Jesus the Jokester
Posted by
tgirsch
For a long time (dating even back to those days when I considered myself a Republican) I’ve wondered how it is that the GOP got such an exclusive hold on the “Christian vote” when so many of the policies they espouse run directly counter to Christian teachings. I tried very hard to reconcile GOP positions with Christian teachings on such topics capital punishment, war, taxation, poverty, etc., but try as I might, I just couldn’t do it. Their positions seemed to resemble those of fundamentalist Jews (who would obviously reject the New Testament) more than anything else.
But recently the answer hit me.
In the seriousness of my study of Christian teachings, I was missing something that should have been painfully obvious: Jesus was joking! Silly me, it didn’t occur to me to even consider that the Messiah should have a sense of humor about such things, but when viewed through that lens, everything makes so much sense.
For example, take Jesus’ teaching on prayer:
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.”
What a kidder, that Jesus! After all, everyone knows that you’re supposed to pray loudly and proudly for all to see before you do pretty much anything: eat a meal; start classes at school; play football; start a legislative session; graduate; become inaugurated as President of the United States; and so on. How else are you supposed to identify the heathens if you don’t get everyone to pray out loud everywhere they go before they do pretty much everything? And everyone knows that you’re supposed to not only incessantly ask for stuff, but to ask this “in Jesus’ name.”
Did you hear the one Jesus told about oaths?
“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”
Of course, every good Christian Republican knows that you’re supposed to swear oaths on the Bible “so help you God,” and make pledges like the pledge of allegiance acknowledging God.
Then, of course, there’s Jesus’ teaching on judging others:
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
It’s a joke, silly! And a funny one at that! Don’t judge? Come on, how are we supposed to alienate the heathens if we can’t judge them? And how are we supposed to justify our wars if we can’t do so based on the crimes of our enemies? Besides, admitting that there’s a plank in your eye is just a sign of weakness. That’s why you’ll never see Mr. Bush acknowledge those planks, even when they’re obvious (Abu Ghraib, nonexistent WMDs, nonexistent al-Qaeda connections, etc.).
What about personal wealth?
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
“The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.
What a hoot! If Jesus had actually been serious about that, then that would mean that True Christian millionaires like George W. Bush, D. James Kennedy, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson have got it all wrong! But that’s self-evidently false.
Sensing that he’s on a roll, Jesus follows up with this knockout:
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
This one is more of an inside joke: Jesus was talking about a specific man named “Rich,” and he neglected to mention that he was talking about knitting needles and Camel 100’s. Good one, Christ, ya got me!
Of course, there’s Jesus’ famous joke about paying taxes:
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”“Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
Of course, every good Christian Republican knows that taxes are bad, and should be avoided in any way possible. Preferably eliminated.
No compilation of Jesus’ best jokes would be complete without this laugher on capital punishment:
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
If Jesus were serious about this, that would mean nobody could execute anyone unless they themselves were free from sin. But since nobody is free from sin, that can’t be right. Jesus was obviously kidding here. It’s a shame so many people don’t get the joke.
But if Jesus-as-comedian ever had a Carlin At Carnegie kind of moment, it has to be the laugh-riot that is The Sermon on the Mount:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies[c] and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”
Oh, man, I’m laughing so hard I can barely breathe! Don’t resist evil? Turn the other cheek? Love your enemy? It’s self-evident that Jesus can’t be serious about any of this. After all, if he had been, then Bush’s strategy in the War on Terror is completely and utterly misguided, and all of his Christian posturing is nothing more than window dressing, cynically designed to win cheap votes.
We all know that can’t be true. Since Jesus’ is Dubya’s favorite philosopher, George knew that Jesus was only kidding. I just wish I had recognized it sooner.
Outstanding post! Funny, but pathetically sad at the same time.
Comment 6/8/2005
This is one of the best takedowns of conservative “Christianity” I’ve ever seen–we always hear that it’s unbiblical, but rarely see it so clearly articulated. Should be forwarded far and wide. Thanks a lot.
