I've never understood how people can claim to be Christians who follow the New Testament, but have such amazingly Old Testament values. The group that fully embodies this mindset to me is the Moral Majority. Even as a Christian, I never understood how you could read the words of Jesus and then go out and vote to not help the poor. Many justify this with the saying "God helps those who help themselves," which is often falsely attributed to the Bible.
When I was a Christian, I always figured the final word on any issue in which the Bible's message might be in question should be settled by the words of Jesus, the man who is, supposedly, the most important person in the Christian religion. So what do we hear Jesus say about economics?
We can look at Mark 10, which says "21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24Thedisciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.""
I often hear from Christians, when discussing things like abstaining from homosexuality or premarital sex, that following the Bible isn't mean to be easy. But I'm amazed at how rarely this verse comes up when the religious right discusses their faith. I can only assume because this faction of Christianity somehow combines Old Testament morality with a 1980s
Wall Street "greed is good" mentality. Obviously these people seem to find Jesus' teachings to be too difficult to follow, but the restrictions on homosexuality and sex outside of marriage are no problem to them (publicly at least... just look at Kent Hovind and his male prostitute or Newt Gingrich divorcing his wife on his death bed so he can move on to his third wife).
We know for certain that Jesus had no problem healing the sick free of charge (can you say socialized medicine?), as is evidenced in passages like
Matthew 4:23 & 9:35. And let's not forget that we are to "forgive our debtors" and "give to every one who begs from you." Jesus even spoke on trickle-down economics nearly 2000 years before Republicans would start to promote the concept as an addendum to the New Testament, when he discussed the beggar Lazarus "who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table." If you're familiar with Jesus' message at all (and not in a
700 Club kind of way) you probably know that Lazarus ended up in a better place than the rich man.
But I think the most convincing evidence of Jesus being more of a leftie hippie than a right-wing Reaganomics promoter comes from James 2: "1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5Listen,my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong? "
None of this makes Jesus seem like the supply-side, laissez-faire, capitalist, "let the market take care of it" fiscal conservative the modern GOP likes to paint him as. I think if Jesus were around today, he'd shrink away from these people that love to jump on the six Bible passages about homosexuality and ignore the hundreds on how to treat the poor.
Do you think that Jesus would be a Socialist if he were on the Earth today? Would Jesus have an economic policy at all? What can Christians do better to follow the scriptures that call us to serve the poor?
True
Comments (67)
Man, this is going to ruffle a lot of feathers. Good luck, buddy. You'll need it.
As a total aside: I think one of the reasons homosexuality is taken as so subversive and evil is that only few Christians openly admit to struggling with it, whereas pride and selfishness is much more admittedly pervasive, even among Christians. We easily turn a blind eye to the sin which (far from being least immoral) is most abundant among us.
you already know i agree. i'm just always shocked at what Christians choose to get upset about the most. if they would take even HALF of the energy they do into getting upset at evolution, socialism, gay sex and abortion, and put it towards helping the poor, i'm pretty sure poverty could be cured once and for all.
Very well said. Strange, I just posted something similar on my FB and now have linked this blog of yours to it. You may have more bible thumpers headed your way right now.
I, too, find it weird that Christians don't see themselves as hypocrites. I'm no perfect Christian, but severely dislike it when people misquote the bible or use it to their socio-economic advantage while straying away from the teaching that they boldly say they follow.
Yes, Jesus WAS a socialist, if you only look at certain things that He said.
If you take the bible as a whole it becomes very evident that neither God nor Jesus had any problem with the rich... and that He did INDEED want people to give to the poor, which just about every Christian I know does... (it's called tithe, ten percent off the top)
I generally agree. The argument against this is probably that Jesus was fulfilling/starting a religion, not running a government. I don't know what the social policies of the day were, but - technically - the church was called to take care of the poor amongst them...
@LKJSlain@xanga - Technically I agree with most of your comment, but tithing is just giving to your church and may or may not necessarily be giving to the poor. Depends on the church.
There's a lot to say to this blog, which is great, but as far as answering the questions at the bottom, I don't see Jesus being a socialist because I think all systems fail in comparison to the way of the kingdom of God which Jesus preached. Socialism wasn't instilled by Jesus even though some might see some similar philosophies between socialism and the way of Christ. Jesus definitely has an economic policy and it's grounded in faith towards a provider (YHWH), love for neighbor, and sacrificial giving. I've written on this a few times here and on my own blog if you're interested in a more in depth view. Sadly, I'm not so good at always living Jesus' economics out.
This is one of those issues that reminds me that Christians in the U.S. too often spend more time being concerned with the U.S. budget than their own or even the budget of their faith community. If the government won't help out the poor it shouldn't matter because the Church should be doing it anyway! God's answer to poverty has always been for his people to provide through generous giving and hospitality. That's both an Old Testament and New Testament truth. Making the authorities provide for the poor, or to do the job of the Church in any way, is not a Christian discipline. If the government takes hints from the Church and seeks justice because of the witness of the Church that's amazing but the Church should never ask the authorities to do what she is not presently doing when it comes to justice.
