By Reese Currie, Compass Distributors

Recently, I was asked by a dear friend the question, "WWJD" which means "What Would Jesus Do?" This emblem appears on all sorts of merchandising today, but four letters just don’t cover the complexity of the underlying question.

This acronym is used to condone legalism, which is a Pharisaical, not Christian, principle. When another person loaned me the book that started the movement, I read through it and now feel compelled to comment.

Jesus’ morality is not derived from our morality, rather our morality is derived from His. Unfortunately, we have another source of our morality, which is largely religious tradition and nothing whatsoever to do with Christ.

When we say, WWJD, are we not often ascribing our own moral code to Jesus? The very thought of that makes me shudder, and I think of 1 Corinthians 2:16, "For ‘who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?’ But we have the mind of Christ."

The only way we can have the mind of Christ is to study the mind of Christ, which is to study the Bible in-depth. Actually, there is a course from LifeWay Christian Resources that I highly recommend called The Mind of Christ that is a very strong Bible study on the subject.

The Mind of Christ course drives home a crucial point: Jesus does not want us to do, He wants us to be, and what good we do will automatically come out of what we have become in Christ. I can think of no more Biblically sound teaching on this subject. We have to be what Christ would have us to be before we can do what Christ would have us to do. This is not to encourage a passive attitude toward Christian growth, but we should at least ensure our actions are based on what Christ would really do -- not what our flawed morality would dictate.

The book In His Steps by Charles M. Sheldon was the beginnings of the WWJD movement. A bum comes into a church and condemns its membership for not doing what Jesus would have them do. The minister is moved by this, and then challenges his membership to ask, WWJD for everything they do for one full year.

But you see, "WWJD" is derived from their own sense of morality. There is a lot of singing in this book; lots of preaching; some prayer; absolutely no Bible study. How can you know what Jesus would do if you do not study Jesus the Person?

The very first example of WWJD is unscriptural. Newspaper editor Edward Norman refused to run coverage of a prize fight because "Jesus wouldn’t do it." Is that true? Well, the Holy Spirit even made reference to prize-fighting through Paul. 1 Corinthians 9:26 says, "Therefore I turn in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air" (NASB). Paul was referring to the sport of boxing here, and in a positive light, as an example to Christians, not in a condemning tone.

Next, Norman looked at his newspaper’s ads and asked if Jesus would run tobacco and liquor advertising, and obviously, Jesus would not do this. I can’t speak to tobacco, but I can’t help but recall that Jesus’ first miracle was changing water into wine. God’s word itself, the Bible, effectively advertises alcohol in at least three different points. These points are: 1 Timothy 5:23 ("No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities"); Proverbs 31:6,7 ("Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to those who are bitter of heart. Let him drink and forget his poverty, And remember his misery no more"); and Psalm 104:14-15 ("He [the LORD] causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the service of man, That he may bring forth food from the earth, And wine that makes glad the heart of man, Oil to make his face shine, And bread which strengthens man’s heart").

The Bible does not condone drunkenness by any means, but the point we’re discussing here is, "what would Jesus do," and twice so far this book has ignorantly condemned acts that can be demonstrated from the Bible.

Next, Norman proceeded to end the Sunday edition of the paper, since this was a holy day and no work should be done on it. In this, he condemns the Bible’s teaching at another point. Romans 14:5 says, "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind."

A better, but imperfect, example came later. Alexander Powers discovered his company had been involved in illegal activities with regard to their freight handling. After some prayer, he leaves his position and promises to give testimony, albeit on flimsy evidence, against the illegal acts. But even in this, we have a violation of Scriptural principles. For the Scriptural principle is, "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector" (Matthew 18:15-17). He should have gone to his employer first. He would have stood a better chance of making the company change its ways.

Rachel Winslow then decrees that had Jesus had a natural talent, He would not have used it to make money. Rachel has a natural talent for singing, and she will not use that talent to make money because Jesus wouldn’t. In this, she judgmentally denies that Jesus had a natural talent for carpentry. Did Jesus perform His carpentry work for free? We know He was a carpenter, Mark 6:3 tells us that. Paul had a gift for making tents, Acts 18:3 tells us he was a tentmaker and that’s how his money was made. As for our view toward working, the Bible is abundantly clear: 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says, "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat."

Music teachers use their voices to make money. It is not sinful. I am gifted as a computer programmer. I am very good at it within my realm of expertise. Is it wrong for me to make money from that? Now, I can (and do) use my gift for God’s kingdom. I often fix someone’s computer as part of a deacon ministry call. I wrote the Bible Search Utility to give away. But I can also use this gift to make money as a productive Christian worker.

Fred Morris refused to report on a train robbery on Sunday morning for his newspaper and was fired as a result, and this was heralded as something Jesus would do. Actually, Jesus’ Sabbath day was Saturday, and we have already discussed the Biblical view of special days. Fred wasn’t "fully convinced in his own mind" or he wouldn’t have sought human reassurance from his pastor, but we’ll give him credit for thinking he was doing the right thing. Personally I would not want to be in a job that forces me to work on Sundays, although I have had to do it before when cheques would not be paid to veterans unless I did. I think in that instance it would have been more sinful not to work, though the author of this book would obviously and unbiblically condemn me.

