Preface: If you just happened upon this study, and you are not a believer in Jesus Christ, the politics and point of view expressed herein are not really the issue, insofar as you are concerned. You face one and only one issue, “What do you think of Christ?” (Matt. 22:42b). Who is Jesus Christ? He Himself claimed, “I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6). He told Nicodemus, “You must be born again;” (John 3:3b) and then He explained the mechanics to Nicodemus: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten [uniquely-born] Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” (John 3:16–18). That is the only issue before you: do you believe in Jesus Christ? Did He die for your sins?

For those who have believed in Jesus Christ, as with all Biblical studies, you need to make certain that you are in fellowship, which means, you name whatever sins you have committed to God, and God will forgive them. If we acknowledge [name, cite] our sins, He [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1John 1:9).

No doubt, you have seen graphics like these all over the internet:

The first is from some blogspot (although, apparently, originally from the Christian left) and the second is from quietmike.org, both accessed April 6, 2014.

We ought to expect for there to be false teaching about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

2Peter 2:1–3 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

2Tim. 4:3–4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own lust patterns, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Sometime ago, I ran across a posting where someone claimed, “Jesus is a liberal.” And we cross-posted on this topic for awhile. Then I collected those unedited posts and put them online here: Was Jesus a Liberal? (HTML) (PDF). In the paper you are reading now, this topic is taken up in a more organized fashion. Also, this is a much longer presentation of this topic.

This treatise was written in 2011 and revised in 2014. This is not a short examination of this topic; it is over 100 pages long. Liberal talking points will be set down next to the words of Jesus so that we can come to an informed conclusion.

Introduction: If you are reading this, you are probably a believer in Jesus Christ; that is, a Christian. If you merely espouse the ideals of Jesus or the new covenant of love from Jesus or if you simply believe that Jesus was a wonderful teacher, right up there with Gandhi and Martin Luther King, then you face a far more important question than, capitalism versus socialism, and that is, Who is Jesus? Jesus Christ is the man Who bore your sins on His body on the cross, and He is the only way you are able to have a relationship with God. He told His disciples, “I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6). When Jesus was asked, “How can we do the works of God?” He answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him Whom He has sent." (John 6:29). John the Apostle tells us why he wrote the book of John: These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (John 20:31). Peter tells us the basis of our salvation: Jesus himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed (1Peter 2:24; Isa. 53:5). Your relationship with God is far more important, at this point in time, than your feelings about socialism and capitalism.

In the 1970's and 1980's, communist and socialist movements were trying to get a toehold in South America, and they ran into strong resistence from the Catholics there. So, propagandists from this movement took the Bible and Jesus and tried to portray the Bible as a bastion of progressive doctrine and Jesus as a liberal socialist. When dealing with a book that is in excess of 1000 pages, it is easy to come up with a dozen or two verses which appear to support nearly any political view. With the advent of the internet, you can simply google something like “Is Jesus a liberal?” and you will get a dozens of articles and even more graphics that portray Jesus as a liberal.

When it comes to liberals who perpetrate lies about Jesus, I did not have time to list them all; but I have a fairly representative sampling in this extensive examination. To be fair, in some cases, it is a matter of ignorance; and, in many cases, it is a matter of intentional ignorance. Some of them are saved, but they are also trapped by the world-view of liberals; and so they pursue, in their Bibles, justification for liberal doctrine.

Two additional points must be made. Satan will do everything that he can in order to bring about perfect environment on earth, and he will make these sorts of attempts, no matter how many people are killed in the process. Socialism and other human panaceas are of the devil, and the attempt to implement them will never cease to be a force on this earth. Even after people have lived for a full 1000 years under perfect environment, Satan will be let loose for a time, and he will cause a portion of the population to rebel against perfect environment (Rev. 20:7–10).

Secondly, it is not our business as believers to whitewash the devil’s world. We certainly find our greatest freedom under capitalism and the least freedom under socialism; however, apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ followed by the spiritual growth of the believers in a national entity, no economic or political system is efficacious for sin. We could vote in, say, the most wonderful capitalistic republic known to man, and our lives would still suck without Jesus Christ (besides which, we would burn forever in the Lake of Fire).

This explains how we can live in a country which is the envy of all the world, where people will risk anything to live here; and yet, simultaneously, there are people within this nation who believe that we are a terrible nation. Despite the heaps of failures of socialism all around us, there is still a significant portion of our population who believe a more socialistic state is the direction in which we ought to go.

We live in the United States in a political system where voting is a right and a responsibility. Therefore, we ought to be reasonably informed and vote doctrinally. However, it is not our duty to be involved politically day-and-night (of course, some believers will be called into politics as believers are called into all walks of life). Politics are not the solution; and no political candidate is the solution. The politics of a nation are a result of the national thinking of the people and the attacks of Satan. As people know less and less about, they lean toward liberal politics more and more.

Spiritual maturity in the maximum number of believers ought to be our goal; and that means, we need to be far more mindful of our spiritual growth than of our political impact (and a parent needs to be mindful of the spiritual growth of his children as well). What happens politically in our country is a reflection of the spiritual growth (or lack thereof) of the believers in our country.

It is the same for missionaries in, say, Communist China. We certainly recognize that communism is evil and the political system in China is evil. However, it is not our responsibility to change their system, whether from afar or from within. It is the job of the missionary to plant the seeds of the gospel, and, ideally speaking, to establish local churches where indigenous pastors may proclaim both the gospel and the teaching of the Word of God. It is not up to the missionary to lead or to participate in political reform movements anywhere in the world. When Paul wrote that we ought to obey all higher authorities, he did not distinguish between good and bad governments, or establish a continuum of freedom versus tyranny, with some clearly demarcated point at which, you just start disobeying the government. Paul taught during a time when the Roman authorities would eventually seize him and the rest of the Apostles and execute them on phony, trumped-up charges. Yet, Paul urged us to obey the authorities God has put over us (Rom. 13:1–9).

At one time, Communist China persecuted and killed Christian believers. Now, although Christianity is not sanctioned or encouraged, it is tolerated in China. As a result, there has been growth in the number of believers in China; and, not surprisingly, an increase in free enterprise.

Just so you know, there is the Rahab-exception to patriotism, where a believer, in a nation about to be destroyed or severely damaged by God, can choose to affiliate oneself with a better nation (Joshua 2). This could not be used to justify treasonous behavior against the United States at this time, as it is one of the greatest nations on this earth in terms of being blessed by God. This is not the same thing as, flirting with communism and giving them great propaganda material (as Jane Fonda did during the Vietnam War) and then returning to the United States of America to enjoy great prosperity in our free enterprise system. Rahab the prostitute completely renounced her city-country, and would have faced death, had they been victorious over the Jews.

Capitalism, Greed and the Dishonesty of Liberalism

Liberalism characterizes capitalists as greedy; and, if a capitalist happens to be well-to-do, that is even more proof. It equates wealth with the love of money, which is the root of many kinds of evil (1Tim. 6:10). Greed is a sin, and greed is a manifestation of the sin nature. Having wealth does not make a person greedy; having one’s own business does not make a person greedy; and being the CEO of some grand company does not make a person greedy. Making a lot of money as a movie star, as a Wall Street broker, or as a movie star does not make a person guilty of greed. A person can be greedy, whether they are flat broke, working class, middle class or in whatever financial classification you can come up with, because every person has a sin nature. Greed does not have to be satiated in order for it to exist.

The Bible describes the concept of greed in the Ten Commandments—it is covetousness, when used in a negative sense. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's." (Ex. 20:17). In the Hebrew, the word covet is châmad (חָמַד) [pronounced khaw-MAHD] means to desire, to covet, to take pleasure in. It can be used in a negative sense, as we find here; and in a positive sense, as we find in Gen. 2:9, where the trees which God grew are pleasant to the sight. Pleasant is the Niphal (passive) participle of châmad. It is context which determines whether this word is used in a negative (Deut. 5:21 7:25) or positive (Daniel 9:23 10:11) sense.

What ought to be clear is, when you desire something which someone else owns, that is covetousness in the negative sense; that is greed. This greed is a part of the soul of someone who is less well off. One article I read used the example of our captains of industry and finance pulled in billions of dollars on the backs of most people. My understanding of what occurred is, some banks willingly took the money which the U.S. government offered them and some did not want to take it, but they were encouraged to take the government loans anyway, the idea being that, we did not want to clearly identify those banks which were weak. One could argue the point that, when you are being told by your President that you must take so much money as a loan, then that is not greed. It is also my understanding that nearly all of the TARP funds have been repaid, with interest, making this almost a non-issue.

Now, many banks paid out large bonuses to their employees before the TARP money had been repaid, which, when it comes to optics, looked bad. At the same time, it is not necessarily greed that causes a person to take a bonus which is given him. How many of you have turned down a bonus, a raise or an extra perk? You may say, “Well, I worked for it;” and so did they. “But they make more money than I do.” Lots of people do. “They make way more money than I do.” Then change jobs and do what they do. Are some bankers greedy? Of course, as are some people who are janitors as are some people on welfare. When you have a strong desire for that which is not yours, that is greed. Making money, a lot or a little, is not greed. Accepting a bonus, a perk or a raise is not equivalent to greed.

Graphic from Penn Media, accessed April 6, 2014.

Greed exists on all economic levels. Recently, there were thousands of people who descended on the capital steps of Madison, Wisconsin demanding that the terms of their union contracts with the government not be changed—these are public employee union members who had collective bargaining. What I saw—and I cannot look into their hearts—appeared to be greed to me. People on the outside may not know how this works, but most public union members understand how “collective bargaining” works for them. Dues are collected by the state on behalf of the union and given directly to the union—these dues are actually payments from taxpayers which go directly from government revenue into the pockets of the union. The union turns around and gives this money to certain politicians (I have heard the estimate that 95% of union money goes to Democrats). If these politicians get into office, they are the very same people who “collectively bargain” with the unions who, in a large part, financed their campaigns (unions, as collective entities, contribute more to political campaigns than any other entity ). So, the Democratic politician, who is supposed to stand up for the taxpayer in these negotiations, was both financed and elected by the very same people he is “collectively bargaining” with. In other words, he has a dog in this fight; if the unions like the end result, he will get more money in the future to be reelected.

Those in public unions know this, and they still go out and march for this legalized bribery to be continued. That sounds a lot like greed to me. They are greedy for money which the taxpayer pays into this rigged system. Under a democratic administration, there was virtually no one who stood up for the taxpayer in this collective bargaining ruse.

I am in the unique position to know people who are partially supported by the state, which pays for a portion of their food, clothing and shelter. These people know their limits, and many will not work additional hours if this means a decrease in benefits. Some will only work for under-the-table wages. They are greedy for money for which they have not worked. These are relatively poor people (they would be considered very rich in other nations). However, greed is not a matter of getting or not getting what you want; greed is the strong desire to have something which is not yours.

For every banker, stock broker or business owner that you can point out as being greedy, I can point out 100 people who are somewhere between poor and middle class who are equally as greedy. That is because greed is a human condition; it is not a condition which is dependent upon economic status.

Furthermore, for every rich person you can find who is undeniably greedy, I can find another business owner who is doing everything possible to keep his business going during this recession so that he (or she) does not have to lay off any employees. You may not realize this but, there are many business owners who make good money in good times; and, in bad times, agonize greatly over laying off a single employee. Many of these business owners make a lot of cutbacks in their own personal lives as well.

This is where liberals are particularly dishonest—they portray possession of wealth as being equivalent to greed. Compared to the rest of the world, most of us, even with middle class salaries and below, are in the top 5% in the world when it comes to wealth, disposable income and material possessions. If wealth is an indicator of greed, then almost all citizens of the United States would have to be counted as greedy, because of our relative wealth (all wealth is relative). However, what is actually the case is, people in the United States give more money out of their own pockets to charities of all sorts—no other country comes close to what Americans give as individuals. Conservatives, who are the ones accused of being the most greedy, give more money than do liberals (see addendum).

“You have your interpretation of the Bible and I have mine”

Liberals have gone through the Bible and have pulled out every verse that they could which seems to support liberalism. In many cases, this is simply propaganda. They don’t really have any interest in Jesus Christ or in Who He really is or in the Bible. This has all come about because communism had a very difficult time getting a foothold in Catholic countries in South America. Then they discovered that the Bible had a lot to say which they could use, which set of verses have been used as the Biblical foundation for Liberation Theology. There are several problems with Catholicism, and one of them is, they don’t know their Bible very well. So it is easy for men to enter in to their congregations and lead them astray, which describes what happened with Liberation Theology in South America and explains why, suddenly, so many countries there became communistic. For this reason, the propagandist could care less about what the Bible says, or whether they have done damage to the context when they lift out this or that verse. That is simply not an interest of theirs.

There are others who have given their lives and souls over to liberalism, and they came upon “Jesus is a liberal” as an email forward, or while they were browsing the internet, and they liked it and sent it to all of their friends. Like the propagandists, they do not have any real interest in Jesus Christ or in the Bible. However, everyone likes Jesus to be on their team, so they co-opt Him and His words, but they feel no reverence toward the things that Jesus said that are not supportive of their cause. In other words, their liberalism is first and foremost; and what Jesus says that seems to support their cause is fine; but what the Bible says and Who Jesus really is—those things are not really things the liberal is interested in (I realize that I am painting with a broad brush, but I think that this would be true of, say, 60–80% of all liberals who think that Jesus is a liberal).

