Skip to main content

I Have To Say Something (Liberal Jesus Meme Edition)

You know, if anyone is currently in a position to criticize right-wing American fused religiosity, it's me. I have the ability, the willingness, and the inclination. I just saw a meme from John Fugelsang, a man who was a minor comedian-actor in the '90s, and as much as I'd love to pile on the president and his wacky supporters, I gotta deal with this meme instead. You know how they go: re-cast Jesus as a rebel and a revolutionary, and point out how non-judgy he was, mention the outcasts and sinners, take a couple jabs at political opponents and current issues, and we're done. 

Now understand this, my friends: I constitutionally despise reductionism in political thinking. The reason I am where I am politically is because I don't like taking shortcuts through ideas for short-term political expediency. I left the Republican Party because of Donald Trump. I also began to see the weaknesses in the conservative movement with respect to economics because of the smallest exposure to the Catholic philosophical tradition, and to the social doctrine of the Catholic Church. I should love this meme, but I don't, and I'll tell you why.

Let's just take one small sentence and deal with it. It said, "Jesus wasn't anti-gay, and never mentioned abortion or birth control."

Jesus never mentioned these things, because he didn't have to. When you approach the New Testament text, and you are introduced to Jesus in the Gospels, you need to realize that everything you will read Jesus saying assumes that every word of the Hebrew Scriptures of what we call the Old Testament--with respect to a moral precept--is assumed to still be in force. This is the same Jesus who said, "Anyone who breaks the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Even if I granted you the right to erase that famous verse in Leviticus concerning homosexuality--even if no other text in the Bible spoke disapprovingly about homosexuality--it would still be wrong. The same goes for contraception. It is contrary to the natural law, which means that every person in conscience ought to know that it is wrong. The Catholic Church did not reaffirm its teaching concerning contraception for its members only, but she sees herself as the guardian of all the wisdom and moral truth that can be known by humanity. As apologists from here to New Mexico will tell you, all Christians believed that contraception was wrong in all circumstances, until 1930. Adherents of other religions likely believed similarly, until they didn't. Eyes see, and ears hear, but it is somehow beyond the pale if you ask most people, to believe that human sex organs are designed for a purpose as well.

Questions of identity are tricky because we have lost so much as a society. Whenever I see someone from an intact family that has never been broken apart by divorce, I get a little jealous. Frankly, I wonder if people are creating new identities because the ones that they were supposed to be able to count on were taken away from them. There are other tragedies as well. We've been left to fend for ourselves, and most of us are just trying to do the best that we can. Yet maybe we call people "haters" and "bigots" because to question what we have been taught in the culture, to question what is natural and normal, may force us to confront our deepest pain. Not many people have the courage to do that, and not when plenty of people are lining up to reward you for pretending that everything is OK.

None of these memes are ever totally wrong. After all, I'm the guy who likes this song. But at the end of the day, we don't get to decide what the truth about Jesus is, or who he is. We can decide what we're going to do about it, and about him, but we don't get to alter any of it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un