Was Jesus left wing?

Ted Tedford

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

A powerful argument for limiting the influence of the state - and for allowing a free vote on matters of conscience?

Perry

Ah yes, - the circle closes round the back somewhere . . . . for the left wing always forgets that the disparate ends eventually join up. So, . . . Jesus as socialist (sic) eh? Well I guess many of us have been on that route! Trouble is . . . most of yer socialist liberal leftie buddies seem intent on removing well nigh any Christian remnants from our laisez faire culture. Our Lord said, ‘by their actions shall ye know them’ . . . and as we know, actions speak much louder than words. So, I suggest we just sit back, relax, and watch for the emergence of a Christian culture from the socialist paradise now in preparation.

John W

Sorry Ted I don't think so, but not because there isn't such an argument. I find it very depressing that a whole swathe of the media lacks even an elementary understanding of theology, the Bible or even classical political-philosophical thinking. I'm sorry to say Fraser this seems to go for you too - you've posted on Christianity a couple of times recently and seemed to lack a basic grip of the matter.

The left needs to make a case for Jesus being one of them because they are ideologues. If Jesus is/was of any merit he needs to be co-opted into the narrative of socialism etc. otherwise the whole project is compromised.

They (often the right too) forget that 'the Left' is not a universal category, unbound by history or social convention - it makes absolutely no sense to talk about Jesus in terms of left and right like that.

Jesus had a huge amount to say about politics, and was not a 'good moral teacher' (God forbid), but to talk about 'left wing', 'socialism' or even 'conservatism' or 'liberalism' is idiotic in the extreme.

Can I recommend first reading at least the New Testament and a decent commentary, and then perhaps NT Wright's 'Christian Origins and the Question of God' series which would give a good grounding not only in how we can talk about Jesus being political, but also some theology and first century history too.

Ian C

The clearest references in Christian foundations are those that extol the virtue of the exercise of 'free will' - not a socialist society's strongest suit. Indeed we have had a discussion elsewhere about how the term 'liberal'(often used as adjective or adverb) became associated with the left when it is more often so intolerant of other strands of opinion.

Oliver Kamm

This debate is misconceived. Jesus did not advance a political ethic at all, because he believed that the end of the world was going to come very shortly: "Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)

As Albert Schweitzer demonstrated almost a century ago in his seminal Von Reimarus zu Wrede (given the better title in English of The Quest of the Historical Jesus), this eschatology was the heart of Jesus's message - on which, of course, Jesus was wrong, and the history of the early Church is to a large extent an attempt to come to terms with this fact. It is a category mistake to infer that Jesus's description of the life of the Kingdom of God has any connection to the political realm.

Ted Tedford

Oliver: I think you might be taking this a bit seriously. It's Friday p.m. after all, and everyone's off to the pub.

The whole idea of the differentiatiation between 'religion' and 'politics' is a false, modern distinction. There's a body of tradition in strands of 1st century BC Judaism that simply does not make this distinction. (Although it's bad to generalise - it was a Big Tent.) On that view, human 'political' actors are simply vessels doing G*d's will, whether they are of the Chosen people or not. For example, one of the second Temple prophets, I forget which, refers to Cyrus as an 'agent of Yahweh'.

Besides which, there's been a big shift away from Jesus as eschatological prophet in recent years. Increasingly, especially in the works of the Jesus seminar, there's a tendency to minimise the prophetic eschatology in favour of realised eschatology - that is, a present kingdom, realised by Jesus' own ministry. Funnily enough, this tends to fit in with the world-view of the liberal academics who favour this, and the sapiential, traditions.

The German historical Jesus questers, and indeed almost all of their followers, were indeed merely looking down a deep, dark well and seeing themselves reflected in the bottom. The wonder of the Jesus/Christ we confront in the New Testament and the pseudepigraphical writings is that he defies and transcends these tired empirical attempts to box him.

David Lindsay

All three British political traditions derive from the Christianity still professed by seventy-two per cent of Britons. But integral to the "modernisation" of all three parties (first Labour, then the Tories, and now also the Lib Dems) is cutting them off from those roots, as also from everywhere except the South East, and from everyone except the upper and upper middle classes even there. Look at the Human Ferilisation and Embryology Bill. The Tories and the Lib Dems are only granting a free vote because they bagan this process that little bit later than Labour. They will never do any such thing again. And we have much, much, much more of this sort of thing to look forward to. New parties, or at least the movements that could become new parties, must be in place by the 2010 Election. What are you waiting for?

Ted Tedford

John W: Sorry, I posted my second comment before I read yours: I wasn't trying to show off, and I'm sure I've made some glaring errors.

And I like Tom Wright's series as well. It's properly thoughtful and largely resists the temptations to 'claim' Jesus - except as Christ.

David Lindsay

Oh, and congratulations to Oliver Kamm on practically citing The Da Vinci Code, because the book he actually does cite is on the same level, the sort of "airport theology" that keeps the likes of Karen Armstrong in bread and water.

If his reading of these matters had ever commanded any sort of following other than among those trapped in a perpetual adolescent rebellion against public school Churchianity, then none of this country's three political traditions would ever have started. Which is doubtless at least part of why he wishes that it had done.

