Is Jesus Liberal or Conservative?

“Jesus: The Original Liberal” said the bumper sticker. “Jesus was a liberal!” screamed another. Liberals love to claim Jesus Christ of Nazareth thinks the way they do, when the opposite is true. (They even have their own website claiming it, apparently…)

jesus_liberal_magnet003-332x239

Modern Western Civilization is largely divided between two competing and diametrically opposed worldviews: the Secular Progressive (the SP’s) and the Judeo-Christian (the JC’s). With some exceptions, most modern liberals conform to the former; modern conservatives to the latter. There are many significant differences in philosophy between the two, but here are some of the most important:

  1. SP’s believe man is naturally and inherently good. JC’s, by contrast, hold that man is naturally evil and corrupted.
  2. SP’s believe that man is perfectible through social reform: it is just a matter of finding the right form of government and the right person/people to lead it. JC’s believe that human nature is fallen and not perfectible without outside intervention.
  3. SP’s believe that man is the center of the universe and subject to no higher code than his own whims; JC’s believe that God is the center of the universe and that mankind is accountable to Him.

No Thanks I'm a Liberal

Let’s try to remember – history’s most murderous regimes were officially atheist: the USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany, the Khmer Rouge’s Cambodia, etc. Such regimes saw no moral problem with slaughtering those who did not conform to their vision of utopia. And slaughter they did – by the millions. None of them espoused views that were in any way compatible with conservatism. They were socialist – in other words, leftist. Like modern leftists, they adopted gun control and dozens of other policies today’s liberals support. And yet the modern Left wishes to claim Christ as its forebear?

What is very ironic is that most of those who sling the “Jesus is a liberal” slogan probably don’t even believe in God, much less in the divinity of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Rather, this statement is used as a club to attempt to shame Christian conservatives into silence, especially on the social issues of our time. The thinking goes that liberals are closer to the example Jesus set, simply because they favor more income redistribution (“welfare”) by the government. Their specious logic tells them that they are more compassionate than are conservatives, simply because the latter believe that charity for the downtrodden should:


  1. Come from private rather than public sources
  2. Be accompanied by a plan to return recipients to a productive role whenever possible.

Liberals foolishly believe themselves to be more like Jesus, because they just love love love everyone as Jesus did – conveniently forgetting that Christ also demanded personal responsibility and moral accountability, as conservatives do today. As an example, let’s look at liberals’ favorite Biblical quote:

John 8 (NIV)

8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

See? Jesus loves, yes, but He also requires a certain standard of behavior. It’s got nothing to do with this “Be whomever you want to be – God loves you!” stuff we hear from liberals today.

Later in the New Testament (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12), the Apostle Paul builds on this by requiring a work ethic, something else favored by more conservatives than liberals. Liberals use federal public assistance to subsidize sloth and shiftlessness. Any conservative who suggests we ought to take another look at that is called heartless…and his Christian credentials are questioned, if he claims to be one.

The problem is that the teachings of Christ (and the Apostles) are not at all consistent with modern liberal prescriptions.

Here’s the core issue: Liberals think Jesus would have favored government’s forcible income redistribution programs, when He really meant private voluntary charity. When Jesus exhorted His followers to help the poor, He did not say, “Advocate for government to confiscate the possessions of others and give that money to the underprivileged.” Rather, He said, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” (Matthew 19:21, emphasis added) Do you see any impetus for that among modern liberals, or is it conservatives you find giving of their time and money?

Liberals do not understand this simple distinction – that voluntary charity is a completely different ball of wax from the government’s involuntary welfare state. Charity or compassion, funded by taxes taken forcibly from an income earner, has no soul. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the sort of giving which Jesus preached to His disciples. Read it for yourself:

Luke 19:8-10 (NIV):

8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

If a taxpayer wished to voluntarily help the poor and downtrodden, that person should be able to contribute his excess wealth to private charitable organizations set up for this purpose, instead of acting through the government. This is better in two ways: first, private organizations tend to be more efficient at servicing the needy than are government entities, which means that more of the dollars given will reach the intended destination. Second, and more importantly, this provides the taxpayer with a means of helping the poor, without forcibly imposing the same burden on other taxpayers who would not have voluntarily made the same financial choices. Honestly – would you prefer that the IRS just help itself to your paycheck and use the proceeds to fund food stamp programs, or would you rather write a check directly to the Salvation Army when you want to, and for the amount you can afford?

