Christianity and Socialism
These days there seems to be a trend among some contemporary evangelicals to favor socialism over capitalism. After all, socialism is all about equality and justice, and capitalism is all about wealth and greed, right? These evangelicals, influenced one way or another by crusty old arguments by liberal Christian socialists from the beginning of the 20th century, love to cite Scripture as support for their argument. But I would like to argue for capitalism from a Christian perspective. Below you will find my ramblings on the matter, and I invite you to share what you think after reading them.
Let us begin by examining a Scripture passage from 2 Corinthians concerning the collection for the poor (8:13-15). Paul writes:
Capitalism, on the other hand, creates an environment of competition that allows freedom and motivation for individuals to be the best they can be. The potential to generate wealth means the potential to improve the quality of life and the opportunity to assist others. Wealth freely acquired is wealth that can be freely shared. Even the most selfish and greedy billionaire tycoon under capitalism inadvertently improves the quality of life of many, for it is his successful business that creates more jobs and opportunities for others, thus it is in everyone's best interest that his enterprise succeed. That way more people can provide for their families, their churches, and give more to charitable purposes.
This same objective is not accomplished through socialism and wealth redistribution. There is a difference between when the reallocation of funds is decided by Washington bureaucrats instead of the individuals generating them. In the church, spending is determined by individuals who love Jesus and their fellow man. They freely give out of their own resources that they have acquired through hard work in the free marketplace to the church in the good faith that it will be used in accordance with their own value system and worldview. If the church chooses to be corrupt or use its money for something incompatible with the giver's value system, the giver can choose to give their money to another church or organization.
But under a socialistic system, money is taken through taxation and used for every purpose under the sun. Spending decisions are made according to the special interests and political self-survival of the bureaucrat, not according to the Great Commandment. Federal spending is almost always wasteful and ineffective, and the people have no option to withhold funds in protest to how they are spent. While democracy provides the voting populace a check against how money is spent through elections, it does little for the Christian whose tax monies are being used to fund things they did not vote for. For example, I may choose to vote for pro-life candidates for Congress, and they may even be elected and vote in accordance with my value system. But what happens when the majority in Congress is pro-choice? The IRS still taxes me, and the ruling majority deems it appropriate to use my money to fund abortions. Multiply this scenario by the trillions and you have typical federal spending.
The social experiments in America have done little to truly enhance the lives of people. The New Deal extended the Great Depression by almost a decade and set America on the socialistic trajectory it is on now. The Great Society, the War on Poverty, and every other social initiative, while portrayed as a means to a Utopian end, have not ended poverty or ultimately improved lives, but rather have imprisoned millions in government dependency and threaten to completely bankrupt the country altogether. This is not what our founding Fathers had in mind. They knew that an open market would provide the maximum benefit as opposed to using the government to enact their own vision of social justice.
Consider the words of FDR's treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., who wrote in his private diary that "we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!" (Lawrence W. Reed, Great Myths, 15) FDR tried socialism and it failed. That is because Government cannot add value to the economy. It simply takes money from one group through taxation and gives it to another. This does not create wealth or prosperity, just debt, deficits, inflation, and higher taxes.
The Bible never describes God's plan for mankind as the equal redistribution of wealth among all people through a centralized government. The New Testament teaches that Christians should live peacefully despite whatever form their secular governments may take and give generously to those in need. The Old Testament teaches that the Israelite's land ultimately belonged to God, and while they were required to pay a tithe, be generous with the poor, and to refrain from profiting from their misfortune, the children of Israel were allowed to honestly earn whatever they could. God never commanded His people to redistribute their own personal wealth, with only a few exceptions.
On a more philosophical note, how socialism and capitalism view the individual has relevance to the Christian. Democracy, coupled with capitalism, extends the sphere of individual freedom and attaches all possible value to each man and woman. Socialism reduces the individual person to a number. In Christianity, there is no Jew, Greek, or Gentile. It does not operate according to class, race, color, or gender. Yet these are all the socialist sees. People are not individuals, but rather groups. Capitalism and the free market see no such thing. As Mark Levin puts it in Liberty and Tyrrany (p.62):
Capitalism is not perfect. That is because it is comprised of imperfect people. Like all good things, it can be perverted. Greed and corruption do exist, but as I have stated above, even the evils of a few can benefit the many. The greater good of capitalism's benefits overwhelms its potential for evil, whereas the impossible Utopian vision of socialism ultimately benefits no one. The rich have less, and thus have less to give. The middle and lower classes become irrevocably dependent upon, and thus wards of, the State. Personal initiative, accountability, and responsibility are lost and the human spirit is destroyed.
The American civil society, comprised of churches, charities, and philanthropic institutions that help those in need, is the greatest and most generous in the world. But it is the State, not rugged individualism, that destroys civil society and societal compassion. When the government takes over the social roles of the civil society, social justice never prevails, despite the promises of politicians. Don't agree? Just take a look at the civil societies of every socialist European nation.