Both sets of people—the propagandists and the liberals-first types—may say, “You have your interpretation and I have mine;” but, point of fact, they simply are not that interested in what the Bible really says. It is simply more ammunition for them to use against “Bible thumpers.” These same people, in a different setting, will speak disparagingly about fundamentalist Christians, whom they indicate with some belittling vocatives like Bible thumpers, fundies, tea-baggers, etc.

However, there are a few who, perhaps due to a liberal inclination, came across these websites or this viewpoint, and simply accepted it because it went along with their predisposition. Some of these people actually have somewhat of an open mind, and are willing to listen. Certainly, at some point in time, when they have heard the 88^th verse which indicates that Jesus is not a liberal, they may express their negative volition by saying, “Well, you have your interpretation of the Bible and I have mine.” Most of the time, such people have their point of view, and they simply agree with the Bible when it seems to support their point of view, and disagree when it does not.

The Bible means what it means when taken in context. You cannot simply lift 3 or 4 verses out of context to make a point, if that point is contrary to the context of these verses you have chosen. It is important to note who the audience is; specifically, to whom Jesus is speaking. When Jesus says, “Judge not, lest you be judged;” was He speaking to a room filled with Roman judges, and was He telling them that they ought not to practice their profession? Was Jesus speaking to a group of interviewers in personnel, telling them that they ought not evaluate people who want to work for them, but just hire anyone who comes in the door? Or was He speaking on a more personal level, to individuals, admonishing them?

The words found in the Bible—particularly in the New Testament—have specific meanings which were clearly known at the time they were written or spoken. Today, when we hear the word peacemakers, we might think of Jimmy Carter going to the Middle East and trying to draw up a peace treaty between the Jews and the Egyptians; or we may think of the B–36 peacemaker. However, when interpreting the passage, Blessed are the peacemakers, it is worth our while to consider what this word means, and how the word peace is actually used in the Bible.

Finally, because the Bible is the Word of God, it cannot have internal contradictions. Therefore, if one passage says one thing and another passage seems to say something else, then we need to be able to sort that out, so that both passages have a reasonable meaning and are able to stand together. Sometimes, these passages are ironed out easily because they belong to different dispensations. For instance, Isa. 2:4 (He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore) is all about the Millennium. Joel 3:10 (Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears; let the weak say, "I am a warrior.") speaks of time and of the Tribulation.

Is Jesus a liberal? The big picture.

At one time, being liberal was synonymous with having and open mind and being willing to consider new ideas. In this day, liberalism often attacks different viewpoints and there are many examples of liberal audiences shutting down conservative speakers, particularly on college campuses.

One of the many dishonest lies from the left is that Jesus is a liberal. Now, I want you to take a little time and just think of the common liberal tenants—what liberals actually believe in—and see if this matches up with the Jesus of the Bible. They always present what they believe is their best foot forward: affordable healthcare for all; feeding school children, helping the poor and needy with government programs, etc. In fact, many just come right out and claim that Jesus was a socialist or a communist or, at the very least, the first anti-authority hippie political activist.

Gary Vance writes: The labor movement of the early twentieth century was aided significantly when major Christian denominations got behind it. No average American would have a fair wage today if it weren’t for liberal Christians and labor activists. Liberal Christians and civil rights activists fought and still fight against conservative America for racial equality. Child labor laws were enacted because liberals fought for them. Medicare and Social Security exist today because of Liberalism. “Bleeding heart liberals” have long advocated for the homeless, the hungry, the less fortunate, and the disenfranchised. The women of America owe liberals a big thank you for their almost equal rights. “Tree hugging liberals” fight for clean air and water standards instead of favoring industrial polluters and short term profiteering that destroy God’s green earth.

Liberals believe in affordable health care for all U.S. citizens. They also believe in higher taxes for the rich and lower taxes for the middle class and the poor. Liberals love their spouses and children. Liberals faithfully attend their churches to worship God. Liberals love America and hate terrorism and have proved it by fighting in every war for this country. Liberals come in all shapes, sizes, and color. They are found in the ranks of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, agnostics, and atheists.

Graphic from Wikipedia accessed April 6, 2014.

Let’s temporarily lay aside the self-serving and dishonest nature of that quotation, and note what is glossed over: socialists and communists kill more people in peacetime than any other sort of government does in war; they kill far more people than Hitler (and Hitler killed a lot of people; Hitler was a socialist, by the way). One tenant of liberalism, abortions for all (which, they call pro-choice), kills millions of unborn children—far more than are killed in war. These are simply the most obvious points. We will take them one-by-one in the text of this doctrine.

There are many liberal tenets that Jesus would be highly unlikely to support, even according to most liberals. Abortion, gay marriage, excessive taxation, premarital sex, and easily obtained divorces are several that most agree Jesus would not accept. Who is on the forefront of atheism, the removal of any vestige of religion connected to the state, including the singing of Christmas hymns in schools, removing the Ten Commandments from being near any judicial building, and removing crosses on public land? These are liberal causes which are not simply championed by a few far, far left-loons, but regularly brought into courts by liberals and supported by the majority of liberals. If they come across a liberal judge, then the law and historical precedent can be set aside in favor of their liberal interpretation of the separation of church and state.

There is a sleight of hand found in most of these articles. A reference will be made to a passage, e.g., Matt. 25:31–46, which reads: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." The writer will then use this to contrast greedy, profit-drive conservatives with kind-hearted, giving liberals. The sleight-of-hand is this: liberals vote for the government to take money away from the rich (the “greedy”) and then government is in charge of distributing this money to the poor and the needy. They themselves do not want to be taxed (for the most part) in this regard. They themselves have been shown to be more parsimonious when it comes to giving. However, if they vote to take money from person A and give that money to person B, and call person A a greedy so-and-so as they cast their vote; that, they consider to be following what Jesus said. The context of Matt. 25 is completely ignored. Taking money out of their own pocket and giving that to the poor—which would find its support in the Matthew passage—is not really their thing. They want to take the money from your pocket and give to the poor.

By the way, you ought to notice the rationalization given by liberals. Liberals paint the rich often as greedy and as having too much money. The rich are villainized, so that it is much easier to tax them excessively (some to the point of ruining their businesses). After all, if someone is a villain, then who cares if the government destroys their life?

This is an illustration that I have heard Walt E. Williams give on several occasions: it’s a cold winter night and there is this little old lady, out in the cold, and she is hungry and in need of medical attention. So, you take out a gun and rob the first person who goes by, and use the spoils of your robbery to buy this woman food and medical care—despite your “noble” motives, you are still stealing. Liberals don’t do their stealing with a gun; they do it by voting; they vote to keep their own taxes low, but to raise the taxes of the evil, greedy rich—so that little old lady can get medical care and a hot meal. I don’t care how you twist things around, both methods of appropriating money are stealing; and Jesus certainly was not advocating either approach.

Now, if liberals were inclined to tax everyone a straight 10, 20 or 30%, I might be more convinced that they have soft hearts for the poor and downtrodden. I would at least understand that they are willing to tax everyone, including themselves, for the common good. However, nearly 50% of Americans pay no taxes (according to this chart, the bottom 50% of earners pay only 3% of the taxes. .

If public unions said, 50% of our collected dues will be given to private charities, I might believe that these people have some truly noble motives; but that simply is not going to happen. We are supposed to see them as loving and giving and sympathetic simply because they vote for someone else to give to causes that they will not fund out of their own pockets.

When government is put in charge of our medical care, feeding and educating our children, putting money aside for our retirement, and taking care of the poor, government tends to do a pretty lousy job.

There is another act of dishonesty here as well: most of these liberals who post an article like “Jesus is a Liberal” show no real interest in the Bible or in Jesus. If you scour their website, you may, from time to time, come upon this or that blurb connecting Jesus to liberalism; but you do not find, generally speaking, any reverence for the Bible or any reverence towards Jesus Christ; nor does there appear to be any in interest in Jesus Christ or the Bible. In most cases, no where else on this website will you have any indication that the Bible is authoritative or that what Jesus taught is authoritative. Similarly, such websites rarely contain the gospel message (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) or any personal testimony about the website creator’s religious views. Nor will you find links to Bible translations, Bible commentaries, or anything to do with spiritual growth.

My point is, such a person who posts an article, like “Jesus is a liberal;” usually has little or no interest in the Bible and certainly no interest in obeying the mandates of the Bible. For all intents and purposes, these little essays are about 2 things: (1) They are designed to propagandize Christians; and (2) people have this weird obsession to show that Jesus agrees with them or that Jesus is somehow, in some way, like them. They don’t do this with Buddha or with Mohammed; they occasionally do this with the founding fathers; but such people have this or that issue (or set of issues), and, sometimes out of nowhere, they will throw in, “And if Jesus were around right now, He’d support this same cause.” Essentially, what such a person is doing is, co-opting Jesus and making God in his own image. So, the next time you read some article about global warming, and somewhere in the article, we are informed that Jesus was the first environmentalist, you understand where this person is coming from.

People who post such articles often reveal a tremendous amount of self-righteousness. Gary Vance writes: The critics of the essay are offended by the idea that liberal Democrats might have a superior ideology. Especially when it comes to some social issues that have spiritual and moral implications. He also indicates, possibly not intending to do so, that conservatives are misled into conservatism because, well, to put it bluntly, they just aren’t very bright and are easily led astray. He writes: Sadly, good Christians have been herded into the Republican camp by preachers, false prophets, and political hucksters who utilize a few hot button issues to capture their allegiance. Concerning the policies of President George W. Bush, he writes: Every move is for the benefit of the rich at all costs. The whole planet and all of heaven looks on and sees this perverted expression of Christianity and are repulsed by it. So, if you are a conservative, you are morally inferior to liberals and you probably came to those views because you are not very bright and herd-bound or you are just rich and you want to preserve your wealth at all costs.

Such liberals often have completely lost sight of Who Jesus is and Why He came to this earth. Paul, of the “Jesus is a Liberal” website writes: Our Mission is to promote the Integral Koan (TM), holistic meme, and the original belief and understanding that Jesus IS a Liberal, and to their very core His teachings outline a Liberal, Progressive, Tolerant, Loving, open minded, holistic, and sustainable vision for our World. Jesus is not the God-man, the Savior of all mankind; he is just one of many religious leaders who was fundamentally a liberal, according to Paul (website Paul, not the Apostle Paul).

Liberals make many unsubstantiated statements, which they take as maxims of their liberal creed. Gary Vance writes: Current policies of the Republican Party are pushing citizens into poverty faster than in any other time in modern history. And, in reference to President George W. Bush: The current president is the first to politicize his claimed faith to such a great extent. Or, in reference to the spiritual condition of those in the Republican party: They embrace the little baby Jesus at Christmas and the dying and resurrected Christ at Easter, but give little thought to the life and teachings of Jesus in between. Concerning the political Jesus today: The liberal Jesus challenged the rich to be generous with the poor. The liberal Jesus would much rather have the Beatitudes considered and embraced than public displays of the Ten Commandments. The liberal Jesus would not be arguing for the inclusion of God in the pledge of allegiance because He would find the whole concept of the pledge to be a shallow form of idolatry. The liberal Jesus is just as concerned for the welfare of the born as the unborn. The liberal Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which was Caesars when questioned about taxation. At least here, on the same page as this quote, this author references liberal efforts to remove God from our pledge and public displays of the Ten Commandments.

Let me give some examples of various places where I found articles about Jesus being a liberal posted. For most of them, apart from that posted article, one does not find any interest in or reverence toward Jesus Christ or the Bible (which is the source for all of their “proof” quotations).
Examples of Their Lack of Interest in the Bible
Website	Web Address	Article/Website Content
Common Dreams	http://www.commondreams.org/	Wasn't Jesus A Liberal? (Parts I and II). The second essay is almost all typical liberal rant, with few genuine references to the Bible. Most of the last half of this second essay degenerates into a typical liberal anti-Bush rant (aka, Bush Derangement Syndrome). This website is all about liberal ideology. Even in their multifarious links at the bottom of the page, none of them is the link to a Bible-related website.
Jesus is a Liberal	http://www.jesusisaliberal.com/	Although this site has many links to quasi-religious organizations (like Unitarian Universalists and Religious Tolerance), most of these religious sites favor anything but a literal interpretation of the Bible. They have a liberal belief system, and accept the Bible only insofar as it agrees with them. Many of the links go to anti-George Bush, political sites. None of the links lead you to, say, this or that translation of the Bible or to a place where you might have information strictly about the Bible.
John Dear’s website	http://www.johndear.org/	John Dear is a Jesuit priest, and he has links to all of his articles, speeches and sermons, as well as how to buy his books. However, his links are all about “peace and justice.” None of them were about salvation, Jesus (except as a Gandhi figure) or Bible study. If you wanted to know how to be saved, you would not go to this website. On his list of his articles, Jesus is named 8 times and Gandhi is named 5. None of the articles that I read had anything to do about being saved by faith in Jesus Christ.
Here is a word cloud from John Dear’s page. Do you see the words salvation or Bible? Perhaps he is preaching another Jesus?
Ray Dubuque’s websites	http://liberalslikechrist.org/LLC_MasterMenu.htm	Liberals like Christ is one of his many websites. Dubuque is a busy guy, and there are a number of essays on this site; however, I did not find the gospel message anywhere, nor did I find links to Bible translations or to good Bible studies.

Again, my point is, liberals who incorporate Jesus into their teachings intentionally misinform their readers or are willfully ignorant themselves. Furthermore, it is clear that, they do not have a strong and powerful interest in Jesus or in the Bible; they instead want to co-opt Jesus and ignore that which is not agreeable to them.

It is typical for such websites to lack links to Bible translations or Bible studies.

Just as Satan is the father of lies, they are of their father, the devil.

The Specific Teachings of Jesus

This is the meat of this doctrine. Everything up to this point is introduction.

