Jesus is a Liberal(?), Part Deux

From the previous blog entry, we see that Schweitzer cut through the crap and succinctly punctured theological liberalism's vaunted quest for the historical Jesus. Instead of arriving at some objective historical Jesus, scholar after scholar was arriving at a mythical Jesus that placated their own perspectives. If one was a liberal, he would find a liberal Jesus. If one was conservative, one would find a conservative Jesus. If one was a feminist, she would find a feminist Jesus. Marxists found a Marxist Jesus. Hippies found a hippy Jesus. Capitalists found a capitalist Jesus. And on and on it went, and still goes today. Today's liberationists find a liberation Jesus. Ardent flag-waving patriots find a pro-American Jesus. Nothing has changed, and it's depressing that so many haven't learned a thing in the 100 years since Schweitzer. Such is the result when a lack of intellectual curiosity is joined by hubris.

So is 'Jesus a liberal'? Hopefully we've learned the folly of such proclamations. However, while trying to translate Jesus into a contemporary socio-political philosophy is not facile, it's not a fruitless exercise either if the Bible is allowed to stand as truthful.

Part of the problem in all this is arriving at accurate definitions of terms like 'liberal'. If, for example, we define 'liberal' as a philosophy that preaches freedom without form, and liberty without law, then there's no way Jesus is a liberal. Jesus fulfilled the law rather than abolished it (Mt 5.17). And while Jesus has provided freedom, he has done so within the specific form of being adopted as sons into the family of God through faith (Jn 8).

If instead we define 'liberal' as a philosophy of universal acceptance and tolerance, then again the Jesus of the Bible does not fit the bill. Jesus accepted and tolerated much in his day, but he drew red hot lines of distinction between people and harshly condemned many. As Hauerwas has stated well, Christianity, following the lead of its Head, is not about acceptance but transformation under a common confession of Jesus as Lord.

In saying the above, I am not suggesting that Jesus is 'conservative'. If we were to define 'conservative' as a philosophy of change-resistance, then there's no way Jesus is a conservative. His entire life on earth changed everything - for the better.

Regarding contemporary political issues, it is again difficult to know where Jesus would stand. It is abundantly clear that Jesus cared for the poor and commanded his followers to do the same. But does this mean that Jesus would therefore commend the detached warehoused solutions of the state to address poverty? That's far less clear. It is also clear that Jesus spoke out against violence (Lk 11; Mt 26.52), but the consummation of the Kingdom as described in Revelation makes a thoroughgoing anti-violence political position a bit complicated for a Christian. Regarding an issue like immigration, I have argued in my hospitality course that the Bible commends both openness and boundaries and threads the needle between the more 'liberal' view of blanket amnesty and the more 'conservative' view of criminalization.

The bottom line is that Jesus does not neatly fit into any human political category. That's part of why we know Jesus is God and not just another human that can be pigeonholed. Jesus challenges every political orthodoxy. That means that members of God's family, regardless of their political leanings, have to overlook and excuse a lot of unbiblical politics as part of justifying their political affiliation as a Christian. Neither the incessant whining of the Left nor the smug indifference of the Right accurately reflects the person and ministry of Jesus. This is part of why neither political party can claim Jesus as one of their own with intellectual integrity, and it's also why politicized pulpits are damaging the Kingdom of God by virtue of severely truncating the Gospel. Liberals and conservatives alike, and especially those in pulpits, need to reckon with this with full understanding of the consequences of not doing so (James 3.1).