Christians and Socialism
Faith and Philosophy
| June 21, 2003
| Tim
There are sincere, well-meaning Christians who invoke their faith to argue for "progressive" policies -- arguing, as some did in a recent letter to Bush that any good Christian who cares for the poor must certainly support "liberal" policies such as government-run social programs and taxes to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.
Really? Does the bible or Jesus support such a notion?
I think I can show it doesn't. Feel free to forward this article to any well-meaning Christians you might know who feel the bible or the example of Jesus compells them to support a "progressive" political agenda.
Argument #1: Ancient Israel
According to traditional Jews and Christians, there has only ever been one "theocracy" created -- the ancient state of Israel. Since this state was allegedly created according to the principles of God, it gives us an excellent chance to see what kind of government that god would prefer.
In the law, we read (emphasis mine):
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: "The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near," so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land. (Deuteronomy 15:7-11)
Please note, that even when God created a theocracy, he didn't mandate some "official" or governmental tax or redistribution scheme, but instead expected his "convenant people", out of love for Him and his law, to take a personal interest in the poor. His instructions are to individuals, not to a government. Indeed there were taxes in this society -- but none for feeding the poor. It was expected the "believer" would do the right thing from his heart (note all the references to the heart) from love of one's brother, but also, more importantly, out of love and fear of God.
If God didn't mandate a wealth redistribution tax for Israel, his own theocracy, how can he say he wants one for America or other countries?
Argument #2: The Example of Jesus
The whole point of Christianity is, first and foremost, to bring our soul into right relationship with God -- that is, to admit we're sinners and wrong, and that Jesus, as the promised messiah and God incarnate, suffered to pay the price for that wrongness. Other Christian doctrines are important also, but are of comparatively lesser importance.
Jesus did say: "Feed the poor" but he said a lot of other things as well. Including more important commandments, such as "Take up your cross daily and follow me", and "You must be born again," and "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord." (Deut 8:3, Luke 4:4) Food was important, but the state of the soul was even more important, and it was important that people accept him as a messenger from God, and his death for forgiveness of sin.
How did he offer these most important commands? Did he use physical coercion, as the state would when collecting taxes?
In Luke 10 (verses 1-12) we read:
After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. He told them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road.
"When you enter a house, first say, 'Peace to this house.' If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; if not, it will return to you. Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.
"When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you.' But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.
In other words, on this most important issue, far more important than bread, there was no coercion whatsoever. If someone welcomed the messenger in, great. If not, shake the dust off and move on. The fear of God's future judgement against evil was the expected "stick". If neither Jesus nor one of his followers would physically "coerce" a soul into believing on Jesus -- the most important thing -- how on earth could we argue it was justified to coerce them into doing acts of charity?
Argument #3: The Early Church
After the Holy Spirit was given, the character and behavior of the first followers of Jesus changed. In the book of Acts, chapter 4, we learn that they were so overcome with the love of God that they spontaneously, voluntarily engaged in a sort of "communism", of the Christian variety:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. (Acts 4:32-35)
They redistributed their possessions and fed all their poor, but their actions were once again voluntary. Certainly, I'd argue they were doing what God wanted, but doing so of their own choice and volition.
If there is any question as to whether my interpretation is correct, a few verses later, we read about a couple, Ananias and Sapphira, who lied about how much they gave -- selling some land and telling people they were giving all of it when in fact, they gave only a fraction. They sinned in doing so -- but not in withholding wealth, but in trying deceive people about their righteousness:
Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.
Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God." When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died.
Again, Peter made it quite plain that Ananias, even as a believer, could have kept the land. Or that he was free (in the sense of coercion) to do whatever he wanted with the money, including give all, some, or none. If the bible depicts even "signed-up" believers as being free from coercive, externally-imposed economic distribution schemes, how on earth can we argue we should impose such on everyone else???
Conclusion
It's clear to me, at point after point, that God does expect us to care for the poor, but that he expects you to feed the poor; the command is always put to the individual -- not the collective. And the action should always be taken out of love and/or fear of God -- not from coercion. God is far more concerned about people's hearts than their money. Taking their money from them, for a "right cause" would not seem a useful way to get their heart into the right place.
