"Christian Socialism" for our American Way ??

[Pavel Mosko]

So, which part of Hart's view in his article do you most not agree with? I mean, it might help if you make a few comments about what Hart says rather than just saying that you don't appreciate him making a plug for Christian Socialism.

I think things miss the point in that what we call "Socialism" in the New Testament it's a kind of side affect of things, and not thee thing. The people in thee first church of Jerusalem knew that city was doomed (Jesus prophecies against the city), and that was kind of part of the key why everybody was of "One Accord", besides all the atmosphere left over from Jesus preaching that did help to promote a kind of family environment with his original followers.

But the good news is for people that really have nostalgia for this sort of thing, we could be going back to times of social upheaval where this sort of thing comes back in vogue. I think that is quite likely.

Actually I did a video Blog yesterday on that Polish Canadian Pastor Artur Pawloski posted on my Blog here. But if you look at what he has been trying to do since the early 2000s it is reminiscent of the book of Acts, including getting arrested by the authorities. But his congregation is very generous with both feeding and evangelizing the poor in Calgary. He basically is reinventing street preaching because all the laws passed by the local cities and provinces have put a damper on ministry outside the walls of the church and home (Where even the Salvation Army that started this ministry in modern times doesn't do it in Canada).

 

[Not David]

I'm quoting him because he makes a case for "Christian Socialism." Do you know of another Christian whom you consider to be a saint that also makes a case for "Christian Socialism"?

Not a good case for socialism then.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thanks for the ramble. It was an interesting read. All I have to say is...what is intended for evil God can use for the Good. All I feel I can do at this point is pray. I have really been considering the Catholic Church, or Orthodox. But, it's just so hard with everything that is going on.

With everything going on you find a place to pray. That's good enough. One can pray anywhere but maybe consider an adoration chapel. Many of the best Catholic parishes have them, some of them open 24/7. In Covid times maybe a bit less.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not a good case for socialism then.

Ok. So, I see that you don't have an opinion on the article by Hart then?

 

[chevyontheriver]

What has gone on in public schools for many years now was a big red flag that we as Christians just didn't do anything much about. We had a lot more leverage to stop what has come if we would have done it. Now with socialism we are taking it all the way

The public school issue has old anti-Catholic roots. The idea was to stop the any public funding of Catholic schools while allowing Protestant schools to become public funded schools. It was blatant in the 1800's and early 1900's. Consider the Blaine Amendments for example. But what it did was to apply strings to these publicly funded schools so that eventually they became totally secularized. They are now not just anti-Catholic but anti-Christian for the most part. There are good teachers who are not so, but then I see a lot of teachers quitting in the face of wokedom.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think things miss the point in that what we call "Socialism" in the New Testament it's a kind of side affect of things, and not thee thing. The people in thee first church of Jerusalem knew that city was doomed (Jesus prophecies against the city), and that was kind of part of the key why everybody was of "One Accord", besides all the atmosphere left over from Jesus preaching that did help to promote a kind of family environment with his original followers.

I think you're right to cite that the social set-up exhibited in the New Testament isn't one reflecting a modern socialist ideology, and if we then try to force-fit socialism anachronistically onto the face of what Christ delivered to His Church in the 1st century, the resulting promotion of even a "Christianized Socialism" comes across as rather an odd one.

In the article, and as @chevyontheriver and @public hermit have alluded to each in their own way, it also seems to me Hart presents a merely polemical assessment of modern American capitalism. Some of his points may actually be correct and relevant, but much of what he says comes across as wishful political thinking that can't obtain in a fallen world.

In the case of what Hart avers for within the confines of current U.S. politics and economic structures, we'd likely nearly need to wipe clean the entire governmental, constitution ideology which we now have, however bourgeois it may seem. For some folks, they might say, "Sure, fire it up!," but I think that approach at the reformation of social and economic structure, one that is meant to be efficacious on a superlative level, is highly unrealistic (and dangerous for everyone, not to mention all too easily falling to un-Christian outcomes).

No, I think I agree with you Pavel in that we as Christians can't merely aver for a "Christianized Socialism"---especially one that could all too easily smack of the same authoritarian potential that our more Rightist Christian brethren do which some of them push through their adherance to Theonomy/Dominionist type Theology. If anything, we as Christians need to finally do what we've always failed to do in the U.S. even since our pre-Constitutional beginnings in our original [~13] colonies. As you said, we need to reach a renewed sense of being in "One Accord" and begin realizing our theological communitarianism which we've had all along and through which we have to work to meet the actual needs of our local communities, and we need to all do this beginning with our own families.

