WaPo 'On Faith' Contributor: Jesus Would Be An Occupy Supporter
Here we go again. Washington Post "On Faith" contributor Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is once again twisting Christian scripture to push a liberal economic agenda.
You may recall the liberal theologian and Center for American Progress fellow last month contorted The Lord's Prayer into an argument for government to "forgive" students loan debt contracted between private parties. Now the Chicago Theological Seminary professor is charging that Jesus was a first century "occupier" having "occupied" the Temple when he drove out the moneychangers. What's more, the reverend argued, one of Jesus's most haunting parables -- the parable of the talents in Matthew 25 -- is a condemnation of the banking system (emphasis mine):
[Family Research Council president Tony] Perkins relies on the Parable of the Ten Talents (Luke 19:11-27) for his ‘Jesus is a free marketer’ argument. Here’s where Perkins and I agree, actually. I also think Jesus is talking about the ‘free market’ in that parable, only, as in many of the parables, there is a reversal. A ‘the last shall be first and the first shall be last’ kind of a move that Jesus so often makes in his teaching.
Jesus employed parables as a way for the people in his time to actually think about the surprising nature of God’s justice, and what their social responsibilities might be. Jesus’ parables often expose the social inequalities of his time, and contrast them with God’s call for greater justice and mercy in the Kingdom of God.
The wealthy “nobleman” in the parable is not exactly a model citizen. Indeed, he doesn’t deny the accusation of the third servant who says, “you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.” (21) Is Jesus suggesting a critique of the absentee landlord, who is only interested in maximizing his profit?
The third servant is the one who refuses to participate in the game of increasing his lord’s financial wealth at the costs of the poor. When the nobleman chastises the third servant, it is the nobleman and not the servant who is in violation of the laws of the Hebrew Bible, the laws on usury that Jesus is trying to defend. This kind of financial transaction is forbidden in the Torah. “If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them.” (Exodus 22:25)
One of my seminary teacher’s long ago, Frederick Herzog, from whom I learned this social justice interpretation of the Parable of the Ten Talents, called that servant a “whistle-blower.”
Jesus taught in parables to the people in the street, to the poor. Jesus was teaching to those who had been driven into poverty by unjust lending practices in his time, and his turning the tables on the nobleman, and making the third servant the real hero of the story would have been well understood by his hearers.
Surely ordained United Church of Christ minister Brooks Thistlethwaite knows that the Bible condemns calling good evil and evil good (Isa. 5:20). That is precisely what she's doing, of course, with this parable by ripping the text so out of context as to flip it upside down.
The parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30) is a parable of the coming of the kingdom of heaven, following as it does immediately after the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-3) and before the parable of the sheep and the goats (25:31-46). The parable is within an extended discourse Christ delivered about the coming kingdom of heaven and the imperative for Christians to be vigilant until the day of Christ's glorious return. Be alert and at work, not wicked and lazy servants who are unprepared and unproductive when the master returns, Jesus was teaching.
Another clue that Brooks Thistlethwaite is off base is that the lazy servant that she holds up as the heroic whistleblower suffers a similar fate in verse 30 -- "outer darkness" in which there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth" -- as the five foolish virgins in the preceding parable who were shut out of the wedding feast which represents the return of Christ for His bride the Church.
It is fair to say that the Bible is not an economics textbook or a political treatise for either the right or left. It may be off-base to insist that Jesus was a pure free-marketeer, but it's also ridiculous and intellectually dishonest to rip Scripture out of context to present Jesus as a first century "Occupier" as Brooks Thistlethwaite does.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Nicely put, Ken.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 7:55pm.
Ripping Scriptures out of their contexts, roots dangling, and waving them about to try and prove a pet point is remarkably weak.
Susan illustrates yet again why the term "liberal theologian" is an oxymoron.
--Mike
Soros of Sorrows souce of knowledge
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 2:57pm.