Then we have a visit to Milton Wright’s shoe store. Milton pursued a better relationship with his employees by making them come to an after-hours meeting, no doubt at their own expense and for unpaid time. Is that something Jesus would do to His employees? Jesus even provided food for the multitudes out of His abundant compassion, and they had no working connection with Him.

One person, Jasper Chase, is described as having "denied his Lord" by writing a book for profit. The hostile view of this book toward an honest day’s work is actually anti-scriptural, denying the Bible’s teaching on the matter.

A man named Donald Marsh does something Jesus would never, ever do, by running for office in an election. Yet, running for office is presented as something Jesus would do! It is heresy to attach "what would Jesus do" to such an aspiration. Further, Marsh wishes to corrupt the entire church by trying to force a church-state influence. I almost had to skip this whole chapter because it is such disgusting heresy to suggest that Jesus would even consider running for office or involving his followers with the world in such a way.

This is important, so I’m going to spell it out from John. John 8:23 says, "And He said to them, ‘You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.’" John 15:19 says, "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." John 17:14-16 says, "I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world."

A group of churches thought they could reform the Roman state by joining forces with it around 330 AD. It subsequently adopted the Roman governmental system and became a harsh, murdering persecutor, the Roman Catholic Church. Infant baptism was an accomodation to the Roman state (born into the Empire, born into the Church) and as a result of having so many unbelievers amongst its membership, it apostasized into all forms of evil. The church cannot win in a church-state relationship – period.

The reason this cannot be is that Jesus will not permit the church to trust in the state and humanity to preserve the church; Jesus Himself will preserve the church. Whoever allies with the state does not trust Christ alone to do His work. Jeremiah 17:5-8 warns, "Thus says the Lord: Cursed is the man who trusts in man And makes flesh his strength, Whose heart departs from the Lord. For he shall be like a shrub in the desert, And shall not see when good comes, But shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, In a salt land which is not inhabited. Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, And whose hope is the Lord. For he shall be like a tree planted by the waters, Which spreads out its roots by the river, And will not fear when heat comes; But its leaf will be green, And will not be anxious in the year of drought, Nor will cease from yielding fruit."

The question is raised in the book, would Christians be willing to support newspapers that stand for Christian issues and remain pure? This is a good question. Most of the entertainment I see is frankly trash, although most of the "Christian" stuff I see is worse trash because it goes far beyond Scripture. Still, I have to wonder if I would support pure news and entertainment.

If we are to support things Christian, we should exercise our priesthood. I believe in the priesthood of all believers, the gift from God to decide for ourselves what we should and should not support. We should exercise this gift of common sense that God has bestowed upon us. I can support Decision magazine with a certain amount of reservation but I would not support Word of Faith under any circumstances, knowing the shipwrecks the word of faith movement has wrought among young people I know. I can basically support the evangelical Focus on the Family magazine, again with reservations, but not the Catholic The Interim because of the false sacramental gospel and unscriptural legalism it presents.

To be honest with you, I think the principle espoused in In His Steps of the church directly supporting such newspapers is a cop-out. If God is with a private enterprise, it will survive. Church funds should not be diverted to the reporting of current events; it is robbing from the Kingdom of God to sponsor a triviality when the funds could be spent sending missionaries, or creating Sunday School materials. And, the blind church support for such things robs the people of their right to choose what they support.

This book goes on at length about the church using the state to shut down saloons, because Jesus would obviously fight saloons, and do so by political means. Right? Not so fast.

I do not know if the Jewish area had such a thing as saloons, but it did have houses of prostitution for certain. While Jesus did convert certain of the prostitutes, including by tradition Mary Magdalene (whether she actually was a prostitute we’ll only know when we get there), He did not take on that activity directly.

Jesus focused on truth, and truth led people to Him. Truth is light, and His sheep were led to Him like moths to a light. He did not focus on error. The moral conditions of places such as Corinth would rival and perhaps even exceed the moral depravity of our day, including the presence of saloons. Yet, Paul spent his time planting churches, not in fruitless endeavors against the vices of the day. He regarded them as a fact of life.

I do not want to use any direct quotations of this book, so I will say simply, a person is killed in a drunken riot, and the writer says that the Christians of America killed her, because they licensed the saloon that killed her.

This is the same sort of logic used by those who say Christians are killing the aborted babies because they themselves do not murder abortionists. It is fallacious. The last time prohibition was in place, it led to the murders of hundreds of people and the establishment of one of the most powerful criminal elements in history, the Mafia and organized crime in general. Prohibition empowered the Mafia and has enabled drugs, prostitution and other vile evils to proliferate in America today. Although this man makes a point he himself is unaware of: to not have personal responsibility, one must truly be no part of the world. As James says in James 1:27, "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."

