What is a liberal? The question is kind of important, isn't it? I mean, after all, we need to know what we're talking about when we use the argument. (You'll need to know what a conservative is if you argue that way, too, by the way.) The dictionary is abundantly ... vague. It may mean "favorable to progress or reform." Or it could refer to a preference to representational forms of government rather than monarchies. (Yeah, who'd have thought it?) Popular in the definitions is "free from prejudice" or the like. You know, "tolerant", "broad-minded", "embracing those of different views and standards of behavior", that kind of thing. We can't forget "not bound by traditional ideas" and especially "characterized by generosity." I particularly liked "not limited to orthodox views."[1] And I was impressed with "not strict or literal; loose or approximate." And there was the completely useless definition, "member of the Liberal Party." Thanks. That was no help at all. I really liked how this article started out.
Liberalism is too dynamic and flexible a concept to be contained in a precise definition.I suppose that encapsulates my problem here. Was Jesus a liberal? If you are going to say "He was too dynamic and flexible to be contained in a precise definition," I might just agree with you. But, of course, that's not what they mean when they say it. What do they mean? You see, I suspect that "liberal" is defined differently by conservatives than by liberals just as the opposite is also true. So who is making the statement is a big issue when trying to figure out what is being said. John Hallowell listed these as the key components of liberalism:
I) A belief in the absolute value of human personality and spiritual equality of the individual;So, was Jesus that kind of liberal?
II) A belief in the autonomy of the individual will;
III) A belief in the essential rationality and goodness of man;
IV) A belief in certain inalienable rights of the individual, particularly, the rights of life, liberty and property;
V) That state comes into existence by mutual consent for the purpose of protection of rights;
VI) That the relationship between the state and the individual is a contractual one;
VII) That social control can best be secured by law rather than command;
VIII) Individual freedom in all spheres of life-political, economic, social,Intellectual and religious;
IX) The government that governs the least is the best;
X) A belief that truth is accessible to man's natural reason.
Well, Jesus believed in the value of humans. The human personality? Not quite sure what that means. He considered people "sick" (Matt 9:12) and "lost" (Luke 19:10) and in need of repentance (Matt 4:17; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:1-5). Is that a belief in the value of human personality? He certainly believed in the spiritual equality of the individual. "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:2-3). That is, they are equally in need of spiritual salvation.
Jesus believed in the autonomy of the will[2] ... but I didn't think that conservatives, Christians, or anyone else thought otherwise.
I don't think Jesus believed in "the essential rationality and goodness of man," just going off the passages I've already offered. He certainly didn't see the Pharisees as essentially good. He didn't pronounce woes over the cities of Israel because they were essentially good. He didn't walk into the Temple with a whip because they were essentially good. He didn't even tell the woman caught in adultery, "Go and sin no more" because He thought she was essentially good. No, that's not working.
I don't think we can find anything in Scripture that would reference "a belief in certain inalienable rights of the individual" in terms of "the rights of life, liberty, and property." He told the rich young ruler that the way to heaven was not to retain personal property (Luke 18:22) and offered His disciples two options with everything else: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Mark 12:17). His personal life of owning nothing but what He wore did not bode well for a belief in property rights. He didn't seem to think that property was particularly important.
Jesus didn't actually have much to say about the government, so no genuine biblical proof can be offered about Jesus's view on the existence of the state by mutual consent or the contractual relationship between individual and state. But I have to ask, do conservatives think differently on those things? Don't conservatives in general agree with the Declaration of Independence, too? So can these items (V and VI) be distinctively "liberal"?
I can say with relative certainly that Jesus did not believe that reform is accomplished by law rather than command. He believed reform occurred by rebirth (John 3:3-17) and training by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Reform in Jesus's mind comes first and foremost by a relationship with Him, not by law or command. Instead, He assured us "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15), making "obeying commands" a result of loving Him, not the cause.
Given Jesus's demand for obedience, can it be said that He favored individual freedom in all spheres of life? Do we think of "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me" (Mark 8:34) as a stand for individual freedom?
