some rapist or some other vilified stereotype that I care not to elaborate on. Jesus' greatest command to us as a people was to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Do I view homosexuality as a sin? Yes. It's pretty obvious in the bible (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) that it is, yet I do not harbor any ill feelings toward homosexuals. So Jesus isn't sending to hell all the gays, because if he did, then we'd all be going there too since we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. It is his grace that saves us.
I gotta run but I'll finish this later.
erin, you are such a good writer!
ReplyDeleteAwww, thanks, Cassie! :)
ReplyDeleteDave- I'm sure you are aware of the following:
-Deuteronomy 22:13-21; If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she immediately be executed by stoning.
-Deuteronomy 22:22; If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
Mark 10:1-12; Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
Leviticus 18:19; The Bible forbids a married couple to sleep in the same bed while the woman has her period. If they do, both should be executed.
Mark 12:18-27; If a man dies without having any children, his wife is obligated to have sex with all of his brothers until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12; If a man gets into a fight with another man, and the wife seeks to rescue her man by grabbing the other man's genitals, her hand is to be cut off (and no pity shall be shown to her).
The Bible is full of this stuff, which hopefully most people would say is not reflective of today's world and nobody would try to implement these kinds of reparations into federal law. The Bible mentions homosexuality only a handful of times-- no more than any of these ridiculous laws, so why should we take that "sin" any more seriously than these? In my opinion, we should not, clear and simple.
Plus, you mention that the institution of marriage was implemented on a federal level to encourage the creation of families. What about straight couples who cannot have children, but will adopt and create a family in a non-biological fashion? Would you advocate for the banning of marriage between two straight people who could not have children? Of course not. So why not extend this opportunity to a gay couple who will adopt as well? In addition, not all people who get married have children! This argument that marriage exists solely to bear biological children is ridiculous--maybe so 200 years ago, but since then, thankfully, it has become much more than that. The term "family" is entirely subjective to interpretation. What makes a "family" is determined by those who are involved, not the government. So unless the government decides to make the bearing of biological children mandatory in order to grant a marriage, this argument, in my book, is entirely obsolete.
This is a very interesting discussion. As a scholar of Christianity, I would argue that Erin's views are more responsible to Christianity in general, and the figure of Jesus of Nazareth in particular. She is correct in showing that the Bible is full of laws that have little or no adaptability to the 21st century. If one is to argue that a specific law is "God-sanctioned," one must also claim that either ALL biblical laws are God-sanctioned and should be implemented, or some laws are God-sanctioned, and others are not. Both of these are problematic--the first places us under the forces of a sometimes vengeful, angry God who occasionally acts impulsive, annihilates entire cities and villages for not obeying his laws, and participates in some of the activities for which democracy and most contemporary political systems aim to defend against; the latter refutes the argument that a law being God-sanctioned has any legal force, because unless one has intimate access as to which laws are Godly and which aren’t, it’s simply a matter of interpretation, human construction, and editing.
ReplyDeleteJesus, of course, was instrumental in marking a shift away from such legal restrictions. Remember, Jesus' primary target was the Pharisees, who were advocates of rather oppressive legal restrictions, which, on their claim, balanced the social order. Moreover, their tax system was built to channel wealth to those already in power with very little concern for public goods. This is why tax collectors are undeniably sources of public scorn and ridicule in biblical literature.
Jesus' promotion of "love" was much more, then, than simply a way to bring people in communion with Abba (Aramaic for God). This was a technology for upending a rather oppressive and discriminatory political structure which exploited the labor of middle and lower classes to support those who really did not need the support. While at times Jesus projected an attitude of love and compassion towards figures of power--hanging out with tax collectors, render onto Caeser what is Caeser's, etc.--at other times, he was very active in physically rejecting these structures--upending the merchant tables in the Temple. But generally, there is little dispute among scholars that Jesus' message was political and intentionally so. Clearly, he was pointing to Love as a method for breaking down the oppressive social restrictions and labor practices that help the oppressors rather than the oppressed.
I have always thought the claim that we cannot say with much certainty how Jesus would come down on many of today's issues to be shortsighted. The fact is, his message is entirely relevant to MANY of today's social and political conundrums. I would be highly skeptical of anyone who claims, for instance, that Jesus would support neo-liberal economics and its consequences being born out in globalization. Moreover, as Jesus' actions bespeak a man intent on upending the structures that promote social restictions as a means of social control, I think one is going out on a limb in trying to connect Jesus to Social Conservatism.
