Is “What Would Jesus Do” the Way to Live? - By Randy White

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-----------------------I've commented on Dr. White once before.  I'm beginning to think that Dr. White is exhibiting what is becoming an identifying characteristic, that is, he seems to be limited in his thinking skills. Which is strange, because he has glimmers of insight. I don't wish to be disrespectful of a man who has committed his life to the service of the Kingdom. I bless him for that. However, the things he writes are properly the subject of scrutiny, since he represents himself as a teacher of the Word. Read on:--------------------------------

by Randy White

January 25, 2014

~~For the longest time, perhaps since the days of Charles Sheldon’s classic book “In His Steps,” the phrase “what would Jesus do?” has been a code of ethics for millions of believers. Unbeknownst to most of these believers, however, “what would Jesus do?” is actually a bad ethical model. (So we have Dr. White's premise, that is, is asking ourselves what Jesus would do is a bad ethical model. Let's see if he makes his case.)

One of my greatest fears for Christians today is that they are so gullible. (Probably true. Most people are gullible.) 

If something sounds spiritual, then thousands upon thousands of believers will immediately accept it. Anyone who questions it will quickly be condemned as unspiritual. (Dr. White is once again beginning to exhibit certain tendencies for which I previously criticized him. Here he's making a sweeping generalization based on a false binary equation. In this case, he is setting himself up as the persecuted party, since he is the one who will be offering criticism. He expects condemnation, and in his mind the persecution will be because he told the truth to the gullible.) 

For example, if someone says they don’t like the church growth movement, (Which was the subject of his previous article), 

they will be accused of an, “us four and no more” policy. If someone is opposed to the social gospel, (Which he mentioned in his previous article) 

they will be accused of not caring for shoeless children in Africa. (He seems to think that practical expressions of mercy is the same thing as the social gospel. The social gospel is a political doctrine, not a biblical one. However, caring for shoeless children is certainly one of the legitimate expressions of faith we should embrace. The two are not the same.) 

If someone doesn’t believe that God is giving direct messages to believers around the world, they will be accused of rejecting the third person of the Trinity. (This is a big subject, which Dr. White reduces down to a dreadfully simplistic level, making it devoid of meaning.) 

So, having experience with each of these, I know that some people will reject outright my rejection of the “what would Jesus do?” code of conduct. (A little bit of advance excuse-making. He's suggesting because these other criticisms were unreasonable in some way, what he is about to write will likewise be subject to unreasonable criticism.)

But, should we do what Jesus would do? Can we do what Jesus would do? Do we know what Jesus would do? Are we instructed to do what Jesus would do? (These are good questions. It will be interesting to learn what he thinks constitutes "doing what Jesus would do.")

Even before twitter we had what I call “twitter theology.” Twitter theology is a spiritual statement that is easy to post and repost, to like and to share, and to put into sound bites and onto the church marquise. Most of this twitter theology needs to be thoroughly questioned. (Well of course. Who is suggesting that we should not?) 

In fact, we should question twitter theology as much as–if not more than–the sermons we hear, the Christian books we read, and the contemporary Christian music we listen to. (All true. It's called "discernment," and it's not limited to sound bites. Even a wordy treatise, like what we're reading now, is subject to the same scrutiny. Shortness is not an indicator of truthfulness or value.)  “What would Jesus do?” is pre-twitter era twitter theology, and I want to question it.

For at least two reasons, I do not think that Jesus can be the criterion for Christian living.

JESUS LIVED UNDER THE LAW

What would Jesus do for breakfast? (Our first indicator of what Dr. White considers to be "WWJD." He selects something irrelevant, inane, and unillustrative of the topic in order to belittle the entire concept.) 

Biblically, the only time that we see him eating breakfast, He is eating fish. Personally, I’m not too eager to do what Jesus would do for breakfast. (As if this is what it means to imitate the life of Jesus.) 

Though we only have one incident in the Scripture in which Jesus is actually eating breakfast, we know that Jesus would not have bacon for breakfast.  Sausage and biscuits are also out. (Is he trying to be funny? A whole paragraph on Jesus' breakfast? This is how he illustrates his point? Really?)

What would Jesus do for lunch? (Not content to stop at breakfast, he moves on to lunch. Apparently we need to eat what Jesus ate in order to conform to his idea of what constitutes living a Christ-like life.) 

I enjoy going down to my favorite burger joint and having a cheeseburger. Jesus, however, kept kosher. Not only would He not eat a cheeseburger, He likely would not even choose to dine at the burger joint. No doubt, for the same reasons, my Tex-Mex supper would not be what Jesus would do either.

So I say, “I would do what Jesus would do,” but, I wouldn’t do it at breakfast, lunch, or dinner. (See where this is going? Doing everything exactly the way Jesus would do everything is the only way to do what Jesus would do. It's taking a innocuous idea and extending it into absurdity in an effort to invalidate the entire idea.) 

