My Socialist Manifesto

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I appreciate your call to biblical justice, and agree.

But socialism calls for violent revolution as the means for justice and the transition of power. I suspect that's not what you're advocating, but it does just the same.

Lofty rhetoric to be sure. And I thought I was the most idealistic dreamer :)
For kicks, let's just take a look at how Yahweh's socialist experiment, the church, is doing after two thousand years; not so good is it?
Then how can we be so optimistic as to think that we could even begin to have an effect on a fallen society?
If I could see this experiment working in any major group of humans, maybe then I could hope to adopt its precepts as my own...but alas, it is not.
When I saw Michael Jordan play basketball, I knew how preposterous it would be for me to think that I could resemble his prowess, so I did not try. But if I had really wanted to; if something in Mr. Jordan's skill struck me as so valuable that I was motivated to do everything I could to make it part of my character, then maybe I would at least try.
I HAVE seen the example of Yeshua and am motivated to make it my own, but socially I am just about as inept as I have always been.
Until people begin seeing in me AND the church an example that motivates them to change, it will be diminished accountabolity and greed that rule their fallen nature. That nature which "Every lifeless, liberty-deprived, happiness chaser is a breach of contract."
Yahweh stands ready to give us a new contract socially if we would be so bold as to begin applying it first in our own relationships and churches.

But, Mike, I'm a pacifist!

Seriously, who says that a violent revolution is necessary? Things can change over time... and they do. It need not be an overnight revolution.

And come now, Wayne. Show some optimism. Are we foolish enough to seek the way of the cross? I hope so.

To be cliche, we must "Be the change we want to see in the world". So, let's start small and see where it leads.

And you're right. It should start with the church. Come on, church! Set the pace!

To those who still say that socialism is wrong, or implausible, or not "Christian", I say this:
Those Godless Brits!

"Am I naive enough to call for such a society? Yes, I am." I know this was just tongue in cheeck self-effacement, but words like "naive" and "just an idealist" are used to diminish vision by people who I would describe as "sour" or "jaded." They are mean ways of describing someone with hope, the greatest of all of God's gifts, the greatest of our inherent rights. Keep pushing, please.

Thanks, Ben ;)

God+earth+humans=free will. Conservativism is misunderstood and has taken some wrong turns as of late. Wasn't it intended to free the human spirit? We should be spending more time seeking out a personal relationship with God than placing false hope in political movements. Amen

good article. you're a funny guy. i appreciated the humor in tackling a hard subject. i can see a lot of your points and from a personal standpoint, something like "universal healthcare" sounds great to me, a guy with a family who pays for insurance that covers hardly anything. my wife and i had our last baby paid for by 'ol uncle sam. thanks everyone.
and i'm republican.
yet that's not at all my identity.

does it bother anyone else, that Jesus came to earth and didn't solve all these problems? He fed the five thousand, but only one meal. he healed the lame and sick, but only those who could get to him, or knew about him. here's a guy with all the power literally to solve the world's social problems and he doesn't do it. that baffles me. sometimes. it baffles me until i look at the cross. it confuses me until i look at him on the cross all bloody and dead. this Man is a mystery to me. He came to solve all the world's problems-and he did. and you look at him there on the cross and realize all the world's problems aren't social problems. All the world's problems are sin-caused problems. evil problems. social problems are only a symptom of something much, much deeper. in the words of derek webb "good Lord, I'm crooked deep down, everybody's crooked deep down." great song.

well, socialism isn't the answer. neither is capitalism or communism or in the end even democracy.
that embarassing event that took place, that ordinary, every day event, that dissapointing, seemingly godless event. That failure of a man, brought about justice, God's justice. By dying on a cross.
jesus' death wasn't in order that we may get justice(look at all the unjust things that continue to happen to his own followers, not to the exclusion of people everywhere). his death was so that we may be justified. there is a big difference in those two ideas.
if you and i were to get justice, man, we'd be headed to punishment-i know i would. indeed. I literally have gone against God's will for my behavior and thoughts. That's open rebellion. I deserve to get justice served from God.

