Knowing how the younger generation has become convinced that salvation can be found in socialism rather than Christ, I fully anticipated penning a series of blogs to debunk this ideology. What caught me off guard was that I’d need to start by making the case to committed and seasoned believers who have fallen for the baseless claim from atheists that Jesus was a socialist. Of course, if secularists actually believed this to be true, they would not be so antagonistic toward our Lord since so many have unquestioned faith in the virtue of a socialist system. It seems to me that cynical atheists set the trap and believers blindly walk into it.
Aesop tells a fable of a scorpion who coaxes a frog to carry him across a stream on his back. The frog recognises the inherent danger, but cedes to the request after the scorpion points out that he would be foolish to sting the frog because to do so would mean certain death for both of them. Midway in their journey, the scorpion indeed stings the frog. Incredulous, the frog spurts out “why” just as the pair is about to croak. The scorpion responds, “it’s in my nature.” I believe this is a fitting message relating to the implementation of socialism and the Christian who is willing to compromise his or her principles on this altar – exchanging the truth for a lie.
I am certainly no Bible scholar and never attended seminary, but I’m in good company since this is also true of the apostles. Since education increasingly is proving to turn the wise into fools, I know that the only true north required is found in scripture. Many have fallen away by adding to or subtracting from the word of God. I don’t plan to make that mistake. To that end, as always, I am happy to address any criticisms of anything I may have missed or misrepresented. With that in mind, Jesus had much to say about how we are to use our money and about the Christian duty to care for those in need. Consequently, it will require a series of posts to give a fulsome response to pre-emptively deal with potential challenges. I will accede to any successful refutation of my claims to scriptural accuracy. For those, however, who don’t like my conclusions but can’t fault my sourcing, then your problem is not with me, but with Christ and the New Testament writers (thus the foundations of the faith you claim).
As always, since words express specific ideas and ideologies, we must define what socialism means. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as “1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property. 3. A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. 4. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”
People forget that socialism was considered as a glorious but temporary way-station on a utopian path to the coveted destination of communism. Even variations on this formal definition of socialism (rather than the subjective versions that proponents carry around in their heads) comes down to “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”
Once the socialist infrastructure was in place, communism was to take over with the government obligingly stepping back and allowing the citizens to manage their lives independent of state control. They were certain of a smooth transition of authority from government back to the people. To stop the engine of societal transformation on the stage of socialism, however, is to hand over the management of a nation to elected (or otherwise situated) bureaucrats empowered to determine what we may and may not do, what values are acceptable, what rights they will grant us, and what happens to the fruits of our labour.
Because of millions of bodies stacked up like cordwood in the furtherance of the communist dream, the “true believers” did what they always do – they changed the language.
Just like the see-sawing on panicked messages on “global warming” and “the new ice age,” AGW (anthropogenic – aka manmade – global warming) idealists were unwilling to abandon their commitment to their ideology. The environmentalists thought it was time to pick a side and came down on global warming. When the facts stopped fitting their theories, computer models failed and stifling of testing that disproved their predictions were exposed, they transitioned to “climate change” which has since had the descriptor “catastrophic” placed in front. Similarly, promoters of communism segued to socialism and now, their new favourite, democratic socialism. I will deal with the fraudulent effort to draw this distinction in a future blog.
Admittedly, many – if not most – self identified socialists carry around their own subjective vision around in their heads which bears little to no resemblance to real socialism and, magically always leads to positive results in their imaginations. This is rather problematic in that, with no common destination (or even map), it is tough to chart a course or know when one has arrived. Based on the primary influencers (activists, academicians, leftist media and government), we can at least tell what the course will look like.
Getting into specifics, I will start with the passage most cited by those who accept this myth and carry on from there. This is the account of the rich young man found in Matthew 19:16-24:
Just then a man came up to Jesus and inquired, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to obtain eternal life?” “Why do you ask Me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” the man asked. Jesus answered, “Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honour your father and mother, and love your neighbour as yourself.” “All these I have kept,” said the young man. “What do I still lack?” Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” When the young man heard this, he went away in sorrow, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
There is a lot of detail in here. First, note that the rich young man asks about attaining eternal life and is given a list of duties derived from the 10 Commandments. It is only after the man asks what ELSE he should do that Jesus directs him to sell everything he owns and give it to the poor. Since this answer came to his follow up question, then clearly Jesus was not saying that selling all he had was a requirement for getting into heaven. We also know this as we read the remainder of this section.