It is common for the same two-dozen verses to be trotted out again and again by liberals, with the conclusion, Jesus was a liberal.

The Jesus is a Liberal website provides a good set of passages which supposedly link our Lord to liberal thinking. In most cases, the first paragraph of each section, highlighted in yellow, is taken directly from this website. However, I also took points from other liberal sites as well.

Various writers and speakers have used the term culture of war in order to describe those evil people who seemingly love war. John Dear writes: Last September, I spoke to some 2,000 students during their annual lecture at a Baptist college in Pennsylvania. After a short prayer service for peace centered on the Beatitudes, I took the stage and got right to the point. "Now let me get this straight," I said. "Jesus says, `Blessed are the peacemakers,' which means he does not say, `Blessed are the warmakers,' which means, the warmakers are not blessed, which means warmakers are cursed, which means, if you want to follow the nonviolent Jesus you have to work for peace, which means, we all have to resist this horrific, evil war on the people of Iraq." 

For some reason, the liberal turns a blind eye to what led up to Iraq and to what actually went on in Iraq. If U.S. soldiers have perpetrated a horrific, evil war on the people of Iraq, then how is it that Iraqi police and soldiers are fighting side-by-side American soldiers? How is it that, there are more schools there than ever before? How is it that, at the time that I write this (1012), there are revolutions occurring in nearly every Middle East country except Iraq and Afghanistan? For some reason, for people on the left, it is okay that a national ruler slaughters hundreds of thousands of his own people (as Saddam Hussein did), but if the United States goes into Iraq to depose such a man and to give the people freedom and democracy (as we did in Japan and South Korea), that is somehow perpetrating an horrific, evil war on the people.

Like many liberals, John Dear ignores the fact that war was used in the Old Testament in order to achieve peace; and that such an approach is necessary today.

John Dear also wrote, in an open letter to President Bush: I am writing to you to ask you to stop immediately the bombing of Afghanistan, to stop your preparations for other wars, to cut the Pentagon’s budget drastically, not increase it; to lift the sanctions on Iraq, end military aid to Israel, stop U.S. support of the occupation of the Palestinians, lift the entire third world debt, dismantle every one of our nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, abandon your Star Wars Missile Shield plans, join the world court and international law, and close our own terrorist training camps, beginning with Fort Benning’s School of the Americas.

This has to be the most idiotic foreign policy advice I have ever heard. It is our nuclear weapons which have deterred our enemies since the end of World War II, and the reason that our wars with China and Russia have been confined to low-level proxy wars. They have the bomb. If we chose to remove our own nuclear weapons and all deterrents to attack, does John Dear actually think the conquering of the United States would be far off?

The Sermon on the Mount is one of the most distorted portions of the Bible, and what is distorted to begin with is the word peacemaker, which is the adjective eirênopoios (εἰρηνοποιός) [pronounced i-ray-nop-oy-OSS] which means, peacemaker, one who makes [brings about] peace. Strong’s #1518. Now, although a case could certainly be made for a person who makes peace between various people who are at odds with one another, this approach is not in keeping with the use of this word in secular literature. This word is used in the literature of that day to refer to a strong ruler, who brings about peace through his strength (which would include the willingness to use his army). So, if one wished to give a secular meaning to this word, having this refer to a secular ruler who keeps the peace through his military and police force is far more reasonable than someone who gathers the leaders of 2 nations and gets them to sign a temporary peace treaty.

However, it seems more likely, given the entire context, that this refers to one who helps to establish peace between man and God. Happinesses to the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God (Matt. 5:9). We do know what a son of God is; You are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26). Given that Jesus is speaking specifically to His disciples (Matt. 5:1), who will be taking the gospel message to the entire world (Matt. 28:19 Mark 16:15), it is most reasonable to assume that Jesus is speaking to a person who reveals the gospel of Jesus Christ to another, which gives them the path to peace with God (Rom. 5:1). That is the way that we ought to understand the word peacemaker.

The Bible often speaks of having peace in one’s soul, regardless of the variety of circumstances (Philip. 4:7 2Peter 1:2 2John 1:3). However, this is not someone thing that one person can impart to another (except a pastor teaching his congregation). So, interpreting this as peace in the soul, would put Bible teachers as being blessed for being peacemakers.

The Biblical term peace is also used to indicate lawfulness and stability within a society. In that day and age, one might call the Roman soldier a peacekeeper, because he preserved the peace within a Roman entity. Today, this would be policemen and soldiers.

Pax Romana, a designation of the Roman empire, means Roman peace; and the very liberal Wikipedia writes Pax Romana (Latin for "Roman peace") was the long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force experienced by the Roman Empire in the 1^st and 2^nd centuries CE. Those who made the peace here would have been the Roman military; those who would have kept the peace would have been policemen, which, in that day, would have been soldiers. Knowing this, how can a theologian call for the reduction of the Pentagon, which is the brains of American peacekeepers around the world?

A very modern example would be what we did in Japan in the late 1940's and early 1950's. We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, they surrendered unconditionally, and then we guided them, by means of Douglas MacArthur, to restoring their own national sovereignty, independence and alliance with the United States, their former enemy. This entire process was an act of peacemaking, which included Christian evangelism (which Douglas MacArthur called for on several occasions). Liberals call this nation-building, but it was a good investment of our dollars to develop such a strong ally in Asia. Japan is now one of our greatest allies in Asia, and this was a result of military force coupled with American military leadership in Japan after WWII.

We similarly fought on the side of the South Koreans and achieved peace and stability between them and North Korea. Although our military was never happy with the result, which was essentially a draw in this war; North Korea and South Korea stand side-by-side in stark contrast to communism and atheism versus capitalism and Christianity. There is an excellent comparison of the two nations here:

http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/index.html

These interpretations of peacemakers are all reasonable, and in keeping with the context of that day (something liberals have no interest in). However, somehow interpreting this word peacemaker as meaning a person who wants peace at any price and to withdraw all soldiers from this or that theater or war, is simply wrong. If anything, this is capitulation to communist propaganda.

First of all, withdrawing American soldiers does not bring peace to any part of the world. When American soldiers are withdrawn from a theater of war, where no victory was established, the result is often a great slaughter (we still have soldiers in Germany and in South Korea). American withdrawal from Vietnam comes to mind, after which millions of people, citizens and soldiers alike, were killed by the communists. If this withdrawal is viewed as an act of peacemaking, then your concept of peace is quite warped indeed. If peace to you means, you kill (or starve or re-educate) everyone who disagrees with you, I find it hard to imagine that you can somehow connect this to Jesus Christ.

When the war in Vietnam was defunded and our soldiers were suddenly withdrawn from Vietnam. There was celebration among the millions of leftists who believed that they had a hand in this. However, in Vietnam and Laos, 2–3 million people were slaughtered in the streets like dogs in just a few years—far more than had died in the decade that Vietnam was a war zone. So, the idea that withdrawing our soldiers from Vietnam was a good thing and that it brought peace, and that somehow, Jesus is talking about things like this, indicates no knowledge of the horrors which occurred in Vietnam after our withdrawal; and a desire to twist Scripture to say and mean something which cannot be supported by the context or by the words which are used. If you believe that what the communist soldiers did after we withdrew from Vietnam was a good thing and somehow related to Jesus saying happinesses to peacemakers, who caused this to happen—then you might as well stop reading this now—there is no way that you can be convinced.

I have even read of people who blame the United States for the communists killing millions of people after the U.S. military left Vietnam.

Our sudden departure from Vietnam was one of the saddest events of human history, and it did not establish peace, but caused the North Vietnamese to become much more concentrated in their effort to destroy the South Vietnamese resistence. A key part of the establishment of socialism or communism typically involves the destruction of millions of lives, in one way or another. Yet, thousands of liberals will claim, without any real evidence, that Jesus is a socialist, despite the fact that the imposition of socialism often involves the killing of millions of innocents.

Chart from:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wmH-1rT4G3U/Tpws32HG9II/AAAAAAAAGdc/qyeS1xZF_G0/s1600/which_dictator_killed_the_most_people.jpg accessed April 6, 2014.

As an aside, for many on the left, if they don’t see something happening, then it does not concern them. Communists, socialists and other dictatorships do not generally bring in news crews to film how they deal with their opposition. So, because there is no news footage of what happened in South Vietnam after the American soldiers left, many on the left still see that as some great victory for peace. Because we did not see films of Saddam Hussein’s killing spree in his own country and in Kuwait, we tend to minimize what he did, as compared sending American forces into Iraq to change the destiny of Iraq. We saw footage of U.S. present in Iraq night after night (until President Obama was elected), and this offended many on the left. Two years into the Obama administration, and the left’s outrage over Iraq and Afghanistan seems to have subsided, for the most part. And, of course, the news no longer begins with the latest explosion to come out of that area (as was typical during the Bush years). Again, the left seems to remain blissfully happy if they don’t actually see what happens.

The Hebrew being quoted actually means, “You will not murder.” (Deut. 5:17). To think that this somehow means that there ought not to be any killing whatsoever, is absolutely silly, and ignores the rest of the Bible. The Ten Commandments were first spoken to the people of Israel in Ex. 20. In Ex. 21, there is a requirement for the state to use the death penalty for various infractions of the Law (Ex. 21:12–17). The same God Who said, “You will not murder” in Ex. 20 also instituted the death penalty for murder (Gen. 9:6 Ex. 21:12). Therefore, the idea that Jesus did not support the death penalty is absolutely foolish. In this same Sermon on the Mount, Jesus also said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matt. 5:17–18). If Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, then He certainly did not come to abolish capital punishment, which is a part of the law. Paul later wrote, in Rom. 13:3–4 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. What is God’s wrath against a murderer? Capital punishment! Ex. 21:12!

Furthermore, as is often the case with liberals and Bible verses, the commandment You will not murder is taken completely out of context. Jesus is saying, in this context, that anger and/or hatred in the soul is a form of murder (Matt. 5:21–22). I cannot tell you how many liberals hold to this idea that we ought not to kill for any reason, and yet will heap huge amounts of scorn, anger and bitterness upon George Bush and Sarah Palin. The same people will quote this verse with this beatific look on their faces, and then, later send you some email with the most vile expression of hatred toward this or that Republican. When they express or send along someone else’s email which express hatred toward George Bush or towards Sarah Palin, this is murder, according to Jesus Christ. One of the essays which I read when doing this study, was nothing but a vapid rant against George Bush, with a few Bible verses thrown in and misapplied.

This verse cannot be twisted into saying, there ought to be no killing in war. The same God who said, “You will not murder;” also set up the death penalty for certain offenses in the following chapter. That very same God taught King David to fight in war (Psalm 18:34 144:1). If God is against all war and all murder, why does He teach David to fight? Why does Paul support obedience to national rulers, even when these rulers are pagan? If Jesus is against war, why, when He spoke with the centurion, did Jesus not go on a verbal rant against war and warfare?

Furthermore, this is the same God also instituted an offensive war against the Canaanites. In some cases, entire cities of Canaanites would be completely and thoroughly destroyed, at God’s orders (see the Book of Joshua).

To sum up: Thou shalt not kill really means You will not murder. Despite what liberals say, capital punishment and military actions are not murder, but actually condoned by God. Furthermore, hatred—the kind of hatred expressed by liberals toward, say, Sarah Palin—is taught by Jesus to be equivalent to murder. However, I have yet to come across a “Jesus is a liberal” website where liberals are encouraged to end their vicious rhetoric against conservatives. In most cases, one can find that same rhetoric at such a website, or, at the very least, links from that website to such hateful language.

Surprisingly, liberals are generally pro-choice, which position results in the killing of millions of unborn babies. Somehow, they are able to take the position that, maybe we ought not kill vicious convicted criminals but that it is okay to destroy the life within the woman’s body, because that is her choice. This is so mixed up, I can barely understand it. However, if we simply remove religion from the picture and take a position from science. What is in the womb is 100% human and it is uniquely human. It may be dependent upon the mother, but all children are completely dependent upon the parents for the first several years of their lives. That does not make them fair game for being murdered by their parents.

Since abortion was made legal in 1973, we’ve killed over 50 million unborn children (more than we have killed in all of our wars combined). Is this a legacy you want to stand on as a liberal? Do you really and truly believe that Jesus is all for this? And don’t try to make arguments based upon incest and rape. That accounts for maybe 1% of all abortions. Most abortions are all about retroactive birth control; nothing more, and nothing less. A baby would be inconvenient, so, let’s kill it. Somehow, you really believe that is the moral high road?

Now, one can take a theological position that an unborn baby is not fully human until taking its first breath of air; but that is a theological position and not a scientific one. Do liberals believe that our laws should be based upon theological positions? Of course not! And personally, even though many Christians (including me) hold to this theological position, that does not mean that we ought to disrespect the process that God set into motion. That is, that life in the womb is on its way to becoming human life. Since this is the process by which God brings human life into the world, then we ought to respect this process.

Now, if abortion is an issue that you are unsure about, don’t you think you ought to err on the side of life? You may say, “Well, I think there ought to be fewer abortions;” but what does that mean, as millions of children are killed each and every year? Just taking such a position that abortions ought to be rare means pretty much nothing, if the number of abortions continues at some a staggering rate. Furthermore, if you think the number of abortions ought to be fewer, why? If this is just some piece of meaningless tissue, then why shouldn’t we be totally unfazed by millions of abortion deaths each year? An abortion is either a meaningful death on some level or it is not. Being pro-choice and, simultaneously saying, “We ought to have fewer abortions” makes very little sense. Awhile ago, some tried to celebrate the idea of having an abortion with tee shirts or ribbons or some damn thing. Obviously, that did not catch on like they expected it to. You know why? Because the woman who would wear such a testimony has just killed her own baby. Hard to be proud of that, no matter where you stand on the pro-life/pro-choice issue. That is something that very few people want to brag about. A woman might say that she is pro-choice; but rarely would she add, “And I ought to know; I consented to killing 3 fetuses that I carried.”

The most glaring example of liberal dishonesty is, abortion, where we have killed far more babies in the United States through abortion than in all of our wars combined. Somehow, that is okay. And I have already discussed the science of this. This is not a religious argument that I am offering up here. We know for a scientific fact that what is in the womb is fully human, from a biological standpoint, and not just some cyst growing inside of the mother. That latter concept is completely anti-science.

In summation, the idea that “You will not kill” applies in every circumstance, except with regards to a child in the womb, is certainly not the position that Jesus took; nor is it the position of the Bible; nor can this position be supported logically or scientifically.

Because people have not studied the Bible, they somehow think that Jesus or the Bible is anti-war or anti-military. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, Jesus told us that there would be wars and rumors of wars until He returned (the rapture and the 2^nd advent) (Matt. 24:6). Secondly, the military is always spoken of highly, and several heroes of the Bible are military men (Moses, Joshua, the heroes of the book of Judges, David). Whereas, there is no list in the Bible of the great pacifists, there is a list of the great military men who served under David (2Sam. 23). If you know anything about the Bible, you know that the highest compliment that Jesus paid to anyone was to a Roman soldier in Matt. 8:5–10. Jesus did not append His comments with, “And, if you desire to be perfect, you will put down your sword and follow Me.” Furthermore, if you recall the verse, “And your sin will find you out.” Look it up sometime; it is all about being a pacifist and not going to war, when others of your nation are going to war.

Conservatives do not desire to go to war; nor do they look for every opportunity to go to war. However, they recognize war as being a part of life that cannot be removed from life. We may enjoy part of a generation without war, but even that is rare. Liberals seem to think that, by withdrawing our soldiers from wherever, that we will (1) save money and (2) stop war. It is our soldiers who have been parked in Germany and South Korea, along with our missile defense system, which has preserved the peace in much of Europe and that portion of Asia. In case you do not understand macro-economics, when massive war breaks out anywhere, that costs money, whether we are involved or not. I write this in early 2011 when much of the Middle East is in turmoil. This has hiked up our gas prices considerably, and there is no indication that it will end anytime soon. My point is, if you treat war as something that you can sort of wish away or get out of by using “tough diplomacy,” you are only fooling yourself. In the past 100 years, during what year was there peace throughout the world? Never! At any given time, there are 5–60 (and more) wars going on throughout the world. This is the way the world is. Jesus promised us: “There will be wars and rumors of wars until I return.” (Matt. 24:6). If you study the map of Wars in the World, you will notice that wars tend to happen where there is very little American influence (that is, very few American soldiers).

General George S. Patton knew more about this topic than many of the theologians in his time. He once said: "These pulpit killers [a reference to preachers to false preach pacifism, which results in the death of many] that go around saying that the Bible says that man dare not kill causes the death of many thousands of good soldiers. Damn little those pulpit killers know about the Bible. They know even less about the way God works. They should read all of the Bible, not just the part they like! God never hesitated to kill. God never hesitates to kill when one man or any race of man needed to be punished. God helped David kill Goliath, didn't He? How about Noah and the Ark? All of the rest of the people were killed in the flood! God took the blame for this mass murder. How about the Red Sea which opened up long enough for one race to escape and another race to be killed. Don't talk to me about God not permitting man to kill. War means that we have to kill people. That's all there is to it. It is a sin not to kill if we are serving on God's side. There is no other way to win. Wars must be won for God's sake. He has a part in every war! The quicker we can kill the enemy, the quicker we can go home and listen to the pulpit killers tell us what we did wrong. If it wasn't for us, those pulpit idiots would be shot for standing in their own pulpits. Our task is to kill the enemy before we are killed." See General Patton on Pacifism and Preaching Pacifism from the Pulpit in the Addendum.

Let me get back to the overall topic, which is, whether Jesus is a liberal or not. When it comes to understanding what Jesus said, let me make the point that, this is not a simple matter of interpretation—that is, you interpret it one way, and I interpret it another. I have given context to this verse, and have presented other passages which clearly modify the distorted meaning that liberals give to this edited portion of the verse. I could have gone back to the Greek and Hebrew and done a thorough study, but I don’t believe that is necessary. When you read the rest of what Jesus says, then it is clear that this is not a prohibition of killing under any and all circumstances (with the exception of unborn children). The liberal who takes that position clearly has no idea what is in the rest of the Bible, or, more than likely, chooses to ignore the rest of the Bible. Note how this verse was quoted, ignoring the point that Jesus was making. That is an intentional distortion of the Word of God.

Now, let me give you examples where leftists are very hypocritical about Thou shalt not kill. When they march in the streets against this or that politician, they will compare that politician to Hitler (both sides do this), but they never compare that politician to Stalin or Mao, who killed far more people than Hitler did. These leftists threw a royal fit over the U.S. going into Iraq, but the alternatives were (1) allow Saddam Hussein to continue killing his own people by the thousands or (2) once we had deposed Hussein, then we should have left and allowed the people to determine their own government (which would have been chaotic and far bloodier). Their alternatives mean more killing and more deaths; but liberals are fine with that. How does this even make sense?

There is so much dishonesty in this statement, that it is hard to know where to start. Islam, called the Religion of Peace, is said to be rooted in nonviolence. On the day that I write this, nearly 17,000 terror attacks have been carried out by violent Muslims since 9/11/2001. While writing the revision in 2014, the number of terror attacks is nearing 23,000. In the past 3 days, there have been terror attacks in Israel, Pakistan, the Philippines and Nigeria.

John Dear writes: I submit that the only thing we know for sure about Jesus is that he was nonviolent. Again, liberal lies (and from the pen of a former Jesuit priest who ought to know better)—and they could care less how much they distort the truth. They simply repeat the lies over and over again. If you are a liberal and reading this, you will still go out, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and continue to spread these same lies. 2 points on this quotation: we know more about Jesus than about any other historical figure who has ever lived (say, prior to a.d. 1500). We have more direct quotations from our Lord and 4 separate biographies of Jesus, 2 by eyewitnesses, 1 by a close associate of an eyewitness, and 1 by a contemporary historian who had access to dozens, if not hundreds, of people who knew Jesus. So, the idea that, “we don’t know much about Jesus, except that he was nonviolent” begins with a ridiculous premise. Secondly, although our Lord was not prone to acts of violence, He did turn over the tables of the money changers in the Temple, which approach was anything but nonviolent.

In his open letter to President Bush, John Dear writes: The only solution to these international crises is to overcome evil with goodness, not further evil. That means we need to win the world over with nonviolent love. Here is what many pacifists do not grasp: in a society of laws and in a society of Christians, nonviolent protests have an effect. Martin Luther King Jr. could be a nonviolent protestor in the United States and effect change because he was in the United States. Gandhi could effect change in a British-ruled India, because the British rulers and citizens in India were reasonable, peaceful and lawful. Take either of these men and put them in say, China, for instance, and Chinese officials will simply drive a tank over them; end of story, end of their peaceful protesting. Peaceful protests do not work everywhere.

Liberals love that Jesus said, “Love your enemies.” These same liberals got apoplectic when it came to President George W. Bush and the things that he did and said (despite the fact that he is a believer in Jesus Christ); and they carried signs comparing him to Hitler (which both parties do). I am sure that there were examples out there somewhere of liberals who loved George Bush, following Jesus’ words. I have just never observed this firsthand nor have I read any liberal expressing love for George Bush.

Again, we must compare Scripture with Scripture, and not simply choose our favorite 10 verses, and have them stand in place of the entire Bible. As mentioned before, the Bible is filled with military men, military words, and a list of the greatest military men under King David. God oversaw the destruction of several groups of people throughout the history of Israel. In times of war, you kill the enemy; when it comes to certain crimes, execution is the best deterrent (a dead murderer will never murder again). This does not mean that you do not pray for the salvation or your enemies or for those on death row; nor are we required to hate our enemies in war (in fact, that would be a sin ). So, when we take the words that Jesus spoke—they are quite obviously true—they must be taken in the context of where He said them, to whom was He speaking, and what was meant. Furthermore, Jesus was never in conflict with the Scriptures of His day, the Old Testament ("Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”—Matt. 5:17–18; see also Matt. 26:56 John 10:35).

A favorite trick of liberals is to take a passage given in one context, and move those words into a different context. For instance, do you really suppose that Jesus was saying that we ought to completely do away with our court system, because we ought not to judge others? Can you be serious? If you are a liberal, do you think all businesses need to do away with personal interviews and applications, and just hire people blindly, so that no one accidentally judges someone else? There are times we are called upon to evaluate a person. You might be hiring someone or recommending someone or renting to someone or loaning money to someone. Are you just supposed to do whatever they want, regardless of their personal history? Do you really think this is the meaning of this verse?

What Jesus is speaking of is judging another person simply on a personal level, which sin is committed all of the time. Let’s say, you are a liberal, and you have actually read down this far, let me give you an example as to how you have sinned, according to Matt. 7:1–2: have you called someone a tea-bagger or referred to those in the TEA party movement as tea-baggers (or thought that); you have judged them. Let’s say you feel superior to people you consider to be Bible-thumping, fundamentalist Christians—you have judged them. I have heard over and over again, evil motives impugned to specific conservatives (like Bush and Cheney) or to conservatives in general. For instance, Bush and Cheney work for Haliburton; they simply want to take over the oil of Iraq, etc. Of, people are conservative simply because they are greedy capitalists. This is judging.

Or, let’s say, you got in an internet debate, and went off on some person, calling him a bunch of mean things—you have judged that person. Then you have maligned them. That is what this passage is all about. It has nothing to do with the function of government when it comes to preserving law and order. It has nothing to do with a business evaluating prospective employees.

Here is another way the left has judged others: when someone has wealth, they accuse that person of being greedy. Or, if someone says something negative about the policies of President Obama, they are accused of being a racist. If oil prices went up under President Bush, he was accused of colluding with oil companies. Let’s say that you have decided that bankers and Wall Street types are all greedy, money grubbers, do you grasp that that is judging?

Let me see if I can give you a correct dividing line when it comes to properly judging another person: when a person commits a crime (murder, assault, theft), it is reasonable to weigh the evidence against the person, and, upon a preponderance of evidence, we can determine a person’s guilt or innocence. However, when we begin to impute, say, racial hatred to the same person, that is judging a man’s heart, these are things which we cannot see. God is able to look upon the heart of man and evaluate him (1Sam. 16:7), but that is outside of our jurisdiction. In other words, hate crime legislation ought not to be a part of our laws (and such laws are not found in the Bible). You can control the thinking of only one person: you. Therefore, when it comes to hatred or anger or implacability, then you ought to monitor yourself, but not others. “And why do you look on the splinter that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull the splinter out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First cast the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to cast the splinter out of your brother's eye.” (Matt. 7:3–5).

Now, as to the scribes and pharisees who believed that they ought to be able to stone a woman who is caught in the act of adultery (John 8:1–11). Let me give you the entire passage, so that we know what we are talking about: They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." (John 7:53–8:11).

There are several comments which need to be made about this passage. First of all, it is not found in the most ancient manuscripts, and therefore, its validity is in question. However, secondly, what we have here is a mob which wants to act independently of the Law. It was not lawful for the Jews to execute anyone (John 18:31); so, even though these are scribes and pharisees bringing this woman before Jesus so that they can stone her with His blessing, they are now under Roman rule, and Roman law forbids them to use the death penalty apart from the application of Roman law and the Roman judicial system. Thirdly, this woman was caught in adultery. Where is the man? It is fairly difficult to commit adultery all by yourself, so there was a man involved, and yet, these scribes and pharisees are not bringing both of these people before Jesus, just the woman. So, Jesus, by refusing to give them permission to stone this woman, was not negating the law; He was upholding the law and making a point at the same time (that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God).

The Mosaic Law contained a very specific system of laws and procedures as related to crime and punishment, which included laws of evidence and specific punishments for specific crimes. The idea that we ought to apply Judge not, that you be not judged to the function of criminal law is ridiculous, and at odds with Bible teaching.

Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matt. 5:17). He continually cited the Law as authoritative: “Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?” (Matt. 12:5). Jesus told the scribes and pharisees that they distorted the Law of Moses: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” (Matt. 23:23). Distorting the law of Moses and the words of Jesus is a favorite pastime of many of the liberals I read.

And, as mentioned before, the Jews were now under Roman law, which forbade them from executing anyone without going through the Roman courts.

One of the things which I find fascinating is, these are the verses and stories I had heard the most, having gone to, mostly, liberal churches as a youth. Furthermore, I think in our culture, anything which seems to indicate that Jesus is a liberal in any way, is brought to the forefront, and all else is ignored. Part of this is our culture and part of it is the wiles of the devil.

The opposite of capitalism is a state-run economy, which is socialism. Even though some regimes call themselves communistic, they are really socialistic. The final stage of communism, where the government disappears, but the worker bees continue on, is pure fantasy; it has never happened and it never will happen. Leaders of socialist countries will never give up their power. People who desire power are often easily corrupted; and these people rarely let go of the power they grab (George Washington is one of the rare exceptions; and he set the standard for all presidents who followed him).