But the good news is for people that really have nostalgia for this sort of thing, we could be going back to times of social upheaval where this sort of thing comes back in vogue. I think that is quite likely.

Actually I did a video Blog yesterday on that Polish Canadian Pastor Artur Pawloski posted on my Blog here. But if you look at what he has been trying to do since the early 2000s it is reminiscent of the book of Acts, including getting arrested by the authorities. But his congregation is very generous with both feeding and evangelizing the poor in Calgary. He basically is reinventing street preaching because all the laws passed by the local cities and provinces have put a damper on ministry outside the walls of the church and home (Where even the Salvation Army that started this ministry in modern times doesn't do it in Canada).

Those are also good points, Pavel. Thanks for the video, too!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A resounding 2 thumbs down and maybe some raised fingers ....
Socialism is not the utopia that plays in the dreamers mind....it's real life destruction of a society.

It hasn't worked since the pilgrims time (which is why they changed to "in essence" capitalism) it isn't working today (ask anyone who has immigrated from a socialist country) and it will not work for so many reasons.
The only way socialism could come close to working is.... if you could totally remove evil, power apathy, greed, laziness, control... etc ...then you may have a chance. Unfortunately, you probably have to remove ambition and incentives...as those lead to competition, which could cause strife and resentment.

The mindset of the blind, think that socialism has not been done the right way and that is why it hasn't worked ....I believe that is referred to as insanity.

As I see it .....the only way to make socialism work is through A.I. By taking all the human elements out of the equation the AOC's of the world can have their utopian society.

Good points... but do you really think socialism could be made to work through A.I.? Maybe it could in some way, but that definitely sounds fraught with additional social risks ... and I'm not sure how it could be then "Christianized" in any way which even Hart would recognize and advocate. Unless he knows something I don't ..

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My ideas of socialism is very different and most likely unacceptable to most Christians, but it shouldn't. I don't think it would be able to be implemented today.
If men could have as many wives as they could support, the wealthier a man was the more children he would have. These children would of course of course make up a part of the society and his wealth would be distributed to them. Men which were of lesser wealth would have less wives. the basic idea would be the ability to take proper responsibiliy to your spouse and children. How different would society be if the vast majority of fathers provided well for their children, were responsible fathers. Responsible people would be the ones creating the vast majority of it's citizenship no matter the income level. The desire to gain wealth would no longer be just sheer greed and excess. One man has 1000, dollars, Another ten thousand. If the wealthier one has three wives, and five kids. He would have no more money per sey than the man that has ten times less, with one wife and two kids. He has two additional wives, a much bigger house to pay for, he has no more left over to over indulge his children or himself than the guy who has ten times less.
It was done in ancient times in the bible by holy men of God.
Genealogical socialism

Y'know, I've never come across this idea as yet, so it's definitely a new one for me (as well as a surprising one for me to find being offered in today's social climate). It kind of sounds good...........but, let me run it by the wife and I'll get back with you on it.

Ralliann, to what extent do you think Christian women (or even most women, whether they're Christian or not) would be 'ok' with this arrangement?

 

[ralliann]

Y'know, I've never come across this idea as yet, so it's definitely a new one for me (as well as a surprising one for me to find being offered in today's social climate). It kind of sounds good...........but, let me run it by the wife and I'll get back with you on it.

Ralliann, to what extent do you think Christian women (or even most women, whether they're Christian or not) would be 'ok' with this arrangement?

LOL, that is why I don't believe it would ever be implemented here. Nor in any western societies. Multiple wives is a no no despite many holy men had them. And Moses law gave regulations for it. And if I may say, so did the early apostolic Church.... the foundational principal of marrying was based upon ones ability to "provide" for a household. Right from the get go. Unable to "provide", you are not ready to marry. 1st wife, and or only one wife, this first responsibility was the foundation.

The scriptures say this of desiring to be an overseer/bishop of the Church

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; {of good … : or, modest }
I have bolded the above because modesty applies to a moderate way of living in all it's aspects. In order for a man to attain a wife, he needs to have financial resources to do so blamelessly.
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
The need is not to be denied. But!!!
These positions/offices within the Church are to be financed by those whom they minster unto, the Church.
What this basically is...one being in an office of ministry should not burden the church beyond what is modest,, or meets his basic needs.

