What would Jesus really do?

[The_Professor]

Here is a more broad approach to Christinaity. Do you agree? Is the Religious Right too narrowly focused on homosexuality and abortion?

Commentary: What would Jesus really do?

By Roland Martin
CNN Contributor
Editor's note: Roland Martin is a CNN contributor and talk-show host on WVON-AM in Chicago, Illinois. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith."

NEW YORK (CNN) -- When did it come to the point that being a Christian meant caring about only two issues,­ abortion and homosexuality?

Ask the nonreligious what being a Christian today means, and based on what we see and read, it's a good bet they will say that followers of Jesus Christ are preoccupied with those two points.

Poverty? Whatever. Homelessness? An afterthought. A widening gap between the have and have-nots? Immaterial. Divorce? The divorce rate of Christians mirrors the national average, so that's no big deal.

The point is that being a Christian should be about more than abortion and homosexuality, and it's high time that those not considered a part of the religious right expose the hypocrisy of our brothers and sisters in Christianity and take back the faith. And those on the left who believe they have a "get out of sin free" card must not be allowed to justify their actions.

Many people believe we are engaged in a holy war. And we are. But it's not with Muslims. The real war -- ­ the silent war ­-- is being engaged among Christians, and that's what we must set our sights on.

As we celebrate Holy Week, our focus is on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But aren't we also to recommit ourselves to live more like Jesus? Did Jesus spend his time focusing on all that he didn't like, or did Jesus raise the consciousness of the people to understand love, compassion and teach them about following the will of God?

As a layman studying to receive a master's in Christian communications, and the husband of an ordained minister, it's troubling to listen to "Christian radio" and hear the kind of hate spewing out of the mouths of my brothers and sisters in the faith.

In fact, I've grown tired of people who pimp God. That's right; we have a litany of individuals today who are holy, holy, holy, sing hallelujah, talk about how they love the Lord, but when it's time to walk the walk, somehow the spirit evaporates.

A couple of years ago I took exception to an e-mail blast from the Concerned Women for America. The group was angry that Democrats were blocking certain judges put up for the federal bench by President Bush. It called on Americans to fight Democrats who wanted to keep Christians off the bench.

So I called and sent an e-mail asking, "So, where were you when President Clinton appointed Christian judges to the bench? Were they truly behind Christian judges, or Republican Christian judges?

Surprise, surprise. There was never a response.

An African-American pastor I know in the Midwest was asked by a group of mostly white clergy to march in an anti-abortion rally. He was fine with that, but then asked the clergy if they would work with him to fight crack houses in predominantly black neighborhoods.

"That's really your problem," he was told.

They saw abortion as a moral imperative, but not a community ravaged by crack.

If abortion and gay marriage are part of the Christian agenda, I have no issue with that. Those are moral issues that should be of importance to people of the faith, but the agenda should be much, much broader.

I'm looking for the day when Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Joyce Meyer, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, James Kennedy, Rod Parsley, " Patriot Pastors" and Rick Warren will sit at the same table as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia Hale, Eddie L. Long, James Meek, Fred Price, Emmanuel Cleaver and Floyd Flake to establish a call to arms on racism, AIDS, police brutality, a national health care policy, our sorry education system.

If they all say they love and worship one God, one Jesus, let's see them rally their members behind one agenda.

I stand here today not as a Republican or a liberal. And don't bother calling me a Democrat or a conservative. I am a man,­ an African-American man ­who has professed that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that's to whom I bow down.

If you concur, it's time to stop allowing a chosen few to speak for the masses. Quit letting them define the agenda.

So put on the full armor of God because we have work to do.

[kimba1]

uhm
9-11 was caused by gays
jerry said it and I think pat totally got on board with it.
I remember that on tv
has this bit of information been proven false today?

[BT]

Judging by the comments in this forum from fundamentalists i don't believe the religious right is only a two issue advocacy.

And i certainly don't think they are interested in establishing a theocracy, in fact i think they are trying to establish the opposite.

The religious right gained prominence because the government under the auspices of the courts, interfered with religious expression in public schools, legitimized a medical procedure that was anathema to the majority of citizens at the time and redefined the age old institution of marriage.

I don't blame them for thinking they were on the losing end of a culture war.

And i certainly don't think they are out of line for organizing and mobilizing fellow citizens to protect their way of life any more than i think the civil rights movement was some evil cabal or that gay rights advocates should be put against the wall and shot on sight.

It's called dialog. It is healthy for a democracy to allow ALL voices to be heard. And the constant demonization of the religious right is a blatant attempt, in my opinuion, to mute their voice.

[Plane]

Well said, BT .

