Did Jesus Teach Socialism?
July 31, 2009“Enough for everyone – accomplished by the mandate, dictate, and confiscatory taxation by a local, state, or federal governments.”
by Pastor Kenny Burchard email me
Is this REALLY what Jesus advocated?
Taking His name in vain
It is fairly typical for people to claim that an idea or practice is valid by claiming that Jesus either taught the idea, or modeled the practice himself. Actress Jane Fonda is often quoted as saying, “Jesus was a socialist,” and that idea is often used by groups who are advocating social change (especially when trying to pique the conscience of the average Christian who may be seen as being against the issue at hand).
The current discussion in our culture seems to center around our shared approach to caring for the poor, providing free homes, food, and health care to those who can’t afford it, and generally ensuring that the needs of the marginalized, impoverished, or less fortunate among us are taken care of by… us.
It’s not hard to find teaching in the New Testament – especially in the words of Jesus – about caring for the poor. In fact, many of the miracles performed by Jesus were mass feedings and healings. He seemed to care deeply about human plight, sickness, hunger, and the suffering that people endure in this life.
The casual reader of the four Gospels would certainly come away understanding that Jesus was an advocate of the disenfranchized, a friend of sinners, and someone who rolled up his sleves to meet real needs.
He was not just a preacher. His message was inseparable from innumerable demonstrations of love, mercy, provision, and care for hurting people. But… was this tied to the same values espoused by socialism? Was Jesus a socialist, or is socialism based on the teachings of Jesus?
What do you mean, “Socialism?”
Here are a couple of definitions from Dictionary.com -
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
In socialism, the “community” owns everything. There is no “mine,” there is only “ours,” and the leaders of the “us” control, disseminate, disburse, and (as you’ve heard it characterized) “redistribute” the wealth that is created by the collective.
Government-Based Socialism (The Man in the Middle)
With respect to socialism on a government level, the kings, princes, governors, presidents, etc. see themselves as the party responsible for ensuring that no one is either too rich or too poor. If one is very very rich, he would be seen as an evil person who is hoarding what others need.
The government is the great equalizer who confiscates his wealth through taxation, and redistributes it to those who are in need based on the government’s definition of “those in need.”
Once the taxes are forcibly extracted from the weatlthy person, he is not given any say in what is done with the funds that are taken from him. That descion is made by the “leaders” who know (they believe) better than the rich man how his wealth should be re-distributed. Whether he likes it or not, his wealth may be used to pay for things that he feels are morally objectionable.
Vote for me, and I’ll get his money and give it to you…
In this model, the government is the hero, and the rich man is the villain. The government’s aid of the poor by “confiscatory taxation” is seen as an act of good by both the government who confiscates, and the recipients of the wealthy man’s confiscated wealth.
It would be very difficult – given a chance to choose (vote) to ever get the recipients of this redistributed wealth to choose a leader who did not continue and even expand this practice. After all, it is how many in the community eat, get their medicine, have housing, or even have a job.
Leaders who embrace this practice would be able to gather incredible support by demonizing those who have more, and promising to go after it and give it to those who have more needs.
Another dynamic that is possible in this system is to characterize those who disagree with it as “unloving” or “racists” or “hypocrites” or even “fake Christians.” Since funds are confiscated under the auspices of “caring for the poor and needy” – those who resist the government as the middle-man in the meeting of needs are characterized as unloving, uncaring, and only concerned about enriching themselves. The rich are demonized, and the government is celebrated as the societal “Robin Hood” who takes from the evil rich, and gives back to the poor.
What happens to wealth-generation in this model?
There are two basic outcomes when this model of economics is employed.
First, the incentive to generate wealth is literally obliterated because of (1) the fear that the government will come in and confiscate it, which causes entrepreneureal retreat; and (2) the idea that working hard is unnecessary among those who are recipients of entitlements. They get their check, their house, and their medical care even if they don’t work a single day.
Why generate wealth just to have it taken away and redistributed at someone elses whim or discretion? And why look for ways to better yourself when the government is taking care of the essentials for you already?
Second, dishonesty becomes rampant. Bribes, black-markets, and a host of other immoral fiscal practices become pervasive. This happens for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest reasons is that when an outside force (government) is telling you how much money you can have – and you need more, you begin to look for other ways to either get more, or hide the excess funds that would otherwise be taken by the government.
Did Jesus advocate this as the way to administer care?
The original question is, “Did Jesus teach that the believer’s responsibility to care for the poor should be mediated (administrated) by the government?”
Is there anything in the words of Jesus that looks like, “The way to care for the poor is for the government to confiscate wealth through taxes which are redistributed to the needy among you”?
Socialism teaches that the government controls the wealth by confiscating it through mandatory taxes, which are re-distributed to meet what the government believes are the needs of the people (feeding the poor, etc). The question is then – Was Jesus a socialist?
