The art of interpretation is one of the most interesting things for me to study. The way that ideas are changed and transformed over time confirms the idea that interpretations are not as stable and timeless as some claim them to be. In John Caputo’s latest book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct?, he outlines briefly one such transformation which I will elaborate here.
Everyone today knows the acronym WWJD–What Would Jesus Do?, but few know its roots. Today, it is generally used as a stick with which Christians beat others (and each other!). It is used as a tool for promoting one’s own ideology and means something radically different in Colorado Springs than in Seattle. It actually first surfaced as a subtitle to a book written in 1896 and was first used to advocate what became known as the Social Gospel movement (from which we get today’s Sojourner’s movement).
Yet here is the most interesting tidbit: WWJD was self-reflective. In other words, the object of the question was oneself not others. The book’s story centered around a man who had lost everything walking into a well-known church and (rather politely) asking the pastor this question before falling down dead. The rest of the book details the changes the people in the church undergo as they become more active in their world. During the first chapter in which this man asks these questions, nobody knows who he is. In some ways, he resembles the author’s idea of Jesus being a character living in the slums as he helps as many people as possible instead of being a “good Christian” attending church.
So now, what would Jesus do? I can only answer that for myself, not for others. Can you also stand in the accusative (grammatical case, not legal position) and answer this question?
This is quite thought provoking. I think your assessment of the phrase as “a stick with which Christians beat others” is accurate. This is evident in the T-shirts and other “extroverted” paraphernalia I see it on.
I’ve never heard this used as a “stick,” but always as a “self-reflective” assessment of one’s own actions. Thus, people wear the bracelet to remind them to consider WWJD before doing anything. For the most part though, a lot of people who wear this Christian “cheese” have no idea what Jesus would do, as they prefer some shallow recognition of Him over any meaningful change.
For some reason, this article is not showing up when I load up Zeal for Truth, but I was able access it once Colin made his comment so I could click on his comment.
I broke it… but I think I have it fixed now
^ incompetent ^
Yep, it’s fixed.
WWJD is another example of a nice little Christian “thing” that has taken on a life of its own in popular culture. Because of that, it now doesn’t work very well when Christians want to use it with its original meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_would_Jesus_do?#Related_phrases
I read the book cchrisr mentioned (In His Steps by Charles Sheldon) or at least a children’s version of it. It was a long time ago but I recall it being a pretty good book. I’m not a big fan of preaching the social gospel (because I think it misses the point) so maybe I wouldn’t enjoy the book as much anymore.
All of the cliche stuff and history of its use aside, I think it is still a valid question. Jesus is the head of the church. We are his body. The actions carried out by the body should reflect the will and priorities of the head. I often think about this question, not in a fad way, but genuinely.
For instance, someone approaches you and says, “I’m dying of terminal cancer. The doctor has given me three months to live.” So what would Jesus do? I’ll tell you what many preachers would do. They would pray (maybe) that the “Lord’s will” would be done. The implication being that if they don’t get healed, then it wasn’t God’s will. They might as well say, “Sorry. God, in his sovereignty, has decided to kill you with cancer. Better plan your funeral. Make plans for the children that you’ll leave behind.” I can’t think of a weaker excuse for Christianity than that. Would those same people answer in this way if someone needed forgiveness of sin? Probably not. They would tell them that if they confess their sin, God is faithful and just to forgive their sin and cleanse them from all unrighteousness. Jesus demonstrated this type of immediate forgiveness during his earthly ministry. But he also demonstrated the same willingness to heal. Do we ever have any indication that Jesus told someone it wasn’t his will to heal them? No, not any more than we have evidence that he decided not to forgive people.
The church needs to rediscover that the same signs that followed Jesus should be following us. Anything less than that is a weak and beggarly version of religion absent the real substance of life that the Gospel possesses. How do we know what Jesus would do? We know on the basis of what he did and what he said. And since he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, we can fully expect him to do the same things through us, his body - period.
