Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount: “Quite the Crowd Pleaser, Charlie.”

Following Obama’s speech last night, I found myself wondering what today’s political “analysts” might say just after Jesus delivered his Sermon on the Mount. At the time I was watching Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos commenting, so …

Charlie: Well, that was Jesus Christ, making what one of the most important and I’m certain most watched speeches of his career up to now. Whatd’d you make of his speech, George?

George: Very solid, Charlie. Christ looked good, he sounded good, he hit the points he needed to hit. And the speech was very well received; from the beginning to the end of his talk I’m showing about twenty minutes total worth of applause.

Charlie: Twenty minutes, you say?

George: Yes, twenty.

Charlie: That is a lot.

George: It is.

Charlie: This is a man who really knows how to work a crowd, isn’t it, George?

George: It’s one of his great strengths, Charlie. You can just tell that Christ is in his comfort zone when he’s talking before a sizable crowd—

Charlie: And this was a sizable crowd!

George: It was, Charlie. It was a throng, really.

Charlie: I, too, George, found the crowd to be what I can only call throngish.

George: It’s a speech about which there’s been considerable anticipation, Charlie. There’s been a big build-up to it; everyone’s been guessing about what it will contain. What programs would he introduce? What solutions would he propose? What would he say to the average man and woman that would resonate with them, inspire them, restore their waning trust in their leaders?

Charlie: Waning? Is that a word?

George: Yes, it’s a word, Charlie. What Christ needed to do with this speech was—

Charlie: Do you mean “waxing”?

George: I’m sorry?

Charlie: Waxing. Did you mean “waxing” instead of “waning”?

George: No, Charlie—I meant waning. People’s trust in their leaders have been waning. It means reducing. Getting less. Shrinking.

Charlie: Is that right? I could have sworn that’s what “waxing” meant.

George: “Waxing” means the opposite of that, Charlie. It means growing, getting bigger, enlarging.

Charlie: So do you think that after tonight’s speech Christs’ popularity will wax, George?

George: It’s possible. It was a powerful speech, and delivered in that inimitable Christ style. But I did note a few things contained within the speech that I think might Christ considerable trouble a little further down the road.

Charlie: You took notes?

George: Yes, Charlie, I took notes. I actually wrote down a few of the things about his speech tonight that I think could later hurt Christ.

Charlie: What sort of things did you write down?

George: Well, Charlie, a lot of Christ’s speech catered directly to the economically disadvantaged and generally oppressed.

Charlie: To the Democratic base, you mean.

George: But not just the Democrats, Charlie: to all people, Democratic and Republican, who have found themselves unmoored by these difficult times we’re in.

Charlie: un—?

George: People are lost right now, and they’re looking for a leader to rally around, a galvanizing public figure who really gets them. And Christ certainly knows how to present himself as one of the people. The humble garb. The simple sandals. The long hair. The beard. Everything about the man says “unpretentious.”

Charlie: un—?

George: But it’s this appeal to the commonest of the common man that in the end might undo Christ, Charlie.

Charlie: How do you mean, George?

George: Well, even though I’m not sure he meant it that way, a lot of what Christ said in his speech just might be taken by some as truly radical. Revolutionary, even.

Charlie: Really? But it all sounded so kind of soothing, you know? Comforting. I didn’t hear anything particularly revolutionary.

George: But I think that might be the very genius of the speech, Charlie. If you really listen to what Christ said, there’s a lot there that the established power elite—the heads of financial institutions, the power brokers in government, the titans of the manufacturing sector, anyone who has a vested interest in the status quo—might not only offensive, but outright challenging.

Charlie: Really?

George: Just listen to what he said: the meek shall inherit the earth; those who hunger for righteousness will be filled; the kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor in spirit. I think there’s a lot in those seemingly calming words that some could hear as incendiary, Charlie. Don’t forget that a significant proportion of Christ’s audience—his core constituency, if you will—are people who feel that they’re just about out of options. Many of them feel powerless to positively effect their own lives. They have no insurance, no health care; many of them have lost their homes, or are out of work. And here’s Christ, talking about how people who are now at the bottom of the social food-chain can end up at the very top of it. Some might understand his words as comforting assurances about their next life. Others might hear him calling for a radical uprising in this one.

Charlie: But you don’t think that anyone will take too much offense to Christ’s message, do you, George?

George: I don’t. I mean, I certainly hope not. But time will tell.

Follow-up to this post: The Opposition Response to Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.

Join my Facebook fan club

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Print Friendly

About John Shore

John Shore (who, fwiw, is straight) is the author of UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question, and three other great books. He is co-founder of The NALT Christians Project and founder of Unfundamentalist Christians (on Facebook here). His blog is here. His website is JohnShore.com. John is a pastor ordained by The Progressive Christian Alliance. You're invited to like John's Facebook page. And don't forget to sign up for his mucho awesome monthly newsletter.

  • Greta Sheppard

    John, my first thought was that you might be treading on thin ice with the theologians…that you might come across as disrespectful….

    However, I was thoroughly moved by it! BRILLIANT! I want to pass this on to a few folks I know. It gave me goose bumps!

  • http://www.smi2le.com Brian Shields

    It is interesting to me that only the MNC (Matthew News Channel) chose to broadcast the speech in its entirety while MNN (Mark Network News), LBC (Luke Broadcasting Corporation) and TJN (The John Network) chose only a few sound bites, if that.

    Why do you think that is? Were the other channels afraid of scaring off their wealthy donors, patrons, and advertisers?

  • Liz

    Brilliant. Nice read and plenty of food for thought.

  • FreetoBe

    John: Hilarious this morning! Thanks.

    Brian: What a delicious add-on. Funny!

  • http://www.princehanniel.blogspot.com Prince Hanniel

    John you are uniquely hilarious… lovely lovely lovely.. shows how much commmentators comment on nothing really and we think they are "critically" analyzing something and what it really means….

    I loved it totally… you are a master genious…

    Baraka

  • Mark Lattimore

    Hmmm…I don't know, John…

    First, brilliantly written, as usual. Secondly, I love the way you captured the mind-numbing inanity of most political "commentary." Every time I listen to these guys (from Charlie to Rush) I feel like I lose 50 IQ points and 15 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.

    But now, let's be honest, it's also a political piece. "Savior" (yeah, I know, you didn't actually use that word) is a terribly heavy mantle to hang on the shoulders of a mere man. What I can't decide is whether the piece is intended as a critical satire on the "Obama as Messiah" view or an endorsement of it.

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    Hey, guys! Prince: THANK YOU! Very kind of you.

    Greta: Thank you so much. Really touching.

    Brian: Dude. WAY funny! Excellent. And I know somewhere in a good answer would be something about re-runs, or simultaneous broadcasting, or … something. Excellent.

    Liz and Free: Thanks to you both. I know it's lame to sort of keep just saying "thanks," but believe me, I feel each "thanks" truly.

    Mark: Honestly, it's neither. But thanks for imagining I have any sort of idea where stuff like that is going to end up once I start it.

  • Christine

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….everytime I read your posts John my enjoyment waxes in your favour :)

  • http://imonark.com/beatitudes/the-beatitudes-an-example-of-true-leadership/ Mark Notz

    I just wrote about the qualities of a true leader. One that can connect but also has the staying power. It is true that many a politician can temporarily reach people. However only those leaders that really love people for who they are can win their eternal devotion. True leadership will build trust that instills a since of "yes I can" effectively offering a hand up and not a hand out. Brilliant post, if only today's pundants understood what real leadership was and had some themselves.

  • Latoya

    Love it!