[Universe Prince]

Here is a more broad approach to Christinaity. Do you agree? Is the Religious Right too narrowly focused on homosexuality and abortion?

While I don't believe the individuals in the Religious Right are focused on only two issues, those two are the ones that probably get the most press because they are the most controversial. At the same time, there are people in the Religious Right for whom a politician's stance on abortion can be a deal maker or breaker. But I think Mr. Martin has the same basic problem as some of the people he is complaining about. He is expecting government to make Christian responsibilities into law.

Your question is "What would Jesus really do?" I look to what He did do, and I think He would say the responsibility to act in a holy manner is something we have to do for ourselves. He did not advocate making religious preferences into laws and he criticized those who tried to make their version of theology into laws. He did not advocate making the government pay to help the poor, He told individuals to do it themselves.

Jesus said, "whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." And I suggest if you don't want other people forcing their agenda on you, you should first look to your own agenda and make sure you are not trying to force it on others.

[Plane]

Here is a more broad approach to Christinaity. Do you agree? Is the Religious Right too narrowly focused on homosexuality and abortion?

While I don't believe the individuals in the Religious Right are focused on only two issues, those two are the ones that probably get the most press because they are the most controversial. At the same time, there are people in the Religious Right for whom a politician's stance on abortion can be a deal maker or breaker. But I think Mr. Martin has the same basic problem as some of the people he is complaining about. He is expecting government to make Christian responsibilities into law.

Your question is "What would Jesus really do?" I look to what He did do, and I think He would say the responsibility to act in a holy manner is something we have to do for ourselves. He did not advocate making religious preferences into laws and he criticized those who tried to make their version of theology into laws. He did not advocate making the government pay to help the poor, He told individuals to do it themselves.

Jesus said, "whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." And I suggest if you don't want other people forcing their agenda on you, you should first look to your own agenda and make sure you are not trying to force it on others.

Would you vote for leadership that agreed with you philisophicly 90% or so but in the ten percent disagreement advocated policys you couldn' bear at all?

[Universe Prince]

Would you vote for leadership that agreed with you philisophicly 90% or so but in the ten percent disagreement advocated policys you couldn' bear at all?

That would depend on the candidate and the issues. Take Congressman Ron Paul, for example. He's quite libertarian in his philosophy, but he advocates closed borders, a position with which I do not at all agree. But I would vote for him over any other candidate currently in the race for President. A libertarian candidate who for some bizarre reason advocated, say, the abolishment of religion, I am not at all likely to vote for a candidate like that.

[Plane]

Christians are against theft , opression and murder  . These are not out of line with the majority of all the rest so there is no contraversy , but the Christian opposition to theft opression and m urder is from the same sorce as the Christian opposition to Homosexuality and abortion.

[Stray Pooch]

The problem with the premise of this article is that it is oversimplified to the point of being false.  I am reminded of the story of an LDS professor who, during the sixties, was caught up in a protest at his college (I do not remember the details).  One of the leaders asked his religion and he told them.  They started complaining about how his church was doing nothing for (I think) the starving people of Biafra.  The protester demanded that the professor make a public statement insisting that the church contribute to that cause.  He agreed to do so, on the condition that the protester made a general call to contribute to the Maoris of New Zealand, who were having similar problems at the time.  The protester had no idea who they were.  The professor then told him that his church had been assisting them for several years.  He then mentioned several more peoples who were being helped by the church, most of whom the protester also knew nothing about. The bottom line was that the church (as most Christian churches) was busily BUT QUIETLY performing charity work all over the world.  They just weren't necessarily involved in the flavor of the month poor, starving children issue. 

Christians are taught to do good works without bragging about it:

1  TAKE heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2  Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men.  Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3  But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4  That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

( Matthew 6:1 - 4)


Consequently, an awful lot of good goes on in the name of Christ which never sees the light of day.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is generally very conservative.  Yet it is among the largest contributors to the American Red Cross and to the Salvation Army, which is also a Christian organization.   When there is a large disaster such as the Tsunami or Katrina or the earthquake in Iran, the church leaders will encourage the members to fast for twenty four hours and donate that money to the church for that cause.  The money is then sent to the Salvation Army or Red Cross, because they already have the logistical abilities in place and the church would rather have all of their money go to relief.  In fact, every month every member of the church fasts for twenty four hours and donates that money to be used in the church welfare system, which feeds thousands every day. 

