Becky Garrison: Vote for My Jesus?
As we gear up for the upcoming presidential election battles, once again Sojourners reminded me that God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat. In lieu of the plethora of partisan propaganda I often receive from both the Religious Right and the progressive left, I welcome their biblically based voting guide that outlines the Christian principles on a range of social issues.
Even though I want to cast my vote for God's Politics, I have to ask myself, could our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ever be considered a viable candidate for public office?
The answer is, alas, a resounding, “No.”
According to conventional political wisdom, casting a vote for Christ would be akin to going green in 2000. For starters, the Sermon on the Mount speech (see Matthew 5-7) would lose the Soccer Mom, the NASCAR dad, and whatever other idealized demographic pollsters have determined must be placated in order for a candidate to procure their political prize.
Then you have the touchy subject of Jesus’ entourage, a group consisting of tax collectors, fishermen, and a host of undesirables. (Can you just picture all the Christian conspiracy books blasting the behavior of Jesus' cabinet, as well as his scandalous encounters with unsavory women?)
Let's not forget Jesus' temple-turning tirade. How can a political party sponsor a candidate who can't even be trusted to go to a fundraising event and behave in front of those all-important special-interest groups who are needed to finance the cost of mounting a political campaign? Besides, Jesus doesn't even own the right Armani suit and tie needed to gain entrance into all the right clubs.
While today's politicos are obsessed with advancing their own agenda, as Brian McLaren notes in A Generous Orthodoxy, Jesus didn't overturn the tables “so that all the wrongs could be excluded.” No. Jesus turned the tables and scattered the doves and coins so that the temple could once again become a house of prayer for all nations - an inclusive place that welcomes all into the transforming mystery of prayer and worship, not only the “already right” or the “rich in spirit.”
This idea may be seen as radical to those who feel that the kingdom of God should be open only to a privileged few. But this radical rule-breaker and love-maker broke down all race and class barriers, bringing together into one body of believers such diverse individuals as tax collectors, fishermen, and prostitutes. Throughout his ministry, Jesus ignored conventional wisdom by healing on the Sabbath, treating women as equals, and celebrating “the least of these.” By following this way of life, the risen Christ and his followers transformed the world.
The challenge I present for us as Christians is to do likewise.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Well I am green so I would not have a problem w/ it at all.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 3, 2006 1:26 AM
Becky Garrison wrote:
According to conventional political wisdom, casting a vote for Christ would be akin to going green in 2000. For starters, the Sermon on the Mount speech (see Matthew 5-7) would lose the Soccer Mom, the NASCAR dad, and whatever other idealized demographic pollsters have determined must be placated in order for a candidate to procure their political prize.
Ms. Garrison is probably right about Jesus' viability as a candidate, but she misses the mark here. The Sermon on the Mount was not, is not, and never will be a political program.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | November 3, 2006 1:34 AM
The Sermon on the Mount was not, is not, and never will be a political program.
Do you mean that political decisions should not be based on the Bible...?>
Posted by: D4P | November 3, 2006 1:43 AM
This is not on-topic, but I finally found the direct reference to a poll of US troops in Iraq about "stay the course".
This arose in the blog topic "The soldiers are ready to come home"
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075 indicates the view of US troops that the US ought to leave.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1 indicates that Iraqi citizens think the US ought to leave.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | November 3, 2006 1:57 AM
And dare we even mention our (as a nation) treatment of the poor? Consider what we call "welfare reform": ending basic humanitarian aid to our poor to help cover the costs of a years-long chain of massive tax cuts for the wealthy/corporations.
Imagine the response to a politician who noted that however we choose to treat our poor, that is the way we are treating the Lord. How about saying that it's easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than to enter into heaven? How about a politician who actually said that, as a nation we have a moral responsibiity to aid those who can't, for whatever reason, provide for themselves.
The problem isn't the media or the politicians, though. It's us. We have little tolerance for anyone who would "coddle" those who have nothing. We all know that conditions for America's poor have deteriorated dramatically during the 10 years since welfare "reform", and are now far below that of the poor in more advanced Western nations,but how many are bothering to speak on their behalf? Now count the number of candidates who dared to say that it's possible that the very poor need food more than they need cliches
and slogans.