But I am justified. Profound. not just religious talk, but truth. it's all a mystery, but truth. God, in Christ, was reconciling the world to himself. Forgiving all of us. that's our message, Paul's message. God has forgiven men. Will men respond and turn back to God? there is the real question.

it's amazing to me too sometimes, how little we talk about the reality of the gospel in the world. some people don't want it. some people don't have time for it. some people just don't care about it. it's tragic, indeed. makes me very, very sad. but some people would rather tell God to kiss their *** than to accept His forgiveness. the gospel is a hard sell, in a sin-hardened world.

not everybody wants forgiven.

"Blaming socialism for diminished accountability is like blaming capitalism for greed. "

I cheered.

Fantastic!

Thanks for taking the time to write all of that and share your heart.

Great points.

I'm not saying that you're advocating violence, Jack--only that Socialism proper calls for violent revolution.

Many of Jesus's fellow Jews were calling for a violent rebellion against Rome, a war of liberation for Yahweh's children of promise. They had a long tradition of defending and attacking for the sake of Yahweh's purposes and the saw the Romans as no (theologically) different than any of their other pagan oppressors.

Obviously, Jesus led people another way. It is up to each of us to wrestle with the implications of how Jesus lived his life.

In response to Ben Hannum's post, I contend that we cannot take the weakness of the cross as cause to abstain from social and political action, since it was confrontation with society (the Jews) and political power (Rome) that placed Jesus on the cross.

"So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, 'Here is the man!' When the chief priests and the police saw him, they shouted, 'Crucify him! Crucify him!' Pilate said to them, 'Take him yourselves and crucify him; I find no case against him.' The Jews answered him, 'We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God.'

Now when Pilate heard this, he was more afraid than ever. He entered his headquarters again and asked Jesus, 'Where are you from?' But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate therefore said to him, 'Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?' Jesus answered him, 'You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.' From then on Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out, 'If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor.'

When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside and sat on the judge's bench at a place called The Stone Pavement, or in Hebrew Gabbatha. Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. He said to the Jews, 'Here is your King!' They cried out, 'Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!' Pilate asked them, 'Shall I crucify your King?' The chief priests answered, 'We have no king but the emperor.' Then he handed him over to them to be crucified." (John 19:5-16)

The way of Jesus isn't that of Karl Marx or Adam Smith, Locke or Rousseau, X or King. It belongs to him alone, and with him through the Holy Spirit we must wrestle.

I'm not getting where this call for violent revolution comes from. Most Western European countries today would be considered Socialist, and none were the result of violent revolution.

I'm with Jordan.

I am, in fact, calling for a revolution, but not a violent one.

You want optimism Jack?
Here goes:
I have peace that passes understanding.
I have joy unspeakable.
I have a satisfaction with this test called life in that, no matter what happens, even death, my Creator has my best interest in mind.
I have Yahweh's promises that He will not allow me to be tested beyond my ability for faith in Him.
But all this profits me nothing if I have not love for my neighbor. This experiment for a republic steered by democracy called the United States has worked I think mainly because it allowed for checks and balances of power, because the founding fathers were aware of the fallen nature of humankind.
But I remember that most of my friends in High School wanted to "Nuke those Commy bastards" back in the 60's and "let God sort 'em out!"
Just because our society has worked does not make it 'right' for the world. A gay person will tell us that it is right for them, but even they don't think it is right for the world.
Because of Christ's incarnation, we have an example that is right for all humankind, but not one of the '12' could have been very optimistic about what was in store for them on this earth.
But theywere very optimistic about the power within that would save them from death.
Paul said that we are to be pitied above all men if our hope is only for this life. Yet that does not free us to cocoon ourselves off and wait in complacent apathy for the hope in which we were saved.
But it seems to me that is exactly what is happening with most of the church.

Great piece.

