Background

Like many others, when I became a Christian, the question of how faith and politics mixed was one of interest to me. Over the years, I have moved from a centrist right/left mixed position to one which is a great deal more conservative. I've also become increasingly that the bible tends to lead one to stances which would be considered "consevative" in contemporary American political terms, -- but I'm also aware I could be mistaken.

If so, the best way to determine if your thoughts are in error is to find someone who completely disagrees with you and honestly consider the best arguments they have to offer.

Thus, I went through a period where I was searching to see what the arguments could be offered for more politically "liberal" stances. My experience was a decidely fruitless one -- most of the arguments seemed to range from those based in simple misinformation, to those employing outright deception.

Personally, I don't think Jesus would identify himself as belonging to any political party today -- just as he didn't in Israel. He was a point off the curve, and had condemnation for all the major parties of his time.

Further, it seems as absurd to try to claim "Jesus was a liberal" as to say: "Jesus was a Pharisee" or "Jesus was a Saducee." Phrasing it that way also sounds like we're trying to make God a member of our party, to ask "If he is on our side" rather than asking "Are we on His side?"

It also seems to imply we should pick and choose the parts of his message we like, while ignoring those we don't.

I certainly don't claim Jesus would have been a typical political conservative. He was much more complex than that, and mostly seemed to try to get people to focus on the world to come. But I am convinced that much of liberalism violates the teachings of the bible, when not also violating simple common sense and the lessons of history.

My Errors!

Recently "Paul", from the aforementioned web site, as been so kind as to point out the errors in my ways. Well, actually not. He was kind enough to accuse me of being wrong without providing any examples, kind enough to accuse me of being ignorant without providing factual corrections, and was also kind enough to accuse all those who disagree with him of acting from evil intent and bad motive.

Sigh. He may be my brother, but his actions are sadly typical of the left, Christian or not.

So he's also asked me to visit his web site (see title), from which I am apparently supposed to deduce the errors in my views. Instead, he seems to be providing fertile ground for an in-depth discussion of why liberals need to, intentionally or otherwise, distort biblical teachings in order to make them conform to modern political leftism -- amusing, since that is the precise charge they level against conservatives.

So, without further ado...

The Debate

First, from the introduction, we launch into an a typical liberal indirect ad hominem attack against conservatives' motives:

We created this website because we believe the historical, Biblically documented teachings of Jesus Christ clearly show that Jesus is a Liberal. His philosophy, based in compassion, equality, inclusion, forgiveness, tolerance, peace and - most importantly - love, is 100% Liberal.

What distinguishes liberals from conservatives? If it is, as these people claim, "compassion", "forgiveness", "tolerance", "peace" and "love", then to say such characteristics are "liberal" is to say, equally, that conservatives lack them.

So right from the start, you have a group of liberals saying not merely that their opponents are wrong about how to best achieve these goals, but rather accusing their opponents of being morally inferior, and alleging they lack these traits, and simply don't care about such goals.

Of course, the oft-repeated response is that conservatives are motivated by the same interests, but don't agree the solutions advocated by liberals achieve them best (or at all). Sadly, at least in my experience, liberals seem rather disinterested in actually having that debate. They seem to skip that step and move directly into accusations of bad motive or immoral character.

Jesus was a pluralist Liberal who taught that one need not conform to strict and orthodox views of God, religion, and life.

No scripture is provided to support this contention, and many examples I can think of seem to utterly refute it.

Far from teaching "one need not conform... to strict and orthodox views of God", Jesus taught: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." (Matt 7:13) Sounds pretty strict, no?

And how about: "Whoever believes in [me] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:18) So much for not needing conform to "orthodox views of God"!

Jesus also taught a more demanding form of the law than the Pharisees did. For example, he tightened the rules on divorce; he demanded more observance of the commandment to honor one's parents.

Jesus also rebuked unorthodox views of God, such as the Sadducees' contention that there was no resurrection, or the Samaritan woman's unorthodox views about worship and salvation.

So this statement also seems to be directly contradicted by scripture.

He taught us to believe in and live a spiritual and ethical life based in our essential, inherent goodness.

This is, frankly, an amazing assertion.

Certainly, God said all creation was "good" (using a Hebrew word meaning "good enough") in the sense that God was pleased with what he created.

But, again, these people are yet again flatly contradicting Jesus's teachings -- this time about our moral nature:

If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Matt 7:11)

"No one is good—except God alone." (Matt 10:18)

Peacemaking, not War Making: ... "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

Excellent; I agree. So what's the best method of making peace?

For example, Jimmy Carter believed in merely saying things and getting bad people to sign documents. Ronald Reagan believed that peace could best be achieved though a strong defense, and occasional threat of the use of force. Which route was more effective and/or more biblical?

Once again, the debate is lacking -- rather than debate the best technique, the authors simply imply -- falsely -- that conservatives would rather see a world filled with war than one filled with peace. Skip the debate, go to the ad hominem insults and straw man fallacies.

Peacemaking, not War Making: "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Many people are confused about this verse.

First, note even a first-glance reading shows it doesn't tell us to turn someone else's cheek, only our own. The alleged call to Christian suffering or martyrdom here would be personal, a decision the believer must make about themselves -- Jesus is not telling us to stand back, offer no resistence, and allow others to be oppressed, only us, as individuals. (Instead, the bible commands us to rescue other people who are in danger of being killed.)

Second, the authors don't seem to understand the historical context of this verse -- another common, understandable mistake. This teaching had a cultural meaning which is largely unknown or ignored today.

In Jesus' time, the approved method of disciplining a servant or inferior was to strike them with the back of one's hand -- a backhanded slap which would land on the right cheek. A blow to the right cheek was the sign that the one struck was one's equal -- so offering the right cheek was a demand -- by a servant -- to be recognized and treated as an equal. The master would have been forced to back down, or acknowledge the servant's humanity.

So when Jesus talked about being smitten "on the right cheek", his audience -- many of whom were servants or employees -- would have understood he was referring to the legal means of disciplining an inferior. This becomes even clearer when you read this verse in context -- the taking of the cloak was a reference to the legally proscribed method of debt collection, and "going one mile" was about the law allowing a soldier to make someone carry his pack.

All three examples are of obeying the law in a clever way, to shame one's enemies. None were examples where one met a deadly challenge by offering to die or be seriously harmed rather than use self-defense.

If we want Jesus's views on self-defense, they're easy enough to find -- just read the accounts of his arrest, when the lives of his followers were in danger. Does he tell them to avoid using weapons?

No, he basicly tells them to go out and buy the equivalent of a handgun:

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

He's telling his followers to be prepared for any emergency, and deemed a "saturday night special" more important than even warm clothing!

I, too, was shocked when I first noticed this (being a bit anti-gun, myself), but, well, we follow the truth wherever it leads us, right?

It's rather easy to seem to "prove" a point if you take some verses out of context, and leave out others that disagree with your thesis. But that's dishonest, or at least a sign of ignorance or disinterest in what the bible actually has to say on the subject.

"I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you..."

Again, we seem to be lapsing into some ad hominem argument: Liberals do this, the authors seemingly imply, and conservatives don't. No evidence is provided, of course, so it's another unsupported slander.

The Death Penalty: Thou shalt not kill [Matthew 5:21]

Had the authors consulted a more modern translation, they would have seen that the King James Version mistranslated this verse. A more correct translation, for example, appears in the NIV:

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'

And had the authors ever read the "Books of Moses" (the first part of what Christians call the "Old Testament" of the bible), which Jesus was quoting, they would have discovered that the "judgement" in question was the death penalty!

Further, the word "murder" refers to unlawful killing, whereas "kill" means any kind of taking of life at all. It should be clear to anyone who reads the Books of Moses that these books are not opposed to (but rather strongly in favor of) lawful killing.

So did Jesus "do away with" the death penalty in this verse?

No! He expands it, and threatens even those guilty of smaller offenses with an even more terrifying "death" penalty:

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

So once again, contrary to what the folks at "www.JesusIsALiberal.org" would apparently have us believe, we again see that Jesus wasn't throwing out the rules, but instead was tightening them considerably.

But, once again, the effect is achieved by leaving out the context.

Crime and Punishment: If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. [John 8:7]

Yes, Jesus saved this specific woman's life in this manner. But he didn't overturn or remove the power of the state to take life -- otherwise, he wouldn't later have affirmed Pilate's ability to use capital punishment was God-given:

"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"

Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." (John 19:10-11)

The Apostle Paul also affirms this teaching -- that the state has a legitimate power over life and death regarding criminals -- in Romans 13. So unless the authors want to say that the Apostle Paul misrepresented or contradicted Jesus's teachings, they are thus forced to concede the bible does not support the claim Jesus abolished the death penalty.

