Christians presume everything Jesus did was perfect, or at least really good. Except for Max, most of us are good with that. A friend posted a sincere musing on Facebook the other day.
As we say “What Would Jesus Do?” remember, while he was gentle and loving and accepting and forgiving – when he found people doing wrong at the Temple he overturned tables and drove people out with a whip. And he criticized the scribes and Pharisees, calling them hypocrites. Oh, and he killed that fig tree that was not bearing fruit. So … what indeed would He do in the face of some issues and some people’s actions today?
Human beings, perhaps especially believers, are somewhat less “perfect” in applying this principles of WWJD. I posted my opinion there:
He would be gentle not because it was personally safe, and angry only when there was no personal pleasure in it at all.
I was thinking about this topic because with caucusing tomorrow in the state where most of my Facebook friends are still located, my feed is starting to look like Iowa communications media, and I thought I left the January politicking far, far behind last summer. Some want heads to roll. Lots of whips are out, along with weapons even mightier than the sword.
Quite often I see John 2:13ff cited. Not as much as John 15:12-13. The question seems less WWJD, but How Would Jesus Love. HWJL. That new jumble of letters won’t get the press the former did. People just don’t want to be laying down their lives.
At times, WWJD is sort of a crutch. It lets people be merciful without feeling like a wussy, and vindictive without conceding they enjoy whipping people too much. Dissatisfied with being a small cog in a moral machine, some of us want to be the architect of justice. Maybe a scattered few of us can be that. I suspect the virtue of prudence is somewhat underutilized by people advocating for the whips and tipped-over tables.