It’s on teen wristbands, hats, and t-shirts. I even once saw WWJD? tattooed on a young woman’s arm.
The idea, of course, is that we should continually ask ourselves: What Would Jesus Do? as a way of ensuring we will always do the right thing.
The question has become so commonplace, that I think most of us never pause to examine it. Or even to ask if this is an appropriate way to determine what we ought to do.
Eric Sammons offers his take on the phrase, along with five examples of things Jesus did that we absolutely should not do. Among them:
“You have the poor with you always, but you will not always have me” (Matthew 26:11)
Christianity has always been clear that we have a duty to care for the poor. In fact, we recognize that when we serve the poor, we serve Christ (cf. Matthew 25:31-46). However, when the disciples were indignant that a woman “wasted” an expensive bottle of ointment on Jesus instead of selling it to help the poor, Jesus made the startling statement that the woman’s action was superior to helping the poor. If any of us were to think that service to us was more important than serving the poor, we would be deluding ourselves.
What this example makes clear is that the real problem with using WWJD as our guide is that Jesus is not only a man — he is God. There are things — many things, in fact! — that are appropriate for God to say and do, that are not at all appropriate for men to do.
I like Sammons’ suggestion that instead of asking ourselves “What would Jesus do?” we should be asking ourselves, “What would Jesus have me do?”
But now we have a marketing problem. Because WWJHMD? just isn’t as catchy as the original.
(cross-posted at Faith & Family Live)
Your own RJN wrote of this at least once, though I do believe more than once. I could swear he actually said the line you quote above, but here’s one that’s very close:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/06/rjn-63006-where-did-the-storm
_______________
“RJN: 6.30.06 Where did the storm…
Jun 30, 2006
Richard John Neuhaus
Where did the storm over immigration come from? In conversations with folks who are in the thick of the battle, I am struck that everybody seems rather taken by surprise. A year ago, they say, they knew the issue was there, along with many other issues, but nobody anticipated that it would become the politically dominant question that it is today.
I have no idea whether there will be an immigration bill this session, but it now seems very doubtful. Almost certainly the multifaceted “comprehensive” bill favored by the White House and much of the Senate will not be passed. But I leave those matters to the political experts.
What is truly striking is the rapidity with which the public debate over immigration policy–or lack of policy–seems to be changing. At the big EWTN bash down in Philadelphia last weekend, I was asked, “What would Christ do about illegal immigrants?” This is a variation of the WWJD question that was ubiquitous a few seasons go. Anyone who asks what Jesus would do if he were president of the United States or a United States senator has a very big problem with Christology. (I should add that it was obvious that most of the four thousand or so people in Philadelphia were unhappy with what they viewed as the Catholic bishops’ compassion-only approach to immigration.)
With respect to politics and everything else, the better framing of the question is, What would Christ have us do? I am not at all sure. In terms of what’s good for the American economy, I am impressed by the arguments of the Wall Street Journal and many economists that a more or less open immigration policy is, all in all, an economic plus. The Catholic bishops are also undoubtedly right in their insistence upon compassion for the twelve million or more illegal immigrants already here, and it does not detract from the moral integrity of their position that the great majority of immigrants from the South are Catholics, and therefore immigration is seen as benefiting the Church.”
Thanks for posting that. I have been asking WWJHMD for years. When I mention it, rarely, I explain that being able to walk on water, raise the dead, and feed the multitude, Jesus had options I don’t have. I find that being both respectful and slightly humorous allows people to get it fairly quickly.
I think there’s more to that passage of scripture than it is ok to anoint Jesus with expensive oil because he is God. It was a realization I had after watching Jesus Christ Superstar recently with my hubby and kids. My hubby, who is irreligious, pointed out how focused the movie was on Judas and how he is rather a sympathetic character. He is portrayed as desperately wanting to do good – don’t waste money better spent on the poor; don’t rabble rouse and get the Roman’s attention at a time of great peril to Israel, etc… And yet, he ends up participating in this great evil as the betrayer of our Lord.
I think this speaks to the problem of “social justice” as euphemism for “socialism” and liberation theology in the Church. When our concerns are more for our good intentions than actually doing good, we sometimes inadvertently participate in evil. The poor will always be with us, all good intentions of redistribution aside, but if the poor have Jesus – are they really poor? Conversion is the good for which we should be aiming. Mitigation of poverty will follow. My two-cents worth.
I agree wholeheartedly and would just expand on that to make the point, formerly obvious, that Jesus was not primarily talking about material poverty given his overall mission of salvation from sin. He was talking about spiritual poverty. The materially rich can be among the most destitute in the eyes of God. That is the poverty that matters and truly cries out for help. Secular socialists have obscured this truth by reducing Jesus’s references to the “poor” as people without much money.
I always ask WWAT? “What would Aquinas think?”
WWJD? “…or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing…” (John 14:11-12 NIV)
That’s an unqualified promise without a sunset clause, and Jesus wasn’t exaggerating or misspeaking.
The real Jesus would do what the real Jesus DID do – He hasn’t changed his mind or his methods.
Only – just as in the first century – He needs a functioning body (Heb. 10:5) to do what He wants to do. His unqualified promise begs a question. Dare to explore it.
As my deacon formation director so often points out in relation to WWJD, Jesus is still alive at and at work in our lives. So, rather than asking what Jesus *would* do, we ought to ask, What *Is* Jesus Doing? (WIJD) As in, how is the Holy Spirit already at work in my life, and how can I cooperate more fully with it?
To me, that seems to be what the Jesuit examen is all about: noticing God’s presence in our daily lives, and asking how well we are cooperating with it or rejecting it.
Christ is present in the world today, if we would but adjust the antennae of our souls to his frequency: What is Jesus doing in the midst of the immigration problem? What is Jesus doing in our depressed economy?
Once we see what Jesus is already doing among us, we can better align our wills to his.
Thanks for the thought-provoking post!
I suspect that most “WWJD” people aren’t really interested in WJWD so much as in reminding themselves that they have a special line to Jesus that people they don’t like don’t have.
As Tegonsee points out, the day they walk on water…
Yep.
Permute WWJD to WDJW for something more human and humble.
(What Does Jesus Want)
WWJHMD is a good one, as is WWJS (what would Jesus say). As you point out, Jesus is God, we are not. What would He do if He were the head of state of a nation on the brink of war? What would He do if He were a policeman who was forced to shoot a suspect? He was none of these things; He was and is God, and as such could do things we simply cannot. He left it to us to use our best and wisest judgment.
Never been a fan of WWJD but for a different reason. When it was all the rage, bullies at my son’s school warped it by saying “When will Joshua die.” Still makes me a little ill to see those 4 letters together. And we were never able to resolve the situation with the bullies because the ring leader was the son of the principal. We ended up pulling Josh out and homeschooling. What started out as such a bad situation ended up wonderfully.
WWJD tattooed on someone’s arm? Well I can tell you one thing Jesus would NOT do, since he was an observant Jew, and that would be get a tattoo.
But I guess the fashion statement overwhelms common sense.