Wealth and the New Testament

James Peron
Sep 2, 2018 · 29 min read
Christ and the Money Changers

When the musical Godspell was first presented conservative Christians attacked it as “left-wing.” Years later, I was asked to attend by a local producer and did so. What struck me most that the content attacked wealth and glorified poverty. Even the most strident Marxist would have been pleased. But the dialogue of the play was straight from Scripture. There was no need to rewrite the words of Jesus to make them “left-wing.” That most people read the New Testament sporadically means they have a tendency not to notice the extent to which Jesus and his apostles attacked wealth and the wealthy.

In Matthew 13: 22 Jesus discussed the parable of the sower. He said seed sowed in stony ground is like those who hear the word of God but the word is choked off because of “the deceitfulness of riches.” Thus, he is saying, wealth is a barrier to salvation. In Mark 4:19 the same message is given but this time the “word” is choked by the “cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches.” When Luke recounts the story in 8:14 the message of God is choked “with cares and riches and pleasures of this life.” Paul in Romans 11 speaks of those who don’t become Christians because “of the riches of the world.” While other factors are sometimes included, in each case riches is considered an obstacle to salvation.

Mark 10: 21–25 tells of the rich man who came to Jesus and said he faithfully followed the commandments: “Then Jesus beholding him loved him and said unto him, One thing thou lackest; go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying; and went away and grieved; for he had great possessions. And Jesus look round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”

In Luke, Jesus said more regarding giving away everything. “Verily, I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.” How this fits in with the pro family Christian Right would be interesting to investigate.

Chapter 14 of Luke is filled with contempt for the wealthy. In this chapter Jesus, for some inexplicable reason, is allegedly eating at the home of the chief Pharisee, his bitter enemy, on the Sabbath. This seems to be a mythic tale as it is unlikely the chief Pharisee would have Jesus over for afternoon tea. Jesus starts telling some parables and then turns to the Pharisee and says: “When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not they friends, nor they brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors… but when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.” This is followed by another parable, which concerns a man who invites some friends over for dinner who don’t show up. In response to this, the man tells his servant: “Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.” Suddenly the chapter says Christ was in a multitude; presumably he is no longer in the home of the Pharisee. He turns to the crowd and says: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” And, “whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.” In Luke 19 a rich man named Zaccheus comes to Jesus and says he has given away his goods to the poor. To him Jesus says, “This day is salvation come to this house…”

Once again Jesus demands his disciples abandon their families, their wealth, and love for this life, if they wish to follow him. Unless his followers are willing to surrender everything earthly they could not be his disciples.

Paul tells Timothy: “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy.”

James says: “Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth eaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.” This seems to be pure hatred of the rich because they are rich. What the alleged sins of the rich are, to deserve such horrors, is never laid out. One can only presume success alone is enough to deserve pain and misery.

When Mary is told she is pregnant with Jesus she praises God and for some reason denounces the rich. She says God has scattered the proud, put down the mighty “and exalted them of low degree, He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.” The rich are sent away empty simply because they are rich. In the sermon on the Mount Jesus reverses all worldly values. “Blessed be ye poor; for yours in the kingdom of god… But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now for ye shall mourn and weep.” Fidel Castro, it seems, is quite fond of these quotes from Jesus. He said: “I believe that Karl Marx could have subscribed to the Sermon on the Mount.”

Another odd passage is the famous reference to the rich man and Lazarus. Jesus tells us the rich man “was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day.” When the beggar died he was carried off to “Abraham’s bosom” but the rich man “in hell he lifted up his eyes and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” The rich man is tormented in flames and begs for water; “But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.” Why did the rich man burn in hell for eternity? According to this story by Jesus the only reason given was he had riches. Because he was wealthy he is being tormented and Lazarus, because he was poor, was rewarded.

In I Timothy, Paul writes: “For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment, let us be therefore content, But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil, which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith….” In Luke 16:11 money is called “unrighteous mammon.” The quote about money being the root of all evil is one of the most quoted Bible texts. Pro-market conservatives ignore the quote while socialists relish in it. Ayn Rand, in her novel Atlas Shrugged, responded to it:

So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

…Or do you say it’s the love of money that’s the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest proclaiming his hatred of money — and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

…Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become tools of men. Blood, whips and guns — or dollars. Take your choice — there is no other — and your time is running out.