If the bible doesn't make this a rule for us who look to it, then we are left with our own political and economic judgements. And for those, I'd refer you to the long history of economic failure such compulsionary redistrubutionism has. Even in our own society, with the modest safety net our government provides, it's clear that private charity does a much more efficient job at turning dollars into calories in stomachs. If we choose a less efficient method, then we are guilty of poor stewardship.
Finally, if the soul is as or more important to God than food, I cannot imagine why a Christian would try to use a secular institution to go about feeding the poor while no having any concern for their ultimate fate. Again, I'm not aruging one should coerce people into believing (or more likely, pretending to believe) as a condition of being fed -- heavens no! -- but rather I can't imagine recommending feeding people's stomach via a secular institution with no concern whatsoever for their spiritual and emotional needs, as the ultimate, best answer.
You are right in your analysis. God did not say that government should force someone to help others that we should do so voluntarly, out of love for God and for the sake of our fellow man whom we should all love.
I do not know were this idea of mixing socialism and Christianity came from but it is not what the Bible says we should do. And if the Bible says no then it is no.
This is an excellent article. I am going to E-mail it to all people I know that may be interested in it.
Christian Socialism is obviously the way to go. I mean, if God did it, then who are we to act otherwise? No more Capitalism for me! I'm sticking to God on this one.
I urge every Christian to read this, think over it, and make your own conclusion.
Martin,
Always glad to have an article distributed! Hope, whether you agree or disagree, you found something worth considering.
Yet...
(a) You characterize the biblical view as "Christian socialism". Yet socialism prohibits private ownership. What the disciples did, they did voluntarily, not by state control. It sounds like you're missing the crucial distinction.
(b) You also seem to think this would preclude buying and selling ("capitalism"). You seem to be confusing the content of the bible with the writings of German philosopher Karl Marx.
(c) Great! Can I borrow your car? I need to get some work done on mine.
what political system do you think god would be in favor of. capitalism? i can't imagine jesus would be in favor of a government fueled by greed. i understand that it wasn't a socialist government that god set up in israel, yet i don't think the israeli government, which im sorry- but was that capitalist or republican institution by the way-is anything we should hope to emulate. i guess your right, i hope bush continues to give great tax breaks to the rich, while the poor get poorer, and the national deficit gets bigger and bigger. pro-life is not simply abortion an issue of abortion, republican does not mean christian and liberal does not mean atheist.
once every one hundred jesus of nazareth meets with jesus of the christians, every time jesus of nazareth walks aways saying, "i fear we shall never agree."
When someone asked me if god was a republican or a democrat, i didn't think twice. Of course god had to be a democrat because republicans look down on the poor, and make outcasts of the downtrodden. But I believe that god is above our petty politics. God's love is unconditional.
But as for us, we are called to love and to take care of those who are less fortunate than us. We are commanded to treat others as we would expect of others to treat us. Our main objective in life is to save as many people as we can. To show them the truth that is so badly mangled and mis repepresented by the evil in power. George Bush claims that he is a christian, however he advocates the genocide of people in countires which names we cannot even pronounce let alone spell. His promises of leaving no child behind, the promise of educating every child in america, has been totally neglected. He is taking money out of the education funds to fuel his personal and political wars. The only way his promise has been met is by our children getting a geography lesson, a new country invaded and plundered every other week. His abuse of the trust placed by the men and women of the armed forces. WHile they fight his genocidal war, he stabs them in their backs, by taking away their housing privileges, their retirement benefits, and even cutting their pay while in combat. What a liar. I am reminded of a story i was told, When Bush is finally defeated and is leaving the White House, he holds a press conference, and he tells the people that every time he told a lie he put a can of soda into a box. And he opens the box, and all thats in there are two cans of soda and Ten Thousand Dollars. The people are amazed and ask him how he managed to keep such a good record. His answer, "the box kept getting full so I took the cans in for the 5 cent refund". I hope none of you are fooled by this facade put on by George Bush. He is a threat to a democratic society and to christianity. I am a socialist, and a christian.
Amazingly, the same Jesus who fed the five thousand also claimed to bring a sword to divide families. It's amazing how we can all prostitute Jesus by injecting His name and projecting our assumption of His opinion into our political debate. Hopefully, God will forgive us our arrogance. Maybe the question, "Would Jesus be pro-Bush or pro-Dean?" is just a smidgen too small.
