At the end of the nineteenth century, a resurgence of Socialism appeared in the United States and to many’s surprise arose in Christianity. “There were socialists for a variety of reasons. There were Christians who happened to be socialists, and there were socialists who just happened to be Christians” (Grunlan). Interestingly, this stance fizzled out as the Christians failed to implement their beliefs into credible policies and when push came to shove, neglected to stand side by side with revolutionists in fear of the radical consequences that could occur. In today’s world, a following of political leaders such as Dem. candidate of the 2016 election Bernie Sanders is on the rise. Currently, a large majority of millennials subscribe to Socialist view or would vote for a Socialist. Being Tuesday, November 6th, I thought it would be interesting to tackle Socialism from a biblical perspective. Should Christians be or vote Socialist?
From a biblical perspective, one can see how this idea may have arisen. With Scripture passages such as Acts 4:32 stating; “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had” or references to Jesus’ association with the poor and sick, or his teaching of the Good Samaritan recognizing that everyone is your neighbor, how could believers not conform to socialist ideals? In the New Testament more specifically, the early church, many argue is representative of how our society should be. With passages such as Acts 4:32 stated above, how could Christians not espouse Socialism?
In Gregory Paul’s article “From Jesus’ socialism to Capitalistic Christianity” he even goes as far as to state that Karl Marx probably got his Socialistic ideas from the New Testament (Paul). In response to this assertion, I would argue that no serious biblical scholar or economist for that matter would mistake the practice of the early church for Marxism. First of all, Marx viewed private property as oppressive and had a theory of class warfare in which the workers would revolt against the owners and forcibly take control of private property. With this, Marx thought private property would then be abolished and the state would own the means of production on behalf of the people. This is a profound misreading and misrepresentation of the book of Acts. These Christians were selling their own possessions and sharing freely! This is hardly a neat and clean association with a Government entity distributing goods and services to all. Not to mention a violation of two of the ten commandments. “Thou shall not steal” and “thou shall not covet” are both violated under Marxist Socialism. Both the Old and New Testament affirm private property. We cannot obey the Commandment to not steal unless we accept the idea of private ownership. We cannot be good stewards of our money as the Bible teaches if we do not have any money to be good stewards of. Therefore, for an economic and political system to associate with one of Christian values, it must protect the rights of private property and allow the freedom of individuals to allocate their resources according to their conscience.
Another problem with this false association is that we know from the New Testament that other churches in other cities were given different instructions in regards to work and wages. Paul, in his letter to the Thessalonians, told the church to “earn their own living,” and warned, “anyone unwilling to work should not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3: 10, 12). It is apparent from Paul’s need to pen these words that some new Christians had begun to take advantage of the generosity of their new brothers in the faith. This is a profound example, in my opinion, of what plagues the view of a utopian mindset, with a means of socialism to accomplish said view. The Socialist view never accounts for the depravity of man. Given this sinful tendency to free ride on the generosity of others, or the desire for man to rule over his fellow man, its no wonder that the Jerusalem church was never held as the standard in which the entire church life should govern itself, not to mention a justification of the state to abolish private property. On the contrary, when Peter had his interaction with Ananias and Sapphira in Acts chapter 5, Peter told Ananias that it was his land to begin with! What was reprehensible was the fact that they both (Ananias and Sapphira) lied to the Holy Spirit. So, contrary to Gregory Paul’s confident assertions of the Socialist Early Church, it was indeed not Socialist and does not set a Christian precedent for Socialism.
Another glaring problem with the Socialist view that sits counter to Christianity is its view on Materialism. Karl Marx, the founder of Socialism believed in dialectical materialism which is the belief that matter contains a creative power within itself. He believed that ideas could arise as products and reflections of material conditions (Britannica). This enabled Marx to eliminate the need for a creator God, and essentially the need for anything non-material. By this logic, therefore, any suffering is caused by the unequal distribution of stuff. To rectify the suffering, one must re-distribute the stuff, believing that this will elevate pain and suffering. As we can see by this theory one has replaced God with Government without any need of any spiritual repair. Contradictory to the Socialist view, Christianity affirms both a material and a non-material world. The Bible teaches that it is sin, not the unequal distribution of wealth that is mankind’s problem. The antidote to this ailment is not redistribution, but the cross of Christ which liberates us from sin. Based on the Christian view of sin, we can always expect inequalities of wealth in the material world. But, because of Christ, the Christian quality of life is not determined by how much stuff we have, but by our relationship with him and his saving work.
Let's take another example from the Bible to illustrate how the Socialist view doesn’t line up with the Biblical teaching. In Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14–30), Jesus tells the story of a man going away on a journey and entrusts three of his servants with his property. Note that the property was the man’s and not the states. The man then distributes talents to his servants based on merit, not on an even distribution scale. He gave “to each according to his ability” not “to each according to his need”. Here again, Socialism is upended. The owner gave to these men in expectation of a return. He expected these men to work hard, invest, and return a profit based on their own abilities. The ones who did turn a profit were rewarded with praise and were given more, the servant who did nothing was rebuked and was deemed “wicked and slothful”. This depiction of the Kingdom of God given by Jesus flies right in the face of Socialist ideals.
To properly address Christian tradition on the matter we go back to the beginning. The book of Genesis lays down the foundation of mankind that all humans are “made in the image of God”. This is the foundation in which mankind achieves dignity and equality. The Bible is representative of God’s view on how we ought to behave towards people and how we ought to behave in our self-regarding actions. This is specifically addressed again in the New Testament by Jesus himself in his Sermon on the Mount as well as our duties as Christians sited in Mark 12:30–31.
The Socialist ideology does not align with Christian values and certainly when taken to its logical conclusions, aligns with men’s motivations. It supposes something near perfection in the outcome. It supposes men will labor willingly without stimulus or desire to improve their economic condition. It supposes an unmotivated man in the desire of wealth, popularity, or power. It supposes complete and perfect integrity on the part of the distribution of goods and services. Finally, it supposes a timid spirit of moderation and contentment on behalf of the people. Once again we return to the Biblical principle of the depravity of man. Socialism is flawed because at its foundation it does not accept this premise. This fact alone should distinguish its ideology as Anti-Christian. I find it interesting that every time the Jewish leaders of the day tried to brand Jesus into taking some political stand he evaded them. We know Jesus was not a Socialist because he never endorsed any ideology or economic system. He was not a political revolutionist because he was not any sort of -ist and he certainly didn’t promote any sort of -ism (Walsh), and when it comes to Socialism, neither should you.
Edited by Encyclopedia Britannica. “Dialectical Materialism.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 3 Oct. 2016, www.britannica.com/topic/dialectical-materialism.
Paul, Gregory. “From Jesus’ Socialism to Capitalistic Christianity.” OnFaith, 12 Aug. 2011, www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2011/08/12/from-Jesus-socialism-to-capitalistic-christianity/10731?noredirect=on.
Walsh, Matt. “WALSH: No, Jesus Is Not Even Close To A Socialist.” No, Jesus Is Not Even Close to a Socialist , The Daily Wire, 1 Aug. 2018, www.dailywire.com/news/33888/walsh-no-jesus-not-even-close-socialist-matt-walsh.
