This was a question that I debated with a friend of mine a while back. She was an atheist and has since passed away. I believe this discussion was one of many she initiated because she was searching for something she could not find as an atheist. Today I post this in her memory and sincerely hope that before her passing she was able to find what she was looking for and make her peace with God.
The case she presented for why Christ was a socialist are in italics below. I answer each of those points, but first a quick review on the actual definition of socialism:
Socialism - A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Before moving on, it’s important to understand that the concept of socialism doesn’t work unless there is an entity present to arbitrate this distribution. This is almost always some form of government.
He did not hold a job.
First and foremost, there is nowhere in the definition of socialism that indicates socialists don’t have jobs. After all, who would be earning money to pay taxes and support the bureaucracy that administers socialism? Secondly, Christ’s ministry did not start till around age 30. It’s commonly accepted that before that we was a carpenter and worked in his earthly stepfather’s business. When his ministry got underway he was a teacher/evangelist of his day. I think many carpenters, teachers, and evangelists would be quick to agree that these are indeed jobs!
He did not have an income. He lived off his friends.
If he didn't have an income then why did he need Judas Iscariot to manage the treasury of his ministry? Christ, like modern day evangelists, received income from his benefactors – people who supported him in his ministry. He provided a service (spiritual gratification & education) and was justly compensated for it. There are no accounts in the Bible or anywhere else for that matter that Jesus had to beg. Also, he did not live off his friends because most of his closest friends were part of his ministry and were supported through the same means as him. In fact, it could be argued that his friends lived off of him, but I digress.
He put people before anything else.
Surprisingly he did not. He put God before anything else. He certainly had mankind’s interest at heart – it was the entire point of his mission on earth, but he was submissive to God and God alone. I think it’s also worthy of note that putting people’s interest before anything else is not a trait of socialism, this is a personal trait. Socialism is an economic philosophy that in practice actually oppresses the people and winds up putting government before anything else.
He was a man of peace.
This begs the question - how is peace related to socialism? History is littered with stories of socialist leaders who were definitely not men of peace. Also, I believe that Jesus recognized the fact that there was a time to make a stand when necessary and was not shy about making his point. This is exemplified in the story of when he drove the vendors out of the temple. If you read the story carefully you will notice that he wasn't exactly asking them politely when he did that. As I recall he made a whip out of cords to assist him in that effort and was pretty forceful in removing the vendors.
He fed the people for free.
Actually he provided for their needs at a time when they could not, just like many others do today when they contribute to homeless shelters. The most famous instances of this were when he was preaching far away from anywhere that food could be bought. However, you’ll notice that he FIRST required an investment - he collected fish and loaves, THEN he gave the people a return on that investment. If I were to put a label on this, I'd call that closer to capitalism that socialism. :-)
He healed people for free. That means social programs food and health care.
He healed people to reveal the glory of God, not as a matter of charity. It’s interesting to note that he didn't provide comprehensive healthcare. He only healed a select few. Another point worthy of consideration is that often the people he healed made great efforts to get to where he was so that they could be healed, he didn't go to their homes or open "free" clinics in places convenient for them to get to.
He was against the religion of the day.
Indeed, in fact he was against "religion" in general. Not because of what it represented, but because of what the religious leaders of that day had made it into. It had become a ritualistic, legalistic bureaucracy that did not serve the people it claimed to help (sound familiar?).
He was against the government.
Christ was not against the government. In fact, he advocated civil obedience when it did not conflict with the higher principles of God. When questioned regarding the payment of taxes he said: "Render into Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's". He paid his taxes, unlike some “leaders” we've heard about in the news lately.
He was a revolutionary. He stood for freedom for the people.
Our founding fathers were revolutionaries as well. I think one would be hard pressed to characterize them as socialist. They were working to free the people from an oppressive government. Christ was here to free the people from a legalistic and oppressive religion.
He did not judge those who were looked down on by society. He partied with them.
This was one of the more amusing points. Yes, he dined with them and engaged in fellowship. I just want to make sure we both have the same definition of "partying". I don’t recall any recounts of late night trips to the 7-11 to get Cheetos and beer. Again, still not seeing how this trait makes him a socialist.
He was against capital punishment. He saved the woman that was to be stoned.
Just because he saved her doesn't prove he was against capital punishment. In context, this story was about the Pharisees trying to trap him with the conundrum of being either a heartless individual or one who stood by his core values. He simply revealed their duplicity by pointing out their hypocrisy. You'll notice there was nowhere in that story where he denounced capital punishment. You'll also notice that he told her to "go and sin no more", meaning that she had a responsibility to live within the laws of her day.
**********
In summary, I look at this list and see an individual who was apolitical, who had a sense of personal liberty, a love for humanity, a sense of personal responsibility for individuals, and respect for (but not necessarily agreement with) the government of his day.
Finally the acid test - all of Christ's actions were intended to show that God is the answer. All of socialism's actions are intended to show that government is the answer. These two are not even remotely related (unless of course the government is your god).
**********
To my friend - thanks for so many enlightening and spirited discussions. May you rest in the peace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
First I'd like to say I was moved by your compassion for your friend and your appreciation for your conversations with her.
You made a good point that I think some people may not consciously recognize/admit - that there must be some sort of central entity to oversee/distribute the goods, services, etc. that are present. However there can be a difference in HOW that entity is allowed to operate which depends heavily on the involvement and control the people give/allow with their voice and votes.
On her point of Jesus healing people for free - Jesus was not here to PROFIT monetarily for any services he provided; his entire ministry would have been ruined and purposeless if he had charged money for everything he did (and can you imagine how the religious leaders of the day would have slammed him for that??). His healings were part of his God-given power and miraculous events to reveal to the sick AND the well the power and love that WAS God.
And on the last point of He was against capital punishment - Jesus willing CHOSE and offered himself to experience the ULTIMATE in capital punishment!!
Your last paragraph sums up the entire point very nicely!
I enjoyed the interesting points this article brought out and I truly hope your friend found some answers and peace before her passing.
I agree with most of what you say. But I can also understand why some people might think that Jesus was a socialist, since he said things like "woe to the rich" and "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." I think he thought it was wrong for rich people to live in wasteful luxory while others starved. But that wouldn't make him a true socialist.
Debra - thank you for visiting my blog and thanks for your insight.
Other Voices - You raise some good points. I keyed in specifically on the term "wasteful luxury". I'm glad you qualified your comment with that because that is the salient point of Christ's attitude towards the rich.
He did indeed have some pretty harsh things to say about "the rich", but one who looks closely at these occasions will see that he was mostly concerned with the ATTITUDES of the rich vs. the fact that they were rich.
This is also exemplified in a passage of the Bible that is often misquoted. People erroneously say that the Bible say "money is the root of all evil", when in reality the passage actually says that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. It's all about the attitude we have towards money. If we put it before God's interests we are wrong. If we use it to further God's causes it can be a very good thing indeed.
The reason this is so relevant today is that many politicians love to play the class warfare game, demonizing the wealthy and painting them as "greedy" or "evil". This is because "the rich" are a pretty easy target and a ready source of income for the politicians (many of whom, by the way, are pretty wealthy themselves). Sure, there are those who abuse their wealth and are greedy, dishonest, etc., but by and large (with the rare exceptions of celebrities, professional athletes, people who have inherited large sums of money, etc.) the vast majority of wealthy people are the same as you or me - just average people trying to build a life for their families who happen to have excelled in their vocation.
I'll also point out that there are just as many greedy and selfish poor people, it's just that you don't hear the politicians talking about them because they don't happen to make the headlines and, frankly, they're not a good source of tax revenue.
One thing people fail to remember sometimes when they get caught up in bashing "the rich" is that it's due to contributions from "the rich" that many very worthy causes are born and sustained.
As I pointed out in my original post, Jesus was never lacking in financial resources. Since he relied solely on the benefactors of his ministry, it follows that probably very little of his support came from the poor. In fact, it's worthy of note that if it weren't for a rich person he wouldn't have even had a tomb to be buried in... ;)
I just think that we have to be careful not to prejudge someone because of their financial status, but rather attempt to look at their heart and their actions. I'm no theological scholar, but I believe Jesus would agree with that.
Hi Debra – back to your post.
You said: “You made a good point that I think some people may not consciously recognize/admit - that there must be some sort of central entity to oversee/distribute the goods, services, etc. that are present.”
More precisely, my point was that this is what is necessary for socialism. However, you’re not far off - in a capitalist society (which is what the U.S. is for now) that central entity is the marketplace via supply and demand vs. using the government to make this distribution. In capitalism goods and services are not distributed based on “need” (which may sound good in theory, but is not a good long term plan in practice), but rather on value provided to consumers. In a capitalist society for someone to succeed, they only need find a way to bring value to the marketplace. This creates a system that rewards success and punishes failure rather than the other way around. It sounds kind of cold, but it’s how life works regardless of what the progressive movement would have us to believe.
You also said: “However there can be a difference in HOW that entity is allowed to operate which depends heavily on the involvement and control the people give/allow with their voice and votes.”
Which is correct and what I believe to be the essence of your comment. As I understand this, you are saying that we the people should be careful to limit the extent that government needs to be involved in commerce. I agree completely. We need government to a certain extent to provide minimal regulation so that we will not have anarchy in the marketplace. This involvement would be in the form of enforcement of contract laws, regulation of interstate commerce, safety issues (real, not perceived), etc.
Thanks again for visiting and providing comments.
In response to "Other Voices".
I'm not aware of any socialist country that is/was not run by rich men. If you really view the context of Jesus's comments about rich men, He was referring to their "love of money" as their master, not God.
Post a Comment