This post is spurred on by the following picture, which a friend of mine posted on Facebook:
Not everything about this statement is false, but neither is all of it true. Lets break thins down and look at each claim.
Bleeding heart: If you take “bleeding heart” as someone who has concern for others, then, yes, Jesus was a bleeding heart. If you take it to mean that He was excessive in this regard, and did not place value on punishing the guilty, then, no, He was not a “bleeding heart”. Of course, one may ask “Where did Jesus demand punishment for anyone?” For starters, lets look at the second chapter of John:
The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; you shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”
Jesus chased the money-changers out of the temple with a whip. Does this sound like a “bleeding heart”? Does this sound like someone who foils justice with excessive mercy? Do not misunderstand: Jesus is a merciful God. But His mercy serves justice, it does not foil justice.
Long haired: This is actually right, all of the ancient images we have of Jesus show Him with long hair. What this has to do with liberalism and conservatism, I have no idea. I know conservatives with long hair, just as I know liberals with short hair. But, whatever.
Peace-loving: Yes Jesus is the King of Peace, he even referred to peace makers as “blessed” (Matt 5:9). So does this make Jesus a pacifist? No. Look at Matthew 10:34-39:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.
Granted, we are to “turn the other cheek” and we are to avoid violence, but Jesus seemed to have told us that the Way of the Cross will present a certain level of conflict. Of course, it can also be argued that this is about spiritual conflict and not destruction of the evil in war. What of the Revelation of St. John? That entire book, among other things, speaks of the final days before the New Creation, which includes the Son of Man leading an army of angels. Doesn’t sound like a pacifist to me.
Anti-establishment: This claim is simply ridiculous. In fact, in reference to the Pharisees, Jesus ordered obedience! This is often overlooked, but it is in the Scriptures nonetheless (Matt. 23:2-3):
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
Is this anti-establishment? Is commanding your followers to obey those in positions of authority anti-establishment? This is not an isolated case. We are told to pay our taxes (Matt 2:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). Jesus is recognized as a person in authority, both by Jews (Matt. 7: 28-29) and pagans (Luke 7). Any efforts to make Jesus a temporal ruler were rebuffed by the Lord. And even His last words before ascending into heaven were to explain that His kingdom was not of the world. If one is anti-establishment, their concern is almost wholly temporal, rather than eternal.
Liberal: There are absolutely no indications that Jesus supported a socialist or progressive agenda. The corporal works of mercy are personal responsibilities, not government oversight.
Hippie freak: I am not sure what this even means, other than polemical nonsense.
With strange ideas: This is actually true. Jesus did have counter-cultural ideas. But at the same time, he never called for cultural revolution, and a great many liberal ideas are in direct opposition to the laws of God.
Now does all of this mean that Jesus is a political conservative? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Radicals on either end of the spectrum cannot be reconciled with God. There are things that liberals do get right. There are things conservatives get right. There are also things both get wrong. Conservatives tend to be to eager to employ the death penalty and go to war. Liberals have taken on causes that are absolutely immoral. Neither political persuasion has cornered the market on God and morality.