To say that Jesus fed the poor, healed the sick, and promoted charity, generosity, and botherly love is a no brainer. What is NOT obvious is that Jesus was a socialist. Attaching the practice of socialism to the teachings of Jesus cannot be found in the New Testament.
Even the early church handled benevolence needs from within the believing community. There is no evidence that they took offerings which were handed over to a civil governments for redistribution to those in need. They handled it as a congregational practice based on free-will giving (not compulsory or confiscatory taxation).
If you can find any evidence that Jesus taught confiscatory taxation as the primary means for caring for the poor, providing housing, food, and medical care for all who want or need it, I would like to have your verses.
If you’d like to read Part 2 (in which I present Jesus talking like a socialist) – I encourage you to read that one here. In that post I present a mock-dialogue between Jesus and his disciples where Jesus is presenting his initial framework for taking over the Roman government with a socialist revolution, and his plan to set up a huge, well-paid bureaucracy to feed the poor (with the money that’s left over after they pay themselves, of course). Click here to read that one.
Food for thought…
Pastor Kenny
The Oasis Foursquare Church, Hanford, CA
Very well written Kenny! …and yes GOOD ‘food for thought!’
Very well written. One (of several) of the evils of socialism is that it destroys the human spirit! Another is that it denies you to the rights of the fruits of your labor. When you are denied that right, you are a de facto slave.
UPDATE – January 16, 2009:
Spoke to a young man (28) this past week – newly married, small child. He is unemployed, and his wife stays home. He collects unemployment.
I asked him, “Are you looking for work right now so that you can care for your family?”
“No,” he said. “I make more money on unemployment than I can make in the work-place because I don’t have an education or a trade, so I’m just going to do that until it runs out, then I’ll see what I can do next.”
Fact: No one puts as much IN to unemployment as they get paid OUT of it (as one of many examples of a government program). His incentive to look for work, or get out of the entitlement was NIL. The government was taking care of him just fine. Why take care of himself.
I don’t think that this is what Jesus advocated, and it is a rampant practice (among many others like it).
KB
Your argument loses merit when you mention entrepreneureal retreat. It falls flat…. Under the teachings of Jesus, you really wouldn’t worry about making money, and that wouldn’t be the reason you do what you do, but the love of others, and the benefit of their well being. I don’t think Jesus did what he did for the money…..In fact I really doubt Jesus cared much about governments, money or anything of that nature. He wanted people to be able to provide for themselves and the greater good of others…. The society we live in isn’t close to that. I think Jesus’ ideas were far more socalistic than you think…..
Dear John –
When using the definition of socialism that I provided from the dictionary, Jesus’ ideas were not socialist at all. Socialism (if you remember it from reading my post) is specifically where “the government is the mediator and arbiter of our generosity, benevolence, and weath-distribution.”
I cannot find such an imperative idea in the teaching of Jesus anywhere. I wonder where you get the idea that Jesus taught the benevolence-mediation of the government as the mechanism for caring for the poor.
I think he said, “You give them something to eat” – not “you give the government as much tax money as they can take so they can decide for you what to give the poor to eat (via their many tax-funded programs administrated by well-paid bureacrats in multi-million dollar air-conditioned buildings) paid for with the same tax dollars collected under the auspices of helping the poor.”
THAT, my friend, is the entire thesis of my post. Jesus did not teach that at all.
I have been happy to help the poor, adopt an orphan from a far-away country, pay for all of his health needs, and share my resources with people who need them. I enjoy doing that free-will (vs. having the government do it for me, and spending the money they take on things that do not help the poor at all).
Thanks for the comment. ~Kenny
using that limited term for a definition than yes you are correct….. however they didn’t have our system of government at that time. I really don’t see him advocating against socialist ideas for a capitalist society so it is a tough argument either way, and with the basis of our government being democracy, you aren’t being forced to do anything… You elected the people who tax you. If you don’t like the system, vote to change it. We live in a society of majority rule. People do have the power to change the system… Whether they use it or not is up to them….
After further reading of your argument, I am under the impression that you disagree with medicaid, medicare, social security, public education, etc… Those are socialist ideas. Wealth is redistributed in both directions. A great deal of it goes up, and yet I see no complaints about this. Any plan you have to “help the poor” will take administration and oversite, unless you presume everyone will donate their time… I agree that there is waste, but it is everywhere; public or private, and the early churches did intercede into peoples lives and take their tithe. They used the term purgatory as one way of doing this. If you don’t give, your loved one will burn for eternity, and people believed this… Corruption and greed are everywhere, no matter what the institution…. Did Jesus promote socialism? You could say no because it didn’t exist, but you could still say his ideas were socialistic,and probably not be far off..
John –
Once again, the thesis of my post and my argument is directly related to this quote:
“Jesus Taught Socialism”
Socialism is as it specifically pertains to the poor, needy, sick, homeless, unemployed, etc. is government-administered wealth-redistribution for the care of such folks.
Saying “there was no democracy” or “there was no socialism” is a fine point, but you seem to be having a discussion with someone besides me. My point was this: “Jesus never taught that the way to care for the poor was for the government of any people, nation, or state to extract taxes from the people (elected or not) in order to do this.” SO – saying “Jesus was a socialist” is patently untrue. Jesus never taught that. I’m happy to articulate this again and again as often as you wish. The comments about whatever program our government happens to implement (social security, medicaid, etc.) and whether or not I approve of them was not the point of my post. My post answers “NO” to the question, “Did Jesus teach government-controlled wealth-redistribution as the way to care for the poor?”
Thanks again for reading.
KB
Dear Pastor Kenny,
I appreciate your argument that Jesus was not a socialist. He was most definitely not a socialist, just as he was not an imperialist, a capitalist, a promoter of democracy, an anarchist, a communist, or a supporter of dictators. Jesus was most certainly a-political, so in that train of thinking your argument is sound.
Then the question must be looked at as intent of flawed human models of law. The true question is what values was Jesus was striving to teach and do those values coincide with socialist values of today.
Applying Christs values to government systems is not comparable. If Christ were creating a human based government it would of course be perfect. Something that none of us can comprehend. So instead, we should ask ourselves the question, what would it be like living in a country where Christ is the King. (perhaps we might call that country Heaven).
In this country Heaven what could we count on? Could we expect to be healthy, fulfilled, would we expect to not go hungry, would we expect that children would be taken care of… in Christ’s country what about the poor people would they be left on the street, for surely there will be many poor people living in this country as they are blessed. What would Christ do with them? In the country of heaven, how will neighbors live together? Will some individuals gain great property and wealth (often for the simple reason that they were born)while others live in hovels or even card board boxes (often for the simple reason that they were born)?
Pastor Kenny, you are correct, Jesus did not teach government affairs during his time on earth, he taught love, compassion, generosity. He taught forgiveness and second chances, he recognized that labels and definitions. Human systems of government are all hopelessly flawed and Jesus of course understands this better than any of us walking this earth.
Would Jesus have recognized a flawed but Christ driven government? A government that provided strong social services to ensure the health, education and welfare of children? A government committed to providing equal opportunities to all people regardless of their origin of birth, their cast, their past abuses? And a government that would strive to end cast systems where cyclical cycles of abuse ensures that generation after generation of people are poor, abused and disenfranchised?
I think that Jesus would not care what government model was employed by the people, but he would recognize people who lived their lives creating government modeled after the Kingdom of Heaven. If that model was ever constructed it is important to recognize that a Christian government would have no King so an earthly heaven would have no false King, only the people who would share the riches of that country collectively and take care of one another….
Dear Pastor -
I think the word “socialist” has a specific meaning in the USA that the rest of the world does not share. A lot of western European nations have socialist governments. Including England (for the last 13 years). Tony Blair is a socialist.
Using a simple and highly specific definition of the term “socialist” is a touch pedantic, and, if I may say, dismissive.
I think that the other, non-dictator/ not communist definition, the “Tony Blair” kind, is the kind of definition of socialist that might fit jesus: it is a real and valid definition, of which there are many modern examples.
You speak about confiscatory taxes:
We are taxed to pay for the military. Their primary role is defense, but we all know that death is part of their stock and trade. Including “collateral damage” – something I am sure you will accept would make jesus sick to his stomach.
Some of the roll and spending on the military is necessary. Invaluable. But some of it is a huge waste, and leads to wars where 1000′s die (including our own).
Given the choice -which I believe jesus would say we have- between spending vast amounts of money on killing, and building military might, and the aggrandizement of vain men;
Or,
Spending half that amount on health-care for all US citizens, so that we have the greatest in the world and are no longer looked on with a sense of embarrassment by the rest of the western world –
I think I know which Jesus would choose: Health care.
I think you know that too.
The flip side of the same point is: how come taxation specifically ear marked for spending on death and destruction gets no mention as being “confiscatory”?
When I think of how jesus spoke and what he actually said, and what he was all about, your words and the words of many do not make sense. They don’t match-up.
Dear Harry –
Here is a brief response to your comments.
1. Saying that my use of an (THE!!!) actual definition of socialism (which, by the way, was the definition that fits with the point I was trying to make) is “dismissive and pedantic” is, well, a bit dismissive and pedantic. What would you have me use to describe the meaning of a word that exactly fits the issue I was addressing? How, well, uh, post-modern of you to criticize me for using the definition of a word before making my point!!!! If it would have increased your confidence in my capacity to be utterly unintelligible and meaningless while attempting to sound intelligent (which is also very post-modern), I could have said, “The definition of socialism is blah blah blah, muah” if you had preferred. You seem overly concerned about the minute details of using the definition of a word to describe a concept, and then slamming me for using the word like it doesn’t really matter what the definition of a word is (ie., I hate to tell you this, but… you’re being a bit dismissive and pedantic, friend).
