Jesus was not what this woman thinks of as a social justice warrior.
He didn’t rip Rome, and he didn’t rip the Jewish King.
He was more focused on the Sadducees and Pharisees than the government.
He was focused on the individual, and not the government.
He said, “Render unto Caesar what it Caesar’s.”
He was not here to be an earthly king. He was here to spread the gospel, and rescue mankind.
He came to rescue and not condemn.
He told people to help the poor. He did not demand they get the government to do it.
His teachings centered on the individual, and what his obligation to his fellow men was.
His teachings centered on our actions, and to bring them back into line with God’s desires.
His idea of social unrest, was for the Jews and then Christians to live Christ-like lives. He was for peace and understanding.
His only expression of being upset, was his reaction to the sellers of sacrificial lambs, and doves, the money changers. He lamented they had turned the Temple into a den of thieves.
We can safely say the social justice warriors of today are not advocating the same things or using the same methods as Christ.
Jesus was an anti-authoritarian who was crucified by Big Gov.
For people that don’t believe in God, they sure do bring up Jesus a lot.
According to the Bible, Jesus was Jewish and understood our responsibility to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”. My guess is she got the brown skin right, although the Bible does not mention His skin tone.
He came from an area that has been referred to as “Palestine” by a variety of rulers for almost two millennia, so whilst it is somewhat anachronistic to call him “Palestinian” it is no more so than calling Christopher Columbus “Italian” when no state called Italy existed in his time.
He was from the Middle East and so would look pretty much like the people who live there today, Arab and Jew, swarthy, dark-eyed with black hair (certainly not the pretty boy, blue-eyed, blond Jesus I saw in pictures in my youth), “brown skinned”? I would say that might be a reasonable description of such a man, especially as he spent so much time in the outdoors, preaching and working along with his fishermen followers.
Did he understand the need to resist? Well he certainly wasn’t a docile believer in the status quo. He didn’t like a lot of what he saw, he wasn’t interested in leading a Jewish rebellion against the Roman occupiers, whom he regarded as something of this world and not relevant to the important message about the next world he was promoting.
He had a lot of problems with Jewish authority, of that we can be certain, he wanted to shake things up. He had no compunction about using violence against the money-lenders in the Temple. Jesus was no wilting violet, he was no wimp, he was a tough guy.
All in all, you can quibble with some of this woman’s statement and choice of terminology but not the essential point she is making.
Whether she is correct in then trying to attach Jesus to the modern, leftist, anti-Christian, statist, pro-abortion message she is perhaps trying to align Jesus with is a different matter altogether.
Since this Lewis woman is supposed to be a biblical scholar maybe she can explain
1 Corinthians 14:34-35New International Version (NIV)
34 Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[b]
Since this Lewis woman is supposed to be a biblical scholar maybe she can explain
1 Corinthians 14:34-35New International Version (NIV)
34 Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[b]
Since this Lewis woman is supposed to be a biblical scholar maybe she can explain
1 Corinthians 14:34-35New International Version (NIV)
34 Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[b]