Nah, loving your enemies would mean renouncing ACAB, leaving all those statues up, and remonstrating with "nazis" rather than punching them. It would mean giving up riots, vandalism, and looting as forms of protest. It would mean countering vicious speech with virtuous speech, rather than with cancellation. Etc.
"Woke" is very much about waking up and fighting back, instead of meekly turning the other cheek and trying to find a charitable response to the people complicit in the systematic injustices that plague you.
First highlight, no it wouldn't.
Second hightlight, the money lenders would like a word but they weren't allowed one.
The rest, the fact that 'woke' is both actively standing up to unjust systems and passively opposing them isn't evidence that Jesus' teachings were not 'woke', but it is evidence that it's become a label for anything reactionaries don't like.
The critics of 'woke' even make up things like pedoes being called 'MAP' and saying the left supports protecting them along with the LGBTQ community. Raping children is 'woke'. Fighting Putin is 'woke'.
LOL.
It seems to me that "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek" have pretty clear meanings, and pretty clear implications about how one should behave.
And those, and other ideas that you leave out because it doesn't fit your argument, would be called 'woke'. In fact are called 'woke'. Your attempt to define 'woke' as 'exclusion, violence, and deplatforming'
only, isn't valid. No matter how you think it should be, it isn't how the word is used.
If the same dude who said that also took a whip to the moneylenders, that just means he didn't always practice what he preached.*
Anyway, pointing out the hypocrisy of the preacher doesn't actually negate the plain meaning of the sermon. Jesus could have gone full Columbine on the moneychangers, and "love your enemy" would still mean BLM riots and antifa counter-protests are doing it wrong.
The line of reasoning you were responding to was the
anti-woke Christians getting it wrong. If you want to claim that you weren't talking about them, fine, you can insist you were engaged in a red herring.
As I said, "The rest, the fact that 'woke' is both actively standing up to unjust systems and passively opposing them isn't evidence that Jesus' teachings were not 'woke', but it is evidence that it's become a label for anything reactionaries don't like." You can't just say 'well these things aren't what Jesus said to do, these things are woke, therefore the teachings of Jesus weren't woke' when the things Jesus said to do are
also called woke.
To put it in simpler terms; not everything that is 'woke' is also a teaching of Jesus, but a lot of the teachings of Jesus would be 'woke' today.
Exactly this. The argument about what Christians really believe, and about whether they live up to those beliefs, is a red herring.
The line of argument you responded to was a red herring of itself? Do go on.
The question is what "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek" mean or should mean to people who prefer violent protest.
---
*Alternative interpretation: The Son of God knows when tough love is required, and how to righteously apply it. "Judge not," says the Lord. That's his privilege. The rest of us should carry on loving our enemy and turning the other cheek. Let God decide when and where to use the whip instead.
Now do the prescriptions against hording wealth. Sounds too 'woke' to be a teaching of Jesus. And embracing sex workers, way too woke. Not calling teachers 'groomers' is too woke.