American individualism and beliefs of entitlement shape much of the selfishness we see. The areas that are "socialized" in America (as you describe, the post office, fire department) are such so that the interests of the rest of us (the non-lazy people with bootstraps, if you will) are no hampered. E.g., If the crack house is on fire we want it stopped before it burns our house. But when socialism extends into areas that will likely not interfere with out lives we're less likely to see it as important.

Capitalism - meaning to capitalize upon - is rooted in competitive and selfish motivations. Benefits without working for them or earning them run contrary to our beliefs of what we're owed or we deserve. There is a sense that more for another person means less for me. But as Christians with a belief in an infinite, all-powerful God, we must understand that everything we have (material and non-material) is by God's grace. Certainly there are arguments for self-sufficiency and personal accountability, but Jesus' mandates for treatment of the poor are quite clear and are not concerned with people taking advantage or "working the system (e.g., "Give to everyone who asks you . . ."). As Christians we are quite good at interpreting so scriptures very literally and glossing over others.

Anyway, thank you for this article.

I'm reminded of Ellul:

"...the Christian must not act in exactly the same way as everyone else. He has a part to play in this world which no one else can possibly fulfill. He is not asked to look at the various movements which men have started, choose those which seem �good,� and then support them. He is not asked to give his blessing to any particular human enterprise, nor to support the decisions of man."

thanks again Jack, for the article. it was good. and i'd respond to mike radcliffe in agreement, that the cross doesn't mean we abstain from fighting for social and political justice in this world. I'm in agreement there.

It just amazes me though that God used the greatest injustice in the history of the world(the Word of God, being killed by his own creatures) to bring about a deeper and more profound justice that no one else could have brought about.

I believe that it is important to learn everything we can from what Jesus taught and did. One thing I notice every time I read about him or hear someone talk about him is that he never waited around for the Government to change things, he just did what he did.

I think this is a good example to follow. As his followers we are called out to live differently, to live selflessly. We should make sure that everyone that lives on our street or on our block has food, clothes and basic medical care. (if johnny needs a liver start doing some fundraisers)

Remember that one guy that got lowered through the roof so Jesus could touch him and heal him? Who did that? It wasnt his local, state or federal government, it was his friends. How far will each of us go? Start organizing, dont rely on the Government to meet your every need. Get up and go out and be part of your community.

Nathan- well said. We tend to want to rale about injustice and call for government action rather than rolling our sleeves up to deal with it in any way we can (no matter how small our effort may seem against such large problems). As much as I admire those who have become famous for their charity, I have even more admiration for those who make a difference with no hope of fame, just the pleasure of serving in God's name.

I'm getting a lot of folks saying that the government is not our hope.

I know.

I am not talking about the government saving us.

I am talking about challenging the system and wrestling with those components that are out of whack.

Like Nathan confronted King David, the Church can confront the system. And if that results in an overhaul, so be it.

I like MCB's Ellul quote above. How is building a Christian nation on Socialism any different from the Christian Right's actions the last few decades.

Both are based on legitimate Biblical principles. Both advocate the Church participating in government, and both rely on the government to bring about their means.

The simple problem, as Ellul might put it, is we can't trust this political system either with socialism or with capitalism. In fact, any time we get away from us individually changing individual hearts, we're repeating the same mistakes.

To say "Socialism is no more of the devil than capitalism" should not be enough for us, because we are called to live and think differently.

