Coalition also confident He would endorse its platform, despite documented difficulties getting Him to follow anyone else’s.
PORTLAND, OREGON — A coalition of progressive Christian commentators warned Monday that Jesus could be deported if He entered the United States, describing the hypothetical as “an unprecedented rejection of Christ by political authorities.”
The announcement took place beneath a twelve-foot depiction of His execution.
“Imagine a government arresting Jesus and treating Him like a criminal,” said coalition spokesperson Rev. Avery Framework.
A nearby Sunday school teacher quietly opened her Bible to the Passion narrative.
“Now imagine religious leaders cooperating with political power because He refuses to fit their expectations.”
The teacher stopped turning pages.
“You’re already there,” she said.
Organizers acknowledged that Jesus’ previous earthly ministry had encountered difficulties but cautioned against letting the crucifixion overshadow the considerably more urgent hypothetical they had prepared for social media.
“We’re talking about authorities removing Him from the country,” Framework explained.
“Rather than executing Him?”
“We would prefer not to rank these experiences.”
The coalition’s messaging suffered a second setback when researchers discovered that Jesus had not arrived the first time seeking an advisory position within the existing power structure.
An intern assigned to locate His endorsement of government domination instead found His warning that rulers “lord it over” their subjects, followed by His instruction to the disciples: “Not so with you.” Jesus contrasted that model with service and giving His life as a ransom for many.
Framework requested a different passage.
The intern brought back the same passage in a translation with larger print.
“We had understood His kingdom to involve putting the right people in charge of everyone,” Framework said.
“He appears to be questioning your definition of greatness,” the intern replied.
A conservative observer immediately offered to claim Jesus for his own coalition, then withdrew the invitation when informed that “not so with you” also applied when his preferred candidates were in office.
Meanwhile, the historical review uncovered further complications in Matthew 22, where representatives of the Pharisees attempted to trap Jesus over taxation and the Sadducees challenged Him over the resurrection. Neither encounter ended with Him requesting their policy recommendations.
“He wouldn’t stay on message,” one fictional first-century consultant explained. “We offered Him two established frameworks, and He kept answering as though He possessed authority independently of either.”
The Pharisaic delegation reportedly objected that His answers were difficult to weaponize against its opponents without first becoming uncomfortable for itself.
The Sadducean delegation requested a more inclusive approach to its denial of the resurrection.
Jesus’ response—that they were mistaken because they did not know the Scriptures or the power of God—was referred to a tone-review committee.
Back at the modern coalition’s headquarters, organizers insisted that their proposed Jesus would be easier to work with.
“He would challenge oppressive power,” Framework said.
“Including yours?”
“We’re discussing oppressive power.”
“Yes. Including yours?”
Framework announced a brief recess.
A local pastor stressed that Christians could take the treatment of migrants seriously without treating Jesus as a campaign surrogate.
“The problem isn’t asking whether we would mistreat Him,” he said. “The problem is assuming He would obediently repeat our talking points while correcting everybody else.”
Organizers agreed that Jesus must be allowed to speak for Himself, provided His remarks underwent a preliminary review for compatibility with the campaign.
At press time, the coalition had replaced “Jesus Is On Our Side” with “We Are On Jesus’ Side.”
The second statement was temporarily suspended pending clarification of what following Him might require.
Comments
Post a Comment