The New Testament does contain examples of the church pulling together its resources to meet the needs of the down and out. The church should operate in like fashion today. But these passages are hardly justification for embracing socialism in America. The works of charity and meeting the needs of the poor belong to the church. The failed social experiments of Europe and now America can never do the work of the church at her best.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." ~Benjamin Franklin
Let us begin by examining a Scripture passage from 2 Corinthians concerning the collection for the poor (8:13-15). Paul writes:
Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.Does this serve as ample support for socialism from a Christian perspective? Not necessarily. Socialism seeks to create equality and welfare through government intervention in every aspect of human life. But Paul is teaching the Corinthian Christians that they are responsible to care for one one another individually in love. There is a vast difference between the two. The early Christians sought to provide for the necessities of those who could not do so for themselves with the expectation that they would attempt to work and provide what they could. Charity without such expectations, or even worse, governmental redistribution of wealth, leads to envy, apathy, and laziness.
Capitalism, on the other hand, creates an environment of competition that allows freedom and motivation for individuals to be the best they can be. The potential to generate wealth means the potential to improve the quality of life and the opportunity to assist others. Wealth freely acquired is wealth that can be freely shared. Even the most selfish and greedy billionaire tycoon under capitalism inadvertently improves the quality of life of many, for it is his successful business that creates more jobs and opportunities for others, thus it is in everyone's best interest that his enterprise succeed. That way more people can provide for their families, their churches, and give more to charitable purposes.This same objective is not accomplished through socialism and wealth redistribution. There is a difference between when the reallocation of funds is decided by Washington bureaucrats instead of the individuals generating them. In the church, spending is determined by individuals who love Jesus and their fellow man. They freely give out of their own resources that they have acquired through hard work in the free marketplace to the church in the good faith that it will be used in accordance with their own value system and worldview. If the church chooses to be corrupt or use its money for something incompatible with the giver's value system, the giver can choose to give their money to another church or organization.
But under a socialistic system, money is taken through taxation and used for every purpose under the sun. Spending decisions are made according to the special interests and political self-survival of the bureaucrat, not according to the Great Commandment. Federal spending is almost always wasteful and ineffective, and the people have no option to withhold funds in protest to how they are spent. While democracy provides the voting populace a check against how money is spent through elections, it does little for the Christian whose tax monies are being used to fund things they did not vote for. For example, I may choose to vote for pro-life candidates for Congress, and they may even be elected and vote in accordance with my value system. But what happens when the majority in Congress is pro-choice? The IRS still taxes me, and the ruling majority deems it appropriate to use my money to fund abortions. Multiply this scenario by the trillions and you have typical federal spending.
The social experiments in America have done little to truly enhance the lives of people. The New Deal extended the Great Depression by almost a decade and set America on the socialistic trajectory it is on now. The Great Society, the War on Poverty, and every other social initiative, while portrayed as a means to a Utopian end, have not ended poverty or ultimately improved lives, but rather have imprisoned millions in government dependency and threaten to completely bankrupt the country altogether. This is not what our founding Fathers had in mind. They knew that an open market would provide the maximum benefit as opposed to using the government to enact their own vision of social justice.
Consider the words of FDR's treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., who wrote in his private diary that "we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!" (Lawrence W. Reed, Great Myths, 15) FDR tried socialism and it failed. That is because Government cannot add value to the economy. It simply takes money from one group through taxation and gives it to another. This does not create wealth or prosperity, just debt, deficits, inflation, and higher taxes.
The Bible never describes God's plan for mankind as the equal redistribution of wealth among all people through a centralized government. The New Testament teaches that Christians should live peacefully despite whatever form their secular governments may take and give generously to those in need. The Old Testament teaches that the Israelite's land ultimately belonged to God, and while they were required to pay a tithe, be generous with the poor, and to refrain from profiting from their misfortune, the children of Israel were allowed to honestly earn whatever they could. God never commanded His people to redistribute their own personal wealth, with only a few exceptions.On a more philosophical note, how socialism and capitalism view the individual has relevance to the Christian. Democracy, coupled with capitalism, extends the sphere of individual freedom and attaches all possible value to each man and woman. Socialism reduces the individual person to a number. In Christianity, there is no Jew, Greek, or Gentile. It does not operate according to class, race, color, or gender. Yet these are all the socialist sees. People are not individuals, but rather groups. Capitalism and the free market see no such thing. As Mark Levin puts it in Liberty and Tyrrany (p.62):
(The free market) discriminates against no race, religion, or gender. The truck driver does not know the skin color of the individuals who produce the diesel fuel for his vehicle; the cook does not know the religion of the dairy farmers who supply milk to his resturant; and the airline passenger does not know the gender of the factory worker who manufactures the commercial aircraft that transports him--nor do they care.While the individuals who make up the market may have their own particular biases, the market as a system itself does not. Socialism, on the other hand, operates according to classes by default. The individual has no value compared to the class. This is anti-Trinitarian and thus anti-Christian. Social Trinitarianism affirms the one in the context of the many. Socialism dissolves the one among the many, essentially annihilating the individual.
