The Life of Jesus vs. the Popular Legacy of Jesus

I write this post not to express any theological perspective, but simply a political and historical one about how the message of Jesus has been corrupted by conservative Christians in the United States. I am not writing to debate whether Jesus was the Son of God, a prophet, the messiah, a miracle worker, or anything of the sort, but I just want to point out what he was and stood for in comparison to what he has been made to stand for today.

Today is Good Friday, the day Christians mourn the crucifixion of their spiritual leader, Jesus Christ. On Sunday, Christians will celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. Most Christians, at least in the United States, celebrate a very different Jesus than the one who lived a couple thousand years ago. If Jesus returned to Earth, as many Christians believe he will, the shock and disgust that he would have towards the majority of those who consider themselves his most devote followers.

Regardless of one’s personal religious beliefs, as long as you believe Jesus existed (I am somewhat surprised by how many people doubt his existence, which to me makes little sense — more evidence points towards his existence than his nonexistence, and what would the point of making him up be? But I digress…), it is difficult to deny the radical beliefs of Jesus. Living under the mighty Roman empire, one of the most powerful empires in world history, Jesus saw how the Romans exploited the poor for their own wealth and manipulated religion to subdue the people and maintain the status quo. Jesus had no intention of creating his own religion; he simply wanted to use religion as a political vehicle to rebel against the Roman Empire. Jesus knew that humans were not meant to be pitted against each other, but to cooperate and help each other; he knew that religion was a way to reach people and to motivate them, and a just religion had no place for the injustices in the Roman Empire. So Jesus rebelled: he told other oppressed people that the meek shall inherit the earth, and he condemned those who profited off the labor of others and those who persecuted others. Indeed, Jesus was a revolutionary and radical figure of his time, and he pursued a liberal agenda that promoted equality and justice in the face of classical imperialism and oppression.

The crime that Jesus committed– “The Cleansing of the Temple” — that led to his crucifixion was that he overthrew tables of money at a temple in Jerusalem to protest Roman and Jewish rulers who were charging the people during their worship of God. In current studies of Christianity, this fact seems practically forgotten. Religious leaders constantly tell Christians that “Jesus died for us” while simultaneously ignoring the supposed crime that he committed that led to his execution. If “Jesus died for us,” he sacrificed his life to protest the ruling class’s exploitation of those who less fortunate. The Cleansing of the Temple is a clear act of political subversion and rebelling against the oppressive status quo.

How have we gone from the point where the subversive political activist Jesus who preached equality and stood up for the poor has been transformed into a vengeful Jesus that rejects any social change and seeks to limit the rights of some? Those in the United States who claim to best represent Jesus ignore his most essential beliefs while emphasizing viewpoints that Jesus never mentioned. While many Christians believe the most important issues in the United States are abortion and homosexuality, Jesus never said or did anything that suggested these issues were important to him. In addition, many conservatives believe that free market capitalism is essential to Judeo Christian ethos (one example here), but to scourge the bible to find particular passages to stress a certain ideology ignores all of the passages that contradict that ideology and the passages that argue for something that is completely absurd in contemporary society. If Christians want to follow Jesus’s message, they would not follow a free market capitalist ideology that promotes greed and consumption, and they would leave it up to Jesus to decide whether homosexuals are sinners. It is not up to Christians to judge who Jesus would resent, especially considering everything that Jesus said leads one to believe that Jesus would dislike those who are judging and oppressing rather than those who are striving for equality and justice.

Whether one believes in Christianity or not, this Easter let us remember what Jesus truly taught. He died as a result of his fight against exploitation and injustice. Those who use his name to promote exploitation and injustice are the ones who would be judged so harshly by Jesus, just as he criticized the Roman rulers who oppressed the laboring class that he defended. Instead of relying on a corrupted and manipulated theology to enforce an oppressive ideology, pay attention to what the historical Jesus truly said and did and then ask if would approve of how American Christians are using his message.


Glenn Beck is “Restoring Courage” in Israel… Why?

The paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck has decided to take his propaganda machine to Israel. After Beck unsuccessfully “Restored Hope” in the United States last year, he decided that Israel needed him to “Restore Courage” there with his bizarre and emotional speeches. The image from above is true courage, unlike Glenn Beck’s attempt to restore it.  I just have so many questions about Glenn Beck’s attempt to “Restore Courage” in Israel, and it can only be summed up by: “Why?”

Why do Israelis care what Beck thinks or says? Do they even know who he is? Do they know that he was so loony that even Fox News kicked him off the network? Do they know that the Anti-Defamation League criticized Beck for some inflammatory comments that may be interpreted as anti-Semitic, including one that compared Reform Judaism to radicalized Islam? Do they know that he has managed to offend just about every constituency, except for perhaps the Christian fundamentalists? And why are Christian fundamentalists so attracted to Israel and the conservative Jewish movement? Out of no disrespect to any of the religions, but I struggle to see why Beck has any authority to give a religiously motivated political lecture in Israel. Of course, Beck claims his tour is strictly theological, but he is using a theological message to try to influence Israel not to make peace with Palestine or allow Palestine to have its own state. Clearly he is using religion as a tool to push forward his own political agenda, which does not affect him outside of some religious extremist belief. Fortunately some U.S. Jews have warned Israeli Jews not to trust Beck.

I am also a bit surprised that the Christian fundamentalists have embraced Beck, a Mormon, as one of their spokesmen. Mormons are theologically two prophets removed from Judaism, which is the same as Islam (and the Mormon’s final prophet came much later than Islam’s final prophet). I have heard the argument that Mormons are not “true Christians” because of this, including from a Theology professor about a decade ago. Though she was clearly biased by her own fundamentalist Christian beliefs, she taught the class that Christians do not accept Mormons as “true Christians.” I am not a student of theology, and I have no interest in deciding who is or who is not a “true Christian,” but my point is that it was only ten years ago that a fundamentalist Christian theologian taught me that Mormons are not true Christians; since then, a Mormon has emerged as a leader of the conservative Christian fundamentalist movement. Apparently the Christian right’s attitudes towards Mormons have shifted dramatically over the past decade.

The final set of questions I have are about the supposed lack of “courage” in Israel. It took courage for 250,000+Israeli citizens  to protest against their flawed government’s inability to provide them with adequate living standards. However, according to Beck these protesters were not courageous, they were “Communists.” So who needs courage then in Israel? Apparently the Israeli government needs to be courageous by refusing to accept any peace deal with the Palestinians, rejecting their right to statehood, and continuing to build on their land while defying UN orders. But then why is he “restoring” courage? That’s simply keeping the status quo. Beck and I clearly have different understandings of what “restore” and “courage” means. For Israel to “Restore Courage,” they need to have the courage to sit down with the Palestinian Authority as equals, reach a fair compromise with them that is loosely based off the 1967, and recognize their statehood. Of course, the Palestinian Authority also needs to recognize the nation of Israel as part of this peace negotiation, but it would only truly be restoring the courage of Israel if they put their religious fundamentalism aside and lived up to the peace process that former Prime Minister Yitzkah Rabin died for.

“But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.” Psalm 37:11