But what of the notion that Jesus might have been liberal in other ways? This view is also not correct. Let us first define our terms: ‘Liberal,’ according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, means “not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms.” ‘Conservative,’ by contrast, is defined as “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions.”

We can safely interpret this to mean that liberals generally are the ones who bring about political and social change, whereas conservatives tend to oppose such changes to existing rules and norms. In common use of the terms, however, liberals generally favor more wealth redistribution programs, while conservatives favor less – that is, limiting public assistance to the *truly* needy. (We now have one out of every seven Americans on food stamps, with about half of all households receiving federal transfer payments of some kind. The Left insists that it’s still not enough.)

The fact of the matter is that Jesus, contrary to popular belief, was not liberal but rather, conservative. It is those who opposed Him, such as the Pharisees, who were the liberals of first-century Judea.

Why is this the case? For one, Jesus said as much Himself: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17) A common misconception about Jesus is that He represented some kind of massive sea change in social norms or in the way man relates to God. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Far from being an agent of reinvention, Christ was the missing puzzle piece of an existing picture. He was the key which unlocked the secret of man’s relationship to God, and with it, the gates of Heaven. He completed the Jewish faith by fulfilling the fortellings of its prophets (by appearing exactly when, where, and how, all predicted millennia earlier), and by providing the final and perfect sacrifice which could remedy man’s sinful nature for all time. A rift had existed between man and God ever since that unfortunate incident in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1-24); Christ, however, died on a wooden cross and then rose again on the third day, which rectified the situation for all who would accept the gift. (Romans 5:12-19) The old ways of temple priests and animal sacrifices, valid at one time, were now no longer necessary.

By contrast, the Pharisees and teachers of the law of Jesus’ time were the liberals. They were the ones who had brought about change in God’s people by perverting the Law which God gave to Moses, while still remaining in a position of leadership as Jewish religious authorities. The Pharisees had become corrupt and powerful over the years, adding oral traditions to the Law, which God had not authorized, and honoring the letter of the Law while ignoring its spirit. Jesus referred to them as “snakes and sons of snakes,” then further called them on their hypocrisy by stating that they “…clean the outside of the cup and dish, but on the inside, are full of greed and self-indulgence.” (Matthew 23:25-28, Matthew 21:12-13.) The Pharisees clearly were the liberal ones, having heard the Word of God and turned away from it long before.

Jesus came to Earth to, among other reasons, explain to God’s people where mankind had gotten off-track, (John 4:1-26) and much of the rest of the New Testament elaborates on this point. Throughout His teachings, Christ tells us that it is pointless to hew to the letter of God’s laws, but in the process lack love and voluntary compassion toward one’s fellow man. Jesus came to remind humanity of the truth that God did not hand down the Mosaic Law (Exodus 34:1-8) simply for His people to turn right around and treat their brethren with arrogance and disrespect as the Pharisees were doing. It was the Jewish leaders of the day who were the liberals; they were the ones who had changed the Jewish faith into something it was never intended to be. (Matthew 12:1-12)

Besides, what part of the modern liberal agenda is in harmony with Christ’s teachings? Abortion? Euthanasia and assisted suicide? Darwinism: the idea that man is not God’s special and unique creation, but rather just a glorified ape arising from a primordial soup of muck through random chance? Affirmative action in employment and education based on race and gender, rather than character and merit? The rejection of traditional marriage as a social institution? Central economic planning? Moral relativism: the rejection of an objective moral code that applies at all times to all people in all places?

Which of these liberal notions is consistent in any way with Christ’s teachings or with any other part of the Bible? On the contrary, all of Scripture, including the message of Christ, would appear to side with conservatives in opposing each of these liberal crusades.

An honest and objective review of the Old and New Testaments forces a person to one inescapable conclusion. Namely, that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is not liberal, but in fact, conservative.

69 thoughts on “Is Jesus Liberal or Conservative?

  1. Great post! Very thorough and well written. I’m saving the link to share on the false-teaching Sojourners blog when they claim Jesus was a Liberal.

    While I’m not entirely comfortable putting political labels on Jesus, by any reasonable definition He is a conservative. When asked about marriage, He referred to Genesis 2. That’s pretty conservative. He doesn’t change. He is not only pro-life, He is the author of life. He said to give your money. He didn’t say to petition “Caesar” to take from neighbor A by force to redistribute to neighbor B and to call it “giving” on your part. And so on.

    • While I’m not entirely comfortable putting political labels on Jesus…

      I agree with you. I only wrote this essay because I got tired of the Left “claiming” Him…as they also “claim” the legacies of other respected historical figures such as Martin Luther King Jr or Gahndi (not that I’m comparing Christ to either of them – you know what I’m getting at though). I thought, “He may or may not be a Republican…but He sure as heck isn’t a ‘liberal’ as you bumper sticker people understand the word.”

        • This is why I prefer the old-school Catholic “faith and good works” justification for salvation. Good works mean that you, personally, have to do them — you don’t get to vote on somebody else doing them for you, on somebody else’s dime.

          But then again I’m not Christian, so I don’t really get a vote. 🙂

          • Protestants have a little different take on that – fully justified by faith, BUT, of the belief that as a seed is planted and grows into a fruit-bearing tree…so works ‘fruit’ grows on a tree of faith that grew from a seed of hearing the Word and accepting Jesus.

            One, then the other…whereas the Catholics look at the two more concurrently.

          • Did you read the article?

            I explained that He has little in common with modern progressives and that despite their inane bumper stickers, they have no business claiming Him as one of their own.

            As Christ said,”By their fruit you will recognize them.”

  2. Had Jesus wanted a governmental safety net, He could have advocated for one. He didn’t tell the man with the coin to give it to Caesar because Caesar needed it to give to poor people; rather, He told that you should give to God what is God’s, and Caesar what is Casear’s.

    “We can safely interpret this to mean that liberals generally are the ones who bring about political and social change, whereas conservatives tend to oppose such changes to existing rules and norms.”

    You missed the largest issue: for two thousand years, the “existing rules and norms” were Judeo-Christian values. Liberals, by their very name and their action, have been attempting to undermine those values and norms for many decades.

    • You missed the largest issue: for two thousand years, the “existing rules and norms” were Judeo-Christian values.

      That’s exactly what I was getting at, actually. Today, conservatives are trying to protect that. Liberals want to overturn it and go off in some other direction.

  3. Cylar: Modern Western Civilization is largely divided between two competing and diametrically opposed worldviews: the Secular Progressive (the SP’s) and the Judeo-Christian (the JC’s).

    Not sure your dichotomy is jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive. For instance, there are many religious progressives.

    Cylar: SP’s believe man is naturally and inherently good. JC’s, by contrast, hold that man is naturally evil and corrupted.

    While that might be a general trend, most people recognize limitations of human nature. You’re ascribing the most extreme views to the entire group.

    Cylar: SP’s believe that man is perfectible through social reform: it is just a matter of finding the right form of government and the right person/people to lead it. JC’s believe that human nature is fallen and not perfectible without outside intervention.

    Again, you’re ascribing the most extreme views to the entire group. In addition, while human nature may not be perfectible, human institutions have seen substantial progress over the last few centuries.

    Cylar: SP’s believe that man is the center of the universe and subject to no higher code than his own whims; JC’s believe that God is the center of the universe and that mankind is accountable to Him.

    E.g. Vitruvian Man.

    Cylar: Let’s try to remember – history’s most murderous regimes were officially atheist: the USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany, the Khmer Rouge’s Cambodia, etc. Such regimes saw no moral problem with slaughtering those who did not conform to their vision of utopia. And slaughter they did – by the millions. None of them espoused views that were in any way compatible with conservatism. They were socialist – in other words, leftist. Like modern leftists, they adopted gun control and dozens of other policies today’s liberals support. And yet the modern Left wishes to claim Christ as its forebear?

    Nazis were not officially atheist, and nearly all historians place them on the political right. Religious groups have also slaughtered for their religion. In terms of proportional slaughter, the Mongols are near the top.

    More important, you are ascribing the most extreme views to the entire group. Nazism is no more representative of most people on the political right, than Maoism is of people on the political left.

    Cylar: We can safely interpret this to mean that liberals generally are the ones who bring about political and social change, whereas conservatives tend to oppose such changes to existing rules and norms.

    That would be consistent with standard usage.

    Cylar: The fact of the matter is that Jesus, contrary to popular belief, was not liberal but rather, conservative. It is those who opposed Him, such as the Pharisees, who were the liberals of first-century Judea.

    Um, no. The Pharisees started as a reform movement, but within the context of the New Testament, represented conservative forces within Judaism.

    Cylar: Liberals think Jesus would have favored government’s forcible income redistribution programs, when He really meant private voluntary charity.

    Here we agree. Jesus was apolitical, and did not think salvation was of this world.

    • Not sure your dichotomy is jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive. For instance, there are many religious progressives.

