Jesus Christ Politics Resistance.

Is Jesus a Republican? Is Jesus a Liberal?

As far as we know, Jesus never directly mentioned either homosexual behavior or abortion / infanticide. And we can be sure that’s not because he cared nothing for moral or social issues. He cared a great deal.

As for power and politics,

one of my favorite lines from Jesus

is when he was doing a meandering teaching – healing tour on the way to Jerusalem for the last time. Religious authorities, harassing him, suggested he go into hiding because “Herod is looking for you”. (Herod the non-Roman ruler under the Roman thumb, was not known for excercising democratic or humanitarian procedures very regularly.) Jesus says, in effect, “Go tell that sneaky predator where I am, and what my agenda and schedule are. Don’t forget to mention that I’ll be in Jerusalem in three days”.

That’s not the response of a man cowed by authority religious or political.

But “the common people heard him gladly,”

and he saw and heard them gladly, and loved them deeply, and served them any way he could. Is that liberal? Probably. He was very liberal in his remarks about wealth and power (critical of the misevaluation and misuse of those gifts), and very conservative in refusing to advocate any kind of overt rebellion.

He was very conservative in his love for God, Temple, and the Scriptures, and very liberal in his willingness to critique the use of those things, and to be misinterpreted as disrespecting those things — and in his readiness to get kicked out of synagogue for speaking what he saw in the Scriptures and in the world around him, no matter the situation or the “gravity” of those present.

So Liberal and Conservative are probably the wrong parameters.

But it’s a very valuable and stimulating question.

Is Jesus a Republican? Would he be a Democrat OR Republican today? Well, it’s VERY hard for me to imagine him being associated with today’s machiavellian Republican party, and not easy to imagine him being officially associated with the [greedy, manipulative – 2017] Democrats. In his day he would not even take a political stance against Herod, Pilate, or Ceasar. But he undermined all of them AND the religious establishment by his clearly emphasized moral priorities.

Visits: 120

Leave a Comment


  • I think, I am in total agreement with Connie. (Though, by saying so, I am about completing a rather long journey back from a detour that led me to a basically liberal view up to most recent times.) The crucial point in Mihangel’s reasoning is the part running from “No harm comes of homosexuality.â€? … to … “Homosexuality is NOT and illness.â€?

    I’m not so sure. “Illness in the mental realm is a too vaguely outlined concept to start moral reasoning from there. And moreover, there ARE such “illnesses� as must be subsumed under “sociopathic behavior� in the broadest sense. Such are (likewise) not doing any harm -– on physical plane for sure –, and they may even be completely harmless on the mental level as well, IF AND AS LONG AS the scope of causation and effects is restricted to a “MICRO-SOCIAL� level of personal needs and relationships. But they may very well run counter to the NEEDS OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, i.e. to the standards of social orientation which collectivity may be forced to impose on its individuals if it wants to do all the bit it can to forestall habituation of multitudinous forms of moral boundlessness. Yet the specific desires of individuals, seeking recognition for their personal emancipative goals, are indeed generally innocent of wishing or striving for (the bulk of) such boundlessness (ensuing). There is no objection here.

    Such a collective need, in my dawning opinion, is to keep defining homosexuality as an “abnormity� (not “sin�, in the first place). The next step, and only this further consideration, is introducing sin by well that reasoning which Connie sketched by comparing gay practice with gluttony or incest. I find both parallels very availing.

    First, consider incest: Indeed, there is no strictly “logical� or “appealingly moral� line of separation between the allowed and the outlawed in that field either. And the conventions that exist vary among diverse cultures and times. As I recently read, e.g., most of the islamic peoples of the former USSR (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kirghizia, Tadzhikistan, Aserbaijan) all have more consanguineous marriage customs than western nations (or Russia and Khazakhstan, by the way) and are not apparently suffering (morally or biologically) from it. So, (by way of comparison it appears) the sinful aspect is not homosexuality itself (i.e. a propensity and ensuing desires), – and as to particular acts, there, of course, I think, we are all unanimous that we are called to forgive and FORBEAR “seven times seventy-fold� –, but just as with gluttony, the dour (and highly typical of Jesus!) question arises of whether a man (woman) is reigned by his (her) desires (and the associate “spiritual� intention of rebelling against any personally un-understandable, but empirically absolutely justified, social obstacles) or whether he (she) will strive for quenching or “sublimating� such desires for the sake of helping collectivity to uphold the standards upon which general welfare, partly and indirectly, depends.