Capitalism and freedom go hand-in-hand. Having the ability to make as much money as you want, according to your own hard work and initiative is freedom. Being able to use most of that money in whatever way you choose is freedom. A state-run economy means that bureaucrats make the decisions for much of the economy; often bureaucrats who receive their positions as political favors. They decide how much of your money they ought to have and they decide how to spend the money that you worked for. Socialism and tyranny go hand-in-hand.

Capitalism and a creative spirit go hand-in-hand as well. Being made in God’s image, we share His creative streak. Capitalism is all about being creative—what sort of a product are you offering, how you approach your marketing, and how this product is something that others would like to have. Furthermore, that product must be produced at a price people are willing to pay, so there is a great deal of creativity in bringing that to pass.

Under socialism, there is very little creativity. Bureaucrats collect and give out the money; and they make the decisions, for the most part, of what this or that company does. Having received their position as a political favor, these bureaucrats often lack the ability to fully grasp the sector which they are administrating over. One of the great things in capitalism is, a person can start at the bottom of a company and work his way to the top, learning everything about that company in the process. Although this can occur with a bureaucrat, the really plum positions—those with the power an authority—are rarely acquired on the basis of one’s ability.

It is also worth noting that, under socialism, more people are killed in “peacetime” than in war (Mao and Stalin killed far more people than Hitler did, and the human beings they destroyed was done during peacetime). There is no peace for those who desire freedom, which is man’s natural state (which requires some authority to balance out that freedom, as absolute freedom is anarchy, which is not really freedom for the weak).

Now, let’s take a look at the passages which are cited. Mark gives the most details, so let’s read what that passage has to say: And they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. And He would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. And He was teaching them and saying to them, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of thieves." (Mark 11:15–17; Jer. 7:11). Matthew supplies the fact that some animals were sold at the Temple entrance: And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you make it a den of thieves." (Matt. 21:12–13; Jer. 7:11). John 2:14–15 tell us that all manner of animals were being sold in the Temple foyer.

The Tabernacle (a sem-permanent tent) and later the Temple (a permanent structure) were representative of Jesus Christ. Each piece of furniture stood for an aspect of the Person or ministry of Jesus Christ, and all the furniture of the Tabernacle was set up in the form of a cross (which was, in part, hidden). See A Model of the Tabernacle (HTML) (PDF). Although we tend to look back at the Tabernacle and the Temple as a centralized church, these buildings represented Jesus Christ, Who He is and what He would do. Although I have not done a complete study of the Tabernacle or of the Temple, I have done one of the Ark of God, which is the heart of the Tabernacle and the Temple both, which speaks of Jesus Christ and His work in many ways: The Ark of the Covenant (HTML) (PDF).

Animal sacrifices were a central feature of both the Tabernacle and the Temple. These animal sacrifices speak of Jesus Christ, a Lamb without spot of blemish, dying for our sins. Every single Israelite needed to bring in an animal to be sacrificed on his behalf, rich and poor alike. Therefore, God allowed the poor to bring in inexpensive sacrifices, like pigeons or doves. What happened was, a business had been set up, where Temple-approved animals were provided in the foyer of the Temple. Now, of course, there would be a price mark-up on these animals, and this completely destroyed the idea that, salvation is an individual matter which each person must see to; and that salvation is free—it is not paid for at the Temple entrance. These moneychangers destroyed the symbolism of salvation by the grace of God. There was also a proper amount which was to be brought in order to keep the Temple and the priesthood going, which was a half-shekel. These money-changers overcharged for a half-shekel when it came to paying this ransom money.

Jesus did not come into Jerusalem and shake down bankers or those who had shops and sold things or traders who moved through town. Jesus went to the Temple, which spoke of Him, and removed the elements of impurity from it. Jesus did not do the same thing in secular treasuries.

One of the things which I have spoken of is the dishonesty of liberals. What Jesus does here is not a non-violent act. He overturns these huge tables, which are covered with money and some with cages of birds. He chases them out of the Temple. This is not a non-violent protest. Jesus did not walk back and forth in front of them with a sign, chanting. He did not organize the people or His disciples into some kind of a walkout or a boycott of Temple activities. He bodily removed them. That is violence.

In fact, no matter what lies are spread about Jesus, at no time did He organize a protest, sponsor a boycott, or initiate a walkout. His disciples were never organized in some fashion to stand against the establishment. Jesus told Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But My kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36b). Leftist organizations are all about changing this world; they are all about getting rid of this, or changing the way that works, or establishing socialism where it was not before. Jesus did not do that. His kingdom was not of this world. Therefore, He did not organize His disciples into a band of revolutionaries.

I have mentioned the websites where I find nonsense like, “Jesus is a liberal.” What these websites never talk about is the world to come, and how we are in this world but not of this world (the phrase in the world occurs 24 times in the New Testament). Jesus says to His disciples: “If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:19). However, what we do not find in these websites are a clear distinction between being in this world and being of this world. In nearly every single case, the website is leftist propaganda about doing things in this world in order to change this world, which is not what Jesus taught. What He taught was salvation and our own individual behavior. In almost every passage quoted by the left, the context makes it clear that a person’s individual behavior is what is an issue. There is no sense of collectivism and no demand that we change this world into a state-controlled, top-down system of bureaucracy. Socialism is not a part of the teachings of Jesus. Salvation is individual and almost everything that Jesus spoke about was individual. He did not call for us to go out and change the world, He called upon His disciples to change themselves. Their interaction with the world was to rest upon evangelism. Is evangelism the

One more thing needs to be said against socialism and in favor of capitalism. In socialism, you are depending upon the state and the leaders of your state for the provision and direction of nearly everything in your life (they oversee the jobs, what kind of work is done, the quality control, the food making and distribution, etc.). When you want or need something (including your rights), socialists are taught this comes from the state. That is not what Jesus taught. The idea that we ought to depend upon the state is in direct opposition to the teaching of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount: "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” (Matt. 6:25–33). Our ultimate dependence is always upon God; not upon some complex economic system which is going to guarantee all of our economic needs (in theory; never in practice). The Christian who believes this is less likely to depend upon the state for the provision of anything.

Speaking of which, in none of the research that I did, did I come across a “Jesus is a liberal” website where the socialist propagandist reminded his reader that, we depend upon Jesus first and foremost for all things.

One of the things that the left has done is taken a plank of their platform, and attached the words justice or right to it in some way. In the declaration of independence, the founders did not list 3 dozen rights; we had our fundamental rights, which are God-given: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then, in the Bill of Rights, the idea was to list a set of rights that the federal government could not infringe upon. Our current president calls these negative rights, and the concept is, these are things which the government cannot do to us; these are a list of freedoms which the government cannot take from us. They define, very precisely, the relationship between the individual, the state and the federal government by putting restrictions upon the state. The Bill of Rights restricts the federal government.

Our president, who is a man of the left, has stated that there ought to be a list of “positive rights.” These are things which the government must do on your behalf, which “rights” are typically found in totalitarian government constitutions.

Let’s deal with justice. Righteousness is the principle of God’s integrity (or, holiness); justice is the function of God’s integrity. This concept of justice and righteousness is extremely important to the God of the Bible. Our salvation is built upon God’s justice and righteousness (Gen. 15:6). We are not saved because God looks down on us and says, “You know, that Charlie Brown; he tries so hard. I am going to bring him to heaven when he dies. And Lucy—she is such a good mother. She is exactly the kind of person I want in heaven.” This would be an affront to God’s essence. God is perfect righteousness and perfect justice and He cannot have contact with unrighteousness. We are all sinners, deserving of death; and we are marked this way from our birth (Psalm 14:1–3 51:5 Rom. 3:10). Our salvation is based upon Jesus Christ coming to this earth and dying for our sins; the punishment we deserve was laid upon our Lord (Rom. 3:21 3:5 4:13 5:7–8). It is because of this, God saves us; it is because of this, God is justified in justifying us (Rom. 4:2–5 22–25 5:6–10). Our salvation is never based upon our own works or our own righteousness (Eph. 2:8–9 Titus 3:5).

What the left has done is, taken something that they favor and associate that something with the word justice; most prominent, social justice. The idea of social justice is, you find someone who makes more money than you think is right for him to make—he lives in a much larger house in a much better neighborhood than you, driving a much better car than you, and if he wants to pull some strings and put his children into Harvard, he can, and pay their tuition in cash. In the mind of the left, that just isn’t right, if you do not have the same possessions and ability. Or, as a moderate lefty, you might say, “Well, he makes too much; we should be closer in our salaries.” Now, quite obviously, you cannot go over to his house with a gun, and demand that he give you half of his stuff; but, what you can do is vote for someone who promises to dramatically tax him, and then give the money to you in government grants, or whatever. This is not leveling the playing field; this is leveling out the final score of the game. In any case, you have government do for you, what you realize is illegal for you as an individual to do.

In other words, social justice is all about nearly equal outcomes, or a leveling of income disparities. An honest person will say, “In other words, I am in favor of socialism, where we put into society according to our abilities, and we take out of society according to our needs.” And the government is exalted to the position of evening out the outcomes.

Most of the time, this is presented in a very dishonest way. When on the campaign trail, candidate Obama accidently used the phrase, spread the wealth around. This is something that he believes in. However, this is not the philosophy of the American people, as a whole. So, rather than come out and say, “Yes, of course; this is exactly what I believe; there is too much wealth inequity and it is up to the government to level things out;” he never reaffirmed this statement, and his press (who all voted for him) attacked the person who got candidate Obama to say these words, as if this man did something wrong, when it was candidate Obama who said those words.

Hence, terms like social justice, which sound very nice and proper, but are all about the redistribution of wealth and government control and distribution of wealth. Individuals, here and there, will admit to it. However, the further one goes up the ladder of power, the less likely they are to be blunt and honest about their beliefs, when it comes to social justice.

Laying all of that aside, what did Jesus teach? Did He ever teach that the government ought to come in and take from the rich and distribute this to the poor? Of course not! In the New Testament, there is very little which is taught about the function of government. We are taught to obey the authorities which are over us, but, at no time, are believers encouraged to rebel against this type of government or to support that type of government. Believers are not encouraged to demonstrate peacefully or violently in order to obtain from government what is rightly theirs (in their eyes).

Jesus spoke to the individual; Jesus spoke about individual responsibility, and Jesus taught about individual action and individual thinking. He did not teach collectivism. What we find in the New Testament is, we ought to obey our leaders; we ought to submit to the laws of our government (Rom. 13:1–9). Paul wrote this when Rome was conquering all kinds of lands and spreading its soldiers far and wide to maintain order. The government of Rome, on many occasions, persecuted believers and the Apostles themselves. However, Paul never called for believers to oppose Rome, to demonstrate against Rome, or to demand a better, more fair and more responsive government. One of the few times that Jesus spoke about our relationship to the government is with regards to taxation; and He said that we ought to be willing to pay our taxes (those on the left love this!).

However, when Jesus came face to face with the government of Rome, He submitted to it. He did not make some grandiose speech about how evil they had become. He did not protest against it, nor did He encourage His disciples to protest against it.

But let’s go back to the concept of social justice and a more equal distribution of wealth. This is something which our Lord never taught. Jesus often taught by parables, and the situations which these parables describe are universal, and very often accepted as reasonable. We have the example of the employer and the labor union. An employer went out and found workers, and agreed to pay them a specific amount for a day’s work. Then this employer went out, a few hours later, and got more workers and told them he would pay them the same amount to work for most of a day. He eventually found workers to work for a few hours, but they are given a full day’s wage. When it came time to pay up, the labor union protested. This was not right! They worked all day, and receive a day’s wages; but other people only worked a few hours, and were given the same amount. “That isn’t fair! That isn’t just!” But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' (Matt. 20:13–15). The underlying meaning of this parable is all about God rewarding His children as He sees fit. However, the simple understanding of this parable is, the owner is allowed to hire workers for whatever price they agree upon, no matter what the members of the labor union think.

When it comes to inequity, what could illustrate inequity more than the parable of the talents? A rich man is going away, and he entrusts his property to his servants, according to their ability, giving one 5 talents, another 2 talents, and another 1 talent. Right from the outset, there is inequality. The rich man does not leave an equal amount in the hands of his servants; he leaves behind varying amounts, according to the ability of these 3 servants. When this man returns, his first servant has doubled his investment, and he is praised. The second man also doubled his investment, for which he is also praised. However, the 3^rd man, having been given only 1 talent, hides this talent and returns it to his master when his master returns. Then his master said to him, 'You wicked and lazy servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents.” (Matt. 25:26–28). Like the previous parable, there is an underlying meaning. However, the surface illustration is just the opposite of redistributing wealth so that everyone has an equal amount. These servants did not begin equal and when the parable is over, they have an even more unequal result. People on the left often hate those who gathered enough money to make money by their investments; and they hate it even more if such investments are taxed at a lower rate than income is taxed at. However, the servants who invest wisely are praised; and the servant who does not invest has his money taken from him.

Now, I fully understand that there are leftists who went to the Bible, pulled out a few passages here and there, and used them to try to prove that Jesus was the first socialist. However, what is pathetic is, there are ministers of the gospel and teachers of the faith, who are fully aware of these parables, and yet, in order to sell their own political philosophy, they do not teach them. This is dishonesty in the extreme, from ministers who are supposed to teach the truth.

So there is no misunderstanding, I was not raised a conservative, fundamentalist Christian. I was raised a liberal who believed FDR to be the greatest president ever; and, after I was saved, I had to go through quite a bit of adjustment to hear and believe what the Bible taught. There were a lot of things which were taught that, quite frankly, rubbed me the wrong way, as someone who was a lifetime liberal. However, I had to decide—what is my authority? Are my long-held values which I possessed to be taken as absolute truth? These are values which I held due to parental training, the teaching at a number of schools; and social (peer) pressure. I came out of California in the 1960's, so there was quite a bit of peer pressure. Besides which, I was quite a rebellious person anyway. So, do I believe in the Bible or do I adhere to these long-held beliefs, which were, for the most part, a matter of socialization.

