Socialism and Christianity
Should Christians be socialists?
By Jay W. Richards
In “From Jesus’ socialism to capitalistic Christianity,” Gregory Paul argues that American Christians who defend the free economy are involved in a profound contradiction, since Jesus and Christianity are self-evidently socialistic.
Let’s pass over his caricature of capitalism, since no one would defend the idea as he describes it, and get to the two big holes in his argument. The first is his claim that “many of these Christian capitalists are ardent followers of Ayn Rand,” a known atheist and anti-Christian. The second claim is that Jesus and the Bible are pro-socialist rather than pro-capitalist.
Mr. Paul’s attempt to paint Christian defenders of the free market as “ardent followers of Ayn Rand” might be more successful if he had bothered to give examples. Instead, he mentions Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, the skeptic-comedians Penn and Teller, and atheist Michael Shermer. All of these gentlemen are libertarians, but none is a Christian.
He observes that Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, a Catholic, has required his staff to read Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Logicians will note that this fails to establish that Mr. Ryan is an “ardent follower of Ayn Rand.” Lastly he mentions me (also a Catholic) and my book, Money, Greed, and God, which is especially unfitting since I am a vocal critic of Rand, as anyone who has read my book or Googled my name would know. Mr. Paul then asks, “Can a stranger amalgam of opposing opinions be devised?” The strange amalgam of ardent Christian Randians, however, is a construct of Mr. Paul’s partisan imagination.
His assertion that Jesus and Christianity are inherently socialist fares no better. Although he refers to Jesus as a socialist, the only biblical texts he appeals to are from the book of Acts (chapters 2-5), which describes the early church in Jerusalem (after Jesus ascension into heaven). The central text is worth quoting:
[...]
Views: 188
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on -
Luke 12:15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Moeller on -
Orthodox Christianity has no socialistic characteristics. Any voluntary, communal associations cannot be compared to socialist or communist compulsory association for the greater good.
To color the Word of God with social or political meaning is 180 out from a generous use of the Word to color our social or political views while in this world. This is not hard just not easy for the lazy.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave Gosse on -
And that is the whole problem with Christian socialists, they think Jesus said, "Take up my cross and put it on your neighbor" when, in fact, He said, "Take up your cross and follow Me." Jesus did not come in the form of Caesar driving people to build the perfect empire. He came as a simple carpenter and itinerant preacher calling all people to follow him.
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Socialism does not exist except in the imagination of the true believer and the useful idiot. ...it [is]: a means of fooling mass numbers of people into following [leaders], and thus achieving power. - Damien Housman
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
July 05, 2011 WorldNetDaily
By William Hunt
Socialism.
Marx, the creator of socialism, called religion the "opiate of the masses."
Socialism steals from those who work and "gives" the booty to those who don't. It did it to hundreds of millions, who lived in near poverty and who frequently starved to death in the Soviet Union, China and the Warsaw Pact.
Socialism stole the lives, productivity, dreams and health of more than a billion people over a century.
Socialist nations have been traditionally hostile to God, because Christianity is anathema to socialism.
Socialism holds the state and the state leader (chairman/premier/chancellor/etc.) as gods. The state and the leader are worshiped as idols.
Socialism, not surprisingly, for its inherent murder, theft, enslavement and idolatry, is not compatible with the God of the Bible.
As liberalism is socialism, liberalism is not compatible, either.
What does the Apostle Paul say should happen to those that preach a different gospel than the one Christ and the Apostles preached?
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
– Galatians 1:6-9 (King James Version)
What does it say about clergy who advocate a gospel different from the Bible, like socialism?
What gospel are they preaching?
What God do they serve?
Read John 8:31-47 (KJV) for the answer to that.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave Gosse on
-
The impossibility of a socialist Jesus
By David French and Jordan SekulowJesus was “pro-socialist,” American Christians are in thrall to Ayn Rand, and the early Apostles concocted a system of “egalitarian socialism backed by fear of death.” Such are the wild claims Gregory S. Paul made Friday on this site.
