Would Jesus be an American soldier?
Christian Right should re-read New Testament
By Nathan Johnson
E-mail
Print- Share on Facebook
-
Seed Newsvine
- Text size:
If “war is merely a continuation of politics,” then politics are merely a continuation of economics.
Christianity is supposed to be revolutionary. Vladimir Lenin, a hardcore atheist, still acknowledged early Christianity had a “democratic revolutionary spirit.” If the Latin American church was revolutionary in the ‘80s, practicing liberation ideology and working to end the oppression of neo-liberalism, the Christian Right is counter-revolutionary for supporting the status quo in a society based on exploitation.
If we compare viewpoints of the Christian Right to scripture, we will find they don’t agree. Let us consider some “what would Jesus do” questions.
Would Jesus be a U.S. soldier?
Paul the Apostle explicitly wrote, “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world,” 2 Corinthians 10:3-4.
Jesus would not allow his disciples to defend him as he was wrongfully arrested: “Put your sword back in its place… for all who draw the sword will die by the sword,” Matthew 26:52.
It’s unlikely Jesus would ever fire a rifle, drop a bomb, or otherwise kill Iraqis, especially considering the great majority of casualties are innocent.
Instead, Jesus suggested “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,” Matthew 5:39.
Jesus’ pacifism went so far as to disapprove of capital punishment. When a woman was about caught in adultery, Jesus was asked whether or not she should be killed. He responded, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her… You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one,” John 8:7&15.
Because of Jesus’ decision, the woman was allowed to live, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged,” Matthew 7:1.
Would Jesus be a capitalist?
Just as Jesus would not support war, neither would he support the roots of war. In our society’s case, this is capitalism’s permanent arms economy and structural exploitation.
If “war is merely a continuation of politics,” then politics are merely a continuation of economics.
Considering capitalism leads to obscene concentration of wealth, rejoices in competition, and evolves into imperialism, it is hard to imagine Jesus short-selling stocks or speeding up the conveyor belt to maximize profits, “No one can serve two masters… You cannot serve both God and money,” Matthew 6:24.
Attachment to money prevents the rich ruler from becoming a disciple, “‘You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’ When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,’” Luke 18:22-25.
Capitalists are reluctant enough to give raises, much less, “Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back,” Luke 6:30.
Genuine Christians must oppose capitalism, to end the blatant exploitation of workers worldwide, but also to prevent capitalists from burning in hell: “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort,” Luke 6:24.
The capitalist mode of production is hierarchical, from unskilled laborers, to managers, to multi-billionaire CEOs. If Jesus didn’t subordinate his followers, what right do capitalists have to elevate themselves over wage-laborers?
“I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you,” John 15:15.
To put an end to inequality the early Christian community of several thousand believers renounced private property, selflessly holding communal property instead, “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had… For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need,” Acts 4:32-35.
The Christian Right claims that a socialist society is impossible to achieve, even though John 14:13 says, “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.”
> Comments
Johanan Raatz on May 05, 2008 at 09:20 AM:
"working to end the oppression of neo-liberalism,"
I don't see how expanding economic freedom to South America is oppressive.
"the Christian Right is counter-revolutionary for supporting the status quo in a society based on exploitation."
Well if you define 'exploitation' to mean relationship based on a legitimate transaction then yes they are fighting for explotation. That's a rather peculiar and contradictory definition of exploitation though.
Now I'm not a carte blanche free trader. I do think some limitations should be placed on it. However you have to agree that neo-liberalism has helped boost people out of poverty at least in some instances. Look at India for example. In the 80's they seemed to a third world country. Only a decade or so later they were being pulled out of that and had a booming middle class.
"To put an end to inequality the early Christian community of several thousand believers renounced private property, selflessly holding communal property instead,"
That's based on private decisions though. You can't impose that from the top down politically it has to be done freely. It's the difference between charity and theft.
JF on May 05, 2008 at 11:02 AM:
Very nice article Nate. I think it is good to make moral criticisms of our current state. Capitalists may argue that capitalism is efficient (though it isn't) but they surely will have trouble arguing that it is moral, and even more trouble arguing that it follows the teachings of Christ.
Raatz - Neoliberalism isn't economic freedom and those countries which adhered most rigorously to the demands of the IMF and World Bank in South America suffered the most economically, like Argentina. Argentina didn't recover until it radically violated the terms of the IMF. The IMF’s former U.S. executive director Karin Lissakers accurately described the Fund as the credit community’s enforcer. The IMF is very anti-capitalist. For example, suppose I lend you money. And I know that you’re a risky borrower, so I insist on a high-interest rate. Now, suppose that you can’t pay me back. In a capitalist system, it’s my problem. I made a risky loan. I got a lot of profit from the interest. You defaulted. It’s my problem.
That’s now what the IMF is about. What the IMF is saying, to put it in personal terms, is that your friends and neighbors have to pay off the loan. They didn’t borrow the money, but they have to pay it back. And my friends and neighbors have to pay me to make sure that I don’t lose any money. That’s essentially what the IMF is.
If Argentina takes out an IMF loan with huge interest rates because it’s risky and then they default, the IMF comes along and says the workers and peasants and other people in Argentina have to pay for that. They may not have borrowed it, it may have been borrowed by a military dictatorship, but they have to pay it back. That’s what structural adjustment is. And the IMF will ensure that western taxpayers pay off the bank. It’s radically anti-capitalist, whether you like that or not. The whole system has no legitimacy. In fact the whole debt system in the world, which is crushing much of the world, most of it is fake debt.
If Suharto, one of the biggest debtors in the world, borrows money and ends up the richest man in Indonesia or maybe the world, why is it the responsibility of the farmers in Indonesia to pay it off? They didn’t borrow it; they didn’t get anything from it. They were repressed, but they have to pay it off. And the IMF makes sure that the lenders don’t lose money on their risky loan after making a lot of profit from it. Why should the system even exist?
Jimmy Lemke on May 13, 2008 at 01:24 AM:
I don't have a stance on this...I just want to comment on how awesome it is in that picture...Jesus has to be 9 feet tall if that gun is that small in comparison.
Jimmy Lemke on May 13, 2008 at 01:24 AM:
I don't have a stance on this...I just want to comment on how awesome it is in that picture...Jesus has to be 9 feet tall if that gun is that small in comparison.
> Post a Comment