No matter what men may desire: large homes, lavish foods etc. the church is not to be burdened by those things. They should not be living lavishly off the church.
I used to say in my younger years concerning this....Don't want to have a rival? Marry someone who more than likely won't be able to afford it. The vast majority of Israelites were just such men. One wife. But a man who is driven to more, can at least have a better incentive for gaining wealth than men do today in our society. They seek power over other people, live to excess, and drunk on their wealth, greedy. When all that could be happening is, he simply provides for more women and children. It is beyond our way of acceptance for sure.
God hates divorce, and fornication, a sin. Wow that is certainly acceptable to us isn't it ? Children born out of wedlock not even knowing who their dad is. Men fathering children with mutiple women, women doing the same. Providing no provision at all sometimes, or even often times.
Blended families are the norm. People having multiple spouses, just not at the same time. And we come to all the debate on this thread, providing for people. People who are mothers, fathers, and of course children of somebody! But the household was never built..
What is the saying? It takes a village. We think about socialism as a means that the village can provide.

 

[ralliann]

Having seen polygamy in person, I'll pass.

Biblical polygamy? I don't know of biblical polygamy as historically practiced among Jews. Islam isnt it. And mormonism certainly is not either.
Go to our poor intercities, and see young girls having kids by multiple fathers never even marrying. The fathers of those kids having kids with multiple women likewise. It is a way of life for them. Prefer that? What's the divorce rate? Pretty high. All the divorced and remarried have multiple spouses, just not at the same time.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Biblical polygamy? I don't know of biblical polygamy as historically practiced among Jews. Islam isnt it. And mormonism certainly is not either.
Go to our poor intercities, and see young girls having kids by multiple fathers never even marrying. The fathers of those kids having kids with multiple women likewise. It is a way of life for them. Prefer that? What's the divorce rate? Pretty high. All the divorced and remarried have multiple spouses, just not at the same time.

The polygamy I encountered was Islamic. It seemed to ‘work’ but it seemed like such a low pass.

I have no idea what Biblical polygamy would be in contrast to any other kind of ancient or modern polygamy.

And yes there is serial polygamy, probably the worst kind. Children don’t know who their fathers are, and many of those children are not wanted. At least in Islam children are wanted. And they know who their parents are. Serial polygamy is a hot mess that will be an enduring problem.

 

[ralliann]

The polygamy I encountered was Islamic. It seemed to ‘work’ but it seemed like such a low pass.

I have no idea what Biblical polygamy would be in contrast to any other kind of ancient or modern polygamy.

And yes there is serial polygamy, probably the worst kind. Children don’t know who their fathers are, and many of those children are not wanted. At least in Islam children are wanted. And they know who their parents are. Serial polygamy is a hot mess that will be an enduring problem.

I don't know what serial polygamy is? Polygamy could look like anything the law made it look like. Just off the top of my head , If I had any say, The laws regarding taking more than one wife would be so expensive that many many men would not be able to afford it. I would ensure that things were in place so that any and all children and women were completely provided for into adult hood. Dwellings for each adult, paid off completley, college paid for, and an inheritance amount to do them well, to start out their adult lives,etc. Ensuring that all members of the household were absolutely secure. As for the inhertance inheritance? All this would be in place before any such nuptuals were legal, money in the bank and secured. That all on top of a continuous income to support them all on a regular ongoing basis a reasonable lifestyle.
As for the inheritance?
The firstborn children would inherit a double portion, as these are the ones that would be securing the care of their mothers until death, which inhertance includes his/her fathers physical estate (dwellings etc.) Gotta take care of mom!
How many men reading this could afford that? The children and the women would have far more security than monogamy ever provided. And polygamy would be rare, not the norm.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don't know what serial polygamy is?

Serial polygamy is just one after another after another. As you described happens in poor areas. Just not at the same time. It can be marriage and divorce and marriage again and again. Or some form of relationship. Or a whole bunch of hookups.

 

[ralliann]

Serial polygamy is just one after another after another. As you described happens in poor areas. Just not at the same time. It can be marriage and divorce and marriage again and again. Or some form of relationship. Or a whole bunch of hookups.

Well sad to say in some areas right here in the usa, it is something like that only marriage isn't even bothered with. It is a shame. Liz Taylor as well, seven marriages in her lifetime.

 

[ralliann]

Serial polygamy is just one after another after another. As you described happens in poor areas. Just not at the same time. It can be marriage and divorce and marriage again and again. Or some form of relationship. Or a whole bunch of hookups.

Contracts for marriage were a part of Jewish law among Israelites. It did not matter one wife or more. Legal obligations were written therein. I believe these were hung on the walls of the home. Similar to a business prominently displaying their business license
copy and pasted below

See all images
"Ketubah
A Ketubah is a Jewish marriage contract. It is considered an integral part of a traditional Jewish marriage, and outlines the rights and responsibilities of the groom, in relation to the bride. In modern practice, the ketubah has no agreed monetary value, and is seldom enforced by civil courts, except in Israel."