      Oh believe me, I’m aware of that. I know some of them. There’s a word for them – “hypocrites.”

      While that might be a general trend, most people recognize limitations of human nature. You’re ascribing the most extreme views to the entire group.

      I stand by what I said.

      Again, you’re ascribing the most extreme views to the entire group. In addition, while human nature may not be perfectible, human institutions have seen substantial progress over the last few centuries.

      Like the abortion mills at Planned Parenthood, for instance? An “institution” which is vehemently opposed by conservatives and supported by liberals? That the sort of social progress you’re referring to?

      Nazis were not officially atheist, and nearly all historians place them on the political right. Religious groups have also slaughtered for their religion. In terms of proportional slaughter, the Mongols are near the top.

      Oh, not this “Hitler was a Christian” crap again. No, the Nazis were atheists. They worshiped a guy with a little mustache. Have you seen any documentaries or books written about that period at all?

      In terms of numbers, religious persecutions – even by Muslims – have got absolutely nothing on secular regimes.

      Um, no. The Pharisees started as a reform movement, but within the context of the New Testament, represented conservative forces within Judaism.

      Um, yes. The Pharisees believed in an “oral Torah” in addition to the one actually given to Moses, which is why I referred to oral traditions. (There is a commentary on this oral tradition which is now known as the Talmud.) If you know anything about the history of Judaism at all (and I do), you would know that if you absolutely must point to a conservative force therein, you would identify the Sadducees, not the Pharisees. The two groups differ on whether or not that “oral Torah” is to be trusted. However, Jesus didn’t like that latter group anymore than the former, because it denies the Resurrection and still was guilty of the abuses and arrogance seen among the teachers of the Law.

      Here we agree. Jesus was apolitical, and did not think salvation was of this world.

      I prefer not to put labels on Jesus, but as I pointed out, the modern Left has absolutely no business trying to “claim” His legacy. I wrote this in response to seeing one bumper sticker too many which attempted to do precisely that. You might have noticed that at the top of this page.

      • Aaaand right on cue, here are the Cuttlefish to lecture us on reform movements within pre-Christian Judaism. And modern German history. And political science. And theology.

        Truly their expertise knows no bounds. It must be exhausting, forever being so, so, so right about everything.

        • Severian: If, after all, we’re to believe that the Nazis — the National Socialists — were somehow right-wing because of a whole bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with the socialism they preached, practiced, and put right there in the very name of their party, then surely various social and economic factors are far better explanations for the Crusades than a simple “deus le volt!”

          The left is generally defined as those advocating increased equality, while the right is defined as advocating hierarchies. The vast majority of scholars for generations have placed the Nazis on the right as they advocated extreme inequality, including racial inequality.

      • Zachriel: While that might be a general trend, most people recognize limitations of human nature. You’re ascribing the most extreme views to the entire group.

        Cylar: I stand by what I said.

        So you won’t defend your position from the claim of overgeneralization.

        Cylar: Like the abortion mills at Planned Parenthood, for instance?

        Or civil rights for women or blacks.

        Cylar: Oh, not this “Hitler was a Christian” crap again.

        We didn’t make that claim. But Nazi Germany was not “officially theist”, despite your claim.

        Cylar: I prefer not to put labels on Jesus, but as I pointed out, the modern Left has absolutely no business trying to “claim” His legacy.

        By the same token, he doesn’t represent traditional Republican business interests either.

        • So you won’t defend your position from the claim of overgeneralization.

          I’ve heard what you had to say and I think you’re wrong. I’ve already made my argument in my blog post. That’s what “stand by what I said” means.

          Or civil rights for women or blacks.

          Which the Left has spent the past two centuries fighting against. Bull Connor was a Democrat – you knew that right?

          We didn’t make that claim. But Nazi Germany was not “officially theist”, despite your claim.

          Yes it was…as was Soviet Russia, Maoist China, and communist North Korea. All of them were hostile to Christianity except for a handful of “approved” religions. As is most of the Left. Wasn’t it Marx who said that it’s the opiate of the masses?

          By the same token, he doesn’t represent traditional Republican business interests either.

          What “business interests?” I think it’s more important to point out that He has little in common with any of the Left’s preferred social policies, all mentioned above. The sickening menace of abortion alone (and the Left’s continued support for unrestricted application of it, such as by our president) is ample evidence alone of the gaping maw between the modern Left and any trace of Christian teaching…to say nothing of Jesus Himself.

          You really are going to sit there and tell me that “Jesus, the original liberal” is okay with slaughtering the unborn, coupling men together, disarming us (remember, he told His disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords), and all of the other disgusting things today’s liberals stand for? I can’t decide if you’re lying or stupid.

          The discussion you kicked off (arguing over the Pharisees were, for instance), while interesting, isn’t really the point here.

          I mentioned the Pharisees for contrast with Jesus because they remind me so much of today’s Left – haughty, arrogant, self-righteous hypocrites, fattened on the wealth taken from others, who make a big show of caring about the poor without actually doing much to help them.

          It was Christ and His followers who did that. It was the early Christians who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, ministered to prisoners, cared for the sick, and otherwise helped people in difficult circumstances. Just like you see Christians doing today – in every hellhole corner of the world, where you find poverty, disease, warfare, and other human ills…you also find Christians caring for them. Not Western liberals, not atheists, not self-righteous snobs who preach endlessly and then do nothing.

          Likewise in their own communities here in the US – real authentic Christians (who are usually conservative, not liberal) are reaching out to the members of their community and helping any way they can. I personally am involved in such efforts, both at home and abroad…so I kinda sorta know what I’m talking about. There’s not one liberal among my team or even one person who subscribes to any of the leftist belief package.

          Those are the authentic followers of Jesus….not people who drive around with stupid bumper stickers on their cars looking down their noses at “evil, greedy, heartless conservatives.”

          THAT, my ink-squirting friend…is the point of the post. Jesus has very little in common with the modern Left and they’ve got absolutely no business claiming He is one of them.

          • Cylar: I’ve heard what you had to say and I think you’re wrong. I’ve already made my argument in my blog post.

            We pointed out a problem with your argument, that you formed a dichotomy that wasn’t jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive, and that you used the most extreme views to be representative of the entire group.

            Cylar: Which the Left has spent the past two centuries fighting against. Bull Connor was a Democrat – you knew that right?

            Bull Connor was a Democrat, but was a conservative, not a liberal.

            Cylar: Yes it was…

            As you are claiming it was “officially atheist”, it would be a matter of law, so should be easy to document.

            Cylar: Wasn’t it Marx who said that it’s the opiate of the masses?

            Communist governments are official atheistic, as we mentioned above.

            Cylar: What “business interests?” I think it’s more important to point out that He has little in common with any of the Left’s preferred social policies, all mentioned above.

            It’s just as important to note that Jesus had little in common with Republican business interests.

            Cylar: You really are going to sit there and tell me that “Jesus, the original liberal”

            We didn’t say that. Indeed, we said Jesus was apolitical. His kingdom was not of this world.

            Cylar: I mentioned the Pharisees for contrast with Jesus because they remind me so much of today’s Left

            Within the context of the New Testament, they would certainly be the forces of conservatism.

            Cylar: Not Western liberals, not atheists, not self-righteous snobs who preach endlessly and then do nothing.

            There are many liberals who work to help the poor.

  4. Well put. I would argue that the Mongols, contra Zachriel, did not slaughter for religious reasons (they were famously tolerant of other beliefs; see Amy Chua among others) and should not be counted in the same ledger as the Crusades, various inquisitions, the Thirty Years War, and other religious conflicts. As for the religious progressives, they certainly seem more progressive than religious. Besides, they’re all heretics, schismatics and/or endemonised Protestants anyway, 😉

    • I’d take a tiny bit of issue with the idea that the Crusades, the Thirty Years’ War, the Inquisition, &c. are chargeable solely to religion on the great balance sheet of life.

      If, after all, we’re to believe that the Nazis — the National Socialists — were somehow right-wing because of a whole bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with the socialism they preached, practiced, and put right there in the very name of their party, then surely various social and economic factors are far better explanations for the Crusades than a simple “deus le volt!”

    • Wombat-socho: I would argue that the Mongols, contra Zachriel, did not slaughter for religious reasons

      We didn’t say they slaughtered for religious reasons. They were conquerers. But they weren’t atheists either, though Cylar claimed that “history’s most murderous regimes were officially atheist”.

  5. I wasn’t aware the Golden Horde was a “regime,” with an official position on much of anything. Killing in the name of political ideology is a 20th century thing, and you could probably add up all the Mongols’ intentional and collateral killing and still not get to Pol Pot, let alone Stalin or Mao.

    But I’m sure the Zachriel, armed with their PhD-level knowledge of Uzbek history, will be along to enlighten us shortly.

