Blog of A Plodding Visionary
Archive for April, 2011
Socialism and Poverty Allevation, Part 2 (Biblical Foundations)
01 year ago
If we are going to counter socialism from a Christian perspective, especially considering that there are an increasing number of Christians that believe it is actually biblical because it at least appears to be compassionate toward the poor, where do we begin?
Obviously, we have to begin with a solid foundation. It seems that the foundation of socialism, based on its history, is largely emotional. Concern for the plight of industrial workers plus opposition to original sin led to a vindictive reaction against ownership and God. But we, too, could make the arguments against socialism be purely emotional. At that point it might start to just sound like a partisan battle, or a conflict of ideology, or even a war of preferences. So where do we begin? Are all things really relative and just preferences, or is there a universal right and wrong standard? Within Christian circles, I would hope both left and right, we can agree that yes, there is a standard – God’s law. I say I hope, because I have seen cases where people do give God’s law a back seat to ideology when trying to blend incompatible ideologies in. Party policy ends up trumping Scripture, or Scripture gets reinterpreted to fit the party line.
So as a starting point, down to simple basics, like a children’s catechism. Who made us? (God). Who made the world in which we live? (God). What was damaged by the fall? (All of creation, relationships, etc.) What does reconciliation encompass? (All of creation.) Political systems too? (Yes.) What about people who reject God? Are they still subject to effects of the fall including judgment even though they deny any and all of it? (Absolutely.) Can those who deny Christ get to heaven by another way? (No!) So then does it stand to reason that the moral law God laid out for mankind has no exceptions? (Yes, it should.) If terms like justice are presented in Scripture with moral instructions (not civil or ceremonial, but moral) on how it is to be carried out, should we interpret it any different to day? (No.)
With this foundation, we should be able to deduce that God’s way to maintain order out of the chaotic brokenness of a fallen world remains a constant, because we haven’t somehow managed to become any less broken or any more inherently righteous.
Now, isn’t this dangerously close to theonomy? This is a challenge that will arise from time to time, including from theologically-sound, well-meaning people. Reformed theology addresses this by defining different angles to the Law. There is the ceremonial law, which the Israelites kept in order to be ceremonially clean before God. In the New Testament, God revealed that this was an outward sign of inner, spiritual washing, and declared all things to be clean. This is why we do not today have dietary restrictions on eating pork or shellfish, for example. Another is the civil law. This was how the Israelites were to govern themselves when in the earthly Promised Land. Theonomy seeks to implement Old Testament civil and judicial case law today. The non-theonomic Reformed view is that the civil law is what held together the nation-state of Israel, which was a type, or a symbol, of the church – which spans national boundaries. We can say that the ceremonial and civil law pointed to something greater and haven’t been repealed, but rather fulfilled. Or as the Westminster Confession puts it regarding the civil law, “To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” The moral law, though, is God’s standard for right and wrong. It is summed up in the Ten Commandments, and referenced throughout Scripture. We can’t perfectly keep it. It’s impossible for us to, and so we absolutely require Christ’s righteousness on our behalf. That said, it remains the basis for what God has declared is right and wrong. Likewise, it does not seem that it is a stretch to ascertain that where the moral law influences the civil law, though we are not under the civil law as binding on any nation, the civil law can be quite useful in seeing how God intended order to be maintained among fallen, sinful, selfish, messed up human beings. There is still great wisdom in the civil law, though it is not binding on any nation today, nor is it a sub-set of the moral law. Throughout history this has been recognized in that the moral law and its influence on civil law has been the basis for common law in many nations. Even today when people who vehemently attack anything having to do with Christianity, they still tend to use moral terms in saying things are “good” or “right”. By what standard? One of those things where it really is plain to all humankind, though they refuse to admit it. So anyway, as stated before, this was in the framework of the US Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the intent of the founders of this country. Though quite a few are believed to have been deists, which is basically moralism without transformation, they still recognized that rights and justice aren’t things we make up – they come from God, and that as the creator of all things, yeah, God’s ways are naturally the best way to keep order in a fallen society.
Some will object and say… “But… that’s still theonomy.” And wherein the word theonomy just refers to God’s law, I suppose that’s right, but then again, that would basically make the entire Reformed viewpoint theonomist. Maybe it could be said that, for us as Reformed Christians, if we’re not occasionally getting people mistakenly thinking we’re promoting theonomy, perhaps we’re not going far enough in applying the belief that redemption applies to ALL of creation. Also, for those who object, one could ask… “So, if the moral law of the Bible is not foundational to society, what should be?” They might say, “Well, just what’s universally right to do or wrong to do?” “And where does that come from? Did that get passed down from monkeys? Did we just happen on it and somehow decide it’s universal?”
Out of this, then, came their view that government’s duty is not to create rights or create standards, but to enforce what already exists. Government exists to protect rights, enforce laws, and punish violations. Basically, to carry out justice.
But at this point the Christian left may jump in and say, “Absolutely! And socialism provides the best venue for this.” This is, in fact, what many do. Some, including Sojourners, one of the better known magazines and online resources for the Christian left, takes this very view – that socialism best represents the Biblical law (including, perhaps, even the civil law) and provides the most efficient means for civil authorities to execute justice.
Up next: What is justice?
Socialism and Poverty Allevation, Part 1
01 year ago
This and the next few posts are based on a church class I recently led. The context of the class is poverty alleviation, and I took 3 weeks in March to explain why socialism is not a system that is beneficial to the task of poverty alleviation.
The next few posts will focus on understanding issues behind political systems and how they impact individuals. Most of the time will be spent on command-based systems, specifically socialism, and its more extreme form, communism, and its theoretically corporation-friendly form, fascism. The reason for this disparity is that most of us would agree that it is, at minimum, to care for the poor within the realm of a free market economy. Beyond that, many would probably also agree that freedom provides the best context for poverty alleviation. But nevertheless, there is a growing movement that says the free market system is not the best, or even that it has failed, and that it is time to give socialism a try. This is important issue today because we are seeing trends indicating a push toward socialism in the United States, like we have never seen before. But also, within Christianity, this push toward socialism is no longer just in the realm of liberal Christianity and mainline denominations. It is gaining acceptance within theologically conservative, evangelical denominations. Christians who support some or most of the socialist agenda do so on the grounds that they believe it this view most closely aligns with Biblical teachings on caring for the poor and poverty alleviation. Thus, analyzing this approach fits right in the context of this quarter’s material. Though I mentioned three forms of command economies – communism, where the state owns everything, fascism, where the state regulates and controls private industry, and socialism, which on one hand can include the other two, but is usually used today to describe the high-tax cradle-to-grave welfare states common in Europe – it’s socialism that will be my main focus. In America, hardly anyone except the far radical left says “communism – that sounds good”. Fascism also has a negative connotation. Even though our economy is showing a lot of signs of fascism, which we’ll get to later, no one really says “let’s be a fascist nation”. But socialism, on the other hand, is more and more referred to as a positive, even within the evangelical church.
But first, before we consider some of the reasons why this group – often called the Christian Left – believes socialism best fits Biblical commands on helping the poor, let’s review what socialism is and where it came from.
The history behind socialism and what is often given as reasons why it came into existence is actually very similar to why many Christians support it. The Industrial Age brought in entirely new means of manufacturing goods and creating both wealth and services. Through new methods of production, including team efforts where people may only see one portion of producing something, such as the factory assembly line or using multiple man-made items to make another man-made item, there was a boom in inventions and also ways of creating them. Owners of new companies and factories, however, struggled to keep up with the demand for new products at lower prices, and began having workers work longer hours in worse conditions, and even in some cases resorted to using child labor just so as to pack the factories and maximize output. Many of the writings of Charles Dickens, for example, were an exposé of labor practices of the day. What I will be saying about socialism does in no way at all excuse this. This isn’t a situation where one side’s wrongs justifies the other side.
As a result, some began to believe that society and ownership had corrupted man – falsely denying original sin and believing that these tendencies hadn’t existed prior to the industrial age – and so envisioned that by restructuring society and by limiting ownership, they could eliminate what they considered to be these new evils.
Another idea that was gaining acceptance in the late 1700s was that while individual people would be corrupt, if they were governed by a noble state – or a virtuous government – then they would not be, because a good government would keep them in line. This, too, was a denial of original sin, by assuming that those in government were somehow exempt from the sins of private individuals. Remember this term – virtuous state – because it’s at the heart of command economies like socialism today.
The founding fathers of the United States were aware of these ideals and rejected them. The new government of the United States was based on English Common Law, which the British government of the day had shown a tendency to deviate from, as demonstrated by the oppressive policy they placed over the Colonies. This Common Law, was itself based on the Bible. Government was not virtuous nor exempt from sin, and so its role needed to be limited to enforcing morality and protecting rights of life, liberty, and property. Because no man can be trusted when given unchecked power, they set up a system of government that would prevent any man or group of men from having absolute rule.
But meanwhile, over in Europe, the denial of original sin came to the forefront. The French revolution was a revolt not just against wealth and royalty, but also against historic Christianity. Various such ideas gained acceptance among the academic thinkers of the day in Europe, including a German named Karl Marx. Marx condemned free markets and capitalism due to leading to inequality, which he determined to be the root of evil. Without ways of building wealth and having private ownership, he predicted that men would become good. Marxist ideals include “total abolition of private property”, breakdown of the family resulting in allegiance only to the state, and a society without God. Marx, as we may recall from high school or college, is famous for saying that “religion is the opiate of the masses”.
Some of the earlier socialists simply called their view a higher form of Christianity or new Christianity, focusing on a brotherhood of equals. But, by cutting God out and just emphasizing Godless morality – the Law without the giver of the Law – it wasn’t long until the pretense of being within Christianity was dropped and socialism became anti-religion and for one primary goal: raising the poor classes while bringing down the rich. Socialists then began attempting to stamp out religion, or in the event that people insisted on clinging to it, replacing it with a state-centered religion. Some even borrowed religious imagery and terms to create hymns of praise to the state and to leaders.
Socialism also borrowed strongly from Darwinistic evolution, denying the spiritual and focusing exclusively on the material. This fit perfectly with Marxist belief that man’s soul was subordinated exclusively to economic concerns. Connecting this to our discussion in When Helping Hurts, it is one of the reasons that some think of poverty alleviation as being as simple as giving someone money, while ignoring all the other factors.
So then, what is socialism’s main goal? A classless, Godless society where all people are made conditionally equal – basically, having nothing that economically differentiates them from one another – and beneath a very powerful, God-like, morally-good State. It uses the Biblical principle of charity as a means of giving the state more power. It also seeks to disrupt the normal social order, so that loyalty is first and foremost given to the state and society, even at the expense of one’s own family. Thus, socialistic systems emphasize things like prostitution, pornography, and the so-called sexual revolution, so that there will be fewer family ties that get in the way.
That is a very rudimentary, basic introduction to why socialism is at odds with Christianity, and therefore with Biblical poverty alleviation methods (such as those presented in When Helping Hurts). But if we’re going to counter it from a Christian perspective, especially considering that there are an increasing number of Christians that believe it is actually biblical because it at least appears to be compassionate toward the poor, where do we begin? Stay tuned for the next post.