What about on the Sabbath? A typical Sabbath day will find me mowing the lawn, doing some chores around the house, and often running about town to complete some errands. Maybe I would gather the family into the car to go on a picnic, or a shopping venture, or a movie, play, or concert. For those under the law, all of these are prohibited. So, I don’t do what Jesus would do at mealtime, nor on the Sabbath. (Dr. White's activities on the Sabbath are apparently representative of what all Christians should view as acceptable. So, we shouldn't do what Jesus did on the Sabbath either, but we can do what Dr. White does. One is worthy of ridicule, the other is approved.) 

Of course, as a modern Christian, I would find ways to explain that Jesus, if He were living today, would behave differently than He actually behaved in the day in which He lived. As is not uncommon, I would likely be very selective in my Biblical interpretation so that, conveniently, Jesus ends up behaving the way I want him to behave. (One might justifiably wonder at this point if Dr. White thinks that there is anything about Jesus' life that is worthy of emulation. After all, Jesus lived in a very different time, with different practices and societal behaviors. Jesus's life, purpose, and mission apparently cannot be divorced from the age in which He lived. 

The only thing Dr. White can identify so far is what Jesus ate and what He would do on the Sabbath. Nothing in His many teachings, parables, or miracles seem to come to bear on our lives today. So, let's continue on to see what Dr. White considers to be important about Jesus' life and its relevance to today's Christian.)

If Jesus was here today, would He –

• Say, “The poor you have with you always.”

• Make the entire focus of his ministry to be the nation of Israel?

• Overturn the sales booth in the church foyer, snapping a whip on the backs of the moneychangers?

• Tell us to shake the dust off our shoes if someone rejects the gospel message?

(This has moved from the odd to the ridiculous. It seems Dr. White's focus is on minutiae and the tangential in an effort to neuter the entire idea that Jesus is worthy of emulation. I say this because as you read on you will find absolutely nothing about Jesus that Dr. White views as the "proper" way to regard Jesus and how His life and ministry applies to us.)

The bottom line is that when we fail to “rightly divide the word of truth,” we create a mumbo jumbo theology that has absolutely no consistency. I think this is one of the reasons that young people so quickly leave the church when they leave home. The church and its WWJD ethic code just often lacks logical sense. (He has constructed a straw man of what constitutes doing what Jesus would do, and now deems that as illogical. Further, he attributes a problem in the Church [Youth leaving the Church] to WWJD. This is a bare assertion, unrelated to anything presently under discussion.) 

There is an easy way to bring the Scripture together in perfect harmony. The problem is we would have to leave many of our closely held doctrines of modern religious wisdom. ("Leave many" of them, which are left unnamed.) 

In fact, the apostle Paul gives us an instruction that spares us from all the “what would Jesus do?” inconsistencies. In I Corinthians 11:1, Paul says “imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ” (NKJV). (Our first Scripture reference. Let's see what he does with it.)

Perhaps we should start wearing a bracelet that says WWPD? What would Paul do? Pauline theology is built for Christians living in the age of grace. It avoids the problem of “what would Jesus do?” Some may be thinking, “why not cut out the middleman, and just imitate Christ?” This fails to take into account the fact that Paul, as the apostle for this age, had a unique access to Jesus Christ. He consistently claims that he received direct revelation from the Lord that is applicable to our lives today. (Wow. That is astounding. Ok, this is going to take some time to deconstruct. Please be patient as I explain. 

First, Dr. White suggests that Paul's command to imitate him only is meaningful because Paul had a special status we cannot access today. What, then, would Dr. White say about Mt. 5:48: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." To quote Dr. White, "...this fails to take into account the fact that [Jesus, as the Son of God], had a unique access to" the Father, right? So on that basis we could imitate Jesus, but maybe we should cut out the middleman and just imitate the Father? 

Second, it seems that Dr. White is ok with imitating Paul. But Paul heard from heaven. According to Dr. White, we should not "...believe that God is giving direct messages to believers around the world..." So how can we do what Paul did, and why is it any different than doing what Jesus did? 

Third, did not Jesus give us much information "...that is applicable to our lives today?" So why should we not implement that into our lives as well?)

JESUS CANNOT BE SELF-INTERPRETED

WWJD becomes a bad ethical policy, because we just have to make so much stuff up! What would Jesus do about the bio-medical ethical issues we face today? What would Jesus think about our Federal Reserve policy? How would Jesus respond to an overloaded e-mail box? What would Jesus do if the waiter got His order wrong? Where would Jesus live if He had a choice between Albuquerque and Albania? All of these questions require us to make assumptions, and these assumptions are very likely to be nothing more than our preference masquerading as God’s will. (Again, Dr. White attempts to diminish the life of Jesus based on inanities. Is there nothing in Jesus' life and ministry worthy of emulation?)

