On Faith and Socialism

Over the summer I spent a significant amount of time blogging at www.keepusfree.net.  Much of my viewpoints addressed what I consider to be a very dangerous encroachment of socialism into American politics and upon the American way of life.

As a follower of Jesus I find myself in an interesting position on the issue.  On the one hand, I see in the way of Jesus (particularly the Sermon on the Mount and on through the rest of the Gospels) what could be considered a socialist impulse behind the way of the Kingdom.  On the other hand I am a student of history and see how government socialism has historically always lead to oppression and the eventual downfall of the civilization.  In the same historical vein I also see how individual freedom and personal responsibility (the antithesis of socialism) is the founding principle of America - a country that has, for much of her existence, been a "shining city on a hill" to which people hungering for a better life have streamed from every corner of the world.

In watching the evolution of Christianity in America I've seen us diverge into two prevailing groups.  On the one hand there are the evangelicals on the far right of the political spectrum.  On the other hand are the "emergents."  And I've been somewhat alarmed at the movement of those who are "emergent" toward the far left (socialist) of the political spectrum.  As Rick Warren's "Civic Forum" with Obama and McCain began a couple of weeks ago this divide was brightly illuminated by a commercial endorsing Obama that featured Brian McLaren and Kirbyjon Caldwell.  And though I don't consider myself a far-right evangelical, for the life of me, I can't understand how a follower of Jesus can align themselves with the socialist agenda of the far-left that includes the killing of unborn babies.  Could it be that these "emergents" see the socialist impulse in the Gospels and the church of Acts and are confused about how it should play out in society? 

Perhaps a definition of socialism is in order.  Dictionary.com offers the following three definitions:

1.	a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2.	procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3.	(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

It's easy to see that the early believers did live their lives in a collectivist sort of community.  They shared their food, their belongings, and sold property to make sure that everyone was taken care of.  This makes sense to me as such behavior is the natural outworking of sincere love for God and sincere love for one another.  I believe this should be our way of life.  If I have two shirts and you have none, then yes, I should be moved by the spirit of love to give one of mine to you.

But when "emergents" look at this and then connect it with politics I think they are making the same mistakes that Israel made when asking for Saul instead of Yahweh, or that the Roman empire made through marrying church and empire.  I guess the question is this:  Who should be the administrator of a Biblically socialist way of life, a king (or president in our case) and his government, or the King of Kings and his priesthood (all believers).

In electing a socialist government we are appointing a human ruler to, by force of law, make us share our possessions with one another.  When the far better way is to live as free people under the reign of Christ being moved solely by the Spirit of God to succeed, prosper, and care for others.  Human rulers crave power and are prone to exercising their power to oppress others and pursue evil agendas.  The way of the Kingdom is to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before God.

If we were to apply the "emergent" political ideology of today to the church of the first century, Acts 2:42-47 would read something like this:

They devoted themselves to the ideology of Caesar, and to the collective, to the redistribution of bread and to debate.  Everyone was filled with contempt for those who had more bread than others.  All the believers were together and shared the same allotment from Caesar.  They sold their possessions and goods to pay taxes to Caesar who would distribute the wealth throughout the empire.  And every day they enjoyed the favor of the government.

Folks, when we read the way of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and read about the way in which the early church lived, we have to understand that this way of life is meant to be fleshed out through hearts redeemed by Christ and renovated by the Holy Spirit, not through the force of a human king and his government.  If you believe that the wealthy should share with the poor, then start sharing.  There's always someone poorer than you.  And then teach others to do the same.  Don't take the easy way out by demanding that everyone give what they have to the government in the hope that the government will do with it what is righteous.

Comments

[James Diggs]

I am a bit bothered by the idea of "INDIVIDUAL freedom" and "PERSONAL responsibility" as the defining ideals that make us your supposed "shining city on a hill". Frankly these ideals as our center are individualistic and counter to the spirit of God's Kingdom and the gospel. I find it it very odd that the Christian right have so conformed to the world that they view this political view as the highest ethic and embrace it as a Christian definition of "freedom".

Frankly the church in our country has largely reduced the idea of holiness to just personal piety. This is ironic when you understand holiness is centered around love for the other- both God and neighbor.