As expected Soros involved. Media miss the point & mum:
Occupy's 'nerve center' staffed by Soros activists
Professional radicals caught red-handed running so-called 'leaderless' movement
Read more: Occupy's 'nerve center' staffed by Soros activists http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=375565#ixzz1g46rN0uE
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Indeed.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 3:11pm.
What does Soros back that is good, pure, and worthwhile?
Hmm...
--Mike
Who occupied the Temple? Not Jesus.
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 8:14pm.
Nope.
The parable of the talents ends with Jesus saying that he who HAS shall be given more and he who HAS NOT, even what he has shall be taken away.
The servant who had received the 10 talents and used them to produce more wealth was given the talent from the "wicked and lazy" servant.
Thistlethwaite also ignores the parable just preceeding this one, where the prudent virgins brought their lamps AND more oil just in case their bridegrooms were late ... which they were.
Thereafter the five "foolish" virgins begged them for oil when their lamps went out and were promptly told they should go and buy their own because there was not enough to go around.
As far as the Temple story, Jesus was illustrating that ALL those selling AND buying, as well as changing money, deserved to be EVICTED from their OCCUPATION of the House of Prayer ... which had been transformed into a dirty smelly marketplace ... not that buying and selling were inherently evil.
If you know about the strict codes of cleanliness and purity required to enter the Temple you can imagine how Jesus reacted when he entered this Holy Place of Prayer that smelled and probably looked like ... Zucotti Park?
A big part of the Temple clearing
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 9:41am.
was the location. That the Hebrews never used the "Court of the Gentiles" and re-adapted the "unused" space for something "useful" like money-changing is an indication that Israel had given up ministering and blessing the nations.
Also, sacrifice had gone from people bringing their first fruits, to picking up an animal to sacrifice at the temple--like a supermarket. And the temple got rich by insisting that sacrificial animals could only be purchased with temple coin.
Jesus never went into a single market, and overturned tables, never complained about Caesar's picture on the coin--only used it to demonstrate a point. He protested making the "His father's house" a "den of thieves"--which he actually says.
Also, the "house of prayer" is a good indicator that it was the CotG that he was talking about. Because the CotG was meant to minister to and pray for sick and needy gentiles. The whole situation was a symbol of how jaded Judaism had become.
Jesus's mission was not to end poverty but to seek God
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 8:20pm.
Gospel of Matthew
While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, While he was eating, a woman came in with a beautiful alabaster jar of expensive perfume and poured it over his head. The disciples were indignant when they saw this. "What a waste!" they said. "It could have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor." But Jesus, aware of this, replied, "Why criticize this woman for doing such a good thing to me? You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.
Lefty Mantra
Submitted by Kleenex on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 8:27pm.
Jesus would have done this and Jesus would have done that, sheesh these guys never quit. It's not about what he would have done, it's about what he DID. Notice they always talk about him in the past tense. They view him as only another regular man that existed then died with a life of community organizing unfilled. He always was and always will be, the alpha and the omega.
The fact is that Jesus is
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 8:27pm.
The fact is that Jesus is neither Liberal nor Conservative. He is not Republican nor Democrat. He is not a Communist, He is not a Tea partier nor an OWS. He is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God the Son. He is what is Right, Moral, and Truth.
The funny thing with the Left is that they love to embrace Jesus when it comes to economics, but they ignore Him when it comes to abortion and homosexuality.
Jesus did warn about being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven, but He never condemened being rich. We are, out of our own free will, to help the poor, to put humanity and what is good, right and moral above profit, but there is nothing wrong with making a profit. There is a problem with corporate America, i worked in it and profit is the only motive too many corporations. Today, I work for a place that cares about its employees as much as it cares about profit. Understanding that happy employees will lead to higher profits. Nothing wrog with this at all.
What Liberals who love to use the Bible to justify movements like OWS is that God gives us Free Will and He wants us to help the poor out of our own free will, not by someone stealing money frome us and giving it to people who do not deserve it. The Robin Hood Tax is as wrong as the rich who decide not to help the poor and who put profit over their employees.
