Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser_bbcode.class.php on line 567

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser_bbcode.class.php on line 1210

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser_bbcode.class.php on line 1221

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser_bbcode.class.php on line 1264

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser_bbcode.class.php on line 1281

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser_bbcode.class.php on line 1535

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser.class.php on line 285

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser.class.php on line 982

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Jesus was a Conservative

By Aaron M. Rodriguez

ImageIn a dispute between secular liberals and Christian conservatives, the canard that Jesus was a revolutionary radical liberal is made with no great surprise. This claim has its roots in the New Testament narrative that chronicles Christ’s ministry of helping the poor, the disabled, and the oppressed. Analogously, we are supposed to infer that since liberals advocate programs that redistribute upper-tiered wealth to the lower class that this makes them faithful stewards of God’s kingdom.

Liberalism and Conservatism Defined

Today’s liberalism, sometimes called “social liberalism” or “welfare liberalism,” is a reform movement that seeks to enhance the welfare of the populous through government intervention. This branch of liberalism seeks equality of life, and therefore tends to promote “leveling” programs that take from the prosperous and give to the underprivileged. Welfare, affirmative action, and Medicaid are good examples of such programs.

Today’s conservatism, sometimes called “classical liberalism” or “neo-classical liberalism” is a philosophy that also seeks to enhance the well being of the populous. Freedom, as understood by conservatives, is a freedom from government, not freedom through government. By promoting personal industry and a competitive free market, the populous is encouraged to be successful by the fruits of their own labor, not by government entitlements or dependency. The trademark of conservatism is keeping government small and efficient, but powerful enough to protect her citizens from the threat of harm and fraud. Crudely put, conservatism sees government primarily as a protector, whereas liberalism sees her as an enabler.

Understanding liberalism and conservatism in terms of government size and function presents somewhat of a problem for our question. Jesus didn’t talk much about government, and therefore it would be difficult to frame Jesus’ political ideology in terms of being a political liberal or political conservative. This is important, and we’ll get to this point later. However, for the purposes of this article, we will address some of the common passages liberals use to bolster their argument that Jesus was on of their ilk.

The Charitable Giving of Conservatives and Liberals

One such passage is in Luke 4:18-19 where Jesus says,

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

The obvious meaning of the passage is that Jesus was anointed to advance charitable works. Prisoners would be freed, the blind would receive sight, and barriers for the oppressed would be removed. This was Jesus’ mission. So, let’s take a look to see how charitable liberals are.

Arthur Brooks, a behavioral economist and a director of nonprofit studies at Syracuse University, authored a book entitled “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.” Using ten databases from scientific surveys in the past decade, Brooks compiled statistics on charitable contributions by self-professed liberals and conservatives. He found that secular liberals who believe fervently in income redistribution via government programs gave far less to charity than conservatives. On average, religious conservatives gave 3.5 times more than secular liberals, and when “religious giving” was excluded from the analysis, conservatives still contributed more to charity than liberals annually.

In his book, Brooks concludes that liberals want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes, but are more reluctant to write checks to support such causes. Byron Johnson, a sociology professor and director of the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University, corroborated Brook’s conclusions from an independent research project called, “A Report of Faith in America.”

Brooks’ analysis delivers a serious blow to the liberal’s claim to Jesus. Forcing others to make charitable contributions that one is disinclined to do without external compulsion is called hypocrisy. And hypocrisy was among the most serious charges Jesus laid on the Pharisees during the New Testament era. In Matthew 23, Jesus says,

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.“

Jesus Believed in Charity, not Socialism

One of the most commonly cited passages used to support that Jesus was a liberal, or perhaps even a socialist, is Matthew 19:21-22, where Jesus says,