    Or they’ll dispute the meaning of “regime.” Or “most.” It’s always something. When you’ve failed out of Chesty LaRue’s School of Massage, you take your intellectual victories where you can get them, I guess.

  6. Severian: I wasn’t aware the Golden Horde was a “regime,” with an official position on much of anything.

    They weren’t “officially atheist” per Cylar’s original comment that “history’s most murderous regimes were officially atheist”.

    Severian: you could probably add up all the Mongols’ intentional and collateral killing and still not get to Pol Pot, let alone Stalin or Mao.

    Mao would be close in numbers, but proportionally, the Mongols by far. The Y-chromosome of Genghis and his male relatives are found in 8% of males in a region of Asia from the Pacific to the Caspian. See Zerjal et al., The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols, American Journal of Human Genetics 2003.

  7. Cylar: It’s not what was “liberal” in Jesus’ time that truly matters – it’s what qualifies as liberal now.

    Jesus was apolitical, saying “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. His kingdom was not of this world.

    • Jesus was apolitical, saying “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. His kingdom was not of this world.

      His kingdom is not of this world, but it doesn’t preclude us from looking at that Kingdom and determining which set of political principles is more closely aligned with God’s philosophy. Christ isn’t apolitical and I don’t know where you’re getting that idea. He’s very political. He never calls on His followers to stay out of government or politics or avoid taking stands on controversial issues. As with so many of your posts, you think your assertions should be taken as a “given.” It doesn’t work that way around here. You need to provide some support.

      The real question, of course, is not whether He’s on conservatives’ side, but rather whether we are on His.

      I’m not sitting here claiming that He’d be chair of the Republican National Committee today, but I can definitely tell you He’d have nothing to do with the modern Left. It’s socialist, murderous, hypocritical, dishonest, and cruel. Which party was it that booed God at its convention and shouted “hail satan” at anti-abortion protestors?

      The point is that the modern Left has no business claiming Him as one of their own. If you’d actually read my blog post carefully instead of just reacting…you’d know that what originally set me off was the “Jesus is a liberal!” bumper sticker and the oft-repeated claim that His ideology is at odds with that of modern social or fiscal conservatives.

      You keep bringing up these historical groups (most of whom were very bad people) and trying to assign them to the Right, when you know full well they’ve got nothing to do with conservative principles: traditional morality, smaller government, strong defense, personal freedom. Lots of ideologies or revered figures were “liberal” for their time but aren’t considering liberal by the standards of today. You have the same problem as many modern leftists – you confuse classical and contemporary liberalism.

      I really have no idea why you claim to maintain such an interest in this topic. Nothing you’ve posted in any other threads indicates the slightest reason to think you’re a Christian. Quite the contrary, actually.

    • http://blogs.christianpost.com/uncommon-God-common-good/was-jesus-political-10861/

      The salient point is here:

      One should not take Jesus’ statement to Pilate—“My kingdom is not of this world” (“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” John 18:36)—to mean that Jesus was non-political or apolitical. What he said was that his kingdom is of another order, one which intersects this order and calls it to account. That is why he says that Pilate, and even more so those who handed him over to Pilate, are under judgment: “Jesus answered, ‘You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin’” (John 19:11).

    • Please don’t comment on this thread any more. Additional replies from you will be deleted. I’m not going to go around and around with you for 400+ posts. Enough is enough.

  8. Great post! I can’t add to Cylar’s analysis–it’s right on–but I can throw in a couple of my own personal observations on the topic at hand.

    I’ve noticed that most “Jesus was a liberal!” types worship a false god: what they call “progressive” government. These people use the language and imagery of actual religion to disguise their real motives (and probably, to more effectively lie to themselves about who and what they really are). Then there are some “Jesus was a liberal” folks who are decent and well-meaning people but who, whatever their intentions, have been horribly deceived and, probably because it feels so good, participate in their own deception. They are nice (sometimes VERY nice, I know quite a few and care for them very much), but nevertheless they are part of the problem.

    Abortion is a holocaust. No one who participates in or supports it is truly following Christ. They might mean to and think they are, to the bottom of their very hearts. But they aren’t. Again, deception and self-deception. Deception has always been Satan’s favorite and most subtle weapon. How anyone can convince themselves that the slaughter of unborn children is acceptable in God’s sight, I have no idea.