Perhaps we should be asking, "What exactly is there in our land that Jesus would not feel the need to smack around with a whip of cords?" How about welfare programs that give irresponsible men and women the excuse to live promiscuous lives on the public's dime? How about a religious mainstream that either espouses social anarchy/socialism/atheism (Americans United for Separation of Church and State, etc.) or espouses a tainted conservative Republicanism (Pat Robertson and the like)? What about the 30 million babies murdered since 1973 so that we can all enjoy the "right" of privacy?
Conservative or Liberal, Democrat or Republican, Socialist or Moderate, we are missing the bigger issues at hand. Let's be honest: Do either Conservatives or Liberals really care about the poor in the long run? NO!!! The poor are used merely as a negotiating chip to advance a bigger cause. If you care about the poor, go out and volunteer or go out and feed them. (If you go to your nearest city, they're really easy to find.) If you really care, YOU have to make the difference. Jesus was a man of action, not divisive words. He healed the sick and loved the downcast. Unfortunately, Jesus was too occupied personally making a difference in the lives of those around him to pick between the Republicans and Democrats.
The creations of men that you worship are all going to burn. The boat you buy, the political party you endorse and love, and the money you chase will all disappear, either when you die, or at the end of the world. It is not on these things that you will be judged, neither is it on whether you were "right" or "wrong" in your "beliefs" that will condemn or redeem you. Your faith and the deeds that back that faith up are what will speak loudest at the final judgement.
Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and minister to the sick. That is every person's job, not just your public servants' job.
James,
what political system do you think god would be in favor of. capitalism? i can't imagine jesus would be in favor of a government fueled by greed.
"Capitalism" is not a system of government. People have traded goods and supplies they needed -- your ox for fifteen bushels of my grain -- since long before recorded history. As long as there have been humans, they have come to agreements to exchange one item for another, or do work in exchange for other services or goods.
This behavior is as natural for human beings as finding a mate, following a leader, or organizing to solve a problem.
Not long ago, a dreamer named Karl Marx came along and decided there was something wrong or weird about this activity, and decided to call it by a new name, "capitalism" (in 1887). Instead, he argued, the destiny of history was that, at some point in the future, humans would just give away all their stuff, and only take from others what they actually needed to live at a minimal level. He called this new system "Communism". When implemented, it required a small group of people gain ownership of all property in the country, and that they would make all decisions about who got what. Of course, being the opposite of capitalists, they were never influenced by greed.
i understand that it wasn't a socialist government that god set up in israel, yet i don't think the israeli government ... is anything we should hope to emulate
That government was what God thought was best for those people at that time. I'm not saying we should adopt it now: just pointing out it doesn't support an appeal to socialism, as many claim it does.
i guess your right, i hope bush continues to give great tax breaks to the rich
Imagine the government took away all of our property -- yours, mine, everyone else's. All your money too. Now let's say that later, someone in the government argued they had taken twice as much as was needed, and half of it should be returned.
Which would be more fair? To return half of your money and stuff back to you, or to give you the same amount as everybody else, regardless of what you'd lost?
Fair tax breaks always benefit the rich more because we return according to how we've taken, and we took the most from them.
once every one hundred jesus of nazareth meets with jesus of the christians, every time jesus of nazareth walks aways saying, "i fear we shall never agree."
Feel free to explain how "Jesus of Nazareth" is differs from "Jesus of the Christians". Cite sources.
kuinton,
When someone asked me if god was a republican or a democrat, i didn't think twice.
Perhaps you should.
Of course god had to be a democrat...
During the U.S. Civil War, when the north and south were fighting over slavery and other issues, an aide asked Abraham Lincoln: "Sir, do you think the Lord is on our side?" Abraham Lincoln replied: "The question is not whether the Lord is on our side. The question is whether we are on His."
I'm of the same opinion, and don't imagine for a moment that either of them are on the side of the angels in all (or perhap even any) matters. Jesus was neither neatly a Pharisee nor a Sadducee; I personally suspect he would have plenty of tough criticism for Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians.
republicans look down on the poor, and make outcasts of the downtrodden
Really? All of them? Not one Republican cares for the poor? What position are you in to judge what's happening in their hearts? I'd like to know where you got this knowledge.
But I believe that god is above our petty politics.
From the content of the rest of your post, it would seem you don't. Well, which is it? You speak out of both sides of your mouth here.
But as for us, we are called to love and to take care of those who are less fortunate than us.