Ways we can be better at this is to get a better hold on our own finances. We need to learn to be simplistic and frugal. We need to spend less and give more. We need to be able to see our budget in front of our eyes so we can be responsible in daily spending and faithfully "irresponsible" when necessary. The nation isn't going to be Christian and we shouldn't expect it to be. We should, however, expect the Church to be and do everything we can in our individual lives and communal lives to seek the needs of those around us and provide for them. After all, "If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth" (1John 3:17-18). The early church answered this wisdom by fasting as a community for a day or several days in order to feed travelers and hungry citizens in their neighborhoods. There is a plethora of ways to provide for those in need and if we don't do it then we don't love. But love is not expressed by asking someone else to do your work for you.
I don't think Jesus was on the side of any government at all.
@TheGreatBout@xanga -
"Making the authorities provide for the poor, or to do the job of the Church in any way, is not a Christian discipline."
true. i guess, from my POV, i'm more comfortable with providing coming from a secular source. one, i'd be concerned that non-believers would be turned away... and two, that if they weren't, the primary goal would be to convert them, rather than help them. and besides, i don't see that caring for the poor is reserved only for Christians.
@Texrat@twitter - that's my point I don't think he could have been a socialist
Jesus didn't have political leaning then and wouldn't now. Socialism as a form of government doesn'twork because men are greedy by nature. We are to help the poor and needy as an individual and community. As Christians we're called to give up loyalty to any government or nationality except His. Yes the church does severely lack this very important trait. No doubt about it, we don't like helping the poor and needy because the more you help them the more help they need. The poor don't get their act together with any amount of help. The vast majority of poor people are poor because they either can't manage money or aren't wiling to earn it. Not all, but most. 90% of my family is "poor" they can't imagine earning a living and they have no clue how to handle money in a way that will prosper them. Broke people on the other hand, can handle money and are willing to work for it, they just have none for right now, weather it be lack of work, medical expenses or what have you. When given the opportunity, a broke person will get themselves un-broke. A poor person will stay poor.
getting off my rabbit trail...You have a very good point, the solution however, consists of every christian doing what the early church did which isn't possible today, society just can't and our government refuses support it. We could pack up and move out to the country and live by ourselves but the only people who do that are whack-job cult leaders who drink the cool-aid. To do what the early church did you'd have to have a group of 50 people who could farm, raise animals and make all their necessities collectively. To have all things common involves there not being much to be made common and FREE.I can and have healed people... I have a LLLOOONNNGGG ways to go before I think I'll be able to heal like Jesus and the disciples did. Peter's shadow falling across you made you whole again.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - I wouldn't say giving is reserved for Christians either, but as a Christian, I can't avoid it. I'm trying to speak from the viewpoint of the Church. Our concern must first be how we're behaving and if we're being faithful to God's way and not whether or not other's are. It's that whole plak in our eye and speck in our neighbor's eye deal only our neighbor here is the government. This giving is mandatory as someone who aims to live out the love of Christ. It's got to be a fruit of that faith. Of course, in all we Christians do, we seek to show people the love of God and call them to live into it with us, but our giving shouldn't be a bait for salvation. It's a part of our own salvation and hopefully the recipient's. Our giving is not to be the cheese on a cosmic mousetrap called salvation. We should be giving because giving is a result of genuine love, not a duty to make a quota.
Yet there is that interesting verse by the Apostle Paul:
"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." ---1st Thessalonians 3.10
Wonder how this verse squares with such a claim that Jesus was a socialist....?
@TheGreatBout@xanga - i can see your perspective. i think that, in the end, it has more to do with a difference of opinion about what it takes to make a nation great. yeah, i think it sucks that some people abuse the welfare system. but i certainly don't think they're in the majority... and even if they were, i'd be fine with giving thousands an easy handout if it meant that even one person was genuinely helped.
If we want to know if Jesus or God, was a socialist and apply it to Christianity, outside of actually asking Him if and when we make it to heaven. We need to consult records from the only known theocracy run by the Christian God. Israel, rejected God, and asked for a king. But when they had God as their king, what did God, set up for the poor?
If you look at the book of Ruth, Ruth goes out to the fields to glean. The harvesters and landowners, were commanded by God, to leave food behind for the widows and orphans and the poor to glean. Ruth being a widow, supports herself and her mother in law, by going out to pick up this leftover food God could have told the rich, to pay more in temple tax and let the rich support the widows and orphans. But that is not what God commanded. God did not crack down on the rich, he told the widows and the orphans to go out and pick up the leftovers. No where in the Bible, does God ever tell the government to take from the rich to support the poor. God always speaks to individuals and the church to support the poor.
Paul, in the New Testament, says that he who does not work, shall not eat. This builds or continues the principle set above The poor were never given anything, they had to go out and glean, they had to work and support themselves, while individual landowners donated to the cause by leaving food behind for them to glean.
@JandJinJapan@xanga - Why must you assume that socialism is a system set up to make sure people don't need to work? It's about giving people a safety net and an extra boost to help them.
Classifying Jesus as a socialist, because he demonstrated godly mercy and compassion on all people free of charge, is a gross misrepresentation of what Christ came to do and lowers Him to human standards.
A great deal of socialist ideals take their roots in what I think is shared ground with the Lord's teachings, however, He Himself was not a socialist- nor was He a capitalist (far from it), or any other "-ist" associated to political ideologies. Jesus was the Son of God.
He rendered to Caesar what was owed him, and to God what is due Him.
But where Jesus is clearly set apart from a socialist... indeed, from any form of social and political agenda... is where He instructed us to give generously, but not under compulsion or obligation, but out of the kindness of our hearts.
Socialists are not more compassionate than capitalists- they are mere compelled to give more. Nor are capitalists more generous than socialists- they often simply have more money and more tax-holes to use.
The Christian gives regardless of anything- not because of a world political or social ideology, but because of the love of Christ that is in them.
@JandJinJapan@xanga - Actually, it was Paul who "commanded you". If there is a choice to be made, surely the words of Jesus surpass those of Paul? I speak as a fellow traveller, not a fully paid up member of the "party".
Jesus could not have been a socialist because socialism didn't exist until the 19th century. Also theologically, Christianity and socialism don't mix. Christianity teaches that man, created in the image of God has free will and that ownership of property is integral to human dignity and freedom.
Socialism violates human dignity and free will by placing the all powerful State in control of society. Man is not free to engage in the pursuit of happiness since he does not own himself or his property or his thoughts or opinions under socialism.
That means that a small, elite group of human beings rules over all the rest. And that is tyranny and oppression, the antithesis of what Christianity and Natural Law teach.
Socialism is about state control over the populace not charity. Charity is a human virtue. And since the State is not human it cannot have virtue, only tyranny.
I would also like to offer a pointed yet polite objection to the picture of Jesus cum Che. Che was a brutal, mass murdering thug who solved his personnel problems by blowing people's brains out right out in public where everyone could see. That kind of terrorism is typical among people like El Che.
Vladimir Lenin, who taught El Che everything he knew about socialism wrote that it was necessary to terrorize the population in order to control it.
That's not Jesus in any way shape or form. I respectfully request that the Jesus cum Che picture be taken down since it amounts to gross disrespect and blasphemy.
Thank you. I hope I wasn't too harsh.
I really like what you have to say, and I really think that your main point is really powerful. I too, think that we do the Christian church the wrong way. Instead of people bringing their wealth to tithe to the church, which the church then uses to fund its facilities and staff....we need to be realizing and recognizing that wealth already exists in the church, whether or not we bring money. We need to realize that as a collective body, the church has enough. This community has enough. And what it needs, it will be provided for. It makes me sad that we have so many people who are out there, pushing forward the angry face of Christianity where it comes to gays, abortion and evolution. Heaven forbid someone tell them the Ten Commandments cannot be placed somewhere!
I think the main point you're trying to make, that Jesus is a socialist is very profound. What you intend, I do believe, is to get our attention off the specifics, and just live our lives together as a community. That is what the main point of socialism is, everything being communal and there is no ownership of anything. That's what I like about it, because there, we rely on God to provide within the body.
But if he's not a strict socialist, Jesus sure isn't a capitalist! He always talked about giving stuff away and the early church in Acts 2 sure was set up like a socialist economy. I think Jesus is a socialist in the communal sense.
Really good points.
You are taking the Mark 10 reference completely out of context. He wasn't talking about being a socialist, he was talking about having faith in Him instead of money and not loving material things or money more than others. He repeats this message over and over and over. When He said it was harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.... once again He was talking about where people put their faith and where their priorities are.
AND SINCE WHEN DOES REPUBLICAN = CHRISTIAN? I am so tired of the assumption that simply because a politician is a republican that he is Christian and has Christian values.The last time I checked Christian did not equal perfect or inhuman either.
I'm not a devout Christian but I feel like something needs to be said when people make assumptions and judgements that are untrue.
I completely sympathize with this position, and I do find it terribly ironic how the right is associated with wealth and greed. Jesus very clearly recognized how love of money can entangle someone and prevent them from loving others. However, my main issue with this from an economic perspective is that Jesus was all for people making their own decisions (i.e. not impeding free will), whereas socialism forces people to give up their money and have the government decide where it's best to go.
As one of my friends has said, "In a perfect world, I would totally be a socialist. Money wouldn't matter and there would be no abuses of the system. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world."
I think there's a big difference between freely and personally loving, healing and feeding a homeless person on the street vs. tax payer dollars going to the welfare of crack addicts that have more children so they can gain more welfare (extreme case, but my point remains). Do I plan to continue giving money to people who need it? Absolutely. Do I want the government to take a percentage of my income that they decide on against my will to 'help' people who are abusing these privileges? Of course not.
As for whether or not Jesus would be a socialist? Well, I don't think He had any money so he wouldn't have any to invest or be taxed...lol.
Jesus would have individuals serve and give to those in need out of their love for God and for others - from the heart. Socialism is a coercive way to force people to give to those in need. It amounts to theft. Socialism turns the government into a charity organization which is more inefficient and corrupt, and has more waste and fraud, than any legitimate, volunteer charity operation.