Kelly Brown’s recent attempt to morph Jesus into a republican hating leftist is fast becoming standard fare for a desperate political party filled with movers and shakers who want nothing to do with the God of the Bible (reference Michael Moore’s characterization of red states as “Jesus Land”) but who know they better look like they do before the next election. If I were her, I’d leave Jesus out of all this because if one is going to quote from one segment of the Bible (in her case the Sermon on the Mount), then intellectual honesty dictates that one consider the entire Bible when making a case for something — a bit of homework she apparently has not done. Brown opens her article with the question, “Would Jesus vote?” The answer is no, since he studiously avoided involvement in politics, spearheading a spiritual kingdom instead. As he told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). From Jesus, she makes the predictable transition to the tyrant Bush. In her view, “The current administration is viewed as Christian, but its policies are anything but.” She then decries the president’s refusal to turn the other cheek. Here is leftist hypocrisy on parade. On the one hand, many leftists who want religion out of the Oval Office turn around like Brown and complain when that same Oval Office fails to transform enough Christianity into national policy. Is Christianity supposed to guide national policy or not??? Let’s make up our minds here. Jumping straight into the abortion fray, Brown feels that it’s “important to address abortion” (the tens of millions of babies never given a chance to live thank her for her magnanimity). She then informs us that “Jesus asked his followers to speak for those who can’t.” Really? Can anyone produce chapter and verse to prove Jesus ever said such a thing? Watching these people morph Jesus into a social activist is like watching Cinderella’s step-sisters try to make that glass slipper fit, come hell or high water. For the record, Jesus didn’t ask anything of his followers or anybody else — he commanded them because he created them (John 1:3; Col. 1:16). He commands all wanna be’s to repent of their sins and become like little children (Matt. 18:3 — let’s see them cite that one at their convention in 2008 while trying to separate Moore and the rest of Hollywood from their money); he also commands them to deny self, take up a cross and follow him (Matt. 16:24). Again, emphasis on the spiritual, not social. And since we’re on the subject of death (remember, someone dies in an abortion), let’s try to make Jesus an opponent of capital punishment while we’re at it. Brown reminds us that “a culture of life regards every life as sacred…” I wish she would put that on a sign and display it in front of the nearest abortion clinic. “Jesus himself was an unfair victim of capital punishment,” she declares. But if we’re going to drag Jesus into the capital punishment arena, let’s be intellectually honest and cite what the rest of the Bible has to say about this hallowed subject. Again, a little homework wouldn’t hurt. Brown may find moderately interesting the fact that the Bible supports capital punishment for murderers 1) before the Mosaic Law was given (Gen. 9:6), 2) during the period of the law (Lev. 24:21), and 3) during the period of the New Testament (Rom. 13:4 — for murder and other serious crimes against society) — with no apologies to anyone, including Oprah, Susan Serandon, or Danny Glover. From capital punishment we then tread the thin ice of the homosexuality issue. According to Brown, that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality is a fun fact. Fair enough. But she goes on to assert that the only place that homosexuality is mentioned is in the Old Testament (as if that automatically invalidates anything to the left of Matthew chapter 1), so we “need to put down our bacon cheeseburgers, too.” Again, a little homework would enhance what little credibility she has left at this point. We all know that homosexuality is condemned without reservation in the Old Testament, but the New Testament follows suit (Rom. 1:26-27). Additionally, Jude 7 connects sexual immorality with eternity in hell and seems to include homosexuality (Paul and Jude — two lousy homophobes!) Before signing off with a complaint that Republicans are “picking and twisting messages in the Gospel” (actually, it was Kerry who during the campaign mounted the pulpit in a black church — where is the ACLU when you need them? — and fulminated from James 2 that faith without works profits not, implying that Bush was somehow guilty of something), Brown informs us that “the thrust of Jesus’ message was adopting a meek and humble lifestyle so that others may have enough” and that “he repeatedly railed against excess and wealth.” I think Brown is confusing Jesus with Karl Marx, since the interested inquirer will search every nook & cranny of the four gospels in vain to find those repeated railings, but they are generously sprinkled throughout The Communist Manifesto. By contrast, I submit that the thrust of Jesus’ message was how to make it from this realm of earthly kingdoms, with whose affairs Jesus refused to entangle himself, into the Kingdom of God on the other side. Brown may also be interested in finding out what being born again means, since the Director of Admissions has stated that it is the sine qua non of entrance into his kingdom (John 3:3). Again, liberal attempts to mold the Jesus of the New Testament into a social revolutionary are misguided and betray an ignorance of the very purpose of the incarnation. Matthew 1:21 says that his name shall be called Jesus (“salvation” in Hebrew) for he shall save his people from their sins. This presupposes need on our part, and that need doesn’t have to do with politics or social issues. He was a redeemer, not a philosopher, social scientist, or, God forbid, another politician. Would, as Brown mistakenly supposes, Jesus Christ be “far to the left of any party?” No, he’s far above any party. Stephen G. McGovern