Proponents of socialism are bound to make the argument that capitalism is driven by greed while the socialist objective of redistribution of wealth is compassionate. I reject the notion that either capitalism or socialism are inherently virtuous or contemptible. Most political systems in theory are morally neutral and the devil, so to speak, is in the implementation. Ultimately this blog is less an endorsement of capitalism than an indictment of socialism. As always, my source goes back to scripture and the prism through which these systems need to be understood is what we know to be true about human nature.

During the final days of Jesus, we read in Mark 14:3-10:

While (Jesus) was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, ‘Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.’ And they rebuked her harshly. ‘Leave her alone,’ said Jesus. ‘Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.’ Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them.

     For those who insist Jesus was a socialist, there are many choice details in this passage to dispel such a notion. In essence, those present who were grumbling among themselves and berating the woman for not redistributing what she had. They had the temerity to let God in the flesh know that the woman was being reckless and wasteful by slathering Jesus with her costly perfume. Note that they were both telling Christ he was not deserving of such an act of love and telling the woman at the same time that they knew better how she should use the money she had earned. Jesus made clear that, in contravention of the utopian vision of socialism, the poor would always be among them. This alone points to the reality that Christ did not come to earth to eradicate poverty. Also, as a side note, for those who insist that the Bible is misogynistic (or Jesus was), note the affirmation and honour he bestows on this woman while simultaneously chastising the men for their short-sightedness.

Christ also squarely directs the self-righteous hypocrisy back on his detractors by letting them know that instead of griping about their views on how the woman should utilize her earned goods, they were more than welcome to dig into their pockets and pony up for the needs of the poor. He also made no mention of running their funds through a governmental bureaucracy based on tax percentages based on gross income. Neither did he insist that these companions act as beneficent proxies – demanding that wealthy 1 percenters pay their “fair share.” However you look at it, there is no advocacy for socialism anywhere in this incident.

Note too that Judas Iscariot was among this sanctimonious cabal and apparently saw his Lord’s lack of devotion to his social welfare values as impetus to immediately run to the religious authorities to set in motion his master’s betrayal. Judas neither understood who Jesus was despite spending so much time in his company nor grasped what his mission was. Jesus was not simply coming to be a benevolent ruler, mustering his gang of 12 to wrest the ring of power from the Roman authorities to set up a utopian socialist paradise or even a capitalist one. He was letting everyone know the priorities they should embrace and that they had the duty to personally sacrifice of themselves for what had intrinsic and lasting value.

Christ was therefore not channeling Gordon Gecko from “Wall Street” by sending the message to believers that “greed is good.” I believe Christ was answering the unspoken question I referenced in my previous blog. After Jesus dismissively informed the Pharisees that Caesar was owed only what belonged to Caesar (government), this woman demonstrated what is owed to God. She spent much of her earnings in an intimate display of worship for her Lord. This is rightly using what God has provided – just as the practice of giving first fruits and the best of one’s crops or livestock was pleasing to God when such a sacrifice was required (before Jesus became a sacrifice for us). We also know that Jesus wasn’t advocating greed or selfishness based on this passage found in Matthew 25:31-46:

 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

     So now some of you may be confused and are wondering how this doesn’t undermine my entire case against socialism, but there is no inconsistency here. Jesus talks about giving food and drink to those in need while also referencing providing clothing to those in need of clothes and compels us to visit those in prison. This makes clear that he is calling us to care for others through relationship and connecting with them at their point of need. Taxation is an impersonal approach that rarely satisfies the most basic needs. Just think of the homeless person that you pass by because you anticipate that your donation will end up in the till of the liquor store down the street. All of Christ’s ministry was at its core relational and the heart behind the giving matters as much or potentially more than the act itself.

For the sake of brevity, I will quickly highlight how other passages similarly cannot be construed as a rallying cry to advance socialism.

• The account of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44) lets us know that the amount one gives matters less than the heart with which its given and the sacrificial nature behind this act of charity. In fact, socialism would say that the wealthy dropping large sums from their bulging money clips is the goal (except they think it should happen at the point of a gun), but Jesus dismissed their bounty as little more than theatre. He praised the widow even though her pittance would be futile in ending poverty of paying for free college. He was concerned with the attitude of the giver and for this the widow garnered Jesus’s attention and praise.
• In Matthew 25:14-30, the parable of the talents teaches that God was pleased with those who doubled what the master (an expression of God) had given to them. This is clearly not strictly an object lesson on use of wealth. Within the message is the duty for Christ-followers to maximize the gifts given to them. Put another way – with great gifting comes great responsibility. This is no call to insist that government impose great taxes in the pursuit of reinstating “the great society.”
• Jesus sends out the disciples in Matthew 10:1-15 and tells them not to bring any money, stating that “the worker is worth his keep.” Those who failed to be hospitable would be subject to the disciples shaking the dirt off their feet and moving on – and this was the kindest thing he had to say about those who failed to be welcoming. The disciples were to expect to have their needs met and find receptive ears – nothing more. They weren’t there either to seek money or direct their listeners to hand it over to government (or even shame them into giving to the poor). The disciples were performing miracles and teaching about Christ. This would not have been Christ’s directive to his followers if socialism was his endgame.

There are other passages that tell us there is no simplistic take on how we are to treat our resources or what system should be used. What we do know, however, is that nowhere is socialism in any of its iterations being recommended. For Christ, wealth was sometimes useful for a greater good, but that was to further God’s kingdom work on earth. He also cautioned about the risks that it would be a stumbling block to prioritizing God. It is natural that when people depend on external sources to provide for their needs, they take what they have for granted and want more – becoming envious of what others may have. This is why people can so easily be coaxed into voting for people who promise to give them more free stuff than the other guy. Long gone are the days when “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” was considered inspirational.

The notion that capitalism is based on greed and socialism is a system rooted in compassion is utter nonsense. Virtue is not found in any system and cannot be legislated into existence. Those who espouse socialism don’t do so because they want to share their own wealth – they simply want their neighbours to pay the tab so they needn’t concern themselves with how they’ll get their priorities taken care of by others. For any who think me cynical for claiming that most socialists merely want others to pay for the lifestyle to which they want to become accustomed, consider the following:

• Many have no problems with going into debt (personal or federal) as long as they have the “free stuff” they vote politicians in to provide with no regard for future generations left with the tab
• Lotteries are extremely popular because people want to get rich without earning it – no one plays the lottery so that they have money to redistribute to their neighbour in need
• There is a perpetual focus on making sure wealth is reserved for free health care and education even while third world starvation remains a vast problem
• Socialist-minded politicians get wealthy in office and justify it based on the important social role they are filling – creating programs from which they exempt themselves
• People don’t volunteer to pay more taxes and will look for loopholes to reduce the taxes they must pay while demanding that the wealthy pay increasingly more for the latest entitlement

Christians recognise that the problem lies in man’s nature. If people are driven by greed in a capitalist system, they will strive to maximize their wealth and live beyond their means without any regard for charitably using their time or money for others. The greedy under socialism want what they can get from others and salve their consciences by demanding that high wage earners do charity on their behalf because they want all that they can cling onto. As I addressed in my earlier article, if socialism was compassionate, we wouldn’t need to mandate government to act as proxies as socialists would freely give without such tactics. Instead, statistics show that Christians and conservatives are far more generous with their time and money – just as one would expect if charity and not confiscation to redistribute was the objective. For most socialists, they are advancing covetousness while feigning virtue.

Christians have no business dabbling in socialism because confiscated wealth can never be charitable. It removes the rubber meets the road duty of the Christian to personally invest in the lives of others. Under Jesus’s and the disciples’ healing ministry, the lame and crippled who subsisted off charity would now need to get work to support themselves – thus moving from being dependent on others to becoming self-supporting. The Christian life should be based on expressing love for others in a sacrificial way based on the value of others as God’s created. Socialism does not nurture that mindset, but is in direct opposition to it. Furthermore, socialism is extremely damaging to the mission of salvation. When government is seen as the provider, the “consumer” has no reason to rely on God. Caesar thus usurps the throne with “well-meaning Christians” taking the crown from the head of Christ and placing it on the head of the state. Such a perversion of scripture turns Christians into toadies serving at the behest of earthly kings in direct violation of our calling.