Capitalism is not perfect. That is because it is comprised of imperfect people. Like all good things, it can be perverted. Greed and corruption do exist, but as I have stated above, even the evils of a few can benefit the many. The greater good of capitalism's benefits overwhelms its potential for evil, whereas the impossible Utopian vision of socialism ultimately benefits no one. The rich have less, and thus have less to give. The middle and lower classes become irrevocably dependent upon, and thus wards of, the State. Personal initiative, accountability, and responsibility are lost and the human spirit is destroyed.
The American civil society, comprised of churches, charities, and philanthropic institutions that help those in need, is the greatest and most generous in the world. But it is the State, not rugged individualism, that destroys civil society and societal compassion. When the government takes over the social roles of the civil society, social justice never prevails, despite the promises of politicians. Don't agree? Just take a look at the civil societies of every socialist European nation.
The New Testament does contain examples of the church pulling together its resources to meet the needs of the down and out. The church should operate in like fashion today. But these passages are hardly justification for embracing socialism in America. The works of charity and meeting the needs of the poor belong to the church. The failed social experiments of Europe and now America can never do the work of the church at her best.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." ~Benjamin Franklin
Labels: politics
7 Comments:
Sean, I really like this post. It truly summarizes my own feelings as well. I just wonder... Having studied the Federalist Papers, I see that Publius had a certain view of human nature. Because of this view, which saw the capacity for the masses to rule yet needing strict institutional barriers against their fallen state, Publius advocated a certain type of government. I wonder, then, if we can take a look specifically at human nature and determine why capitalism will help check it and/or bring out the better parts of it better than socialism. If by nature we are totally depraved and their is no prevenient grace, then we should be ruled by despots in a command economy. But if we are by nature free moral agents, shouldn't the government structure and the economic structure of our society reflect that truth instead? Wouldn't capitalism do that better?
Jason, thanks for leaving a comment.
I think one could argue that an optimistic view of grace, which says that God can transform a person born into absolute depravity, creates a fertile ground for democracy. After all, if the people can only ever be inherently evil, then they can't be trusted to rule themselves.
While leaders who tend toward any other system where the people do not rule may not have thought very theologically or philosophically about their beliefs, the essence of the statement above remains applicable. These people don't believe that the 'unenlightened masses' know what's best for them. Thus, it is up to the elite to make their decisions for them.
Granted, this is an extreme oversimplification, and it might not even be directly relevant to your comment. Why don't you elaborate on what you said.
I can try to leave more fleshed out comments at a later time; however I want to point to a statement from Federalist 51 about human nature: "But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
See that this does not talk about socialism v. capitalism. However, the point is that if human nature is X, then only Y type of government can truly create a stable republic. Is it not the same for economics?
Interesting. So it is a realistic assessment of (fallen) human nature that would advocate a system of checks and balances?
I definitely think so. You need "auxiliary precautions" to keep humans from each other's throats. Checks and balances allows a sense of deliberation, so that reason will have its best chance to prevail. Of course, back then, many men would have given prayerful consideration to policy, so hopefully the Holy Spirit would have acted as a check and balance too.
So, if human nature is fallen, what economic system would be best for us, to allow our best qualities emerge and our worst qualities be submerged?
Personally I've found that most Christians I know live way above what they really need and are far too opulent. For every overpriced coffee and every fine piece of clothing they are letting a person starve to death. If their love of God isn't going to incite them to act the way they should then I feel perfectly comfortable with GOd setting up a government that forcibly distributes that wealth. You don't deserve it if you are not going to use it right.
Cords, you make a good point about the way some Christians in America live extravagant lifestyles. But American Christians, and Americans in general, are also the most charitable and giving on earth. I think that's worth mentioning.
But I wholeheartedly disagree when you say, "If their love of God isn't going to incite them to act the way they should then I feel perfectly comfortable with GOd setting up a government that forcibly distributes that wealth." This is a very naive comment. You give the fallen human nature too much credit. Absolute power corrupts. Our Founding Fathers understood this quite well, that is why we have a Constitution that limits government and created a separation of powers. That is because politicians don't act out of benevolence, but rather out of political self-interest. As I said in the original post, "Spending decisions are made according to the special interests and political self-survival of the bureaucrat, not according to the Great Commandment." You need to look no further than the health care disaster being considered in Washington right now, with all the back door deals. Money is being spent hand over fist to appease unions, buy votes, and cater to special interests. The church of Jesus Christ will ALWAYS serve the poor better than the federal government. Always.
Also, I hope you are prepared to be held to the same standard that you impose on other people when you say, "You don't deserve it if you are not going to use it right." Who determines what the "right" use of one's resources is? You? Barack Obama? Personally, you have no right to tell me how I should spend my money. Who's to say that your standards for spending money are superior to mine? Furthermore, I could just as easily apply your logic to politicians in Washington. I don't think they are spending my money right, so they don't deserve to spend it. Yet they do - by the trillions - mostly on things I believe have nothing to do with God's kingdom. Perhaps if the government taxed less and stayed out of people's pockets there would be more wealth generated and thus more wealth freely given to the poor and needy, not forcibly taken for unions and lobbyists.
By the way, for every dollar you spend on your Internet service that you use to get on my blog and post comments you are letting someone starve to death. Just sayin'.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog