Is Jesus is on my side?

I, like most aware folks in the United States, don't see our fellow citizens as united anything. In the mix of arguments comes suppositions about what Jesus would do in light of current culture. As with most classic literature and philosophy, most people leveraging Jesus err in their understanding of Him and many care only to point out supposed hypocrisy of whomever their arguments are aimed. 

Some common presuppositions - the foundational framework that guides attitudes, opinion, and perspective - are:

1) I love Jesus therefore He would agree with me

2) Jesus loves me therefore He would agree with me

3) Jesus was all about peace, peace, peace and love, love, love

4) If Christ-followers ran government it would be a righteous government

5) Christianity has no business being interjected into political discourse. 

This obviously is not an exhaustive list and with no further comment from me can ignite all the controversy and debate that one could ask for.

The reader might be surprised that, of the five presuppositions listed, I most closely align with #5, and here is why:  My presupposition about our Constitutional Republic is that no law should exist that does not meet the dual condition of being of benefit to all that also preserves the liberty of all. That proposition does not require a specific or even generalized religious belief. 

Having said that, I agree with one of my favorite Founders, John Adams, who famously said "Our Constitution wa made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." I have no interest in a religious test for office (although that was standard for state offices for many years), or a theocracy of any form, but I would desire that people who follow Jesus are well informed citizens, both in their deep regard and study of the Bible and with intelligent, vigilant citizenship. I do not need a coercive government to enforce my religious beliefs at the point of its sword, I just need it to allow me the God given right (Jefferson's words) to my free exercise of it. (*Note: Constitution 101 - our rights come from our Creator, not the government. The government can only intefere with those rights or protect them, thus the Bill of Rights were added to LIMIT government's restriction or elimination of those rights. )

The government (our own, that is) should do nothing out of charity, guilt, mercy, or vengeance but only those things that benefit its citizens in general while preserving liberty. Government is, by its nature, practical and pragmatic and entirely transactional in every policy. 

Oh! but should we not feed the hungry, show compassion to the oppressed, and lift up the fallen? Of course our public policy should do those things, but only because it serves to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty". In the corporate world, this would be called the mission statement and every thing done would aim to be in alignment with it. 

Should government help feed its hungry? Yes, because doing so is in line with our Constitutional mission statement. Feeding the hungry is a Christian value, exercised by believers since Jesus made a kid's lunch into a meal for thousands, with leftovers. But for the government to do so satisfies practical needs. It helps keep workers productive in our economy (except for those who choose not to be productive and live off of the subsidies - admittedly a minority of those getting benefits), school children attentive to learning so that they, too, will be less likely to strain society in the future, and increases the ability of consumers to purchase items to the benefit of those selling consumables. 

As a child, I stood in line with my grandmother to pick up her "commodoties" before the food stamp system (now SNAP with EBT cards, for those who don't remember that actual food stamps that could be sold and traded for smokables and injectibles rather than fruits and veggies). If you don't know the origin of the term "government cheese" meaning a welfare handout, (which may already be an archaic indicator of my stage of life), I've eaten it. 

Commodities came in white boxes with black stenciled letters "POWDERED MILK", "CHEESE", etc. Wasn't that charity? Actually it was one way to subsidize the agriculture industry (ever wonder why SNAP is a program of the Department of Agriculture?) And why should we subsidize food producers? Because our enemies know that the ancient war method of siege and starvation still works. We want a solid food supply for "our common defense". 

We can apply the test of our Constitutional mission statement, and my test of  general benefit and maximum liberty, to issues of healthcare, public education, civil rights, and anything else that captures the headlines out of Washington, D.C. 

The dispassionate, transactional efforts to legislate will result, I pray, in the correct application by citizenry influenced by the best teachings of the very compassionate and practical Jesus, but the bills introduced and signed by the President should remain mission focused and oriented toward individual liberty. 

So, what would Senator Jesus do? That's not even a reasonable question. What should I do as a follower of Jesus living in 2025 USA? That is the question. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Shults is a retired armed government agent and criminal justice professor and a follower and proclaimer of Jesus.