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Some liberals interpret this passage as an endorsement of socialism. A young wealthy ruler sought Jesus’ advice, asking him what he must do to receive eternal life. After a brief exchange, we discover the young ruler was proficient in matters of the law, and yet he felt something was wanting. Jesus struck to the heart of the matter, instructing him to surrender his wealth and to follow him. The young man was unable to abdicate the one thing he valued most, his sense of security. It was a common theme in Christ’s teachings that unless you can forsake that which you value most, you cannot be his disciple (Matt 10:37 16:24, Luke 9:23, 14:26, Mark 8:34). For instance, in Matthew 10:37, it reads,

“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

This passage is no more about promoting dysfunctional families than the passage about the young ruler is about promoting socialism. The key to understanding these passages is that Jesus utilizes one central theme - nothing must come between Jesus and his followers. In the first passage, it’s one’s possessions; in the second passage, it’s one’s immediate family. Both stories exemplify that Christ demands nothing less than complete devotion. Wealth and family are valuable possessions, but should not stand between you and Jesus. The moral of the story is sacrifice, not socialism.

In order to put Jesus’ values into proper perspective, one has to consider the purpose of good conduct. For instance, the scriptures portray Jesus as weak on defense (turn the other cheek), big on social programs (give to the poor), harsh on the wealthy (nearly impossible for the rich man to enter heaven), soft on punishment (he who is without sin, cast the first stone), and pro-taxes (render unto Caesar what is his). It would appear that the New Testament is a haven of liberal ideology. However, nowhere in the scriptures did Jesus petition a government to deliver on any of these commitments. Instead, Christ implored his followers to sacrifice of themselves. The act of kindness and brotherly love must germinate from the individual’s heart, not the policy of some lifeless institution that mandates a sacrifice. And there is a good reason for this. The purpose of charitable giving is not to level out the inequalities of society, but to benefit the soul of the benefactor.

Giving ought to be Voluntary, not Compulsory

In Matthew 6, Jesus instructs his disciples to give to the needy only in secret so one’s philanthropy is not seen by men. He warned them that if they displayed their charity in public, they would not receive their heavenly reward. This passage is enlightening. If the purpose of charitable giving were to improve the well being of the poor, then why would it matter if such acts were in public? In fact, it could be argued that public giving would promote and produce likeminded behavior, which would ultimately benefit the needy. And yet, Jesus states that God would withhold His reward if they made a public display of their giving. The answer is quite clear – it’s not about the poor, it’s about a willful sacrifice.

The Purpose of Giving is to Promote the Gospel

And this brings to me to my last point. In Luke 16:15, Jesus tells the Pharisees,

“You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight.“

And in John 5:44, Jesus tells the people,

“How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?”

The moral here is that goodness is judged good by God alone; it is not man’s prerogative to determine what’s morally right. When Jesus healed the boy at Capernaum, he said,

“Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders, you will never believe.”

Jesus did not heal the boy because the boy’s illness brought him near to death, but because it might introduce onlookers to the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus healed the paralytic at the poolside, he told him to stop sinning or else something worse may happen to him. Jesus didn’t heal the man because paralytics ought to have equal standing with others in society, but rather to induce in him a morally productive life. And when Jesus applied mud to the eyes of a blind man thus restoring sight, he told his disciples that this man was blind so that the glory of God might be revealed in him. This last example is a strong testament to the purpose of good works, which is to show the world that Jesus is the light – the mediator sent for the world’s atonement. It is important to note that Jesus’ purpose of good works is not the message of secular government programs, nor is it the goal of liberalism in general.

Jesus was not a liberal in today’s sense. What he did, he did for God, not for men. In Matthew 26:7, Jesus’ disciples were angered when they saw a woman pour expensive perform on Jesus’ head. They thought it was wasteful because it could have been sold and given to the poor. Jesus responded,

“Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.”

Jesus’ point was although charitable deeds are good, they do not take priority over Jesus and his message. This same message can be read in Acts 6:1-4, where the Greek Jews complained that their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. As a result, the twelve disciples gathered together to render this conclusion,

“It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the world of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn over this responsibility to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

The idea is that charitable contributions, although virtuous, does not supersede the ministry of God.