Again, it's easy to seem to make a case if you pick a verse out of context, and overlook, ignore, or hide from your readers other verses which might disprove your case.

Crime and Punishment: .... Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.]

This is an odd use of this verse: Usually, this is understood to mean that we should be careful in our judgements, lest our words condemn us, too. Instead, given that this is categorized as related to "Crime and Punishment", these people seem to be implying this is a call to abolish the court system, and thus the liberal position would we should stop arresting and trying criminals!

I'm not sure they'd want to argue either point, but, hey...

Justice: Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. [Matthew 5:6] Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy [Matthew 5:7] But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. [Matthew 6:15]

Again, I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be here, other than a general unsupported slander that liberals care about justice while conservatives do not.

And, again, as an unfounded slander, it violates the the spirit of 1 Cor 13:1 and 1 Tim 5:19, which demand that good evidence accompany slander or defamatory accusations.

Corporate Greed and the Religion of Wealth: In the temple courts [Jesus] found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and other sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. [John 2:14 & 15.]

What was Jesus upset about? Buying and selling Read to the next verse:

"How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" (John 2:16)

Forgive me for not immediately seeing how this differentiates the contemporary political right from the left. Again, Jesus clearly isn't against all buying and selling here -- he's just against doing it in the place reserved for God's worship. A "market" isn't inherantly sinful. But it clearly didn't belong in the temple.

Regardless, as the last election demonstrated, the ultra-rich are increasingly leftist, so being wealthy -- and perhaps also loving wealth -- is hardly a "problem" unique to the political right. If anything, as the left is predominantly secular, it would seem almost impossible to argue that the left loves God more than money, as many on the left surely believe in the power of money, but, by all studies I've seen, relatively few "liberals" believe in the power or importance of God.

Further, all studies I've seen seem to show the political right is, on average, more generous than the political left, so I'm not sure why these liberals think it's safe or wise for them to hurl this particular stone. Perhaps they think there's something especially noble about demanding that someone else (the state) should take care of the poor using other people's money (taxes).

Finally, socialism itself is predicated on the belief that state control of wealth can solve our problems and bring us into utopia -- so the left seems to have an additional structural problem with attributing to money the powers properly attributable only to God -- that the right doesn't have. All liberals, by definition, believe in the power and goodness of the state (and thus could be tempted to worship the state), but not all conservatives are wealthy.

Corporate Greed and the Religion of Wealth: ... Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.]

The misinterpretation here is obvious: Jesus is warning individuals about greed, not saying the state has a job to prevent people from having an abundance of posessions. He's warning against wrong values, not mere ownership of things. Job and David were also very rich, but were some of the most righteous men in the bible. Another argument by omitting context.

A close reading of this verse reveals Jesus warns us about "all kinds" of greed, not just the obvious ones. The obvious temptation is the one facing the rich man, of course.

But there are "all kinds" of greed -- including the temptation to argue that "a man's life [consists] in the abundance of his possessions." And who goes on endlessly about differences in the number and quality of possessions among people -- the "have" and the "have nots" and depicting that as the most important moral problem in the universe? Hmm?

Wouldn't that kind of thinking be a sin also, according to this verse?

Indeed, it is just as bad to make people love someone else's money as their own -- worse, in fact, because it teaches the additional sin of covetousness.

Another amusing thing is that they seem to think this verse applies "only" to conservatives -- after all, they assure us Jesus was "100%" liberal. So clearly materialism shouldn't be a problem for true liberals, right? Yet, by definition, most liberals are -- materialists! And a materialist by definition must look only to this life and what it contains for their values. So it's comical to see them lecturing their opponents, the political right, on the dangers of materialism, apparently presuming it could not apply to them.

The next amusing thing about their use of this verse is that, by doing so, they seem to be saying leftist socialist views -- that the state should control everyone's money and property -- are justified because Jesus taught greed was immoral, and these state should make laws to prevent immoral feelings.

First, this won't even work: Greed isn't caused by money (though the reverse can sometimes be true). Greed, like other sins, comes from the heart -- (another biblical teaching these authors just contradicted above, when they said our basic nature was goodness). A poor man can be just as greedy as a rich one. Socialism itself is based in making people envy other's possessions, and teaching greed to the poor. It's hard for many rich men to get to heaven because their heart was wrong in the first place -- not because they have possessions. Too look primarily at the possessions themselves as the problem is to miss the point of Jesus's teachings entirely.

