Detail from Image (c) Igor Golovniov and Depositphotos.com
Some of you may not know what the word oxymoron means, so let
me start with that.
Dictionary.com gives this definition of an oxymoron:
A figure of speech by which a locution
produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness”
or “to make haste slowly.”
I will also offer my own definition
of Christian here:
A Christian is someone who believes
that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah, the Only Begotten Son of God
after the flesh, and who is attempting to follow the teachings of Christ as they
are found in the scriptures.
Dictionary.com, when using Christian
as a noun (as I am here), says that a Christian is:
A person who believes in Jesus Christ;
adherent of Christianity. A person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings
of Christ
When most of us think of the term Christian, we think of someone who cares about the plight of their fellowman. The story of The Good Samaritan comes quickly to mind. Many people get so immersed in the notion that all Christianity is about doing good to others. Because of that, they assume that anything that says it is doing good to others is automatically aligned with Christian principles and that anyone who purports to be a "good Christian" will be on board.
Socialism presents a wonderful face of being about helping the downtrodden. Because of that, many Christians think Socialism is aligned with Christian ideals. The truth is that Socialism is actually at a polar opposite position of goodness from Christianity.
You don't think so? Read on, if you dare. Facts, as they say, are stubborn things. The facts do not at all support the notion of the goodness of Socialism, in any way.
We should define socialism. Again, Dictionary.com is helpful:
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.
George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian
Socialist, said that:
"Socialism, reduced to its simplest
legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution
of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of
the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population."
(George Bernard Shaw as cited in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946
ed., Vol. 20, p. 895.)
In short, socialism drives toward the
ultimate end of private ownership of anything and everything. In practice, it is characterized by using the
coercive powers of government to take resources from those who are producing them
and redistribute those resources to those who merely consume them. This coercive redistribution is called taxes. It is coercive because, if you don't pay your
taxes, the government can take your money, your business, your home, and even your
freedom.
Don't get me wrong—this isn't an anti-taxation
rant, nor am I advocating that we shouldn’t pay our taxes. I am simply making the point unmistakably clear
that taxation is not a voluntary program. It is the use of force, or threat of force to take what one person owns and give it to someone else. Interestingly, that coincides with the definition of robbery:
"The felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation."
The only difference between taxation and robbery is that taxation is the legalized "taking of the property of another ... by violence or intimidation." You don't think so? What do you feel when you open your mail and find out that the IRS is auditing you? I am guessing you feel some fear and intimidation.
Now that we understand the meaning of
the words in my title, we can fully understand what I mean to say by stating that
"Christian Socialist Is an Oxymoron."
I am saying that you cannot genuinely and totally believe
in Jesus Christ AND try to follow his teachings AND embrace the political and economic
tenets of socialism.
Please note, I am being very exact in
my words here. When I say you "totally
believe in Jesus Christ," it means that you don't pick and choose what to believe
from among the things he teaches. You either
believe everything he said, or you believe none of it, because either he was the
son of God, or he was a liar.
I believe totally in Jesus Christ, AND
I do my best to follow his teachings. I am
nowhere near perfect in this effort, as those closest to me can attest, but I am
trying.
I know that there are many folks who
will disagree with my bold statement that socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable
foes, but it is true.
First, let me give you some of the ammunition
that those who disagree will use. Then, I
will show you how they are really firing blanks.
The New Testament and Socialism
In the New
Testament, the second chapter of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles
appears to describe how the adherents of early Christianity were embracing a form
of socialism.
"And all that believed were together,
and had all things common; And sold their possessions
and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had
need."
Acts 2:44,45
And again in Chapter 4, we read:
"And the multitude of them that believed
were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them
that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things
common.
Neither was there
any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold
them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made
unto every man according as he had need."
Acts 4:32-35
And from the Book
of Mormon, we get this about the Christians who were living in ancient
America. After the resurrected Jesus appeared
to them, let them feel the wounds in his hands and feet, and taught them, it appears
that they embraced socialism:
"And they taught, and did minister one
to another; and they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly,
one with another.
And it came to pass that they did do
all things even as Jesus had commanded them."
3 Nephi 26:19,20
And this:
"And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the
people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites
and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every
man did deal justly one with another.
And they had all things common among them; therefore
there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers
of the heavenly gift."
4 Nephi 1:2,3
In our own
times, sometime in 1838 (note that the Communist Manifesto was written in 1848), Joseph Smith, Jr., the first president
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, introduced to the Saints something
called "The United Order."