Final Thoughts on Jesus as a Conservative

The assertion that Jesus was a socialist is misguided and incorrect because the premise is grounded in the liberal ideology of American politics, not in biblical exegesis. Not one place in the bible did Jesus advocate it was the function of government to do what loving human beings ought to do on their own. As noted above, conservatives are not opposed to social programs. We shed our blood, donate our time, apply our labor, and voluntarily redistribute our income to the poor. And quite frankly, research shows we are better at it than liberals. Jesus was a conservative because he promoted charitable giving on behalf of individuals, not government. Jesus was a conservative because he promoted the hard work and success of the individual, not the legislative body of the government. Jesus was a conservative he saw giving as a ministry of the gospel, not a secular and spiritless exercise of government in order to level the economic playing field. Liberals may claim Jesus as their own, but Jesus would not claim them as his own. It takes a lot more to give from your personal resources than it does to compel others to give through taxation.

Comments (11)
  • Daisy F

    Wow, you definitely are not a theologian scholar. So, you are wrong.

  • Jason Crye


    Would you kindly show where I am wrong?

  • Seth

    Great article!!!

  • John  - Good job!

    Daisy has not responded! Good job on the article!

  • Bill Foreman  - Very Well Reasoned

    The distinction between voluntary charity and government mandated wealth redistribution is the key point. Add in the results of Dr. Brooks's research, that conservatives are demonstrably more charitable, and you have a conclusion: Jesus is a conservative. This article is very well written and reasoned.

  • Duane  - Definitions

    Calling Jesus a liberal OR a conservative based solely on social justice lines is not logical. Like so many of us, He would be conservative on some topics and liberal on others. (I doubt the Saducees and Pharisees considered him a theological conservative, for instance.)

    Since we don't know what percent of his income that Jesus actually donated to the poor (that was his treasurer's responsibility, I believe), saying that Jesus was a "conservative" is pushing it. Perhaps you can make a point that Jesus was a fiscal conservative:

    a) had few material possessions
    b) advocated a much higher tithe than 10% (widow and her mite - give all that you have).

    If Republicans are wealthier, and more religious, perhaps that accounts for the greater % of charitable donations? But then again, should ANY Christian conservative have any wealth to give at all? ("Lay not up for yourselves treasures on Earth ...";)

    Interesting article ... not swayed by the label you assign to Jesus, but interesting, nonetheless.

  • Alan

    Duane is right. To demonstrate that Jesus wasn't a socialist does not make him a conservative. That's a dangerous teaching, a slippery slope that will do us conservatives no good at all. Conservatives and Liberals alike would do well to listen to Jesus' words and allow Him to speak into their lives, worrying less about the splinters in their opponents' eyes.

    David Brooks's study was fascinating and telling. But we have to be careful not to use earthly accounting to assess character. I wonder if he knows about the parable of the widow's offering in Luke 21?

    Brothers and sisters, let's not be smug. Let's face it, the conservative message is often tainted by Mammon. We can't serve both God and Mammon.

  • Consuelo  - One cannot be a liberal/Democrat/progressive etc a

    Great article, and while I can't call Jesus a conservative...I sure as heck know He would be doing the equivalent of throwing some out of the temple today...ANYONE who says I am a Christan and supports all of the nonsense going on, abortion, homosexuality, etc., needs to do a reality check. A good time might be now before reaching the giving an account of their life point...BTW, Republicans who say place the 'social issues' on the back burner or we will lose pretty much in the same boat, regardless of what they profess to believe.

  • Karl  - Not Convinced - Check Your Fallacies Mr. Rodriguez

    Although an interesting idea, your article is not convincing or thorough.The information you presented by Brooks would be an interesting study done right. Unfortunately, there are many discrepancies leaving too man significant unaccounted for factors.
    A more analogous comparison between liberals and conservatives would be one of either religious or non-religious of both parties, such as comparing ‘secular liberals’ and ‘secular conservatives’. Also, there is no distinction by income level, which most certainly affects one’s level of charitable giving.