- The benefit is derived from the man’s selflessness is to store up treasures in heaven (echoing a direction previously given in his sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:19-21)
- This passage from the sermon on the Mount goes on to say “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also,” and when the rich man walks away, this revealed that he had made his possessions into an idol; thus, showing Jesus was identifying his heart was focused on mammon
- Giving away his wealth was to free him up to follow Jesus, thus he was being asked to relinquish what encumbered him – he was not being directed to embrace socialism
- This is the only place in scripture where Jesus directs anyone to give away all they have, so it clearly was not a universal standard applied to all believers
This passage brought to my mind Jesus’s words in Matthew 18:6 where he says,
“If anyone causes one of these little ones (children) – those who believe in me – to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to ender life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.”
No one believes that those who cause children to stumble should have actual millstones tied around their necks and be drowned. Nor am I aware of any movement to cut off limbs and gouge out eyes for those who succumb to temptations. The underlying principle however is the same. We are to assume the priorities that God places on us and not be caught up in our own desires and preoccupations. Obedience will reap rewards and failure to submit to God’s priorities will work against us. Failure to be obedient is what matters and determines our salvation.
The seduction of wealth is also behind the subsequent discussion with the disciples about how hard it is for a rich man to enter heaven. There are several explanations about the reference to a camel getting through an eye of a needle; many of which are interesting but can only truly be speculation. This includes actual places (mountain passes and gates) referred to as “the eye of the needle” where camels would need to have their loads taken off in order to squeeze through. What we do know is that he is not saying that it is impossible for a wealthy man to get into heaven or he wouldn’t have been so cryptic. It also would have made the cut of the list of duties given in order to be saved. Matthew 19:25-30 reads:
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” “Look,” Peter replied, “we have left everything to follow You. What then will there be for us?” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, in the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for the sake of My name will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.
Yes, the disciples gave up what they had to follow Christ, but there is no indication that it was for the purposes of redistributing wealth. It was, once again, about obedience to Christ and the heart of sacrifice through willful submission to God that determines our reward.
Note also that the disciples left everything behind, so if wealth redistribution is such a central tenet for the Christian to follow, why would Jesus have the disciples be denied access to the wealth that the “social justice Christians” insist is so important? Also, why not insist they do paid work so they could give generously to the government coffers?
I had an atheist claim that Jesus was a socialist because he went around giving money to everyone. I’ve read through the gospels numerous times and, as I will address in another post, there is no actual account that Christ even handled money. This certainly creates a bit of a conundrum for these “progressive Christians.”
I will close by stressing the theme that will carry through each of my posts. Nowhere does scripture tell us that we are to outsource our charity via the channels of government. By design, the decision of what happens to our earnings and how they will be divvied up is denied the believer once it is absconded by politicians. As such, we either allow government to be a proxy for our giving or, to be obedient to the calling put on us as believers, we are to be generous in charity over and above what is demanded by government. The high tax model of socialism therefore limits what we can give while also leaving us no control over whether our money is wasted or even used to promote social evils. Since government serving as a vehicle for wealth transfer is the issue dividing the socialist view from the Christian duty to cheerfully give, I can’t understand how those who promote the socialist model – like Tim Keller – can square this circle.
If Keller and his ilk actually believe that government partnership are the venue through which Christians should care for the poor (even advancing voting for the pro-abortion left to carry this out), I have a few questions for these “Christian socialists”:
- How much of their vast wealth do they continue to hold onto and are they not hypocrites if they are living high on the hog?
- Do they give over and above their tax obligation to the government to redistribute in order to ensure their charity outstrips that of unbelievers?
- If not, do they provide for other programs run by Christian organisations where there is far less waste and bureaucracy and a focus of biblical principles? If they do give generously to these Christian organisations, then why advance the cause of government wealth redistribution?
- Since God extends to everyone the right to decide for themselves whether or not to accept his gift of salvation; what gives them the right to push for people to mandatorily render money to Caesar simply because they believe in charity through wealth confiscation?
I’ll wait right here.