Monthly Archives: November 2022

What Would Jesus Not Do?

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.

— Mark 10:45

I think we all have heard “What would Jesus do?” or WWJD as the bracelets that were popular when I was in high school said. I recently read a quote from the novel Choke by Chuck Palahniuk, in which he writes, “Just keep asking yourself: What would Jesus not do?” Choke itself seems like an odd book (and was made into what sounds like an odd movie), but it is from the same guy who wrote Fight Club, so take that for what it’s worth. However, the quote had me thinking about what it said.

The phrase “What would Jesus do?” comes from Charles Sheldon’s 1896 book In His Steps was subtitled “What Would Jesus Do?” Many years before Sheldon, the Catholic Church emphasized the concept of Imitatio Christi (imitation of Christ), which is summarized well in the English phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” In Sheldon’s popular novel (it had been translated into 21 languages by 1935), Rev. Henry Maxwell encounters a homeless man who challenges him to take seriously the imitation of Christ. The homeless man has difficulty understanding why, in his view, so many Christians ignore the poor:

I heard some people singing at a church prayer meeting the other night,

“All for Jesus, all for Jesus,

All my being’s ransomed powers,

All my thoughts, and all my doings,

All my days, and all my hours.”

and I kept wondering as I sat on the steps outside just what they meant by it. It seems to me there’s an awful lot of trouble in the world that somehow wouldn’t exist if all the people who sing such songs went and lived them out. I suppose I don’t understand. But what would Jesus do? Is that what you mean by following His steps? It seems to me sometimes as if the people in the big churches had good clothes and nice houses to live in, and money to spend for luxuries, and could go away on summer vacations and all that, while the people outside the churches, thousands of them, I mean, die in tenements, and walk the streets for jobs, and never have a piano or a picture in the house, and grow up in misery and drunkenness and sin.”

This leads to many of the novel’s characters asking, “What would Jesus do?” when faced with decisions of some importance. This has the effect of making the characters embrace Christianity more seriously and to focus on what they see as its core — the life of Christ.

It’s one thing to base your decisions on what Jesus would do in the situation, but “What would Jesus not do?” is also an interesting concept. It’s the same phrase just in its prohibitive (negative) form. It’s all well and good to ask yourself what Jesus would do, but have you ever considered what Jesus would not do? Consider this for the moment, Jesus was known to help the poor and downtrodden when no one else would. Growing up in the Church of Christ, we were taught that if it wasn’t in the Bible then we shouldn’t’ do it. A prime example of this is that musical instruments are not mentioned in the New Testament, so we do not use musical instruments in our churches. All singing is done a cappella. So, asking “What would Jesus not do?” would not be part of the Church of Christ theology. However, I stray from that theology sometimes, though at the heart, I follow the basic tenet of having the New Testament as my guide and not adding to what is not there.

If you look at much of Christianity today, it is very easy to ask, “What would Jesus not do?” In too many churches, we see hatred and prejudice. We see theology that has no basis in the teachings of Christ. We see churches picking and choosing what they want to follow and making up the rules as they go along to justify their warped religious and political ideology. So, what would Jesus not do? First of all, he would not turn his back on anyone because of their sexuality or race. He would not sit idly by and allow the hypocrites to dictate His teachings while breaking everything He has taught. He would not allow modern Pharisees to butcher a religion in His name. He would not ignore the poor or downtrodden. He would not seek revenge on those who wronged him. He would not profit from His teachings or use the church to make himself rich. He would not take ideas that are nowhere in the Bible in order to harm or subjugate women, minorities, or the LGBTQ+ community. He would not condemn someone because they had a problem with drugs, alcohol, or gambling. Jesus would not hide the pedophiles and rapists that we hear about all the time in both Protestant and Catholic churches. There is a lot that Jesus would not do.

Think about the churches today. Too many of them are doing things that Jesus would not do. Too many churches are not welcoming or open to those they perceive to be immoral or against their teachings. They fear truth and intelligence. Jesus would never do this. Jesus would want us to be accepting of all people, to work every day for the betterment of humanity and the earth, and to live by His example, not by the example of men who have twisted His words for their own perversion.


Pic of the Day


Moment of Zen: A Good Pillow

I think we can all appreciate a good pillow for a restful night’s sleep. A soft, fluffy pillow is sometimes the only way I can fall asleep when I have a really bad migraine.


Pic of the Day

Hanging in there!


Rough Day

I came home from work yesterday at 11 am because I had a major migraine. I had wondered if my migraines would still be triggered by weather when we were getting snow instead of rain. Apparently, they will be. We got more snow last night. 