Well Jack, your article has compelled me to get something off my chest which has become an increasing burden. But before I get started let me quote 1Corinthians 8:1b; "We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know." When it comes to matters of a political nature I am wholly inadequate. Maybe with yours and our collective friend's input, we could come to a more productive understanding.
A few things are continually bothering me about those Christian pillars in mainstream evangelicalism who claim themselves as my brothers in Christ.
With the passing of D. James Kennedy recently, the leader of Coral Ridge Ministries, a radio program that is heard around the world in over 750 countries, an interesting trend in mainstream Evangelical Christianity has once again come into focus. That is, that we are a "Christian" Nation and need to return to the "Christian" foundation upon which our forefathers built this country. Dr. James Dobson, in eulogizing Dr. Kennedy, said that he would take up the mantle for Dr. Kennedy and continue the fight against the Democratic, leftist and homosexual agendas and for returning this nation to its Christian roots.
Many have joined the ever-swelling ranks of these two kingpins of mainstream evangelicalism including Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham, and Jay Seculo. With such evangelical "Christian" heavyweights at the forefront of the counter-attack against leftist activism, it seems necessary for anyone who claims the name "Christian" in America to back these leaders in the cause for returning this nation to the "Christian" foundation upon which it was built. On the surface, this appears to be a just and noble cause. Indeed, one?s patriotism and Christianity could be questioned for not supporting the efforts of the Christian Right.
However, over the last several years I have researched the Christian Right?s agenda and focus and found that the emphasis they have is not condusive with the cause of Christ. Also, over the last several weeks I have revisited our country?s foundational documents and have been hard-pressed to find any language in them that has a truly Christian emphasis according to the principles and precepts outlined in the Holy Word of Yahweh. Since I have come upon these two realizations gradually over the past weeks and years, I realize that anyone hearing this for the first time may be given to shock and disbelief. But Before you ride me out on a rail, question my patriotism, or tar and feather me for being against mainstream evangelicalism, I think it is imperative that we consider the most precious of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, against the claims of the Christian Right.
The Declaration of Independence capsulizes in five sentences--202--words what it took John Locke thousands of words to explain in his Second Treatise of Government. Each word is chosen and placed to achieve maximum impact. Each clause is indispensable to the progression of thought. Each sentence is carefully constructed internally and in relation to what precedes and follows. In its ability to compress complex ideas into a brief, clear statement, the preamble is a paradigm of eighteenth-century Enlightenment prose style, in which purity, simplicity, directness, precision, and, above all, perspicuity (which means plain and clear speech) were the highest rhetorical and literary virtues. One word follows another with complete inevitability of sound and meaning. Not one word can be moved or replaced without disrupting the balance and harmony of the entire preamble.
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the:
Declaration of Independence
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
These words were originally penned by Thomas Jefferson. Although he was thoroughly versed in classical oratory and rhetorical theory, which helps to explain the beautiful prose of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson was an Enlightenment philosopher who was heavily inspired by Deist ideals, as was Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. Each generation since the founding of America has had to wrestle with these "self-evident" truths as they are held against their own belief systems. Indeed our post 9/11 culture needs to take a serious look at all that has made our country in order to re-energize the motivation to continue struggling for our existence.
Since our country was founded during the height of the Enlightenment era, it would behoove us to understand how Enlightenment philosophy may have influenced our founding fathers as they read and signed this all important Declaration of Independence.
The Enlightenment era?s influential thinkers dismissed the idea of sin as repressive and unenlightened; a holdover from the Dark Ages to be held in disdain. Deists believe that God created humankind and then left them to work out their own deity. They do not believe in the "Fall" of humankind and therefore do not see the need for a Savior, much less a belief in Christ. Hence the very word "Christian" is foreign to Enlightenment-Deist thinking. Instead, they said that humans are intrinsically good and that under the right social conditions, their good nature will emerge. There is no longer any need for moral rules imposed by an arbitrary and tyrannical deity. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a private letter, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Therefore, all humankind needs for an ideal society is to throw off oppressive government, create a better environment: improve education, enhance economic conditions, and reengineer social structures. Thomas Jefferson wrote a bill establishing religious freedom, enacted in 1786. This was a brilliant move to keep America from endorsing any form of religion under the banner of religious freedom.
Jefferson?s brilliance is evident in the Declaration in that each proposition has a certain amount of truth in it and each one leads inevitably to the next and ultimately to the final conclusion; that of revolution. Proposition 1, "All men are created equal" leads to Proposition 2: "They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" which leads to Proposition 3: "Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The final conclusion, proclaiming the right of revolution when a government becomes destructive of the people's unalienable rights, is most crucial in the overall argument of the Declaration. The first four propositions are merely preliminary steps designed to give philosophical grounding to the fifth. But if the first proposition does not prove ultimately true, then the entire declaration must be brought into question.
Therefore, is it true that all men are created equal?" First of all, it is extremely difficult for today?s society to find out whether something is absolutely true because it does not believe in absolute truth. I could not imagine this society even being able to fathom Jefferson?s self-evident truths. In today?s world, we must base our evidence for the "created equal" argument on the factual evidence. After all, being created equal is, according to the Declaration of Independence, a self-evident truth. But if every human being born into the world is equal, how does that explain birth defects, Deafness, Blindness, Sickle Cell Disease, and hundreds of other diseases and disorders? If humankind is born equal, why are some people so gifted mentally, artistically, and musically? It seems to me that not only is being created equal not self-evident, but I find difficulty in holding it as true at all!
If I, as a believer in Christ, were a founding father and Thomas Jefferson asked for my signature on his Declaration of Independence, showing that I support his propositions; after reading that I am entitled power by the Nature God; that I should throw off an oppressive Government for the sake of a new Government founded upon my endowed rights to be safe, happy, and free; not only would I not sign it, I would tell him that we need to have a serious discussion about his conclusions.
The only right that I have been endowed by Yahweh with, is the right to choose whom I will serve? good or evil, right or wrong, Yahweh or Beelzebub.