Comment 6/8/2005
Nicely done! What a great post!
Comment 6/8/2005
Nice post. Problem is that everyone oversees the real trouble with the modern christian right. They never seem to quote Jesus. Everytime someone tries to use the bible in explaining their views, the always seem to quote the “Old Testement”> When I went to school, I was taught that the “Old Testiment” was included only to “verify” that Jesus was the mesiah. I was taught that if you are a true christian, then only the New Testement was the book to truely follow. The Christian Right quotes the old testement in everything they do. But, like everything else, they are very selective. So, the question really is, is the Christian Right really Christian, or are they really Orthodox Jews?
Comment 6/8/2005
“I’ve wondered how it is that the GOP got such an exclusive hold on the “Christian vote” when so many of the policies they espouse run directly counter to Christian teachings. I tried very hard to reconcile GOP positions with Christian teachings on such topics capital punishment, war, taxation, poverty, etc.,”
The Catholic Church (which I personally believe is the ultimate authority on Christ’s teachings) has never taught that a just war was wrong. The church has also taught that the state does have a right to use the death penalty. Pope John Paul II also advocated that it is up to individuals in society and not the government to help the poor. The Republican party has not gone against church teaching in any of these areas you mentioned, including health care. The Democrats have pushed for same sex marriage, birth control, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and many other policies which are in direct opposition to the Catholic Church (and ultimately Jesus’s teachings).
Comment 6/8/2005
tex:
Your knowledge of Catholic dogma seems wanting. The Catholic Church has a much higher bar for what constitutes a “just war” than anyone in the GOP apparently does, and in any case, given that the Catholic Church (which you recognize as the ultimate authority) openly condemns our current actions in Iraq. Also, the Church almost universally opposes capital punishment:
Want more? Try here, S. 2267:
Then you go on to say:
Really? That would contradict what The Catholic Catchism has to say about it:
(See #1908. In context, it’s clear that the “authority” they’re talking about is the “public authority” [S. 1907], aka the government [1897]
If you really are a Catholic, I’d venture to say you’re not a very good one.
True, but then I never claimed they were totally innocent in this regard, now did I? It is not the Democratic Party that feels the need to wrap virtually everything it does in Christian language. That’s the domain of the GOP, and that’s why they need to be called on it.
Comment 6/8/2005
True, but then I never claimed they were totally innocent in this regard, now did I? It is not the Democratic Party that feels the need to wrap virtually everything it does in Christian language. That’s the domain of the GOP, and that’s why they need to be called on it.
Very true, but it also overlooks the problem that many Catholic and evangelical Christians are having. I can’t count the number of friends I had this time around who held their noses and voted for Bush because the option presented by the Democrats was unacceptable. The issue of abortion was the deciding factor; everyone I talked to mentioned that they simply couldn’t risk missing the chance to put one or more Supremes on the bench who might finally kill off Roe v. Wade. For huge numbers of evangelicals, abortion continues to trump all other issues by the sheer magnitude of the lives lost. But the strength of their commitment to the issue can also be the wedge that separates them from their secular Republican counterparts, who have shown little enthusiasm for dealing with the abortion issue. Only by putting forward a serious, pro-life slate of candidates backed by their party, will Democrats have a chance to break the headlock that Republicans have on the evangelical vote. Such candidates are also the only chance that Democrats have of persuading pro-lifers to focus energies on some of the broader issues that help drive abortions (Democrats for Life has put forth several suggestions, but they are truly a voice in the wilderness right now). There are plenty of pro-life progressives ready to jump ship if they’re given any hope that it will matter, and given how tight elections are these days they can be the margin of victory.
Comment 6/9/2005
J. Michael:
I think this misses the mark. I honestly don’t know any pro-life Democrats. I’m sure they exist, but they’re decidedly in the minority. Putting forth pro-life Democratic candidates would, IMO, chase away far more Democrats than would be replaced by “reluctant Republicans” it would attract. And anyway, according to the latest polls only at most a third of Americans want Roe v. Wade overturned. The recent problem has been that the people who do want it overturned vote at a much higher rate proportional to their portion of the population. So what you have is a “vocal minority” that is disproportionately represented. Ultimately, commitment by religious conservative Republicans coupled with complacency among Democrats got us where we are today.
The better strategy, in my opinion, would be to work to convince those who oppose abortion that making it illegal will do nothing to stop it, and that there are things we can do (comprehensive sex education with a focus on abstinence, encouraging contraception, etc.) that will reduce the number of abortions. (This is what liberal Evangelical leader Jim Wallis pushes.) At the same time, we need to gavlanize the pro-choice majority that still exists in this country. Too many pro-choice “security moms” voted for Bush, thinking that he’d never really criminalize abortion.
In fact, many of the people I know who voted for Bush did so despite his “pro-life” stance, not because of it.
So ultimately, I think pushing pro-life candidates would be suicide for the Democrats. The pro-choice progressives scared away by this would far outnumber the pro-life progressives you’d attract. Maybe in the deep South you could pick up a couple of seats, but everywhere else, it would be disastrous.
And as pointed out above, the Catholic Church also opposes the Iraq War and capital punishment, both heavily advocated by the Bush administration; yet you never see anyone complaining publicly about those. I suspect those (especially Catholics) who cite religion as a motivator for voting Republican are being largely disingenuous.
Comment 6/9/2005
“the Catholic Church also opposes the Iraq War and capital punishment”
Sorry, but you are mistaken. Because Cardinal Martino (a well known liberal and pacifist) has spoken out against the Iraq war and the death penalty does NOT mean that this is the official position of the Holy See. I think you should thoroughly read the letters of Pope JP II before you accuse me of not being a very good Catholic.
“True, but then I never claimed they were totally innocent in this regard, now did I? It is not the Democratic Party that feels the need to wrap virtually everything it does in Christian language.”
This is hyperbole, Republicans do not wrap everything in Christian language. However, the position most conservatives take on those issues I stated are based on Christian teachings.
Comment 6/9/2005
I think we need to stop dealing with abortion and gay marriage as moral issues. They are civil rights issues.
Comment 6/9/2005
[…] While I’m At It…
Filed under: General — ian @ 17:56
This is a beautiful post. Absolutely beautiful. […]
Pingback 6/9/2005
tex:
Sorry, but Pope John Paul II consistently opposed the war in Iraq. He called it a “defeat for humanity.” Here’s one reference:
And another which you will no doubt find biased. And another. And even more. Yet somehow, without any evidence whatsoever to back up your point, you imply that the church (and the Pope) didn’t oppose the war in Iraq, and war in general. (The church does indeed allow war as a last resort, but has never to my knowledge classified any recent US action thusly.) Everything that you said was true of Catholic dogma, I have shown to be false.
Maybe not absolutely everything, but certainly many things. And far too often, they pull grandstanding crap like this.
Comment 6/9/2005
I wish people would start referring to Roman Catholics correctly because the word Catholic refers to the Universal Catholic church which includes all Christian sects.
Comment 6/15/2005
[…] Lean Left presents a bitterly funny and rightly cynical look at the Administration’s faith-based governing style. This made my morning and cheered me up. […]
Pingback 1/24/2007
[…] For some reason, I just today got a June 2005 trackback of this post. I forgot I wrote that. That’s funny, I don’t care who you are. […]
Pingback 1/24/2007
Interesting but disappointing reading. I’m not from the US so while the policies affect my country (Canada) somewhat, I am not directly impacted.
The reason I was disappointed was the way that the verses being quoted are, for the most part, misused by the poster. I would agree with the overall premise but twisting the meaning of Scripture to prove a point kills the effect. It simply shows that people on the left and the right can twist things to say what they want.
Comment 1/27/2007