Many on the Left imagine that
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 8:46pm.
Many on the Left imagine that conservatives believe that the government should enforce religious morality, and they're trying to turn it around and wage war on "the conservative use of religion" and make religion into a liberal thing. In reality, its a silly conceit, conservatives have never argued for laws banning adultery or homosexuality, or anything else they disapprove of. And the whole idea that they think they have to wage a war on religious conservatives, to the point that they feel conservatives can't have any claim on their own religion, is bizarre in the first place.
you point out Liberal hypocrosy
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 8:55pm.
The Liberals are always whining that the Conservatives want to institute a theocracy but in fact it is the Liberals, when they make use of the Bible, who always use it to justify their view of government.
Is that the underlying dogma of Christianity
Submitted by CO2Maker on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 9:21pm.
God doesn't Occupy Wall Street. God Occupies Everything.
So, Jesus came to own the
Submitted by ant on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 10:29pm.
So, Jesus came to own the latest Ipod, attend college for free, worship the State, and spray-paint the Temple? News to me. Do they think he would have massacred millions of people in pursuit of his Socialist Kingdom, too?
How About Wondering If Lucifer Would Support The Occupations?
Submitted by Blue Collar Todd on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 11:27pm.
With Jesus being used to justify what is going on in our streets, let us not forget who the first radical, the first community organizer, and the first occupier truly was. Figuring this out is rather simple. Just look at who American’s most inspiring radical praised in his book about being a radical. Saul Alinsky gives praise to none other than Lucifer.
http://bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/10/lucifer-at-occupy-wall-street-th...
Did not Lucifer try and redistribute God’s power to himself?
“12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.[a]
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.” Isaiah 14:12-15
Did not Lucifer organize his fellow angels in a rebellion to try and occupy Heaven?
“7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.” Revelation 12:7-9
With this in mind, it was Satan who tempted Jesus with the power to control the lives of others. With the level of debauchery and selfishness going on at these Occupier Camps, I think Lucifer, rather than Jesus, would more likely identify with the occupiers seeking to redistribute other people’s property and power.
Well, Obama himself DID
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 11:40pm.
Well, Obama himself DID support and endorse the OWS bowel movement.................is that close enough???
I'm reminded too of the
Submitted by ant on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 11:59pm.
I'm reminded too of the following; " He roams about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour." Notice the word 'like' rather than 'IS a roaring lion' and 'may' rather than 'SHALL devour'. Is this because like much of the left and the OWS, the enemy seeks to use fear, more bluff than actual strength and power? OWS seemed to me to be all roar and no teeth.
It's not surprising the
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 12:35am.
It's not surprising the Christianity Lite crowd would go beyond merely cherry-picking the parts of Jesus' teachings that fit their world view and ignoring the rest. They now seem to believe they can speak for Jesus in his absence, and sign him up for a political protest. I wonder if they can fill out his absentee ballot next November with a big single ticket "D"? Since we all know that's how Jesus would vote, too.
Kind of makes "God is on our side" sound almost unpretentious.
Twisted Scripture according to the progressives
Submitted by donaldduck on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 12:54am.
So Susan B.T. believes that Christ would have had the Romans tax the bejabbers out of the Israelis and give it to whoever they wanted to, like Herrod's posse, the Tax Collector Employees International Union, the Occupy Jerusalem mob, etc. The lady is a total goofball. The Bible and Christ talk about individual salvation through loving and helping your neighbors, not the government helping various selected groups of people by taking from others.
Jesus' politics...
Submitted by Morganfrost on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 8:58am.
Sure-- he'd be right out there with the occupy crowd, crapping in public and screaming that Caesar wasn't demanding enough in the way of taxes. That is, when he wasn't too busy officiating at gay weddings, performing abortions for underage women, or hosting $35k/plate fundraisers for his personal friend and mentor, Barack Obama.