It was also a rough day because I was feeling depressed. It’s probably because of a number of factors, but mostly, this new migraine medication doesn’t seem to be helping much at all. It’s so disheartening because I feel like I’ll never find anything that will work. I haven’t found anything that will conquer them in nearly 45 years, but I hold out hope that the headache clinic won’t give up on trying to find a solution.


Pic of the Day


One Step Closer

The US Senate on Wednesday advanced legislation that would provide federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages, endorsing the measure in a bipartisan vote that moves it closer to becoming law. The 62 to 37 vote for cloture on the bill was a crucial test of support for the Respect for Marriage Act. I know we sometimes hear about cloture, but we don’t always know exactly what that means. Cloture is a Senate procedure that limits further consideration of a pending proposal to thirty hours in order to end a filibuster. Therefore, once the thirty hours are over, the bill will go before the Senate for debate. At this point, there is no longer a need for 60 votes to pass the legislation. 

The Respect for Marriage Act is expected to be put up for a final vote in the Senate tomorrow. Once that happens, it will go back to the House of Representatives for another vote. As long as the House does not change anything, the bill will go to President Biden for his signature. I honestly can’t imagine the House trying to change anything. If that were to occur, the bill would have to go to a Conference Committee to reconcile the differing language before being sent back to the House and Senate for another round of votes. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that she does not have time to waste with a Conference Committee. She knows that she has to put it before the House in the same form that it was passed in the Senate because Democrats will no longer have a majority on January 3. 

In a speech on the Senate floor before the vote, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “Today, the Senate is taking a truly bold step forward in the march toward greater justice, greater equality, by advancing the Respect for Marriage Act. It’s a simple, narrowly tailored but exceedingly important piece of legislation that will do so much good for so many Americans. It will make our country a better, fairer place to live.”

Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a Republican who was among the group of Senate negotiators, highlighted the broad public support for same-sex marriage and noted that for most Americans, marriage equality is a settled question. “We’ve shown here through this legislation that these rights can coexist, religious freedom on the one hand, LGBTQ on the other hand,” Portman said. “It is my hope that with the changes we’ve talked about today and we’ve all now agreed to, we can pass this legislation with the same kind of overwhelming bipartisan majority we saw in the Houses of Representatives and therefore settle this issue once and for all.”

The Respect for Marriage Act repeals the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act and safeguards same-sex and interracial marriage by requiring the recognition of valid marriages regardless of “sex, race, ethnicity or national origin.” The bill was introduced after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. There have been concerns from Democrats that a concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas left decisions from the high court protecting the right to same-sex marriage under threat. The bill easily cleared the House in July with support from 47 Republicans. Though several GOP senators initially expressed support for the plan, Schumer agreed to postpone a vote on the legislation until after the midterm elections after some Republicans worried it would endanger religious freedom.

To assuage their concerns, the amendment ensures nonprofit religious organizations will not be required to provide services, facilities or goods for the celebration of a same-sex marriage, and protects religious liberty and conscience protections available under the Constitution and federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It also makes clear the bill does not authorize the federal government to recognize polygamous marriage and safeguards any benefit or status — such as tax-exemptions, grants, contracts or educational funding — of an entity so long as it does not arise from a marriage. 

The amendment “recognizes the importance of marriage, acknowledges that diverse beliefs and the people who hold them are due respect, and affirms that couples, including same-sex and interracial couples, deserve the dignity, stability and ongoing protection of marriage,” according to the bipartisan group.

With the amendment, the bill will have to be taken up by the House once again before going to President Biden’s desk for his signature. The White House urged passage of the measure.

“The right to marriage confers vital legal protections, dignity, and full participation in our society,” the White House budget office said in a statement of administration policy. “No person should face discrimination because of who they are or whom they love, and every married couple in the United States deserves the security of knowing that their marriage will be defended and respected.”


Pic of the Day


First Snow

We are expecting our first major snowfall today. They are predicting 4-8” but a lot of it may be slushy snow which is the worst in my opinion. It’s heavy and hard to clean off my car or drive in. I’m feeling a bit under the weather. I think I’m getting a cold. I wish I could just stay home today, but that’s not an option. My appointment to get my snow tires put on is today and if I were to cancel, it would be another month before they could do it, so come hell or high water, I’m getting my tires changed today. I’d wait at the place while they do it, but they don’t have a waiting area anymore. They did away with it during the pandemic. So, my boss is going to pick me up and take me to the museum where I will likely feel miserable all day. I hate feeling like this.


Pic of the Day