Socialism is a relatively modern construct, a governmental system invented roughly 1,800 years after Christ’s death, not a biblical mandate. The question, then, is whether socialism is compatible with Christianity, not whether the Bible mandates socialism.
How can Mr. Paul claim Jesus was “pro-socialist?” Jesus, after all, despite many demands from His followers, pointedly refused to establish an earthly government. Undeterred, Mr. Paul interprets Jesus’s “substantial encouragement for the poor” and warnings against the moral pitfalls of wealth as support for socialism. Yet one has to travel quite the intellectual and theological distance to equate admonitions towards charity and warnings against greed with divine sanction for the destruction of private property rights and the forcible redistribution of wealth.
But this isn’t Mr. Paul’s main argument. He claims the Jerusalem church’s famous voluntary sharing of goods and property wasn’t voluntary at all but instead represents a “form of terror-enforced-communism imposed by a God who thinks that Christians who fail to join the collective are worthy of death.” This theological assertion -- a reading of Scripture that has completely escaped theologians for two millennia -- rests on the story of Ananias and Saphhira, who were struck dead after they “lied to the Holy Spirit.” They had sold land, given part to the Apostles but claimed that they had given all. Here are the Apostle Peter’s words to Ananias:
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? 4 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 just to human beings but to God.
Catch that? The very passage which Mr. Paul believes clinches his argument that the Bible endorses “terror-enforced-communism” actually reaffirms private property rights. The land belonged to Ananias, and after he sold it, the money was “at [his] disposal.” (Indeed, Jesus Himself declared that “the worker deserves his wages.”) His crime wasn’t withholding money; his crime was lying.
While the Bible is hardly an economics text, some economic and social themes do endure, and they are incompatible not just with socialism but also many aspects of the modern welfare state.
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
“Of all tyrannies,” C.S.Lewis stated,
"a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
The “Virtues” of Socialism
August 25, 2011 - Untimely Meditations
By Mark Herman
It is a common axiom of the critics of capitalism that it is an immoral economic system. Capitalism, it is said, is based on greed and greed is commonly agreed upon as a bad thing. Some defenders of capitalism, like Ayn Rand, would argue that greed is a good thing. However, for the sake of the argument, let us agree with those who believe that greed is bad (I am in this camp). Socialism is espoused to have a monopoly on morality. It is the scope of this essay to prove that not only socialism is immoral, it is more immoral than capitalism.
The first virtue of socialism is greed. When most people hear the word “greed,” capitalism is the only economic system that comes to mind. There is no question, in the minds of many, that capitalism and greed are synonymous. However, one needs to step back and ask if greed applies to socialism as well. Greed, according to a dictionary, is the selfish desire for or pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others. So does this apply to socialism? Absolutely. The reason is this: those who want to “share the wealth” are themselves just as guilty as pursuing more money and wealth than they have earned. Though their pursuit of wealth is disguised by an agenda to make America socialist, if they get their wishes the government will automatically grant them wealth without effort. This is still greed, because they are driven by a desire for more money. In other words, you do not have to be rich to be greedy.
The second virtue of socialism is envy. Envy, according to a dictionary, is best defined as an emotion that occurs when a person lacks another’s (perceived) superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it (Italics dictionary). This one goes hand in hand with greed, however, it seems more obvious than that. Wealth is a possession and if wealth is a possession, then envy applies to those who covet money. Socialism is about coveting money, namely the rich person’s money. Other things could also drive this coveting of wealth, like what one would do if they had more money. Of course, if they had more money they could live like the rich.
The third virtue is of socialism is theft. Theft occurs in socialism when the rich person’s money is forcibly taken from him by way of income taxation. First off, no one’s income should be taxed because everyone has a right to keep the money that they have earned. Taxation is legalized theft, but we do not all see it that way. To paraphrase what Ron Paul said in The Revolution: A Manifesto, if someone were to come in to our house and take our money with promises that they will do good with the money they are stealing from us, we would object to this behavior and notify the authorities. What are these taxes used for that are in the name of good intentions? Statist programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. This all seems well and good, and not all of this money comes from the rich, but you get the point of the analogy. Another thing taxation is used for is war. Starve the government of taxation, and wars become much more difficult to fight without bankrupting the country.
The word that is paired with socialism, and perhaps its main principle, is fairness. It is only “fair” that the government makes sure that its people are taken are come by spreading the wealth, according to the socialist. But is it fair to steal from someone else? Is it fair to take the earnings of someone and give it to another person who did not earn it? Where is the motivation for the person to work hard or harder to maintain his standard of living? Where is the motivation of the person receiving the money to improve himself by becoming a hard worker?
Capitalism’s main virtue is one that many people need to understand, namely, that you have the right to keep what you earn. Also another principle of capitalism is that it is in my best interest to act in your best interest and your best interest to act in my best interest. This necessity allows for things like trade to occur. It also reminds us that the rich cannot oppress the poor, because if they do the poor will seek a way out and get find a way to get what they believe is in their best interest (usually better wages).
So when a socialist claims that he or she has a moral system and capitalism does not, there is no excuse for the capitalist not to argue against this point. If anything, socialism is a much more immoral system than capitalism could ever possibly be.
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Chautauqua Hosts Religious Left
Episcopal Presiding Bishop and Bishop Gene Robinson key speakers
by Barton Gingerich
http://www.theird.org/
August 4, 2011
[Bishop Gene Robinson] Of the three famous religious liberals, Bishop Gene Robinson provided the harshest presentation at the Chautauqua conference. (Photo credit: domruso.com)
In early July, the Religious Left found a welcome home at famed Chautauqua in New York, a center of intellectual discourse for over a century. Around the Fourth of July, speakers there critiqued America with almost self-loathing tone
These sermons' worst aspect was not dousing patriotic celebration but their banal platitudes aimed to arouse national and spiritual malaise. Chautauqua has a grand history of hosting thoughtful lectures often rooted in Christianity. But under the leadership of former National Council of Churches chief Joan Brown Campbell, it has crystalized as a forum for conventional liberalism. Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Jeffers Schori, famously gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, and liberal Baptist Tony Campolo echoed personified the new focus.
Schori and Robinson both represent the extreme left in old-line Protestant circles, touting sexual liberation and political correctness. Campolo has a more dynamic history. Based on "Red-Letter" Christianity, which derives political liberalism from the Sermon on the Mount, he has been a faithful ally of Democratic politicians. Of late Campolo has aligned strongly with the post-modern and usually theologically vague Emergent Church movement.
Bishop Schori preached at Chautauqua on July 3 on the timely subject of Christians, citizenship, and the role of governments. "Much of the government's appropriate work is about defending the defenseless and limiting the ability of the powerful to exploit the weak," she declared. "Government is meant to serve the governed," she posited, "Justice is love at work in the public square." Schori cited the Sermon on the Mount for Christian interaction with politics. "Care for the least of these" takes precedence politically. The government also needs to be "correcting unjust relationships."
Attaching a Messianic role to government, Schori intoned: "[T]he divine dream of shalom or the reign of God is about people having enough to eat and enough for a feast. It's about shelter and meaningful work, a place for community and access to healing and the ability to live in peace." She considers the Garden of Eden to be the "Garden of Even." And she mourned that military spending exceeds government spending on food for the needy. "[Our economic problems] cannot be solved by starving the hungry," she surmised, without naming politicians who believe otherwise. Her Kingdom of God resembles state-mandated socialism. Schori ignored the possibility of distinction between a particular called-out community of believers and a civil government that presides over believers and non-believers.
Outspokenly gay Bishop Robinson's July 4 sermon echoed Schori. He juxtaposed the irony of support our troops yellow ribbons on gas-guzzling SUVs when (evidently) oil pulled U.S. troops into the Middle East. Robinson's "introspection" resembled national self-loathing. He questioned "God bless America...do we really think God takes sides in nation-states? Do we mean God please America more than you bless other nations? How many lives have been sacrificed on the altar of God is on our side? Who would want to serve such a biased God?" He imagined a nation full of bigots. Obviously all nations have sins which a true patriot must recognize, but most Christians praying "God bless America" probably do not assume their homeland is morally inculpable. Robinson suggested we "celebrate the idea of America" rather than the actual reality of America.
Getting more specific, Robinson warned: "Let us not be like former President George W. Bush...[who] couldn't imagine why anyone would hate the United States." Instead, the church should "practice hospitality" and "refuse to demonize other humans." What does this look like? Robinson harangued the listeners in the climax of his address: "It means pushing for legislation that offers immigrants documented and undocumented a future in our America. It means not demonizing those on public assistance as welfare queens. Not relegating gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people to 2nd class citizenship. Not telling poor people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when the system hasn't even given them shoes in the first place." Essentially Robinson translated Christlikeness into a collection of state policies.
Campolo was less shrill and more postmodern than the old style liberal Episcopalians. Although now in his 70's, he represents the newer Religious Left-the deconstructionist Emergents overcoming the old sclerotic progressivisms of dying old-line Protestantism. Campolo portrayed shrinking old-line Protestant numbers as a result of little evangelism and, more "nobly," taking sides in divisive issues such as feminism and homosexuality. His manifesto for Emerging/Red Letter Christians is: "We're going to take the words of Jesus seriously."
According to Campolo, "We are steeped into Pauline theology" at the expense of the more authentic Gospels. He described "a different feel if you come to Jesus through the eyes of Paul instead of Paul through the eyes of Jesus." Christianity is not as much about justification by faith but rather what Christians are supposed to say and do. Campolo was careful to reaffirm the traditional doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone, but wished to shift the historically Protestant focus on theological correctness to right living. This alteration is becoming increasingly popular with disaffected evangelicals. "They grew up in Calvinistic rationalism," Campolo recounted, "They want something more than that. They want to feel Jesus. They want the Spirit to flow through every nerve and sinew." No doubt Calvinists probably have something to say about such a generalization. Nevertheless, Campolo and Emergents see the breakdown of the Enlightened modern age and want to remold American Christianity according to the dictates of deconstructionism without a commitment to past orthodoxy.
Enlightenment rationalism should concern orthodox Christians. But what Campolo and Emergents propose is a hollow substitute. They politically harp on military spending while blessing government entitlements. Whether liberalizing immigration reform or denouncing capital punishment, Campolo rejected the views of most conservative Protestants. Red-Letter Christianity requires liberal political activism.
Orthodox Christians realize neither Republicans nor Democrats own the Church's voice. Scriptural teachings defy stark political lines, and the Church has always witnessed a great breadth of political opinion within its ranks. But Schori, Robinson, and Campolo equate a very narrow set of political principles with a pious Christian life. Chautauqua was a receptive forum for their claims.
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
What has always made a hell on earth has been that man has tried to make it his heaven. - Friedrich Holderlin
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Despite what is commonly taught in our schools, liberalism, Fascism, Nazism, and Communism all are based on the religious doctrine of socialism. They share a common belief that individualism and private property are the source of humanity’s ills. All employ the same methodology of collectivized government control, differing only in degree. All are materialistic and opposed to spiritual religion, believing that the state’s organization and its control of economic activity are the only real determinants of human behavior. God as Creator of the universe is pushed aside, and His place is seized by the intellectual regulator. The world and human society are henceforth to be whatever the intellectual decides that they should be.
The View from 1776
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
September 25, 2011 - by Gary DeMar - AmericanVision
Liberal Theologican Says “It’s not ‘class warfare,’ it’s Christianity”
I was wondering when liberals were going to bring Jesus into the discussion about taxing the rich. Christians are labeled ‘theocrats’ and ‘dominionists’ when they quote the Bible, but when a liberal appeals to Jesus she’s being compassionate. The latest is an article written by Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite who is a professor at the mostly liberal Chicago Theological Seminary. Apparently there’s Chicago politics and Chicago Theology. Here’s the professor’s own summary of why a $1.5 trillion tax and spending program by a confiscatory government is the essence of Christianity:
“Americans sharing more equally in the burden of pulling our country out of massive debt, and using tax revenue to stimulate the economy and create jobs isn’t ‘class warfare,’ it’s actually Christianity.”
I’m all for sharing, but being taxed is not sharing. Taking money from one neighbor to help another neighbor is not sharing. If a person wants to appeal to his neighbors to help another neighbor, that’s a good thing. President Obama also used the sharing analogy. As children, he said, we were taught to share. Sharing is a voluntary enterprise.
There is no forced governmental altruism mandated in the Bible. The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37) uses his own money to care for the robbery victim left for dead. This story cannot be used as a directive for social spending by governments. Jesus never calls on the State to act in an altruistic way. The State can’t be altruistic since it has nothing of its own to give. The eighth commandment applies to civil governors in the same way that it applies to self-governors. Neither is permitted to steal to help others.
You can’t be altruistic with other people’s money. Taking money from one group of people and giving it to another group of people is not altruism, even if a majority of people vote for a program that does it. It’s theft. Theft by “majority rule” is still theft.
She makes passing reference to Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount, and loving our neighbor (Luke 10:27). Stealing from one neighbor and giving to another is not love. Ms Thistlethwaite goes on to argue:
“But as I, and Jim Wallis and others have shown over and over and over, the biblical practices on justice for the poor are far more radically egalitarian than anything being proposed in terms of economics today by Democrats.”
I’ve debated Jim Wallis. He and other social justice advocates argue “that there are more than 2,000 verses of Scripture that call us to express love and justice for those who are poor and oppressed.” What Wallis and his compatriots need to find in these 2,000 verses is one verse that gives authority to civil government to redistribute wealth. They take verses that are directed at individuals and turn them on their head and gives them a political twist. Here’s a representative example:
Most important, when we reflect on all Jesus had to say about caring for the poor and oppressed, committing ourselves to His red-letter message just might drive us to see what we can do politically to help those he called, “the least of these” (see Matt. 25:31–46) [22].
On the day of judgment . . . [God] will ask whether or not we fed the hungry, clothed the naked, received and cared for aliens, and brought deliverance to captive peoples (see Matt. 25:31–46).
The author of the above sees a political solution in these verses when Jesus is addressing what individuals have or have not done. There are a number of things that civil government is permitted to do that I, as a private citizen, am not allowed to do like execute criminals, have my own private army, print my own money, etc.
Yes, there are some things that civil government is permitted to do that a private citizen is not permitted to do. Executing criminals and raising an army for the defense of the nation are two of them. Both the Bible and the Constitution are specific about these. Printing money is not one of them. Printed money is theft unless it is backed up by gold and silver (gold and silver certificates) as the Bible (Isa. 1:22) and the Constitution require (Art. 1, sec. 10). To base government programs like welfare, food stamps, and social security on Matthew 25:31–46 is without foundation. The division in Matthew 25 is between sheep and goats, that is, individuals. Nations don’t visit people in prison. Private citizens do. Governments put people in prison. Private citizens do not.
Civil governments are the biggest hindrance in helping the poor, and it’s not because they don’t tax enough and redistribute wealth. High taxes and control of the money supply (inflation/deflation) enable civil governments to control people and their property. A ten percent tax is a sign of tyranny (1 Sam. 8:15), and yet these so-called social justice Christians believe in higher taxes on the rich to help the poor. It was a taxing policy by Rome that forced Mary and Joseph to leave their stable home environment, Joseph’s job, and spend money they probably did not have in order to register for a government taxing program (Luke 2:1–7). Wealth redistribution policies, with all their good intentions hurt the poor and make them wards of the State.
© 2012 Created by Norm Fisher.
Powered by
