What Would Jesus Do?

by Chuck Gutenson

    I must admit to a bit of consternation when the WWJD fad became so popular in the US, primarily because the answers one often heard seem to be rather contrived and only superficially connected with any actual claims that Jesus, or even his disciples, made.  My second concern was that asking the question this way, while rightly focusing Christian expression on the first (and only, according to Nietzsche!) Christian, could easily miss the fact that there were some aspects of his life that Jesus, by his own words, did not expect everyone to imitate.  For example, Jesus never married, but made it clear that Christians need not imitate him since he expressly affirmed marriage as part of God’s intentions.  Yet, my biggest concern was how much the question invited facile proof-texting--you know, the tendency to quote one small verse (or even piece of a verse) as if it provided the answer to a complex question.  The bible is a rich and complex book that, as has been shown too often, can be used to support just about anything once individual texts are allowed to be separated from the place within the overall story.  This is why, in what follows, I talk more about what we find if we study the bible as a whole, and the Gospels in particular, than citing specific passages.  Before we can even begin to answer the question of what Jesus would do, it is essential to consider what Jesus actually did during his life.

    First, it says something about the very heart of God that when he sends his Son into the world, he sends him, not as a king, not as a warrior, not as a wealthy business person, but as a lowly “commoner.”  A line from a song by Rich Mullins referenced Jesus as follows: “the hope of the whole world rested on the shoulders of a homeless man.”  Throughout the course of Jesus’ life, he spent the greatest percentage of his time with the poor, the downcast, those normally considered on the margins of society.  He not only identified himself with this class of folks, he defined his mission in relation to them (Luke 4), and both his teaching and his example make clear the extent to which “the least of these” are to be our concern.  No answer, then, to the question of what Jesus would do can be separated from his pouring himself out for those around him who were on the margins of society.

    Second, when Jesus engaged in criticism and condemnation of those around him, it was disproportionately aimed first at the class of religious leaders.  He observed that they loved to engage in public acts that gave them a facade of piety (public displays of almsgiving and prayer, for example).  In a stinging indictment, he praises a women who gives her last two pennies to the temple right after observing the injustices wrought by and through the temple.  The parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt. 21:33ff) was perhaps the harshest of all his critiques.  Following closely after the religious leaders came condemnation of those who were well to do but did not see their obligation to care for those not so well to do.  In the Parable of the Barns, he criticizes a man who has worked hard and merely intends to retire early.  Why?  Because he did not use his blessing to bless others.  In the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Rich Man ends up in hell because he could help, but did not.

    Third, interestingly, Jesus seemed to engage in relatively less condemnation of what were popularly considered sinners.  In fact, he hung out with them all the time.  His normal cohort included tax collectors (whose behavior was considered treasonous by many) and women of ill repute.  Did he care about these sins?  Of course, but his means of transforming folks revolved around personal engagement and the sharing of his life with them, not exclusion.  He did get pretty angry with a group of sinners who had elevated business over persons when they set up trade in that part of the temple intended to welcome non-Israelites.

    Fourth, it seems we can reasonably surmise from Jesus’ actions and teachings that he would hold what we might call a non-contingently pro-life position.  I realize this phrase does not fall trippingly off the tongue, but it is intended to capture something of what Cardinal Joseph Bernardin referenced as “a seamless garment of life” that must run through a broad range of issues.  Abortion?  Yes, but also capital punishment, poverty relief, nuclear disarmament, access to health care, etc.  Efforts to ground an argument against abortion in the bible are often based on the claim that God “knits us together” in the womb or in Jesus’ care for children.  Yet, the proper place to build the case is in the biblical injunction that runs from the Old Testament through the teachings of Jesus and beyond to “care for the least of these.”  Once we realize this, it becomes clearer that a the non-contingently pro-life position cannot be reduced to a subset of these concerns.

    Fifth, the debate about whether Jesus was a pacifist or would embrace what later developed into the Just War theory has been debated by many, so I will refer readers to those other arguments.  I do, however, want to make some observations regarding Jesus’ life and the issue of war and violence.  It is worth noting that Jesus resisted all attempts by others to coopt him into a war for liberation from Rome.  If there ever would have been a case where someone had a just cause, surely first century Jewish oppression was it (success in the recent past suggests that success was at least plausible).  Further, the expected Messiah was a warrior figure.  Whenever Jesus had the opportunity to react violently, he did not with one irresolvably ambiguous case–the cleansing of the temple.  A careful read of the account in Greek leaves it highly plausible that the “violence” Jesus exhibit was toward the animals as he ran them out of the temple.  Many who try to support war from the biblical records frequently do so by appeal to passages from the Hebrew Bible, but from a Christian perspective, this overlooks too much as a definitively Christian position cannot be reached without asking how Jesus changes matters.  One has to work through Jesus’ own behaviors as well as his injunctions to “turn the other cheek” and “not to repay evil with evil.”  As much as folks try to compare “body bag counts” (how many would die if we do or do not intervene violently), this question really cannot be engaged until the prior question of what we learn from the life of Jesus about the use of violence as opposed to non-violent means is undertaken.  Finally, whatever position one thinks Christians should hold, the non-negotiable is that we must love and pray for even our enemies.

    Sixth, some have tried to restrict the force of Jesus’ life and teachings in such a way as to exclude our public life together–i.e., they argue that Jesus does not have an impact on how we think of politics.  To defend this, folks often appeal to Jesus’ statement that we should “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God, those that are God’s.”  Yet, to read this passage as excluding public life from the influence of our commitment to Jesus is to fail to see the irony in this statement.  If one takes the life of Jesus holistically, it seems clear that the answer to the question what things are not God’s is a resounding “Nothing!”  Further, much of Jesus’ language (for example, his comments in the synagogue in Luke 4) directly echo OT commands that God gives to the people as a whole, not merely as individuals. 

    Seventh, Jesus taught and embodied a way of being that was radically oriented toward others.  This should come as no surprise, as the theme that we are blessed in order to be a blessing to others is echoed throughout the bible from beginning to end.  In the writings that follow the Gospels, the writers continue this emphasis.  Perhaps, the clearest NT expression of this is the admonition to love others as we love ourselves.  Think about that, it is much more profound than we often like to see.  What do I do for me when I am hungry? Or thirsty? Or cold? Well, I get me something to eat, drink, and cover me up, respectively.  If I loved my neighbor as myself, would I not do these for my neighbor?  And, who is my neighbor, according to Jesus?  Well, he tells the parable of the Good Samaritan to answer this question, and the answer is shocking–the person you take to be the most unlikable!

    Eighth, and slightly on a different track, sometimes it is argued that we really are not to see Jesus as a “role model.”  The argument goes on to claim that Jesus had a very specific task to accomplish and that this did not include living in a way that we were to imitate.  All I can say to this is that it is inconsistent both with the Jesus teachings and the teachings of the Christian tradition.  The tradition has held that Jesus is the supreme example of God’s intentions for human life together.  It would follow that “imitation of Christ” is central to being a Christian.  Jesus himself indicated that those who truly love him, would exhibit this by doing what he taught–both in word and deed.

    What would Jesus do?  At the end of the day, this is a legitimate, in fact critical, question for Christians to consider.  To answer it, though, it is not enough to appeal to popular conceptions of Jesus or to try to determine what Jesus might do from some notion of “common sense.”  Rather, we will have to engage the resources we have that give an indication of what Jesus did when faced with different circumstances–namely, with the biblical writings and the writings of the early church.

Comments

[jwhook]

Chuck -

Glad to have discovered your writing through this post. So often, WWJD, is really about small personal choices, or individual moral issues -- especially geared towards reining in typical teen behavior.

I have one small quibble with your post. I think the point of the story of the Good Samaritan for us is twofold: first, that being a good neighbor takes action; second, that everyone is our neighbor. For the original audience this parable applies ust as much to your point #2, as it does to your point #7.

Your article speaks well to the most unfortunate trend in Christianity over the last 20-30 years -- the rise of the "evangelical right" as opposed to evangelicals who do right.

[chuck]

JW,
Thanks for your comment, and I accept your quibble:>) Hope you will return and dialogue with us!
blessings,

[Richard Darsie]

Chuck, this is a very interesting post, particularly for me, a non-Christian. In fact, I follow the path of Tibetan Buddhism, and would like to comment on the statement that "he tells the parable of the Good Samaritan to answer this question, and the answer is shocking–the person you take to be the most unlikable!" Tibetan Buddhism has a very similar ethic about the development of patience and compassion - you need to develop the ability to hang out with the people who piss you off the most in order to learn not to get triggered by them. And here's a very interesting story about one of the Dalai Lama's tutors, an old monk who was held captive and abused by the Chinese for years. He finally got away and made his way to India. He had an audience with the Dalai Lama and was describing his many harrowing experiences in captivity. The Dalai Lama asked him, "Were you ever scared?" The reply: "Yes, once the Chinese brought in a bunch of monks and beat them very badly then shot some of them. At that moment I was afraid - that I would lose my compassion for the Chinese."

[Chuck]

Chuck, excellent post. As I sat through a church dinner Saturday night, I was shocked and saddened that my table companions were speaking about the Katrina evacuees in such negative terms. They were consumed with finding their faults, mostly their fault of being poor. One "brother" of mine went on to say how angry he got when people questioned or criticized the President's response to the disaster and the disaster that is Iraq, which he supports wholeheartedly. "It is very hard for me to pray for these people (the dissenters)" he said. "But then I remember that I am to pray for my enemies". I replied "Do we pray for them before, or after we bomb them?" He had no idea what I meant. This, from a man who is studying to be a minister. Sad, so very sad and disheartening. Eyes wide shut.

[chuck]

Richard,
Thanks for the story, an enlightening one indeed!
Chuck,
Been there, brother. I keep thinking of that passage, "if the light in you is dark,...."

[Mary-Jo]

I disagree with your assertion that Jesus would be non-contingently pro-life, meaning anti-abortion. The biblical understanding about loss of pregnancy is clearly that it is not equivalent to the death of a person, see Exodus 21:22. Of course, Jesus may have given further elaboration if he had so chosen, but he did not. So we just don't know.

[zero]

all the attention to the poor post-katrina has me asking one question....why aren't people who work hard each day get paid a living wage? if people were paid a living wage the poor would not be with us. those who can't work (elderly, infirmed, impaired) would automatically be taken care of. i don't understand, can never understand, why economics "wins" over humanity.

[chuck]

Mary-Jo,
Thanks for your comment, and I appreciate your reference to Ex 21, an important text. Even with that, however, I think we get a picture of Jesus as one who would not take this lightly. Hence, my use of "convenience abortion" to indicate that I was not defending positions where, say, the mother is in jeopardy.
Zero,
I'm with you, man. There are numerous movements around the country working on this, let us join them when we can, and pray otherwise.

[jo]

i really appreciate this post. however, my question is about applying your sixth point: If everything (including political structures) is effected by Jesus (and i agree it should be), then how does that influence how preachers use the pulpit? in other words, is it ok for matters of the state to be propagated from the pulpit if done from a Christian perspective? what do you think?

[chuck]

Thanks for the question, Jo. My short answer would be that we are to bear witness to the "powers" and I actually think seeking to change them from outside is the way we should go as the church. I am not saying Christians can't run for office...by no means, but I am suggesting that the "prophetic voice" needs to come as a "critique from outside." I can say more on that if this is too short. Thanks for joining us, hope you'll be back:>)

[Seth]

Wow...very glad my cousin pointed me toward your blog and this post. Can't wait to keep up more regularly. Thank you for this - a most excellent post/expose...

[chuck]

Thanks, Seth, for your comments and for joining us!

[Seth]

Not sure if anyone is still checking back on these comments, but in answer to Jo and the unpacking of 'give to what is Caesar's', etc, there's a book that tackles this that I'd recommend: 'A Public Faith', by Charles Drew.

Other than that, I always have to recommend a book by a former professor of mine, 'The Beloved Community: How Faith Shapes Social Justice, from the Civil Rights Movement to Today' -- reminded by the 'living wage' comment...today someone working full-time at minimum wage for the entire year with no breaks is still going to make $3000 below the poverty line just for a family of two. Unacceptable.

[Seth]

p.s. 'Beloved Community' is by Charles Marsh.

check out my post 'A Different Social Order' in my August archives and 'Stranger in a Strange Land' in my September archives - I tackled a lot of the issues discussed in this amazing post.

[Seth]

p.s. 'Beloved Community' is by Charles Marsh.

check out my post 'A Different Social Order' in my August archives and 'Stranger in a Strange Land' in my September archives - I tackled a lot of the issues discussed in this amazing post.

[chuck]

I skimmed through them, Seth, thanks for sharing. They were very fine indeed. Feel free to add any of those stats to your comments here and thanks for joining us!