Jesus: Democrat or Republican?

[Bio-logical]

I was having a discussion with a friend specifically about why Christians (devout ones) always seem to vote republican. Both parties pander to them during election time but no matter what they are almost exclusively single issue voters, and that issue is of course abortion. This lead to the following question:

Would Jesus be a Democrat or a Republican if alive in America today?

Of course the logical statement would be neither, he would be independent because neither party follows his word exactly, but the question really is designed to weed out if Christians are doing the right thing by voting Republican, if that party more closely resembles what Jesus taught or not.

I will get the ball rolling by offering the dissenting opinion, I think he would be a Democrat. Jesus was, according to the bible stories, sort of a bleeding heart liberal. He gave food and healthcare to even the most downtrodden in the society, He did not believe in making personal wealth more important than the welfare of others and he was very much against violence in favor of talking it out instead.

What do you think?

[cnorman18]

Since both of those categories are determined by political and economic practices that did not exist in Jesus's day, I don't think the question has any meaning. It's rather like asking if he'd root for the Lakers or the Bulls.

He seemed to think that charity should be an individual matter, and never made any indication that the poor ought to be cared for by the State; that would make him a Republican. He did not advocate violence; that would make him a Democrat. He seemed to believe in the equality of all races; that would have made him a Republican in Lincoln's day and up till the 60s, and a Democrat today. He advised his followers to carry swords, which would make him a Second Amendment advocate and a Republican (and there are a lot of single-issue voters on that issue too); he did not actively oppose slavery, which is not characteristic of either party today, though when it WAS an issue in American history, that would have made him a Democrat.

His position on government bailouts, abortion, Guantanamo Bay, tort reform, and term limits doesn't seem to be on the record.

[McCulloch]

New Democrat?
Green Party?
Labour?
Liberal?
Likud?
Christian Democratic Union (Christlich Demokratische Union)
Christian Social Union (Christlich-Soziale Union)
Sinn Féin?
Bloc Québécois?

[MagusYanam]

Since both of those categories are determined by political and economic practices that did not exist in Jesus's day, I don't think the question has any meaning.

I agree. At the same time, though, Jesus and his followers were (politically) far more radical than you seem to be making them.

He seemed to think that charity should be an individual matter, and never made any indication that the poor ought to be cared for by the State; that would make him a Republican. He did not advocate violence; that would make him a Democrat. He seemed to believe in the equality of all races; that would have made him a Republican in Lincoln's day and up till the 60s, and a Democrat today. He advised his followers to carry swords, which would make him a Second Amendment advocate and a Republican (and there are a lot of single-issue voters on that issue too); he did not actively oppose slavery, which is not characteristic of either party today, though when it WAS an issue in American history, that would have made him a Democrat.

Eeehhh... there are some problems with this. Jesus seems to have thought that caring for the poor was a communal obligation - as when he commanded his disciples to bring together what they had with them, break it and share it among the multitudes - and he also rejected the market apparatus which benefitted the priestly class (he forbade the disciples from going to the market to buy food). And yes, he believed in equality of the races, but at that time the institutionalised racism was not wrapped up in slavery, but in the purity and debt codes of the Roman tributary Second Temple state which judged Gentiles (meaning poor, local Gentiles) to be ritually unclean. To the credit of the Pharisee reform movement from which modern Judaism springs, they did a massive amount of work to reform those purity and debt codes with regard to non-Jews - though they themselves later became the targets of persecution, economic ostracism and state violence.

The 'second Amendment advocate' part seems rather specious, given the ambiguity of the passage in St Luke and its relation to the rest of the book. As a student of Scripture yourself, I hope you can appreciate the satire with which the disciples are being treated here. Jesus had used the imagery of 'the sword' as a metaphor for division and social disruption elsewhere in the Gospel (St Luke 12:51-53, compare with St Matthew 10:34), and elsewhere in St Luke responding to hostility with force of arms is expressly forbidden (St Luke 6:20-38, 22:49-51). When Jesus said to his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords, it was both a warning and a mission: you cannot expect to take shelter, but you must prepare to take social action and expect to be faced with hostility. But when they showed him two swords (hardly enough to defend a group of twelve apostles, let alone a whole community of followers), Jesus replied, 'It is enough' (St Luke 22:38). If he meant for them to use swords in self-defence, why would two swords be 'enough'? One interpretation of this scripture is that Jesus, exasperated by his dim-witted disciples taking his declarations literally, cried in exasperation, 'Enough!' This interpretation meshes well with the parody of the disciples in the latter half of St Mark, who squabble amongst each other about who is the greatest, are too dense to understand Jesus' message about the loaves and who eventually fall asleep when they are supposed to keep vigil and desert Jesus when he is arrested.

Saying that Jesus did not actively oppose slavery is to ignore the entire substance of his social strategy as set forth in the Gospel of St Mark - he was bent upon repudiating the hierarchies of the Second Temple state, subverting imperial Rome and creating a society (the 'kingdom of heaven') in which the last are first and the first last; he says he has not come for 'the righteous' (meaning, in context, those who could afford to follow the purity and debt codes of the Second Temple state), but to heal and minister to those who had been bound by social inequalities or ostracised completely. Turning to the Pauline epistles and to Acts can be helpful - if you know which of the writings can be attributed expressly to Paul. Paul definitely encouraged Philemon to manumit his slave and make him a 'brother', and he definitely set forth a model for the church (and for the society) which nullified and overturned the social inequalities between man and woman, slave and free, Jew and Gentile (Galatians 3).

His position on government bailouts, abortion, Guantanamo Bay, tort reform, and term limits doesn't seem to be on the record.

Point taken. I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't have been too keen on torture, since torture was the full expression of imperial power and domination, and all of the Gospels make a point of emphasising the torture and humiliation of Jesus at the hands of the Romans.

But you're right - if Niebuhr was right about anything, it is that it would be anachronistic of us to try and read the Gospel as a complete blueprint for modern society. We're dealing with a lot of situations now that we weren't dealing with then - we do not live in a dictatorship, but in a republic which has shamefully taken upon itself the role of empire. To a certain extent, the policies of both Democrats and Republicans reflect this. The Democratic Party certainly seems the least amicable to imperial projection abroad (at least by military means) and the most concerned with protecting human rights and ameliorating economic and social inequalities in the society, but it still takes money (and thus orders) from the wealthy and the powerful.

Jesus would certainly be closer to the Democratic position on foreign and social policy, but my guess is that he'd be far more radical - something more like a socialist - on economic policy.

[Cathar1950]

I am guessing he might be a radical Palestinian Jew suspected of being unAmerican.
Or maybe a some fanatic zealot or a teacher that gets dragged into some terrorist plot or was a suspect.

But most of us like to think our gods are just like us, at least the ones we like.

I wonder if Jesus and Christianity would have been different had it been in an unoccupied country?
What would it have been like had the temple not been destroyed and the Jewish leadership and family of Jesus had not all vanished?

I suspect Rome may have found another mystery religion had it mimicked Roman culture and values.

[cnorman18]

Since both of those categories are determined by political and economic practices that did not exist in Jesus's day, I don't think the question has any meaning.

I agree. At the same time, though, Jesus and his followers were (politically) far more radical than you seem to be making them.

He seemed to think that charity should be an individual matter, and never made any indication that the poor ought to be cared for by the State; that would make him a Republican. He did not advocate violence; that would make him a Democrat. He seemed to believe in the equality of all races; that would have made him a Republican in Lincoln's day and up till the 60s, and a Democrat today. He advised his followers to carry swords, which would make him a Second Amendment advocate and a Republican (and there are a lot of single-issue voters on that issue too); he did not actively oppose slavery, which is not characteristic of either party today, though when it WAS an issue in American history, that would have made him a Democrat.

Eeehhh... there are some problems with this. Jesus seems to have thought that caring for the poor was a communal obligation - as when he commanded his disciples to bring together what they had with them, break it and share it among the multitudes - and he also rejected the market apparatus which benefitted the priestly class (he forbade the disciples from going to the market to buy food). And yes, he believed in equality of the races, but at that time the institutionalised racism was not wrapped up in slavery, but in the purity and debt codes of the Roman tributary Second Temple state which judged Gentiles (meaning poor, local Gentiles) to be ritually unclean. To the credit of the Pharisee reform movement from which modern Judaism springs, they did a massive amount of work to reform those purity and debt codes with regard to non-Jews - though they themselves later became the targets of persecution, economic ostracism and state violence.

The 'second Amendment advocate' part seems rather specious, given the ambiguity of the passage in St Luke and its relation to the rest of the book. As a student of Scripture yourself, I hope you can appreciate the satire with which the disciples are being treated here. Jesus had used the imagery of 'the sword' as a metaphor for division and social disruption elsewhere in the Gospel (St Luke 12:51-53, compare with St Matthew 10:34), and elsewhere in St Luke responding to hostility with force of arms is expressly forbidden (St Luke 6:20-38, 22:49-51). When Jesus said to his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords, it was both a warning and a mission: you cannot expect to take shelter, but you must prepare to take social action and expect to be faced with hostility. But when they showed him two swords (hardly enough to defend a group of twelve apostles, let alone a whole community of followers), Jesus replied, 'It is enough' (St Luke 22:38). If he meant for them to use swords in self-defence, why would two swords be 'enough'? One interpretation of this scripture is that Jesus, exasperated by his dim-witted disciples taking his declarations literally, cried in exasperation, 'Enough!' This interpretation meshes well with the parody of the disciples in the latter half of St Mark, who squabble amongst each other about who is the greatest, are too dense to understand Jesus' message about the loaves and who eventually fall asleep when they are supposed to keep vigil and desert Jesus when he is arrested.

Saying that Jesus did not actively oppose slavery is to ignore the entire substance of his social strategy as set forth in the Gospel of St Mark - he was bent upon repudiating the hierarchies of the Second Temple state, subverting imperial Rome and creating a society (the 'kingdom of heaven') in which the last are first and the first last; he says he has not come for 'the righteous' (meaning, in context, those who could afford to follow the purity and debt codes of the Second Temple state), but to heal and minister to those who had been bound by social inequalities or ostracised completely. Turning to the Pauline epistles and to Acts can be helpful - if you know which of the writings can be attributed expressly to Paul. Paul definitely encouraged Philemon to manumit his slave and make him a 'brother', and he definitely set forth a model for the church (and for the society) which nullified and overturned the social inequalities between man and woman, slave and free, Jew and Gentile (Galatians 3).

His position on government bailouts, abortion, Guantanamo Bay, tort reform, and term limits doesn't seem to be on the record.

Point taken. I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't have been too keen on torture, since torture was the full expression of imperial power and domination, and all of the Gospels make a point of emphasising the torture and humiliation of Jesus at the hands of the Romans.

But you're right - if Niebuhr was right about anything, it is that it would be anachronistic of us to try and read the Gospel as a complete blueprint for modern society. We're dealing with a lot of situations now that we weren't dealing with then - we do not live in a dictatorship, but in a republic which has shamefully taken upon itself the role of empire. To a certain extent, the policies of both Democrats and Republicans reflect this. The Democratic Party certainly seems the least amicable to imperial projection abroad (at least by military means) and the most concerned with protecting human rights and ameliorating economic and social inequalities in the society, but it still takes money (and thus orders) from the wealthy and the powerful.

Jesus would certainly be closer to the Democratic position on foreign and social policy, but my guess is that he'd be far more radical - something more like a socialist - on economic policy.

All very well stated and explained, and I agree 100%. I admit I was casting about to find examples from the Gospels that would apply to both parties. As an independent, primarily a conservative, and a sometime Republican, I feel that the demonization of that party is generally overstated on the Left, but this isn't a political debate. At least I hope not.

That Jesus was a radical, even among the Pharisaic Jews of his day, is beyond doubt. It has amused me since childhood that Christians of the present day have such a hard time acknowledging that the economic structure of the early Church can only be described by one modern word, and that word is communism.

[Easyrider]

It has amused me since childhood that Christians of the present day have such a hard time acknowledging that the economic structure of the early Church can only be described by one modern word, and that word is communism.

Christian giving and living is VOLUNTARY. Modern communist states aren't. In Christianity it is said that a man shall reap what he sows. In Communism one often reap what others sow.

Christianity vs. Communism

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/ ... nity.shtml

[Cathar1950]

It has amused me since childhood that Christians of the present day have such a hard time acknowledging that the economic structure of the early Church can only be described by one modern word, and that word is communism.

Christian giving and living is VOLUNTARY. Modern communist states aren't. In Christianity it is said that a man shall reap what he sows. In Communism one often reap what others sow.

Christianity vs. Communism

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/ ... nity.shtml

So you are quoting again?
Wouldn't Christians reaping what they sow be works while Communism would be everyone reaping what they sow including themselves. Hartshorne called Communism a Christian heresy where the promises are the same God has been replaced by the needs of the collective State. I am not sure what you are advocating but it sounds just as heretical. But I am sure if you can find a Bible verse to support you you will believe anything. Or is it what ever you believe you can find or make up with the Bible especially when you ignore content and context.
Unlike your abortion salvation by grace would be reaping what someone else sowed.

[McCulloch]

Christian giving and living is VOLUNTARY.

I suppose it was the voluntary nature of the sharing that inspired Luke to put the story of Ananias and Sapphira into Acts.

[MagusYanam]

All very well stated and explained, and I agree 100%. I admit I was casting about to find examples from the Gospels that would apply to both parties. As an independent, primarily a conservative, and a sometime Republican, I feel that the demonization of that party is generally overstated on the Left, but this isn't a political debate. At least I hope not.

Understood. I think I understand where you don't want this conversation to go, and I agree completely. I should hope I'm not here to demonise anyone.

At the same time, the Gospels are highly political texts, and this is a discussion about the politics of Jesus and the early Church. At some level, trying to avoid political debate in the Politics and Religion subforum seems quixotic.

That Jesus was a radical, even among the Pharisaic Jews of his day, is beyond doubt. It has amused me since childhood that Christians of the present day have such a hard time acknowledging that the economic structure of the early Church can only be described by one modern word, and that word is communism.

Christian giving and living is VOLUNTARY. Modern communist states aren't. In Christianity it is said that a man shall reap what he sows. In Communism one often reap what others sow.

First off, there are no modern Communist states, unless you want to count Cuba (and even they are evolving into a loosely-scaled market economy). Second, the social strategy of the early Church bears little to no resemblance to the policies of Stalin and Mao. The early Church probably bore much more resemblance to the little-'c' communist social experiments and thought-experiments of Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen, or to the various post-Reformation Christian communities favouring a close-knit community life (the Amish, the Hutterites, the Duhobory, the True Levellers of folk-song fame).

So you are quoting again?
Wouldn't Christians reaping what they sow be works while Communism would be everyone reaping what they sow including themselves. Hartshorne called Communism a Christian heresy where the promises are the same God has been replaced by the needs of the collective State. I am not sure what you are advocating but it sounds just as heretical. But I am sure if you can find a Bible verse to support you you will believe anything. Or is it what ever you believe you can find or make up with the Bible especially when you ignore content and context.
Unlike your abortion salvation by grace would be reaping what someone else sowed.

Huh?

Sorry, Cathar, but I'm having trouble understanding you on this one.