Evil has many faces. Possibly first and foremost is the face of deception. The most dangerous and insidious form of religion is that which on the surface is closest to the truth, but underneath lies a motivation that would keep as many as possible from finding complete truth. More evil has been performed in the name of religion than any other name on earth. Even Satan himself quoted Scripture to Christ during the temptation in the desert.
My first question to those involved in evangelical mainstream political activism is; "How can they possibly believe a document which never once mentions the name of Christ or even comes close to representing His propositional statements could be considered Christian in its heritage? Just because a document has words like Creator and God in it does not mean that it is automatically a Christian document.
My second question to those involved in evangelical mainstream activism sounds a bit trite but is the cornerstone upon which Almighty Yahweh?s true church is built? "What would Yehoshua do? Romans15:4 says; "For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." Way back in Genesis 1:27,28b it says; "God created humankind in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;?sounds pretty equal to me. But is that the whole and complete truth? Absolutely not!
One only has to get to the third chapter of the entire Bible before the whole thing goes haywire. Satan deceives humankind with something that makes sense on the surface, but down deep lies the evil motivation for temporal self-satisfaction by forsaking eternal glorification. Then humankind is hiding from God, Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames Satan.

In Gen. 3:16b; "Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Uh oh, that sounds pretty unequal to me. Yet in that same chapter, God promises a deliverer and begins to make promises to humankind in the form of covenants which would allow humankind to get back to the equality into which they were created.
For Moses, God was the "I AM WHO I AM" YAHWEH Who promised to dwell with humankind. Through Moses, Yahweh gave humankind ten simple rules to follow which could be summed up, according to Christ, in just two commandments?
Matthew 22:37-40; "36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (and all your strength).' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.". That in itself is a great equalizer because Yahweh did not ask humankind to love their neighbor like Christ did or like Mother Teresa, but only as much as they love themselves.
Jefferson?s ideas of equality, freedom, and happiness are not even a minute measure of Yahweh?s. He made David, the youngest and smallest child of Jesse, the King of Israel because Yahweh looks at the heart. Yahweh is the Great Equalizer because He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Because Yahweh judges perfectly the motives of the heart, the evangelist Billy Graham is held equally with the murderer on death row who has given his heart to Him.
I have to sincerely question the motives in the heart of a Christian who, instead of loving their enemies like Christ, would spend most of their time finding ways to stop or eliminate them. It makes me wonder about a person?s definition of Christ-like when, instead of praying for those who persecute them, they call people who they don?t even know 'evil' because of a blatant sin, all the while sinning secretly. Christ said in Matthew 7:1-5; "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
In healing the sick, demon-possessed, paralyzed, lame, blind, and mute, and raising the dead, Yehoshua did not first make sure that they were a believer? He didn?t first make sure that they didn?t smoke, drink or chew or go out with girls who do? for He said in Matthew 15:11; "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man." When the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a little child and had him stand among them and said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
One day, Yehoshua will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. He will give eternal reward to the one who came to him as a child AND the one who confessed faith in Him on his deathbed. (Matthew 20:1-16) On that day the last will be first and the first will be last. In heaven we will all be equal (Matthew 22:30); "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