For brevity, I will summarize here what
happened in The United Order. Members of
the church who desired to enter this order handed over all their worldly goods to
their bishop (their religious leader). The
bishop then put these into a “storehouse” to be used by the Saints. Then, the bishop gave to each member in the order
from the storehouse according to his or her needs and abilities. To be clear, he deeded these things back to them
for their use. Then, they were expected to
pay a tithe (10 percent) on the gains they made from what he deeded to them.
According to LDS teachings, this United
Order is what was being referred to in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. I accept that, and will address this as fact. I will, from this point forward, refer to the
United Order as what Christians practiced in this context.
From all of this, it appears that all
devout Christians should be signing away their worldly goods to their church and
then living off of what the church gives back to them. Proponents of socialism use these evidences to
support their stance that Christ was saying we should give up private ownership
and give to the poor so that we will have "no poor among [us]."
Before we buy in to this view, let's
look a little deeper at the differences between socialism and the United Order. Let's start by looking at what happened to one
specific man and his wife when they sought to join the United Order while keeping
back some of their property for their own discretionary use.
Acts Chapter 5 tells us the cautionary
story of Ananias and his wife Saphira.
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold
a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to
lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of
the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own
power? Why hast thou conceived this thing
in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men,
but unto God.
And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost:
and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
And it was
about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done,
came in.
And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land
for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together
to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold,
the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and
shall carry thee out.
Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the
ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
Acts Chapter 5:1-10
The key point I want to make from this
is not about how dangerous it is to lie to God. Rather, I want to emphasize what Peter said, "Whiles
it remained, was it not thine own? And after
it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" The rights of this couple to have private property
were not looked down on by Peter; they were affirmed by him, and, their entry into
the United Order was voluntary. No one was
being forced to sell their goods and join the Order.
So, the first essential difference between
Christianity and socialism is that Christianity is entirely voluntary. And, within the broad ground of Christian practice,
providing assistance to the poor is considered a Christian duty, but the fulfillment
of that duty, as every Christian knows, is between the individual and God, and the
accounting comes at the Final Judgment.
In contrast, socialism is a compulsory
system from start to finish. Socialism uses
the gun to ensure that everyone within their reach gives up their private property,
whether they embrace socialism or not. Further,
their objective is not to eliminate poverty, but to destroy prosperity.
Now, some of my good Christian LDS friends, and
even some family, mistakenly believe that socialism and the United Order are the
same girl, just wearing a more chaste dress.
For them, and everyone else, I offer this link to a talk that was given in
a General Conference of the Church, at the express request of the First Presidency
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The talk is titled, "Socialism and the United Order
Compared." The talk was given in
April 1966 by Marion G. Romney, who was, at that time, a member of the Quorum of
the Twelve Apostles.
Allow me to quote a couple of key passages
here:
"No,
brethren, socialism is not the United Order. However, notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I
am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future.
It has already taken over or is contending
for control in most nations.
We here in the United
States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves
adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have, to an alarming degree, adopted
the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits
of industry. We are on notice, according
to the words of the president, that we are going much further, for he is quoted
as saying:
We're going to take all the money
we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the 'haves' and give it to
the 'have nots.' (1964 Congressional Record, p. 6142, Remarks of the
President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish
Room, March 24, 1964.)
Socialism takes; the United Order gives.
That is the spirit of socialism: We're
going to take. The spirit of the United
Order is: We're going to give."
The President of the United States (POTUS)
that Romney was quoting was Lyndon Baines Johnson, the man who initiated "the
war on poverty," and it was the means for waging this war that he was referring
to in this quote.
Please note that President Johnson is
saying that un-elected U.S. Government bureaucrats will decide how much money we
need by deeming part of our spending unnecessary. They will then "take" and "give"
according to their judgment, and whatever policies their superiors have put in place
dictate that judgment.
To put this in perspective, consider
the money you need to go visit your ailing parent, child, sibling, or friend. A government worker can say, "That trip is
unnecessary. Your child/parent/sibling/friend
will live or die regardless of your visit.
I am taking the money you saved for that
trip away from you. I will take a
portion of the money to pay for my time, and then, I will give the
remainder to someone who believes that they deserve this money more than you."
Words Matter
Now, there are some who will say that
this is just semantics, or that we are arguing over tomato or tomatoe. That is a glib lie, and I will illustrate the
lie very easily.
Picture this: You see a man taking money
out of his wallet and handing it over to a homeless person.