No, actually, we are called to love everyone. And we're called to help the needy, but not through higher taxes and an inefficient bureaucracy!
God also calls us to be good stewards of our money, which I'm not allowed to do when it's taken by a welfare department which only spends 22% of their funds actually helping the poor, when other charities I know of achieve 80-95% efficiency!
George Bush claims that he is a christian, however he advocates the genocide of people in countires which names we cannot even pronounce let alone spell...
You level a number of very serious charges against President Bush, here, the most serious of which are:
- Genocide
- Theft: Embezzling department of education funds for his personal use
- Lying: knowing, willful deception
The bible is clear that we should not bring serious, public charges against another without some really good evidence.
Regarding the DoE funds, you seem to be seriously in error. As your brother, I ask you to either refute the evidence I've cited, or admit you are wrong on this point and stop spreading untruths.
Regarding the other serious charges, of genocide and lying, I merely ask for documentation. If Bush is a guilty of "genocide" and deliberate known lies, as everyone needs to "see through" his facade, as you charge, then it is required of you that you produce some hard evidence for these charges you are hurling against your brother.
And by "evidence", I don't mean a story someone told you about a box and two cans. Or another opinion piece similar to your posting. I mean newspaper clipping showing Bush is looting the DoE, or that the actions in Iraq or Afghanistan are "genocide", according to a generally accepted authority on such things.
As a fellow sinner and Christian, I'd like to gently remind you of this:
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye...
I'm not saying we shouldn't call policies good or bad, or that we can't constructively criticize the president or say he did this or that wrong. (And by constructive criticism, I don't mean just just saying something is wrong, but also offerning a suggestion as to the right alternative.)
But when it comes to knowing what's going on in his heart (much less the heart of everyone who's in the "other" party from you) who are you to judge?
Do you think this is a game and you're somehow not going to be held responsible to the same degree you're judging the hearts of others? That because a person is famous you're somehow exempt from treating them as you'd wish to be treated? By using the same careful research in making your judgements you'd want them to make before charging you?
I sure don't know what's in your heart for sure, but from the tone of your posting, I don't think I want to be in your shoes.
God bless you, regardless!
What do you think of Abortion and Gay marriage? Shouldn't they have the right to chose? but yet you pass judgement on them and take away their rights. Have you not read the parable of the lost son. God/Father gave the son/us the right to chose, now if the choise was a bad one or a good one doesn't matter. Everyone still has a right to chose what they can do with their lives, what the consequences of their choises are they have to deal with God.
Kuinton,
What do you think of Abortion and Gay marriage? Shouldn't they have the right to chose?
What does that have to do with whether the bible advocates socialism? Are you uncomforable with the current topic? Looking for a diversion? As you wish...
What do you think about driving drunk, running red lights, or having sex with children? Shouldn't people have the right to choose these things as well? If you're opposed to driving drunk, does that make you a judgemental person? Shouldn't the drunk person have a right to choose whether they want to drive or not?
What if I want to torture my dog? Shouldn't I have the right to choose that? Aren't you "taking away my rights" if you feel that is wrong and say so?
Who cares what I believe about abortion or gay marriage? What the does the bible have to say about these things (i.e. how does God view them?) is a much more meaningful question.
but yet you pass judgement on them and take away their rights.
So, even though you admit you have no idea of what my views are on these topics, you're judging me for being, allegedly, judgemental? Am I understanding you correctly?
Are you aware this is actually funny?
So are you saying you've never claimed some kind of behavior is wrong? Or is it fine if you make such claims, but wrong when other people do so? Is everyone else being "judgemental" by having some belief in right and wrong, while you are not, when doing the same exact thing?
As it says, with the measure you measure out, so it wil be measured to you.
Have you not read the parable of the lost son. God/Father gave the son/us the right to chose, now if the choise was a bad one or a good one doesn't matter.
The point of the parable of the prodigal son was not that what we do doesn't matter. What the youngest son did -- that is, he told his father he wished he was dead by demanding his inheritance, slept with hookers, got drunk frequently, and worked with pigs (a real no-no in Jewish culture) was portrayed as quite wrong.
The point was that the youngest son then repented of his wrong behavior, admitted it was wrong, stopped doing it, and decided to go back and plead for mercy because of all the wrong things he had done. See for yourself what the son's attitude was:
I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' (Luke 15:18)
And his father forgave him and was glad he was home, as God does when we admit we have been wrong.