Christian churches regularly give to the poor, send missionaries to do humanitarian work in third world countries, provide counseling services and charitable works right here in the United States and do good works which never make the headlines.  Even on the issue of abortions and gay lifestyles, churches provide assistance to try to help those who are faced with those issues.   Many on the left accuse Christians of wanting to force women to have children but then offering no support for adoption or charitable assistance to the families involved.  Yet many churches have entire organizations dedicated to just such services (look at Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services or LDS Social Services to name a few).   They just don't make the headlines because they are not controversial (unless they can be accused of misrepresenting themselves as "abortion" services when they are really trying to prevent abortion.  THAT fits in with the media portrayal of the "Christian Right" as deceitful zealots.).  I don't listen to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson (especially the latter, cuz he's nuts).  But I would bet a silk pajama that they both call for charitable action and for loving your neighbor as often - or more so - than they call for an end to abortion or to defend traditional marriage.

The idea that the Christian right is only interested in two issues is as stereotypical as saying gays are only interested in promiscuous sex or women who abort children are murdering sluts.  It's one thing to see someone spouting the vitriol we see here and on the talk shows but to see this article treating the premise as an accepted fact and then to call for tolerance is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

What Jesus would do is teach.  What Jesus would teach in this case is to avoid judging others, to repent, and to go forth and sin no more.  It would apply to all sides.  I know this because he has already done it.

[sirs]

Well said, BT .

Ditto

[Universe Prince]

Christians are against theft , opression and murder  . These are not out of line with the majority of all the rest so there is no contraversy , but the Christian opposition to theft opression and m urder is from the same sorce as the Christian opposition to Homosexuality and abortion.

In that case, do you think people who are homosexual should be put in jail as is done for murderers and thieves?

[Stray Pooch]

In that case, do you think people who are homosexual should be put in jail as we do for murderers and thieves?

It does not follow that anything Christians are against should be expected to lead to a jail sentence.  Plane's point was that there are many issues that Christians are concerned about but many involve shared moral values that do not lead to controversy - not that homosexuality and murder equate.

[Universe Prince]

It does not follow that anything Christians are against should be expected to lead to a jail sentence.  Plane's point was that there are many issues that Christians are concerned about but many involve shared moral values that do not lead to controversy - not that homosexuality and murder equate.

I know that Plane was not intending to equate the two. My question was intended to provoke this sort of response. The reaction to murder is different from the reaction to homosexuality, and rightfully so. My point being that just because we have laws prohibiting murder does not mean we need laws prohibiting homosexual acts or prohibiting homosexuals from getting married. So while Christian objections to murder and theft may have the same source as objections to homosexuality, that does not excuse trying to use the law to enforce religious preferences regarding homosexuality.

[The_Professor]

Well, the Word of God does indicate that murderers and homosexuals and a litany of others will not be in Heaven, so perhaps they could be contrued as being on the same level, e.g. sinful acts. We have already placed into our legal system the principle that murder is deserving of punishment and thievery and.... (of course, we legislate morality! duh) By that token, why shouldn't homosexuality be condemned? Or, do we pick and choose? Actually. that was a leading question: of course, we pick and choose! This is why homosexiualtiy is a cruckla issue NOW. WE used ot have this issue settled and now, due to the increasing power of the "gay" community, thewre is a move afoot to make it "okay" in every sense of the word. But the Word says otherwise.

This does not necessarily mean that if you commit such an act, you do not go to Heaven, but Jesus did say "Go forth and sin no more". It is the continual sinning that does you IN. It leads to spiritual death.

Pooch makes excellent points. For example, I do not make a show to anyone of the check that I give to the basket at services. This is between me and God, not for public consumption. Churches do lots for the poor and do not make an issue of it, as it should be. Jesus also made very concrete statements about the poor.

[Stray Pooch]

UP, I think it is inaccurate to say that we are trying to use the law to prohibit homosexual behavior.  I think we are trying to keep the law as it is concerning marriage.  We are not asking for change, they gay rights movement is.  Perhaps that change is needed, but I think it is wrong.

That said, I will answer the good Professor by stating that, while any degree of sin is wrong there are different degrees of crime.  Homosexuality may hurt society, or it may not.   That is a matter of reasonable debate.  But nobody can argue that murder does not have a victim.  The Bible tells us that all have sinned, so one sinner is no worse than another.  But one crime, according to our legal system and to common values we all hold, can be far worse than another.

Incidently, I take a different approach to what gets us into, or keeps us out of, heaven.  It is not sin that gets you, it is lack of repentance (though that is, of course, in itself a sin).  It is not a very popular position to take, but a hardened criminal who finally (and sincerely) repents and turns his life around (bringing forth, as John the Baptist required, fruits meet for repentance) is in far better eternal shape than the person whose sins were of a lesser nature, but who never felt the need to repent. We are all sinners, so nobody gets a freebnie.  It is repentance that leads to heaven through Christ's atonement.  So our job is not to condemn or judge, simply to call to repentance.  Everything beyond that is between God and the individual.