Simon Chapman

Roll on the weekend Fraser!

For evidence that Jesus was one or more of the following: Black, Irish, Italian, Jewish, Californian or a woman, click here:
http://www.godweb.org/Jesuswasawoman.htm

One thing He was not is a libertarian:

"Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil" (1 Peter 2 16).

Trumpeter Lanfried

Jesus had a beard and wore sandals. Clearly a socialist.

Lance Diatessaron

Jesus didn't sit about waiting for God to sort things out: he got on his bike and made things happen. And he didn't claim asylum when he travelled to England as a boy.

John W

I'm afraid I must concede the point to Herr Lanfried. Bravo sir.

Christopher

If Jesus was a lefty, why did he never condemn slavery? Surely any lefty, or indeed any even half way decent person, would have done so.

dearieme

If Jesus subscribed to the Ten Comandments then he can't have been a socialist, since they forbid stealing and covetting.

Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
"(God) will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left." (Matthew 25:32-33)
There you have it: God is not a socialist!

Oliver Kamm

David Lindsay/Martin Miller, let me cordially point out that you would not get far with the biblical scholar cited by others in this thread, N.T. Wright (now Bishop of Durham), if you described Schweitzer's work in that way. That's plain ignorant. One thing Wright stresses is that Schweitzer was justified in locating Jesus's ministry within the context of the apocalyptic Judaism of the first century. Wright would interpret that message in very different terms from Schweitzer - of cosmic imagery rather than the literal destruction of the universe - but you cannot make sense of twentieth-century biblical scholarship without knowing about Schweitzer's quest of the historical Jesus.

It is, I repeat, a category mistake to interpret Jesus' depiction of the life of the kingdom as being any sort of political programme. If I were a Christian then I would object to this notion on the grounds that, as Reinhold Niebuhr put it, "the tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan value and ends is the source of all religious fanaticism". Being a non-Christian and an atheist, I assert the same thing.

David Lindsay

Didn't He, Lance? Then how come the Queen is descended from Him?

Alan Towey

I do not know about Jesus. But could I suggest that socialism is now here to stay: David Cameron is a socialist, as is Gordon Brown. I base this on the definition given by Simon Blackburn in his dictionary of philosophy: "political system in which the major means of production are not in private or institutional hands but under social control."
I would simply modify this so that being in private or instituional hands is now compatible with simultaneously being subject to social control. Most legislation now seems inspired by a desire to exert social control over as many walks of life as possible. Look at the supine way we all accept the smoking ban, and these ridiculous climate change targets.

Conor Burns

Although it can unwise to try and read political meanings into things that referred to spiritual matters there are a couple that could be seen to have political implications. The parable of the talents has a hint of the free market about it. St Paul also stated "if a man shall not work he shall not eat."

David

I think that Jesus's parable of the labourers in the vineyard (Matthew XX v1-16) ought to disprove forever pretensions that he was a socialist - a penny paid to the labourer who was hired for a whole day, and the same penny paid for the one was hired at the eleventh hour. No minimum wage in Galilee then. And so the boss - "Is not lawful for me to do what I will with my own? So the last shall be first, and the first last".

And the parable of the talents? (Matt XXIV v14-30). The one who had buried his talent is admonished "Though oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers. And then at my coming I should have received my own with usury".

Pretty sound Tory principles to me.

Fergus Pickering

I thought Marx (or Lenin) said 'if a man shall not work hr shall not eat.' But perhaps St Paul said it FIRST.

TGF UKIP

Alan Towey makes a very valid point -viz Dave's recent promulgation that companies should be compelled to link directors' bonuses with their charity work rather than profits. Dave plainly believes the path to heaven does indeed lie via socialism.

John W

You point out yourself, Oliver, that Schweitzer began his quest 100 years ago. Surely you can't be ignorant of his numerous refutations in the intervening century. Jesus' Kingdom was absolutely political as well as spiritual, indeed as with Jewish apocalyptic which Schweitzer miscast, he would not have differentiated these categories. It is you that makes the category error by ascribing post-enlightenment atomistic thinking to a first century jewish prophet and teacher.

Tanuki

Does it really matter whether some guy-who-may-or-may-not-have-existed-2000-years-ago was left-wing or not?

Surely we've been through the Enlightenment and a whole slew of other sociopolitical developments since.

Reason-based, rather than faith-based, economics and rationality is the only thing that matters today. Forget the daft fairy-stories and legends of the past - we've surely outgrown such delusional comforters.

salieri

Jesus doesn't seem to have had a sense of humour. Not proof of socialist tendencies in itself, of course, but a sine qua non.

dearieme

"If Jesus was a lefty, why did he never condemn slavery?" Those lefties who supported the USSR didn't seem to mind the slavery there.

Fraser Nelson

Trumpeter, I salute you. That's my comment of the month. Case closed.

