When I was younger, I didn't like some of the less popular things Jesus said. I really liked the ones where he said nice things like "Blessed are the poor", but I never liked to play up the fire-'n'-brimstone stuff he often said.

As I've grown older, I've gotten sick of people fashioning a Jesus-named-god in whatever image they'd prefer today. It's idolatry.

For example, here's Matthew Fox's 95 Theses, in which he tries to usurp the spiritual legacy of Martin Luther with a series of rambling, incoherant, trite aphorisms, and thinly-disguised jibes lashing out at the Catholic Church for having rejected his wonderful, brilliant self.

For a taste of Fox's theological incoherance, juxtapose, for example, these two:

70. Jesus said nothing about condoms, birth control or homosexuality.

74. Racism, Sexism and militarism are also serious sins.

Right. Jesus said nothing about latex condoms, therefore birth control cannot be a sin. (I'm not Catholic, and have no problem with most forms of birth control, but we're looking at Fox's incoherance here.) Yet, even though Jesus also said nothing about, say, "militarism" or racism, these are indeed serious sins.

So if Jesus never mentioned it, can't possibly be a sin. But if Jesus never mentioned it, it could be a "serious sin". What determines the difference? Why, it's however Matthew Fox feels today! If he feels strongly about something, he'll put the words into God's mouth. If he dislikes something, he'll lie about what's actually in the bible.

For example, here's what Matthew Fox teaches:

4. God the Punitive Father is not a God worth honoring but a false god and an idol that serves empire-builders.... 5. ... people who worship a punitive father are themselves punitive.

Yet here's what Jesus taught:

But I tell you that anyone who is angry [without cause] with his brother will be subject to judgment... anyone who says, 'You fool!' [meaning "worthless one!"] will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5:22)

Jesus tells his followers not to be, frankly, punitive, in the sense of being vindictive and carrying grudges. Yet, at the exact same time, he teaches there are fires of hell -- i.e. that it is God's job to punish, not ours. So the one who would follow Jesus returns cursing with blessings, yet also believes there is a God who will ultimately balance the books and punish the guilty.

Jesus clearly thought his followers could keep the two straight: Vengence belongs to God, not you. You be nice. God will take care of the rest. Instead, Matthew Fox claims this is impossible. I'm not here to choose between the two at the moment, but simply to point out that Matthew Fox implies the biblical Jesus is a liar.

(Though I have no doubt someone could help me "reinterpret" Jesus's words to conform more closely to Fox's views.)

Jesus has always been the ultimate paradox, manifested in human form. "Behold the kindness and severity of God." (Romans 11:22) To the arrogant who fashion a god in their own theological image, he intrudes with uncomfortable exclusive and judgemental sayings; yet he also lifts up the poor in spirit, forgives all their sins, and tells them to move closer to Him at the banquet table, for all to see.

So, since we're living in an era where we only want Jesus as a "nice guy" and the perfect political liberal, I think it's often productive to point out his dark view of human nature, and repudiation of the pantheism, "we're all good people" and "Jesus is just our brother" attitudes so many advocate today:

"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."

[Jesus replied:] "Why is my language not clear to you?
Because you are unable to hear what I say.

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! ...

[The protested, again:] "Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"

[Jesus replied:] "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing.
My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
Though you do not know him, I know him.
If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you,
but I do know him and keep his word." (John 8)

The enemies of Jesus did not hold to (e.g. "conserve") existing truth. And they did not believe the words Jesus spoke. They still don't, which is why they highlight their bibles, as a friend of mine quips, with a black highlighter, removing, filtering, or re-interpreting what galls them, quoting selectively where it pleases them.

Yet Jesus was not a man like them, nor even like their hero Abraham. He was something different altogether, and taught his opponents were, in fact, children of Satan. And he did teach about a "punitive" father; he spoke incessantly of heaven and hell, reward and punishment, in very graphical, physical terms: "the fire is not quenched", "their worm does not die."

Now, you may not like this biblical Jesus. Good enough. Simply be honest enough to admit that: I don't like the Jesus of the bible. Frankly, I'm not amazingly comfortable with Him either. He's sometimes not cool with my conservative friends, and often waaaaay too sexually conservative and judgemental for my liberal friends. And his words make me look, if I am honest about my own life and motives, like a completely selfish bastard, at times. Though he would never phrase it that way.

And you know what, he loves me anyway.

And you.

But there's still this important issue of our many sins against Him.