The bottom line is that Christian values don't sell here.>
Posted by: DHFabian | November 3, 2006 2:39 AM
I tend to agree, Jesus and Politics really don't mix well. Politicians seem to only care about what they get, want or achieve for themselves and their agendas. Jesus loved humans - never seen a politician who said I want to serve my fellow man and mean it. Jesus cared about the poor and peace and doing good - low on most politicians list. And if Jesus run - hangs out with 12 dudes, talks to a lot of women, puts up with kids, not just a baby kisser - well, oooooweee - that's one freaky candidate.
Bet he wouldn't have voted for this war or the funding of it - nope - bad candidate - doesn't follow rules - just leads with his heart.>
Posted by: Donna V | November 3, 2006 2:44 AM
D4P wrote:
Do you mean that political decisions should not be based on the Bible...?
No. I said that the Sermon on the Mount was not a political program. No more, no less.
Believe it or not, government is not the only thing that matters. Jesus also talked about non-political things.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | November 3, 2006 3:16 AM
I said that the Sermon on the Mount was not a political program. No more, no less.
But does that mean that it can't/shouldn't be used as a political program? In other words, if we're going to have people in government who make a big deal about being Christians and who claim to be doing the will of God, shouldn't they then base their decisions on the Bible?
I'm not saying that Jesus' commandments were made in reference to governments, but that doesn't necessarily mean that said commandments shouldn't apply to governments, especially if the leaders of those governments claim to be Christians.>
Posted by: D4P | November 3, 2006 3:23 AM
You say that Jesus talked about more than political things. Everything that Jesus said and did on this earth was rooted in love. The greatest of the commandments was that we love God and the second, Jesus said, is like unto it: Love your neighbor as yourself. If we simply do what Jesus absolutely commanded and have His mind in all that we do --how can our political views be separate from our call as Christians? The apostle James puts it quite simply (I am paraphrasing here): you cannot simply say to a brother or sister who is cold or hungry "bless you, may you be warm and well fed". You must give him a means of warmth and food. Faith without works is dead. And faith which does not manifest itself in actually DOING what Jesus would do instead of sporting the little WWJD bracelet is no faith at all. And that's all I've got to say about that. LOL>
Posted by: Kathykb510 | November 3, 2006 3:36 AM
I'm still looking for a "WWJW" (Who Would Jesus Waterboard) bracelet, but I haven't found one yet...>
Posted by: D4P | November 3, 2006 3:43 AM
The olive-complected Galilean Jesus certainly would alienate soccer moms and nascar dads. Especially when he and his dozen hairy disciples try crossing the Mexico/US border without proper papers.
Dirty immigrants! Off to Guantanamo!
And the evangelical Right would be the first to silence Jesus by any means necessary. His "Parable of the Good Arab" would have fundamentalists screaming with hatred.
Would their smear-campaign and steady stream of condemnation effectively silence Jesus? If not, perhaps a public call for execution would do.
It wouldn't be the first fundamentalist call for execution of late.>
Posted by: Tenoch | November 3, 2006 3:44 AM
And the evangelical Right would be the first to silence Jesus by any means necessary
See: the Pharisees>
Posted by: D4P | November 3, 2006 3:49 AM
God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat....According to conventional political wisdom, casting a vote for Christ would be akin to going green in 2000
So God is not a Republican or a Democrat, but he is a Green! Well I'm glad we solved that one.
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 3, 2006 4:27 AM
Jesus would probably dislike all of our political parties.>
Posted by: Donny Pauling | November 3, 2006 5:17 AM
I can only pray that we as Christians today would have the insight to follow and vote for Jesus as our predecessors did. It is amazing that Jesus has the millions of faithful believers without having ever forced one person to accept him. Jesus was a leader and we followed with joy.>
Posted by: K shelton | November 3, 2006 5:23 AM
When it comes to mixing political matters and Spiritual matters, Jesus made it abundantly clear in Matthew 22 when he said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
Jesus would never have run for political office in the kingdom of this world, He was never about this world; His is a Kingdom that transcends the secular humanistic "We the People," kingdom of America.
We look to God for strength and grace to survive in the kingdom of this world, and we do our best to submit to his Spirit who gives us strength to live for Him and to share the gospel and everything we have with others as He commanded us to do.
Politics, being a necesary evil, requires us to basically extend our witness and our servanthood to others through our volunteering and voting. I don't understand why we make it anymore complicated than that.>
Posted by: UnaHomer | November 3, 2006 5:37 AM
I don't think Jesus was old enough to run for President, nor was he an American citizen, so what are we talking about?
Only kidding.... :)>
Posted by: Jason | November 3, 2006 6:44 AM
I agree.........Jesus would have never made office. He walked his talk and was. That would mean the end of the military industrial complex to start with. He held the highest office of all, God's son, and was flat out rejected by man. I think that settles that, or as Lord Buckley said of Christ : Now, The Nazz was the kind of a cat that come on so cool
and so groovey and so with-it
that when he laid it down,
WHA-BOM, it stayed there.
The political machine just aint hip enough to give up the greed.>
Posted by: Jeffery | November 3, 2006 7:48 AM
"This idea may be seen as radical to those who feel that the kingdom of God should be open only to a privileged few. But this radical rule-breaker and love-maker broke down all race and class barriers, bringing together into one body of believers such diverse individuals as tax collectors, fishermen, and prostitutes. Throughout his ministry, Jesus ignored conventional wisdom by healing on the Sabbath, treating women as equals, and celebrating the least of these. By following this way of life, the risen Christ and his followers transformed the world."
I find it interesting to read that the "radical rule-breaker and love-maker" is said to be the initiator of a movement to bring people across many boundaries together. On closer inspection however it occurs to me that all folks mentioned belong to the Jewish community. Hindus, Muslims and outright heathens are not mentioned. Neither are Philistines, Amorites and members of other neighbouring tribes. I find that significant! You?
Shalom.>
Posted by: peter vanderkam | November 3, 2006 10:40 AM
You are all woefully missing the point.
Jesus would not run for a political office, he trancends all boundaries.
That is the point Ms. Garrison is making. She includes the sermon on the mount as a spoof political speech as a clever example. Which I think really hit on "the point".
The second point, is we all live in a republic and we have to cast a vote. We have to take Jesus' teaching to heart as we select candidates and issues and cast our vote.
Remember, Politics is what got Jesus killed. see Pharisees
Or let me rephrase that. Politics is a means of humanities collective sinning and Jesus died for our collective sins.
Wow, I can't wait to see the comments this generates ;)>
Posted by: Steve McAtee | November 3, 2006 2:09 PM
i'm a "recovering christian" and jim wallis and writers such as this one allow me to approach christianity again in a more open, less terrified way. thank you.>
Posted by: Sarah | November 3, 2006 2:10 PM
I am not a soccer mom nor a NASCAR dad, but I am offended that Becky would assume those persons are opposed to what is stated in the Sermon on the Mount.>
Posted by: Christina Stone | November 3, 2006 2:30 PM
So God is not a Republican or a Democrat, but he is a Green! Well I'm glad we solved that one.
Uhh, didn't he create GREEN?>
Posted by: Jim | November 3, 2006 2:40 PM
I am in politics-peripherally as an activist. One thing is clear is that all my colleagues seem to be looking for a political saviour of sorts? Though their own lives are a mess, they are looking for the end all be all in a politician. Most importantly...blameless. The current attitude seems to be...I hope [Obama] doesn't screw up, like cheat on his wife or something...he's the new hope. He could save the world.
It is important to know the difference between a saviour and a politician. And you have to ask the question, Why Did Jesus Come as a Poor Man, Not as a Politician?>
Posted by: Julie Johnson | November 3, 2006 3:01 PM
Sarah,
We share a path in common. I'd love to get your thoughts on this conversation between Alan Jones and Marcus Borg: ">http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/forum/for_20011202.shtml>
Posted by: Daniel | November 3, 2006 3:13 PM
I think that if Jesus were here today, he would have experienced something very similar to what he experienced 2,00 years ago. I think that nascar dads and soccer moms would welcomed parts of his message, and run when he began some of his more difficult teachings. Much the same that happened 2,000 years ago.
The crowds of people who followed Jesus cut across all segments of the population, and included the ancient equivalent of soccer moms and nascar dads. I think as a society we do a disservice by underestimating the intellectual capacities of nascar dads and soccer moms. Christ and his folowers were underestimated in much the same way, and in the same way that some on the right look down on illegal aliens, and some on the left look down on "rednecks". Galileans were thought of as uneducated, intellectually inferior, second class citizens who talked with an obvious accent or drawl. They were people who got made fun of and were the butt of jokes (like immigrants, rednecks, and nascar dads are today).
I think that were Christ to have come today as opposed to 2,000 years ago, the same thing would have happened as did then. Those in power would by and large have found him asa threat. Power corrupts perfectly as love heals perfectly. Politicians on the left and right would unanimously attack him, and for exactly the same reasons he was attacked 2,000 years ago. He also would be most welcomed by those who found his message most welcome back then: the poor, criminals, drug addicts, prostitutes, rednecks, illegal aliens, soccer moms, and nascar dads. I would, however bet that you would find few CEOs and few politicians among his followers.>
Posted by: Leonard Porcano | November 3, 2006 3:15 PM
Whether or not Jesus would have won if He had run for office is irrelevant. He came for one reason and one reason alone, He came to die in order to pay the price for our sins. (1 John 4:10)
The people wanted to crown Him as an earthly king as demonstrated on the triumphal entry, but my, how He was turned on ever so quickly.
Jesus is God who became a man. He is the Messiah. Someday He will return and bring in a perfect and everlasting kingdom. (See Isaiah 9:7) In the meantime, it's our job to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ in word and deed as a previous writer mentioned.
Also, I want to add, we can vote, picket, and march all we want, but feeding the poor and helping the downtrodden begins with each of us. We shouldn't be relying solely on social programs to accomplish this. When Jesus gave the sermon on the mount, was he addressing heads of state or individuals? Think about it.>
Posted by: Ray L | November 3, 2006 3:20 PM
"If not, perhaps a public call for execution would do."
Been there, done that -- what do you think the crucifixion was?>
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 3, 2006 3:25 PM
The Grand Inquisitor
I fear Tolstoy's story of the Grand Inquisitor from The Brothers Karamazov would still be the reaction to Jesus today.
The Inquisitor is trying to force religious morality on people so that they don't sin, so that they are guided into believing rightly. One day he is walking through town and sees Jesus engaged with some young people, talking about weighty matters and allowing them to express doubts and concerns. The Inquisitor has Jesus arrested at once. Jesus explains to the man that He has come - this is a Second Coming. Shout the good news from the rooftops!
The Inquisitor says to Jesus that he knows that He is, in fact, Jesus come again. He basically tells Him, and I paraphrase, 'That's all well and good but it is dangerous for these people for you to be here. You give them a choice - you would let them choose to act immorally and think incorrectly!! I am doing God's work in making sure they act morally and believe correctly. I'm afraid I simply can't allow you to damn these people to Hell.' The Grand Inquisitor subsequently has Jesus executed in defense of morality and the salvation of men.
I believe that Jesus is already here among us, that we need not wait for a Second Coming to be faced with this choice - we're already faced with it all the time. I fear that many Evangelicals today are practicing this kind of response....>
Posted by: Daniel | November 3, 2006 3:37 PM
Daniel,
I think you have your Russian authors wrong. It was Dostoyevsky. I've read the passage and like it a great deal. I see no connection between it and today's conservatives, however. It spoke more to how the Catholic Church of the time took away the spiritual freedom that Christ brought by using power and coercion, and how they "perfected" what Christ started and thus didn't need him.
Anyway, this isn't a literature discussion. But I don't see your connection.>
Posted by: HAC | November 3, 2006 5:00 PM
Jim: Uhh, didn't he create GREEN?
You got me there. God supports the Green Party.>
Posted by: HAC | November 3, 2006 5:01 PM
"Uhh, didn't he create GREEN?"
Yes She did. *winks*
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 3, 2006 5:36 PM
Becky's words are creative and humorous as well as very insightful. Jesus is not owned by any political party and being that he doesn't compromise he couldn't be a politician in today's culture.
However, we should vote. I appreciate blogs like this that open up Christian dialogue in creative ways. We should vote but with the recent wave of political punditry & pandering... we should be able to laugh a bit at how seriously we take politics, too. No president, Christian or not, will ever be our savior.>
Posted by: Erin | November 3, 2006 6:24 PM
Well, I did indeed vote for Jesus in the 2004 election. He didn't win, sadly... but he appreciated the vote.>
Posted by: skye schell | November 3, 2006 6:25 PM
[quote]
So God is not a Republican or a Democrat, but he is a Green! Well I'm glad we solved that one.[/quote]
i think you're missing the point entirely. the author wasn't suggesting in any way that jesus would have been part of the green party. she was underlining the idea that he would have made a lousy candidate for either of the major parties and would have ended up as a part of a weak third party that had no chance. this is why she wrote that it would have been "akin" to voting green in 2000. it's a simile, nothing more.
don't be so sensitive. there is plenty of controversy in this world without people trolling and creating it where there is none.>
Posted by: seedub | November 3, 2006 6:53 PM
HAC,
You do not see the relevance of literature to a discussion like this?
Hmmmm....
I'm afraid that excluding art from a religious discussion, for me, is like excluding verbs and adjectives from a phone conversation.>
Posted by: Daniel | November 3, 2006 7:39 PM
In regards to the article "Vote for My Jesus," not only could Jesus not be elected to public office now adays but neither could a Thomas Jefferson, who had no use for Christianity of any kind. It amazes me that Christians of the left and right are haggling over who best represents Jesus in the religious cultural wars. Neither side realizes, like I do that religion itself is the problem. Wake up!>
Posted by: Milo Coaldonato | November 3, 2006 7:47 PM
Rather than explain an abstract connection between Dostevsky (thanks to HAC for the correction) and modern day conservative Evangelical ideas, I'd like to post an excerpt from Lawrence v. Texas:
Justice Breyer: But what about the statute which this Court I think once had to grapple with people felt during World War I that it was immoral to teach German in the public schools. So, then, would you say that the State had every right to do that? Parents want their children to learn German but the schools forbid it? See, the hard question here is, Can the State, in fact, pass anything that it wants at all because they believe it s immoral? If you are going to draw the line somewhere, I guess you might begin to draw it when the person is involved inside his own bedroom and not hurting anybody else. Now that that now so you say it s morality. I I agree many people do believe that that s a question of morality. Many do not, but nonetheless, what can you add to what you re saying, other than simply asserting its morality? Because I don t think you think that the State could pass anything in the name of morality.
Mr. Rosenthal: Certainly not. But it would have any law that would pass would have to have some rational basis to the State interest .
Justice Breyer: You ve not given a rational basis except to repeat the word morality.
Chief Justice Rehnquist: (annoyed) The rational basis is that the State thinks it is immoral just as the state thinks adultery immoral or bigamy immoral!
Justice Breyer: Or teaching German?>
Posted by: Daniel | November 3, 2006 8:07 PM
Milo,
Your knowledge of Jefferson is incomplete, and I take exeption to your comment that religion is the problem. The machinations of man's use of religion to achieve self-interested goals is the problem Religion is a useless abstraction when based on "logos" without "mythos", which is what we have going on in our nation at this time in history.
Certainty based upon "scientism" is as false a notion as certainty based upon religion. Until we can admit that little is certain, and that we "see through a glass darkly", we won't get far in solving our contentious culture. Intellectual laziness is a problem, but so is spiritual laziness. When the elements of knowledge (logos) and wonder (mythos) are mixed together, we form a useful compound...IMO.>
Posted by: Kevin K | November 3, 2006 8:12 PM
While our political leaders debate and define terms like "troop levels",
"collateral damage", and "genocide", thousands of people around the world are dying. While our religious leaders manipulate and spin terms like "jihad","revelation", and "the chosen few", thousands of people around the world are dying.
Obviously, the time for talking has long since past and the time for
action is long overdue.
What would happen if a group of highly visible, highly respected world religious leaders got together and decided to physically act upon the various faiths they espouse? You know, "walk the talk," "put their money where their mouth is," "lay
it on the line."
What if Pope Benedict XVI, the Dalai Lama and the Rev. Billy Graham packed up their individual holy scriptures and a few toiletries, and headed off to the hot spots of our world? What if they plunked down smack dab in the middle of Darfur, or Baghdad, or
Beirut, and simply but forcefully said, "We're not leaving until the raping stops, the starvation stops, the killing stops!"?
How would the world community react? Would their physical presence matter? Could such an act of faith, of self-sacrifice make any difference?
Ludicrous? Ridiculous? Absurd? Any more ludicrous than Mohandas Gandhi's Salt March to Dandi? Any more ridiculous than Martin Luther King Jr.'s March on Washington? Any more absurd than Jesus Christ's March to Calvary?>
Posted by: Keith G. Kondrich | November 3, 2006 8:17 PM
Go Keith. and I agree w/ you Kevin K.
But I do think greed and religion are the problem. Whenever you mix both you get death. That's the problem.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 3, 2006 8:21 PM
Payshun,
Good point. Greed and religion don't mix...the operative word here being religion...as separate from faith. Religion is institutional and as such, facile. Faith is not. Greed is greed.>
Posted by: Kevin K | November 3, 2006 8:57 PM
And not to mention that Jesus was a Jew, and we've only had one non-Protestant president so far (and he was a Catholic!).>
Posted by: Barbara | November 3, 2006 9:59 PM
And not to mention that Jesus was a Jew . . .
Technically, Jesus was only raised in a Jewish family, He is God and God transcends all religions, races, and creeds. Jesus is the creator*, to classify Him as a Jew is to say He only a part of creation.
*(Colossians 1:15-17)
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.>
Posted by: Unahomer | November 4, 2006 4:24 AM
Daniel,
You missed my point. I was saying this isn't a literature discussion because I was starting to discuss the details of Dostoyevsky's work. Literature can certainly be relevant. I just don't see your quoting of this specific passage as being so.>
Posted by: HAC | November 4, 2006 4:52 AM
Keith G. Kondrich,
I take issue with you comparing the sacrifice of Christ to those of Gandhi and MLK Jr. There is no comparison.>
Posted by: HAC | November 4, 2006 4:56 AM
Jesus came to "save His people from their sins", to give His life a ransom for many, to give eternal life to whosoever believes in Him, to seek and to save what ws lost, to preach (!!) Good News to the poor, to save the world from sin, etc. etc. Why does the post we are all responding to here not even give a nod to His primary purpose? Maybe Americans would vote for someone who laid down His life for them.>
Posted by: Ken | November 4, 2006 2:41 PM
Ken (and everyone),
Jesus wouldn't run for political office. That wasn't his point on earth. The Church is not to be monolithic, however, so I believe some are called (by God) to run for political office. Jesus himself would not do it because he came solely for the sake of salvation (as Ken said).>
Posted by: HAC | November 4, 2006 6:10 PM
HAC,
For me their sacrifice is one in the same. Christ's spirit is one w/ Kings and the prophets and point to a much larger idea of salvation than you are talking about.
You have a very narrow idea of salvation.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 4, 2006 9:10 PM
HAC,
Okeedoke. Basically, I think most evangelicals are preoccupied with compelling people to believe and act correctly, to the extent that they wish to see their personal freedom taken away to ensure right behavior. For example, the sodomy law challenged in Lawrence v. Texas above. Lawrence was engaged in consensual sodomy in hiw home and the government broke in, arrested, and convicted him of a crime.
This is not a criticism of conservatism. Jonah Goldberg, for example, argued for overturning the law and keeping the government out of the home. It is, instead, and argument againt the current trend in evangelical concerns. The evangelical movement as a whole does not allow room for doubt except to the extent it is sanitized and satisfied by the answer 'I know this is 100% true and you must believe that too, even though none of us can understand it or know why.' There are parameters set up so that no one's faith can mature, that no one wrestles with God or explores the dark night of the soul. Evangelicals seem to present Christianity as a destination primarily characterized by a list of intellectual answers to be accepted whole. In contrast, Christianity is often viewed by non-evangelicals as a journey full of mystery and questions in which the destination and certainty are available only after death.>
Posted by: Daniel | November 4, 2006 11:44 PM
Payshun:
Their sacrifice is one and the same? If you mean that the sacrifice of Jesus and the sacrifice of others is the same you couldn't be more mistaken. No one could offer the sacrifice Jesus offered or accomplish what Jesus accomplished with His. He is the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. All our sacrifice aacomplishes next to nothing in comparison and all Christian sacrifice is an outgrowth of that sacrifice for them. His immeasureable sacrifice leads to our giving ourselves to Him, but never in the same degree or quality.>
Posted by: Ken | November 5, 2006 12:37 AM
www.jesusradicals.com>
Posted by: phil | November 5, 2006 1:12 AM
Ken,
Well said.
Daniel,
I know this isn't your main point, but as an evangelical, I don't support sodomy laws (although I believe legislatures, not courts, should be the ones getting rid of them). I think many evangelicals would agree with me.>
Posted by: HAC | November 5, 2006 3:47 AM
Ken,
Missing the point much? Jesus is one w/ all that live, breathe and die by his name. The martyr's sacrifices and the suffering to which they all died are not only connected to Christ but are an example revealing his great and terrible death.
They are one. Christ sees them as one even though his sacrifice was for all mankind and served a different purpose then king. I can understand your theology since you are evangelical and you are taught to worship and revere Christ's death.
I don't share that theology. I find it bankrupt. I worship christ not what he did. I love what he did and am grateful for it because he liberated me from the hell of self and eternal separation from God. I do not diminish it but I don't see it the same way you do.
Christ's spirit is in all those other sacrifices and he is united to them all. What matter's is the fact that someone was sacrificed, the degree to which it is done is not as important now.
It was until christ but now after him it's different. That's why he could come to a Bin Laden like Saul and do what he did. Saul was persecuting and having Christians stoned. But Christ the risen did not see their sacrifice and death as something separate from his as a matter of fact he never did. He was suffering thru the people and even said "why do you persecute me?"
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 5, 2006 6:51 AM
One last thing even if christ did nothing I would still love him but the paradox is the only way I can do that is because he chose to die.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 5, 2006 7:02 AM
But Jesus transcended mere politics. He transcended social concerns. We will all die. God will bring justice to pass without our aid between earth and heaven.
No, Jesus preached salvation for each of us from the sins each of us have committed. The Holy Spirit healed sicknesses and cast out demons to attest to the importance of his message.
As individuals are transformed by his message, they will behave differently, more lovingly. As enough of our society is changed in this way, justice tempered with mercy will transform our society.
Only Humanists would demand transformed behavior from untransformed people! We Christians are not to judge those outside the church, as Paul said. But there are judgmental leftists who wish to dictate quasi-Christian morals on those outside the church. Follow the Bible!>
Posted by: Timbo | November 5, 2006 8:34 PM
If Jesus did nothing he would not be worth worshiping. Payshun, I believe we worship 2 different christs. Mine is worth MUCH more than any other person. His sacrifice is not comparable to any other, and he is to be worshiped and revered beyond all men. His sacrifice is to be honored beyond all sacrifices. He is the beginning and the end, and nothing can compare to what he did.>
Posted by: HAC | November 5, 2006 10:27 PM
If Jesus did nothing he would still be worth worshipping because he is God. Jesus sacrificing himself and returning from the dead backs that up. God is worth worshipping simply because he is God. He is not a Santa Claus or mythical creature that should be worshipped simply because he does amazing things. He is God and worthy of worship because he is what he is. He is the I AM. That alone makes him worthy.
Thanks for proving my point. You all worship what he did. Would you worship him if he did nothing?
Ofcourse jesus transcended earthly politics, no where in my post did I say that he did not. He did transcend this world's politics as he was ushering his father's kingdom. Oh and all the martyrs sacrifices since then have transcended earthly politics. that's why their deaths lead to so many choosing the way.
You have a very shallow understanding of spirituality and it's role in politics. If you studied the lives of the martyrs, mystics, contemplatives, monks and prophets you would see that their take on this whole thing is a little different. It's bigger.
No not only humanists but any person w/ a conscience would call for transformed behavior from the world. The power of the spirit of God is here now. Anyone that does a just act is taking part in that spirit. That's why King could get athiests to come from all over the country and learn prayer and non-violence to end this country's wicked Jim Crowe system.
Because guess what the world must bear witness to Jesus and just like the Roman centurion that prayed so too will the world worship and bow down to God until they meet the living Christ. Then they worship him. You would know that if you studied history more.
I am sure we worship two different Christs. The one you worship was elevated by God alone and shares his divinity w/ no one. The one I worship says we are one and elevates all people to share in him. That's the difference in Christ's we worship.
His sacrifice amazing as it was and liberating as it is is one w/ others suffering. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not doesn't change the fact that Christ thinks so and renders your argument mute. Again if you doubt that (and I know you do) then continue to ignore Paul's conversion, Christ's words to the disciples in John 15-17, his words about visiting prisoners, the sheeps and goats, the poor and everything else the Gospel teaches.
Christ is much bigger than what you have described and you think I consider him small because I don't elevate him the way you do. When in all honesty it is you that has reduced Christ and his sufferings to merely freeing people from hell. Salvation is bigger than that and the sooner evangelicals like yourself realize that the more you will transform this world and shore up treasures in heaven.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 6, 2006 6:24 AM
"According to conventional political wisdom, casting a vote for Christ would be akin to going green in 2000. For starters, the Sermon on the Mount speech (see Matthew 5-7) would lose the Soccer Mom, the NASCAR dad, and whatever other idealized demographic pollsters have determined must be placated in order for a candidate to procure their political prize."
I can't help but think that Jesus might not only lose the above, but also many on the radical left who often forget that the "oppressor" are also human beings who are in need of appropriate measures, and kinds, of compassion and rebukes as the poor and neglected. He spoke the Truth to the powerful, but also submitted to them (Pilate, the High Priest) as He knew that no power could be exercised over Him, but that which was given by His Father.
Some are in a hurry to turn over the tables when it might be more appropriate to approach topics and people with meekness and gentleness even as speaking the truth in love.
Sadly, love seems to be a missing ingredient in both/all parties.
Let His Kingdom come, not ours...>
Posted by: JB | November 6, 2006 4:52 PM
The one you worship was elevated by God alone and shares his divinity w/ no one. The one I worship says we are one and elevates all people to share in him.
I simply mean to clarify. Are you saying we will share in the divinity of Christ?
To clarify from before: I don't worship what God did. However, what he did shows who he is. If he had done nothing, he would be nothing. Christ opened the way to salvation, thus he is the king of all who would gain it. Perhaps we're debating some sort of chicken-egg issue. Christ would not be who he is if he had not done what he did, but he would not have done what he did if he was not who he is. Thus, I see his death and resurrection vital in regards to his worship, since they show who he is.
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 6, 2006 5:01 PM
HAC
Yes, I believe we share in the divinity of Jesus just like CS Lewis, the mystics, prophets and Christ himself said.
That's where we disagree. Christ is still something even if he did nothing. I worship Jesus because he is a person worthy of worship. The fact that he died for me and the world backs that up but I don't need that to see that he is God (even though it helps.)
I like what Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, (also known as Meshach, Shadrach and Abendigo) said when faced w/ the question of whom you shall worship.
(this is a paraphrase) "Even if God doesn't save me I will not bow down to you." That's how I feel about Christ. Even if he did nothing I would love him because he loved me.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 6, 2006 7:10 PM
I wonder how the soccer moms and nascar dads that attend your churches feel when they read the things that this lady writes. wow to them that think they are christians on fire but really when they are luke warm. The Bible says "I will spu you out of my mouth". My Bible doesn't say anythting about the goverment taking care of the poor but he put that responsibility on the church. This is why God wants us to have faith in Him to take care of us not the goverment.>
Posted by: looking for real for real Chri | November 6, 2006 9:22 PM
Actually the bible does speak of the government being used to aid the poor that's why they had patches in the field for the poor during harvest season and sanctuary cities for murderers or...
Jesus wants everyone to look out for the poor not just your idea of the church.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 6, 2006 11:18 PM
If Christ were here, HE would be THE government. When he comes again He will reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It will be the perfect government. We'll just do our best with our systems until the day arrives.>
Posted by: Mike | November 7, 2006 5:42 PM
To Payshun and others,
I have been following your thread and would just like to say that there is one thing that seperates Jesus Christ and Christianity from every religion or religious belief in history: Jesus' death for our sins and his ressurection from the dead!
I could never say it better than Paul the Apostle did in his first letter to the Corinthian Church around 64 AD:
But tell me this since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. And we apostles would all be lying about God for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world. (1 Corinthians 15:12-19)
What Paul boldly proves to us is that the key to the power of salvation in Christ is beliving that He died and was raised to life for the forgivness of sins. But, if Christ DID NOT die and raise from the grave for the salvation of humanity's sins, anybody that believes in Him is a total fool that should be pitied!
Jesus CLAIMED to be the One and Only Son of God in His own words (John 3:16) and He said Himself that He came to give His life as a ransome for many (Mark 10:45). If this is not true and Jesus did not die and rise from the dead to forgive sins and make a way to heaven for all who believe in Him, than He Himself was a phony and a liar because that's what He claimed to be!
Either He is who He claimed to be or He is a liar or lunatic, I can't see any other wiggle room between those two options?
Would a reliable God say, "I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying" (John 11:25), if He did not mean it?>
Posted by: Bill | November 8, 2006 6:41 AM
Umm Bill I have never argued that Christ is not the son of God. He is, can we move on now? He is who he claimed to be and yes his death was the first step in freeing us from sin and yes the resurection was the middle step but people like you forget the majesty and beauty of the holy spirit. Jesus primary mission includes bringing and linking us to the holy spirit.
Please don't forget that.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 8, 2006 6:46 AM
Payshun,
Our debate is somewhat futile. We're discussion "if Christ..." Debating hypotheticals regarding God doesn't work, because he does what he wills (this leads to a bigger discussion on theology that isn't worth getting into right now). Regardless, if God did nothing, he would not be worthy of worship, because he would not be a good God. But he did do something, and Christ did die for our sins, so he is worthy of our worship.>
Posted by: HAC | November 9, 2006 12:26 AM
Payshun,
I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I share your belief. You're right. Often our view of Jesus and His way is grossly myopic. The will of God is for all creation to be in eternal relationship with him. That is his intention and his perfect will. IMO that is the end game. His will is attached to everything in the universe.>
Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2006 1:28 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?