What would Jesus say about our taxes? Instead of signing petitions against unfair taxes, Yehoshua said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Even the Pharisees recognized the equality inherent in Yehoshua when they said, "You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. After His resurrection, the first church showed the world what true equality looked like: Acts 2:44-47; "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. My how the church has changed!
Read Paul?s ideas for equality in Romans 12:3b, and again in Romans 14:1- 15:13.
Read also John's views in 1John 3:16-18.

Jack, you said "I am talking about challenging the system and wrestling with those components that are out of whack." That is exactly what Yeshua did, but that was not the motivation of His heart.
You also said, "Like Nathan confronted King David, the Church can confront the system. And if that results in an overhaul, so be it." But mainstream evangelicalism is holding to an assumption that seems to me to be not too close to the truth. Maybe if our strongest effort were aimed at trying to get Dr. Dobson and others to see Yahweh's whole truth, a real impact could be made that could border on revolutionary.
Let us proceed from here and follow 1Corinthians 14:29; "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment."

I really appreciated this article, thanks for taking the time out to write it. I remember sitting in a sociology class in college learning about socialism for the first time (yes, that's how ineffective my socialistic, free public education was, but that's a different story) which was well before I accepted Christ and honestly it really resonated with me. It seemed like the happy medium between communism and capitalism; a hybrid of sorts with a trendy look whilst achieving great gas mileage, the Prius of economic systems if you will.

When I read for the first time how God established Israel as a nation, the original land distribution (and then redistribution of land clauses) and the provisions for the poor and what not, I felt it was more a socialist type system than anything else, would anyone disagree?

Anyway, thanks again.

Marxist communism calls for violent revolution, the kind the Bolsheviks employed, the kind that launched and nourished the Cold War. Socialism is the process of bringing about the same results through a democratic -- reasonably peaceful and somewhat orderly -- process. Chavez in Venezuela is an example of this - versus what his mentor Castro did in Cuba.

"Blaming socialism for diminished accountability is like blaming capitalism for greed." Brilliant, truly.

READ THIS...
I guess I am not being clear.

When I call for a "sanctified socialism" I am calling for something completely different. Which many of you alluded to.

The point is not that changing the government will be our hope. I even said that in the article.

The point is that we could change the rules. No system of government is inherently Christian, and each form can exacerbate different sins.

Imagine a bucket filling with water. Your job is to empty this bucket with a spoon. You can keep scooping water out over and over again, but eventually, you must reach up and turn off the faucet.

You are all right in suggesting that fighting for socialism is no different than the Christian Right's idea, a new Moral Majority even.

But, the point was not to make a "Christian nation." That was tongue in cheek, for as I said, there is no such thing as a "Christian nation".

However, when many people are marginalized and hurting, there is a place for the church to speak out until the wrongs are righted. And I was merely trying to ask the question, "Is socializing some aspects of government a good answer?"

We don't stop being the church. And we don't legislate our morals and enforce them on others. We just work to turn off the faucet so others aren't hurting.

It is a nuanced distinction, is that making sense now?

Thank you Wayne. I would say that I agree with your assertions.

Again, "Christian nation" was tongue in cheek. Notice that I point out repeatedly that no system of government is Christ-like, although some components come closer.