How many Christians have gone to the White House in the past twenty years and have had no impact on abortion? Presbyterians Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Dan Quayle have all been there without impact. Baptists Bill Clinton and Al Gore have made it even worse! They’ve been spotted by the world, not only the abortion lovers like Clinton and Gore, but even those who would oppose it like Reagan and Quayle.

Are Christians to vote? I leave it up to your conscience. This book says it is a terrible sin not to vote, but I know personally that any vote I cast here in Canada is going to help put one of four ungodly parties into office. The Liberals, Progressive Conservatives and New Democratic Party are all pledged to continue the evil of abortion, and the Reform Party is pledged to sit on the fence and see what the people want with regard to abortion because they lack the personal conviction to take a stand one way or the other.

One major thing that Jesus would not approve of WWJD merchandising. It would have disgusted Him. We know this because we read the Bible. "Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. And He said to those who sold doves, ‘Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!’ Then His disciples remembered that it was written, ‘Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.’" (John 2:13-17).

I am oftentimes astounded that people take these words so lightly. "It’s not me! I’m only selling my Christian music tapes, I’m not selling oxen and doves!"

Sometimes entire episodes of Jerry Falwell’s Old Time Gospel Hour are devoted to hawking merchandise. Falwell is actually a pretty good Bible preacher on those rare occasions when the Bible is his subject. Most of the time he’s ranting and raving about politics, or trying to hawk goods. One thing that really saddened me was learning that he has sacrificed his Baptist principles by marketing tapes about the pope, a man who preaches a salvation-by-works doctrine and the sacramental gospel, who prays to Mary in addition to God. It is an astute business move for Falwell; you can sell a lot of pope tapes to Catholics, because they are already conditioned by Rome’s brainwashers to accept brazen merchandising, many even believing that religious trinkets can protect them.

Jack Van Impe advertises videotapes of his false prophecies every time JVI Presents airs, and you know, if there was a money back guarantee for every time that man has lied to Christians in terms of falsely predicting the end of the world, he and Rexalla would be out on the street begging for quarters.

How come these people aren’t quaking in fear, thinking of the day when Jesus Christ will come to them with a whip of cords and drive them out of His temple? It shames me that some refer to Christian clergy as "St. Peter’s thieves" and there is little to say to refute it with public witnesses like these.

And then we have ten cent trinkets that are sold for a dollar because of the presence of four letters, W, W, J, D. How can we not be ashamed by that?

Those who need to dwell on external signs of their faith are lacking in internal witness to their faith. Jesus put it better than I ever could in Luke 11:39-40 when He said, "Now you Pharisees make the outside of the cup and dish clean, but your inward part is full of greed and wickedness. Foolish ones! Did not He who made the outside make the inside also?"

I read an article by a journalist who posed as a waitress, and she commented that those who were most outwardly Christian -- she specifically mentioned items of clothing with WWJD written on them -- were the poorest tippers. She was tipped ten cents for serving a ninety dollar meal by a group of "Christians" (or at least, people who wore WWJD merchandise).

I was thinking about this a while ago while I was on a missionary trip. I was out with two of my co-workers for a meal. One gave the waitress a tape and a tract that we were handing out to others in her community. Having noted the outwardly Christian sign, I decided to stick around to see what the tip would be like.

One said to the other, "Are you going to leave a tip?" And the one who had handed out the tape replied, "No, I don’t think the food was that good." I didn’t think the quality of the food had much to do with the service, and the service the waitress had provided, and would provide in clearing the table, is what the tip is meant to reward.

"Well, I’m going to leave a tip," said the first, and he made a big show of going for his wallet and picking out coins. Wanting to make the test complete, I pushed away from the table and started for the door. I figured out a ten percent tip and had the money in my hand, in my pocket. When the other two had caught up to me, I said, "Oh, I have to check something" and went back to the table. Not a penny had been left. I left the tip money I had calculated. (You waitresses out there let me know if 10% is a cheap tip.)

The question for you is, are you going to do, or are you going to be? "Do" is external. It does not require study of God’s word, just a knowledge of religious tradition. "Be" is internal and what is inside you automatically comes out in your words and deeds.

Repentance is to turn back to God and start doing things His way. This book, In His Steps, is a book about religion and doing things in a religious way. There is a subtle difference between that and what we are to do, but it makes all the difference in the world.

If we are to "be" something, God will equip us to be what He wants us to be. But if we want to "do" something, we are in our own in that. When we are finished "doing", and on the main that will be unsuccessful, we can always repent and come back to God and say, "Why isn’t what I am doing working?"

And He will say, "Because you are doing what you are doing, not what I am doing. Come, follow Me, and do what I am doing with Me." Then His equipping will follow, and you will not be like a Pharisee following man’s perceived rules, but you will be a fellow-worker with Christ, and in relationship with Him.

What Would Jesus Really Do? Copyright (c) 1999 by Compass Distributors.

Scripture quotations taken from The Holy Bible: New King James Version (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.), 1982.

Quotation marked NASB taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, copyright (c) 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 by the Lockman Foundation, a corporation not for profit, La Habra, California. All rights reserved. Used by permission of the Lockman Foundation.