    If they are prepared to take the hard choice, “collectivity� in turn is biblically beholden to (gratefully) welcome and assist such efforts with true understanding and loving considerateness.
    If not, society may and should point out –
    that there are also (e.g.) many gluttons who do not feel in the least impaired by their vice, perhaps even manage to escape physical consequences of it, but that yet immoderateness remains a thing to be discriminated against by society, –
    and that, on the other hand, there are many combinations of sexual propensities and live circumstances making people convinced and willing to embrace chastity as their personal calling.

    And if, finally, it is argued that modern western societies are empirically on the verge of genuinely not seeing any more that need for collective standards (i.e. for these to be adapted to the social norm of such family structures as are propitious for the well-being of children), I would like to object that this, on the contrary (on the contrary of meaning, the “aspect sin� is obsolete in homosexuality) may be a grave sign testifying to the progress of a particularly harmless-looking facet of what false promises the enlightenment value of “liberty� holds out when inflated by an over-indidualistic denial of community, state and collective entities. A denial of which our rapacious era of libertarian “globalization� is particularly guilty, – and will soon begin to pay off its horrible debt.

  • Hi Mihangel,

    Thanks for presenting your thoughts so well. I especially appreciated your statement “…that this is a stereotype that must be stamped out from developed society, where liberalism is vital to live in harmony.”

    It is true that Jesus does not condemn us for our sins… whether adultery, gluttony, laziness, homosexuality, or fear… He encourages us to overcome them, though. He doesn’t mention incest either, but we can assume that he would consider it a sin. What he seemed to focus on the most was greed and self-centeredness.

    He was fierce with the Pharisees, wasn’t he? I don’t think he bothered with the more obvious sins, maybe because they were over-rated… just like on TV now.

    So, what about your question, “What reason does our Lord, Jesus Christ, have to see homosexuality as sin?”

    Isn’t it similar to incest? What makes these things wrong? I think the answer is to think about God’s plan, and not just do whatever we like. But again, it is agreed that Jesus did not come to condemn the world, but to save it.

    Any thoughts out there?

  • But Jesus had never stated resentment towards homosexual persons as we know. One most certainley can percieve adultery as immoral as Jesus uttered that “Though shalt not commit adultery” He even goes to say that one must not lust for another lest he should cast his sight away. Where was it again that Jesus mentioned love thy Father, love thy neighbour, but no gays. As a total heterosexual, I ask the one question that is crucial in this instance: What reason does our Lord, Jesus Christ, have to see homosexuality as sinful?

    I also answer to the behaviour. I begin with What Behaviour? I am sure you are aware of the Will and Grace model that encompassess a few gay people in the society. But, have you never heard of the term “Camp”. This is the term for an heterosexual man who acts as you call it “Gay”. I believe the fault here is a televised and articlised generalisation that states that “If you are gay, you are like this/ If you are “straight” you are not. One must see that this is a stereotype that must be stamped out from developed society, where liberalism is vital to live in harmony.

    No harm comes of homosexuality. These people can be as generous and loving as any other. I am not telling you to greet every person who appears to be gay when strolling down the street. I say to show indifference, for what business is it of ours of that which is called their “sexuality”. Being a Christian is not to condemn people; Being a Christian means to love the Lord Jesus our father and to love thy neighbour. Help those who are mentally ill. Homosexuality is NOT and illness.

    To all, I ask this question. What feel you in your heart when you condemn homosexuality(for God is in the heart of us all). Does an unsettling feeling come from the Lord?When you are ever in doubt of the scriptures, turn to your heart. If you have th “gut-feeling” that something is morally wrong, ask the Lord in prayer. Jesus Christ will answer your prayer and he will help guide the way to the making heaven on earth.

  • Well, if a person who was a homosexual was brought to Jesus, he would probably say, “Go and sin no more.” just like he did to the woman caught in adultery. It is clear in scripture that homosexuality is deviant, like incest, and sex with animals, and therefore not the design. God loves us and calls us to the highest good.

    I have seen two kinds of homosexuality: Just plain gaudy unbecoming behavior, and genuine love between two people gone too far – like would be the case in incest as well. Both are sad, like any other sin.

    What are more of your thoughts, please, Mihangel? 🙂