And I wonder -- do they imagine the power of the state should be similarly used to prevent other sins too? How about lust? :-) Of course not. In the bible, people were stoned to death for unbridled lust -- but the left wants no state restraints. But I can't think of anyone stoned to death for unbridled wealth -- yet the left wants the state to have complete control over it!

Finally, here we see a group of leftists arguing for state control over corporations, allegedly because Jesus demanded it. Yet just below, they lecture us on the importance of "separation of church and state" (as liberals understand it)!

The irony is too rich for words...

Paying Taxes & Separation of Church & State: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. [Matthew 22:21]

Conservatives don't argue we shouldn't pay our taxes -- only that the correct amount for "Caesar" to require should be lower than that demanded by liberals. To imply otherwise is simply dishonest.

Further, the authors are omitting context again: God spends quite a while trying to convince the Israelites that the desire for a large, powerful government is harmful, and is at the core a rejection of God. To argue that Jesus, who claimed to be that God, would take the exact opposite view seems completely unfounded.

As far as "Separation of Church and State", conservatives believe in that idea as well, but they disagree with the liberal redefinition of this term. Originally, this meant that there was no officially "established" church. I agree completely. Modern liberals seem to think it means that means that religious ideals, or people influenced by them, shouldn't be allowed to influence the state or laws. Good luck proving that from the bible.

(And, again, that would rather seem to contradict the general thrust of this site, which implies we should all be political liberals -- and run the government that way -- because Jesus was one.)

But this whole thing is a modern idea, so it's quite a stretch to try to claim, as these people are apparently doing, that it originated in Jesus's teachings recorded in the bible.

Community: Love your neighbor as yourself. [Matthew 22:39]

Yes, of course: Liberals love others, conservatives do not. I get the drift. No debate needed, no evidence, just circular reasoning and unfounded slander.

How very Christian.

Conclusion

I'm going to stop here. This is pointless. The same things done above with the first dozen examples can be done with the rest. The entire apple has been rotten so far, there's no point in taking even one more bite -- every single "evidence" provided to show that "Jesus is a liberal" consists of one of five deceptions or mistakes:

(1) Presenting verses out of context.
(2) Grossly misrepresenting the clear meaning of a verse.
(3) Ad hominem insults made by simply implying conservatives don't care about that issue or commandment, while providing no evidence whatsoever.
(4) Making statements which directly contradict clear bible verses, while providing no supporting verses.
(5) Completely omitting any teachings where Jesus contadicts the liberal view, such as his views on marriage (one man, one woman), or his teachings on investing and earning more, or even his belief in God (rejected by far more leftists than conservatives).

So what have we got here? Massive incompetance? Deliberate deception?

I'd like to assume they mean well, but then -- how can you say you love the bible and Jesus, and not even, say, read one more verse of the context, or check out the Old Testament, in order to understand what he was trying to teach us?

On the other hand, if I assume these people were of average or better intelligence, then how can such failures imply anything other than deception?

Perhaps there's some third option I haven't thought of.

Regardless, I expect this will sort itself out shortly:

Certainly, if such errors were unintentional, and these people care about being faithful to Jesus's teachings, then I expect they'd be more than happy to fix them -- by providing appropriate context, removing implications which were deceptive, and removing or documenting the many slanders against their brothers in Christ who happen to disagree with their politics.

So I'm calling upon the authors of this cite to either refute my contentions here, or fix the problems I'm pointing to, and stop presenting material which is deceptive or slanderous -- whether such happened out of good intentions or ill.

For example, they falsely claim Jesus (quoting the Old Testament) told people not to kill -- meaning even the state shouldn't kill. Since that verse was originally given amid instruction after instruction as to when to stone people to death, that's clearly an incorrect interpretation. In addition, I've also provided evidence that that verse -- which was not originally written in english -- is against murder, not mere killing. To rely on a mistranslation to deceive people about the original teaching would hardly be ethical, no?

So before, this might have been a simple misunderstanding. Now, I will be presenting the site authors with evidence their use of this verse is deceptive -- whether intentionally or accidentally.

If they really believe they should "Follow the truth... wherever it leads you!" then I'm sure they'll be happy to correct that false and misleading use of that verse. And if not, and they don't provide a good rebuttal (such as by showing I'm mistaken as to what that word really means, or I'm wrong about the OT context), they it will be clear to all that they don't mean one ounce of that, and they could care less what Jesus, and the bible, really teaches about this subject.

So the choice up to them.

Then we can move on to the next deceptive argument on their site.