    Taking other people’s property against their will, by force of law and threat of prison, and giving it to someone else is not charity. It is stealing, even if it is “legal,” just as abortion is murder regardless of whether it is allowed under the law. I’ve made these points to many liberals many, many times, and 90 times out of 100 they skim right over these points because they do not want to hear them. That’s not ignorance. It’s a willful shoving away and rebellion against what Christ actually taught. That’s not a great position for any of us to be in on Judgment Day (not that many liberals I’ve ever met believe in things like the devil or Judgment Day).

    Deception, deception. Now I want to go re-read The Screwtape Letters, which covers not only the folks in the spotlight (Jesus revisionists), but errrrrrbody. On my better days, I remember to pray for grace and discernment for us *all.*

    • Almost every liberal position falls apart when you ask what them what they, personally, have done to advance it. It’s easy to be self-righteous when you’re voting for other people to pay for and do stuff. I believe the Biblical injunction is to feed and clothe the homeless, not to vote to “tax the rich” to hire the bureaucrats who will set up the offices that will recruit the interns who will, after all the featherbed contracts are handed out to the bureaucrats’ cronies and political allies, finally sorta feed and kinda clothe a few of the homeless. You know, the cute ones that look good in campaign commercials.

      • Does the socialist Left really not understand that or are they willfully dishonest? There is a video of some author telling bill oreilly that Christ was a socialist during an interview on Fox: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/10/02/oreilly-battles-notre-dame-professor-who-claims-jesus-was-socialist

        …using exact sane Bible quotes that Zachariel used above. The Bible also shows that even the devil can quote Scripture and twist it around, however.

        • Wait, wait, wait… you mean to say the Zachriel just cut’n’pasted some shit? That they didn’t even read the post, but just went scrambling to Google to find some crap to hit ctrl-c and yell “gotcha!”

          I’m shocked, shocked I tells ya. Those pillars of probity, those titans of intellectual consistency… they couldn’t possibly have done that!

          🙂

          • Yeah, I’m getting tired of this nonsense that Jesus “isn’t political.” It’s why I told Zachariel to get lost. We were talking past each other and he wasn’t listening to anything I was saying. I saw what he did on the global warming threads here and at Morgan’s and decided I wasn’t going to allow him stink up my section of the RC blog in like manner. To his credit, he at least called Jesus “apolitical” instead of “liberal.” I guess that’s progress.

            Nonetheless, I often suspect this “not political” stuff comes from secular liberals who would just as soon Christians stay out of politics and avoid voicing their opinions on political issues. What we have to say makes them uncomfortable, so they quote Scripture to us in an attempt to shame us into silence. if taken at face value, the claim makes no sense, as the Bible is full of admonitions for us to be involved with the world and engaged with it, not withdrawn from the events of our times. There’s no reason we shouldn’t be affecting social and political change in our era.

            This attempt to silence & shame is the same motive behind the original “Jesus is a liberal” trope that I was railing against in the original blog post.

            I came across this today – it’s a list of books that should be read by those who think that indeed, Christians should be “political.”

            http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/pastor-matt-five-books-christians-should-read-to-understand-politics-and-public-policy/

  9. I often suspect this “not political” stuff comes from secular liberals who would just as soon Christians stay out of politics and avoid voicing their opinions on political issues.

    I’ve never understood that. Politics is the adjudication of competing preferences. Of course one’s religious views inform one’s politics. Which is yet another reason leftists prefer dictatorship — all your preferences must be state-approved. Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

    • Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

      There was a guy over on rightwingnews.com who was fond of saying that. I think he went by “n_o_brain” or something. Anyway, it’s true and there’s a certain delicious irony in it.

      I’ve never quite understood the attempt to link modern political conservatism, much less Christianity, to early- and mid-20th century fascism. They couldn’t possibly have less in common. I was trying to explain to our resident troll up there that all such movements are on the left – always have been – and it doesn’t matter that the Nazis promised law and order after the chaos of the Weimar years, or that some of Germany’s Christians were tricked into supporting the brown shirts in the 20s and 30s.

      To his credit, I noticed he didn’t even attempt to deny that Marxism is associated with the Left, nor did he attempt to link it to anything Christ preached. I suppose that too is progress since there seems to be no shortage of people claiming that Jesus was an out-and-out socialist.

      • But remember, Cy, the Nazis were right-wing because they “advocated greater inequality.”

        Which is, as we know, the “standard” definition of “right-wing.” It’s “common usage.”

        History’s a lot more fun when you throw arbitrary distinctions around. For instance: Lenin was a leftist because he wore one of those stupid hipster goatees, but Mao was a secret libertarian because he liked takeout Chinese food.

        It’s always a gas to ask a leftist to try this thought experiment: If you take out the racial elements, what exactly is wrong with Nazism? If, in other words, you take the “national” out of “National Socialism,” you’re left with….. 🙂

    • Man, wish I hadn’t missed this.

      In general, secularists want Christians to stay out of EVERYTHING. Are you a scientist? Well, then, you’re not allowed to believe in the magic sky daddy, because Galileo or something something. Business owner? Heh, Jesus overturned the money lenders’ tables, maaaaaaan! Conservation? Those Christians only want to subdue the Earth, they don’t care about Gaia. (Maaaaaaaan!) Entertainment? Sure, all those prudes getting in the way of our innocent fun. Religion? “There are plenty of devout Muslims. But I’m not religious, I’m spiritual.”

      Etc etc. And none of this is surprising to the faithful. I have a college buddy who as a good Evangelical is fond of Scripture quotes, and two of his favorites are 2 Corinthians 2:15-16 and John 15:18 – in short, believers are the fragrance of God in the world, which is the odor of death to those who are perishing; and if the world hates us, it’s because it hated Him first. Based on that he would jokingly say, “‘Fly, remember that we stink and nobody likes us.”

      • And, of course, those secularists are right. Because they’re liberals, you see, and as any liberal will tell you — just ask ’em!! — they never take anything on faith. They always need to see the data, and doggedly follow it wherever it leads, no matter what. They champion open and honest inquiry, and would never even dream of shouting down opinions they dislike.

        It’s only Godbag Christofascists who do stuff like that.

  10. Pingback: Roundup | Eternity Matters

  11. As soon as I got to the part about the Nazis being leftist I knew you had no real understanding of what you were talking about. While communists were (quite obviously) socialist, the Nazis are a specialized form of fascism that includes anti-semitism. The reason they hated Jews so much had a lot to do with the fact that they considered communism to be founded by Jews. And they absolutely hated communism. You see, that’s the problem rampant in Conservatives: if they don’t personally like it, it must be liberal! Fascism and Nazism are both very right wing, they oppose the socialist left wing of communism. Where you seem to be confused is that they are all totalitarian. This is neither left or right winged in-and-of itself, but divided into left (socialism/communism) and right (nazism/fascism). Totalitarian means one party controls everything, and basically it comes down to “live this way or we kill you” mentality. Given that this basic of government study is so misunderstood and misrepresented in this article, I think it should be obvious to other readers the level of comprehension of the author, and accuracy of his statements.

    • “Nazi” is short for National SOCIALIST German Workers party. That you missed something so obvious, casts into doubt your understanding of my article. Socialism, communism, and fascism are all on the left and always have been. They have nothing in common with conservative ideals like limited government, inalienable rights or self-rule.

      You aren’t one of those people who thinks the Nazi party had anything in common with Jesus are you?
      http://www.doxa.ws/social/Hitler.html

  12. Hilter was a christian. The nazi belt buckles say God With Us. Beside atheism isnt a belief, it is the lack of belief. You cant do something in the name of your lack of belief.

    • Seriously? You think referencing God’s name in some speeches and putting “God with us” on belt buckles is all it takes to become an authentic follower of Jesus? It’s like it never occurred to you that the Nazis simply figured out a way to gain control of a majority Lutheran country – by hijacking its faith tradition and speaking all the right buzzwords at a critical point in its history. It’s also like you’ve never heard of Matthew 7:16, “By their fruits you will recognize them.” I’m sorry, but I don’t quite see how the whole “take over Europe by force and cram millions of Jews into ovens” thing exactly marks one as a Christian.

      Frankly, I’m getting tired of this particular bit of sophistry, generally repeated by people who probably don’t actually care much about what Hitler or his men actually believed. It’s nothing but a smear, a ridiculous attempt to associate the modern Christian church with history’s most infamous bad guys. It’s been debunked over and over – Naziism was a secular ideology. To the extent it had any religious roots at all, it was associated with pre-Christian, Teutonic pagan beliefs and/or the occult. It’s like you’ve never seen the Norse imagery Heinrich Himmler used to promote the Nazi party in its early days. It’s long past time to put this nonsense to rest.

      Here. Read. Learn. http://www.doxa.ws/social/Hitler.html

  13. Does anyone else see the irony and hypocrisy in the Jesus Libertarian meme?

    Jesus says “I told YOU to give…” implying that the guy shouldn’t tell other people to give. But that’s exactly what Jesus did, he told someone else to give.

    So, do as Jesus says or do as Jesus does?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *