JESUS AND SOCIALISM

As socialism grows in popularity, the socialist has become increasingly insistent about claiming Jesus as one of their own. First, let’s recognize that the term “socialism” is often used synonymously with “communism,” as in the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” (the USSR). And communism is associated with the extermination of 100,000,000 in a few short decades. It has always been a system that has required oppression, not reason and goodwill, to sustain it.

In spite of these realities, socialism/communism is surprisingly growing in popularity among Christians, even though Christians have been persecuted under perhaps every communist state. Nevertheless, Peter Dreier, Professor of Politics, Occidental College, cites two verses to support his claim that Jesus is a socialist:

·       The idea of Christian socialism has a long and proud tradition.  As capitalism emerged in the mid-1800s, many of its fiercest critics based their ideas on Jesus’ teachings. “No one can serve two masters,” Jesus says in Matthew 6:24. “Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” In Luke 12:15, Jesus says, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.’” (Huffington Post, Dec. 26, 2017)

However, neither of these verses say anything in favor of socialism. Dreier wrongly assumes that anyone who is growing tomatoes for market is serving money before God. He also wrongly assumes that a capitalist is greedy, while the socialist is not greedy. He also assumes that becoming a socialist will magically transform our nature into generous, other-centered humans. In opposition to this, Jesus had taught that without Him, we can do nothing (John 15:5). Besides, the horrors of communism offer no hope for such a glowing transformation but rather, repression, coercion, and genocide.

Jesus’ teaching against having two masters can be readily applied to those who want to create a socialistic heaven on earth, for communism is the master of government control, even of speech and thought. Instead, Jesus had been teaching that God had to be first in our lives, above our commitments to anything else, whether the community, socialism, the State, or even our own families (Matthew 6:33; 10:37-39).

Dreier’s failure to find any verses more convincing than the two he has offered reveals the poverty of his case. He might have mentioned Jesus’ parable of “The Laborers in the Vineyard.” At the end of the day, the Master gave all of the workers the same wage despite the fact that some had worked much longer than others (Matthew 20).  

However, this cannot be used as evidence for Jesus equalizing wealth. This parable wasn’t about the Master taking from those who had worked for their wage, but in graciously and freely giving to those who hadn’t. There is a vast difference between top-down enforced equalization of wealth and an employer freely giving all his staff the same bonus or pay.

 Instead, rather than equalizing wealth, it seems that Jesus was ready to increase the disparity:

·       “For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (Matthew 25:29; ESV)

·       And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. (Matthew 13:11-12)

Jesus found no problem that some would be left with nothing, while others would have everything:

·       “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear." (Matthew 13:41-43)

Jesus' teachings coincided with those of the OT, where we find that God had often blessed His servants with riches, as He had done with Abraham and Job.

Jesus only had the highest regard for the Hebrew Scriptures (Matthew 4:4; 5:16-19) and never spoke against them. These Scriptures taught that the diligent would be blessed by their labors, while the slothful would justly suffer need:

·       A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich. He who gathers in summer is a prudent son, but he who sleeps in harvest is a son who brings shame. (Proverbs 10:4-5)

·       A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich. (Proverbs 10:4)

·       Whoever is slothful will not roast his game, but the diligent man will get precious wealth. (Proverbs 12:27)

However, the socialistic thrust would rule against any income disparity. It would also disdain the “model wife”:

·       Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: “Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all.” Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates. (Proverbs 31:28-31)

However, socialism would deprive her and her family of “the fruit of her hands.” Instead, the guarantee of equal wealth disempowers and creates slothfulness. This is why socialism has been uniformly found to be unsustainable. While it might seek to do good, it has universally produced bad fruit. It also undermines the family and the essential roles of the parents.

Although the Mosaic Law provided many safeguards for the poor, its law would not dis-empower them by providing for the lazy. Instead, it was accepted that both the lazy and the diligent would reap the just fruits of their own labors:

·       The hand of the diligent will rule, while the slothful will be put to forced labor...Whoever is slothful will not roast his game, but the diligent man will get precious wealth. (Proverbs 12:24, 26)

In many ways, the OT taught that it is just for us to reap what we sow, and this principle had been carried over into the NT (Galatians 6:9).

Were Jesus' Apostles socialists? They had been commissioned to carry abroad Jesus' teachings. Although they often wrote about the need to voluntarily contribute to the needs of the poor, they never enforced or taught income equality. Nor did they teach that the Church should support every needy person among them (2 Thess. 3:10). Instead, widows were singled out for support, but only if they met certain criteria (1 Timothy 5).

There was a brief period, following the resurrection, that some of His disciples had voluntarily sold what they had for the common support of the Church. However, one unfortunate couple had falsely claimed that they had given all the proceeds from the sale of their property to the Church. However, the Spirit had revealed to Peter their deception. Therefore, Peter confronted Ananias about his lie:

·       While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” (Acts 5:4)

According to Peter, they could have retained their property or even 100% of the proceeds. There had been no coercion. They were free to live as they chose. Instead, their fault was lying, not in failing to live out a Marxist ideal.  Jesus too emphasized voluntary alms giving. Besides, this was often to be given as a loan and not as an entitlement (Matthew 5:42).

It seemed that Jesus was in favor of the economic status quo, with its appeals to freely provide for the needy. No one ever accused Him of overturning the Mosaic system in favor of income redistribution. Instead, His remedy for the human malaise was our reconciliation to God through the Cross and not through a new economic vision.

Did Jesus teach us to pursue an earthly socialistic Kingdom of God? He didn’t think that this was possible. Instead, He recognized that this world would always be characterized by suffering, especially for His followers:

·       Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. (Matthew 10:21-22)

Clearly, Jesus had a dismal view of this sinful world and about the possibility of creating a utopia here. He acknowledged the reality that we will always have the poor:

·       “For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.” (John 12:8)

Jesus had no earthly plan to eliminate poverty. Instead, He taught His disciples to invest all their hope in heaven:

·       “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’” (Luke 13:24-25)

Jesus hadn’t taught His disciples to abandon the world. Instead, they were to love and forgive others. However, He clearly believed that all of their efforts would not succeed in creating a socialistic utopia. Instead, He assured them that poverty would always be a problem:

·       For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. (Mark 14:7)

While we might decide to voluntarily devote our lives to the needs of the poor, and Jesus regarded this as laudable, the realities of this world would impose definite limits on what could be accomplished. This is because our problems are not fundamentally caused by our institutions but by us and our love for the darkness:

·       “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.” (John 3:19-20)

Socialism is unable to modify our hatred of the light. This would only be changed at the time of Jesus’ return.