June 12, 2007 Radio
Christian Socialism
I have been fascinated for some years now by the efforts of many Christians to sort out who they are politically.
• For the longest time, they were nobody.
• Then came Jerry Falwell and the moral majority, and politics hasn’t recovered from that yet.
• Now we have a Christian right and a Christian left in this country, and that is somehow disquieting.
• Nancy Pearsey has made a strong case that Christians should not allow themselves to be
marginalized.
• And that also disturbs some people who would rather keep Christianity separated into the private sphere of life and out of the public.
But now that Christians have awakened from their long sleep and considered that perhaps their faith ought to inform the way they vote, there are counter voices being raised.
• For one thing, most churches and ministries are recognized as non profit organizations.
• Churches are not supposed to support this or that candidate, nor any ballot issue—abortion comes to mind.
• Those are the rules, and we have to play by them, but we have every right to discuss principles in church, in print or on the air.
• It remains to be seen how long it will be allowed for churches to condemn immoral behavior.
• “Hate speech” is the shibboleth of the political left these days. The constitution, of course, protects speech. Even hate speech.
• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Nevertheless, where do Christians fit in the political spectrum? Are they more conservative than liberal? Are they more socialist than nationalist?
• Richard Neuhaus wrote a column not so long ago in the journal, First Things
that
clarified at least one issue.
• He cited Eugene Carson Blake who was, in his day, a major spokesman for the “oldline
Protestant establishment.”
• Blake, he said, “ was complaining one day about the lack of compassion among conservatives who whined about high taxes. ‘I love to pay taxes,’ he said. "Taxes are the way we help government to help people. I wish I could pay twice as much in income tax as I do."
• Neuhaus, Being very much his junior, hesitantly suggested that the Treasury Department would gladly accept his check for the extra money he wanted to give the government.
• "That," he dismissively responded, "would be quixotic. In a just society, I would be required to pay higher taxes."
When I read that, I suddenly came to understand something that had escaped me before.
• There is a marked difference between a just society and a compassionate one.
• Blake seemed fine with giving more money as long as everyone is required to do so.
• But of course, ours is not a just society because some are required to give more than others.
You hear a lot of talk in some circles about “social justice.”
• It is, in effect, another shibboleth of the left.
• Neuhaus went on:
“The notion that liberals are caring and compassionate while conservatives are selfish and hard-hearted is still being peddled long after its sell-by date. For instance, a day hardly passes that one does not read an article about the need for evangelical Protestants or Catholics to close the gap between the conservative pro-life cause and the liberal "social justice agenda."
• What I hadn’t really got clear was the distinction between compassion and social justice.
• George Bush ran on a ticket labeled “Compassionate Conservatism.” The left hated him for that before they hated him on the Iraq war.
• Justice, including social justice, is blind. Compassion is not.
• Justice wants to treat everyone the same. Compassion does not. Compassion recognizes need.
• Social justice treats people as members of a class. Compassion treats them as persons.
• Social justice relies on government. Compassion relies on people.
• But the government is not a person, it is a system. It cannot feel, therefore it cannot have compassion.
• In the absence of compassion, the government can only coerce behavior.
• And this is what lies behind Blake’s incomprehensible statement: “ ‘I love to pay taxes, Taxes are the way we help government to help people. I wish I could pay twice as much in income tax as I do."
Neuhaus went on to say:
There is a growing literature demonstrating that conservatives are much more generous in helping people in need than are liberals. The record of those further to the left than liberal is even clearer. In our little book of 1975, To Empower People, Peter Berger and I argued that effective help required a major role for "mediating institutions," meaning the nongovernmental and people-sized associations-for example, families, churches, voluntary groups of all kinds-through which people routinely care for one another and for others in distant lands.
• Witness: Hurricane Katrina and FEMA. Where would the refugees have been without the mediating institutions: Churches and charities.
Neuhaus also cited Arthur C. Brooks, who is professor at Syracuse University.
• He supports Neuhaus’ contention with “ massive statistical data and the most detailed analysis. The title of his new book is Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism: America’s Charity Divide-Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.
• What is interesting about Brook’s conclusions is that he started out with the opposite assumption.
Prof. Brooks started his study some years ago with the conventional assumption that liberals cared and conservatives didn’t. He wanted to find out why that should be. What he found out is that the assumption is dead wrong. Quite the opposite is the case, and very dramatically so. Measured by the giving of money, time, and practical help, those who by the usual criteria are defined as conservative are way, way ahead of their liberal cousins.
In his foreword, the eminent social scientist James Q. Wilson says, "[T]his is the best study of charity that I have read." For many on the left, charity is a dirty word. What we need, they say, is justice, not charity, which then excuses them from the tasks of charity.
But Neuhaus points out the obvious.
Other Americans, however, give more than a quarter trillion dollars a year to charity, not counting the gift of time and practical help. Not incidentally, the poor are, relative to their resources, more generous than the rich.
• I tumbled to that long ago. Being in a ministry that accepts donations large and small, I have marveled at the way poor people give.
• Even Prisoners. We provide a transcript service to men in prison. They usually aren’t allowed to receive recorded media, so they need something in print.
• The service is free, because these folks have a hard time scraping up money for a postage stamp.
• They may work inside, but they are paid pennies per hour.
• So imagine my surprise when a couple of these guys go to all the trouble to give us five dollars.
• Jesus made a major point of calling his disciples attention to the widows mite.
"These statistics are impressive, and belie most of the claims about the selfishness of our nation," writes Brooks. "That said, an identifiable and sizeable minority of Americans are not charitable. While 225 million Americans give away money each year, the other 75 million never give away money to any causes, charities, or churches. Further, 130 million Americans never volunteer their time."
• The only way you get money from these people is to take it in the form of taxation.
When one runs all the data and the all the variables through the various analytical grids, it turns out that there are four factors that drive generosity to others. First, the caring are more religiously committed than those who do not give of their time and money. Second, they believe that helping others is more a personal than governmental responsibility. Third, they come from strong families where they have learned the virtue of generosity. And fourth, they believe in helping people to help themselves.
Toward the end of his book, Prof. Brooks sums up "the five major facts about charity and politics."
1. "First, there is a huge ’charity gap’ that follows religion: On average, religious people are far more charitable than secularists with their time and money. Religious people are more generous in informal ways as well, such as giving blood, giving money to family members, and behaving honestly. Religious people are far more likely than secularists to be politically conservative.
2, Second, people who believe---as liberals often do---that the government should equalize income, give and volunteer far less than people who do not believe this.
3.Third, the American working poor are, relative to their income, very generous. The nonworking poor, however-those on public assistance instead of earning low wages-give at extremely low levels. The charitable working poor tend to be far more politically conservative than the nonworking poor.
4. Fourth, charitable giving is learned, reinforced, and practiced within intact families-especially religious families. Secularism and family breakdown are far less prevalent among conservatives than liberals.
5. Fifth, Europeans are far less personally charitable than people in the U.S. Europeans are also, on average, far to the political left of Americans.
“The net result of these five facts is that conservatives generally behave more charitably than liberals, especially with respect to money donations."
Neuhaus added this:
Liberals tend to be much angrier than conservatives. Of course, they might say that is because conservatives don’t understand what is wrong with the world. That seems very doubtful. What this study does make clear is that, apart from being angry about it, liberals are much less inclined than conservatives to accept personal responsibility for doing something about what is wrong with the world.
• So if you are a Christian, what does your worldview say about this?
• We are supposed to give, not wait for the government to come and take it away from us.
According to one source, “Social justice refers to concept of a just society, where "justice" refers to more than just the administration of laws. It is based on the idea of a society which gives individuals and groups fair treatment and a just share of the benefits of society.”
Same source (Wikipedia), “Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or worker ownership of the means of production.
• Now it doesn’t take very long to see what is wrong with this from a Christian worldview.
• In the first place, the Christian faith is strong in support of the weak.
(Matthew 25:31-40 NIV) "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. {32} 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. {33} He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. {34} "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. {35} 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, {36} 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.' {37} "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? {38} When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? {39} When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' {40} "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
• So why is this not socialism?
• It addresses many of the concerns of socialism.
• But it is not socialism because it is personal, not governmental.
• You gain no cachet from Christ by being taxed, by having money taken from you and given to the poor.
In the ideal world of the Bible, there were no taxes.
• But wait. Wasn’t there a tithe?
• Yes, there was, but the tithe was voluntary.
• But wait. Wasn’t it a law?
• Yes, it was, but the only enforcers of that law were God and nature.
• You could choose not to tithe and therefore leave God’s blessing off your economic life.
(Malachi 3:7-12 KJV) Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return? {8} Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. {9} Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. {10} Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. {11} And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts. {12} And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the LORD of hosts.
• Each Christian voluntarily and personally enters covenant with Jesus Christ.
• [Our fellowship with one another, the church, depends first on covenant with Christ.]
• It isn’t clear to me why a disciple of Jesus would want to omit any portion of his life, economic, family, career, from that covenant.
• Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.”
• So, if you don’t love him, don’t bother. There is no gain from grudging obedience.
OT law had many obligations to the poor, but everything was voluntary.
Leave the corners of the field so the poor can glean.
(Leviticus 23:22 KJV) And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
• There was no obligation to carry it to the poor. They had to come and get it.
• And there was no provision for enforcement other than a man’s covenant with God.
Third tithe. Poor had to come get it.
(Deuteronomy 14:28-29 KJV) At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: {29} And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.
Voluntary: No tithe police.
And it was not a tax.
That came later:
(1 Samuel 8:11-22 KJV) And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
• He will institute a draft. Socialists prefer the draft over a volunteer army, just like they prefer taxes over charity.
{12} And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. {13} And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
{14} And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
• Sure enough, our government is doing that right now, in spite of a constitutional amendment that prohibits government taking.
{15} And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
• Before, you had a voluntary tithe.
• Now you will have mandatory taxes.
{16} And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. {17} He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
{18} And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
I come to the conclusion that “Christian Socialism” is an oxymoron. Because every sacrifice made by a Christian must be voluntary, not coerced.
So, I would think that Christians would be personally compassionate and politically opposed to governmental coercion in the name of compassion.
That’s my worldview. What’s yours?