Jesus did not say, “I was hungry and you lobbied the government to tax others to feed me.” He said, “I was hungry and YOU fed me.”
– W. E. Messamore. Read the whole thing.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
The absurdity of Christian SocialismMarch 12th, 2007 |
 35 comments to The absurdity of Christian Socialism |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
“ONE Campaigner Elaine VanCleave stated that her support of the ONE Campaign is a result of her Christian worldview”
Is it just a little ironic that she wants to fund poverty relief through taxation? In the New Testament, “tax collector” is not a compliment.
“Give generously, and force your brother to do likewise” is also not found within the Bible.
It ain’t charity if it ain’t voluntary.
Yes, but there’s also the tradition going back to being “my brother’s keeper” that informs christotranzism – famously repudiated, of course, by Ayn Rand: “I am not my brother’s keeper.”
I remember reading a colour-supplement interview with Anne Widdecombe, who acknowledged that Tony Blair, like she, also saw politics and religion go hand in hand, but in a fundamentally different manner. Something about how she’d give her coat to someone who was cold, but how Blair would cut it up into pieces and redistribute it.
In truth, you could wrest anything you want from the bible. Hell, Mohammed and Joseph Smith used it to justify completely different religions from Christianity, with Joseph Smith going so far as to add countless other gods populating the universe. Even Calvinism purports to come from the bible….
But as someone who has no desire to marry religion and politics, I’d say the balance of the Bible does seem to be for personal charity and against compulsory largesse. This oxymoron brings up the difficulty that welfarism isn’t charitable because there’s no voluntary aspect to it. It’s not a moral act because there is no moral agent.
(While I’m waffling, samizdatistas might like to know that the phrase “the weakest go to the wall” doesn’t mean what most people today think it means, i.e., something along the lines of first against the wall come the revolution…. It dates from when churches didn’t have uncomfortable pews and people had to stand. Anyone having difficulty with this would be allowed to move to the side and lean against the wall for support.)
On the other hand it’s hard to argue that the Bible is remotely pro-Capitalist, in the sense that selfishness and self-interest are continually discouraged, and those are the basic forces driving a free-market capitalist system. Jesus didn’t say “act in a totally self-interested way, but when – if ever – you’ve got enough, do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
In any event, any argument that Christianity inherently lends itself to anything other than a state (or equivalent) based, semi-coercive setup is ridiculous – like all organised religions, it’s whole function is to force its behavioural standards on the world at large.
There is nothing ‘un-capitalist’ about being less than totally self-interested. Many very ideologically sound capitalists also engage in charitable works. Why? Because they want to.
Genuine charity is wholly compatible with both capitalism and capitalism is compatible with Christianity.
Being both a Christian and a capitalist, I must agree with Perry’s response, Patrick. You might argue that Christianity and the ethical system of egotism that Rand espouses are not compatible. But I think you’re mixing ethics and politics here.
I would go so far as to argue that support for capitalism as a political system is a necessary conclusion for the Biblical Christian, because theft, murder, and aggression are reviled by Scripture. If no individual should steal, murder, or initiate force against another, then no group of individuals should, and certainly no group masquerading as the civil authority responsible for a society’s welfare.
Note that Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government (a major influence on libertarian thought and on the American Declaration of Independence) constantly refers to Scripture to support its assertions. Note also, that Constitutional government was largely a Puritan invention, a derivative of the Biblical notion of a covenant.
Finally: Biblical Christianity isn’t interested in coercively forcing its behavioral standards on others (apologies in the meantime for misled, Christian theocrats/fascists). Even setting aside the issue of coercion and government, Christianity isn’t even primarily interested in modifying one’s behavior as such. Neither is it primarily a code of ethics. It is the historical claim that God became a man so that mankind could be as gods and live in the kind of glory that it was intended for in the first place.
Cain first asked, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ He did this to divert attention from himself, as he had just killed his brother.
Ever since then, people have wondered where to draw the line in how they treat others. Murdering them because you disagree with them is usually thought of as bad, so Cain got a bad name because of the murder of Abel, not because he didn’t want to look after his brother.
In Israelite times, the knesset and synagogue were kept apart by having hereditary priests (Levites), and this separation became the norm.
Jesus famously said, to an occupied nation, ‘Rend unto Caesar the things which are of Caesar, and unto God the things which are of God’. This was simply carrying on the fine tradition of separating State and religion, though this was not a tradition of the Romans. The christian Ideal State has always had religion and state kept apart, whereas the muslim ideal is a fusion of mosque and state.
Our way has lead to progress. What has theirs done?
There is a reason—a very, very good reason—why the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights combines free expression and speech with a prohibition against the state “establishing” a religious affiliation.
The founders had experienced, and many colonists had fled from, the negative effects of theocratic repression.
The mixture is poison. Religious thought, by definition, is focused elsewhere—heaven, hell, spirits, the supernatural, an eternity that starts only when earthly life ends.
It is no surprise, then, that when the pious meet the practical, when the earthly confront the unearthly, each holds the other in a mystified disdain.
If ethical principles are the province of visions, revelations from beyond, and voices heard in trances, then there is little connection between what is held to be moral, and what is practical for living life here on earth.
As Rand pointed out, there is a natural attraction between the “mystics of spirit” and the “mystics of muscle”. Both hate the idea that their demands might be examined for logical consistency and refuted by upstart smartalecks.
And, deep inside, both suspect the other has found the true source of power—the spiritualists wonder if anyone would listen without the shadow of the king behind them; and the king fears that the sword of the deity is bigger and more powerful than his.
Caught in the middle of all this is the hapless peasant, the bewildered artisan, the poor fool trying to make his or her way through the ups and downs of life, who always knows that the deck is stacked against him, that anything she does for herself is suspect.
Why not enlist the state to take care of all these duties? No one can really figure out where they all come from anyway, this neverending list of needs to be filled and duties to be performed. Just pitch in the pot and let someone else figure out how to divvy it up.
It’s not whether christianity, or any other religion, can get along with capitalism. It’s whether any doctrine drawn from another plane of existence, totally speculative, should govern life here on earth.
In Judaism, there is a compulsion to give charity.
Ten percent of income is the minimum amount, twenty percent is considered highly meritorious. Someone who gives more than that is considered a fool.
As far as I’m aware, tax paid cannot be offset against this obligation, which would imply that Judaism does not consider money given to the Revenue as in any way charitable!
Oh, come on. Christianity has been throwing up little socialist communities from the beginning. An uncle of mine from the erstwhile Fire Baptized Holiness Church once commented that they have been called communist on account of their beliefs. I don’t think it is an accident that socialism arose in Christian Europe, and not because it was the first region to industrialize.
And then with private charitable giving there is a “thank you” involved somewhere in the process. I’ve never heard a “thank you” from the taxman or any of the distributees.
I still maintain that it is the split between religion and government that led to the Enlightenment. That allows you to criticize the king without committing blasphemy. Jesus was concerned with morality, an inner, personal, consideration, and not concerned mainly with legality, though he did not want to give offence if it could be avoided.
Jesus also never criticized ‘the system’, as such, though he did criticize individuals who behaved unethically, and praised individuals who behaved ethically. Since the ‘system’ at that time was more a capitalist one than socialist, I will take that as an endorsement of the capitalist system. So long as I earn money ethically, and use it ethically, nobody should be able to stop me. I am taking ‘ethically’ to mean not gained by fraud or force, but by free trade.
No reason why Christians should not embrace a personalised communist lifestyle. In fact, it is appropriate. Communalism is more than compatible with Christian belief, there is a strong argument that it implies it. However, this would be a matter of personal choice, not compulsion.
Like all variants of communalist living, I have no problem with them so long as they are voluntary. Taxation by the state in order to redistribute money is not Christian, because there is no personal choice involved.
Those in power, or seeking to be in power, will always pretend piety to win over a credulous populace. Religion, to the state, is not seen as a set of values to live by, but as a means to an end. I wouldn’t be surprised if those in high office, who profess to have religious convictions, only did so because it was convenient and got them what they wanted. This is another reason why religion and government should never mix, because it makes liars out of the leaders and fools out of the led.
(O.T. My copy of ‘The Road to Serfdom’ arrived this morning, I’m going to read it as soon as I’ve finished ‘Against a Dark Background’)
A final point- When I read Reardan’s trial speech in Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’, it sounds just like a restatement of the Golden Rule of Jesus- ‘Treat other people as you would wish to be treated yourself.’ I don’t think Hank Reardan would have any trouble with that, even if Ayn Rand wouldn’t like the comparison. And has any other religion come up with a principle as good and universally practicable? It is for individuals to use as a moral guide, thus showing that Jesus, if not Christianity, valued individuals, not societies.
Actually, the simplist response to Christian socialism (of the government madated variety) is 2 Corinthians 9.7:
“Each one must give as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” [ESV]
Isn’t taxation, by definition, compulsion?
I saw a bumper sticker that said “Jesus was a liberal.”
First thing I thought was “he didn’t believe his dad existed?”
I saw a bumper sticker that said “Jesus was a liberal.”