  • NeilD  - Neil: Jesus Is Conservative, But Is Beyond That La

    Not a bad article, Mr. Rodriguez. But there are some other things that I would like to say for those concerned with giving Jesus a conservative label.

    Many people will go out there and either claim that Jesus would be a communist, a liberal (whether in classical or modern sense), a fascist, or a neoconservative. But to say Jesus is either of those would be a tragic mistake. Despite the vast differences those different modern political beliefs have, they all have a common heritage in the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment spawned the ideologies of liberalism, republicanism, crony corporate capitalism and nationalism, and then came their cousins communism, fascism, Nazism, and neoconservatism.

    What is the one major problem that all these Enlightenment-rooted ideologies have in common? They all resorted to rejecting faith in God as authority and instead relied on reason. They all relied on their own lines of thinking rather than having the mind of Christ. As a result, this shows that God has been rejected and the people have sought to serve themselves instead.

    "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding," (Proverbs 3:5 NIV).

    That is also why we should not rely on "common sense". Relying on the wisdom of God, though, will enable us to understand the Truth behind everything.

    "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is-his good, pleasing and perfect will," (Romans 12:2 NIV).

    And all of these worldly ideologies are rooted in humanism, the worship of humanity more or less. Humanity became the locus of attention and worship instead of God.

    Whether you are talking about the economics of Adam Smith or of Karl Marx, both of them end up leading to the centralization of economic power in the hands of the few, or of the elites (corporatism emphasizing corporate monopoly and socialism emphasizing governmental monopoly). And both capitalism and socialism only seek personal gain rather than the common good. Both of them also support centralized banking, deficit-spending, and charging interest, which are unbiblical.

    "'If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest,'" (Exodus 22:25 NIV).

    Not that there should be labelling and that there are any perfect political or economic systems, but one [Christian-derived] economic system that does not have those problems I mentioned is distributism:

    You are definitely right about the economic issues you mentioned.

    As for abortion, doing drugs, lust, greed, pride, harming the environment, and allowing any kind of sex or union outside of a marriage between one man and one woman (not relatives) who have the same faith, then God certainly would not approve of such or let those go unpunished.

    So then, what sort of political system would Jesus rule by? The best answer is not with democracy, communism, or fascism, but as King, and by the Kingdom of God.

    Of course, do not forget the kind of government Israel had from Moses through Samuel. They were judges that ruled, appointed by God the Sovereign King, to enforce His Law (which acted as a religious covenant and a political constitution, in a sense). The hierarchy was God, Law, the judge and the people.

    But I do not support Dominion Theology, and that kind of government will not be restored, except that the Kingdom of God will be revered by all of His children and will reign with Jesus Christ our Lord forever.

    Bottom line, as much as I find Jesus to be more conservative (not in an Enlightenment lens, but a kind of conservatism that is best expressed in God's Kingdom), or a "far-right moderate" (very conservative in many beliefs, but not an extremist like a Nazi, KKK, jihadist, or communist or anything like that), it is not that easy to really put a human-classified label on the Lord our King. He simply believes in what political, economic, and personal beliefs would ultimately advance the Kingdom of God and what recognizes the supreme authority of His Kingdom, the only Kingdom that is perfect and everlasting.

    By setting our minds and hearts towards heavenly things, rather than earthly things, will we truly grasp the way that God reigns over us.

    In Christ,


  • Davies  - "What God really meant to say...."

    Why does this article follow New Testament quotes with interpretation while another study I just read making the argument that Jesus was a liberal merely quotes Him and lets the words of the Gospels speak for themselves?

    If you came to conservatism via abortion, then proudly call yourself a one-issue voter, but realize that your faith is antithetical to your political party's line on EVERYTHING ELSE, including the condemnation of others, which is God's purview alone.

Write comment

[b] [i] [u] [s] [url] [quote] [code] [img]   


Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.