As Jesus explained before, in Luke 15:7:
I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
Jesus does not say there is no such thing as sin. To the contrary, he says that when we do something wrong (sin), and admit we were wrong and stop doing it (repent), then God will be very happy and forgive us, and there will be some serious partying in heaven over that great development!
Everyone still has a right to chose what they can do with their lives, what the consequences of their choises are they have to deal with God.
Yes, and I can choose to murder someone if I want to. And God will indeed deal with me if I do. (Heaven forbid.) But that doesn't mean we can't have a good healthy debate about whether that's a good move, or a right kind of thing to do. Just because God judges does not mean there aren't or shouldn't be consequences in this life.
God bless you,
- Tim
*****
"what political system do you think god would be in favor of. capitalism? i can't imagine jesus would be in favor of a government fueled by greed. i understand that it wasn't a socialist government that god set up in israel, yet i don't think the israeli government, which im sorry- but was that capitalist or republican institution by the way-is anything we should hope to emulate."
*****
God isn't concerned so much about the economic models people try to establish. We live in a fallen world. Think about Eden or heaven. There are no wants, period. Just pure joy, ala the LORD. So why do we have to come up with these models? Because of sin. The consequences of sin brought this about. God is about His glory, and secondly the saving of souls.
We live on earth, not in heaven. Therefore no system is perfect, everyone will be riddled with poor, the dowcast, the abused, the corrupted, etc.
****
"i guess your right, i hope bush continues to give great tax breaks to the rich, while the poor get poorer,"
*****
bah! As Tim has explained countless times - taxing is dynamic. The whole 'rich getting richer vs poor getting poorer' is such a lame mantra, I'm personally getting sick of it. First of all, is raising taxes going to work? Okay, give the poor a break on taxes and tax the rich! Let me tell you, they're not going to feel it - because you're thinking of the hollywood superstars. It usually comes down on the middleclass, & they (I) bear the brunt of it. Here's a model: the rich guy who earns $85/hr gets taxed so that his net is $40/hr. Why not cut back to $60/hr and net $38? Sure, it's $2 less, but who's the chump who'll put in that extra %30 worth of hours and labor only to net %5 gain? They sit tight and withdraw spending, divert earnings, etc. Those taxes don't get paid, and furthermore, the withdrawal of spending = less sales = less $$ to support that extra worker. Average or Joe gets kicked on his arse into the street because the company doesn't have the $$.
People also need to keep in mind that penalizing the rich isn't helping the poor. dropping that %10 to %7 means a savings of pennies for poor joe who rakes in $5/hr. big whoop. thanks for the extra $1.33 net savings a year! meanwhile those money bags that are supposed to be pouring into the government (from the steep-rich-taxes), isn't coming in. Not only that, the $$ that does come in ... you think the gov't is efficient with that?
****
"and the national deficit gets bigger and bigger."
****
again, a perspective that is too simple. Do some research on how deficit is *usually* a good thing.
Two words: Keynesian economics.
*****
"pro-life is not simply abortion an issue of abortion"
*****
yes it is. I am prolife and it's all about abortion.
question: when is it acceptable to take an innocent life? how about with out its consent?
question: when does life begin?
If I believe that life begins at conception, and it is innocent (really, what wrong has a fetus or baby ever done?), what would that make me if I supported terminating it?
and even if I don't know when life exactly begins, would it not be prudent to err on the side of caution?
I think God is more concerned about 'life' than 'choice.' Jesus' whole ministry wasn't about giving us freedom to choose, but to turn us away from eternal destruction.
*****
once every one hundred jesus of nazareth meets with jesus of the christians, every time jesus of nazareth walks aways saying, "i fear we shall never agree."
Posted by: james on January 3, 2004 07:07 PM
*****
o_O put down your crack pipe, friend. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean...
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Inside a North Korean Gulag |
Front Page |
Page Two
| The Generous U.S.A. »
|
You are right in your analysis. God did not say that government should force someone to help others that we should do so voluntarly, out of love for God and for the sake of our fellow man whom we should all love.
I do not know were this idea of mixing socialism and Christianity came from but it is not what the Bible says we should do. And if the Bible says no then it is no.
Posted by: Clifford Ishii on July 16, 2003 06:34 PM