Was Jesus a Community-Organizer?

This is a very strange claim. Since the context was in a Facebook post that was a not too subtle attempt to point out hypocrisy of Christians holding positions that Jesus Himself didn't (read original post here), I am trying to figure out what anti-community organizer stance Christians have. To the best of my understanding, the role of a community organizer is to rally the community around a cause which may or may not actually be a current concern of the community.

While volumes could be said about the practices of community organizers, the question here is whether or not Jesus was one.

I really don't see the connection. While a loose parallel could possibly be drawn with the Church as a community, I'm not buying it. Jesus was not involved in, or interested during His ministry in, social or political activism. While He did a lot to help the poor and the sick and the outcast, He was not trying to create a social movement to solve those problems. If those things were of concern at all, He was teaching individuals how to care for one another in the face of those problems.

Primarily though, Jesus was proclaiming The Kingdom of Heaven and the need for sinners to repent. Any activism entailed would have been spiritual, not social. When asked about taxes, He basically blew it off as a non-issue (Matthew 22:15-22) and used it as a chance to turn people's minds toward God instead. When someone expressed dismay at an expensive perfume being poured on Jesus that could have been sold to help the poor, He claims that the woman's act of worship was a better thing (Mark 14:3-9). When asked by Pilate about His being a king, Jesus says, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting" (John 18:36).

Jesus is not attempting to bring about social change by organizing movements and lobbying Rome. His cause is the changing of hearts and minds to reconcile sinful men to their righteous Creator.

"Fear and Faith"

I was honored to share a message with the folks at The Church at Tree Lake's "First Friday Sing", a monthly jam session where local musicians just come together to hang out and play some good ol' gospel music. They are gracious enough to allow me the pleasure of bringing a message before they kick of the festivities. It is always a joy to gather with my brothers and sisters in Christ for a joyous celebration of the new life He has granted us through His grace.

This month I shared some insights from a recent conversation I got caught up in on social media where a gentleman was insisting that all religion, especially Christianity, is based on a fear of death or the threat of Hell. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Was Jesus "Anti Slut-Shaming"?

As I go through the list of supposed teaching or positions which Jesus had, this one is such a bizarre statement, I wasn't really sure how to respond. Since the list did not include much in the way of verse references, I am assuming this refers to the woman caught in adultery brought before Jesus in John 8. This is where Jesus utters the now famous words, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (verse 8), and people usually like to draw attention to His words to the woman, "Neither do I condemn you" (verse 11).

 

Typically, I have heard or read this used as a don't-be-judgmental argument. Usually it is accompanied by a statement like, "You're not perfect either. Who are you to judge?"

 

Given the wording of the statement, "anti slut-shaming," I am assuming this implies that Christians are engaged in shaming the more freely sexually active members of society.

 

Just as a personal observation, this is usually pointed out by people who see no distinction between actual hypocritical judgmental-ism and someone simply voicing a belief or warning a friend/loved-one of what they see as harmful behavior.

 

I have even had friends who are well aware of the gory details of my past say something like, "Who are you to tell me not to do X? I've seen your misdeeds first-hand." Yes, and I have the scars from it as well, which is why I give the warning.

 

It is entirely in the realm of possibility for someone, out of a heart of love and caring, not judgmental-ism and hypocrisy, to say, "Hey, what you're doing is unwise, wrong, or even a sin." This absurd idea permeating our culture about being "tolerant" is completely ridiculous. It's not hateful, judgmental, or intolerant to simply tell someone you think they are wrong or their behavior is wrong.

 

If that skewed idea of tolerance is a person's starting point, then no serious discussion or conversation is possible. We all have to put up with and get along with people who believe and do things differently than we do. Sometimes even on deeply moral issues. It is entirely possible to disagree on these issues without thinking the other person is a vile human being. Thinking otherwise derails any sense of relation or discourse people can have and is utterly useless as a worldview.

 

Hope I wasn't unclear.

 

Now, as for the teaching of Jesus on "slut-shaming". Anyone who calls themselves a follower of Christ certainly has no business engaging in hateful or shaming behavior. I am convinced that most of the "judgmental-ism" or shaming behavior that conservative Christians get labelled with is based on the ridiculous idea of "tolerance" mentioned above, not because they are "casting stones".

