'Socialism is a lovely idea, but it is a little naïve about human nature.' That's a line you'll hear repeated and reworded in classrooms, churches and cyberspace, whenever 'the ideal society' and the inevitably flawed humans who would inhabit it are contemplated. Of course, the people using the line are very often the same ones who believe that markets can fix any problem (despite crash after recession, after crash), people who talk about 'the invisible hand'.
The 'small-government' libertarians and 'fiscal conservatives' who seem truly to believe that in a system orientated around selfishness, wealth will somehow 'trickle down' to the ill-resourced poor from the profit-maximising rich. As an example of blind faith, it's rather touching, really.
After all, these are people defending a philosophy that responds to the flawed sinfulness of human beings with fewer rules, fewer restrictions and less oversight from democratically-elected authorities than we have had in the run up to the greatest economic disasters in living memory. Disasters caused by people and companies within the system behaving rashly, foolishly and some would say sinfully - people and companies to whom they wish to give more freedom. If the poor are to be helped, if inequalities redressed, these things must happen voluntarily and out of the goodness of the hearts of those choosing to give charity. Selfish people, within a selfish system, will ultimately do the right thing. And Socialism is naïve. Yeah.
Many Christians have fallen for this oddly popular myth: that a system that recognises people won't willingly do the right thing by the poor and so finds structural means of redistributing wealth is somehow naïve. 'It would be a great system if people were perfect,' goes the sad-faced reply to a young idealist raising the question. But it is Capitalism that would be great if people were perfect. Socialism (and let's include in that term other leftist philosophies of wealth-redistribution) doesn't need you to be a good person, to care about charity, to have a selfless heart. It taxes you if you have money to pay for those who don't. It takes public ownership of wealth-producing entities so that the profits benefit more than just a few shareholders. It assumes you won't do the right thing and takes the choice out of your hands.
What is odd about Christians who reject a system that forces you to do the right thing economically is that we are so often in favour of trying to force people to do the right thing morally. We are happy to take the choice as to whether you use pornography, hire a prostitute, marry someone of your own gender or build a Mosque. Regardless of whether you love or follow Christ. But on the issues in which intervention might save lives and prevent physical suffering, we have a hands-off approach. Odd. Naïve.
Personally, I think the only philosophy more naïve than freemarket capitalism in a post-globalisation world is anarchism. I have much sympathy with its ideals and orientation, but in a world where corporations are more powerful than governments and have so much influence over individuals, I have doubts about the likelihood of self-organising communities providing a viable opposition to corporate power.
Frankly I have doubts about them bothering. But that's about as far as my opposition to anarchism goes. Which is why I welcomed the humiliating climb-down on the part of the Metropolitan police last week, as they retracted a call for people to report people with anarchist sympathies to their local police.
It's not just that the police request was a terrifying step towards criminalising a legitimate political philosophy (also called 'Direct Democracy' and espoused by some of the world's greatest philosophers). It's that I feel sorry for the Tories at the moment, they seem to be having such a hard time. What if 'small government' Tories and those dismantling public services were arrested for holding views that were 'hostile to the state' and thrown in jail? That would be just awful. Wouldn't it?
Follow Jonty Langley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jontylangley
Second, the secular government can only take care of the people financially. Whereas the church can help financially and spiritually.
Also, God has given me the heart to give freely. Converting my free-will giving into forced taxation does not benefit me spiritually in any manner.
Unfortunately we are not very good at spiritual giving and some government safety nets are necessary. I would challenge this group to increase the effectiveness of the church rather than advocating that we give that responsibility away to the government.
I would suggest. first that you read Romans 13. Note the mentions in that chapter that governing authorities are God's servants, and ministers of God.
Next, look up in your Strong's concordance the Greek word basileia; check how many times Jesus used it in Matthew alone. Then ekklesia, for how many times it was used in all of the Gospels.
Basileia is translated "kingdom" in most English Bibles. It doesn't mean "church." That would be ekklesia. It means government. From a root meaning basis, foundation, or infrastructure.
Consider also kuriotase, and it root kurios. Kuriotase is translated "government" in English Bibles, but it means kingdom.
This isn't 1611. English during that era was the language of Shakespeare.
Still, I don't know where it comes from - maybe only God knows - but the idea that only service by the individual can be spiritual and that service - ministry - by the government is only secular, but it's not scriptural.
Giving as an individual matter is of course a good thing, but even by a Christian, it may be entirely secular, not spiritual at all, if not done appropriately. One must be particularly careful that it not be done in self-righteousness. As Jesus said repeatedly in Matthew 6, those who do so have their reward but not from God, and it thus becomes secular service, not spiritual service at all.
Don't oppose what God has established.
After two millennia of church development, how would you change the church now in order to make it more effective? If two thousands years is not enough to make it work, how long might it take?
As a Christian socialist (not a Marxist) for more than three decades, I've had the same thoughts.
I saw an article yesterday about Michelle Bachmann claiming that she reads von Mises on the beach. Rick Warren ("A Purpose-Driven Life") was also a big von Mises fan. Of the many comments, I saw not one noting von Mises' "Socialism", where in Chapter 29, he slammed Christianity as socialism, and more generally - he clearly hated both Christianity and socialism. Put in religious terms, he was an anti-Christ.
Ludwig von Mises, capitalist hero to "Christian" presidential candidate Bachmann and "Christian" pastor Warren - and who knows how many other "Christians" for whom they are themselves heros, was an anti-Christ.
We're in 2 Thessalonians 2 territory these days... Apostasy indeed.
Well, not sure I'd put those Christians in inverted commas: i don't know their hearts. But I do find the attitude of many American Christians to socialism (even the word itself) odd.
Re "Thess: as House of Cards put it, 'you might think that, I couldn't possibly comment...'
Many believe the standard for Christianity involves confession, but I don't think that word means now what its original Greek in the NT meant. The Greek words translated "confession" in KJV English are [ex]homologeo, which roughly mean "to express [full] agreement with," or more simply, "[exactly] same thought."
Jesus pointed out that calling him Lord wasn't enough; but that's how many modern Christians interpret the meaning of confession. The modern interpretation results in contradictions, and I for one am not comfortable with those kinds of contradictions.
If Jesus would indeed be a socialist today, he would be crucified for it by some of those who now call themselves by His name.
So, the quotes give self-professed "Christians" the benefit of the doubt, to the extent that I can, but express my reservations.
There is hard evidence that socialist redistribution actually skews opportunity cost and in the long term makes the society as a whole poorer. Therefore, one may be a compassionate Christian who believes in good conscience that the best economic system for the poor is one of free enterprise. (Examples of control economies which have become more free market oriented and seen appreciable standard of living include India & China.)
In terms of civil rights abuses. The most vile have occurred in controlled (ie Socialist) economy's. Witness Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, Red China, Cambodia, Argentina and the list goes on. The correlation between controlling economic means and control of personal liberty is direct and inseverable.
This is not to excuse the outright greed that is espoused by many on the evangelical right, or the numerous civil rights abuses that have occurred in more free market systems. It is rather to say that man is a sinful creature. Therefore, we must chose a system which best compensates for the sinful nature of the persons who compose it. I believe this system is capitalism.