Skip to main content

Sorry, Nice try though.

jesus radical meme

Perhaps you’ve seen this statement floating around the internet. Maybe you’ve read it on Facebook or a blog, or someone showed it to you. It is interesting, succinct and engaging. It is also almost entirely inaccurate. Let’s break it down.

“Jesus was a radical nonviolent revolutionary who hung around with lepers, hookers and crooks; wasn’t American and never spoke English;”
Okay, I could be nitpicky, but this line is basically true.

“was anti-wealth,”
Nowhere does it describe Jesus as anti-wealth. In fact, he often spoke of money and the need to use it well for the kingdom, but never condemned wealth. He certainly opposed treating money as an idol. He himself received gold at his birth and was financially supported by a number of wealthy women in particular (Luke 8:1-3).

“anti-death penalty,”
Nope. Jesus spoke about personal non-retaliation in the Sermon on the Mount, or against hypocritical and vigilante justice concerning the woman who was to be stoned for adultery, neither of which oppose the death penalty imposed by the State. The insurrectionist on the cross next to Jesus said, “We are punished justly, but this man has done nothing wrong.” Jesus doesn’t correct him, but offers him grace. Jesus affirms the authority of the Old Testament which allows for capital punishment.

“and even anti-public prayer (Matthew 6:5);”
Sorry, Matthew 6 is not a blanket prohibition against public prayer, but is contextually prohibiting showing off when we pray. Jesus himself prayed in public, and he calls his people to pray together, “Our Father, who art in heaven.”

“but was never anti-gay,”
It is true that Jesus is not anti-anyone. However, he does define marriage in a discussion with the Pharisees on divorce: ““Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt 19:4-6).

“never mentioned abortion or birth control,”
Why would he mention abortion? It was already understood to be murder in his context. Jesus condemns murder and that should be enough to cover abortion. Birth control is not a sin, so there is no need for him to condemn it.

“never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, never asked a leper for a copay;”
Reading modern issues into a first-century figure is just plain silly. Jesus never spoke about the internet, smart phones or satellites either. Looking at his teaching, he commends work “Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is working until now, and I am working’” (John 5:17). Turn it around and it is also true, “Jesus never called the rich lazy, never condemned torture, never fought for tax increases for the wealthiest Nazarenes, never said we shouldn’t ask for a copay for healthcare.”

“and was a long haired, brown-skinned, homeless community-organizing,”
No on the first, whatever on the second and heck no on the third. There is no evidence Jesus had long-hair. He was a Middle Eastern Jew and looked like it, whether you call that brown-skinned is a matter of opinion I suppose. It is irrelevant. And he was far more than a homeless community-organizer. What does that even mean? Is he organizing the homeless community, or is he homeless and community-organizing? Either way, this misses who he was and what he has come to do. He came as a Savior, not a community organizer for some social or political end.

“anti-slut-shaming Middle Eastern Jew.”
First, Jesus would probably not use the derogatory term “slut” or “slut-shaming.” I think he would see that as demeaning and unnecessary. Second, his focus was not on being anti-anyone, but was on proclaiming grace to all sinners, including the sexually immoral.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Return to Rome?

All right. Here is my first question to throw around to everyone: "Why am I not Roman Catholic?" (of course, if you are, help us understand why you are and why we should be(?)) Sounds like an easy question, but not so easy. Let me ask a few penetrating questions to get us going. These are all questions I've heard in different forms... Does Christ not have only one church? Does Rome not have the only consistent historical connection to the early church? Did not Rome determine the new Testament cannon of Scriptures? Does not Rome have what so many evangelicals lack: mystery, awe, contemplation, etc.? One more, does our theology go asunder so irreparably? Consider these Evangelical favorites: J RR Tolkien, G K Chesterton, and Mother Theresa. Are they not a sterling model of Christian imagination , thinking and service ? Hope this gets some discussion going.

The 'Greatest' Theologian/Preacher/Christian Philosopher

Here's a fun little discussion for us. Who is the greatest theologian since the apostle Paul? Sounds too subjective, but here are some criteria to evaluate by: 1) Personal life - Did this person's personal character reflect his convictions effectively? 2) Breadth of Influence - How wide and long has this person's influence effected the church and the world? 3) Depth of thought - How careful, biblical, and articulate were this persons's works? My vote to come...

Does Church History Matter?

In a so called unprecedented age, where all of Christianity is re-inventing itself, and all of Christian doctrine is up for re-writing , one must ask the question "Does church history matter?" (Just to write this almost makes me cringe at how unbelievably near-sighted my generation has become!) If we say 'yes it matters' too emphatically, the response will be "Why are you Protestants then?" Didn't Luther radically depart from centuries of theological teaching. One common criticism against Luther (and the Reformation) was "Can you alone be right and the whole world be wrong?" And, when Luther talks about Sola Scriptura, isn't he saying Scripture is all that matters? A few things about Luther. First, his Sola Scriptura argument was not that Scripture is the only authority for the church, but that Scripture alone is the final authority for the church. According to Luther, there can be, indeed should be, lesser authorities, including pasto