What would Jesus do in Tacoma?

A parable, of sorts, on how Jesus the good Samaritan would respond to real situations happening in Tacoma.
by Simon Moon
Jul 24, 2008

This is not a bumper sticker. This is not a silicone bracelet. This won’t fit on a T-shirt or a lanyard.

This isn’t a prescription or a sermon either. Asking what Jesus would do, literally, in relation to everyday, 21st-century human affairs is a silly path to take. The great modern shibboleth of modern Christianity — WWJD? — can’t realistically ask us to aspire to Jesushood, nor can it honestly imply that the life of Jesus should be reflected in the life of every modern citizen.

When it comes down to it, this is a parable of sorts. Strictly defined, a parable is a story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a lesson or provides perspective. I asked a couple of local authorities, and read several books for safety’s sake, how Jesus would respond to real situations occurring in Tacoma. There were several questions, from which emerged two core themes — Jesus the good Samaritan and man of solidarity with the outcast, and Jesus the prophet of protest against the powerful and rich.

As journalist and prolific writer on the subject of holiness, G.K. Chesterson points out, “A great man knows he is not God, and the greater he is, the better he knows it.”

I consulted people who spend a lot of time exploring the life of Jesus and his relationships with the economy and societies of his time. The questions asked were chosen carefully. They are questions that reflect some things that Jesus would likely have been interested in while he traveled through Galilee, which comprises the northern portion of Israel.

 Renowned scholar and Pacific Lutheran University professor Douglas Oakman limited his comments to what he referred to as “HJ” — Historical Jesus: Jesus among men and women; Jesus in the world, as we are. The bulk of the canonical gospels — the big four — tell stories of Jesus traveling among people, deeply involved in the lives of everyday folk.

Whether you are a believer or not, Jesus was a splendid example of an active citizen.

“I have a historical conception about Jesus — a synthesis of many years of study — that is independent to a degree of all gospel presentations and that does not simply imagine him as some kind of religious pietist wandering around always trying to help people,” says Oakman. “This depiction strikes me as a stereotype from the Jesus traditions. What I do imagine is that Jesus loved life, was courageous and compassionate, knew the plight of ordinary people, had deep concerns about the conditions under which people had to live, and saw deeply into the social and spiritual mechanisms that enhanced or deformed life. He seems to have been a very good networker, with many friends from all walks, and to have enjoyed a good dinner. Jesus held a conviction that ultimate reality is unconditionally gracious.”

That’s the Jesus we’re talking about.

I hope these themes, and the answers to questions about what Jesus might do, offer perspectives that might not otherwise arise in the course of everyday conversation.

Here we go.

Jesus, the man of solidarity with the outcast?

Questions:

1. At a weekend event, among tourists and residents, Jesus encounters a woman slumped over, sitting at the top of stairs at Tollefson Plaza. She is unkempt, elderly and smells like whiskey. How would Jesus approach this woman?

2. Jesus is approached by a young man with red eyes, dirty clothes and a sign that reads “Please help, need food.” How would Jesus respond to the man?

Among the many labels affixed to Historical Jesus is that of the good Samaritan. Jesus spent most of his time hanging out with the lowest of the low — prostitutes, fishermen, the diseased, and the outcast. Jesus had a lower-class upbringing, the son of cabinetmaker, which was fairly marginal according to the writings of Gary Willis, a best-selling author, scholar and explorer of the life and meaning of the life of Jesus. Jesus didn’t just favor the homeless. Jesus was homeless for the majority of his life. According to Willis, Jesus was alternatively referred to by religious leaders of his time as an agent of the devil, a consorter with loose women, a promoter of immorality, a glutton and a drunkard, and generally preferred the company of the “less-than respectable,” Willis contends.

In the case of the woman on the stairs and the man with telltale red eyes, Oakman contends that Jesus would have likely engaged, asked about their respective situations, and might have offered immediate assistance. He might have asked these troubled people to join his growing network of followers in hopes that they would seek a better life.

