Was Jesus a 'Leftie'?

Most certainly.

That is why I saw nothing amiss with Chavez proclaiming Jesus as the ‘greatest socialist in history’ during his inauguration as el presidente of Venezuela – though whether he lives up to the ideals of his spiritual mentor is another matter altogether. There are two reasons why I would say that Jesus was a ‘commie’.

Firstly, if we eliminate all that is in the New Testament that can be thought to be in it because of efforts to make the Bible palatable to the patriarchal elite ruling a class-based society, or at least not undermine them, we’re going to come up with the ‘ghost in the machine’, the virus that basically undermines everything that Jesus was supposed to have said, and meant. Thus, not allowing Peter to pick up the sword against the Romans who hop-scotched over to Gethsemane to arrest him; that one ought to give unto Caesar that which belonged to Caesar; stating that the poor will always be with us so as to justify a foot spa with expensive oils…..all of them, can be tossed into the bin when his ‘fulfilment’ of the Mosaic Law via the ‘13th Commandment’ – Love thy neighbour as thyself – is considered. The Commandment serves as the check or the leash on everything else. It is the final criteria by which we determine how far the rest was to be effectuated.

The second reason why I would deem Jesus a ‘leftie’ is based on ‘God making wo/man in her/is image’. That makes God thoroughly representative, or, in other words, an objective or prototypical version of the ‘Leftie’. The idiots behind the Protestant work ethic, of course, tried to mire God in ‘mammon’ by using God to validate the elite-led perspectival status quo. Thus, they foolishly thought, and taught, that those whom were favoured in Heaven would naturally have his work come to a successful and obese fruition in terms of a bank account. Unfortunately, even though most might not believe in such rubbish these days, the practice of a perspective always tends to mutate into subsidiary perspectives and pastimes that ossify into ‘culture’ whilst the original perspective allegedly slinks away into the darkness of antiquity.

Anyway, as God is thoroughly representative, s/he logically occupies the left in perpetuity. God is indivisible as an entity or idea – though humanity, in their efforts to comprehend the meaning of ‘God’ might try to accord him a host of characters to understand it. So you could say that God is a 'commie', an 'anarchist', a 'transnationalist', and if we ever discover extraterrestrial life, then, a transplanetrist. And it is in this omni-representative indivisibility that may be recognised God’s ‘leftist’ nature. S/he represents all, and it is up to humanity to discover God's leftist nature in ourselves by including all despite the biases of the day. It is inn seeking out this nature via egalitarian empathy and love that the notion of us being made in ‘God’s image’ may be realised.

Thus, you could say that the work of environmentalists, animal rights campaigners, civil rights activists (of non-fascist nature), tree-huggers, those campaigning against fox-hunting; and transnationalists, amongst a bushel and half of others, are all efforts by wo/man to become more Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, etc, even though they might be atheists. Perhaps the movement against religion, be it comprising of some Marxists, Atheists, and some thoroughly ill-informed juveniles who plague the net with symbols and pictures not dissimilar to the covers of ‘Berserker’ or other bands which have mistaken farting through their mouths for singing, are actually a consequence of past attempts by the elite to hide behind the cross whilst advancing phalanx-like with the selfsame spear that bled the Christ on Golgotha. So, Christianity got a bad name from literal atheists who forget that an individual going on a rampage with a machete whilst donning a mask of Santa does not mean that the latter’s face has to be splashed on ‘most wanted’ posters.

So, when you put together the egalitarian empathy of ‘reason 1’, with the ‘representativeness’ of reason 2, you get a ‘leftie’. There is no argument about that unless one was to subscribe to the version of Jesus put forth by the Caesars of all epochs whom are inclined to place other biblical accounts – such as that mentioned in the first paragraph – as the leash on the 13th commandment and the ‘thoroughly representative’ value of God. In this, they claim God for the right so that everyone may deem the ideal that God/s represents as irrelevant and a relic of medieval times. You could say, borrowing St. Augustine’s terms, that the ‘left’ is Civilas Dei (City of God) whilst the right, Civilas Ierenna (City of the World). Hence, I would subscribe to the providential view of history that appreciates history as the gradual realisation of God’s will on earth, except that I don’t believe that this is a certainty. Rather, it all depends on the ‘left’ and their being able to appreciate the idea of the left without thinking that it is the ‘left’ simply because it is left of right as that can simply mean that their identity is determined by what’s acceptable to the right – that basically turns the executive arm of government into the executive arm of the right whilst serving as the legislative circumscriber of the left. (refer to related article : A Tirade on the Relative Left and Modernity)

As I had sermonised in a previous article,

“I suppose it is only when we stop defining ourselves in terms of ‘career’, genitalia, sexual orientation, nationality, race, amongst others, that we are going to cease remaking God in our image and begin to realise God in us.”

God made wo/man in her/is image alright. But in order to hew God out of the rock of humanity, people first have to get the necessary tools to do it. And those tools are as that described via the aforementioned two reasons.




Popular posts