Jesus advised his followers to cease all productive labor. Money, to him is so evil, that one shouldn’t work.

No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other, Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment. Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith. Therefore take no thought, saying What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or Wherewithal shall we be clothed? …But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take things of itself.

Not even the most rabid Biblical literalists takes these words seriously. Consider what Christ is actually recommending. The idea one should “take no thought” for their life is absurd. Throughout the world there are Christians who don’t sow and don’t reap and they don’t eat. The economic formula Christ was proposing was one designed for failure. The fact of the matter is Christ didn’t take this world seriously.

Don’t worry about wealth says the Christian, because wealth will pass away, but the eternal things of God are forever. As James says: “But the rich, in that he is made low; because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away. For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perishes: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.”

In another passage, James the brother of Jesus, said: “Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you and draw you before the judgement seats?”

John the Revelator, says to the rich, “Because thou sayest I am rich, and increased in goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked…”

The anti-wealth gospel of Jesus was taken seriously by many of the early Christians. And the system they lived under wasn’t similar in any way to private, property-based free enterprise. Jesus commanded them to take all they owned, sell it, and give the money away. The Book of Acts allegedly recounts the history of the early church, and while, no doubt, it includes exaggerations and fictional embellishment, its basic claims are probably accurate. Here is what it said about the economic policy of the early Christians:

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

And all that believed were together, and they had all things common;

And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

…..And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul: neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the price of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

The Church Father Tertullian made a comment similar to that in Acts. He said: “One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives.” The second century satirist Lucian described Christians as “considering everything common property. He joked “any charlatan or trickster who comes among them quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing on simpletons.”

The Acts of the Apostles, Tertullian, and Lucian all seem to be saying the early church practiced communal ownership of property. Others seem to hold similar, if not identical, views regarding the practice of the early church. An Evangelical Commitment to Simple Lifestyle, interpreted this part of the New Testament to mean that property “was made subservient to the needs of the community” and that the early Christians were “free from the selfish assertion of proprietary rights.” Arthur Gish, in his book Living in Christian Community, said the early church “shared everything not because they had to…but because they wanted to. And in Jerusalem apparently all did.” Because “of their love and unity, the boundaries of private property dissolved.”

Modern fundamentalists, like David Chilton, try and explain away this policy as they attempt to defend what they dishonestly call free enterprise. Chilton argues the early church was in a unique situation. He says the acts of the Christians had to be understood in a particular historical context and no eternal principle can be gleaned from their actions. He says its “was a special tactic designed to meet unique circumstances.” His argument is so many new converts entered the Church they needed funds, because many of them were foreigners. Thus the Church responded to a one-time only emergency. But that’s not what Scripture says; also “communism” of ownership is in complete keeping with the absurd ethics preached in the Sermon on the Mount.

One justification Chilton gives is the Christians sold their lands and houses to rip off “unbelieving” Jews since the property would lose all value when Jerusalem would be destroyed. Chilton says that the Christians were told by Jesus how Jerusalem would be levelled and thus sold worthless property. Chilton puts it this way: “They sold knowingly to Jews who would lose everything in the city. In short, ‘tough luck’ for the rebellious crucifying Jews of that generation. God’s new people used ‘inside information’ about the future to ‘rip off’ the Jews.” So much for Christian charity and, I need not mention, what seems to be blatant anti-Semitism on Chilton’s part.

What Chilton does here is not unusual for so-called Biblical literalists who condemn liberal interpretations of the Bible. Where the liberal argues the Bible must be interpreted in its historical context the fundamentalist argues it means what it says and its truths are eternal. But. when it is inconvenient to take a verse literally, fundamentalists resort to the same sort of biblical exegesis as they condemn.

The Christian economist E. Calvin Beisner has other interpretations of what went on in the early church. He counters with two different arguments. In the first he quotes various Old Testament passages about property and says “it seems hardly reasonable to conclude that God condemns all assertions of private property rights as selfish” in light of such passages. This presupposes, of course, that there is a God and that what he told people in the Old Testament cannot conflict with what he allegedly told them in the New Testament. If, instead, you argue the two parts of the Bible were written by different people promoting different religions such a discrepancy is not only not troubling but to be expected. If you assume the Christian perspective that God authored both sections there is still another explanation — one used regularly by theologians — the law of the Old Testament was superseded by the law of Christ. Just as the Jews were supposedly replaced by the Church as the center of God’s plan you could argue that communal ownership had replaced private ownership.