And given Jesus's claim that the Holy Spirit, not "man's natural reason", would lead them into all truth, it looks like Jesus didn't meet that one, either.
Now, to be fair, none of this is conclusive. He agreed with some parts and not with other parts and some we can't even know. Was Jesus a liberal? I'd say that Jesus didn't fall in the categories required sufficiently to say. But, since Jesus was God Incarnate and liberalism can't be defined, that's pretty much what you'd expect, isn't it?
________
[1] I find this one actually funny because the underlying definition of "orthodoxy" is "right belief". If there was anything Jesus believed in it was right belief.
[2] By "autonomy" I mean that humans have the ability to make uncoerced choices. I don't think that, in the final analysis, anyone can rationally mean actual autonomy. Genuine autonomy is free of all limitations. At the very least, our wills are limited by things like physics. You can't, for instance, simply decide to fly because you choose to. There are limitations to choices everywhere. The amount of limitation may vary depending on your view, but no view includes no limitations, so genuine autonomy can't actually exist.
[2] By "autonomy" I mean that humans have the ability to make uncoerced choices. I don't think that, in the final analysis, anyone can rationally mean actual autonomy. Genuine autonomy is free of all limitations. At the very least, our wills are limited by things like physics. You can't, for instance, simply decide to fly because you choose to. There are limitations to choices everywhere. The amount of limitation may vary depending on your view, but no view includes no limitations, so genuine autonomy can't actually exist.
14 comments:
While the use of labels like *liberal* or *conservative* are riddled with nuance and other destructive seeds (i.e., do we mean *classical* liberalism or *modern* liberalism, or are we speaking of theological leaning -- and if so, that fulcrum is always shifting too).
OTOH, according to psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who has spent most of his career studying moral psychology, and established these moral foundations:
Harm/Care:
Harming others, failures of care/nurturance, or failures of protection are often cited as reasons for an act being “wrong.” Some virtues from this domain are kindness, caretaking, and compassion.
Fairness/Reciprocity:
Inequalities or failures to reciprocate are often cited as evidence for something being “wrong.” Some virtues here are sharing, egalitarianism, and justice.
Ingroup/Loyalty:
Failure to support, defend, and aid the group is often cited as evidence for “wrongness.” Virtues include loyalty, patriotism, and cooperation.
Authority/Respect:
Failure to grant respect to culturally significant groups, institutions, or authority figures is often cause for sanction. Virtues include respect, duty, and obedience.
Purity/Sanctity:
Anything that demeans, debases, or profanes human or religious dignity or sacredness is also a cause for sanction. Virtues include purity, dignity, and holiness.
Contemporary *liberals* value and treasure the 1st two (Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity) far above the remaining traits (which many don't hold value at all). Conservatives, OTOH, value all of them, but especially prize the last two -- Purity/Sanctity and Authority/Respect. Tribalism and moralism hold sway, in striking contrast to *liberals*.
Now, any critical look at the Gospel and Jesus words and deeds lays clear that Jesus had much more in common with the *liberal* side of this -- he got in deep trouble for violating religious edicts of the age (Authority / Respect) and continuously spoke out against Purity / Sanctity, which was a cornerstone of Jewish faith at time of Jesus. OTOH, his deeds and words strongly upheld love of all, loving enemies, treating as like/equal brothers and sister siblings of God the Father. He lambasted "tribalism", that is emblematic of modern day conservatism (the "us v. them" mentality).
So, by Haidt's foundations, Jesus much more fits the *liberal* than *conservative* moniker.
Wait ... hold on ... are you saying that Jesus valued purity and holiness less than caretaking? That He didn't hold highly concepts like obedience or duty? I would suggest that Jesus valued caring as much as purity, fairness as much as authority. (Wasn't it Jesus who said, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's"?) Indeed, I addressed things just like that in the post, and not from "I'm a conservative and He thought like me" approach but from "This is what it says about Jesus." I'm sorry, but I can't even begin to think that "any critical look at the Gospel and Jesus words and deeds" would suggest He was more "liberal" than "conservative" unless we simply decide to call "liberal" whatever Jesus did.
And I had to laugh at the little "us v them" dig, since you are clearly holding an "us v them" opinion of liberals v conservatives.
I can't believe this is even a debate since Jesus was clearly a Libertarian.
And really Naum, you think Jesus thought little to nothing of loyalty, cooperation, respect, duty, obedience, purity, and holiness? Next you'll be telling me Jesus wasn't a liberal, but a communist.
This whole debate on Jesus' political stance is ridiculous because as far as I know about Jesus' view of politics was, "Obey the government as long as it doesn't tell you to sin." I honestly think he'd be appalled at both liberals and conservatives. Trying to say that Jesus would vote for X's side is just sad. Oddly enough, we are making the same mistake that the Jews made when He was around. They were expecting a religious and political leader, not a sacrificial carpenter.
Seriously, have you all read the Gospels?
Have you no context of the historical age and WHY Jesus was so offensive to political and religious authority?
* HIs words were totally offensive to Jewish leaders that prized "Ingroup/Loyalty" where Jesus stressed such a birthright meant little.
* Jesus flaunted the purity codes of the day -- whether it be Sabbath proscriptions or just about any behavioral prescriptions -- from who he ate with, who he associated with, etc.
* Jesus was nailed to a cross directly because of his "failure to grant respect to authority figures".
I'm not playing "us v. them" card -- I think the labels are silly, but I am making the point, that by these moral foundations, Jesus definitely falls more into the *liberal* (by modern standards) than *conservative*.
I'm still wondering, Naum, what Gospels you're reading. His words were offensive because He spoke the truth and they were of their father, the devil -- the father of lies (John 8:44-45). They crucified Him ostensibly because "it was out of envy that they had delivered him up" (Matt 27:16). Jesus flaunted the purity codes of the day ... oh, wait, no He didn't. He told the woman supposedly caught in adultery "Go and sin no more" and warned everyone that adultery wasn't an act, but lust itself (Matt 5:27-29). He warned His listeners that "whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:19). When His disciples complained about a woman wasting money on perfume to pour on Him -- "It could have been sold and given to the poor" -- He didn't agree. He told them something that would sting a liberal to the core: "The poor you always have with you" (Matt 26:6-13). Stretching Jesus so "liberal" ideas is a real stretch. And not one supported by the Bible.
Oh, and David, when speaking of Jesus as a liberal (or not), it's not so much political as ideological.
@Stan, /sorry, you're viewing Jesus through a gravely speckled lens colored more by moralistic deism than grace of Jesus.
1. His words were offensive because they rattled the religious orthodoxy and prescribed laws. And because they did rub against ingroup loyalty (Jews as "chosen" because of birth). To not see this is to be gripped by fundamentalism).
2. Jesus was crucified because of transgressions against both political and religious authority. He took on the position of forsaken, least, lost…
When God becomes man in Jesus of Nazareth, he not only enters into the finitude of man, but in his death on the cross also enters into the situation of man's godforsakenness. In Jesus he does not die the natural death of a finite being, but the violent death of the criminal on the cross, the death of complete abandonment by God. The suffering in the passion of Jesus is abandonment, rejection by God, his Father. God does not become a religion, so that man participates in him by corresponding religious thoughts and feelings. God does not become a law, so that man participates in him through obedience to a law. God does not become an ideal, so that man achieves community with him through constant striving. He humbles himself and takes upon himself the eternal death of the godless and the godforsaken, so that all the godless and the godforsaken can experience communion with him. ~Jurgen Moltmann
3. Seriously? You're alleging that Jesus didn't flaunt "purity codes" observed by devoted Jews? Eating/hanging with prostitutes? Touching unclean people? Doing deeds on the Sabbath? Speaking with and elevating women to leadership roles in a patriarchal culture where such deeds were verboten?
1. "Go and sin no more" is not in the original scripture text and was a later scribal insertion. But more essentially, consider that Jesus harsh words were always directed at religious/political leaders and never at the dirty, filthy sinners, which he only had blessings for.
2. "The poor you always have with you." is not an affirmation, but a judgment on the hearts of humans.