That seems like a lovely picture; doesn't
it? It warms the heart.
Now, let's complete the picture. There is another man in the picture, who is pointing
a gun at the first man.
What's the difference? Tomato or tomatoe?
The first picture is what we call charity. It is a voluntary act of sacrifice by one party
to aid another. We call it being a good Christian,
giving back, and being charitable. We universally
consider it a virtue.
The second picture is what we call robbery. It is the forcible redistribution of property
and it is universally considered a crime, unless we give it the imprimatur of government
and call it taxes and welfare.
Some might argue that when Marion G.
Romney decried the differences between the United Order and socialism, he was going
astray from the intentions of Joseph Smith, who was the source of the original revelation
on that program. Let's see what Brother Joseph
had to say about property rights. In 1835,
he stated:
"We believe that governments were instituted of God for
the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation
to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of
society.
We believe that no government can exist in peace, except
such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free
exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of
life."
Doctrine
and Covenants, Section 134:1-2
So, Joseph Smith asserted that the right
and control of property ranks right up there with protecting freedom of conscience
and protection of life as primary duties of governments to their constituents.
How is as Important as What
Some will read this and still wave their
hands in dismissal and say, "The end of the matter is to help the poor as Jesus
said we should. What does it matter if
we do it through governmental or private means, as long as the end objective is
met?"
This line of reasoning is that the end
will justify the means—a premise espoused by Ovid and imitated by Nicolo Machiavelli.
While the world may buy in to this reasoning,
Christians should know better. You cannot
simply make the world be filled with righteous people by killing all the folks you
think are sinners. That is what led to the
Spanish Inquisition, a notorious chapter in the history of churches. It has also led to numerous wars that were initiated
with the public objective of ridding the world of the unbelievers. Even Islam—probably the most successful at spreading
religion by force—has suffered the ill effects of using bad means while attempting
to gain good ends.
When the armies of Islam swept across
North Africa and eastward across Persia and into India, the story was always the
same in every conquered town. "People
of the Book"—Christians and Jews, or infidels—were separated from everyone
else, who were labeled Pagans.
The Pagans were given the choice: accept
Allah as god and Muhammad as his prophet, or be killed on the spot. Those with the courage of their convictions were
killed. Everyone else joined up, whether
or not they actually believed. The result
was a Caliphate that was filled with Muslims who believed whatever they wanted and
did whatever they wanted, as long as they manifested the outward signs of belief.
Of course the infidels were given a
choice, too. They could accept Allah and
Mohammed, or they could be forced to pay for the privilege of remaining alive, every
single year.
Forced conversion, whether it be Islam,
Christianity, or any other religion, does not produce converts. It ends up with a church or religion that is torn
apart by sects and division as members go their own ways based on their own ideas
of what being a good member means. In Islam,
we see this today in the violence between Sunni and Shi'a. In Christianity it was seen most clearly in Northern
Ireland, where Protestants were pitted against Catholics.
The ultimate purpose of religions is
to get us to believe and behave in a moral manner because we believe it is in our
own long-term (eternal) best interests. When
anyone attempts to enforce moral beliefs on others, the force destroys the morality. When government, and the coercive power of taxation,
are used to achieve moral ends, morality is destroyed—not enshrined—because belief
and willing action are both irrelevant and rendered null.
Belief and willing action are the heart
and soul of true religion. They are the heart
and soul of what Jesus Christ and his Apostles teach.
Not only is socialism at odds with Christianity;
it is at odds with every religion that embraces the notion that each individual
must freely choose to accept or reject God on the grounds established by that religion.
Conclusions
If we apply Socialism to the parable of The Good Samaritan, the Good Samaritan would have either robbed other travelers or tried to get a tax collector to give him the money to take care of the poor guy he found beaten beside the road. That is about as far from what Christ was teaching as you can get.
Christians have a moral obligation to help the
poor and needy. Forcing people to give to the poor and
needy is immoral and results in very bad ends instead of the good ends that are
being sought.
Government as the means of administering
charity is the same thing as trying to force people to do something good. It is both inefficient and evil. It will have very bad outcomes for everyone involved.
Because the use of force to get people
to believe and behave in a moral manner is in total conflict with the teachings
of Jesus Christ, no one can legitimately call themselves a Christian and say they
support socialism.
Food for thought!
See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard
Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).
The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.
(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Your comments are welcome. Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
Godvernment: Government as GodClick on the image below to buy your copy today
Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.