So yes, maybe WWJD was/is a fad, but its as valid a question as it ever was.
“To live is Christ, and to die is gain.”
I think that idea (and the Lord’s Prayer) is what fuels the Biblical belief that if someone gets cancer, you should pray for both healing, God’s will to be done, and for the Gospel to advance. Praying for just healing is assuming that God wants to heal you, and we are not Jesus, we don’t have His mind or knowledge of God’s will.
“I think that idea (and the Lord’s Prayer) is what fuels the Biblical belief that if someone gets cancer, you should pray for both healing, God’s will to be done, and for the Gospel to advance.”
The “Lord’s Prayer” (not actually his prayer, but a prayer given to Jews under the Old Covenant) has nothing to do with healing. I know you are not alone in this belief, but to suggest that this prayer should be used in connection with healing is a gross misapplication of scripture - especially when we have an actual biblical model of New Testament prayer for healing.
14Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him (James 5:14,15).
Does it say the Lord might raise up the sick if its his will? No, it says the Lord shall raise him up. It is much more definite language than most Christians use in connection with prayer and healing. In other words, it is saying it is the Lord’s will to raise up the sick. I mean, do we honestly think God is going to tell us to pray for something that isn’t his will? What kind of cruel joke would that be? We wouldn’t say that a person would be forgiven if it’s the Lord’s will, would we? Notice the obvious connection between the two. Verse 15 says the Lord shall raise him up and forgive his sins.
Here’s another witness for you found in Psalm 103:
2Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:
3Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;
4Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies;
The problem is that the church has forgotten ALL his benefits, because you couldn’t be more plainer than that. He said he forgives ALL our iniquities and heals ALL our diseases. How could we then ask the Lord if its his will after he tells us plainly that it is? Is God a liar? Is he going to contradict his word?
“Praying for just healing is assuming that God wants to heal you, and we are not Jesus, we don’t have His mind or knowledge of God’s will.”
Yes, real faith-filled prayer for healing is predicated on the assumption God wants to heal you. If he doesn’t want to heal us, he sure has gone through a lot of trouble tricking us into thinking he does. The Bible is absolutely full of this truth. And we actually DO have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16), and we are instructed not to be unwise but to understand what the will of the Lord is (Ephesians 5:17).
You’re not seriously drawing doctrine from the Psalms, are you?
Methinks he is.
I don’t think there is a problem drawing doctrine out of Psalms if it really is there. However, I don’t think what Chris is saying is exactly an accurate interpretation (but that is more about his ideas of “the will of God”). But there is plenty in Psalms that is good doctrine (as long as by “doctrine,” we mean something like Christian principles, values and/or guidance for living). For example, 119 is full of this kind of thing.
Was Paul not asking right, or does not NOT promise to fix all our physical maladies even if we ask? To claim that healing is guaranteed to all true believers is to claim that Paul was not a true believer.
Honestly, I’ve never heard this used in an aggressive mode. I’ve been familiar with the book “In His Steps” all my life, and any youth group I’ve ever been part of that emphasized the term WWJD have mentioned it in connection with the book. Sure, the wrist bands became a meaningless fad pretty fast, but I’ve never really seen it used like cchrisr depicts. Since cchrisr frequently selects straw men to attack in his blogs and forum posts, I will assume this is the case here as well (unless evidence can be provided otherwise from a mainstream source).
“Was Paul not asking right, or does not NOT promise to fix all our physical maladies even if we ask? To claim that healing is guaranteed to all true believers is to claim that Paul was not a true believer.”
You have wrongly assumed, as have many others, that the thorn of the flesh is a reference to illness. What is the thorn in the flesh? The answer is found in verse 7. It was a “messenger” (could have also been translated “angel”) of Satan. The “thorn in the flesh” figure of speech is consistently used in reference to the enemies of God’s people (Numbers 33:55, Joshua 23:13, Judges 2:3). It has nothing whatsoever to do with disease.
“You’re not seriously drawing doctrine from the Psalms, are you?”
