Wasn't Jesus a Liberal? (Pt.II)

by Gary Vance

I wrote an essay in October 2004 entitled "Wasn't Jesus a Liberal?" in an attempt to refute the denigration of liberalism by the
Republican dominated Religious Right that increasingly claims only conservatives have the moral high ground and the endorsement
of Jesus. Published on several sites on the internet, the essay encouraged a startling number of replies from readers thanking me
for expressing thoughts and values that they also held. Many told of how they felt oppressed and ostracized within their
communities of faith for sharing these views. What I learned is that their churches have disenfranchised vast multitudes of Christians
who now don't know where to turn.

I was saddened by the responses from the Religious Right. Their commentary, revealing a great degree of ignorance and apathy
concerning the full spectrum of Biblically-based Christian ideals that might be tackled in the political arena, were bitter and vitriolic
diatribes that questioned my credibility as a minister and my standing in the Kingdom of God.

Jesus was and is beyond any simplistic pigeonhole definition of the term liberal. The classic nobility of Christian liberalism
originated with Christ. His teaching was absolute and was not tainted by shifting cultural mores like we find in todays definition of
liberal. In a benign Webster's Dictionary definition of liberal, a particular line that alluded to a belief in the basic goodness of man
offended my evangelical critics. Their criticism indicated that as a minister I should know what the Bible teaches concerning the
hopeless depravity of man apart from God's salvation.

I chose the Webster definition in an attempt to bring into focus the more classical understanding of the term rather than the
distorted, contemporary, partisan-driven connontation. The Bible teaches that God created humans in His likeness and that there
remains in everyone something that He loves and is redeemable. (John 3:16) I think it is interesting that Christians who oppose the
content of my essay seize on that one phrase of definition and overlook other aspects that relate to being progressive and tolerant.

Pt. I: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1019-24.htm

Pt. II: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1009-31.htm

dp

He'd be called an enabler by Christians. I mean look at him:

1) He fed the poor and hungry from the fishes and loaves. Where's the incentive for them to get jobs? He should have been telling them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get a job.

2) He healed the lepers and other sick. He was depriving hard working medical professionals of their livelihood. In addition, he never got paid for his services. Sounds like socialism to me.

3) He said the meek will inherit the Earth. He should have said, those hardworking wealthy will inherit the Earth. If you are rich it means God smiles on your work ethic and if you are meek and poor God is cursing you.

4) He hung around 12 men a lot. Hmmmmmmm. Sounds a bit suspicious to me.

This Jesus sounds like a pretty shady character. A little too much like Guevara for the "True Christian" of today.
Maybe Pat should have this guy killed...Oh that's right...stupid me...Pilate already did that.

Which brings to mind the point that if you really want to piss off a RW Fundie, call them a Pharisee! :)

Then, the big shot high priest was named Caiphas. Now, the pharisee high priest is named Pat Robertson, with James Dobson as his successor.