Now as to your concerns about "socialism". Let us get some perspective before we start calling the emergent church a bunch of Marxist. We live in a people's democratic republic- government isn't "THEM" in our system, government is "US". Those in the emergent conversation do not think that "government" is the answer for the world. What they believe is that God is present in His church as His continued incarnational presence in the world. We also believe that one way we can live this out is as participants in our democratic system that we were given a voice in to work to be a blessing to our our neighbors for the sake of Christ. This is really true regardless of ones political philosophy, but this also is rightly applied to those followers of Jesus who happen to also lean into the political philosophy of the democratic party

In the end though, those in the emergent conversation understand that if any form of government does anything Kingdom worthy, it is because God is present in the people who have the reigns. And God of scripture keeps those who have the reigns of governing others accountable regardless if they are kings or democratic systems.

Before we go stamping all of our capitalistic ideals as the "shining city on a hill" we should acknowledge the tyranny that can take place when capitalism goes unchecked. Deregulation has not made us a better country and brighter light for the rest of the world. What it has done is provided those in financial power to get more under a system that values "individualist" and "personal" success.

As someone who has shifted from leaning politically right to leaning left I have come to the conclusion that the world is far too big and complex for free market to check itself. The world has outgrown the time when society can keep business accountable by just our spending habits. Big Business is just too big and diversified to feel it. When you can make a dent in the pocketbook of big business the richest on top with the most power who should be most accountable don't feel it, but middle management is laid off instead.

Now I am giving you a political argument, but I do understand that such arguments either left or right are not as systems synonymous with the Kingdom of God. I find it ironic though that the recent movement of people of faith in the democratic party is being criticized for confusing politics with the gospel when the religious right have become so entrenched in the Republican party that in many church circles the term "Christian" and "Republican" have become synonymous.

Again, your Caesar/Acts 2 parody analogy is also ironic as the Republican party (including Christians on the religious right) seems built on giving all its allegiance to the rich and depending on the rich to redistribute wealth through piddle down economics. How is this any less a "redistribution model" than what you accuse democrats of? Redistribution policies of the Republican party that embrace deregulation and less accountability to big business is responsible for the shrinking middle class and unstable economy. Capitalism (particularly unchecked) is as much a form of redistributing wealth as anything else.

Again in regards to your concerns about "socialism", as long as we are a government where its citizens have a voice then it is "us" not "them" that can work together to try and improve our systems so that they promote justice for every citizen.

I think if you listen to Oboma's speech at the Democratic convention you will here him speak of balance and be encouraged. He spoke of both our individual and mutual responsibility. Regardless of whether he is a candidate you like or not do not mistake the endorsement from guys like McLaren as thinking that this one leader or political system is the same as the Kingdom of God. But I am encouraged by Obama as a leader who's message is not about what government can do but what we can do together in a way that is reminiscent of President Kennedy's "ask not" speech. Such a philosophy is not about "government handouts" but about how we can best serve our community. Again, these ideas are not about the socialistic straw men you have painted in your blog post. No one is proposing the kind of model you categorize the democratic party and their "socialist" ideals as having.

You may also be interested and encouraged by Obama's 2006 "call to renewal" key note speech about faith in the public square.

We may not agree on all of our politics but you can rest assured that even though many in the emergent conversation may find some political affinity with the left that most do not see politics as the answer. At best they only see politics as a sphere of influence to practice the Christian call to love our neighbors and serve and be a blessing to our communities.

Peace,

James

[Bill]

Hi James,

Thanks for your well thought out and well presented rebuttal. I agree with you on some points and disagree with you on others.

I will say that as I've observed and studied the "emergent" movement over the last 7 or 8 years I have found much to be please with. If placed on an ideological spectrum with evangelicalism on one end and emergent on the other, I would probably be closer to the emergent end.

However, watching the dramatic shift to the left at the same time that I'm studying American history and socialism has troubled me.

I guess it's still true that the only label I need to wear is the label "follower of Christ."

Peace to you.

[James Diggs]

Bill,

I certainly agree that the only label we should wear is "follower of Christ". I think the entrenchment of many Christians on the right of politics has been a terrible mistake; I don't want to see Christians make the same mistake on the left.

Thanks and Peace,

James

[Thyme2dream]

I agree heartily that we cannot have a human government trying to replicate the early church in the first few chapters of the book of Acts.

"But when "emergents" look at this and then connect it with politics I think they are making the same mistakes that Israel made when asking for Saul instead of Yahweh, or that the Roman empire made through marrying church and empire. I guess the question is this: Who should be the administrator of a Biblically socialist way of life, a king (or president in our case) and his government, or the King of Kings and his priesthood (all believers)."

In the book of Acts the Holy Spirit was the administrator. This was made dramatically evident in the contrasting events in Acts chapter 4-5...the believer's prayer that shook foundations and brought forth miracles and the demise of Ananias and Sapphira~ a judgment that no man would have been justified in carrying out.

The other thing we forget is that this was NOT a government that attempted to exercise any authority over non-believers.

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
~ 1 Corinthians 2:14-16

I believe that the body of Christ is moving back to being able to be this sensitive to being led by the Spirit within its own community, but with all the division and strife still rampant in the body it may be a long while before it is accomplished.

Until it is, any human attempts to mimic it are deceptive & misguided at best and downright dangerous at worst.

[Randy Olson]

Bill,

Thanks for the article. It lines up with exactly what I have been thinking over the last few months. I believe we loose something in our relationship with Jesus every time we hand over something that we should personally be doing or something we should be doing as the body of Christ. I have come to see that we would rather let the government do what we as Christians should be doing. We just don't want to get dirty. Saying that we are the government seems like just a copout

I am going to post a link to this article on my blog, If you don't mind.

Thanks Again,

Randy

[Tom Usher]

Hello All,

I was Entrecarding around is how I came upon this post. This is a very good beginning probe into the subject area. I'm particularly favorably impressed by the very honest and apparently comfortable acknowledgment that Jesus was a socialist/communist but not of the secular-state/coercive variety. This is the main focus of what I blog. I won't go into a great deal of detail here.

I don't see URL links to the commentators blogs built into the comments, so I'll provide the URL here if that's okay. http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/wordpress/

I believe this is the first TypePad location where I've attempted to leave a comment (don't hold me to that), so I don't know how the URL will render (hyperlinked or not). Oh, good, there's a preview button.

I see that my name links to the blog, but I'll leave the link in the text body to make it clearer to readers.

Please feel welcome to come read and comment.

Blessings to you.

Tom Usher

[Jan Ammons]

I, too, am a Christian, and I describe myself as "ultra-conservative." I enjoyed your article very much and agreed with what you had to say! Our President-elect is most definitely a socialist, and it's clear that our American way of life is in jeopardy. I do not believe Obama is Christian no matter what he says. I believe he's deviant and that we haven't "seen anything yet." After January 20th, I expect him and the liberals in the House to "let the games begin." I'm praying that we will have Saxby Chambliss re-elected to the Senate here in Georgia so that we can have enough conservatives to filabuster (sp?). Anyway, thumbs up on the article, and God bless you!

[Jeff Jenkins]

Bill,

I was shocked that so many Christians voted for Obama, when he is such a strong advocate for so many anti-biblical issues (i.e., abortion, gay marriage, etc.), but I suspect that they were taken in my his smooth speeches.

Regarding the church in Acts, it did not work perfectly, as Ananias and Sapphira have shown.

Maybe more Americans should read George Orwell's "Animal Farm." Socialism or Communism cannot work as long as people are still sinful and corrupted.

I do not believe that there will ever be peace in this world, nor will there ever be a perfect government, until, as I understand it, Jesus comes back to reign on this earth.

I believe Obama was correct when he stated that this country is no longer a Christian country. We have become, overall and in general, an immoral, ungodly, selfish, corrupt, materialistic, humanistic nation. And the more anti-God that America becomes (abortion, gay marriage, throwing out the Ten Commandments, no more prayer in schools, etc.), the more problems this country will have, and the more selfishness and corruption will increase. I like the bumper sticker that says "America Bless God." We should pray for Obama to repent and come to Christ, for our government to repent and come to Christ, and for more Americans to repent of their sins and come to Christ. And we, as Christians, should be out fulfilling the Great Commission to our neighbors within our community. Personally, I see no biblical examples of political activism, but I do see a biblical mandate for evangelism, so I therefore think that evangelism is more important than political activism (though I am not suggesting that Christians not vote or not get involved).

I do believe there are still many true, born-again Christians in America (hence the popularity and success of movies such as "Fireproof"). But when 2.3% of Americans can be the reason for laws to be put into place, then I think there is something seriously wrong with this country. (i.e., the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Health Statistics reveals that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. 1.8% consider themselves to be bi-sexual.)

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-John Adams

[Jeff Jenkins]

To clarify, when I said "I see no biblical examples of political activism," I was thinking of mainly the apostles and Jesus (when He was on earth). Obviously, Saul and David were into politics.