Jesus, the Socialist       

 

 

 

By Harry T. Cook 

6/7/13

 

Harry T. Cook
Harry T. Cook

Piling on the scrum to embarrass President Obama at all costs and by any means, a union member who apparently hates unions has complained in a newspaper column that his collective bargaining association used member dues to support for the Affordable Care Act by asking with regard to the law, "What would Jesus do?"

 

The clear implication, says the complainant, is that union leaders were saying Jesus would be all for it. "As if Jesus was a socialist," the man said with obvious asperity.

 

No one can say that Jesus was a socialist because no one really knows if there was a Jesus of the sort variously portrayed in various documents known as "gospels." In fact, in some of my research, I work on the hypothesis that there may have been more than one early first-century CE "Jesus type" about whom accounts were compiled more than 40 years after he or they were said to have lived.

 

What we know for certain is that a number of late first-century writers promoted their Jesus characters as what we today would call "socialists." The Jesuses depicted by writers known as Matthew, Luke and Thomas advocated individual responsibility, but in the context of society -- violating the late Margaret Thatcher's outrageous dictum that "there is no such thing as society."

 

To make it clear: We do not know if any of the Jesuses were first-century socialists. What we do know is that those figures were often depicted as being socialists.

 

The writer Luke, whose work was complied late in the first century and maybe even later, took great pains to depict his Jesus as a human being sensitive to human dignity. In that regard, the parables of the Good Samaritan (ch. 10:25-37) and the Prodigal Son (ch. 15:11-32) mandate unconditional love for the other, whatever the circumstances.

 

In that context, Luke's Jesus is interested in distributive justice -- the bane of Thatcherites and Reaganites and, no doubt, of the anti-union union guy whose complaint spurred the writing of this essay. See ch. 6:29b-30: From anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Its parallel can be found at Matthew 5:24: Do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

 

Finally, it takes the crusty Thomas of the gospel named for him to take on usury in this same context: If you have money, do not lend it at interest, but give to one from whom you will not get it back (95:1-2). Thomas was echoing the several prohibitions of usury (the Hebrew word is from the verb neshek, "to take a bite.") See Exodus 22:25 for the clearest of those prohibitions: If you lend to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them.

 

These mitzvoth (defined as "moral deeds") certainly radicalize the idea of sharing. They are addressed to individuals, to be sure, but to individuals who by sharing create a community or strengthen one that is already in place. Among the results of sharing is what some of the gospel writers call "the kingdom of God" or "the kingdom of heaven."

 

In our time and situation, the word "kingdom" is not an appropriate translation of the Greek βασιλεια (defined originally as "queen" but in Christian texts "sovereignty or power"). Democracies reject "kingdom" as a form of rule. For us here and now, the better translation would be "governance" or "government." Now there's a scary idea for those who believe government is a satanic power!

 

"The governance of heaven" is a metaphor representing the kind of society (yes, Maggie), which operates on the principle of "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Or putting it another way: Those with much should not have too much at the expense of those who have too little.

 

That's what the Affordable Care Act, if not undermined by cynical politics and deliberate mismanagement, would deliver. It's what a graduated income tax absent loopholes for those who need them least would provide.

 

The whole idea is that we're all in this thing together. The aim is e pluribus unum, an aspiration that might better adorn U.S. currency than the easily misunderstood and readily manipulated slogan "In God We Trust."

 

So, yes. The Jesuses we meet in the documents known as "gospels" seem to have been first-century versions of socialists. Christianity as it emerged from its Judaic roots became early on a community-oriented movement with the central act of its life known as the "eucharist" in which people shared one bread and one cup, regardless of their rank or place otherwise in life.

 

So, yes again. Christianity at its purest is a socialist movement. Love it or leave it and go and be lonely, pretending there is no such thing as society. Of course, if you do the Prodigal Son thing and take all your marbles and leave, we can promise that, when that brave new world of rugged individualism collapses around you -- which it likely will -- you will realize that society is your only recourse. Then you can come back, and all will be forgiven.

 

That's socialism for you. It's also the gospel (defined as "good news").

 

 


� Copyright 2013, Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced without proper credit. 


Readers Write 

re essay of 5/31/13 He Taught Me to Think                        

 

 

Charles S. Gray, Brookline, MA:

My maternal grandmother was a graduate of your alma mater, and she could more than hold her own against her older sister who graduated from Wellesley. They both learned to think, as you put it, and, like you, they were immersed in the liberal arts. Thanks for speaking up for them -- the liberal arts, that is.

 

Mark Bendure, Grosse Pointe Park, MI:

As usual, your essay was spot on. Call me a curmudgeon if you will, but I rue the demise of a good old fashioned "liberal" education which includes subjects such as philosophy, literature, psychology and the like which may have no direct bearing on one's vocation (although I once won a significant verdict largely on the basis of an airplane crash reconstruction based on the Pythagorean theorem), but provide important perspectives on life and living. While I am technologically deficient, it is nice not to have to rely on a calculator to multiply 74 times 13. In talking with others of my generation we seem to agree, rightly or wrongly, that modern education seems to be more about hard facts (World War II started in----) than the story behind those facts (why World War II started) or the lessons to be learned (how to avoid another World War). Even in law school, where the Socratic method once reigned supreme, it is no longer in vogue, which is too bad because, as you aptly point out, learning how to think, and question, and muddle through sticky issues is so important. Thanks for another stimulating essay.

 

Dean Smith, Ann Arbor, MI:

I am on the same path as you with regard to a liberal arts education. In the long run it is the best background for today's living even though occupational focus is on the minds of most. I grew up in Albion and got to know Joe Irwin before I started college at Albion. I did not have any of his classes since I transferred   but later I did return to Albion for a master's degree in education.