The reason Love was such a revolutionary tool was because, as Erin seems to suggest, it opens the avenues to extend support into families and communities. Jesus was not particular in trying to detail what these supports must look like, and this makes sense, because common sense dictates this for us... if a support group is born from Love and works, it is a reflection of God's Love... if not, it isn't. This is why Jesus was perhaps one of the first notable feminists. Unlike most other religious leaders of his day, he recruited women into his campaign and promoted their preaching--a direct "sin" against the laws of his day. On this reading, I think Jesus would support any family or community structure based in, and promoting, love.
You are both correct, I think, in arguing that the answer is to keep an open mind and an open heart, because these expressions more akin to love and the act of listening. And this is, in fact, Jesus' message. We don't need restictive, discriminatory, or oppressive laws to maintain the social order--rather, we need to find ways to build communities that foster love and growth--and this, of course, is his vision when he sends out his disciples. So yes, and open mind and an open heart--this is Jesus' message. However, I'm a bit confused whether Dave H is promoting "open mind, open heart" as his own view or that of the Republican Party. If he is suggesting this quality is characteristic of the GOP in general, I guess I'd have to disagree. If the Republicans in higher office today are enthusiastic proponents of compromise (open mind, open heart), I guess I'm not seeing it--I see rather a party holding to convictions that are impractical to contemporary social issues.
Certainly, one can argue that there are several lines, and even books, in the New Testament that directly contradict Jesus' message as I've articulated it here. But this overlooks the fact that the New Testament wasn't dictated directly to one human being in a single sitting. Rather, it was a massive editing project several centuries after Jesus' death prompted by Proto-Orthodox Christians (the early branch of Christianity composed mostly of upper class Christians in positions of political authority and power) who were adamant about purifying Jesus' message to reflect their views and ambitions at the expense of other early Christian movements (e.g., the Gnostics and Essenes). This is also why, moreover, Paul is quite literally THE figure of the NT, aside from Jesus of Nazareth. Paul, of course, was the son of strict Pharisee parents who were Roman citizens, and his message reflects a Roman orientation and economic framing--the wages of sin are death, etc. God, it seems, becomes a banker. (also I would add that many scholars propose, on quite solid evidence that I won't regurgitate here, that Paul was himself homosexual)
This reading eventually adapted well to Roman society, and, as we all know, became the official religion of the empire under Constantine. This was done for political purposes, as the proto-orthodoxy construction of a particular kind of Christianity recapitulated the same basic structure of legal solutions to social ills... it simply gives these Laws a Metaphysical status (raises them up to the heavens), which unfortunately resulted in justifying many the much more oppressive tactics developed in the Holy Roman Empire and then the Catholic Church. Democracy, of course, demolishes this legal structure by making law a function of process and historical revisions rather than metaphysical, absolute law—this is why it is ethical. However, Late Capitalism, unfortunately recapitulates much of what democracy upends by exploitative labor practices.
Those who advocate an easy alliance between Christianity and Republicanism, and specifically Jesus and Republicanism, should be very wary about what exactly they are promoting. The American Empire was built first on military spending, and militarism, but economic exploitation would be impossible without the globalizing of neo-liberal economic policies pushed initially by the US through military means in South and Latin America (1970s thru 90s, where we used special op forces to overthrow DEMOCRATIC regimes to install DICTATORS who would allow American businesses to exploit their resources and labor), and later worldwide by the World Bank and IMF. This was, in fact, the root of the US's resistance to Communist regimes, as such regimes closed their doors to outside influence, and therefore, American businesses. The Cold War was primarily about opening countries to American businesses (as is the War on Terror, one could argue to an extent)... ideological differences were secondary, which is why the US has had reasonably good relations with Communist China, which opened trade to the US under Nixon.
Anyway, this is getting too long, but I found your discussion interesting and wanted to put my two cents in. I think the most responsible view of Christianity and politics, if we are to try to advance a Christianity consistent with the historical Jesus, is that Jesus would clearly side with the Democrats on most issues. I didn't say anything about abortion here because his teachings tell us little. However, Jesus WAS a proponent of the power of community over the power of legal restrictions. As such, any position that demands a rigid legal solution one way or the other is probably out of sync with his teachings.
Thanks for the healthy debate-
Jim C.