WWJD

I'm often astounded that the question "What would Jesus do?" is derided by many of my friends on the political left. It could be that they feel Jesus has been co-opted by the fundamentalists, or that Jesus didn't have anything to say that is relevant to our modern world, but I think both of these are bogus objections.

Jesus was the great ethicist of our western world, and what he said remains (to me) as important as it was when he said it. Perhaps what is needed is a renewed appreciation of what that was.

Who does Jesus really condemn in the gospels? He has a couple of things to say about sex, it's true. The stories of the woman at the well and the woman taken in adultery come to mind, but Jesus seems to be lenient with them. "Don't do it anymore," is about as critical as he gets. By the way, where was the man taken in adultery? Did he slip out a back door when the mob showed up? Why doesn't he have the guts to defend her?

That, I must admit is what troubles me about my fundamentalist friends. They seem to equate all morality with sexual morality. If you're not diddling somebody you're not married to then you must be a moral person.

No, it seems to me that Jesus reserves his great critique for the scribes and Pharisees. "Woe unto you, hypocrites, it would be better for you if you had never been born." And why is he so hostile to these people? The answer lies in their efforts to appear righteous while at the same time carrying on sinful lives.

And what sins were they committing? Greed, pride, envy, a basic failure to consider the other, to treat others decently. Three gospel passages come to mind: the nice young man who will not renounce his wealth, the Pharisee who prays in the temple thanking God he is not like common folk including a publican, and the prodigal son whose brother is jealous of the kind way their father has greeted the profligate young man.

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." When I was in high school religion class many years ago, Brother Robert explained that the eye of the needle referred to the gate of a city and the camel just had to get on its knees to enter. This of course showed humility, and meant that it was not an insurmountable obstacle for the wealthy camel driver.

I didn't quite buy it. Neither, I think, could any fundamentalist.

So where does that leave us? In another gospel episode a Pharisee approaches Jesus and asks him to summarize the Judaic law. Jesus answers, "Love God with your whole heart and your whole mind, and your whole strength, and your neighbor as yourself." The impressed Pharisee says, "That's the best summary I ever heard."

It seems to me that we are obligated ethically to provide for anyone less well off than ourselves, regardless of whether the person is deserving of help, and to provide hospitality - shelter - to strangers. To me, that's what Jesus was getting at.

Now we come to the end. Does all this have any ramifications for our public lives? In the 1990's conservative politicians persuaded most Americans that public welfare promoted dependence and became a way of life for some people, and that public relief was ineffectual and a crippling expense for the rest of us. Lifetime limits were put on public assistance eligibility and many programs and agencies were ended. Private voluntary assistance to needy people would be substituted. People would be glad to volunteer their money and skills if they felt they were not being taxed into doing so. And people would have a moral obligation to help. Even as conservative a politician as Newt Gingrich said, "If you don't want the government doing this, be prepared to roll up your sleeves and pitch in yourselves." (Not an exact quote. I wonder what Newt's been doing lately in this regard.)

Now lets just ask ourselves: are there more homeless people now than there were twenty years ago? Are there more disturbed people without recourse, more alcoholics roaming the streets and alleyways, more tent communities near our metropolitan areas? Do more people die because they lack decent medical or psychiatric care?

I'm not doctrinaire about this. If private charity is really more effective than government aid to destitute or desperate people than government help, lets go that way. Government programs always have waste, there's no doubt about it, but did they do more to help people than is being done now? I think so.

WWJD?