“Historical Jesus would be sympathetic and gracious, but not naïve,” says Oakman. “He would seek ‘real help,’ not temporary mitigation.

“At first, he might have some measure of pleasant surprise that there were people there, making it possible for this woman to be seen,” says Paul Sparks, life coach and community organizer. “He would have been happy that she actually had the potential to meet another human who could witness her plight.”

Sparks emphasizes that Jesus’ first response would be compassion rather than revulsion.

Oakman emphasizes that Jesus did not offer charity simply and compulsively. Nor was Jesus a social worker with a ready treatment plan for each person he encountered. He was not an easy mark. Jesus sought long-term solutions for the people he engaged and took an active role in helping the less fortunate. He refers to Jesus as a broker — a mediator between the haves and have-nots.

“(Distinguished professor of classics and religion at the University of Massachusetts, Boston) Dick Horsely wrote that Jesus was about restoring village culture,” says Oakman. “I think Jesus has gone beyond the village — his experience is much wider. Between members of the village, he sees connections. The parable tradition shows a wide range of social experience and an acute mind that’s asking what is going on here and how should we respond to the situation.”

Sparks also contends that Jesus was deeply interested in restoring community, bridging gaps, and creating connections.

“Every action that you see Jesus take in Scriptures can be seen as an action to build a bridge and take down walls that kept people from a life of community. Through his healings, teachings, associations — whether it was with gentiles (non-Jews) or the poor or the sick — every single engagement aimed to help them be included into the life of community. Jesus would see that the touch of love had the potential to give life, instead of fearing that her touch might steal life from him. Jesus would have taken time to love this woman and see her.”

Jesus, the prophet of protest against the powerful and rich?

Questions:

1. Jesus is among Tacoma citizens at a City Council meeting where a local developer is petitioning Council members to relocate a local homeless shelter to make way for a multi-million dollar condominium project. How would Jesus view the request?

2. A patch of land near a highway overpass is overrun by vagrants, some of whom are criminals and drug addicts. Tacoma police arrive one night to clear the camp and confiscate or destroy campers’ belongings. If Jesus were among the campers, ministering perhaps, how would he respond?

3. Jesus is among Tacoma citizens at a City Council meeting where two groups are presenting proposals. One group is advocating for an increase in funding for much needed affordable housing, another for a community group that wants to increase tax breaks for companies developing banks and financial services firms. Which endeavor would Jesus support?

“In the ordinary sense in which we use the phrase, Jesus was a social revolutionary,” writes fellow of the Jesus Seminar and religious author Marcus Borg. “Like the Jewish prophets before him, he was passionate about economic justice and peace, and advocated active non-violent resistance to the domination system of his time. He was a voice of peasant social protest against the economic inequity and violence of the imperial domination system, mediated in the Jewish homeland by client rulers of the Roman Empire — in Galilee, Herod Antipas, and in Judea and Jerusalem, the temple authorities.”

Regarding developers and affordable housing, Oakman contends that Jesus would not be sympathetic to powerful, exploitative, greedy moneyed-interests.

“For these, he would have nothing but sarcasm,” says Oakman.

But Jesus’ approach of what Oakman refers to as the powerful rich would not be limited to critique. Returning to the concept of the broker, Jesus would likely follow his critique with an effort to mobilize the community to help the less fortunate.

“The term broker has a technical definition in social sciences as a person that connects those with those without,” says Oakman. “There’s good evidence that Jesus played a brokering role. The primary evidence was his mediation between tax collectors and sinners.”

In some cases, “sinners” is likely a translation of people in debt — people who are in morally disreputable positions because they don’t have money or are under the thumb of someone.

“One can imagine there were people who were forced into prostitution because of financial reason,” Oakman offers as an example.

