On the one hand you will find people saying Jesus would have opposed the Occupy Movement like Tony Perkins, the President of the Family Research Council (see “Jesus was a free marketer, not an Occupier”). Apparently, Jesus supported free market capitalism even before it existed. At least that is Perkins argument because in one of Jesus parables he has a servants earning profits on money given to them by their master. Perkins doesn’t seem to mind the master-slave dynamic. As Scot McKnight notes (see “Occupy Hermeneutics”), this is one of the dangers of “biblicism”.
Often this crowd can be found laughing at people who oppose abuse by corporations. They find passages of Scripture that seem to support staying contently in your place in society as if Christianity advocates some form of caste system. Another approach is an under-realized eschatology wherein all “change” in this age is not worth pursuing. There is no hope for good to prevail until Jesus establishes his Kingdom on earth. If we oppose violence we are trying to “establish” the Kingdom of God. If we oppose greed we are trying to “establish” the Kingdom of God. Often this comes from people who are quite comfortable with the current dynamics of this world. This allows them to ignore Jesus’ Kingdom activities which challenged the systems of the world and that he expected his disciples to continually reenact.
On the other hand you will find the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. He says Jesus would have supported the Occupy Movement (see “Rowan Williams Says Jesus Would Be Siding With the Occupy Movement”). The Jesus of the Gospels is closer to Williams’ Jesus than Perkins’, but I have two areas of contention with the idea that Jesus would be part of the Occupy Movement.
First, I don’t like when I hear anyone say that Jesus would be part of their movement. If Jesus were physically present we’d either be for him or against him. He would culminate the rule of God perfectly and his solutions would be beyond our own. Even at his first advent Jesus’ mission was his own (or we may say it was “God the Father’s”). At most we can say Jesus stood in continuation with the movement of John the Baptist. Otherwise, Jesus is the figurehead of his own movement. It is not about Jesus being in line with us. It is about our need to be in line with him.
Second, as we struggle to represent Jesus’ Kingdom here on earth we will always fall short. I respect Christians who participate in the Occupy Movement, but there is no doubt that Occupy has imperfections. If a disciple feels that their Lord has called them to witness unto him within the Occupy Movement that is one thing. To equate all the actions and goals of the Occupy Movement with the ideals of the Kingdom of God is an error. It may be just me, but Jesus is less concerned with the “American Dream” or the ideals of capitalism than he is with the real 99% of this planet who suffer far worse than the poorest of our citizens.
This does not mean that I don’t want to see equality in the United States. As part of our experiment in democracy this is something I seek. It is part of what it means to be an American who affirms “all men were created equal”. Yet we should not convalute our ideals with those of the Kingdom of God.
Where we find crossover we find our need to care for the poor, the physically impaired, the widow, the orphan, the elderly, and anyone our society deems “the least of these”. This doesn’t make Jesus a Marxist or even of socialist. Again, that would make Jesus fit in our system. We need to avoid minimizing Jesus into a set of principles oddly similar to our own (much like Jesus’ temple cleansing has been used as a parallel for anti-Wall Street demonstrations). I don’t know what the response is to a government that seems to make it more and more difficult on the least of these, but I think it is somewhere between challenging the State and acting as part of the solution ourselves. Often it is the second half of that equation that is far more difficult.
For my brothers and sisters who feel that their calling as Christians demands that they align with the Republicans or the Democrats, the Tea Party or the Occupy Movement, or whatever parties or systems your country uses, I pray for you in your endeavor. If you are seeking to represent Christ well then I hope you fulfill your calling. Let us not equate our personal callings as representatives of Christ with Christ’s agenda itself though. There is always some nuance wherein our fallibility distracts us from Christ’s mission. We can only seek to be in-tune with the Spirit as we await the day when Christ makes all our efforts into something more beautiful than we could construct on our own.
the archives near Emmaus 
Just as Jesus aligned closer to certain groups on certain points (for example, the school of Hillel on marriage and divorce, or the Pharisees on the resurrection), I think Jesus would align with certain aspects of the Occupy movement, although I’m terribly out of the loops to know exactly which ones. This doesn’t mean, however, that Jesus would actually be part of this group or that group.
@JohnDave: Exactly! Jesus is the one who validates the affirmations of any given movement. This is different that the assumption that Jesus would align with the movement as a whole. Jesus validates the Pharisees’ views of resurrection without being a Pharisee and Hillel’s view of marriage without enrolling in his “school”. Likewise, Occupy is validated where their views align with Jesus and repudiated where they do not.
I appreciate the warning not to “box” Jesus into any preconceived system, but i’d also hate to see that lead to political neutrality (i.e., sloth).
Just to say I read this post and found at the bottom an advert from the bank Lloyd’s TSB.
A good, and balanced perspective, Brian. With you, I solidly oppose the hijacking of Jesus to be used as ralliying cry, a mascot, or a flagpole to hang our politics from. But, as you’ve pointed out, where Occupy’s shifting of the public will aligns with the gospel of the Kingdom, we should be there, humble and vocal, to work for the fruit of Christ’s kingdom – even with those who may not share our branches, roots, or soil.
Have you read my posts on Brueggeman’s Occupy perspective, or Occupy as a post-political movement? (Available here: http://sparksandashes.com/?s=occupy)
If Jesus were to comment on the Occupy movement, I suspect his wisdom would cut right through the commentaries we’ve seen. He would never become part of a movement because he was a movement in himself. That movement has had a longer history than the Occupy one ever will. In the same way the Church has every right to align itself with (elements of) protests and movements that reflect Jesus’ principles, but the Church can never let these have any say over its beliefs and actions.
@Chris: Indeed, neutrality is not an option either.
@Andy: Ironic!
@Paul: Thank you! I haven’t read your post yet, but now that I’ve been notified I will head on over.
@G&P: Well said.
Brian,
Great article. I believe it was Andrew Carnegie who said that a “man should pursue wealth so that he can help the poor”. I feel that their anger towards corporations that receive TARP funds and tax payer bailouts are rightful. However, one thing worth noting is that there seems to be an anger towards rich people; even those that have legitimately earned profits and I think Jesus would be against this. Additionally, I think Jesus would be against both forms of welfare: corporate welfare (Republicans and many Conservatives tend to be for this) and individual welfare (the Democrats). I cannot help but realize that the Occupiers would respond to my claim with “what about those who are mentally ill, jobless, etc.? My response is benevolence and virtuous giving without obligation (taxation). That would mean the church would have to step up then.
@Jonathan: It is difficult to know what Jesus would think of something like welfare. The Jewish tradition advocated for the poor by asking people to leave the edges of their fields. Jesus and his disciples seemed to take advantage of this themselves. When Jesus meets the rich young rule he tells him that to follow him demands he sells everything and gives it to the poor, yet the Gospel of John shows us people like Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who were part of the Jewish elite who do not seem to have had to face the same demands from Jesus.
When Jesus establishes his Kingdom it will move beyond all our futile attempts. In the meantime, you are correct that personal benevolence is the first and most important step.
Brian,
I agree that it is hard to know exactly what he would have advocated for. As for the Jewish tradition of advocating for the poor, I absolutely agree with you and feel that as Christians we need to carry that tradition and advocate for the poor. This should define us. However, like the rich young ruler, we all have a choice to follow or not follow God’s demands. I feel that taxation does not give people choices and in my opinion is not virtuous. In the 17th century before we had social security and other programs which are financially insolvent (we can save the good stewardship talk for another day), Americans got together willingly to rebuild their neighbor’s house if it for instance got destroyed by a flood or fire. Charitable giving was more rampant. America was also a lot more communal and had a feel for who the needy were in their society. One writer (whose name I forgot) states that government programs have given poor people more anonymity and made them “nameless” and faceless. They are a number or cog in a machine. Again, in order to give a name and voice to these poor, the church would need to step up. I say let’s get them out of this cog. Let’s rehabilitate them physically, spiritually, emotionally, etc.
Side note: an article was recently written that the average person in the 99% movement live in a house worth about 400k and the renters average rent is 2k/month. This goes to show that the poor in America are not like the poor in other countries. I have seen this in my travels also. Denush D’ Souza comment about an Indian immigrant wanting to come to that states emulates how blessed even our poor are: “I want to go to America because it is the only place in the world where their poor people are fat”.
Keep posting more articles like this! Have a good day.
@Jonathan: You are absolutely correct that we need to rehumanize the process of helping people in need. It does seem like it is all too easy for us to assume that it is the job of the State to care for “them” when “they” need it. We have absolved ourselves of hands-on responsibility.
I am a bit concerned about what that may mean for whole neighborhoods that are impoverished. It is one thing for the neighborhood to come together to rebuilt a burnt down garage if the neighborhood as a whole is doing well, but I can think of many neighborhoods across the nation where very few are doing well. I wonder what less involvement from the government would mean for them?
Most of America’s “poor” are not poor on a global scale. Often this means they lack opportunity at the “American Dream”. This concept in itself is problematic. I love to rebuke it though I sense entitlement to the opportunities it promises.
@Brian
As for whole neighborhoods that are impoverished if we look at the Depression era, subsidies and welfare prolonged poverty and ran the deficit up. People are capable of creating opportunities as we have seen in history. Those that cannot create opportunities due to legitimate sickness or mental illness, let the church take care of them. What an opportunity to show God’s love.
Another great case study are the American Indian reserves that receive welfare. Simply, we are creating problems with handouts. I agree to disagree with you. These are just the conclusions I have come to with what I have read and studied. Have a good day bro.
I don’t see that the OWS excludes the poor of the world. The people who can afford to drop whatever they are doing and participate full time in social protest are just going to be relatively privileged. If the point is that because they are privileged, they should stand out of the way while the even more privileged pile up ever more privilege … well, that doesn’t make much sense.
Paul said everyone should work in order to have something to share with those in need. I think it’s OK to be rich as long as riches are a servant and not a master; that’s the point of telling the young ruler he needs to free himself.
At the same time Paul says that one should become rich by working with his hands, by creating real value. Probably that excludes investing in hedge funds, arbitraging, and the like.
@Jonathan: I’m not disagreeing with you, per se. All I’m doing is asking questions to make sure that our ideas take into account many variables.
@Marshall: I think many are reacting against the image that some OWS participants portray of themselves. They do not come across as “I am doing well myself, but I stand with those who are not.” Many act as if they are the ones who are struggling the most. This is true of some, but I am sure you can see where for others it seems like they are less than forthright about their economic well-being.
Brian, your points are taken well.
Marshall, not sure if you are referring to my posts. If so, I think you are reading too much in to my responses. Anyone who wants to protests should. Like Bryan said, I do take issue with how many (not all) portray themselves. I also, do not think they should have to stay out of the way. They are free to protests. I just think it is ironic that many of them are well to do and make themselves to be the less fortunate. I do believe there are many people that are genuinely poor and frustrated with the corporatism. I empathize with them. Your points are well taken though.
Wonderful post, Brian! I’m convinced that if the OWS movement truly understood the claims of Jesus, and the certainty of His Kingdom’s present AND future reality–they would become His worshipers, as following Him is the best way to participate in a true solution to the evils they formed in order to protest. (Of course, this assumes a level of sincerity on their part.)
On the other hand, if the Wall Street folks (meaning, Big Business, Inept Government, 1%-ters, etc.) truly understood the certainty of His present power and future judgement–they would change their ways, policies, etc., and (hopefully) become His repentant followers. The only way either group can possible gain such a knowledge of Him is for His followers today to continuously speak of Him as they go about copying His love for, and identification with, the poor, dispossessed, marginalized, needy, young, old, sick, rich, fallen…. While this includes our corporate actions (protesting, advocating, organizing, conferencing, etc.), I can’t but help to think the individualized application of the character of Christ, delivered in the form of behavior and word through the sole believer–will have the greatest impact in the long run. I appreciated that you made that point in your entry.
@Ken: I agree. When we come to know Jesus it changes us from seeking to define Jesus according to our agenda to trying to conform to his. This leads us to worship in a variety of ways. Some forms of our active worship may result in corporate actions like you mentioned while others force us to reconsider our individual actions. We cannot forget the latter for the former doesn’t matter if we are not seeking to be personal disciples of Jesus.
(BTW, it’s a “caste” system, not a “cast.”)
If you dropped Jesus of 2000 years into today’s world, I don’t think he would be a liberal or conservative. The economies and political systems of then and now are so different that there is no way you could compare them.
Example: Early Christians accepted the fact that they could be executed by the Romans without cause. I’m sure they didn’t like it, but it probably never dawned on them to oppose the idea. Jesus didn’t condemn the Romans for it. Does that mean Jesus would be OK with allowing US presidents to execute people on a whim?
What would Jesus think of securitization? The financial crisis that has led to OWS was caused in large part because financial institutions didn’t have enough capital to support losing trades of derivatives backed by asset-backed securities. How do we glean a biblical view on that?
But I think the answer to the question ultimately involves whether you are talking about dropping the Jesus of history into today versus Jesus being born into modern society. The Jesus of history would not have any ideology matching today’s categories. A modern Jesus born 30 years ago would be completely different in outlook. I think he would care more about the poor than hedge fund managers, but it’s impossible to say.
@bond: Thank you for catching the typo. I agree, it is almost impossible to make a direct transfer of the historical Jesus into the contemporary scene.