 

Sarah C. Yates, Gaithersburg, MD:

The ["think"] essay made me think of my modern literature professor at Oakland University, one of the worst college professors I had. He likely was tenured, and he just did not care. His choices in literature were dubious at best (Beloved -- really?) and his interest in teaching was nonexistent. He would sit at the desk in front of us and lecture about his time spent in the "drunk tank" making bird houses out of popsicle sticks (seriously) and complain about how he lived part time near the university and part time with his family elsewhere. He repeatedly made it clear that, once we were out of college, our lives would basically be a bleak existence. I think he assumed (and possibly rightly so) that Oakland University was preparing a generation of middle managers and cubicle-occupiers who didn't have higher ideals for themselves. The reason the experience sticks with me is because he told us several times that we had better do all of the reading for this course because it was the last time we would ever read anything that wasn't a textbook. And once we got out of college, he said, we would never pick up a book again. We would spend our lives miserable in our cubicles and never do any reading (presumably he was also intimating that we wouldn't do much higher reasoning either. Not only because I am not what he thought I was but also because I happen to love reading. I read every day, and frequently when I pick up my New Yorker, or my New York Times, or whatever book I'm reading at the moment, I remember him (whatever his name was). I also remember him and his apathy when I get excited about my new book or when I feel that sense of sadness when a book ends. I was actually thinking about him [the night before I read the essay] because a new book I ordered had arrived and I was excited about staying up late to start reading it.

 

J. Theodore Everingham, Grosse Pointe Park, MI:

I am, as you well know, that chap who sat just down the row from you in Prof. Irwin's Shakespeare class. Prof. Julian Rammelkamp was to me as Prof. Irwin was to you, but both sent as off to that same library where the world awaited us. I am so grateful that they did. Next week, we observe -- no, we celebrate -- another anniversary of our commencement from Albion College. And it proved to each of us to be just that:  A commencement, the beginning of a new journey, one that continues to this day. I shall share this essay with our first grandchild today, on the eve of her graduation -- her commencement -- from high school. Throughout her young life, she has found great pleasure in books and libraries; I am proud to say that I shared with her parents her introduction to both. May her memories of the next four years be as enduring as ours of 1957-1961.

 

Stan Rourke, Louisville, KY:

I agree with your basic premise that one can become a more effective thinker by learning to look at a subject from many sides, mulling it over and perhaps applying multidisciplinary ideas to the topic. And I agree that our schools and especially universities do mostly train students for fairly specific kinds of careers, rather than to think independently. I am fascinated by the array of bumper stickers I see plastered across the rear of many autos ahead of me in traffic. You can tell a lot about that person's life and beliefs, by reading the rear tailgate. Seldom do you see any sticker that just implores you just to THINK. And the stickers are pretty permanent. No room to change your mind once you have applied them.

 

Blayney Colmore, Jacksonville, VT:

My mentor, Harvey Guthrie (whose name I see among your respondents today) once told me the saddest moment for him was when he received a letter ( a long time ago) from a graduate of the seminary asking what he ought to be reading to "keep up." Harvey went on to say three years is hardly adequate for getting a theological education. The most they could do was introduce us to the tools (library chief among them then) and how to use them for gaining an education through the rest of our lives. Learning to think, to see the relationships among seemingly disparate events, i.e. discerning, have turned out to be the most helpful skills for living an engaged life. I have discovered there are lots of people (maybe a majority?) for whom engaging the world in that way is unappealing.

 

Rabbi Larry Maher, Parrish, FL:

[The essay re thinking] reminded me of a literature class I took in my senior year at Shaker Heights (Ohio) High School. We were reading Shakespeare's sonnets. As we got settled in class one morning the teacher asked: "What do you think Shakespeare meant in this sonnet?" Hands went up all over the room. As each response was given, the teacher said, "No," or something similar. I finally raised my hand and said, "You are not old enough to have met him, so how do you know exactly what he meant?" In other words, her idea was the only correct one. I got thrown out of class, visited with the principal, and stuck to my guns. He had the good sense to tell me that I was impolite, but that my concept was correct. I suggested that he speak to the teacher, which he did.

 

Fred Fenton, Concord, CA:

You are right to express concern about the upcoming elections. Jefferson expressed faith in the voters so long as they were well informed. The failure of public education, the decline of journalism, and the rise of social media threaten our democracy by contributing to an impoverished understanding of the facts and a lack of critical thinking.

 

Rusty Hancock, Madison Heights, MI:

I have come to the conclusion that among many of the so-called low information voters, they do not actually lack the power to think logically, they have simply been taught from birth to consider that faculty with suspicion. In an odd way, they see brains and sexual organs as being very much alike, in that there may be times when you have to use them, but most of the time you'd better be very careful of how much power you allow them to have or your immortal soul will be in danger. You can use your brain to balance your checkbook, or solve engineering problems at work, etc., but you'd better be very careful about using it to determine your moral philosophy, which has been carefully laid out for you elsewhere. All you have to do is consult your Bible, or if you find that confusing, ask your pastor, who is sure to have an answer. This philosophy has been taught them since they were old enough to understand English, so by the time they're old enough to actually start using their brains to some avail, they've been thoroughly indoctrinated in the philosophy of being suspicious of said brain's conclusions. It is almost impossible to have a rational discussion with such people, who may sit and listen carefully to you, but there's always a 'yes, but' to come. Usually "yes, but the Bible says --" And then you're lost. The only way to deal with them is to wait for the weight of truth and history to finally inundate them, like Pharaoh's army, although I'm sure they would be totally flummoxed by that comparison.



WHAT DO YOU THINK?

I'd like to hear from you. E-mail your comments to me: [email protected].


READ PREVIOUS ESSAYS
To read previously published essays, click  on the link below.





Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Add your name to our mailing list
For Email Marketing you can trust