Christianity and Socialism

It is my goal to make both conservatives and liberals uncomfortable with this post. If you find yourself not liking what I’m writing here, I will consider this post a success.

In the second reading at Mass in the Catholic Church this past weekend, we heard these words from St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, “For you know the gracious act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich. Not that others should have relief while you are burdened, but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their needs, so that their abundance may also supply your needs, that there may be equality. As it is written: Whoever had much did not have more, and whoever had little did not have less.” (2 Corinthians 8: 9, 13-15)

We have numerous passages in the scriptures like this in both the New and Old Testaments; passages which exhort us to supply for the needs of those who do not have materially what they need. These passages are too numerous even to list, but anyone with an internet can look them up. In this passage specifically, St. Paul is encouraging the people of Corinth to take up an offering to supply another Christian community that is experiencing a famine with food and other necessary material goods. 

We have the example of the earliest Christian community: “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need.” (Acts 2: 42, 44-45)

If you can hear it, this foreshadows in an eerie way the words of Karl Marx, the philosophical founder of Socialism, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” The fundamental Christian teaching about how to provide for the poor is echoed in socialism’s fundamental principle of redistribution of wealth.

This mandate is a fundamental principle of Christian life. We help those who are in need. That means we have a Christian mandate to give. What are the basic principles of giving. As Christians, we give generously. As Christian’s we give cheerfully. As Christians, we give so that others have what they need.

If you’re conservative, I hope your beginning to feel uncomfortable, because you need to be liberal, at least as far as your offering of time, talent and treasure goes. The confusion between what we need and what we want is not just among the poor. Conservatives often complain that tax dollars are begin given to the poor so that they can have expensive cable plans and expensive smartphone plans. The poor don’t need cable or smartphones, the argument goes, so why should tax dollars go to support that. Why should our tax money go to support someone who owns a Cadillac? 

The fact is the rich don’t NEED cable either. And “back when we were kids,” there were a lot of rich people out there who didn’t have smartphones. They made and managed their money without “staying connected” to it 24/7. Why should someone who claims to be a Christian own an Escalade? Why shouldn’t he or she own a Ford Focus and give the rest of that money to charity? What we need and what we want are two different things.

For Christians who want to follow the example of Christ: “though he was rich, he became poor.” Are we willing to give up our luxuries in order to make sure others have necessities? How radical of a Christian are you willing to be?

Maybe if we were a little more radical in our Christianity, there would be no need for the government to provide for the poor.

I hope conservatives are squirming in their seats right now.

Liberals, it’s your turn.

I’ve just laid out that the fundamental Christian teaching about caring for the poor is echoed centuries later by the socialistic principles of redistribution of wealth, “From each according to his ability; to each according to their need.” This, however, cannot be used to justify a socialist governmental system in which the government taxes the rich so it can redistribute that wealth to the poor. 

First, our Lord’s command to care for the poor is meant to convert the heart, not open the wallet. 

I want to clear up a confusion that seems to occur often when conservatives and liberals argue. The liberal is arguing that everyone should “pay their fair share.” You are right. People should pay their fair share.

Conservatives, however, argue back that it is not the role of government to redistribute wealth, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. And conservatives are right. In the United States, under the constitution that governs our nation, it is not the government’s responsibility to do this.

Nor is it the government’s responsibility to do this under Christian teaching. Christ instructed us to pay our taxes. The apostles taught us to pray for, respect and obey the government authority. But early Christian teaching nowhere defines it as the role of government to take from some and give it to others. The sacrifice of redistribution of our wealth is to be made willingly, through conversion. I would challenge any Christian to find where Christianity teaches that it is the government’s role to force people into charitable giving. You won’t find it there.

We are called, undoubtedly, to give to the poor. I am not called, however, to make sure that you are giving what I consider to be your fair share. Public officials tax returns are open for anyone to see. Isn’t it interesting that the liberals in power, including President Obama and Vice-President Biden, on their tax returns, do not give charitably anywhere close to the amount that their conservative counterparts have donated. Why? When you shift responsibility to the government, you necessarily shift it away from yourself. President Obama and Vice-President Biden believe that it is the government’s responsibility to provide for the poor. If I believe that the government is taking care of the poor, then I don’t have to. The teachings of Jesus make it clear that giving is to be done from the heart. Our tithe is not to be institutionalized by the government.

I wish my liberal friends would hear this: the question is not about should we or should we not care for the poor. We have a mandate to do this in our faith. The question is about what role should (notice, “should,” not “does”) government play in our lives. The purpose of the experiment of the United States of America was formulated beautifully by Thomas Jefferson: “whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” It is fundamental to the American way of life that we believe that we are capable of governing ourselves, of using our freedom responsibly. This includes the way that we freely choose to give to take care of the needs of the poor around us.

Government intrusion into our freedom to give charitably violates what we believe as Americans and what we believe as Christians. The charitable offering is supposed to be freely given. While you can demonstrate that socialism and Christianity have the principle of redistribution in common, you cannot use Christian teaching to justify a Socialist state. 

Christianity teaches that our care for the poor is done freely as a response to the love God has for us. VeggieTales actually expresses this in their story about St. Nicholas. The song that runs throughout the show and eventually inspires Nicholas to become generous goes, “I can love because God loves me. I can give because God gave.” We cannot use that to justify a governmental mandate to redistribute our wealth. That violates the very essence of the meaning of Christian charity. If the government forces us to give to the poor through taxation to fund the entitlement programs, we no longer do it out of love for God and our neighbor, but out fear of prison for tax evasion.

I’ll repeat what I said earlier: maybe if we all were a little more radical in our Christianity, then there would be no need for the government to provide for the poor.