Beisner has another argument to dismiss the communalist Christians. He argues the example in Acts is not technically communism since the relinquishing of property was voluntary. Church members were not obligated to sell their property. Beisner forgets that coercion is not a necessary component of communism. One can establish a communist society where private property has been relinquished voluntarily. He confuses the reality of Marxist politics with the theory of communism itself, which predates Marx. He also says another difference was that this communalism was “done to meet needs, not to equalize economic conditions.” Of course both arguments have been used by communists. Today the majority of socialists justify their policies, not on a desire for equality, but to meet the needs of the poor.

The New Testament, and Jesus, have nothing good to say about wealth. Both continually condemn and attack wealth as being evil. This is why when modern Christians attempt to defend capitalism they use Bible passages from the Old Testament, not the New. The pro-capitalist theologian, Michael Novak, admits: “The gospel accounts amply supply the liberation (socialist) theologians of our day with a rhetoric to be employed against riches and the rich.” Evangelical Christian theologians with socialist leanings, such as Ron Sider, have no shortage of New Testament passages to point to with pride. Prof. Robert Grant, in his essay “Early Christianity and Capital,” in Peter Berger’s The Capitalist Spirit,notes the early church fathers looked on wealth with less than enthusiasm:

Toward the end of the second century two prominent Christians, Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexander, discussed the origin of the wealth that Christians held. Irenaeus was not enthusiastic about such wealth.. If they had it before their conversion, they had acquired it either by avarice or by gift from pagan parents, relatives, or friends. In such cases it was based on injustice. If it came after conversion they were acquiring it either selling or buying. In other words, the acquisition of all property was based on injustice (basically a Platonic view)….

Clement viewed the acquisition of property only a little more favorably… Clement claims that “all possessions are by nature unjust, when a man holds them as absolutely his own and does not set them in the common fund for those in need.”

Bruno Leoni, the legal theorist, noted in his classic work, Freedom and the Law, “the author of the first systemization of the rules of the Church, the so called decretum Gratiani, says: ‘Whoever is determined to keep more thing than he needs is a robber’.” Leoni said that all modern socialists have done was produce “a revised version of this same idea”. After quoting Marxist theory, Leoni notes the “old Archbishop of Milan” said the same thing “in less complicated and more effective language: ‘Nature is responsible for a law of things in common; usurpation is responsible for private law.‘”

Thomas Szasz, the well-known psychiatrist, discusses what he calls “The Ethics of Helplessness and Helpfulness” in his book, The Myth of Mental Illness. Dr Szasz says that Judaic and Christian: “…religious teachings abound in rules that reward sickness and stupidity, poverty and timidity — in short, disabilities of all sorts. Moreover, the rules or their corollaries threaten penalties for self-reliance and competence, and for pride in health and well-being.” He also notes “these rules prescribe that when man (subject, son, patient) is healthy, independent, rich and proud, then God (king, father, physician) shall be strict with him and punish him. But should the man be sick, dependent, poor, and humble then God shall care for him and protect him. It might seem I have exaggerated this rule. I do not believe so. Rather, this impression reflects our spontaneous antagonism to such a rule when it is clearly and forcefully stated.”

Szasz notes such a “reversal of rules generally governing rewards and punishments for man on earth” does serve a function considering which social groups dominated Christianity in its early years. Szasz notes that such beliefs “are best suited for children and slaves; this is hardly surprising when we recall the social circumstances in which this creed merged”.

The “New Rules” of Jesus turned everything up-side down and reversed:

…those of the social order of the time. What were these rules? That it was better to be a free citizen of Rome and a believer in Roman polytheism than not to be; that it was better to be healthy than sick, wealthy than poor, admired and beloved rather than persecuted and hated, and so forth. The New Rules, as set forth by Jesus and Saint Paul, consisted of a radical reversal of these real-life rules. Henceforth the “ last” shall be “first” — the “loser” shall be the “winner”: faithful Christians will be the winners, pagan Romans the losers; healthy, wealthy, and admired people will be punished, while the sick, poor, and persecuted will be rewarded.

The New Rules possessed several features that helped to make them popular and successful. In the early days of Christianity, there were, of course, many more slaves, sick, poor, and unhappy people than free, healthy, and satisfied ones. This remains true even today. Accordingly, while the rules of the earthly game, as practiced in Roman society, held out a promise of opportunity to only a few men, the rules of Christianity held out the promise of bountiful rewards in a life hereafter to many.

