Rejecting Jesus’ Extreme Makeover

I just can’t figure it out.

I’m someone who enjoys trying to make sense of things. And I must admit I’m stumped.

I don’t understand why anyone would court Armageddon with the giddy adventurism of GW and his band of believers.

But when I consider the report card St. Peter might have close at hand when they line up at the pearly gates, their lust for death and the means to procure it seems a perverse suicide wish indeed.

Christians believe that all sin is an offense against God and a rejection of his perfect love and justice. Jesus taught that the most grievous sins are those committed willfully, with the full knowledge and consent of the sinner. A person who commits a mortal sin knows it is wrong, yet goes ahead and does it anyway.

The difference between a mortal sin and sin committed in ignorance is analogous to the difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter.

Surely our leaders, many of whom wear their born-again Christian credentials on their sleeves, received this training in Sunday Bible school.

After all, they are the ones who seem to believe that the country would be vastly improved if the Ten Commandments replaced the Constitution as the law of the land.

Have they read them?

What part of "Thou shalt not kill" is ambiguous?

I’ve checked multiple versions of the Decalogue and I can’t find a single one with any sort of Biblical footnotes indicating that this mandate is negotiable. Nowhere does it say "Except when you’re convinced your victim deserves to die," or "Except when your victim happens to live in a strategically important oil-rich nation." There are no Biblical loopholes that make allowances for politically expedient killings, or killings committed in retaliation, or out of a craving for revenge.

Jesus taught his followers to look at the intent behind the Commandments so that they might foster the attitudes suggested by them. Through the Gospels, Christians are taught to interpret the prohibition against killing in the broadest possible way, so that it actually becomes a call to action. We must respect our neighbor’s life and safety. We must make every effort not to harm those around us. We must protect and help the suffering and weak. We must non-violently resist the forces of tyranny.

I’m no Bible scholar, but I can’t for the life of me find any exceptions to these directives in the Gospels. Nothing about respecting our neighbors unless they come from a different social class, or unless they happen to be in a distasteful line of work, or unless they happen to have the double misfortune of being poor and sick, or unless they happen to be women, or children. Nothing about making every effort not to harm those around us unless they come from a foreign land and do not share our ways or beliefs. Nothing about non-violent resistance unless we’re just too impatient to restrain ourselves, in which case carpet-bombing now and asking questions later is a-okay.

The Old Testament prohibition against bearing false witness, or lying in court, was expanded through Jesus’ example into another calling, this time to stand always on the side of truth. Actions that compromise the truth such that other persons are harmed are grave sins. Christians are called to tell the truth, even if it gets them into trouble. Jesus said, "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark 8:36)

It’s difficult for me to imagine him accepting loyalty as a justification for lying. Especially when tens of thousands of lives are lost as a result.

Through Jesus teachings, the Commandment "Thou shalt not steal" became a mandate to engage in fair dealing. Can you imagine the man who said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:24) giving his stamp of approval to Bush’s tax policy? Or to big energy lobbyists crafting environmental laws? Or to the windfall headed Wall Street’s way if Social Security is "reformed"? Or to the increasing secrecy and opacity of our government, run largely by a relative few extremely wealthy men?

Hard as I’ve tried, I can’t find a single example of Jesus giving his disciples any caveats or special circumstances under which they have the go-ahead to ignore his expanded and enhanced version of the Ten Commandments, or the original version for that matter, in favor of what is expedient, or profitable, or easy.

But this is just the kind of go-ahead GW & Co. claim to have.

I, for one, have no interest in following the kind of Jesus who would give his thumbs-up to sins of such gravity. If this is how Christians act, I’d prefer to identify myself as anything but.

And I know there are so many others who share this impulse.

We can’t give into it.

Jesus was the original social progressive. He was a righteous, rebellious pacifist. He taught that only though the earthly practice of love for our fellows could we come to know God, and eternal life. Jesus said: "Amen, Amen, I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death forever." (John 8:51)

So we must stand firm. We know in our hearts that Jesus would not support war of any kind, whether cultural, economic, or military. And we must continue to say so.

We can’t turn away in shame and disgust as members of Congress, leaders of right-wing sponsored think tanks, heads of evangelical mega-churches, and members of Bush’s inner circle continue to clamor that our "liberal agenda is anti-Christian."

Knowing better, we must speak this truth at every opportunity.

Whether or not we are practicing Christians, as progressives who believe passionately in the potential of American democracy, we recognize in the historical Jesus a teacher who called us all as children of God to reach for our highest potential together.

Yet before our very eyes, Jesus is swiftly being transformed from a uniter into a divider. From a liberator into a jailer. It’s an extreme makeover we must identify and disavow.

According to Deitrich Bonhoeffer, freedom is not the same thing as the uncontrolled venting of one’s passions, mindless acquiescence to one’s own whims, or the unbridled acquisition of material comforts. Nor does freedom lie in indifference to the sufferings of others in the name of staying safe and comfortable. Chauvanistic pride and ersatz security are not the same as true freedom. Bonhoeffer said, "Freedom comes through deeds, not through thoughts taking wing."

In his life, Jesus showed people how to be truly free by bringing them together in communion with God and the Spirit of love. In such a place, we are free to see that we are all One in God. The divisions and dehumanizations setting us against each other are falsehoods of our own creation, keeping us enslaved.

Whether or not we believe in his divinity, Jesus showed us that we can achieve independence from the prejudice, hatred, greed, and indifference to the suffering of others that bind, limit, and ultimately kill us. This independence is the essence of human freedom.

If freedom will reign it will only be because we speak and act as free people.

If freedom will reign it will only be because we refuse to settle for a half-life of slavery done up in glitzy packaging and forced upon us, or any of our brothers and sisters, at the point of a gun.

If freedom will reign it will only be because we refuse to be scared or scapegoated into silence, though the heavens fall.

Dawn Baldwin (dawn@wimmerbaldwin.com) is a safety and environmental consultant and writer living in Memphis, TN and Bartow, WV.