Is Christianity a Socialistic structure?

[Albion]

The Bible supports that some early Christian communities functioned in a socialistic way.

First, they were not "socialistic." Agreeing to share one's goods with other people of your choosing is not Socialism.

Second, there were indeed such societies or communities as I think you have in mind. Primitive monasteries, for instance. But these came later in the history of Christianity. When it is said that the verse in the New Testament about the believers having their things in common, that does not refer to such societies.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Fits the definition of socialism pretty well. What would you label it?

 

[straykat]

Giving out of love and giving out of coercion and at gunpoint are two completely different things.

 

[Albion]

Fits the definition of socialism pretty well. What would you label it?

It's not socialism, that's all. It looks sorta like one element in socialism, although in theory only. But the differences are many.

You ask what label I would put on it. I'd call it communal or something like that, if the reference is to a monastic set-up, but as I also noted, the verse in the NT that says the early believers held their possessions in common wasn't referring to a communal situation like a monastery anyway.

These early Christians shared, but did so entirely on a voluntary basis, and they were doing that in response to a spiritual--not an economic--set of values.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Socialism need not be externally imposed. It's a different sort of economic system which doesn't necessarily make it bad. Nor is capitalism inherently good.

 

[straykat]

Socialism need not be externally imposed. It's a different sort of economic system which doesn't necessarily make it bad. Nor is capitalism inherently good.

If it's not externally imposed, then it's just good natured generosity (and not much of a system at all). nuch like the way things the Church envisioned. No need to define it through a political lens or anything. It just is what it is: a more ideal, loving world.

 

[Albion]

Socialism need not be externally imposed. It's a different sort of economic system which doesn't necessarily make it bad.

IMO, it is inherently bad. But that isn't the point.

Socialism is a system that has a number of components and characteristics, that operates in a certain way, and more. If whatever is being compared to it happens to share one or maybe two of them, it isn't therefore "socialist" or "socialistic." Not anymore than Moslems are some kind of reformed Christians because they accept the Old Testament along with Christians and believe in one god.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Perhaps you should offer your definition of socialism.

 

[tulc]

(snip)
When it is said that the verse in the New Testament about the believers having their things in common, that does not refer to such societies.

You keep saying that, but you don't seem to offer any other proof then "I don't think it's true!" do you have some specific information to support your claim other then "Having their things in common definitely doesn't mean a commune."?
tulc(is just curious)

 

[RDKirk]

Nowhere in the New Testament is it taught that a government or central authority is to take money and possessions from the congregation in order to do good works. Rather, people are to freely give from their own assets out of love - both to the church, and to their neighbors as the need to do so arises. That's not socialism. That's freely sharing private property, under the Non-Aggression Principle. Christian love is the best form of that principle.

I don't think the sharing was really all that "free."

If one working member of the Body has a resource needed by another working member of the Body, there is an explicit responsibility to make that resource available.

 

[RDKirk]

First, they were not "socialistic." Agreeing to share one's goods with other people of your choosing is not Socialism.

If that's another working member of the Body who has a need for that resource, there is no choice.

What you have is not yours to choose to give or not give. All you have is the property of the Master; ou are merely a steward of His property. If you don't make that resource available to that other working member who needs it, you are in the wrong.

The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Christianity is liberalism. What the liberals do is what Jesus would do.

 

[Palmfever]

No way. Absolutely not. People who say that simply do not understand what Socialism is.

True. Christianity is like a theocracy, with just one "Benevolent Dictator". Which is not really a great description since God gives people autonomy and the freedom to choose whether or not to be subject to His rule. How would we describe faith in the grace of God through His Son?

 

[Palmfever]

If that's another working member of the Body who has a need for that resource, there is no choice.

What you have is not yours to choose to give or not give. All you have is the property of the Master; ou are merely a steward of His property. If you don't make that resource available to that other working member who needs it, you are in the wrong.

The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

True, 1st John, 4:7- 8, Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

 

[Palmfever]

I guess it really gets down to: do you see the Church as something that's supposed to "make rules for the World." or to be an example? I'm not a big "Christianity" kind of person. I'm more of a "Christians need to help others as much as they can." kind.
tulc(just a thought)

No Christians are not to make rules for the world, they are to be "A city on the hill, a light unto the world. God made the rules. Yes, it is as a man determines in his own heart, not grudgingly.

 

[Palmfever]

Christianity is liberalism. What the liberals do is what Jesus would do.

God offers his grace liberally, other than that unfortunately "Liberal" has come to have bad connotations for many. It is certainly not what we see in our political system. That in my opinion is self aggrandizing prevaricators of b.s.

 

[Palmfever]

Yes. Here is the scriptural support for communal lives:

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45)​

Limited. Not enough to presume it is a hard and fast rule. They were not to put a widow on church help unless she fulfilled some pretty stringent requirements. I believe it to be individual choices, in Love.

 

[Palmfever]

It depends on what you mean by socialism, but in general I would say that there is scriptural support for the idea that the early Christians lived communal lives. The crucial point is that the community--the mystical body of Christ--was an ontological reality entered into by baptism, not primarily a social, economic, or governmental reality. Of course insofar as Christians form the one body of Christ they constitute a group that includes a communal, social reality, but Jesus was not a sociologist.

No Christ did not strictly teach socialism. He taught Love your neighbor. I merely inserted the concept because it seems many people would like something free, but you run out of other peoples money.

 

[Palmfever]

Politically talking Christianity is more of a Kingdom.

You could apply James 1:27 with lots of types of government.

Saul as first King was a kingdom. Not really God's first choice as a mode of government.

 

[Palmfever]

...then what are those "taxes" Jesus said we were supposed to pay?



Well...I might point out that Jesus said if you didn't help the people around you you'd get sent to hell. So, yeah it's good to do it because you want to, but just in case you don't, you have a pretty strong motivator right there in Matt. 25: 41-46
tulc(thinks Jesus was pretty clear that helping others wasn't a "maybe yes/maybe no" proposition for Christians)

James, 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.