by Al Benson Jr.
It seems that at least once every decade some odd pontificator arises, (usually on the left) who claims that Jesus the Christ was really some kind of socialist revolutionary. I first heard about this sort of thing in the early 1970s, when various left-wingers were running around spouting that "Jesus was a revolutionary." Their public tirades didn't last too long and pretty much died down, except among some Evangelical Christians who picked up on it and started giving out sermons on how revolutionary Jesus was. They didn't mean it in the same vein that the leftists did, but still, it was a rather poor choice of words. I think they hoped to gain a hearing among the liberal elements by their use of this slogan. It didn't work. The left wanted a radical, leftist, bomb-throwing Jesus who loved all the poor, hated all the rich, and was down on all private property, and you simply cannot fit the Son of God into that mold.
But one thing we must remember about the left, and we seem to forget this to our own hurt, is that they never quit. If something doesn't work now, they'll lay it aside for a bit until things cool off and then come back with it from a little different slant. And because ordinary folks don't think like leftists they seldom catch on. Watch the current administration as they lay aside something they haven't been able to foist off on the public--only to pick it up again at a later date, in a slightly different form once public indignation has cooled down.
The present health care debate comes to mind. While, at the vast majority of town meetings around the country, most folks have quite plainly told their elected representatives that they don't want them to support Obama's "health care" monstrosity, some are just not listening. Some have even cancelled their town meetings so they don't have to listen.
Columnist Peter Heck, writing on
http://www.onenewsnow.com on September 1, noted: "At a recent Congressional town hall meeting I attended, I was astounded by the positions being taken by the outnumbered group of advocates for socializing American medicine...But more bizarre than that was a sign that had been placed on a pro-ObamaCare table near the front of the stage. It simply read: 'Jesus would vote yes'." Really? Contrary to leftist propaganda, I really think not. Mr. Heck then noted: "Liberal talker Ed Schultz calling socializing healthcare a 'moral obligation' and said Christian ministers 'should be leading their congregations to support the president on healthcare reform'." Mr. Schultz, whatever happened to your sacred "constitutional separation of church and state"? You and your liberal/leftist pals claim you don't want "politics in the pulpit." Of course discerning people realize that leftist politics are somehow exempt from the prohibition. What you really want is leftism in the pulpit, with no competition from anywhere, especially the Holy Scriptures.
Mr. Heck observed that the founder of Obamunism, himself, even got into the act. He told a batch of clergymen on a conference call that his healthcare program accomplishes the "...core moral and ethical obligation that we look out for one another...that I am my brother's keeper, my sister's keeper." Heck then told us that Obama "went so far as to suggest those who resist his plans are 'bearing false witness' against him. Thou shalt not oppose thy Obama." Talk about a messiah complex! So, in other words, all who dare to speak out against Obama's rank socialism are now "bearing false witness." Sorry, folks, but that perversion of Scripture won't fly. Save it for the Bull-thrower's Hour.
The Bible does tell us to care for our brothers in need and to help those less fortunate than us wherever we are able to do so. But this is a personal, and a church responsibility, for individuals and congregations. It is not a corporate responsibility that we simply hand over to the federal government to administer.
Let the churches and other charitable institutions do whatever they can to alleviate suffering and leave the feds out of it. Maybe if their tax rates were a little lower folks could afford more charity. Mr. Heck noted that: "...the ministry of Christ was undeniably focused on the individual--our personal responsibilities, not the duties of civil government. To take those personal commands and extrapolate outward until you encompass a government mandate is the height of irresponsibility and demonstrates contempt for the sanctity of scripture." I would agree, but then the left has nothing but contempt for the sanctity of Scripture to begin with. Their icon, Marx, claimed that religion was the "opiate of the people."
Nowhere does Holy Scripture tell us to delegate to any national government the handing out of charity and mercy. Years ago a pastor I knew back east noted that when Christians voluntarily help others it is Christian charity. When the government, through compulsion, forces them to do it, then it becomes communism. True Christian faith and communism are never compatible.
The left hates property rights, and yet, property rights are biblical, and are, therefore, human rights, and no government should have the power to coerce people to take care of others. At that point it becomes redistribution of the wealth (Marxism). If you care to check out a few scriptural references to property rights, Acts 5:4 is one good example of the right of private property. Exodus 20:17 is another good example. First Kings 21:2,3 is yet another example. In this instance, Naboth could refuse even the king when it came to his property. So the federal government does not have the right to take what is yours and give it to someone else. They do it all the time, but they do not have the right to. Jesus, when He fed the 5,000, did so to demonstrate His Divinity as well as His compassion to them. He didn't do it because there was some magical government mandate to "feed the poor and downtrodden."
Obviously, the Obamunist health care package is not doing well out here in flyover country and so the leftists promoting it are grabbing at straws to try to salvage it. If they can misuse Jesus' name in support of it, they might sway some who have no discernment. If they can invoke the name of the recently-departed Senator Kennedy (pass it for Ted's sake) then they might sway others with no common sense. They are prepared to do whatever it takes to ram this down our throats. I have a hunch Mr. Obama/Sotero may be in big trouble with his handlers if he doesn't manage to get this socialst legislation passed. So let's see what verbal gymnastics its promoters will seek to baffle the public with from here on out.