What Would Jesus Do?

Religion is rarely far from the surface when GOP presidential hopefuls convene these days. Values and faith have become staples in conservative politics. This is not at all surprising when one considers the weight protestant evangelicals carry when it comes to the Republican party. Neither is religion a stranger to liberal politics. Liberals have frequently appealed to religion to buttress their arguments for social justice and tolerance. Whether it is to condemn moral turpitude or to advance the tenets of tolerance, religion and scripture provide a useful prop to political arguments. The fact that religious groups citing scripture can be found on every side of virtually every social controversy is no small delight to those inclined to ridicule religion in America.

When it comes to social controversy,  scripture can be thick as the Bible is quoted from Leviticus and Micah through Matthew and Luke. Contradictions, or seeming contradictions, abound. We are reminded that we are obliged to care for the least among us. We are also reminded that we are obliged to obey the law. Atheists no doubt smile as the Bible is often portrayed as a seeming jumble of contradictory injunctions. It is not difficult to find scripture to support virtually any position one might take: especially for amateur scholars and theologians. But there is a thread throughout the New Testament that is all too frequently ignored by those who invoke scripture. That thread is that Christ's commandments and injunctions were addressed to people, not societies or governments.  

There is an ethical imperative to help those in need as religiously inclined progressives like to point out. There is also condemnation of sin and wickedness and a call to righteousness as religiously inclined conservatives like to point out. But Biblical imperatives, at least in the New Testament, do not fall on governments or societies. They fall on each and everyone of us. The Bible does not instruct us to support candidates and policies to further our ethical and moral sensibilities, no matter how praiseworthy they may be. We are to take care of those in need, not the government. We are to love our neighbors as our self, not the government. We are to shun sin and seek righteousness, not society. Jesus was careful to avoid enjoining the state to do any of the tasks or follow any of the commandments He placed before mankind. He consistently refused to be drawn into taking a position on policy. Perhaps the ultimate example of Jesus' refusal to involve himself in the political affairs of men is when He refused Satan's offer of the world. Certainly it was within Jesus' power to effect any political change He thought was merited. But He refused to do so. That is because Jesus did not come to right wrongs, punish sinners, or remedy injustice. He did not come to establish a just state. He came to save mankind, one soul at a time. 

The answer to the question of what Jesus would do regarding immigration policy, abortion, gay marriage, or any other controversial issue confronting the nation is absolutely nothing. He did nothing two thousand years ago and most likely He would do nothing today other than what He did then. He would tell us to love our neighbors as ourselves, tend to the least among us, and give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. If we did as Jesus asked, everything else would take care of itself and that is precisely the point. Nations and politics come and go. Issues come and go. But people remain and people are what it is all about. 

Jesus did not come to fix the world, create a righteous society, or establish social justice. He came to fix our souls. Good laws and good societies come from good souls. There is no other place for them to come from. It is our job to love our neighbor and take care of those in need, not the government's. It falls on each and every one of us to struggle against sin and strive for righteousness, not the government. Voting democrat or republican and paying your taxes doesn't count. 

Jesus didn't go to Rome and lobby the Senate. He did not propose policy or advocate for laws. He did not demand that prayer be taught in schools or that everyone should have equal rights. He stayed in an obscure part of the empire and spoke with prostitutes and tax collectors. It is not a question of what Jesus would do. It is a matter of what Jesus did. We can learn a lot from Jesus. 

Neither the Ten Commandments nor the Beatitudes were intended to be a political platforms. To treat them as such misses the whole point of Scripture. Indeed, it taints the whole spirit of the New Testament and undermines the Gospels by dragging them into the political arena to be bent and twisted for worldly gain.

Wearing Out Our Welcome?

The window of opportunity for the U.S. to remake the Middle East is closing steadily. We have invaded and overthrown the governments of two nations in the region and bombed a third one out of its palaces. We are working diligently to undermine the governments of Syria and Iran. We have expressed our ideas of what the new regime in Egypt should look like only to find that vision is not shared by as many Egyptians as we had hoped. Iraqis and Afghans have already wearied of our presence. Elections in Gaza have proved absolutely no help at all. After the initial promise events offered, the dust is settling and the region is starting to become opaque to our ambitions. Where popular governments have been established, groups not enamored with U.S. values or overly sympathetic to our goals for the region are asserting themselves. We might have governments we can work for the moment but one election or uprising can change that.

At some point Arabs and Muslims might tire or even come to resent our military actions, our meddling, and our attempts to transform the region. Should that day comes we will once again find ourselves with few friends in the Middle East. Worse, we will find a Muslim world in search of new allies and supporters likely to be unsympathetic to U.S. ambitions. Whether it be India, China or worst of all Iran, many, not just in the Middle East but elsewhere too, would likely welcome the opportunity to do business free from sanctimonious posturing and the incessant prodding and poking that attends dealing with the U.S.

The U.S. is working hard to preserve the fig leaf of international support, but the efforts being made to constrain Iran and shape events in the Middle East are clearly of U.S. origin and in our interests. While the U.S. has decried Iranian actions, and asserts it is acting in the interests of the international community, Ukraine and India have signed lucrative deals with Iran to develop new oil fields and China is becoming increasingly reliant on Iranian oil. As it stands, Iran is China's second largest supplier of oil and China needs more oil everyday. Clearly there are many in the international community who do not share the U.S.'s alarm in regard to Iran.

The rise of China is increasingly giving the world an option of where to do business. Its military prowess is increasing and its global reach is expanding in conjunction with its interests, to say nothing of its wealth. Should the day come when the Chinese yuan replaces the U.S. dollar as a global currency the U.S. will be that much closer to being in second place as a world power.

China will never replace the U.S. as Israel's benefactor but it can replace the U.S. as a broker for peace in the region. As China's energy demand grows its interests in the Middle East will grow along with it. There it will find a host of increasingly disgruntled nations happy to do business with it. That will be a considerable advantage to China as it seeks new sources of energy and markets to feed its growing economy. China's idea of what a stable Middle East would look like might be different from ours. If India's economy continues to expand that will up the stakes even more. At least we will always have Israel, even if our markets shrivel and the world turns against us. For many in the U.S., that is enough.

People with causes such as those looking to assert their rights, advance their interests, or overthrow their governments, as well as sympathetic regimes attempting to cling to power might continue to turn to the U.S. for support, but everyone else will soon have a choice, not just in which direction to align themselves, but worse for the U.S., where to do business. I am sure at some point in the foreseeable future, a Chinese contract or naval base will be every bit the political and economic boon that a U.S. base is. Maybe more since it would come without the political baggage of a U.S. base. And when that day comes there will be at least one region in the world likely to welcome that choice.

China has every bit as much interest in a stable Middle East as the U.S. does. Should it develop a different idea of how to go about ensuring a stable Middle East than the U.S., things in the region could become even more complicated than they are now. It has already expressed its unease at the growing Western pressure on Iran and understandably so. General Zhang Zhoazhing, a professor at China's National Defense University, has stated that China "will not hesitate to protect Iran." Whether or not General Zhoazhing's statement reflects the policy of China's government it does reflect growing concern in China over U.S. policy in the Middle East. In addition to its large and growing economic stake in the region, China has ample experience of what it is like to be an object of U.S. containment strategies and economic pressure.

The last time any nation in the Middle East had a choice of where to cast its lot was when the USSR existed. Most of them chose the USSR. The next time Arab nations have a choice we cannot expect them to choose us. That might help explain the urgency with which we working to overthrow governments in the region that have been historically inimical to U.S. interests and replace them with regimes more sympathetic to our goals. Sixty four years ago the U.S. lost the Middle East by throwing its support behind the new nation of Israel. Through its inability to view the Middle East other than through the prism of Israeli interests the U.S. risks losing it again.

Endless Turmoil

Like many in the nation I have taken a keen interest in the administration's decision to require religious schools and hospitals to provide contraceptives, even if it violates their most fundamental tenets. Rather than attempt a recount of the controversy I will simply come to my point. Whatever the arguments made on behalf of national health care, it was never a simple matter of access and cost. It was above all a matter of politics. You cannot have the government involved in an issue and not have politics involved. Government is politics. The politicization of health care is inevitable.

What we are witnessing are the first battles in what will be an endless war over cost, coverage and inclusion. Contraception is just one of those battles. There are countless more to be fought. As long as the government is involved in health care that war will never end. It will be fought from election to election, issue to issue, and court to court.

Many seem to believe that once a law is passed, sooner or later the nation will come around and controversy will end. That might be the case with many issues, but certainly not all. That is not the case with contraceptives and abortion. It never will be. Those issues will never go away. Worse, there are many issues that are just coming into sight. Coverage for sex change surgery has already surfaced, as has the matter of coverage for same sex partners. More are not yet on the horizon but soon will be. Each new extension of coverage, each new procedure and treatment developed, each new medication discovered, will occasion political brawls as to whether and to what extent it will be covered. Each new administration will revisit the battles fought by earlier administrations. New battles will yield new results. New results will occasion new battles.

Leaving the issues of abortion and birth control aside, health care is a dynamic field. It is constantly in motion. Government will never be able to keep up. When that is coupled with the intimate and deeply personal nature of health care what we have here is a recipe for endless conflict and turmoil. As for changing birth control policy through the stroke of a pen, those cheering the administration should keep in mind that what one president can compel, another can forbid.

30 years after the Court overturned laws against segregation, people were not in the street arguing that the ruling be overturned. 30 years after women were given the right to vote, no one was in the street arguing that decision be overturned. Yet over 30 years after Roe v. Wade, society is still embroiled in the issue. That should tell us a lot about the matter. Clearly there is something about abortion that touches people at their very core.

Even if the rule is rescinded precedents are being set. The battle might be lost for abortion advocates but a new battle ground has been established.