Ever hear that one? If you ever talk to anyone from the self-identified "Christian Left" you will. Or maybe "The Bible favors Communism"? I wrote about that one some time back. But, to hear the "Christian Left" tell it, Jesus was a Socialist. Hmmm, really? Let's examine that.
First, we need to come to terms with the term. What is a Socialist? I find the word abused and misunderstood so often that I feel the need to protect it.
So, the first thing we need to recognize is that Communism and Socialism are not the same thing. The key philosophy of Communism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The key philosophy in Socialism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution." Ah, yes, not the same thing. In religion, Socialism technically allows for freedom of religion but always tends towards secularism while Communism bans religion and takes atheism as its religious position. Communism puts ownership of just about everything in the hands of the government to distribute (ostensibly) equally while Socialism puts ownership of most means of production in the hands of "the public". At its core, Communism places all property in common ... oh, wait, so does Socialism ... but in Communism the actual owner is the State while in Socialism it is "the people" (technically "the workers").
Okay, so at this point it should be pretty easy. Communism is atheist and Christianity is not--no connection. Socialism tends toward secularism and Jesus does not. Again, no connection.
If it was that easy, there would be no discussion, but, like so many other places, these words are slippery. So what is Socialism today? That's hard to say and, likely, by the time you read this it has changed, but let's see if we can find something on it.
Their manifesto changes, but this is what they said in 2011. They are very strong in their support for "the welfare state, universal access to education and to health care." They support free education from childhood through college. They hold that, in order to be a just society, "we must ensure that the wealth generated by all is shared fairly." They argue that "All members of society are entitled to protection from social risks in life." Very high on their agenda is environmental sustainability. To them, "market forces" are the enemy. These are driven by greed and supported by finances. Market forces, then, must be controlled--replaced by government.
Comparing this structure to Christ, we find Jesus offering nothing. Nothing on the welfare state except that His followers should give (as opposed to laws and government control--not the same thing). Nothing on education (except "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you." (Matt 28:19-20). I cannot imagine an argument that the government ought to be doing this.). Nothing on redistributing wealth except ... well, nothing. Nothing at all. Protect society from social risk? Sorry. What we see is, when Jesus was asked about the injustice Pilate perpetrated on Galileans, He answered, "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3). No, nothing about protecting from risk.
There are plenty of reasons, as it turns out, to conclude that Jesus embraced Capitalist ideas, not Socialism. He commanded generosity, not a legal system that would demand it. In fact, giving was only noteworthy if it was voluntary and private. Jesus showed a preference for a meritocracy rather than economic equality when He explained that the master in the parable of the talents gave varying amounts to his servants "each according to his own ability" (Matt 25:15). Indeed, the master entrusted "his possessions" (Matt 25:14), something not quite in sync with modern Socialism. Perhaps you didn't know this, but it was actually Jesus who said, "The laborer is worthy of his hire" (Luke 10:7). And for those of you intent on offering His "Sell your possessions and give to charity" (Luke 12:33) statement as proof, I will withhold comment until you 1) demonstrate that Jesus did that (because, as it turns out, Jesus did own things) and 2) actually sell all your possessions and give to charity. (For more on this, I wrote about it here and it continues to be one of my most revisited posts.)
For these reasons and more, I have to conclude that Jesus was not a Socialist in either the technical, historical sense or the modern, practical sense. He believed instead in personal property, working for a living, and giving as a matter of choice rather than coercion. And since Paul concurred (see 2 Thess 3:10), I'd suggest it is a biblical position. I believe Christians are to give because Christians want to please God and not because the government has opted to remove your choice on the matter. And I don't believe that following Jesus's example will lead you to Socialism ... by any definition. At least, not the Jesus of the Bible.
Addendum
In order to do due diligence, I've scoured the web to find arguments for "Jesus was a Socialist." From a variety of sources, then:
1. "Go sell everything you have and give to the poor, and ... then come follow Me" (Mark 10:17-25). There you have it. The only means of being right with God (which was the rich young ruler's question) is to sell everything and give it to the poor. Now, go thou and do likewise. No, better yet, let's just have the government do it for you. That's what Jesus would have favored.
2. "He went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people." (Matt 4:23). There, see? Free healthcare. That's His standard, His call, His requirement. That's how it ought to be. And here you are, you lousy conservatives, standing against Obamacare. How dare you?!
3. Jesus gave us the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46. What was He looking for? "For I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed Me, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me, I was in prison and you came to Me." (Matt 25:35-36). Thus ... socialism.
4. When Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world," He was speaking of eliminating the current government and establishing a new, Socialist government for God in which the rich would give up their possessions and the poor would be taken care of. Everyone would be healed ... for free. No charges for healthcare or food or any other well-being issues. That was Jesus's view and Jesus's mandate.
No, seriously? This is what constitutes good reading, good exegesis, and rational thought? Well, I suppose it constitutes normal reading, exegesis, and rational thought. I've seen how people fail to properly understand what I write, and I'm not divinely inspired. But let's look at each of these.
1. Look, the rich young ruler expressed a position. Asking "What must I do to inherit eternal life?", Jesus told him he had to keep all the commandments. He answered, "Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth." Now, that's quite a claim! So, let's see ... how about "No other gods"? You know, Commandment #1? And, as it turned out, Jesus pointed out to him that his god was money. This constitutes a socialist position?
2. Jesus healed people. Therefore, Jesus favored always healing everyone at all times for free? John says these were "signs" and Jesus said "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe Me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I am in the Father." (John 10:37-38). These were not done as a healthcare plan; they were done as proofs. Whittling them down to healthcare (and then throwing them out as "myth" because "Jesus never really healed anyone") is not rational.
3. The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats is not about what was done, but about what sheep and goats do. Those who belong to Christ give to the needs of others. Those who do not belong to Christ don't. And giving to the needs of others is not Socialism. Making this a policy statement on the part of Christ as to how a government or society ought to operate misses the point entirely.
4. When Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world," He was arguing that His kingdom was not of this world. The plan is "a new heaven and a new earth", not a replacement kingdom. As evidence of this, at no point in the Gospels did Jesus push to remove the existing government and at no point in the New Testament did any of His followers push to remove the existing government. That's because Jesus's kingdom is not of this world. Not an argument for socialism.
7 comments:
It's funny how people cast what they take for granted in 21C and extrapolate to 1C.
Jesus wasn't a socialist but he wasn't a capitalist either. And it's hard to compare Roman oligarchy with a modern democratic republic. Key factor being that "we the people" ARE the government vs. having absolutely no say in governance.
Also, I would challenge your assertions about Jesus owning stuff -- the text is quite clear he was homeless, and he commanded that disciples be sent out with nothing, totally dependent upon the hospitality of those they met at their destinations.
The patristic fathers viewed jesus economic teaching in more a communist vein -- see the writing of St. Basil, John Chrysostom, etc. They are adamant that if you have two pairs of shoes and your neighbor has none, you have committed the sin of THEFT. And charging of interest is a SIN. And stockpiling of goods and money was considered SIN too.
It's ironic, as you lament how a lot of Christians accommodate culture (i.e., marriage equality, women leaders, etc.) yet you bow to culture in your perspective, at least compared to how the early Christians viewed these matters.
I defined Socialism. Then I asked if Jesus met that definition. I even offered two versions. So if you have a new definition of "Socialism" that I didn't include and you'd like to say Jesus was that, then feel free.
Jesus owned what was considered a valuable tunic for which the soldiers cast lots rather than divide. I didn't say He was rich or even owned a home. I said He owned some things. If the command, "Sell all your possessions" is to be taken literally, "all" is problematic.
And if it was "theft" to own something without sharing it, why did Peter tell Ananias and Sapphira, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" Clearly the giving was voluntary, not commanded, contra Communism.
And it is funny to me how you disparage historic Christianity in matters of female leadership, definitions of marriage, etc. but retain a certainty that "the patristic fathers" were right. Is that only when they agree with your view?
Typically, when Stan mentions historical Christianity, it isn't the specific teachings of some of the "patristic fathers", but the long held beliefs. And he doesn't believe the teachings of those individuals were the final say. If what they taught disagree with what he finds in Scripture then Scripture is right and they were wrong. And as far as I can remember, he avoids "name dropping" specific "fathers" and points to the general slant of Christians over the individuals. At least, that's been my perception.
That's been my perception, too, David, but it's nice that someone noticed. :)
One thing many forget: Jesus was Gods chosen goverment of Israel! Jesus was the messiah, the god chosen leader of Israel, the King of the Jews like King David! The apostles were the god chosen leaders of the 12 tribes. They all comitted themselves to give away their money to help the poor – and they were Gods earthly government. They all healed the sick, performed miracles without asking for money:"Freely you received, freely give." (Mat 10,8) They cleansed the state temple – the real government in Isreal in that time – because the people there only could get help if they had paid before…
Capitalism inherently produces poverty - 80 percent of the planet in poverty, more slaves living now than in the 1800s etc - as it inherently creates more debt than money, and so all profit inherently pushes others into debt. As Christ overwhelmingly loved the poor, we can say Capitalism is anti-Christ. Indeed, it is the contemporary religion of the day, one in which blind faith is put upon growth, profits and work, without any thought given to the ways in which things like private property exlude billions, in which all profit comes at a cost (ecocidal and bicidal) and in which growth rates are inherently unsustainable and so destined to strangle future generations.
Socialism (and communism) inherently produce poverty. Countries that have attempted it demonstrate that. That is, any human system with humans in it who are, by nature, sinners inherently produce all manner of evils ... because humans are evil. Since I didn't argue that Jesus was a capitalist or that capitalism is right (I merely argued that those who say Jesus was a socialist are mistaken), I'm not sure what your point is. You did not argue that He was.
There is one problem, though. If Jesus "overwhelmingly loved the poor", wouldn't He favor systems that produce those whom He overwhelmingly loves? Just sayin'. :)
Post a Comment