 

In the case of the adulteress, amusing the charges weren't bogus, she was actually guilty. At no point is her guilt denied or is her behavior dismissed as being OK. Jesus may not have slapped a scarlet A on her chest, but His lack of condemnation was not acceptance or approval of her actions. In fact, after He says, "Neither do I condemn you," His very next words are "go and sin no more." Jesus is acknowledging that what she was doing was indeed a sinful act and that her life needed to change.

 

This is not a passage about judging. We all make all sorts of judgments about all kinds of things all the time. You couldn't go through life without making judgments. This is not even a passage about judgmental-ism. There are other passages you can go to about that. As stated above, Christians are called to love and not to condemn based on our own opinions or traditions, but on God's standard.

 

This passage is about the hypocrisy of the religious elite who were trying to set a trap for the purpose of discrediting Jesus in order to protect their own positions of power. If hypocritical judgmental-ism is indeed the activity a Christian is engaged in, then that would be wrong. 

 

Jesus does not judge or shame the woman. However, He also does not give her a free pass on her sin. He extends her grace and mercy, but those things presuppose wrong-doing or being deserving of judgment in the first place. Then He urges her to go and change her ways. 

 

The important thing here is the attitude of graciousness exhibited by Christ against the backdrop of self-righteous judgmental-ism by the ones bringing the charge. As followers of Christ we are to exhibit the same gracious attitude that Christ had for sinners. If we do not, then we are not following our Lord. But that does not mean we have a permissive attitude regarding sin. We should speak the truth, but do so out of love, not judgment (Ephesians 4:15).

What Did Jesus Teach?

OK, so I am responding to a post I saw on Facebook that included a list of supposed positions that Jesus held on a variety of issues. Almost the entire list is the exact opposite positions held by most conservative Christians in America. The point, it seemed, was to say, "Here is what Jesus REALLY taught." As if to say Christians are really just a bunch of hypocrites. Well hypocrites we may be, but you'd be hard pressed to find any person on the planet who can't carry that label for something. However, the issue of what Jesus meant and what He taught is an interesting claim.

For the benefit of skeptical friends, to give a bit of perspective, to maybe show conservative Christian positions are not simply the product of closed-minded, anti-progressive bigotry, and to at least spur some conversation on these issues, I am walking down the list and trying to address where I see Jesus' teaching or words being misinterpreted or outright twisted to mean something else.

Here are the points on the list which seemed to me to be loaded and most likely to be based on faulty understanding of what Jesus taught.

Anti-wealth

Anti-Death Penalty

Anti-Public Prayer

Never Anti-Gay

Never Anti-Abortion or Birth Control

Never called the Poor "Lazy"

Never Justified Torture

Never pro tax cuts for wealthy

Never asked a Leper for a co-pay

Community Organizer

Anti-Slut-Shaming

Anti-Violence

I dealt with Christ's teaching on violence in a previous article, and will just walk up the list answering these issues in articles to come.

Did Jesus Teach Non-Violence?

In sense, yes He did. We, as individuals are not to be people who attain our goals or spread our beliefs by force. However, I think it is a stretch to extend that idea into total pacifism. Can a Christian use force, even deadly force, to defend him/her self? Is a Christian still consistent in their beliefs if they support a particular war?

A few things need to be considered. What was Jesus' overall purpose, and what was the context of his teachings that bear some weight to the issue at hand?

Overall, Jesus' purpose was to not teach mere moral behavior or a particular philosophical system. It was the transformation of hearts, the forgiveness of sins, and foremost, the reconciliation of sinners to the God who they rebel against. The central problem being the rebellion of man against God. Christ came to expose the sin of pride in all mankind and to call us to abandon that pride and trust in God. This call was in general to all people, but the response to it is intensely individual. Christ's teachings are rarely a blanket statement to society, but a call to individuals to exhibit a certain righteousness in their own life. Every saying, deed, parable, and teaching of Christ must be viewed in that purpose or it will be wrongly understood.

Also, there are things which are shaded by our own cultural and societal idioms which would have meant something completely different, or at least more specific, to a 1st century Jew in Palestine. We have to try and not read our own feelings into the words of Jesus, but find out what message His words were conveying to those people at that time.

With that in mind, there are a handful of verses people go to when claiming that Jesus was anti-violence. We will take a look at each in turn.

Matthew 5:39 - "But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Turning the other cheek has become synonymous with not fighting back at all in any situation. But is that what Jesus meant? In a right-handed world, to be struck on the right cheek is a backhanded slap. This is not speaking of an instance of mistreatment or assault in general. This is a specific act of humiliation. This verse is also grouped in with teachings to "go the extra mile" (Roman soldiers could force you to carry their pack for up to a mile) and if someone sues you for your cloak to "give them your tunic also" (in a world without climate control, taking a man's cloak would leave him exposed to the elements). These are all instances that would be dehumanizing and humiliating to the individual. Times where our arrogance and pride would seek retribution, not justice but vengeance. The point here is not pacifism because violence is evil, but swallowing our pride. It's our pride that leads us to sin, rebel against God, and choose our own way.

Matthew 26:51-52, "And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

What is Jesus saying here? Is He saying to not ever use a sword in any instance? I think a good argument could be made in the negative. Rather that putting the emphasis on the sword, put the emphasis on the "live by". If this passage is saying anything about violence, it is simply saying that violence is not the means to accomplish the goal. Genuine repentence and love for God cannot be forced. Faith cannot be conjured at the point of a sword. While there is certainly truth in the idea that a life characterized by violence (live by the sword) will most likely lead to a bad end (die by the sword), I am not sure that can be extrended as a blanket statement to embrace total pacifism.

However, use of violence or lack of is not the point of this passage. Jesus is being arrested. A brash disciple pulls a sword and tries to defend Jesus. But Jesus had been telling them for years that this moment would eventually come. His arrest and crucifiction are all part of the plan. Jesus' rebuke to the disciple is not anti-violence but due to lack of understanding what is going on. In the very next verse Jesus continues, "Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?" (Matthew 26:53-54)


John 18:36 - "Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

This is Jesus before Pilate being grilled about being the "King of the Jews". Pilate is thinking in terms of an actual rebellion against Rome. Any insight this might have on the non-violence issue I think is pretty clear that Jesus' words here make the point that the power of His Kingdom is not to be exercised or spread in this world by violent means. Again, faith cannot be conjured with a sword. Repentence and faith must be genuine.

So, is it ever ok for a Christian to use or support the use of violence?

We see Jesus on at least one occasion overturning tables in the temple and driving men out with a whip. (Matt 21, Mark 11, Luke 19, John 2) That seems a bit violent to me.

One thing that is consistent is Jesus' commands to love others. I do not think it is a stretch to include in that love any actions necessary to protect and defend innocents. An evil person intent on harm sometimes can only be stopped with violent means. I do not see an inconsistency in Christ's teachings for that taking place.

As for war, aside from if you take His words to Pilate in John 18 to mean Christianity is not spread by war (which is not a stretch at all), Jesus never really addresses the issue of war. Other places in Bible talk about roles and purposes of government. There is a whole other, detailed issue on whether or not there is "just war". But I do not see Jesus Himself specifically addressing that issue. He had a specific focus to His ministry and teachings before dying on the cross: preach the Gospel, prepare the Apostles, and expose the religious hypocrisy of His day which stood in the way.

Can a nation wage war to protect it's people? Perhaps each specific war is to be judged on an individual basis, but I think based on Christ's focus of individual-holiness, the general idea is not inconsistent with Christianity.

The Significance of the Resurrection of Christ

The resurrection is a demonstration of Christ's power that also confirms His deity. He was not simply some good teacher who was blessed by God. He was God Himself who came in human form to save mankind. Peter's sermon in Acts 2 uses the resurrection to point to Jesus as being “both Lord and Christ” (v. 36).

Since Christ has risen and is alive, “His divine mission is alive,” ¹ and indeed He is an active agent in that mission. An argument can be made that “without Jesus and His work, one cannot make sense of the church's existence and activity.” ² While addressing Paul's discussion of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians, one commentary puts it this way, “Faith in a dead savior is both preposterous and pathetic.” ³ The spread of the early church was not a political movement or power play. There was no benefit from a self-involved motivation among the persecution at the time, and yet the church grew and people's lives were changed. An act not attainable by a dead savior.

Best of all, while justice was met on the cross, and His death paid for our sins, that is only one half of the equation. By sharing in Christ's death we have cleared our debt, but by also sharing in His resurrection we attain renewed life. Paul points out that “if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin” (Romans 6:5-6). 

________________________________

1. Darrell L. Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007) 51.
2. Darrell L. Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007) 53.
3. Jerry Falwell, Edward Hindson, and Woodrow Michael Kroll eds., Liberty Bible Commentary (Lynchburg, VA: The Old-Time Gospel Hour, 1982) 461.

The Problem of Evil

A quandary faced by theists and used as criticism by atheists is the "problem of evil." While the details vary depending on a particular theology, the general idea is this: God is all powerful and morally good. However, the existence of evil implies that God is either unable to stop evil (not all powerful) or chooses to not stop evil (not morally good). This would point to a logical inconsistency and supposedly disprove God.

Things certainly do not go as they should, resulting in pain and suffering. This is generally called "evil". Whether betrayal, deceit, murder, or other harm caused by people (moral evil) or events like floods and earthquakes (natural evil), there is a difficulty in calling an all powerful God "good" in face of the evil people experience.

            A solution to this problem is called a theodicy. Since the problem of evil exposes an internal inconsistency, any theodicy must be internally consistent not only to the problem but within a given theology. Otherwise, the problem still exists.

            Ultimately, there is a limit to how our finite minds can understand an infinite God. Sometimes our own experiences with evil can affect how we view God. Some people see evil and turn their backs on a God who claims to be good while allowing such things. Others deny certain aspects about God or His activity while ultimately holding on to the belief that He is good. A good theodicy can only take us so far. It is faith that takes the final steps to trusting that God is good despite the evil around us, however, various theodicies have emerged over time.      

Extreme Rationalism claims whatever is the most rational is the most good and that God, as a perfectly rational being, had to create the most rational world. Since this is the world He made, it must be the best possible world, even with evil. Having created the best, most rational possible world God is therefore off the hook for evil. While internally consistent, the view that God’s rationality is His greatest attribute seems an arguable one.

            Soul Building claims that God's purpose is to make us the greatest possible moral beings, and since hard circumstances can cause moral growth, then evil is merely a tool to be used towards that goal. Since the ultimate good of our development outweighs the consequences of the evil we may experience, God is not morally wrong for allowing (or even causing) such evil. Again, while consistent, this view makes soul building God’s main purpose, and I am not sure that is consistent with scripture.

            Free Will says that the best possible world would be one where we are free to love or reject Him. The evil originates with our own choices in opposition of God and not because of Him, thus laying the blame for evil at the feet of mankind and not God.

            All three of the above views have something to contribute. God is certainly rational. He is interested in our spiritual development, and mankind is free. It is simplistic to say that one is correct to the dismissal of the others outright.

            Out of the internal joy, love, and fellowship of the Trinity, God creates mankind for the purpose of joining in that joy, love, and fellowship. However, love requires free will, so man was allowed to choose or reject God. Mankind's rejection of God (and His moral design) is the cause of the moral evil in the world. Additionally, man's positional relationship of "dominion" over the earth (Genesis 1:26) causes the effects of The Fall to affect the rest of creation as well, resulting in natural evil (Romans 8:20-22). Since God's goal is to invite mankind into fellowship (ultimately in heaven), mankind must first be made holy again. While Christ's crucifixion and resurrection justifies, our sanctification is an ongoing process as we walk through this evil-laden world. Soul building is not the primary purpose of evil, and God does not cause evil to happen. He does, however, use it for the building of our souls as we encounter it.

            Since evil arises out of man's disobedience, God is free of the blame for evil. Also, since the fulfillment of His purpose is not in this life, what we experience here can not only be used for our own betterment but is also of little significance compared to the ultimate joy and fellowship we will experience in heaven (Romans 8:18). This shows that God is not cruel or capricious in allowing evil to happen. Also, when someone poses this problem as a criticism, they are assuming the existence of evil. Evil is a violation of what is good. Good is defined by the nature and character of God. By acknowledging evil, the critic has conceded the existence of God.