I suspect he was, just not the American meaning of the term.
Actually, there’s this thing in Deuteronomy:
28 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, 29 so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
That’s OT, though, so it’s probably off, like the ten commandments and whatnot. So we’re off to the new testament:
Sell everything you own and give it to the poor.
Repeated (for emphasis?)
Don’t enforce property rights.
Finally,
Don’t work to obtain food.
So: Don’t be rich, don’t enforce property rights. Sounds … well, sounds kinda like socialism to me. Jesus and Paul also thought that you have to pay your taxes. Oh, and let’s toss in this one as well.
Now this is an argument against Christian socialism. One of the best parts is that it was written in 1957 and notes
not to mention
(The context, BTW, is that in the US clergy can opt out of social security. Unfortunately, as the article notes, “Most of our parishioners have no choice. They are forced by law to enter the plan. “)
I have always been fond of something said by the late Malcolm Muggeridge, approximately thus:
“Christianity is the claim the all caterpillars have it in them to become butterflies. It is not the claim that all caterpillers should join the Labour Party.”
Re: Snorre
“…every three years, bring all the tithes…”
The instant socialism defines itself as a 3.3% flat tax, I’m soooooo on board.
Otherwise you’ve managed to prove that Christians have a personal moral obligation to be charitable, which I don’t think was in question.
Quite so.
Freedom can mean that someone spends all his time making money running a steel business, or it can mean that someone spends his time as a monk working a communal field to feed himself and his fellow monks (by the way the former would do more good for the poor than the latter).
Also people who devote all their income (bar what they need to stay alive) and all of their time (assuming they do not need to earn a living) to directly helping the poor are still engaged in civil (voluntary) interaction.
The Welfare State (let alone socialism) has nothing to do with benevolence (the virtue of charity). And lots of people calling themselves “Christian Socialists” does not alter this fact.
lmao
————
veryretired,
While Christianity (like every other worldview) does have mystics who claim to be its representatives, I cannot agree with your statement:
It might require further elaboration than I’m sure you want to read in a comment thread, but I believe that Biblical Christianity is properly concerned with the present, material world. Notice its most celebrated event, the event that sets its calendar, is the act of God becoming a member of this material world.
The mystics of the medieval Roman Church were refuted soundly when the Reformers began to print Scripture in a language all could read. It became clear then, that the material world is a good thing, as it was created by God. Inquiry, observation, innovation, production, art… these are all good things. Improving and enjoying the world here and now is a good thing.
The Pharisees were mystics of the kind you describe. Jesus criticized them and lived a life worthy of a man who appreciated material success and prosperity. The Pharisees even called him a drunkard and a glutton. My point isn’t to convince you that Christianity’s claims are correct and convert you to Christianity, but hopefully to persuade you that Biblical Christianity is not anti-materialistic or anti-humanistic.
Hopefully I’ll have success convincing many Christians of that point.
SNORRE must be the new name of the devil, because he’s taking things OUT of context. “Sell everything you own and give it to the poor” was said to one person. That is what HE needed to GUARANTEE getting to Heaven! Jesus was again talking to an individual, giving him individual advice, not uttering general platitudes to be used by all. His PUBLIC advice included the Golden Rule, and the parables. One of his parables is about a rich man paying workers the same wage- “Friend, don’t I have the right to do with my money what I want?” The man doing this was cast as a good guy. And let’s not forget that King Solomon was blessed with riches- his downfall was too many women!
Ergo, wealth and accumulation are not bad, though how you get wealthy might be.
Dear Mr Messamore,
I’m sure you are very sincere in your beliefs, but you have misread mine.
While I realize it is very common to pull a sentence out of a post and build an entire position around it, it is a mistake to ignore everything else a person has written and focus in on one thought among many.
I find the same mistake among those who pick a quotation out of the Bible and triumphantly declare they have proved this, that, or something else, because of a single thought or saying.
Jesus was very clear that his kingdom was not of this world. I agree with him. If you do not, please find a theologian to argue with who might be interested in such a dispute. I am not.
W E Messamore,
I hit this in the middle of one of your links and did a double take.
I think it is quite relevant to both your observation, and our whole government racket today.
The more things change …
While we’re comparing Bible quotes…
When talking about a church-driven charity program, the Apostle Paul wrote,
“If a man does not work, he shall not eat.”
In context, he appears to be talking about freeloaders and busybodies.
Then again, each of the references given above could be interpreted non-universally, given a look at the context.
For anyone that’s still interested, there are the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). Both of which seem to imply that J.C. was Ok with free-markets or something very similar.
Nicholas Gray: Ah, so all the stuff Jesus said in the bible when he was addressing a specific group of people (like, say, that guy, or the people on the mount), only applies to that group, and that group only? Right, gotcha.
Bill: He’s pro-selling all your stuff and against enforcing property rights! How much more socialist/communist can you get?
At any rate, I’d venture those are some of the passages the christian socialists are reading–and they’d be saying that it’s the capitalists that are reading the bible “as the devil would”.
Snorre, I’m indebted to you for your last link to Russell’s Teapot. It now has pride of place next to Jesus and Mo.
Snorre, YES, many of the discourses were taken out of context! That quote ‘Sell all you have…’ is only said about one person, and so should only relate to him. Jesus did NOT then say ‘And so do all of you likewise’. The parables were general instructions, and when Jesus was asked for a general rule of conduct, he gave us the golden rule- ‘As you would wish to be treated, so treat others’. Jesus did not say to Nicodemus, ‘Sell your house, if you’re serious about joining us”. Always look for the context.
veryretired,
Where have I misread or mischaracterized your beliefs? My purpose in not addressing everything you wrote was not evasion, but brevity. I try not to post comments much longer than the one I did because people won’t read them otherwise, and I don’t blame them. The sentence I chose to address best summarized your position.
I agree with you that Jesus was clear that his kingdom was not of this world, yet that does not contradict or exclude any of the claims that I made in my comment. The Christian can and ought to be considered about this present world because it is in the present that our timeline touches eternity itself. Christ’s Kingdom shines into this world through the present and transforms this material world into something great.
C. S. Lewis said that if you love Earth more than Heaven, you will lose both, but if you love Heaven most of all, you will find that on this Earth, you have been living in a region of Heaven all along.
——
Midwesterner,
You’re right! I always did think that passage accurately describes the motives behind many of those sanctimonious socialists.
Snorre: I’ll try this again.
When you mention socialism/communism I assume you are referring to certain economic schemes enforced by the government, which is the use of the OP and the one that I have and will continue to use.
In short, you’re confusing morality and legality. Do not make the mistake that a moral obligation to God on an individual is also an endorsement to make said obligation legally binding on all. It isn’t.
While there are a few contextual issues as mentioned by N. Gray, they aren’t particularly relevant to this discussion. You have quite correctly pointed out that Christians are under a personal, voluntary, moral obligation to use their money and property in charitable ways.
If an individual voluntarily decides to give all his or her money to the poor, that is 100% free-market. If a group of individuals voluntarily decide to put all their income into a common account and draw on it as they see fit or have a member of the group or a committee distribute it as they see fit, that is 100% free-market.
In those instances the people are making voluntary transactions to increase their utility in their own self-interest. That is the free-market.
Turning now to socialism/communism as legal forms, legal, by definition, requires the use of force to achieve certain actions, in this case the redistribution of property. The threat (and a genuine threat at that) of violence against an individual’s person and/or property is a necessary condition of socialism/communism. If a man refuses to pay taxes, the government will fine him. If the man fails to pay the fine, the government will take his property. If the man refuses to let the government take his property, the government will arrest him. If the man refuses to be arrested, the government will beat, electrocute, douse in caustic chemicals or shoot him. And then, depending on how he fairs in that situation, chain him and lock him in a cage. And then take his property. “Paying taxes” sounds clean, sanitary, procedural and forthright, but in the end it rests on an agent of the government bludgeoning a man. Those actions in some form or another are necessary to socialism/communism.
In other words, if you don’t have the real potential use of violence against others to redistribute their wealth, you don’t have socialism or communism.
Back to the point in question: Merely finding a moral obligation to redistribute one’s own wealth does not constitute socialism. It is also necessary to find an endorsement of the use of violence against others to make them redistribute their wealth. This is what you have failed to do. Therefore you have failed to demonstrate support for socialism.
Moreover, if one can find opposition to the use of violence against others to make them redistribute their wealth, one will in fact have found opposition to socialism. And considering that “(e)ach one must give as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion…” certainly suggests an opposition to the use violence to make others give, you’re going to have to try extra hard to succeed. Voluntarily living out a personal ethic to distribute wealth evenly does not, in and of itself, constitute socialism or communism. Forcing others to do so is a necessary component.
In direct reply to your question then, any ethic without an endorsement to use violence to force others to redistribute their wealth is not socialistic. And one which in fact opposes such actions is anti-socialistic.
It seems Christan Socialism was tried by the Pilgrims when they first came to Plymouth Colony…. and they all damn near starved to death. It was after Christian Capitalism with the concept of charity (of free will) was implemented by William Bradford, that they flourished.