WWJD: What would Jesus do?

Based on a concept that St. Augustine developed — and then was popularized centuries later in the 1990s — WWJD became a topic of debate in a federal courtroom last month when U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, asked Justice Department attorney Jason Lynch how Jesus Christ would respond to one of President Donald Trump's executive orders defending women from trans ideology.

Reyes posed the bizarre question after reading aloud an email that she had received from a Christian who sought to evangelize her.

Reyes said:

Now, that email assumes that I don’t have a relationship with Jesus already. But let’s assume that I don’t, and I want to know what Jesus would think about something because I want to have a closer relationship with him, as I’ve been told to do.

What do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless, that we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think Jesus would be, “Sounds right to me”? Or do you think Jesus would say, “WTF? Of course let them in”?

To his credit, Lynch, though dumbfounded, refused the bait and told Reyes, "The United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything."

Though Reyes acknowledged that her question is "unfair" and "impossible," she declared, "But you can't tell me that transgender people are not being discriminated against today."

Shocking as it may be, this exchange actually took place in a federal courthouse last month — and the problems are obvious.

DOJ files complaint

After the hearing, the DOJ filed a complaint against Reyes that accused her of violating the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

The complaint, among other allegations, accused Reyes of questioning Lynch about his "religious beliefs and then using him unwillingly as a physical prop in her courtroom theatrics."

That specific accusation raises an important question: Did Reyes' question violate the Constitution?

Constitutional law professor Josh Blackman thinks it does. Citing the Religious Test Clause (Article VI, Section 3) — which states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" — Blackman argued that Reyes asked Lynch a "purely theological question."

"It is, in every sense, a test about religious belief," he explained. "And the question is premised on the existence of Jesus as a deity."

Jesus, defiled

Potential misconduct aside, Reyes, acting like an anti-Trump activist, tried to use Jesus as her prop, stripping the risen Christ of his identity and reforming him into her own image: a political activist.

But Jesus is not a foul-mouthed LGBTQ activist.

The question is nothing more than a rhetorical sleight of hand full of irony.

When Reyes invokes Jesus, she is attempting to use Jesus' moral authority to bolster her case that the Trump administration is immoral. But her mischaracterization of him shows that she rejects Jesus' actual teachings.

Yes, Jesus preached a gospel of love; loving God and loving your neighbor is the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-40). But Reyes neglects the other side of the equation: To love in the biblical imagination is not simply affirmation — but necessarily includes obeying Jesus' teachings.

"Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching," Jesus said (John 14:23).

Importantly, Jesus does not abrogate the Old Testament. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is clear that he is not abolishing the Old Testament but fulfilling it, later explicating the true meaning of many of the Old Testament commandments, including laws related to sexuality. Jesus, moreover, reaffirms what Genesis teaches about men, women, and human sexuality.

"Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate" (Matthew 19:4-6).

While Reyes thought she was appealing to Jesus' moral authority, what she really did was recast Jesus into a progressive mold. She ignored the fact that Jesus came to redeem the world from sin, she ignored the fact that Jesus called for repentance, and she ignored the fact that Jesus told his followers to take up a cross and follow him through death to eternal life.

Ultimately, Reyes' argument is build on a false dichotomy: that Jesus either would have demonstrated her version of compassion, which in this case means affirming transgender ideology, or he would be cruel.

What we're left with is a "Jesus" who looks nothing like the King of Kings, the righteous Lord who demands repentance and faith.

What would Jesus do?

For a moment, let's entertain Reyes' question because it's clear that Jesus neither would have said "Scram!" nor "You're just fine as you are."

First, Jesus would not intentionally mischaracterize his interlocutor because his kingdom is build on truth.

To that point, the Trump administration has not described trans-identifying persons as "worthless," and neither would Jesus. Sin doesn't make us worthless. Rather, God created every human with such incalculable value that he took on human flesh and stood in our place to reconcile us to himself. And because we are valuable, Jesus would probably meet the real needs of those presenting themselves to him, as he repeatedly did throughout his earthly ministry.

Second, Jesus would share the good news about his kingdom.

"The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!" Jesus said (Mark 1:15).

It goes without saying: Repenting and believing the good news definitionally means turning away from all behavior that is incongruent with the kingdom of God. This includes all sexual immorality, which is not only a sin against God but a sin against ourselves.

In other words, Jesus not only meets our physical needs but our eternal needs, too. And in so doing, Jesus invites us to live in truth.

Third, Jesus would probably turn the question back onto Reyes as he often did to those questioning him. Perhaps, he would even challenge Reyes with the same question he asked his disciples: Who do you say that I am?

The real question isn't "What would Jesus do?" or "What would Jesus say?" The question is: Are we willing to follow Jesus instead of using him to bolster our own agendas?