The problem is that Jesus is not open to self-interpretation. We can’t just guess what Jesus would do, or say, or think. For that matter, I can’t even guess what you would do, or say, or think. Why do we want to create an ethic that requires the self-interpretation of Jesus? (Ironically, that is exactly what Dr. White is doing. He's creating a framework of what is important about Jesus' life to evaluate whether or not we should emulate Him. From that framework he establishes his thesis that we cannot know what Jesus would do. 

But we see over and over in Scripture the many commands Jesus gives to us. "This is how you should pray..." I guess the Lord's Prayer is something we should not pray? Jesus said we should not worry about tomorrow. Should we ignore this? Should we not do to others as we would have them do to us? Should we not ask the Lord of the Harvest to send workers?

Do you see why Dr. White is so off base? He wants to know if we should eat what Jesus ate, which is nothing more than a smokescreen to divert us from the substance of Jesus' commands. In this entire article, Dr. White does not address the core issues of Christ-likeness, preferring instead to focus on the absurd.)

Have you ever noticed that when people use the WWJD approach to ethical problems, they are often landing on the liberal side of the argument? A conservative position has a clear scripture reference. (So far, he as quoted only one attributed verse to establish his position, and that one he misused. Not exactly a stellar example of his own requirements.) 

When someone wants to go in a different direction than the clear teaching of Scripture, they will pull the WWJD card.  Have you ever heard that Jesus wouldn’t support capital punishment, but he would support gay marriage?  It is so convenient to be able to make-up what Jesus would do so that we can use Jesus to support our position. (He cites people who misuse WWJD in a way that suggests that these people represent the norm of WWJD. He offers no evidence of such.)

My seminary Old Testament Survey book, by LaSor, Hubbard & Bush, had this to say about the way Jesus interpreted the Old Testament—

"Compared to the viewpoint of most of his Jewish contemporaries, Christ's approach to the Old Testament is dynamic, not static. He looked upon the Old Testament not as a catalogue of fixed principles regulating religious conduct, but as the inspired and authoritative record of God's activity in history, an activity which presses toward its denouement in his coming kingdom. As Jesus' words are spirit and life (John 6:63), so the Old Testament when viewed with his insights becomes a guide to life (John 5:39)." (pg. 2)

By determining what Jesus would do with Old Testament interpretation (He would interpret it in a dynamic, not static manner), the authors could then release themselves from the literal nature of the Hebrew text.  And they did!  Writing about Genesis 1-11, they said it, "is not 'history' in the modern sense...rather, it conveys theological truths...portrayed in a largely symbolic, pictorial literary genre." (pg. 74)  They further said that since, "Adam means 'mankind' and Eve is '(she who gives) life'. Surely, when the author of a story names the principle characters Mankind and Life, something is conveyed about the degree of literalness intended!" (pg. 72).

How does one build an Old Testament interpretation that all but denies the literal existence of a man and woman named Adam and Eve? (How does one build a Christology that all but denies the many literal commands of Jesus?) 

How does one deny a six-day creation or a worldwide flood? All you need to do is self-interpret Jesus, then have that self-interpreted Jesus interpret the Hebrew text the way you would want it, and you have a beautiful tool for your own political purposes. (Which is off topic. How is what a man wrote in a seminary text relevant to the matter at hand? What point is established? What principle is clarified? How does that connect to those people who want to life a godly life?)

CONCLUSION

What would Jesus do?  I’m not sure I know. (Herein lies the problem. There is so much in Scripture about the spiritual principles taught by Jesus and exemplified in His life, yet Dr. White seems unaware of them. Dr. White cannot lay his finger on anything relevant or profound about Jesus, beyond his dietary habits and if He would prefer Albania. Truly sad.) 

I know some things that He did, but I can’t just use that as anecdotal evidence for some personal pet-peeve. I know some things He did that I can’t do. I know some things He did that, because I am not under the Law, I am not obligated to do. So, at best, WWJD is just an exercise in theological imagination. (In other words, these three categories are all there is. Nothing else about Jesus is worth mentioning. Dr. White has reduced Jesus' life and teaching to three unknowns he cannot use in his life.) 

I better not use WWJD for a personal ethic. What I should do is to be diligent to present myself, “approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NKJV). (So he can identify a Scripture that presents a command for use in his own life. What is so sad is that he has spent his entire presentation avoiding the large portions of Scripture that would enlighten him about what way he can live a life of Christ-likeness. So in this command he values so much, he fails.)

Dr. Randy White is Pastor of First Baptist Church of Katy and the host of the weekly Ask the Theologian radio program. Join him online each Thursday night at 8:00PM Central for online Bible study.