Was Jesus Christ a Socialist?

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,538
55,221
Woods
✟4,587,384.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
All you who are thirsty,
come to the water!
You who have no money,
come, receive grain and eat;
Come, without paying and without cost,
drink wine and milk! (Is 55:1-3)

These words are not from the Communist Manifesto, yet they are often invoked to justify Christian socialism. While Christians are certainly no strangers to dreams of socialist utopias (see St. Thomas More’s Utopia), Communism’s destructive tendencies in the 20thCentury showed what many consider to be the logical consequences of a micromanaging super-state. While extreme capitalism and socialism have been condemned by several popes, both schools of thought have looked to the Bible to justify themselves. And though Christ was certainly no economist, He provided plenty of direction for how we ought to live. It is therefore imperative that we evaluate the impact that different economic systems will have on the Christian life.

The first step towards evaluating economic systems is understanding what God asks of us. Fairly quickly, we can deduce that we are not called to prosper, at least in the modern Western sense of prosperity. We know this because the bread that God offers us is not of this world. The Gospel Acclamation is quite clear in this:

One does not live on bread alone,
but on every word that comes forth from the mouth of God (Mt 4:4)

Furthermore, the pursuits of the Apostles and early martyrs were certainly not ones of material wealth. In fact, many of them lived in poor conditions and died in quite gruesome manners. This does not mean that we are all called to martyrdom, rather the ultimate reward we seek is no earthly one. But if entrance to the Kingdom of God cannot be bought by Earthly currency, then how is it procured?

Freedom is the state of being that enables all men and women to encounter the world authentically, meaning they accept the grand possibilities God has presented them with and discern how live out their best lives. Freedom’s cultivation requires liberty, or the ability to make decisions without hinderance from others. As I wrote last week, freedom and liberty are not interchangeable; in fact, they are often antithetical. A person who goes through life doing whatever they want simply because they can will likely enslave themselves to addictive behaviors. A truly free society is not a laissez-faire technocracy in which men come back from work with fingers chopped off due to the lack of regulations, but it is also not one in which the government micromanages how its citizens behave. One of the primary problems with socialism is that its centralization of economic institutions is often coupled with a centralization of its media, health care, religion, and most importantly education. Money is quite powerful, and those who control the circulation of money have power over what a civilization prioritizes, as well as which ideas live and die. Even if a socialist project begins with noble intentions, human nature has shown that the few with the power of the purse will become corrupted. The beauty of capitalism is that it distributes this authority into several smaller private and social entities, thus allowing for a diverse set of values to emerge from a marketplace of ideas, bringing forth fertile soil for authentic freedom to grow from.

There is a delicate balance between authoritarianism and unfettered liberty, neither of which positively contribute to the human condition. A prime example of this balance is the family, which governs but does not choke out its members. Interestingly, many prominent 20th Century socialists understood the family to be the greatest obstacle to their movements. The family’s emphasis on cultivating eternal virtue stands in stark contrast to socialists who begin with an economic agenda of superficial prosperity. Of course, proper virtue requires proper living conditions, and it is a government’s duty to provide its citizens with the tools to succeed. But the best way to promote authentic Christian cultivation of virtue is to divest a central government of its authority and return it to families and local communities. It is only through diverse familial tradition that we collectively discern the best paths to human freedom. Such an effort is only stifled by socialism, which risks monopolizing worldviews like a modern Tower of Babel. Christ may not have explicitly campaigned against socialism, but no good Christian should warp His words into endorsing a socialist message.

Was Jesus Christ a Socialist?
 

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I love how socialists try to hang on that one passage in Acts where it talks about early Christians having everything in common. There's so much nuance to that; at most it's distributism but it's certainly not socialism or any other Marxist idea. There are far more examples in scripture of Christ and the Apostles instructing people to work and pull their weight or be faced with consequences.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RushMAN
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
We know that our lady spoke out at Fatima to break the descent of Portugal into autocratic socialism, and speak out against communism of a Russia spreading errors round the world, that had yet to ascend, before falling at the consecration.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: RushMAN
Upvote 0

Rugged Cross

Active Member
Jun 18, 2020
137
180
66
Orkney Islands
✟13,678.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK - SNP
Forgetting what the earthly dictionary explanation of socialism and instead do what Our Lord told us to do - feed the hungry, cloth the naked, love the unloved putting others before self, then I would say Our Lord and those that follow Him and is commandments are socialists - Heavenly Socialists.
 
Upvote 0

Romans 13:3

Newbie
Jun 6, 2007
1,927
557
This side of heaven
✟112,649.00
Faith
Catholic
It always seems dangerous to me when people try to apply today's ideas to 2000 years ago. The modern idea of capitol was not really yet invented and zero sum gain was the way of the world. I cannot think of time where our Lord ever renounced property ownership, but rather he spoke against immoral acquisition of it and the needs of those with the ability to give to the poor and needy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Certainly not in the meaning of present day socialists!

He lived in a land of small business where all were rewarded by their efforts. Fishermen. Carpenters. Lawyers. Builders. Farmers. Clothiers. Merchants.
You didn’t work, you didn’t eat.


Nowhere do I recollect does he espouse common Ownership, which is the start of Marxist failed ideology that has beggared half the planet. indeed Russia was condemned at Fatima. Socialist states are a litany of failures, because creating the wealth to pay for society is always someone else’s job: the socialist expects to be fed. Rights. Never responsibilities.

Indeed the ability to feed the hungry presumes you create the wealth to be able to do that.

for sure He attacks wealth for its own sake, profiteering, coveting wealth, but not enterprise as a force for good.

Present day socialists are only ever generous with other people’s money, Not their own, indeed the “ public sector” such as we have in the U.K. , are rabidly socialist whilst screwin everybody else with excessive salaries, retiring early, with pensions nobody else can buy.. Covid has highlighted the difference: public sector furlough on full pay, whilst the rest are going to the wall. Teachers sit at home not teach. Doctor GPs. Don’t do surgeries. Hospitals are empty. Socialists are the most selfish of all.

In the UK the socialists were vociferous in demanding payment for endless good causes, but never with their own money, It is left to capitalists to fund it.

Exactly. In antiquity it was more common for the wealthy to have acquired their wealth by sinful means: they stole from others, possibly killing in the process, etc. A system wasn't in place like in modern western civilization where a person has a reasonable chance of success and is afforded the opportunity to achieve it.
 
Upvote 0