3. Matthew 5:27-29 (and accompanying text) is more about the folly and futility of legalism -- that you may as well as pluck out your eye / cut off your hand, if you place your salvation in a set of legal proscriptions -- it more about your heart and loving your fellow brother and sister in Christ.
Sorry, Naum, I haven't a clue what you think you're telling me. "Moralistic deism"? My view of Jesus is colored by what the pages of Scripture say. I've offered the textual basis for them. "His words were offensive because they rattled orthodoxy" is a fine view to take ... in a vacuum where there is no actual text offered to deny it. Jesus said they hated Him because He was from the Father. Jesus disagreed with you.
I love this antinomian rhetoric, by the way. "God does not become a law" is fine, except that Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." Communion with Christ is not experienced on our terms. It is on His terms, and James indicates that genuine faith produces genuine obedience. No, we don't experience communion with Christ based on obedience, but neither do we experience communion with Him without it. (Unless you're willing to dismiss Jesus's words about love and obedience.)
Jesus flaunted their hypocrisy and man-made versions. Jesus affirmed and lived the original, basic, God-given purity codes. It wasn't, then, "progressive" but "regressive" in that He harkened back to the original rather than the morphed version.
Of course, since I read my Bible and come to the same conclusions on the texts that centuries of believers before me have and you read your Bible and conclude that they never had it right but recently we figured it out, we will necessarily come to different conclusions on the topic. I believe, at the end of the road, that is precisely where the difference lies. Jesus in the texts as they've been read in church history was no liberal. Jesus in the texts as they've been recently reimagined is exactly what you think he is. But, of course, if we're able to reinterpret these texts as we see fit, it shouldn't be difficult to always come to that conclusion.
On Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, see this. Bah on Wikipedia, but it's a useful starting point -- and phenomenon plagues all sorts of church types in America.
Jesus *commandment* was to LOVE. All else is sublated. You can't be faithful to the gospel text without recognizing that TRUTH. It's declared overtly by Jesus and demonstrated in deed throughout the Gospels.
Of course, since I read my Bible and come to the same conclusions on the texts that centuries of believers before me have…
No. Only a slice of historical Christianity, a post-Enlightenment backlash against modernity, again, ironically, constructed on precepts only possible in such an age and never hitherto.
Go read the patristic fathers. Go read the early Christians. Read the reformers in their own words too (and they got a lot wrong, replicating errors of Augustine).
Not saying all were wrong at all -- just pointing out the arrogance of the stance that YOU ALONE have the TRUTH and ALL else are wrong.
It's amusing that you suggest moralistic deism of me. I just explained to someone this very morning that Christianity is not a moral system of "be good and get to heaven", and here you are suggesting I believe the very opposite.
But, look, Naum, since your scholarship is superior to anyone who disagrees, I don't see any point in discussing it further. I could list not a slice of post-Enlightenment folk, but a long string of Christians from the early church fathers through today. I could offer Scriptures and writers and the Reformers up to today. But, truthfully, it doesn't really matter, does it? "Fundamentalism" is a four-letter word to you. (I thought that would be humorous.) No conservative Christian has anything to tell you. No amount of Scripture will deter you from your current beliefs. We have nothing to offer. Your primary purpose is simply to correct our long list of grievous errors committed in obeisance to a God-breathed Bible in line with centuries of Christianity that modern views have all discarded. I guess we're just on the wrong side of history, eh?
Now this is funny. I just finish responding to Naum and then I read this quote from C.S. Lewis: "These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-seed and can’t see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight." — C. S. Lewis, "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism" or "Fern-Seeds and Elephants" (1959).
Aah, a CS Lewis quote.
That is rich, considering that his theological bent is definitely at odds with the fundamentalist and conservative evangelicals so eager to champion. :)
/thanks for the dialogue. :)
I don't quote people (Scripture, yes, but people, no) because of who they are, but because I think what they said was right. I didn't know recognizing truth was limited to only those who were in full agreement in all aspects with my views. (And isn't it odd that so many conservative evangelicals embrace C.S. Lewis, warts and all?)
I like the way Stan thinks.
Post a Comment