Christianity succeeded for the same reason socialism attracted so many adherents and dominated this century politically. It appeals to the resentment and hatred the “have nots” feel toward the haves. Christians, particularly serious ones, have predominantly come from the less prosperous segments of any society. Christianity feeds resentment and encourages attitudes that help keep people poor. Edward Gibbon, in his The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire put it this way, “remember that the kingdom of heaven was promised to the poor in spirit, and that minds afflicted by calamity and the contempt of mankind cheerfully listen to the divine promises of future happiness.”

Both Christianity and socialism promise the poor a chance to get even: socialism in this life; Christianity in the life to come. Both say the poor deserve to become wealthy because they are poor and the wealthy robbed of their wealth because they are rich. Faith and Freedom,by Barbara Ward, said: “Communism owes its immense vitality more to its biblical vision of the mighty put down and the poor raised up than to its theories of value or its interpretation of history.”

Christian values, as revealed by Christ, are not conducive to wealth creation. As long as Europeans took Christianity seriously they remained poor. The reason the Enlightenment brought about the industrial revolution was because it freed mankind from so many Christian shackles. Creative energy was set free when human minds were set free.

But age old resentments and envious attitudes still dominated large segments of the populace. But as theology lost power these classes turned more toward a non theistic philosophy of resentment — socialism. The only real difference was that they had to abandon a God concept and trade future rewards for present day rewards. Instead of sticking it to the rich in the next life — they could do it in the here and now. The battle for Peru’s presidency in 1990 illustrated how this envious attitude plays out in politics and religion. Mario Vargas Lloso, a free market civil liberal, was locked in a heated battle with Alberto Fujimora, who had the support of the evangelical Christians and Peru’s political Left. Vargas Lloso tried to determine why evangelicals, most of whom were impoverished, were almost unanimous in their support of Fujimora. When asked why they liked Fujimora they couldn’t give answers. Vargas Llosa, in his autobiographicalA Fish in Water, recounts:

When they were asked why they wouldn’t vote for me, it was noticeable that they were disconcerted at having to offer an explanation of something that they hadn’t thought about. Finally, someone mentioned the stands we had taken that were most often criticized: the economic ‘shock treatment’ and education for the poor. But the answer that appeared to sum up best the feeling of all of them was: “Rich people are for him, right?”

The election in Peru showed how individuals, who resent others for having wealth, are attracted simultaneously to Christianity and socialist politics. What many see as an odd alliance between orthodox Christianity and socialism isn’t so odd after all. Both are rooted in an envious attitude toward the success of others.

Every culture, tribe, civilization, or society relies upon myths. Myths are stories used to help define the group. They teach moral lessons, instil ethical codes, project theories regarding the various roles that members of the group should adopt. Whether or not such stories are literally true is irrelevant. That such myths are repeated from generation to generation is all that is important. It is the telling of the myth, which is what is crucial.

Western culture has evolved with Christian myths and these stories and doctrines permeate our societies. They influence attitudes and even many non-Christians adopt various aspects of the myths. The belief in the validity of the Virgin Birth must have some influence on Western attitudes toward sexuality. A belief in a life-after-death in a bliss-filled paradise must lower the value of life on this earth. Myths, which ostensibly are about another life after this one, can’t help but effect our views concerning this life.

The Atonement is the central doctrine of Christianity. It teaches the perfect man, who, according to Christian dogma, was God in the flesh, was tortured to buy the salvation of evil, unworthy sinners. The Christ was crucified for the sake of others — not just crucified but horribly tortured in the process, all with the consent of God the Father. In the Atonement several moral principles seem implicit. Christ, the perfect, died for unworthy, evil-doers. Nothing these evil-doers could conceive of doing would ever lead to their own salvation. Salvation was something where the perfect was destroyed in a form of spiritual welfarism. The first welfare system was when God the Father took the perfection of his Son and redistributed it to unworthy individuals. Why was this done? Because the Son was sinless and the rest of humanity wasn’t. This is a spiritual form of Marx’s platitude “from each according to his ability to each according to his need.” We have seen God promises the rich will be destroyed simply because they are rich and the poor will be rewarded simply because they are poor. This is the same doctrine as that of the Atonement. Christ was killed simply because he was perfect and the sinners were saved because they weren’t.

The very concept of man’s “sinful nature” has political ramifications. If man is sinful he should feel guilty. Christianity has historically done its best to instil guilt in its adherents. And it is to guilt that Marxism appeals. Conservative Christian [at the time he wrote this] Franky Shaeffer noted, in Is Capitalism Christian?:

Perhaps Christians have a peculiar susceptibility to appeals made to personal conscience. The journey towards Christ begins with an acknowledgement of sin and an admission of personal guilt in the face of Christ’s perfection. That sense of guilt seems to cause a knee-jerk response to appeals made to conscience — ”we must be more compassionate,” “we are too complacent,” “we are selfish materialists.”

Shaeffer says modern Christian politics is “a sort of diabolical marriage between the worst of Puritanism and socialism, Christian New Age liberals, evangelical and Catholic alike, combine hatred of the flesh with coercive utopianism. The result is a pernicious ideology that tries to make ordinary people feel guilty just for being alive.” But what does he expect from people who take the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus seriously? The Christian Bible does teach us all men are sinners. Christians are often encouraged to see the crucifixion of Christ as the direct result of their own individual sinful nature. They are also taught this world is an evil place and the true home of the Christian is in Heaven. Riches are bad, this world is evil, the flesh is weak, and you are guilty: these are not accidental doctrines but emanate from essential Christian theology. Is it then any wonder so many serious Christians wish to denounce wealth, prosperity, and material well-being? And, in the process of renunciation, is it that odd so many renounce the one economic system that promotes prosperity?

Add to this theological stew the idea that you are your brother’s keeper and you have the entire system of ethics necessary to promote a socialist/communist society. Since we know man is sinful and rebellious then how do we enforce God’s law if not coercively? Shaeffer errs when he thinks this is a marriage between Puritanism and socialism. The ethics of both are the same. The socialist built his system on the mythologies of Biblical Christianity. Marx may have secularized Christian concepts but he did not abandon them.

Some time ago I wrote an article entitled The Eschatology of Environmentalism, in which I argued that the end-time hysterias of various radical environmentalists fell within an age-old Christian tradition. I compared the Christian concepts of sin, salvation and the end time rule of God, to similar concepts found within both Marxism and radical environmentalism. In these cases Christian myths are used to ensnare individuals inculcated with the values those myths imply.

In a matter of just a few very short years environmentalism went from movement of the radical Left to that of “mainstream” America. Why this happened so rapidly is partially explained by the fact that it shared the same mythic morality lessons of western Christianity and Marxism. Robert H. Nelson, a conservative theologian, pointed out how environmentalist morality lessons repeat Biblical myths.

In all this there is an obvious biblical quality. It is the story, although now offered in a new secular dress, of human beings created in harmony with the world; tempted into evil; spreading corruption and depravity; and now facing disaster and perhaps the end of the world. There is here a distinctly Calvinist flavor. The sins of mankind are overwhelmingly large; as a founder of Greenpeace, Tom Watson has said, human beings are the “AIDs of the earth.” The roles of reason and natural law are limited; in fact, for many environmentalists it is precisely our attempt to understand nature through rational scientific inquiry that is a prime cause of our current plight. The end of the world is near at hand; the only hope to be saved is a great moral awakening across the land. Given such qualities, it should perhaps not be surprising that in Europe environmentalism has been strongest in Germany, Scandinavia, and England. The environmental gospel is for many the secular substitute for their lost Protestant faith of old.

In the United States, a nation with a strong Calvinist heritage dating back to the Puritan settlement of New England, environmentalism has also been enthusiastically received. Many members of the U.S. environmental movement are candid about its religious inspiration. Writing in The Voice of the Earth, environmentalist Theodore Roszak says that “the emerging world view of our day will have to address questions of a frankly religious character.” The environmental message must include answers to “ethical conduct, moral purpose and the meaning of life,” thereby “ seeking to heal the soul of its wounds and guide it to salvation.” Writing on “the ecophilosophers” in the journal of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Peter Borrelli explains that “most bioregionalists believe the trend toward ecological destruction will not be reversed until there is a spiritual awakening.”

Al Gore political views were radicalized while he was enrolled at Vanderbilt Divinity School. His doomsday fears and extreme environmentalism can be traced to a course he took entitled “Theology and the Natural Sciences.” The course feed Gore a steady of diet of now discredited works like The Limits to Growth. Till this day Gore continues to regurgitate these ideas in his calls for central planning on a global scale to save the planet.

Conservative sociologist Peter Berger said in his book, The Capitalist Revolution, capitalism is almost completely devoid of myths while socialism “has been singularly blessed with myth-generating potency.” It isn’t just that socialist invent new myths but their ideology can be tied in with myths already in dominance in our culture. Berger said the roots of socialism, “are undoubtedly in the communitarian tradition of Western Christianity. It is an ideal of justice, equality, and redemptive community that goes back to the earliest times of the Christian Church…” Berger says Marx wove “this emotionally and religiously charged vision” with scientific jargon and explanations. Marx could appeal to Christian mythology and to scientific rationalism simultaneously. Without the Christian myths behind it Marxism would have been another dry economic theory. In fact, Berger notes that hardly “more than a handful could have been converted to the revolutionary faith by the pretty much unreadable prose of those ponderous tomes.” Yet Marx was able to tap into the minds of millions. His appeal to envious resentment and his ability to use common Christian myths allowed him to win millions of fervent converts. Marxism has always been fundamentally a religious movement not a political one.

Berger has also noted that other concepts of Christian mythology have been used to underpin Marxism. Berger wrote:

As Nicholas Berdyaev and other critics of Marxism have argued (and some advocates of Marxism as well, notably Ernst Bloch), there is a more specifically biblical theme that has played an important role in the popular appeal of Marxism — the theme of eschatology. That is, Marxism can be understood as a peculiar secularized version of the classical biblical view of history as consisting of a fall from grace, a set of redemptive events embodied in a human community, and as a leading up to a great climax that will bring ordinary history to an end. Marxism has substituted private property and its “alienations” for original sin, the revolutionary process for the kairoi of God’s redemptive activity, the proletariat (and later, with Lenin, the party as the “vanguard of the proletariat”) for the church, and the attainment of true communism for the advent of the Kingdom of God. Critics of Marxism (such as Berdyaev) have, of course, taken these parallels as grounds for dismissing it as a sort of Christian aberration. It is important to stress, however, that some Marxist have taken the same parallels as grounds for claiming that this revolutionary creed rightfully ·embodies the deepest human aspirations of Western history.

In this case both the critics and the Marxists are correct. Marxism is, in one sense, a sect built on Christian mythology and it does represent many of the aspirations of Western man. This is not a rebuttal but a restating of the same theme. Western man adopted his aspirations from the myths which his culture promulgated and those myths were the Christian myths. That Marxism is another version of these myths is not surprising. Had it been otherwise we would have reason for shock.

It is my belief that one can legitimately ask if Marxism could have existed without its Christian ethical and mythical foundations.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn makes an interesting admission for a pro-capitalist Catholic. He concedes:

And not only does the ethical content of Christianity fosters and promotes the temptation toward socialism, but also much of Christian imagery and doctrine. Along the path of the socialist utopia lies a day of judgement when the humble will be exalted and the rich and mighty brutally dispossessed. And from the Socialist-Communist utopia itself can be gleaned the picture of paradise lost — and regained; a new age of innocence, of peace and brotherly love, with envy, crime and hatred banished forever.

In the Socialist-Communist vision, with its accent on the salvation of the world through the proletariat, not only is Christian imagery important but also the gross misinterpretation of Christ and early Christianity. Unfortunately the Christian churches are not entirely innocent in this respect. In Christian folklore the Savior appears as the Son of the humble carpenter, the poor Boy from a lowly family, born in he stable and venerated by the Magi as He lies among domestic animals. He is the simple Man who talked to uneducated fisherman and associated primarily with the indigent. Early Christianity, furthermore, is presented as a movement of the outcasts of the Roman Empire, of slaves, paupers and illiterates, a proletarian movement….

Berger notes myths legitimize ideologies and systems. He wrote:

To make the two statements offered thus far….to wit, that socialism has strong mythic power and that capitalism has little if any — is not to ignore other myths operative in the contemporary world. Throughout most of human history, of course, religion was the source of all myths. The ideas that legitimated social order and that inspired human beings to sacrifice their own interests if not their lives to a social purpose were rooted in religious experience. Indeed, speaking sociologically, one can say that such legitimation has been the principle social function of religion from archaic times to the present.

Berger is correct when he says cultures use their myths. The myths of the past often point the way to the future. Socialism has the mythology of two millenniums of Christianity behind it. Capitalism doesn’t. One reason the works of the novelist Ayn Rand have been so successful at creating ideological capitalists is they present an alternative mythology. The mythology of Rand’s novels, combined with her philosophical justifications, create a potent combination. Marx was able to use Christian mythology — Rand couldn’t and thus had to create her own. While many “intellectuals” have condemned Rand for her use of myths they conveniently ignore Marx did the same thing. Both Marx and Rand used scientific Enlightenment values and combined them with myths to create potent and appealing political system. Marx’s principles lead where they did because they used Christian myths.

In his The Role of Religion in HistoryGeorge Walsh sees a similarity between Christian concepts of virtue and Marxism. He wrote:

Marxism is the secular version of Christianity. Consider the three main virtues of Christianity: faith, hope, charity. The Marxist equivalent of faith is raised class consciousness, the feeling that one is being oppressed plus commitment to the proletariat as the agent of liberation. The Marxist equivalent of hope is blind trust that somehow a socialist economy is possible. And the Marxist equivalent of charity, is identification with all the oppressed. “Arise ye wretched of the earth” is therefore, just another way of saying “blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

The reason so many Christians have been active in the drive toward socialism is it doesn’t require any major reversal of their system of ethics. They are familiar to everyone because they have the same mythic foundations. The two systems are so compatible prominent Christians theologians have repeatedly said Christianity is the religion; socialism the practice. Throughout history the Church has opposed economic liberalism. A statement for the Methodist-Presbyterian Public Questions Committee explained why capitalism is fundamentally alien to Christian ethics. They said “capitalism falls short of achieving economic justice” because: “It is an ‘acquisitive society,’ based on self-interest and individualism. These attributes of capitalism are not acceptable from a Christian viewpoint.” In the US the old Federal Council of Churches had similar sentiments in the 1930s. They said: “The Christian conscience can be satisfied with nothing less than the complete substitution of motives or mutual helpfulness and goodwill for the motive of private gain…” What this meant was laid out by the Council three years earlier: “The Christian ideal calls for hearty support of a planned economic system in which maximum social values shall be brought. It demands that cooperation shall supplant competition as the fundamental method.”

Barbara Ward, in her Faith and Freedom, said:

The moral indignation with which Marx berates the capitalists and exploiters betrays the religious roots of his attitude toward private property. In a strictly determinist system, what place could there be for indignation? The capitalists were obeying historical necessity. They could not be blamed for fulfilling their part in an inevitable historical process. But Marx had behind him centuries of Christian and Jewish anger at the iniquities of those who grind down the faces of the poor. It is the prophet, not the analyst, who speaks. So, too, in his denunciation of the miseries of the poor and his championing of the Messianic mission of the proletariat, he draws upon a religions tradition which sees in the poor and outcast the specially loved and chosen of God. The notion of that the poor have a charismatic role to play in world history is unknown outside Western society. In fact, judging by their private correspondence, Marx and Engels had no very high opinion of actual working men and women as opposed to the idealized class-conscious workers of the Communist myth. But the power with which the idea was charged was drawn not from scientifically established fact but from Christian roots of pity and hope. In short, Marx who claimed the status of science for his work and denounced all Utopian tendencies as “sloppy sentimentality”, “metaphysical fanfares” and “soulful ravings”, nevertheless drew on an immensely strong visionary strain in European thought, a strain of sin and judgement and retribution, a strain of compassion and outrage, a strain of apocalyptic hope. This, not rationalism, gave driving force to the criticism Marx directed at existing institutions. This, not science, moved the workers to accept the new faith.

The rise of communism and the modern welfare state is the logical result of centuries of Christian ethical teachings. Modern authoritarianism, much of it Marxist, grew in a soil Christianity had prepared. Marx may have planted the seeds but Jesus prepared the soil.

If you wish to support these columns donate on our page at Patreon.

The Radical Center

A blog for the Moorfield Storey Institute: a liberaltarian think tank.

James Peron

Written by

James Peron is the president of the Moorfield Storey Institute, was the founding editor of Esteem a LGBT publication in South Africa under apartheid.

The Radical Center

A blog for the Moorfield Storey Institute: a liberaltarian think tank.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade