For reasons I hope to explain in the future, I'm always interested in hearing arguments as to why a sincere, orthodox Christian should adopt a politically liberal position. So far, most the arguments I've heard have been unconvincing.

Recently, I stumbled across "How Can a Christian be an Economic Conservative?" which, sadly, perfectly illustrates problems typical to these kinds of essays. (Quotes edited for brevity, read the whole thing if truly interested.)

Christian churches take very conservative political and economic stands in their communities while harboring the most radical of doctrines in their bosoms: “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” “Give all of your material goods to the poor.” “A rich man has as much chance of entering heaven as a camel has of passing through the eye of a needle.” ... At the present time our so-called Christian nation, while focused on abortion, is experiencing the grossest display of acquisitive greed, consumption, and accumulation of wealth and power by a few persons, of any nation in recorded history. Millions in our own nation and around the world are being impoverished while a few accumulate unbelievable power and wealth. 49% of the American people believe that this disparity of wealth is immoral, but organized Christianity and the churches are largely silent about this massive assault on Christian values.

Certainly, the bible teaches we should not be attached to the things of this world, and that we should be responsible to the poor among us. And "unbelievable" accumulations of wealth and power -- especially if that's the focus of the heart, instead of God -- are indeed a problem.

But to say this is an "assault on Christian values" is absurd. I don't admire Donald Trump or Bill Gates, but their entrepreneurship doesn't impair expression of my faith, nor harm our children's moral development.

Regarding those with extravangant lifestyles like Bill Gates or opulent Hollywood denizens like Barbra Streisand: Since they're not believers, why should I expect them to share my values? There's no biblical proscription for preventing the rich from living among us, nor in taking their property simply because we feel they've collected too much of it and aren't using it properly. (Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.)

Thus we see the first major problem with this essay...

The author seems to completely miss the main point of the verses he cites: The issue here is not to ensure that we all live completely bereft of property. Indeed, the main reason Jesus told the man in question to sell everything was because he had a clear problem with materialism: His stuff clearly mattered to him more than following Jesus.

The problem addressed is that of loving or being fixated on the things of this world, making them our master in place of God. This is a problem of the heart (and thus is not fixable by passing more laws) not one of mere external appearances. And this problem has two manifestations, of which the author only seems to know one.

One is a potential focus upon our own wealth. While owning things is not a problem per se, Jesus warns us against "storing up treasure" -- that is, wealth well beyond that which we might reasonably need -- on earth instead of in heaven. When we have things, we must not love them; when we fear we might lack things, we must not worry about them.

But a second manifestation of this problem appears when we fixate upon the wealth of others. It's not insigificant that Judas, the traitor, was the one who complained about Mary "squandering" wealth "which could have fed many poor" when she annointed Jesus's feet with nard -- indeed an ostentatious and wasteful display of wealth!

Yet we learn Judas's apparently good-sounding protestations were really a cover (perhaps an unconscious one) for his own desires to gain power or wealth. If this wealth were taken from her, it would be put under his control (as he held the purse). Thus he used arguments about the good of the poor and her misuse of her own wealth as a pretext to advance his own position and gain control of her valuable possession.

(Thus we might say that Judas was the first liberal.)

Judas was not able to judge correctly whether her apparent "waste" served God or not -- because he didn't know the purpose in her heart and her heart's inclination towards God. Nor could he.

This problem of our hearts is so important that God saw fit to make it one of the ten major commandments: He warns us against nursing that feeling we get in our heart when we see our neighbor having wealth we think perhaps he or she doesn't deserve, wealth which would surely do better under our control:

"You shall not covet."

49% of the American people believe that this disparity of wealth is immoral

So what? Why should we consider what polls say when we're trying to determine what's moral or not? As Christians (the target audience for the essay in question) our ideals should have a biblical basis.

Or if we argue otherwise, and say the bible no longer matters, then why quote it at all?

the churches are largely silent about this massive assault on Christian values.

Nonsense! Most churches teach any number of sermons annually on the importance of giving; giving to support the church, giving to support the poor, giving to support missions; giving time and love and friendship. I've never attended one which didn't.

And, from what I've seen in studies, the message is getting through. (Not that there isn't always room for improvement.)

But what the author doesn't say here is truly the key. The author is undoubtedly not talking about voluntary giving. Instead, the author appears to be asking why churches don't support a coercive, state-sponsored program to seize wealth and give it to representatives of his favorite political party, obtensibly to redistribute to the poor.

He doesn't mention this, I suspect, because it's so obvious to him: How could you give to the poor without using the state to do it?

Of course, there's no biblical demand whatsoever to put the state in charge of feeding the poor. As I've documented previously, the command was always to the individual, never to the state; the command has always been voluntary, not under force of imprisonment; the command is always given to believers, not to the unconverted.

Bastiat remarked in 1850:

Socialism... confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all... We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all... It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

In this case, we might say the would-be Christian socialist confuses the distinction between the believer and the state. As any pro-choice person would quickly point out: Just because we believe something doesn't mean we need to make it law.

What is the role of the state? This is a fair debate: Should there be laws preventing murder? Preventing abortion? Telling people to go to church? Telling them to tithe? Telling them to feed the poor? Telling them to pray?

The disturbing thing is that the author never even exposes the question, but presumes that it simply must be the role of the state to enforce his understanding of the Christian ideal, even towards the non-believer.

After asserting that the US is founded on the ideal that all people are created equal -- that all are equally entitled to the rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of worship / press / speech, etc.) -- and correctly asserting this conflicts with slavery, the author then writes:

We would no longer put up with slavery in our personal lives, but we happily consume products produced by slaves abroad. We are accepting and supporting wage slavery...

By this point, the author no longer appears to have any pretense of citing Christian sources: He has appealed to the ideals of a nation, but not the bible, and cited leaders he appears to show were not Christians in order to make his argument.

Now, if this were a simple political statement that we shouldn't buy goods known to be made by actual slaves -- in places such as Communist China -- I'd agree wholeheartedly, and have indeed written against such -- though I wouldn't say it was the only position a conscientious Christian could ever possibly argue.

But apparently that isn't what the author means: He's trying to dilute the term "slave" to mean "wage slave", which probably means "sweatshop" work for low pay abroad. As if the only allowable Christian position must be to view such work as negative (it is not, but rather is helpful), and the only allowed solution must be a state-enforced boycott -- not a voluntary one.

This action violates the Christian teaching that all possessions should be owned in common and distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:32-37)

Has the author even read the passages he cites here? It seems a legitmate question, given that his desired policy contradicts the example he cites here in several critical ways:

• The sharing in Acts was voluntary and from the heart, not enforced by external pressure or threat of prison
• There was no central authority for making sure sharing happened or setting allowable maximum levels of ownership; each individual gave or borrowed as they saw fit (see Acts 5:4)
• This happened only among believers who had the Holy Spirit in their hearts; they did not take and give from those outside the faith, nor compell outsiders to participate

There are not trivial differences. In missing them, I fear the author misses the heart of the Christian message: That of the individual relationship with God, not the achievement of a utopian state which tosses those who would not be "charitable" enough into prison.

Don't we remember? Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world, and cited this as the reason his followers did not fight nor use coercion (such as the state's threat of force or imprisonment) to advance it.

“The distribution of wealth is a matter of human institution solely,” said John Stuart Mill. Our Creator did not allocate the wealth.

As to whether this statement is true or not, I wouldn't turn, in an essay addressed to Christians, to John Stuart Mill -- an atheist -- in support of some view of what the creator does or does not do!

Who is to say our creator didn't institute human society, and choose, ahead of time, the circumstances into which each was to be born? Or that he doesn't decide who to raise up and who to bring down? Indeed, from what I can see, the bible implies quite the opposite.

Again, what's truly shocking is that the author doesn't even seem to consider appealing to the bible for support for his ideas here. Instead, he seems to presume all Christians must certainly take the pronouncements of an atheist economist -- regarding the creator's actions or lack thereof -- as gospel!

The question is how do we Christian voters choose to distribute wealth?

Assumptions, again, assumptions. Who says our voting is the way to distribute the wealth at all?

(And even so, he doesn't seem to consider it possible that we might do better to vote more wealth to be put under Christian control by having less of it put under the secular control of the state?)

Conclusion

Certainly, we believe God loves all equally, and undoubtedly most American Christians subscribe to the idea -- for whatever reason -- that we are all entitled equally to the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration and Bill of Rights.

But what has that to do with showing that a program of radical wealth redistribution -- enforced on believer and unbeliever alike by a secular state, under pain of imprisonment if they don't "share" appropriately -- is the ultimate Christian ideal taught in the bible?

The two positions are miles apart; and important questions remain for the sincere Christian who might be considering this question in earnest:

1. Can the Christian ideal possibly be achieved by compulsory, not voluntary means?
2. To what degree should Christians attempt to make their beliefs into law?
3. What is the most efficient way of helping the poor -- the state or a private charity?
4. What is the most effective way of helping the poor? How can a secular state give the kind of care for the poor, including concern for their heart and soul, that Jesus expects and modeled?
5. How should a Christian feel about putting a secular institution in charge of carrying out a sacred responsibility? Doesn't the bible clearly say that actions -- including even feeding the poor -- carried out without faith in Jesus are in vain? (i.e. not pleasing to God). What does this imply?

These crucial questions remain completely unasked, much less asked and answered in favor of the liberal position! While two or three bible passages are cited, secular figures and polls appear more frequently, and the few bible verses cited are presented out of context, in a way which seems to distort their intended meaning.

Perhaps the author does not bridge this enormous gap because he "just knows" his position is the only possible logical answer to these questions. Or perhaps he hasn't considered them himself. Who knows?

As I said, in my experience, these flaws are typical among arguments constructed to convince Christians of the spiritual correctness of the liberal worldview. If so, is it any wonder that so many sincere Christians end up being conservative?

Further Reading

• Christians and Socialism
• C.S. Lewis on Compelling People to Do Good
• Clinton, Christians, and MNF Status
• Why Boycott China or Cuba?
• Thomas Sowell on Third World Sweatshops (they help people), and Part II
• John Stuart Mill