2. Hilarious. “Tony Blair is a socialist – the Kind that Jesus was. That’s a valid definition.” (see your 3rd paragrah). “Tony Blair is a socialist and that’s a definition, like Jesus.” Gobbledygook bro! Also very post-modern of you. Throw out an example of someone NOT like the person/idea that I am communicating, use THAT person for a contrasting “definition” without actually giving an example, then say your defintion is better and (sigh) more like Jesus. Makes me laugh. I could go on but it would just get too weird to keep showing you how saying “Tony Blair was the kind of socialist/non-communist/non-dictator that Jesus is most like” is just hilarious and contributes nothing to the discussion.
3. Finally, you employ yet a 3rd favorite tool of post-modern rationale; the awe-inspiring silver bullet known as the “false antithesis.” “Oh yeah, well Jesus would be really mad about people getting killed because of the military’s collateral damage, and you spend money on that through taxes, hypocrite!!!!” Harry, deal with one subject at a time, bro. Using a false antithesis does not add substance to the points I was making in my post. Go back and read it again.
a. I ask a question.
b. I use a word in my question that can have various meanings, so…
c. I define the word (using the definition that fits the word based on the concept that I am associating with the word, so as not to confuse anyone about the meaning of words)
d. I ask if that defintion squares with the teaching of Jesus
e. I answer the question with my proposed conclusion: NO
f. I conclude with a summary statement: Jesus did not say “Here’s how you take care of the poor. Give your money to the government and let them do it the way they see best.”
g. Period.
I was not talking about the military or anything else in my post. I’m happy to blog about that if you’d like. Then you could cut and paste your comments about the things about the military that would irritate Jesus into THAT post, and in the meantime create a cogent argument for “Jesus taught socialism” that actually addresses the thesis of my post. You might enjoy it.
In summary – you did not address my question with anything substantive, but you did employ three typical tools in the post-modern toolbox.
1. PROJECT – That is, call someone a name, and accuse them of doing something wrong when you are actually the one doing it.
2. DISMISS MEANING – That is, laugh at the fact that they actually define a word, then put up a contrasting example without an actual definition, and say that yours is a better definition (partly because you haven’t give one).
3. USE A FALSE ANTITHESIS – That is, cloud the issue by pitting YOUR thing against the thing the other person is saying, and be sure to make your thing sound more virtuous. So, if someone makes a point about something like, say, ice cream, quickly change the subject to brussel sprouts, then tell them that they don’t care about a healthy diet because they didn’t talke about brussel sprouts in the post about ice cream (and for real heavy impact, throw in something like “Jesus would have been really mad if you bought ice cream but did not buy brussel sprouts). Don’t EVER deal with the content about ice cream. ever.
Pastor Kenny
Not cool
Not Post-modern
Believes that words can mean things and be defined.
etc.
Thank you for your thoughtful post on this topic. I think a definition was absolutely required at the begining of the post. I believe that most people get that Jesus was a socialist, from a misunderstanding of socialism. Self proclaimed “progressives” seem to like to redifine terms and confuse issues. This leads good intentioned, but poorly informed individuals to get a warm fuzzy feeling equating socialism with charity. Jesus was clearly charitable. Socialism in definition as in practice is clearly not abut charity.
Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?
Hi David –
Obviously, your question comes from the words of Jesus regarding taxes. His answer was “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God.” The premise of my post is in response to whether or not this is the same thing as socialism (i.e., “Was Jesus a socialist?”), and whether or not Jesus taught (and the early church taught) that the means by which we care for the poor is through confiscatory taxation and wealth-redistribution – utilizing the power and force of the government to extract those taxes from people. I can find nothing in the teaching of Jesus that suggests he saw a human government as the medium for accomplishing these things. Jesus taught personal generosity, and free-will giving from a heart of compassion. The early church did not take up collections and hand them over the government for re-distribution. They cared for people within the structure of their own community. In this sense, Jesus did not advocate socialism at all. Socialism is NOT simply sharing resources with your fellow man. Socialism is when a government mandates, extracts, and forcibly removes your money from you, and then redistributes that money to others based on the priorities it sets for the people.
Is it right to pay taxes? Yes.
Was Jesus a socialist? No.
Peace –
Kenny
[...] conclude with a challenge provided in an excellent essay by Pastor Kenny Burchard: “If you can find any evidence that Jesus taught confiscatory taxation as the primary means [...]
[...] a previous post 2 years ago, I tried to push back agains the increasingly popular idea that “Jesus was a [...]
Thank you SO much for this well-written explanation as I have been going back and forth with a Liberal FB friend on this topic. Timely indeed! God bless!