In the case of people facing displacement by Tacoma’s powerful rich, Jesus might attempt to broker a rapprochement or seek a community of interest between the powerful wealthy and the powerless, says Oakman.

Sparks implicates a lack of community awareness — something Jesus seemed to possess in ample measure.

“When a particular community loses a sense of common bonds and common purpose, the ends of life become subject to the individual aims of power,” says Sparks. “In our world of competing enterprises, all sorts of assets become aligned for individual goals.”

That’s where Tacomans might conceive of a situation where a developer, government officials or local authorities might work on behalf of individuals, instead of the people who would be affected by their decisions, says Sparks.

“I think Jesus was troubled by the forces of power that did not hear the voice of people who were affected by their decisions,” says Sparks. “I think the two things that he (Jesus) would be thinking about in this context is how can the people in the neighborhood (both the powerful and the powerless) find a common shared voice about the space they inhabited. He would tear down walls so a person could participate.”

“My understanding of Jesus of Nazareth was that he wanted to see the powerful wealthy open their stores and their hearts to these declassed and debased people,” adds Oakman.
“He would probably sit down at a meal with the developers and the people at the shelter and ask what they can to do as a community. This idea of a community of interest is a big part of the Jesus movement.”

 

User comments

submitted 11:30 on Jul 24, 2008 by Mofo from the Hood

If you want to know what Jesus did and what Jesus would do now, then you need to read the Bible. You need to read the Bible in the context of the Bible. Jesus had a specific mission, a divine mission---to die for the sins of man in order to reconcile man to God. That's the Biblical Jesus. That's the Gospel or "Good News." If you try to write about Jesus, the definitive revelation of God, and exclude the Biblical Gospel then you'll end up with just a social gospel. That's where the confusion starts; when people start speculating things like Jesus was a great teacher, a Rabbi, a regular guy who was pious, and he helped old ladies cross the street, and he said things like, "Have a nice day." A social gospel of Jesus is as useful as the above written definition of sin: "...'sinners'...are people who are in morally disreputable positions because they don't have money..." A sin is a transgression against God. There can be no confusion about what God considers a sin. The Bible serves as a guidebook to explain what is and what is not pleasing to God. For starters, please read the Ten Commandments. There can be no confusion about what Jesus would do in regards to spiritual matters. Please read the Bible. Start with the Gospel of John and read what Jesus did and said about himself. Read the Biblical Truth. Truth by definition is eternal. Truth does not change. Whatever Jesus did while he walked the earth in his short 33 years, that's what Jesus would do today.

submitted 10:20 on Jul 28, 2008 by JT

I think the title of the article is misleading, and in some sense I think should have a correction made to it. The reason for this is that the article is not on "what would Jesus do" but "what would Jesus do from a historical Jesus perspective." The two things are quite different and I think the reader that does not know there is a difference will have a misconception as to "WWJD." I think many of Oakman's points are valid, but not all of them. I think this is especially so when you take into account that the "WWJD" slogan is from a Christian culture and not from a "historical Jesus" perspective.

submitted 06:05 on Jul 29, 2008 by It's an upside-down revolution

This is the kind of conversation that can do exactly what its message is: tear down walls. I like Jesus a lot and I try to know him and follow him. It's really the aim of my life. From my journey and my studying of the scriptures, this article gets at much of the heart of what the Jesus found in the Bible is about. Inspiring stuff.

submitted 10:54 on Jul 31, 2008 by St. Peligro

From what I can gather from the cover of the newspaper, the title of the article was "Cross Purposes" not "WWJD". The use of WWJD, in this article anyway, seems to be what writers call a literary device. The author seems to have included several disclaimers to avoid just such comments. To call it an error of fact from a perspective grounded in blind faith seems a little disingenuous at best, and wildly contradictory and stupid at worst. Let's not be confused about what historical Jesus represents - it's not an attempt to water Jesus down to some convenient, a-spiritual model of piety and social responsibility. That would be as stupid as watering Jesus's 30-plus years of life, teachings, admonishments, works and wisdom down to "He really just came to die for our sins. You can skip the rest." At the very least, it seems to be a reminder of what can happen, or what doesn't happen, when believers focus solely, and somewhat creepily, on the death of Jesus and the implied get-out-of-Hell-free card it represents. Operating from that perspective seems like an invitation to become a lazy, vain, self-serving asshole. I think many modern believers (and non-believers) suffer from that very fate. Motherfucker and JT seem to be confusing their narrow, seemingly naive conception of the life of Jesus with the actual life and meaning of Jesus - something prolific scholar and author Alan Watts referred to as "confusing the menu with the meal". Both seem to operate under the (unfortunately) typical notion that their narrow conception of a complex historical/spiritual account is all that actually happened, as well as what it means - "out there" as opposed to "just in my noggin". But then they take it one step further, claiming that their perception, understanding, interpretation and derived meaning don't just encompass the sum total of all reality for them, but should for everyone else as well. Anyone that doesn't agree with them is apparently evil, or ignorant, or confused. That's how the crusades and the Salem witch hunts got started. Stick with that perspective if you like. But I don't think that's what Jesus would do. Motherfucker, who seems to fancy himself an authority on the subject, also seems to think that calling his perspective absolute truth a few times should put the issue to rest. That seems presumptuous and arrogant to me, and, frankly, I'm not convinced. That seems like a good way to speed yourself into ever-deeper chasms of ignorance, intolerance and spiritual stagnation. As someone who has read the bible, part of my understanding is that the worst possible thing that can happen to a believer is to have his or her perspective on G!d narrowed to a few cliches. There's a warning against that, Motherfucker, in the Ten Commandments you suggest as a starting place for the author's Biblical journey. Fundamentally, the moment you stop exploring the infinite beauty and complexity of the foundation of all things is the moment you create a "graven image". Narrowing G!d to your own, seemingly stagnant perspective, bereft of context or room for any other vantage, ironically and significantly limits your understanding of the very G!d you claim to know better than anyone else. Stops it dead in its tracks, in fact. The practice is known as idolatry, and it's in the Bible. A lot. That doesn't mean you can't talk about your perception of G!d. It just means everyone else can to. If you listen (Sh'ma, Motherfucker) you will become closer to G!d. The infinite one, who has a many names. One of which is Elohim, which is plural. I suggest that Motherfucker from the Hood (…my mom used to tell me "Gosh Darnit!" was the same as saying "God Damnit!". I assume it's the same with mofo…) go read his Bible some more, especially the parts where Jesus addresses the assumed religious authorities that inhabited his place and point in history. Start with Matthew 23.

submitted 01:44 on Jul 31, 2008 by Mofo from the Hood

You know, maybe what St. Peligro said is right... And what Jesus said is wrong.

submitted 03:43 on Jul 31, 2008 by Mofo from the Hood

Maybe the author of this article, Simon Moon, is right also..."Jesus the good Samaritan," rather than the Bible designation "Jesus of Nazareth." (Bonus clue: A Samaritan is someone from Samaria.)

submitted 02:57 on Aug 1, 2008 by Mofo from the Hood

It has been over twenty years since I studied religion at University of Puget Sound. Old Testament with Professor Albertson. New Testament with Professor Phillips. Spirit and Culture with visiting Professor Marcus Borg (the same M.B. mentioned in above article by Moon.) Given that, I would welcome further comment by JT and St. Peligro. Please start by pointing out the errors in my first comment 7/24. Next, JT please provide a definition of "historical Jesus perspective." And please, St. Peligro, expand on your notion of subjective and objective reality and especially on your declaration of Christianity as Blind Faith. Now, as I remember, it was Jesus's disciple Peter who was the coarse fisherman. Yes, I think it was Peter who said to some ignorant villagers, "If I want any shit out of you, I'll squeeze your head."

Comment on this article