I've decided I don't like the acronym "WWJD?" at all any more. We need to change it to "WDJD?" instead. I'll explain...
The one word in this phrase that leaves it's use up to interpretation is "would." This gives us as humans far too much leeway. I bring this up because I heard about a conversation that involved people using Jesus in their political discussion, no doubt spurred on by the upcoming election. One side said Jesus would agree with the agenda of the conservatives, and here was why, while another side pushed back by saying that no, Jesus thinks conservatives are a bunch of crazy rednecks, and here's why he's more inclined towards the liberal side of things. Jesus would vote for this person if he were here today, he would agree with this side's views, etc. etc.
This is where we need to take a few steps back and ask ourselves what we're using as a filter for our conversation: is it the actions and example of Jesus while he was here on earth, or our own pride and personal agendas?
This is where I substitute "would" in the phrase for the word "did." What Jesus DID in regards to political views was say "Render unto Caesar what is Caeser's" (Mark 12:17). This was in response to the Pharisee's attempt to test Jesus in order to "catch him in his words." In the Pharisee's view, they have him trapped in such a way that he is going to have to answer within the boundaries that they have set. Instead, he offers a higher case for the argument that they could never have thought of in their pride.
As a general rule, the Hebrew people of Jesus' time were expecting a Messiah that would physically overthrow the oppressive Roman rule (which is probably where they got the idea to ask the zany tax question from Mark 12). This, again, was the people imposing their tunnel-visioned view of political structure in society upon God. Instead, another thing that Jesus DID was to call his followers to a higher Kingdom, one that would be of God and beyond the boundaries and comprehension of any political ideal that a human being could come up with.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you what I think Jesus would do in our modern American democracy, because that of course would involve me saying "would" instead of "did." I don't know if he would have voted or not. What I can confidently say is that essentially, God doesn't see us in terms of "liberal," "conservative," "independent," "democratic," "socialist," "oligarchal," or anything like that. He sees one group of screwed-up sinners arguing against ANOTHER group of screwed-up sinners over which one should be the leader of the millions of other screwed-up sinners. I can't help but wonder if he laughs to himself during the TV debates. All of Heaven probably tunes in during the primaries solely for the entertainment of it all.
I'm of course not saying that since Jesus made himself higher than the political structures of his time, he doesn't want us to participate in our own today. I think that he has blessed us with a democratic country that allows our voice to be heard, and I will be voting in the upcoming election. What I am saying, however, is that we can't put Jesus in a position where his will is undermined by the will of our political affiliations. While we form our opinions, arguments, and affiliations, we need to remember that politics are a very human institution, and that no matter what party is in control of the White House, God is still in control of His universe.
The political side of things is only one example of the "WWJD/WDJD" difference. I'll address others in future posts, as they solidify in my scattered brain.