I bolded "Modern practice" above as it is no longer monetary, but it certainly was. the women or her father had to agree on the terms, therefore they basically dictated what this ketubah would say. Civil governments outside of Israel do not acknowledge them as legally binding. But in Israel they are. This is the thing I was talking about among the Jew's. They no longer practice polygamy, as Christianity took a dim view of it and made it hard to enforce laws concerning it. But these contracts show how serious it was to take a wife, and have children.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Contracts for marriage were a part of Jewish law among Israelites. It did not matter one wife or more. Legal obligations were written therein. I believe these were hung on the walls of the home. Similar to a business prominently displaying their business license
copy and pasted below

See all images
"Ketubah
A Ketubah is a Jewish marriage contract. It is considered an integral part of a traditional Jewish marriage, and outlines the rights and responsibilities of the groom, in relation to the bride. In modern practice, the ketubah has no agreed monetary value, and is seldom enforced by civil courts, except in Israel."

I bolded "Modern practice" above as it is no longer monetary, but it certainly was. the women or her father had to agree on the terms, therefore they basically dictated what this ketubah would say. Civil governments outside of Israel do not acknowledge them as legally binding. But in Israel they are. This is the thing I was talking about among the Jew's. They no longer practice polygamy, as Christianity took a dim view of it and made it hard to enforce laws concerning it. But these contracts show how serious it was to take a wife, and have children.

Still, I'll pass. As old Pa Malang, the Bambera tribe owner of the compound I stayed at said 'one wife is plenty'.

 

[ralliann]

Still, I'll pass. As old Pa Malang, the Bambera tribe owner of the compound I stayed at said 'one wife is plenty'.

LOL, is your last name Gates? Ha Ha. I really don't think it appeals to most men.

 

[chevyontheriver]

LOL, is your last name Gates?

No.

Huh?

I really don't think it appeals to most men.

I don't think it appealed to too many women either. Not that they had much ability to avoid arranged marriages.

 

[ralliann]

No.

Huh?

It was joke. Bill Gates he's filthy rich. Or jeff bezoz, trump,etc you know the rich guys.

I don't think it appealed to too many women either. Not that they had much ability to avoid arranged marriages.

I think that depended on their fathers. I think some of them took their daughters wishes into consideration.
Isaac's servant in wanting to take Rebekah for Isaac to marry, had to ask her first.
Gen. 24:56 And he said unto them, Hinder me not, seeing the LORD hath prospered my way; send me away that I may go to my master.
57 And they said, We will call the damsel, and enquire at her mouth.
58 And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.

 

[Matt5]

Where political philosophy among Christians in America is concerned, we might ask ourselves whether or not a firm subscription to Socialism would be a better way to go than sticking with a continued adherence to a modern, individualist capitalism, one seemingly plagued by a constant allowance for the presence of economic and social fissures through which many U.S. citizens fall into economic and emotional ruin. Would it be better?

As a more trans-centralist and Purplish type of evaluator of American politics, I can honestly say I don't know, but Christian David Bentley Hart seems to intuit strongly--maybe even with a sense of 'knowing'--that firm advocacy for socialism would be the better social and economic route for Americans, especially Christian Americans, to make as we head into the future ...

Do you agree with Hart when he gives "Three Cheers for Socialism"... ?? [see his article below]

Three Cheers for Socialism | Commonweal Magazine

Socialism is like putting out all the fires in a forest. That works for a long time then everything burns down to the ground. It turns out that societies actually do work a lot like forests - the future is heavily dependent on the past.

How do you keep a forest from burning down to the ground? Regular controlled burns at a set interval. Where do we see that in the Bible? That's the Shemitah and Jubilee.

What is the natural order of wealth in a society? Wealth follows the 80-20 rule: 20% of the people will own 80% of the wealth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Socialism is like putting out all the fires in a forest. That works for a long time then everything burns down to the ground. It turns out that societies actually do work a lot like forests - the future is heavily dependent on the past.

How do you keep a forest from burning down to the ground? Regular controlled burns at a set interval. Where do we see that in the Bible? That's the Shemitah and Jubilee.

What is the natural order of wealth in a society? Wealth follows the 80-20 rule: 20% of the people will own 80% of the wealth.

The Pareto Principle is an interesting concept, for sure, but what do you think Hart would say (based on what you find in his article in the OP)?