Robert Meyer
Was Jesus Christ a liberal?
Robert Meyer
This past fall, Fox-news pundit Alan Colmes released a new book entitled RED, WHITE AND LIBERAL. His book in turn had a chapter called "Jesus was a liberal." It contained a host of fallacious arguments that might seem credible to someone without a rudimentary theological background.
Frequently I am confronted with the rhetoric that Jesus could not have been a Conservative, on the basis that so many conservative economic policies appear to contradict his edicts for helping the poor.
The latest such incident dealt with criticism of the attempt to prevent low-income families from receiving extra dependent tax credits, if they already pay no federal income tax. Apparently those who hold to this polemic, believe that the government ought to be the primary source of benevolence to those in need.
We should remember that Jesus never came to fulfill a political platform, but rather a mission of redemption. We must seek to be members of his party of grace, rather than use him to tout our own political philosophies. Spiritual salvation or even cultural renovation, is not brought about merely by social reforms, but through changing the hearts of individuals.
Was Jesus addressing the Roman Senate or even the local Judean government when he delivered his Sermon on the Mount, or commanded to do justice to the poor? Was he not instructing individual believers and the collective Church? What biblical mandate gives the government propriety over redistributing wealth?
James Madison, father of our Constitution stated, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...", illustrating that such was not an objective of the founders, either.
Understanding this is vitally important, because when Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's," Christ was addressing the issue of proper jurisdictional authority, not merely saying taxation was lawful. When the wealthy young man comes to Jesus, asking what he must do to inherit eternal life, notice that Jesus never tells him to pay more taxes so the government can tend to the poor. Jesus never believed such to be the responsibility of the state.
Today, so many liberals think that government is doing the "Lord's work" when they intrude into every facet of life. In our times government tries to usurp the duties and moral obligations that once belonged to family, the church, neighbors and individuals themselves. By attributing all these roles to an ever expanding government, the institution itself become the Divine. This mind set diminishes reliance upon God and nullifies the responsibility of the individual. A learned helplessness with big brother tending to the orphan. Recall that in the cinematic version of Charles Dickens novel, "A Christmas Carol," a yet unconverted Scrooge responds to the requests of charitable solicitors by asking if the prisons and workhouses were still in operation to manage the indigent. Praise the Lord and pass the buck.
Whenever it becomes necessary for the government to provide support for basic needs of people, it is a judgment implying the failed mission of the ecclesiastical structure. But, perhaps one reason that the government has usurped the role of charity, is because people of weakened character, overburdened with taxation, are left with an I-gave-at-the-office mentality, when they should be giving cheerfully. As an old French proverb asks, "is the government a watchdog to be fed or a cow to be milked?" Giving is a blessed endeavor, but wealth transfers forced by the state are a tyranny that create greater disparities than they correct. We have no fewer poor now than when President Johnson's "great society" commenced. We have neglected our spiritual duties and delegated them to an unqualified custodian.
Abraham Lincoln once mused that when he spoke against slavery, clergymen said he shouldn't bring politics to the pulpit, and politicians said he shouldn't bring the pulpit into politics. The same mentality tends to characterize the contemporary view of social policy with some exception. We say morality ought not to be based on personal conduct rooted in biblical standards, but that social justice overseen by the government, demands an egalitarian outcome in order to fulfill the tenets of a godless, humanistic religion.
It amazes me that the same liberal critics who scream "separation of church and state," when the government passes laws steeped in Christian morality, are the first to cite Jesus to promote government as charity of first resort.
© Robert Meyer
By This past fall, Fox-news pundit Alan Colmes released a new book entitled RED, WHITE AND LIBERAL. His book in turn had a chapter called "Jesus was a liberal." It contained a host of fallacious arguments that might seem credible to someone without a rudimentary theological background.
Frequently I am confronted with the rhetoric that Jesus could not have been a Conservative, on the basis that so many conservative economic policies appear to contradict his edicts for helping the poor.
The latest such incident dealt with criticism of the attempt to prevent low-income families from receiving extra dependent tax credits, if they already pay no federal income tax. Apparently those who hold to this polemic, believe that the government ought to be the primary source of benevolence to those in need.
We should remember that Jesus never came to fulfill a political platform, but rather a mission of redemption. We must seek to be members of his party of grace, rather than use him to tout our own political philosophies. Spiritual salvation or even cultural renovation, is not brought about merely by social reforms, but through changing the hearts of individuals.
Was Jesus addressing the Roman Senate or even the local Judean government when he delivered his Sermon on the Mount, or commanded to do justice to the poor? Was he not instructing individual believers and the collective Church? What biblical mandate gives the government propriety over redistributing wealth?
James Madison, father of our Constitution stated, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...", illustrating that such was not an objective of the founders, either.
Understanding this is vitally important, because when Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's," Christ was addressing the issue of proper jurisdictional authority, not merely saying taxation was lawful. When the wealthy young man comes to Jesus, asking what he must do to inherit eternal life, notice that Jesus never tells him to pay more taxes so the government can tend to the poor. Jesus never believed such to be the responsibility of the state.
Today, so many liberals think that government is doing the "Lord's work" when they intrude into every facet of life. In our times government tries to usurp the duties and moral obligations that once belonged to family, the church, neighbors and individuals themselves. By attributing all these roles to an ever expanding government, the institution itself become the Divine. This mind set diminishes reliance upon God and nullifies the responsibility of the individual. A learned helplessness with big brother tending to the orphan. Recall that in the cinematic version of Charles Dickens novel, "A Christmas Carol," a yet unconverted Scrooge responds to the requests of charitable solicitors by asking if the prisons and workhouses were still in operation to manage the indigent. Praise the Lord and pass the buck.
Whenever it becomes necessary for the government to provide support for basic needs of people, it is a judgment implying the failed mission of the ecclesiastical structure. But, perhaps one reason that the government has usurped the role of charity, is because people of weakened character, overburdened with taxation, are left with an I-gave-at-the-office mentality, when they should be giving cheerfully. As an old French proverb asks, "is the government a watchdog to be fed or a cow to be milked?" Giving is a blessed endeavor, but wealth transfers forced by the state are a tyranny that create greater disparities than they correct. We have no fewer poor now than when President Johnson's "great society" commenced. We have neglected our spiritual duties and delegated them to an unqualified custodian.
Abraham Lincoln once mused that when he spoke against slavery, clergymen said he shouldn't bring politics to the pulpit, and politicians said he shouldn't bring the pulpit into politics. The same mentality tends to characterize the contemporary view of social policy with some exception. We say morality ought not to be based on personal conduct rooted in biblical standards, but that social justice overseen by the government, demands an egalitarian outcome in order to fulfill the tenets of a godless, humanistic religion.
It amazes me that the same liberal critics who scream "separation of church and state," when the government passes laws steeped in Christian morality, are the first to cite Jesus to promote government as charity of first resort.
© Robert Meyer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)