Let’s not forget 2 Timothy 3:16.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
But to answer your question, I am not drawing doctrine solely from the Psalms. As I said, there is plenty of scripture one could draw from. The passage in Psalm 103 is one of them. If you want a full list, just let me know.
At any rate, should we say that this passage is untrue because it is found in the Psalms? Are you proposing that we omit this book? Or just that we should interpret it as meaning something other than what it says?
The apostle Paul prayed for healing and we assume he prayed in faith. Yet, apparently, the answer was no.
I am assuming that Paul’s thorn in the flesh was some kind of physical ailment though we don’t really know specifically what it was. Paul, who we assume was full of faith, prayed for healing and was told “No. I have a reason for your physical suffering.”
In spite of saying this, I agree that it seems confusing when we are told to pray in faith for healing, and yet we don’t see it happen very often.
On the other hand, if it was always God’s will to heal, wouldn’t we live to be a million years old?
But couldn’t someone else have a “thorn,” so to speak, that DOES involve health? You are WANTING the Bible to say something that it does NOT. God does say ask with confidence for the things you need (”Give us this day our daily bread”), yet also says ask that His will be done (”your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”). Let’s look at Jesus himself. He was facing execution (which is quite related to one’s health) and asked that the cup be passed away from him, but more importantly, that God’s will be done. I will somewhat agree with you that we should have more confidence in what we ask and perhaps fall less into “do whatever your will is, God” prayer. But this is according to the leading of the Holy Spirit.
There is an older man in my home church who has very serious cancer right now. When he found out, he immediately prayed that God would use it as an opportunity for him to share the Gospel with his relatives. He did not pray for healing, but for God’s will to be done and for an opportunity to spread the Gospel. Another man from that same church had cancer a few years ago and before he died, he spoke to the congregation about how he wasn’t asking for healing, but that God would be glorified.
Chris Austere, I think we should remember that the psalms are songs of praise, worship, thanksgiving, and lamentation. They are not a careful exposition of doctrine such as Romans, nor histories such as Acts. They are poetic expressions filled with human emotion. If you try to interpret a psalm in the same way you interpret Romans, that’s interpreting it contrary to its intended meaning. Interpreting Psalms 103 to mean that God will heal all sicknesses is contrary to the intended meaning of that psalm. The passage from James that you quoted is probably better for supporting your position.
I have many times. This is simply more anecdotal evidence, but I would venture to say that I have seen this a majority of times I’ve encountered the saying (or at least it sticks out more prominently in my memory). Specifically, people using it as means to correct other Christians in their behavior.
“Interpreting Psalms 103 to mean that God will heal all sicknesses is contrary to the intended meaning of that psalm. The passage from James that you quoted is probably better for supporting your position.”
If Colin says its okay, I would perhaps do a whole series on what the Bible says about healing to better explain some of this. As far as the Psalms go, you are right that they are songs of praise, thanksgiving, etc. But here the Psalmist is giving thanks to God because he forgives all our sins and heals all our diseases. Its pretty simple really. But its important to remember the psalmist was not introducing a new concept about God. Israel had a covenant with God that included healing, as do Christians today. This Psalm was in reference to what Israel already knew about God, that he is Jehovah Rapha, the Lord our healer. That is one of the redemptive names of God that reveal who Jesus is.
But let me say this: I have seen countless people healed of many different things. I myself have been healed more than once - both through the manifestations of the Spirit and just by simple faith in the Word. I know of many terminal cases of individuals who were healed, and have seen these things first hand for many years. My wife, who was raised in the Methodist church and was not familiar with healing, was healed of an injury she suffered from being rear-ended. This happened while she was watching the 700 Club. Just a few weeks ago, my pastor on the basis of the “prayer of faith” scripture in James 5 asked some of guys to anoint him with oil and pray for his healing. He had a growth on his testicle. It began to amend from that day, and within a few days it had completely disappeared. I could go on and on.
But since I am now speaking from experience, let me say that in comparatively few instances have I seen a person get healed who was not fully persuaded that it was God’s will to heal them. The most notable exceptions are those who have had very little or no exposure to the Gospel.
On a missions trip to the Navajo Nation, I saw many unbelievers get healed. Needless to say they were not unbelievers for long. I saw one woman who was 94-years-old and had not walked in four years get up and walk with absolutely no pain whatsoever.
These things are actually fairly commonplace. Its a shame so many people die when they don’t have to. Its an even greater shame that Christ’s ambassador’s help them into the grave. If that’s what Jesus would do, then we should do the same. But if he didn’t do that then neither should we.
Are you a Benny Hinn fan?
I had to ask.
I have no question whatsoever that God can and does provide supernatural healing to believers. I also believe it is heretical and blasphemous to teach that God will ALWAYS heal a believer who just follows the magic steps. I’ve known pastors who taught that taking communion could heal illnesses, which is found nowhere in Scripture. This doctrine is closely related to the “Prayer of Jebez” doctrine that God will ALWAYS give monetary wealth to those who ask. These are blasphemous prophecies because they claim to speak promises from God that are not made by God. I would be highly interested in a posting or series on God’s unconditional promises to heal believers of all afflictions. Considering the number of Christians throughout history who have died of diseases, it would be interesting to see proof that their deaths were entirely caused by their own lack of faith.
“Are you a Benny Hinn fan?
I had to ask.”
I figured this would come up sooner or later, and I don’t mind your asking. First of all, I’m not a “fan” of any minister. Regarding Benny Hinn, I don’t want to pass judgment on him. He has had some pretty serious doctrinal issues over the years, many of which I disagree with. He may have repented of some of those things; I don’t know. I don’t really keep up with his ministry, honestly.
But despite the media’s criticisms, I do believe that there are genuine healings in his meetings. That, in and of itself, doesn’t make him special. There are genuine healings in many peoples’ meetings.
I will say that, although I may not agree with much he has said or even done, I believe him to be a gifted evangelist and respect God’s calling on his life. Thousands have been saved through his ministry. There’s no doubt about that.
Thank you for the anecdotal evidence. Perhaps it is I who have been sheltered in my exposure to this acronym. The only aggressive use I ever remember hearing of this term has actually been by unbelievers trying to accuse Christians of being judgmental or intolerant. I’m still not sure how this works as an attack though, since WWJD is more a paradigm for viewing decisions than a standard against which someone can be judged.
For example, would someone say: “I noticed you wore jeans to church, would Jesus have done that?”. My response to an “attack” like that would likely be “Yes, I believe given the circumstances of bringing a friend who doesn’t feel comfortable dressing up to church, Jesus would indeed have worn jeans.” This seems a weaker “attack” than to just say “Wearing jeans to church is disrespectful, never do it again.” The latter contains far less room for a quick and direct response… How can a general paradigm like WWJD really be used to attack?
Goodness yes. Please, with me you don’t ask permission, just ask forgiveness. Go ye and write many articles. Sendest ye them to mine email.
This made me chuckle because I can imagine this conversation actually taking place.
The manner I have used it is with people who want to avoid specific confrontation, but still want to offer a rebuke. In hindsight, I suppose “attack” is too strong a word. Instead of saying: “please stop smoking”, they would say “what would Jesus do” or the variant: “would you smoke if Jesus were here.”
“Goodness yes. Please, with me you don’t ask permission, just ask forgiveness. Go ye and write many articles. Sendest ye them to mine email.”
It is settled then. It may take me a while to get it all together. Until then I will reserve any further comment on the subject.
Benny Hinn…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI
Seriously though, he is very dangerous. “Slain in the spirit” is not Biblical. His fake healings and obnoxious personal wealth (plenty of news stories and specials have been done on both) speak volumes about how false his teaching is. I can confidently say that he is a false teacher.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
Atanamis,
My post is based on experiences I have had. You can try to argue against that, but it won’t work. At best, you can say that you did not experience it as such. Do you think the variants (”What Would Nietzsche Do?”, “What Would Someone Else Do?”, etc) were created because the original “WWJD” was a good, well-used phrase?
For everyone, my argument includes one for the usage of “WWJD” as a self-reflective thought. It isn’t something one asks others, but what one should ask oneself. We can bandy about examples of how people use it to regulate the behavior of others, which I implied originally by saying “It is used as a tool for promoting one’s own ideology and means something radically different in Colorado Springs than in Seattle;” but that usage totally misses the point of its intended usage. It isn’t supposed to be used as a tool to stop someone from smoking, drinking, having sex, killing, etc. Like something I mentioned in my previous post, that is elevating one’s own ideology to the level of the Bible and/or God, then hiding behind “Jesus” as a tool for one’s ideology (i.e. “It’s not my thoughts, but God’s”).
So how would you suggest getting someone to stop “smoking, drinking, having sex, killing, etc.”?
Thanks for clarifying. Since Colin claims similar experience, I’ll take the word of you and Colin that this happens. It just seems really ridiculous to me, but if it happens it is definitely worth addressing. Thanks for doing so.
This seems like an odd rebuke as well, since there is no reason to believe Jesus was opposed to smoking. One can argue that it is failing to care for the “temple of God” (since the Spirit lives in us), but the same argument also applies to an unhealthy lifestyle of overeating and under-exercising.
Again though: “Yes, I would likely smoke if Jesus were here, because it is a habit I enjoy and which I am not willing to stop despite its clear health risks” seems like a believable answer.
Actually, I would more likely respond with something more like: “Yes, since Christ is personally involved in the lives of believers, and I am currently smoking, clearly I WOULD smoke if Jesus were here. Do you not believe that Jesus is present with us in our daily lives, or in your mind is the spiritual presence of God so completely different from His physical presence as to not qualify as ‘present’ to your mindset?”
WWJD is only meaningful in the sense that it reminds us that we should be molding our thinking and responses to those of Christ. If Christ would take pity on the needy among us, so should we. If Christ would condemn a religious leader for their hypocrisy, so should we. If Christ would humbly submit to undeserved punishment, again, so should we. Our focus should be on how Christ would react, not on what we rightfully deserve. After all, if we want “our rights”, we are doomed to an eternity in Hell for our sins.
First, help them understand that a loving God is separated from them by their sin, which is deserving of eternal punishment, but which can be forgiven by accepting Christ’s payment of the penalty and committing oneself to Christ.
Second, distinguish between things that are sinful (drunkenness, extra-marital sex, murder) and things which are not (smoking, controlled drinking, marital sex, government condoned killing for just causes).
Third, teach the new believer that life in Christ should seek to be honoring to God, and that they should refrain from doing things prohibited by Scripture. Offer to help hold them accountable to living to this standard.
Fourth, if a believer refuses to repent of sin in their lives, speak with leaders in the church to help you confront them, and if they will not submit to the church leaders they should be asked to leave the local gathering of believers.
Fifth, pray that God will help them to repent and return them to the body (prayer should also be integrally involved in each of the above steps as well).
I agree with what you have said, Atanamis. I was more wondering how cchrisr would broach the subject of sin, if Jesus’ life and actions are off-limits. I can think of some ways, but wondering what he would say. I guess I’m not sure why, hokey WWJD saying aside, we aren’t allowed to encourage, criticize, etc. other believers with the idea that we are to emulate Christ.
Darius, I did not say that Jesus’ life and actions were “off-limits.” What I said was that one should not re-inscribe one’s own ideology into Jesus’ thoughts and actions. If one wants to use the Bible, fine–I’ve got no qualms with that. But, if one wants to suggest that one’s interpretation of the Bible (e.g. drinking==sin) is the only true interpretation or that’s how Jesus interpreted things (ignoring, of course, that whole thing at Cana), then I’ve got a problem with it.