My point is, we all have a number of values that we are brought up with that are anti-Christian. That is the nature of the beast, so to speak. The idea that a person’s values all line up with Christianity from the very beginning is highly unlikely.

What is particularly unfortunate is, some of the source material which I have used here, came from dishonest ministers of the gospel—ministers who know all of these passages which I have placed in this document, and passages which they chose either not to teach or to downplay or to distort. Such ministers ought to be ashamed of themselves, and ought to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith. Did they really believe in Jesus Christ, trusting in His substitutionary death? Or were they merely unsaved religious types? One thing that I did not find at any religious leftist website was a call to believe in Jesus Christ; was the dogmatic Biblical statement that “Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no man comes to the Father except through Him” (John 14:6). Many of these websites spoke of Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi—without really differentiating them in any way. They were different people, obviously, who lived in different times; but these political-religious sites did not tend to remind the reader that Jesus is the Lord of Glory, our only way of salvation. To the unbeliever, be he a conservative or a liberal, nothing is more important that his attitude toward Jesus Christ. Except in the eyes of the religious liberal. What we think about Gandhi or about Martin Luther King, Jr. is unimportant; what we think about Jesus Christ is the basis of our eternal destiny.

When I first began this project, the closest I came to a gospel message was on www.liberalslikechrist.org where, on the front page, they have Being “Christian” should lead one to be like Christ (and to be as liberal as he was). Immediately I notice, he is not capitalized, and the past tense is used in reference to Jesus. Maybe they believe He is still in the grave? Since then, I have come across The Christian Left, which does, at the bottom of their homepage, have the gospel message. That is a good thing. Their silly political views, notwithstanding, promoting Jesus Christ as Savior is a good beginning.

So there is no misunderstanding, when a person places wealth—or any other thing (e.g., a particular political philosophy)—before Jesus Christ, they are cursed. A liberal who places his liberal philosophy and liberal policies before Jesus Christ is exactly like the rich men spoken of here. Let’s get the basics out of the way: when you exercise faith in Jesus Christ, you are saved, and saved forever. You cannot lose that salvation. Satan looks to distract us at two fronts: before we are saved and after we are saved. Satan will use our wealth (or anything else) to keep us from believing in Jesus Christ. However, if we have believed in Jesus Christ, then Satan will use our wealth (or any of the other details of life) to keep our spiritual lives from being effective.

So, at this point, I agree completely with the Biblical passages which are quoted, as they stand on their own, and the context has not been violated too much. If a person devotes his life to wealth (religion, politics, work, sexuality), to the exclusion of spiritual things, then it is very difficult for that person to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Salvation requires faith in Christ; and if our lives are tied so much to these other things that we never consider what Jesus has done, we will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. So, wealth, along with a number of other things, can be a great distraction to salvation. Furthermore, if we are saved, but then continue to let something else dominate our life (e.g., wealth), then our Christian life is worthless. The key is priorities, as Jesus said in Matt. 6:33 “But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things [food, clothing and shelter] will be added to you.”

Let’s consider the verse quoted at the beginning and the philosophy of the left: “You cannot serve both God and money.” (Matt. 6:24). So, have those on the left become the “greed police”? Have they become the arbiters of how much is too much? Do they have the magic formula to say, “This much wealth means that you are greedy; this much means that you are not”? There is an awful lot found in the Bible which is between man and God. It is not up to us to determine the inner motivations of man. Remember, “Do not judge, or you will be judged [by God]”? This is where it is properly applied. It is not up to us to find someone who lives in a large house and drives a nice car, and determine, that man is greedy; he has too much, and we need to take it through taxation and give it to the benevolent government! It is not up to determine when someone is being greedy; God is able to do that. God looks upon the heart of man; we look on the outside (1Sam. 16:7 Psalm 7:9 Prov. 15:11 16:2 Jer. 11:20 Heb. 4:13).

Incidentally, this is why conservatives oppose hate crimes legislation—it is not up to us to determine how someone feels when they commit a vicious criminal act. It is fascinating that, those on the left do not want to be judged with regards to the many acts of sin which they commit, which sins are clearly laid out in Scripture; but they believe that they can look inside of our heads and determine whether we are greedy or filled with hatred. This helps to explain why conservatives generally believe that liberals are misguided but liberals generally believe that conservatives operate out of evil intent (do you recall, for instance, how many times Bush and Cheney were accused of colluding with oil companies or with Haliburton?).

Furthermore, higher taxation for the wealthy or for corporations does not tax greed, it taxes productivity. It ignores the requirements that different sized businesses have. As an individual, I may require $2000 in the bank and $5000 in credit, and I am okay for most day to day things. As a small business, I may need $20,000 in the bank and $30,000 in credit to be okay in most situations. However, a larger business which employs, say, 100 people, may require $1 million cash on hand and the ability to access $5 million in credit. The liberal looks at an oil company during a good year, and begrudges them bonuses and profits; yet, gives little thought to that same oil company if they endure 5 bad years of no profits.

When it comes to this particular topic, I devoted one entire study to the concept of Private Property and the Christian (HTML) (PDF).

What is worse is, leftists take passages like those quoted above, and take that as some sort of a mandate for the state to step in to make certain that the rich “are paying their fair share.” Again, they see the state as the great equalizer, to make everyone more equal, according to some distorted socialist concept (which they are generally careful not to state clearly, because they know, most people in the United States do not believe that crap).

However, none of the verses which they quote, in or out of context, say anything about the government needing to come in and tax the rich heavily to make everyone equal. That is an ideological leap which they make, without ever providing any intermediary steps. They simply say, “Greed in wealthy people is bad” and then jump to, “The state must take this wealthy and redistribute it.” Again, most liberals are careful not to clearly state their end-game intentions. This is why Obama never reaffirmed his “spread the wealth around” statement. It is what he sincerely believes, but it just slipped out.

In having this philosophy, liberals both consider themselves and their government able to judge the greed which is in the hearts of wealthy men; and they tend to apply redistribution of wealth to people that they do not like: oil people, CEO’s, bankers and Wall Street types. You will never find far left people so attacking people in the entertainment industry or those who play some sport. So, somehow, the greedy wealthy just happen to do work that leftists dislike; and the non-greedy wealthy just happen to do the kind of work that those on the left approve of.

In the Bible, high taxation is never used as a recommended system by which greed is neutralized. When the believers in Jerusalem were experiencing great difficult times, they chose, from their own individual free will, to keep their goods in common (Acts 2:44); and they ended up being always in financial need (Rom. 15:26). However, there is never a mandatory requirement to give any set amount to the local church or to participate in sharing all things in common (Acts 5:3–4).

It cannot be emphasized enough that, the Bible does not anywhere propose a socialistic government or call for excessive taxation designed to equalize unequal outcomes nor does it even view unequal outcomes among individuals as some sort of evil (let alone, as an evil that the state ought to fix by the confiscation of wealth). None of this stuff is found in the Bible, and many liberals who know something about that Bible and who suggest that “Jesus is a liberal” are aware of this. If they could find the proverb which reads, “The just government heavily taxes the greedy rich man and gives his excess to the poor,” it would be posted on the front door of every IRS agency liberal organization in the land. Liberals would never object to a Bible verse like this being front and center on any federal building. It would be determined that this is not a violation of church and state, but simply a proclamation of the truth.

One of the greatest problems with the left is their inherent dishonesty. Our President knows that he must carefully phase what he says, so that he disguises what he believes in; or puts it into the most palatable language possible. He no longer uses the phrase, “Spreading the wealth around.” He wants to do it; he believes in it; but he will not say it. We have the dishonesty of trying to present Jesus as a liberal. A few passages here or there are taken out of context (for the most part), and then the writer then implies great leaps from these parables and narratives to socialism.

From The Urban Twist website, accessed April 6, 2014.

There is certainly a proper concept of the separation of church and state, which concept has been bastardized when brought into the 20^th century judicial system. Now, here, we have a bare minimum of Scripture on this particular topic. However, what this concept has been used for, is to remove all vestiges of religion from the function of the state. The posting of the Ten Commandments by a courtroom? Get it out of there. A large cross on public land? Get it out of there! How long will it be before the landscape at Arlington Cemetery is changed?

Historically, we have seen that any alliance between church and state is problematic. Whether the state steps in and decides to rule over matters of faith (in communism and socialism) or to establish a church (like the church of England) or whether church leaders somehow gains a powerful foothold in government; the results are almost always universally panned, by believers and unbelievers alike.

First of all, believing in Jesus Christ is a matter of free will. No one is born a Christian by government fiat; and no one can be forced to becoming a Christian. A state may require that all of its citizens embrace Christianity (or whatever), but that does not increased the number of Christians in a society.

The founders of the United States understood this, and devoted a portion of the 1^st Amendment to this, writing "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In the 1950's and 60's, a very activist court began to apply an odd interpretation to this clause. First of all, almost anyone can read that and understand what it says. The Congress will not write any laws with regards to the establishment of a religion. Historically, when the Bill of Rights were debated, no one used the phrase “separation of church and state.” This phrase came out of a letter which Thomas Jefferson wrote, which phrase was taken out of its context and applied to the 1^st Amendment. The idea of the separation of church and state which Jefferson believed in was, the entity of the church could not dictate policies to the government; and the government could not dictate policies to the church. It was a matter of keeping these 2 entities separate when it came to the application of power, but not with respect to expression. The same founding fathers who crafted the constitution and the Bill of Rights also met for church in federal buildings. These same profoundly religious men believed God to be guiding them and that God was part-Author of the constitution. In other words, this amendment was seen by our founding fathers as being very specific and very narrowly applied. Pastors could talk about politics from their pulpits and government people could publically talk about Jesus Christ. These things did not violate the 1^st amendment, nor did attending church in federal buildings. That simply made sense. The buildings were not being used on Sundays; there were many believers in government; so why not put the two together? The ACLU might be horrified today, but it was commonplace in the late 1700's and early 1800's.

For most of our lifetimes, we have completely lost the relationship of our founding fathers, Jesus Christ and the constitution; and have actually been taught lies about these things in our schools. I recall very vividly to being taught that our founders were mostly deists, who believed that God “wound up the world, like a watch; and then walked away from it, never to be seen again.” Quite frankly, I was not very interested in any kind of history of anything, and very few things do I recall. That is one of the few things which I was taught and that I believed. But, that idea about deism is just so much horse-pucky, yet it has been taught in our schools for decades. When it became apparently that the truth might be taught, then educational activists began to suggest that we begin teaching American history in the 1850's, simply because there was just too much information to teach (so they claimed). The truth is, their lies began to be exposed, so, instead of having children being exposed to the truth, they have decided that it would be better just to leave that stuff out.

When it comes to the separation between church and state, our courts of the1950's and 1960's also made a dramatic change in the concept of the church; instead of maintaining a separate status of the institutions of church and state, the idea of church was transformed into “any form of religious expression.” However, the state began, at the same time, to exercise more and more control over church bodies. So, a prayer to open up a school day or to open up a day in Congress is clearly not the establishment of a religion; however, it is a religious expression, and, therefore the courts have sought to silence such religious expressions, under the umbrella of the separation of church and state. However, at the same time, the state exercises greater and greater control over church institutions; determining whether or not to remove a church’s exemption because they talk about politics or determining what an army chaplain may or may not say. Our Congress and courts and various organizations authorized by Congress have taken it upon themselves to exercise some control over religious bodies and persons (violating half of the concept of separation of church and state), and, at the same time, attempting to ban public religious expression of public officials (which is, again, an attack upon the true concept of the separation of church and state).

There is nothing in the history of our founding to suggest that the founders were against politicians speaking of spiritual matters or publically praying or publically declaring a day of prayer. Google “Thanksgiving messages presidents” and see what comes up. Religious expression was to be unbridled—no matter who did the expressing. That is more in keeping with the 1^st amendment than is restricting state, county and federal agencies and individuals from enjoying free and unfettered religious expression.

Power wants more power; and that is what the state is doing—grabbing more power.

Let’s just imagine, for a moment, that Jesus really did tell the rich young ruler that he would really have treasure in heaven if he sold all of his goods and gave the proceeds to the poor. How many people on the left have done this? Film maker Michael Moore claims to be a good catholic and he is a strong advocate for the left, and he often quotes these verses. Has he sold all of his goods and given the proceeds to the poor? Of course not! Who on the left can you point to, who has sold all that they have and given that to the poor?

Secondly, there is no way to take this passage, and interpret it to mean, “The government is herein given the authority to come in, tax you excessively, and give that money to the poor (or to one of its pet projects).” There is no mental gyration by which this can be achieved, and yet people quote Matt. 19:21 to support liberalism.

Point in fact: studies have been made of liberal and conservative giving; and conservatives give more to humanitarian causes than do liberals. Seems like it was John Stossel who set up a salvation army representative in San Francisco and in Sioux Falls, ND, a relatively conservative, religious small town where the average salary was much, much lower. Where did these representatives get the most money? From Sioux Falls, the smaller town that was more religious, more conservative and poorer. The story is here.

Liberals like to act as if they are the ones who have the kind hearts and are generous, but generosity to them is to vote for someone who will tax the rich more and give these proceeds to whatever liberal programs the government sets up. Let me break this to you gently: that is not charity; that is not generosity; that is not kindness. That is legalized redistribution of wealth; something which would be illegal if we did it ourselves (took money away from person A to give it to person B).

