Fixing America In 500 Words Or
Less
Chapter 15
DO CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS
REALLY FOLLOW
JESUS?
Having had the severe misfortune of enduring one too many conservative Christian sermons, what was most
striking was how little they focused on what Jesus actually said. Instead,
they tend to focus on what Paul ¹ or some Old Testament author said. I cannot
recall a single sermon in a conservative church that centered on the actual words of Jesus.
According to the New Testament, Jesus said: "Therefore, whatever you want people to do to
you, do also to them, for this is the law and the prophets." ² The word "therefore"
indicates that this is an important, conclusive statement and the phrase, “for this is the law
and the prophets" meant similar in Jesus' society, as if a Greek philosopher stated, "this is
the sum of all wisdom".
In other words, not only is this an important and conclusive statement made by Jesus but also,
it is by far, the most all-encompassing moral statement made by anyone in history. Even
though a similar idea pops up in a great many societies in the historical record, no one else
placed such an all-encompassing importance on loving our neighbor as ourselves. ³
Calling oneself a "Christian" does not in any way, shape or form, make someone a follower of
Jesus. As the New Testament very clearly says, "blessed are those who do his
commandments" 4 and,
as Jesus very clearly taught in his extremely pacifistic, so-called
"sermon on the mount", a wise person is someone who hears and practices what Jesus actually
said, while a foolish person is someone who hears but does not practice, what Jesus actually
said. 5
By definition, if someone does not focus on loving our neighbor as ourself and make this idea
central to their core beliefs and agenda, then they are not a follower of Jesus,
regardless of what they claim or call themselves. Likewise, by definition, a follower of
someone minimizes and ignores what the leader did not address.
Does the New Testament promote capitalism and free enterprise, rather than sharing material
wealth and giving our excess to the poor? Did Jesus center on an anti-abortion
agenda? Did he even mention abortion? Did Jesus promote pre-emptive wars of
aggression? Did Jesus promote war for any reason? Did Jesus call the Samaritan
woman at the well “illegal” and build a wall to prevent her from feeding her family? Did
Jesus have a “family-focus” agenda that failed to focus on the health and welfare of the family?
Do conservative Christians focus their message on loving our neighbor as
ourselves? Jesus said, “This is my commandment, that you love one another...”
6
Do they center on this singular command? Do they put their swords away, turn
the other cheek and promote peace, as Jesus taught? 7 Are they focused on helping the sick of our society, as Jesus taught by
example? Do they center on helping the sick and poor, as Jesus taught
every God-fearing patriot should do? 8
Do conservative Christians really follow Jesus? You decide.
NOTES:
1. The letters of Paul are often maximized in conservative Christian churches at the expense of
the rest of the New Testament, other than "Revelations", because Paul is mistakenly thought to
be conservative by their theologians of record. Paul, in fact, was more liberal than the
other early followers of Jesus and quite possibly, considering his historical culture and
timeframe, the most liberal author in all of known history. Paul several times referred
to himself as a follower of the "way" and not only did not refer to himself as a Christian but
rather, towards the end of Acts, he appears to have deliberately side-stepped the term when
asked by a Roman ruler if he was one. Perhaps even then, Paul suspected that what was
meant to be a new lifestyle of communism, personal and collective freedom, was instead leaning
toward the conservative fundamentalism Paul originally was an advocate for and from which, he
continually praised God for having been rescued. His concepts of "not under the law, but under grace", "to the pure all things are pure", "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free,
there is neither male nor female" and similar, remain among the most liberal ideas in the
human civilization record. Paul's insistence that both males and
females have extreme value outside of reproduction represents a huge leap forward for his
society and time.
2. Source: Matthew 7:12
3. A scholar and temple leader based in Jerusalem named Hillel, is believed to have died when Jesus was around the age of
fifteen. Hillel
is credited with saying: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow; that is the whole Torah, the rest
is the explanation--go and learn." However, this is not the same as the pro-active more-encompassing statement of
Jesus. Reaching out to treat others first as we would like to be treated by them is a much more profound and effective
human rights moral yardstick than just teaching a child not to do others any harm; it provides a far more effective
moral measurement for accurate human rights definition and activism, by instructing us to reach out in a pro-active way
to help someone else, whether or not they are nice to us, rather than to just do them no harm. Plus, it automatically
precludes us from doing others any harm, thus it covers all of the bases, rather than half of them.
Some scholars argue that
Jesus was taught by Hillel, but it is unlikely that a common laborer's son like Jesus would be taught by
a leading temple scholar of his time, especially given their extreme age difference. Even if this were
true, the general idea may have been "common wisdom" among the Jewish population stretching back historically for
generations and thus, it may not be unique to either Jesus or Hillel. What often happens historically is that
the "common wisdom" of a particular culture and historical time-frame may not be preserved in a surviving written record
until long after it is an accepted cultural idea.
Tracing and determining historical origins is a perlious undertaking, historians often getting it wrong and then having to
correct former assumptions, after more evidence is uncovered. An example of such dubious enterprise is the phrase
"we the people" in the U.S. Constitution. Gouverneur Morris, who is believed to have performed much of the
actual physical drafting of the Constitution, is often credited as the originator of this phrase because he is the
first known person in history to actually write it down. Nevertheless, nobody knows where the phrase "we the people"
originates from; it may have been a commonly known concept in pre-revolutionary America and may have even originated
in Europe. Various
scholars continue to not only debate origins of the idea but also, what particular significance it had to
the Constitutional framers; some scholars believe it was just flowery language invented on the spot, others claim it was
a backlash to the "I the King" approach of European monarchs, while still others say Benjamin Franklin may have adapted
the general idea from the Iroquois Nation "Great Law of Peace", which is believed to have influenced the political
philosophy of Franklin significantly.
Some modern-day activists argue that treating other people the way "they" wish to be treated is an improvement over what
Jesus said, but this approach contains two significant fallacies: 1) We have to first treat someone else as we would like
them to treat us, reaching out and being friendly towards them, before we can even know how they want to be treated
and 2) It allows no instruction or provision for caring about our own selves; if we start treating people the way they
want to be treated without any consideration for our own needs, we will soon be hungry, homeless and entirely
broke. Treating other people as we would like them to treat us makes perfect rational sense; it might
be true that our neighbors won't like us even if we try to be nice but it is pretty much a sure thing that they won't like
us if we aren't nice to them. Thus, it makes sense to treat our neighbors kindly, even if we only
do so for our own selfish reasons.
This rather lengthy note is included because
it significantly matters how fundamental morality, ethics and human rights are determined and built
upon from the foundational ground up. Without Jesus, there is no accurate moral yardstick from which to correctly
determine and both define human rights and put them into action. This makes Jesus by historical default,
the founder of human rights, which is what one would expect the true Messiah to be. That is, if Thomas Jefferson is
correct in stating it is beyond rational dispute God both created us and has written his law on our
hearts. This is what the Old Testament very clearly teaches and is probably the source basis for Jefferson's
Declaration statement. And, it likely has something to do with both how and why Jesus said what he
did. The profound simplicity, yet total human rights accuracy of Jesus provides human history's best moral
yardstick, allowing for the greatest scholar, a "common" person with no formal education and a small child to both
accurately define and put human rights into action, from the human motivational heart outward and, correct foundational
ground upward.
4. Source: Revelation 22:14
5. Source: Matthew 7:24
6. Source: John 15:12
7. Source: Matthew 26:52, Revelation 13:10, Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:9,
8. Source: Matthew 25:31-46. Also compare Ezekiel 16:49. According to Ezekiel, God destroyed
Sodom because she ignored the sick and poor. According to Jesus, as noted
here in Matthew, God will judge all nations by how they treat the sick and poor. It
would seem fair to conclude that both Jesus (New Testament) and Ezekiel (Old Testament)
vehemently disagree with conservative Christians over what it means to be an American patriot,
as well as regarding everything else that their absurd and entirely assinine religion promotes.
|