Christian Socialism: Treating the Profane as Sacred?

Popular professions of support for socialism are common today but typically presume the continued existence of capitalism. Most self-proclaimed socialists are leftists who accept a market economy, only under greater government control. Rather than impose real socialism, they expect capitalism to continue to act as a golden goose when squeezed by the ruling political coalition, to which they aspire.

Even more confused are “Christian socialists.” The traditional model for many of them is the early Jerusalem church, where “All the believers were together and had everything in common.” (Acts 2:44) Moreover, “No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.” (Acts 4:32)

Of course, this had nothing to do with socialism. The community was communal, but not coercive. Indeed, it was subversive of the political order, promoting life apart from the ruling authorities in which people, resources, and activities were beyond control of the Roman Empire and the subservient Jewish religious establishment.

Moreover, even this system evidently faltered. While Ananias and Sapphira had no obligation to turn over their property for the apostles’ use, they lied about the amounts and suffered accordingly (Acts 5:1–11). The Jerusalem model apparently did not spread overseas along with the faith.

Yet the Institute of Christian Socialists declares that it is “Building a Movement of the Ecumenical Christian Left.” The Institute’s mission “is to support US churches, their members, and institutions in confronting the world’s captivity to capitalism and in claiming, embodying, and promoting the radical socialism of the Christian faith and life.”

While there may have been genuine Christian socialists over the last two thousand years, they hardly characterized the faith. Certainly not the apostles. The latter were, according to Biblical accounts, largely indifferent to economic and political systems. They didn’t even dictate Jerusalem-style communalism for believers, declaring that it was voluntary. And the concentric rings of responsibility that moved outward—Christians were expected to work to support themselves, care for their families, support members of the community of faith, and “do good to all people” (Galatians 6:10)—conflicted with genuine socialist tenets.

Paul stated that he was worthy of support from those to whom he ministered but instead chose to support himself. And while pressing the Corinthian church to be generous he refused to instruct its members to share even with needy Christian brothers and sisters. Instead, he urged giving, generous and cheerful, but far short of anything approaching socialist “sharing.” The later church was anything but socialistic. Even the monastic life was often economically productive. The life of participants was abstemious rather than socialist, chosen rather than imposed, and spiritual rather than political.

What does the Christian faith command? The Institute declares: “The Gospel entails a commitment not just to resisting or reforming capitalism, but to overturning it, while working toward new forms of political economy that are life-sustaining, egalitarian, and just.” That may be a gospel, but it is not The Gospel. Jesus said little of political economy and certainly did not inform us that there was only one “life-sustaining, egalitarian, and just” economic system. He lauded the tax collector who repented and promised to repay anyone he had mistreated. Jesus did not demand that everyone turn their wealth over to the authorities, his followers, or anyone else. Nor did Jesus define what constituted a “life-sustaining, egalitarian, and just” order.

Finally, the Institute details its vision as “God’s new creation of a society marked by the interdependent health of our common earthly home, the shared enjoyment of our common wealth, and the just participation of all in our common social and political life together.” However, it’s not clear what any of these have to do with socialism, at least as the system exists in reality.

The foundation of socialism is coercion, in which governing elites rule “our common earthly home” and enforce their view of “the shared enjoyment of our common wealth.” Where has such a system turned out well? As for ensuring “the just participation of all in our common social and political life together,” how many politicians pursue such a course? Sinful human beings, whether those who rule or who are ruled, routinely fall short.

None of this is to deny that capitalism is a flawed system. All human institutions fall short of the glory of God. However, a market-based order has had remarkable success in generating wealth and improving living standards. Advocates of “Christian socialism” may prefer immiserating poverty for all to varying wealth for most, but the chief beneficiaries of such an approach are ideological warriors and government apparatchiks, not the least of these, who desperately seek a better life for themselves and their families.

The challenge posed by capitalism is that it rewards those who are economically productive rather than morally good. However, it provides the wealth necessary for others to help those who are in need. Socialism does neither. Rather, it simply presumes the creation of resources by others, to be redistributed by self-anointed political leaders.

Capitalism also promotes greater liberty and diversity by separating personal wealth and political authority. In contrast, socialism combines the two, increasing the reward for those able to seize the levers of power. Good intentions matter little. As Lord Acton warned us, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” When has socialism avoided the human frailties common to all?

Indeed, wealthier market-oriented societies tend to be more democratic, though nothing is automatic—and today, at least, China remains a notable exception. However, for all the fears understandably expressed over the influence of money in politics, the influence of politics over money has proved to be much more pernicious. Ultimately, political authority is the more powerful and dangerous force, most in need of balance.

Socialism is a failed system, but Christian socialists still have a message worth listening to. Successful, comfortable believers should beware complacency, especially in a world in which proponents of the “prosperity Gospel” distort Christianity for profit, some evangelical churches act like adjuncts to the Republican Party, and many middle-class believers see little of the often-dire human needs around them. However, socialism, whether secular or Christian, offers no answers.