I mentioned Michael Moore. You would think that, as a liberal, he would in favor of giving lots of his money to Uncle Sam. However, Moore, like many Hollywood people, sets up organizations through which he can funnel money and avoid paying taxes. If memory serves, if these organizations charitably give away just 4% of their income, they are tax-deductible.

Two of the other verses quoted above—Matt. 7:12 and 22:39—mean what they say they mean. They have absolutely nothing to do with setting up a communistic or socialistic society. They have absolutely nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth.

Let’s look at Luke 3:11b: “He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. And he who has food, let him do likewise.” First off, this verse cannot be seen as a socialistic verse, because of the context and what the verse itself says. Luke 3:10–11 And the people asked him, saying, “What shall we do then?” He answered and said to them, “He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. And he who has food, let him do likewise.” This is John the Baptizer speaking to those who have come to be baptized by him. In the previous verse, John had told the religious authorities that, “And now also the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire.” If John is telling the religious authorities of his time that God may cut them down and toss them into the fire for not bringing forth good works, the less-religious types became concerned for their own eternal destiny. John tells them charity. There is absolutely nothing in the text which suggests that socialism is what John is talking about. You, from your own free will, choose to share what you have with one another. You are not giving this to a government to redistribute; government is not requiring that you give in order for them to redistribute this. Furthermore, there were two future situations where this would be very applicable. Over the next 40 years, Roman authorities and the Jewish people would become more and more at odds with one another, which would send many Jews into abject poverty. This would culminate in the fifth stage of of national discipline for Israel, where, in a.d. 70, when Jerusalem would be put under siege by the Romans, and the Jews would be killed or deported. Also, a looming event was the Great Tribulation, which would be a time of 7 years when there would be great social upheaval (which is taught primarily in the book of Revelation, but there were a few passages in the Old Testament which taught this as well).

In any case, we will be faced, from time to time, which people who are really in need. Now, I don’t refer to street people, but there are those who will come into our lives, have real needs, and we, as believers in Jesus Christ, ought to be able to help them.

Is Jesus really calling for social programs to feed the poor here? Is He not, again, speaking of personal responsibility? Throughout the United States, there are evangelistic missions which first feed the poor and then give them the gospel. This is much more in keeping with what Jesus is saying here.

What has developed on the left over the past few decades has been public workers unions. These are people who work for the state and they collectively bargain for their wages and benefits. In many cases, their union dues are taken out of their check so that they never see these dues; these dues are given directly from the state to the union; and the union then donates a significant portion of these dues to Democratic party, which voted to allow the state to take said monies out of the worker’s paycheck. Also, when future collective bargaining sessions occur, the workers can get even a better deal (which means, more money to the union, which means, more money to the Democratic politicians). Now, where does this money ultimately come from? The taxpayer, who has almost no say in this matter. Now, let’s go back to what Jesus said: "When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just." (Luke 14:12–14). Throwing a banquet for your relatives and rich friends sounds a lot like the cozy relationship between Democrats and public unions. The only difference is, the taxpayers—who do not attend this banquet—are the ones who are footing the bill for it.

I have to go slightly off topic here for a moment. I have noticed that a several of these websites use the KJV. I guess they are unaware that the NKJV has been out for awhile?

Again, liberals take a passage like this and misapply it to such things as the Ten Commandments being displayed at the courtrooms of the land. Given that both Jews and Christians stand by the Ten Commandments, and that Muslims claim to believe in the Old Testament; having the Ten Commandments posted in some form does not establish a state religion. It simply recognizes the importance of objective law in the land preserves freedom.

What Jesus said was quite specific and very easy to understand. The religious hierarchy of that day, which was apostate, would often be seen praying aloud in public places, which made them seem very holy and religious in the eyes of others. Jesus is saying, that is the approbation that they want, and that is the approbation that they get; and that there is no divine blessing involved here. This does not mean that all public displays of religious expression are wrong. This does not mean that there ought not to be a public prayer to begin this or that event or organizational meeting; or that we ought to pray silently before a meal. It simply means that, when you do something for public approbation, and you receive that public approbation, then you have gotten what you wanted.

Let me give you a modern example. Have you ever seen a movie star have himself shown doing this or that good deed, being involved in this or that charity? Some of them certainly do this out of sincerity and they lend their face to the organization in order for that organization to get more money. However, some of them do this simply to be recognized and admired for their charity, and Jesus says, “They have their reward.” That is a modern application of this verse. If that celebrity is a believer in Jesus Christ and filled with the Spirit during their involvement with this charity, then there are eternal rewards. If not, then, “They have their reward.” The public approbation they desired is the reward for what they have done. For the unbeliever and for the believer out of fellowship, God simply does not figure into the equation.

Jesus prayed before meals; and He publically prayed when instituting the first Passover (Matt. 26:26–29). Therefore, one cannot understand this passage to mean that God does not want us to ever pray publically.

Now, what do liberals really want? They want to see as little religious expression as possible. They don’t want to see crosses, they don’t want to see the Ten Commandments, they don’t want the captain of the high school football team to make a public prayer (or to pray with hiws team), and they damn sure don’t want some public official to pray publically and end the prayer with, “In Jesus’ name, amen.”

From the NOSHA website; accessed April 6, 2014.

When you see movements to stop school children from singing Christmas carols, to require that a school have a winter solstice break rather than a Christmas vacation; when you see people trying to remove the Bible and Bible verses from the classroom and the Ten Commandments from being displayed near a courtroom, the people spearheading these movements are always liberals. Now, they might get a few conservatives and religious types on board to vote with them, but the thrust of these movements is initiated and led by liberals. Take away the ACLU and other activist liberals, and suddenly, few people are concerned about public religious expression. When I was in elementary school and we had Christmas pageants and sang Christmas hymns, no one batted an eye. When I became a teacher in Texas, and we teachers gathered together for a meal, often we prayed publically to think God for this meal. What I have observed in my lifetime is, the more God has been pushed out of the schools, the worse the schools have become. Society has tried to compensate by throwing tons of money at this problem, and yet, the schools become worse and worse. Whereas, at one time, I was about the worst disruption in school, and disciplined many times for it; now, many school campuses have a full-time policeman on campus, and sometimes more than one.

Therefore, no matter how holy many of these liberal Christians sound, one of their objectives is to remove all vestiges of Christianity from our society. They may quote Jesus out of context to support this or that concept, but they want to move society to a point where, we no longer acknowledge Jesus or look to Him (or the Bible) for guidance.

So, here is a tough question for liberals. I was a teacher for many years, and had various sayings by various people on my walls. Can we only have the sayings of secular people? If someone is religious, then we cannot put their words before our youth? What about our founding fathers? The said a lot of religious things. Should such things be banned from the classroom? Would the words of Jesus, quoted by liberals to support their view—could these be posted? How about, “I am the way, the truth and the life?” I know that would simply drive a liberal nuts, to find those words in a public classroom.

The Bible tends to be fairly black and white; there are so many instances where we hear the words good and bad, just and unjust in the Bible. Liberals would like for there to be less of that. They want us to consider situational ethics; if someone murders, we need to explore that person’s psyche and his environment. Therefore, passages like this are quoted. However, there is the actual background for these passages. We have the Old Testament, which is God’s Word. Along side the Old Testament, there was an oral tradition, which grew up along side of the Old Testament, and became authoritative—particularly during the time of Jesus. This oral tradition was later committed to writing in the MIshna and the Talmud. Jewish law put together 39 categories of forbidden activities; and the laws regarding the Sabbath were many. One of my favorites, which I heard in a Jewish history class is: if you are walking down the street on the Sabbath and you get mud splashed on you, you can allow the mud to dry, grab that portion of your clothing, and squeeze it one time, and you have not violated the Sabbath. This is not a law found in the Bible; this is a part of this oral tradition which grew up along side the Bible, which perverted the teaching of the Bible. So that there is no misunderstanding, this is not in the Bible; this is a man-made religious law.

Therefore, Jesus was not encouraging people to violate the laws found in the Bible; He was talking about their rules and regulations which they developed over hundreds of years, which are not found in the Bible. Again, do not forget that Jesus also said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matt. 5:17). These 3 passages, when taken together, favor (in that time) obedience to the Law of Moses. These same passages disparage following the traditions of men. This section should properly be entitled, “Strict Enforcement of Religious Traditions.” However, the person I took most of these opinions from entitled this “Strict Enforcement of Religious Laws” so that we are led to believe that Jesus was against strictly obeying the Mosaic Law. Again, this is liberal dishonesty.

Let’s look at the entire passage: Jesus, in speaking to His disciplines (see Matt. 5:1), said: “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:14–16). Now, do you recall an earlier passage that we studied? “But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Mat 6:7 "And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.”. (Matthew 6:6–7). Is Jesus contradicting Himself? Remember, this all occurs within the same sermon. Is He telling us that we ought to publically demonstrate our faith; and yet, hide it? Of course not! In the first instance, Jesus is telling His disciples not to hide their light (divine truth; their relationship to Jesus Christ) from the world. One could reasonably extend this to a nation like ours celebrating our founding fathers and their beliefs, which would mean, public references, prayers and monuments to the Lord of our Founding Fathers, Jesus Christ. That would be far easier to argue from these passages than the idea that we ought to hide all vestiges of Christianity. In the second passage, as already explained, some people do things for public recognition, and Jesus says, in this, they already have their reward. So, the key is not being secretive about your faith; the key is your motivation, the key to your spiritual life is your thinking. Putting these passages together is easily done, when they are correctly interpreted according to their context.

Bruce Maiman, who wrote the above, basically answers his own question. These works are to be performed individually, not necessarily for personal satisfaction, however, but just because they are right and might further the gospel. The reason we know that this is for individuals and not for government is, Jesus said these words to individuals; He did not say these things to leaders of governments (even though many rulers, like Pilate, were sympathetic to Jesus; and some, like Herod, were interested in meeting Jesus—Luke 23:8). Jesus could have gotten an audience with Pontius Pilate or with Herod probably at any time, and Jesus could have laid out what government should be doing; but He did not do this. Jesus spoke to men who had some authority (like the Centurion). Jesus did not append His remarks with, “Oh, and you know all the stuff I have been saying about helping out your neighbor...that really applies to the state—go back and relay that message to your superior.”

This is, in fact, the leap too far that all liberals take (all who try to teach that Jesus is a liberal). Jesus could have had a ministry to government officials, if He so chose to, but He did not. At no time did Jesus specifically give commands which are clearly understood to be commands given to governments. However, for the liberal, it is all about government and what the government ought to be doing for the people; or how the government ought to be restricting religious expression.

First of all, the context of this verse is, Jesus is assuring that He would be taken to the cross, where He would die for the sins of all mankind. This fact is ignored in its entirety on every left-wing website that touts Jesus as the first far-left revolutionary (not just in the context of this passage, but in general; Jesus as Savior is not found on any of the left-wing website I have gone to). Therefore, Who Jesus is and what God’s purpose for Him, is usually ignored by those who try to co-opt Jesus into their political philosophy. Secondly, we have already discussed that Jesus is not anti-military or anti-law enforcement, and have shown that He gave the highest commendation to the Roman centurion, who no doubt carried a sword and used it. However, when it comes to using the sword (or a gun) for a criminal assault, that sets up the criminal for prosecution and execution (which is not followed often enough in the United States).

Paul later writes that those in authority do not bear the sword in vain (Rom. 13:4). The sword would be used justly in military action, law enforcement and in execution.

Recall that, in another passage, Jesus told His disciples to buy a sword on another occasion (Luke 22:36). In fact, that is probably why Peter has a sword in the passage in question. So how can Jesus be anti-sword (gun) if he tells His Own disciples to purchase one?

It is undeniable that the early church in Jerusalem practiced a form of voluntary socialism. This fact cannot be denied. There were several reasons for this. First of all, believers were heavily persecuted by Jews and Romans alike. Jews who believed in Jesus Christ might see their businesses go under because some would no longer transact business with them (this is a favorite ploy of liberals today, to boycott this or that business in order to get their way). However, what should not be ignored is, this was a completely voluntary system. Ananias and his wife Sapphira both died the sin unto death because they represented their gift to the local church as if it were all the proceeds from the sale of a piece of land, when it was, in fact, not. In the midst of this incident, Peter emphasizes that private property was legitimate and it was not wrong for them to own private property. “While it remained [unsold], was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own authority? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.” (Acts 5:4). So, there was no requirement that Ananias and Sapphira sell this land, and there was no requirement for them to give any or all of their proceeds to the church in Jerusalem. The problem was, they dishonestly represented their gift as being the entire proceeds from their land when it wasn’t.

The book of Acts tells us about what occurred in the early church and it recorded portions of many amazing sermons delivered during that time period. However, we do not pick a chapter from Acts and simply copy what is done there. When was the last time 11 Apostles got together and elected a 12^th Apostle? 2000 years ago, in the first chapter of Acts. We go to the epistles for principles and practice, not to the Acts of the Apostles. Nowhere in the epistles do we have voluntary collectivism as a requirement, much less socialism.

Quite obviously, there are extreme circumstances, and these extreme circumstances require extreme measures. During the holocaust, many hid Jews in their homes and many helped Jews escape Germany and elsewhere because of the persecutions. When you live in a time period of extraordinary circumstances, there will be times that you need to alter your lifestyle or change how you do things. One month, you are living a normal life; the next month, you are hiding Jews or you are helping Jews to get out of a dangerous country. Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary actions.

The Christian Jews in the early Jerusalem church faced a great deal of persecution because of the hard-heartedness of the unbelieving Jews, so extraordinary measures were taken. Was this necessary? In some cases, yes. Should this be the guide for our churches today? In a period of great distress, possibly. During a Great Depression, there might be more sharing of material goods within your church. However, this does not mean that you need to, in some grand gesture, give all that you have. Peter makes this quite clear in Acts 5. How do you decide? Doctrine in your soul helps you to determine when you do what. There will be times and people who look to you for help; you have to make a decision as to who you can help and what the extent of this help ought to be (if any).

Now, I can almost guarantee you that, there will be a time in your life—possibly many times—when someone is going to ask you to part from your hard-earned money for whatever reason. That is a doctrinal call on your part. Let each man give according as he has determined in his heart [this is your making a decision based upon the doctrine in your thinking]; not grudgingly, or under compulsion; for God loves a correctly-motivated giver (2Cor. 9:7). Even though the context of this verse is giving to the believers in Jerusalem, it is certainly well-applied to church giving and to giving which occurs outside of the church.

Under any kind of a government, if you are a believer in Jesus Christ and you have money, then that means you have some responsibility to determine what to do with that money. This does not mean that you give it all away. Your first responsibility is to your family. If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially his family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel (1Tim. 5:8). This does not mean that you give them whatever they ask for. There was one time, in my family, that we saved for a vacation by working together to pick and sell the apricots from out trees. That was a form of family collectivism. I got an allowance besides that, but I had to work for it. That was my family providing for its own. I found out that, if I wanted more money than that (which I did; which nearly every kids wants) then I had to go out and work for it. That was capitalism and the glories of hard work (which, at that time, I did not like very much; but I liked the money that I earned).

And the Bible teaches that, if you are a young person, you provide for your elders when necessary. If any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to be godly to their own house, and give back to their forebears what is due them; for that is good and pleasing before God (1Tim. 5:4). This is honoring your mother and father (or, grandparents). Paul does not call for a collective to be organized at the church to handle this problem; Paul does not call for social security to be a government function. He calls upon a family to take care of its own, because that is pleasing before God.

Now, think back on the rich man who apparently did not honor his mother or father—do you see how that is related to 1Tim. 5:4? Do you see why Jesus asked him about this particular commandment and then demanded that he sell all that he had and give it to the poor? He had apparently already corban’ed his money—so Jesus is saying, “Take it all the way; give all your wealth away right now, and follow Me.”

I am not sure how exactly meekness is tied to the left, but some of those on the left think that it is. The work is actually the adjective praus (πραύ́ς) [pronounced prah-OOCE], which means, 1) mildness of disposition, gentleness of spirit, meekness. Thayer definition only. R. B. Thieme, Jr. defines this as being grace oriented. Strong’s #4239. The fundamental idea here is, this is a person who is teachable. If you are arrogant, you have your own opinion, and that is it. No amount of debate, example, or proof from the Bible will change your mind. When we are saved, we come from a variety of backgrounds; some of us were quite liberal when saved, some conservative, some had little or no interest or affiliation. However, rarely is a person saved whose concepts and norms line up with the Bible. We have to be teachable (meek) in order to shed that which is false. If we do not shed that which is false, we will not grow spiritually. All believers are saved forever. You can be the stupidest believer on planet earth, whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to Bible doctrine, but if you have believed in Jesus Christ, you are saved forever. However, those who will inherit the earth are those who are teachable. Those who will have a real stake in the earth—as God will transform it—are those who are teachable.

There is also the consideration as to whom Jesus was speaking here and how it is to be interpreted according to the dispensation that He was in; however, there is no reason why we need to dig much deeper in order to refute this idea that somehow, meekness is equivalent to liberalism.

As has already been mentioned, most Communist and socialist regimes are simply totalitarian governments which kill hundreds of thousands (and millions) of people in order to institute socialism. How can that be seen as meek?

Dozens of leftist groups supported a flotilla which was sent to the Gaza Strip awhile ago, and Jewish authorities who were going to check the ship for weapons were beaten when they came on board. I am not sure how that qualifies as meek.

In the year that I write this, there have been union demonstrations all over the United States in response to collective bargaining being eliminated or diminished in power. These leftist demonstrators have been loud, belligerent and very destructive, causes hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to the Wisconsin capitol of Madison. I don’t quite get how this is an example of meekness.

I suppose, somehow, meekness is supposed to be conflated with being a pacifist, but in the examples given above, calling any of these confrontations examples of pacifism is really stretching the concept of pacifism as employed by Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. Furthermore, as has been already clearly taught, thinking that the Bible teaches pacifism at all costs is simply wrong. The Bible has a list of the greatest warriors under David, but no list of the greatest pacifists. The occupation of the military is exalted in the Bible; it is never degraded. And Jesus paid the highest compliment to a military man, who He did not rebuke for being a military man. All of these things have already been covered.

It is quite simple: the Bible does not teach pacifism and, even if it did, liberals only employ pacifism as a tool; when violence works, they use violence instead. The idea is, the end justifies the means. Therefore, a communist leader can kill millions simply because they do not agree with communist doctrine; and many liberals have no problem with this.

Summation: To me, it is always a wonderment that people want to have Jesus on their side. I don’t run into too many websites where someone argues, “Confucius is a liberal” or “Mohammed was a true conservative.” However, people seem to be overly concerned with our Lord’s political affiliation. What is most important to understand about Jesus Christ is, He has come to save that which is lost. He said, “I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6). He died for you sins and you are saved by placing your faith in Him. No matter what you think about politics, being a conservative or being a liberal is not the issue. The issue is Jesus Christ, the only way to God.

The Bible and Socialism

It is not difficult to simply define socialism and capitalism:

In socialism, the state owns the land and the means of production.

Communism, by the way, is a theoretical system, where socialism naturally morphs into communism, in which the state simply disappears because there is no longer a need for it. This has never occurred. All communist and all socialist governments are socialistic in nature.

In capitalism, individuals own the land and the means of production. Joint ventures by the government and business is not capitalism.

In socialism, there is a top down control of the economy.

In capitalism, there is a bottom up control of the economy. Quite obviously, some businesses intermingle with government, and get special tax breaks, and this is not pure capitalism.

Liberation theology stresses a collective salvation. President Barack Obama has, on many occasions, made reference to a collective salvation as a part of what he believes in. When government functions in accordance with liberation theology, then justice (their concept of it) is collective and coerced.

Christianity focuses on the person of Jesus Christ, and what He did for us on the cross. We believe our response to the cross to be individual and uncoerced.

It ought to be clear to any knowledgeable person that, there is no system which is 100% socialistic or capitalistic. Furthermore, without some kind of order, which is a matter of the authority of the state, true capitalism cannot exist. That is, there is no such thing as a society which is 100% capitalistic, because there must be some government to keep the society orderly and controlled. There must be a set of laws applied to the individuals in society and to the various economic entities in a society.

Because power is so seductive, under any kind of system, there will be those who desire this power, whether they be political figures or the captains of industry. We see this on occasion when someone on the left, like Maxine Waters, will admit that she wants to take over the oil industry. We saw this in the economic meltdown of late when mortgage brokers and wall street investors did things which, although morally questionable, they were able to get away with (which was a result of government, in the form of FNMA or FHLMC, interfering with the market ).

Because of the sin nature that we all have, our government was originally set up in such a way as to discourage absolute control by the government over its citizens. It saw private enterprise (which includes the private control of land and businesses) and the church as entities in which power could also be found. In fact, the idea was for government’s power to be limited (which is the whole idea behind the Bill of Rights).

God’s plan, for over a millennium, was centered on the nation Israel. Therefore, we ought to be able to find capitalism or socialism as the model for the nation Israel under God. What happened? God led the Jews into the Land of Promise; they took the land, and then the land was divided up between individual owners. That is what the middle third of the book of Joshua is all about. Dividing up the land between the various families. Not only did God promise Abraham on many occasions that He would give this land to Abraham’s descendants, but this was fulfilled literally and in part when Israel took this land. The land, which was the means of production, was not in the hands of the state; it was owned by the people—by individuals and families. Women had property rights as well. There was no hierarchy set up to determine which crops would be planted or where.

There were safeguards built into the system, so that no one family could become too powerful and so that no person could be oppressed for too long a period of time. Land reverted back to the families which originally possessed it every 50 years; and Israelite slaves were manumitted every 7 years.

When it comes to socialism, many like to point to the book of Acts where the early Christians in the church of Jerusalem held all things in common (Acts 2:44 4:32). The book of Acts is all about what the early church did, right and wrong. For instance, Paul offered up a sacrifice in order to gain a hearing with the Jews, went through the purification rites and offerings were offered up (Acts 21:26). This was flat out wrong for Paul to do and the people of Jerusalem were enraged. So, simply because something occurs in the book of Acts, we cannot assume that is our model for the Christian church today (the early Apostles also elected a 12^th Apostle, which was also wrong—Acts 1). What we look for is this: does Paul, Peter, James or John take something found in Acts and institutionalize it with doctrinal mandates in their epistles? Paul mandates the renovation of our thinking in Rom. 12:1–2; but nowhere does he mandate some sort of private socialism, where all of our goods are held in common. This occurred in the church in Jerusalem, where the church suffered tremendous persecution. Therefore, among themselves, they determined that this was the best course of action (that does not mean that it was). In several places in the epistles, we find Paul asking for there to be giving to the Jerusalem church. So, it is clear that they did not prosper in their privatized socialism.

Let’s say for a moment that I grant you that, what this church in Jerusalem did was the best thing for them. Note that this is not socialism as we know it. This is more like a commune, where people choose of their own free will to become a part of the commune. True socialism is imposed; this was a voluntary socialism which involved a small segment of society. In any case, neither a command to enter into a private socialism or a state-wide socialism can be found in the epistles of the New Testament.

It ought to be obvious that, we live in a partially socialized country. We began as a country based upon free enterprise and now we have social security, medicare and medicaid. Does this mean we ought to revolt against our government? Does this mean we ought to refuse to pay our taxes? Does this mean we ought to cheat on our taxes in order to keep back the money which would go to pay for those things? Of course not! (for all 3 questions). We pay the taxes which are due, whether they are just or unjust in our own thinking. We function within the government wherein we are born. The most radical choice is to do what Rahab the prostitute did, where she aligned herself with the Jews against her own people. When she made this choice, she did not hedge her bets, and the basis for it was that the Jews were God’s people taking the land that God gave them. She chose to believe in and trust that God. If you think another country is more aligned with God, then that is a choice you need to consider. However, note that this is one example in the Bible; and that we do not have a plethora of examples of those who turn against their country. And no believer could look to any Communist government and determine that to be a more righteous government than the United States. That kind of thinking means you do not have enough doctrine to come in out of the rain. My short-term recommendation to you, while getting doctrine in your soul, is to keep your mouth closed and head down when going outside.

At this point in time (I write in 2011), we live in a representative republic and our votes and our opinions matter in steering this country. Therefore, a believer ought to know what he believes; he ought to have a set of doctrinal principles which are a foundation for his opinions, and then vote according to those principles. This does not mean that your life ought to be given over to politics. We have only so many hours on this earth, and our priorities ought to be Bible doctrine, our own family, and work. Because spiritual maturity is far more important than who we vote for, that should be the goal of every believer in Jesus Christ. The more believers with doctrine there are, the greater our country will be.

Addendum

What follows is a few additional comments, along with some related materials to this study, which are primarily secular references.

It would be difficult to list the various types of people who buy into liberalism. Some are extremely dishonest, and attempt to support what they believe with the Bible, even though, truth be told, they could care less about the Bible. It is simply used as a tool to convert others.

I have argued with liberals about certain topics, and it is clear that they took positions which they themselves knew to be false, but it furthered their argument. Argue with a homosexual about the sinfulness of homosexual activity, and he will say, “But this is the way that God made me.” He may or may not believe in God, but he is probably aware of studies which have been done of identical twins which clearly indicates that (1) there is a genetic factor in homosexuality but (2) it is not strictly determinative (the same can be said to be true about alcoholism and drug addiction). I have debated with such individuals who, time and time again, assert how this is just how they are from the earliest age; and yet, nearly all are aware of the twins study.

There are some liberals I have encountered where it is hard to tell. They are able to hold contradictory and even nonsensical views in their minds. Are they able to see this? I have no idea. I recall an interview that Bill O’Reilly did with Whoopie Goldberg, and, when pointing out some flaws or contradictions in her thinking, Whoopie said (and this is not an exact quote): “Look, Bill, this his how I feel. What is feel is what I believe.”

However, there are sincere liberals, and just as the god of this world blinds man from the gospel (2Cor. 4:4), he blinds them to the truths of divine establishment as well (The Laws of Divine Establishment are designed for believer and unbeliever alike—HTML PDF). Satan has 2 general strategies: to keep the unbeliever away from the gospel in any way possible (and, in many countries, proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ is illegal) and to neutralize the young believer in any way possible. The latter is accomplished in a myriad of ways, which can include an inordinate amount of time spent in political involvement to the exclusion of spiritual growth; false systems of government promoted by Bible verses taken out of context; sin, degeneracy, evil and human good.

It ought to be clear that, when a person lacks spiritual focus, either because they do not believe in Jesus Christ or they have a stunted spiritual growth, then they will look to other places to be saved. It is not unusual for unbelievers and immature believers to gravitate toward a charismatic leader who is appealing. One should not be surprised when these types then look to the government to meet their needs and desires, rather than to God. However, let us recall the words of God: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from Jehovah.” (Jer. 17:5b)

The poverty chart taken from:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/TJWxZhSMl4I/AAAAAAAAJWg/yEPClygRbiA/s1600/census+2010b.png