Patrick Ratnaraja

Mathew 25 : 14-30

Jesus was certainly not a leftist

The Parable of the Talents

25:14 “For it is like a man going on a journey, who summoned his slaves 1 and entrusted his property to them. 25:15 To 2 one he gave five talents, 3 to another two, and to another one, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 25:16 The one who had received five talents went off right away and put his money to work 4 and gained five more. 25:17 In the same way, the one who had two gained two more. 25:18 But the one who had received one talent went out and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money in it. 25:19 After 5 a long time, the master of those slaves came and settled his accounts with them. 25:20 The 6 one who had received the five talents came and brought five more, saying, ‘Sir, 7 you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’ 25:21 His master answered, 8 ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful in a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 25:22 The 9 one with the two talents also came and said, ‘Sir, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more.’ 25:23 His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful with a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 25:24 Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, 25:25 so 10 I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ 25:26 But his master answered, 11 ‘Evil and lazy slave! So you knew that I harvest where I didn’t sow and gather where I didn’t scatter? 25:27 Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, 12 and on my return I would have received my money back with interest! 13 25:28 Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten. 14 25:29 For the one who has will be given more, 15 and he will have more than enough. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 16 25:30 And throw that worthless slave into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Ray

People who try to attribute political imperatives to Jesus' ministry on Earth completely miss the point - not unlike those Judean zealots who were aghast that Jesus was not more uptight about the iniquity of rule by Rome.
However, Jesus didn't come to offer mankind a comprehensive programme for managing the means of production. Rather the 'liberation struggle' He spoke about was the fact we are all separated from God on account of our own sinfulness, and therefore stand in need a sacrificial act that will once and for all atone for our sin and restore us to our right relationship with God, the Father.
Jesus himself summed up his 'manifesto' in one of the most immortal soundbites ever uttered: "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John ch 3 vs 16)

Oliver Kamm

I'm aware of the numerous exercises in Christian apologetics that have been directed at Schweitzer, from the Marburg New Testament Professor Adolf Juelicher and Ernst von Dobschuetz onwards. But none has refuted Schweitzer's essential point that eschatology was the heart of Jesus's message. This is a difficulty for Christian orthodoxy, because Jesus was clearly wrong in his expectations - but this is a tangent to the point I'm making. You've misunderstood me to claim that Jesus's message separated the spiritual from the temporal; my point is rather that as Jesus expected the irruption of the Kingdom of God into human history within a generation, this would supplant temporal affairs altogether. The notion that we might look to Scripture for political guidance seems to me entirely misguided, even on the presumption - as I do not believe - that there is anything elevating and profound about that message in the first place.

Ben Stevenson

Oliver Kamm: "But none has refuted Schweitzer's essential point that eschatology was the heart of Jesus's message."

That is hardly a controversial claim, and not a problem for Christian orthodoxy. Of course Jesus talked about the end times (eschaton).

Oliver Kamm: "my point is rather that as Jesus expected the irruption of the Kingdom of God into human history within a generation"

That is exactly what happened (see Mark 4:30-32, and Matthew 13:24-30, Luke 17:20-21). The Kingdom of God (God's reign) has begun, but is not completely accomplished. God reigns now - particularly in his church, one day no-one will doubt his reign.

Oliver Kamm: "this would supplant temporal affairs altogether."

What does this mean?

salieri

Au contraire, Trumpeter and Fraser (respeck). Beard + sandals = LibDem. Stands to reason.

mcsterg

Everything about Jesus and his parables upholds the values of ownership and entrepeneurism. He himself is the Good Shepherd-the OWNER of the flock who is willing to sacrifice his own life for them, as opposed to the hired hand with no stake in the flock, who runs away from danger.
He tells us to be like the enterprising merchant who sells all he possesses to purchase the Pearl of Great Price.
We are to be like the servants who invest the master's talents to bring great returns, rather than the drudge who buries his talent.
He likens the Father to the owner of the vinyard who, after his tenants have refused to pay their rents and abused and murdered his servants and son, will come to wreak vengeance upon them.
Jesus is who He is. Trying to shrink him to fit one's political ideology is thinking very small.

Huw Thornton

One useful indicator: "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" (Matthew 6.3, New Revelation Translation). So the Bible has a consistent political position? Probably not on this evidence, but should he seek divine endorsement David Cameron could do worse than choose this quote.

Richard

The best Biblical argument against socialism is in St Paul: "Each one should give what he has decided in his own mind, not grudgingly or because he is made to, for God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7).

Exodus 30:15 supports a Poll Tax: "the rich man is not to pay more, nor the poor man less, than half a shekel".

Samuel warned that the government "will take the best of your fields, of your vineyards and olive groves and give them to his officials" (1 Samuel 8:14). Sounds like New Labour's client state to me.

One message for all MPs is from the prophet Nehemiah, who apparently didn't claim the daily subsistence allowance to which he was entitled (Nehemiah 5:15).

Fabio P.Barbieri

Oliver Kamm's ridiculous attempt to resurrect the Schweitzer argument in an anti-Christian meaning is only worth making if you reject a priori the statement, made by all four gospels, that He rose from the dead, and that by rising from the dead He established a new order of reality. In other words, Oliver Kamm is arguing that Jesus was wrong about His mission because Oliver Kamm believes that Jesus was wrong about His mission. Lovely logic, Oliver.