At a recent Congressional town hall meeting I attended, I was astounded by the positions being taken by the outnumbered group of advocates for socializing American medicine. 

The Founding Fathers - a group whose distrust and skepticism about the size and scope of the national government is epic - were surely doing back flips in their graves as seemingly intelligent Americans willfully stood up and championed the notion of handing over their healthcare to bureaucrats in Washington.  Regardless of your political leanings, it was a chilling sight to see a group of citizens standing and applauding the loss of their own freedom.

But more bizarre than that was a sign that had been placed on a pro-ObamaCare table near the front of the stage.  It simply read, "Jesus would vote yes."

Now, I should preface these remarks by acknowledging the possibility that I misunderstood the sign.  A listener to my radio show suggested to me that perhaps "Jesus," pronounced "Hay-Soos," was referring to an illegal immigrant who would undoubtedly vote in favor of a plan guaranteed to further saddle American taxpayers with the burden of paying for those unwilling to obey the law.  But with as thoughtful as that insight is, given all the recent attention the left has been showing Jesus the Savior recently, I think it's fair to assume He was the intended reference.

There are a couple initial observations that need to be made before we address the core, "Jesus as socialist" madness.  First, for a movement so petrified by any perceived confluence of faith and politics, the left has kicked the Bible-banging into high gear recently.

Liberal talker Ed Schultz called socializing healthcare a "moral obligation" and said Christian ministers, "should be leading their congregations to support this president on healthcare reform."  What?!  I thought we weren't allowed to "legislate morality?"  And haven't folks like Schultz been telling ministers for years to avoid politics in the pulpit, lest they violate the sacred "separation of church and state" doctrine?

But even President Obama got into the act.  Convening a group of ministers on a conference call, the president told them that his healthcare plans accomplish the, "core moral and ethical obligation that we look out for one another...that I am my brother's keeper, my sister's keeper."  He went so far as to suggest those who resist his plans are "bearing false witness" against him.  Thou shalt not oppose thy Obama.

Frankly, I welcome this discussion.  It is important to be conscious of what Jesus would do, and it's encouraging that even those on the left who reject His teachings and commands at least acknowledge His character and testimony.  But all of us should tread very lightly when it comes to putting words into Jesus' mouth.  No matter how long and close of a relationship with Christ one has, we should be beyond cautious (and painfully aware of our own fallibility) when it comes to any attempt to speak for Jesus beyond the plain words of Scripture.  When in doubt, let the red letters speak for themselves.

For that reason, it has never been my contention that Jesus would have opposed a socialized healthcare bill in the United States.  That certainly doesn't mean He would have supported it; rather, that the ministry of Christ was undeniably focused on the individual - our personal responsibilities, not the duties of civil government.

To take those personal commands and extrapolate outward until you encompass a government mandate is the height of irresponsibility and demonstrates a contempt for the sanctity of Scripture.

Ed Schultz went on to state, "When Jesus walked the face of the earth, He was feeding the hungry, He was clothing the poor, and healing the sick.  He didn't ask anyone for their health insurance card.  And He didn't heal anybody for profit."  Well that's true.  But for the sake of making a political push, Schultz is utterly distorting Christ's work. 

First, Jesus performed His miracles of feeding the five thousand and healing the lepers to foster belief in His claim to be the Son of God.  Second, He performed such acts to model personal compassion for us.  If Jesus was really teaching that taking profit for one's work is evil, we all have some serious problems...including Ed Schultz.  Schultz gets paid nice money for enlightening those who gather to hear him speak.  But Jesus never took a penny for His teaching.  By Schultz's logic, apparently the only profession that can rightly charge for their work is carpentry.

This torturing of the text is exactly what happens when we let our politics inform our faith, rather than the other way around.

Here's what we can know: Jesus commanded His followers to "do for the least of these."  He commanded us as individuals to be generous, giving, compassionate, and charitable.  What remains for us to decide is whether turning over those personal responsibilities and making them the domain of the federal government is the best way to fulfill them.  If experience is any guide, the answer to that question is incontrovertibly, "no."