Poor Jesus! Bad enough to be crucified; why does he have to endure being dragooned into supporting the political preferences of so many idiots?
If Thistlethwaite really does believe she's a Christian,
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 9:08am.
she's going to have a heck of a surprise when her judgement day comes.
You see, I hear from a reliable source (the Bible) that God doesn't take too kindly to people who twist His holy words to mislead others with false beliefs.
Thistlethwaite should be reminded of that. The scriptures are not meant to endorse any one person's ideological perspective. Those who distort the holy word for such an unholy purpose are really asking for trouble.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Consider the lillies of the field...
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 9:31am.
They don't have to worry about where they poop and pee. If two birds fly and one falls to the ground, it's probably the fault of some stock broker. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit your savings.
⇒ Stupid WAPO
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 9:48am.
Jesus was delivered up by a bunch of religious posers to the secular government for the purpose of executing a predetermined judgment that the religious posers had no authority to pronounce.
But if Jesse Jackson wants to use Rainbow/PUSH funds to pay for his concubine's abortions and use those same funds to pay for the silence of said concubine after she bears Mr. Jackson a baby, it's not my place to deliver Jesse up to the government, but to G-d who sees all things anyway.
You know there is a much more interesting
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 9:49am.
interpretation of the ten talents. The third servant is the only one who voiced an opinion of the master as harsh. Afraid to lose any of the master's money, by his harshness, he hid it--rather than doing something practical with it. It's a good parable that if we judge God as "harsh" and are afraid to make any move for fear--and not do what at least adds to the kingdom with a modicum of common sense, we have failed as contributors to the kingdom. The message is do something with what you have, take a step, and if not something lavish, at least something reasonable.
Another thing of interest.
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 11:07am.
Another thing of interest.
The two faithful servants went "at once" to put their master's money to work although their master had set out "on a long journey." They set out eagerly straight away to work what had been entrusted to them, while the wicked and slothful one "dug in the ground and hid his master's money."
From the get-go the faithful servants put the money at risk, while the slothful one did nothing.
My study Bible has a note that a talent was roughly equal to 20 years' worth of wages for a common laborer. In other words, a lot of money he was accountable for. Imagine entrusting your money manager with $400,000 and all he did was stuff it in a mattress, not even put it in a bank or a money market account.
Good morning Ken
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 12:14pm.
I agree with you 100%.
Where we go wrong, especially those that do not read the bible, is we don't see the forest for the trees. In John 14:15 Jesus told us "If you love me keep my commandments". If we don't understand the bible as a whole we get into trouble looking for that elusive kernel of truth in every passage and the enemy twists those kernels to lead us astray. Jesus gave us specific instructions on how to live our lives and expects us to follow them.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Ken, Exactly! Well said!
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 12:40pm.
Ken,
Exactly! Well said!
Those who put the money to work and made money for the master were rewarded, those who did nothing and hid the money, were punished and called wicked.
If we play the silly game, one could say that Jesus would be happy with people investing and growing their money.
But again, as it is often the case, Liberals love to use the Bible and Jesus to claim He is a Liberal when it comes to economics, but wow how the same Liberals hate the Bible and Jesus when it comes to the teachings on abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, etc.
Huh?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 2:35pm.
So, Jesus, a carpenter, one of the "rich men" of the day (Carpentry was a highly respected, and highly prized, profession in those days, one that paid very well) would support the OWS protesters, support the people who would want to impose government sanctions through increased taxes and stifling regulations on that man's business, profits, and the like? Hardly!
Let's be real here, Jesus was very upset with the people who were charging outrageous exchange rates for the coin he needed to exchange in order to pay for his rather high tax rates! To Jesus, the Occupiers are the same as the greedy merchants he rallied against, all because they tried to take his hard earned money without just cause, just like the Occupiers want to do!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.