And don't get too distracted by the socialist thing. My goal was to get people asking questions. Most people assume that capitalism is more Godly or something. I chose socialism and argued for it, merely to demonstrate that our assumptions are wrong.

It is not our hope... but it could be a tool that churches must engage.

I still think there is a place for structural, institutional change. Yes, we live the revolution as the church. And that will shake things up royally.

But, again, not exposing and correcting the sin inherent in the system (to the extent we can) may render us ineffective in some ways. So, structural change.

Does it need to be socialism? No... something sanctified, remember. Meaning that we patch up the places that are hurting folks. Turn off the faucet.

I merely argued from socialism's perspective because so many of my associates told me it was evil :)

Don't hear me saying that everything would be better with socialism. We still need to be the church. But our neighbors may have a better chance if we strive for a different system as well, also, in addition to... not either/or but both/and.

See?

I really appreciate the common heart I see here, since it is one I share. Unequivocally, the desire, intent and action of looking after those in need was at the core of Jesus's life and should be in ours as well.

I guess I would call Marxism socialism proper. Chavez aside, most European countries are socialist democracies--but, Jordan, one of the most successful of them, France, was specifically built upon a violent revolution. And the same ideas that led to that revolution led to our own: "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

One reason I loved the movie V for Vendetta is that it served as a reminder that liberal democratic values have been defended by terrorists too. What you think about the French revolution says a lot about what you think about politics and--as a Christian--a lot about what you think about the church interacting with the world.

Interestingly, both Jack and Jordan have had to dig into the Old Testament in order to talk about principles on which a "Christian nation" might be founded. Medieval European theologians (see "On Kingship," by Aquinas, or any Crusades apologist) did the same regarding the many conflicts between papal and secular power. The New Testament has little--if any--bases from which to outline a political theocracy that looks anything like what a capitalist, socialist or whatever will imagine.

In lieu of proof-texting, I'll merely comment that Jews in Jesus's day usually chose from one of a short list of political options: resistance (Maccabees), accomodation (Herod Antipas, tax collectors), or separation (Essenes). Jesus selected (D) none of the above.

Seriously, guys--it's all in The Life of Brian.

I don't know where I had to dig into the Old Testament. You'll have to point that out to me.

I guess I'd say, in today's world, Socialism doesn't mean Marxism. It now seems more in line with the Scandinavian governments (which, not coincidentally, consistently lead the world in progressive causes and charitable giving per capita).

Of course, they've got issues of their own. I'm just pointing out that the world "Socialism" has a different meaning than it did a decade ago. And because of that, "violent revolution" is no longer necessary, examples from over 200 years ago notwithstanding.

Sorry.

I crammed your comments into my framework too forcefully. That comes half from pride and half from skimming over the many comments (including that long one) maybe too quickly to do them full justice.

I suppose that whenever I hear the phrases "Biblical principles" and "Church participating in government" my theocracy red flag goes up and I become at least slightly less rational. You weren't even claiming those as your views and so I apologize again.

I guess one wall I'm against then is, what do we (in general, and then specifically this discussion thread) take Socialism to be, if not a controlled-economy managed by the working class on a path to social harmony as envisioned by Marx? Another wall is Jesus's teaching "Do not resist an evil person"--how can one even imagine a reconciliation between this and coercive rule of law without settling for a pragmatic halfway point between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world?

And then another can of worms: the problem of sin. I'm not confident that political power can be handled by humans with righteousness and justice--at least not political power as we now understand it. The sad legacy of socialism is that, despite its idealistic faith in the proletariat, it has mostly been little but the window dressing for a way of doing power as old as Pharaoh. The disturbing reality of contemporary social democracies (i.e. France, the Scandinavians) is that they are essentially atheistic systems with no room for God that scoff at American attitudes towards Islam during one second and then forbid Muslims any public expression of faith in the next (I speak for France here; I'm not as familiar with Scandinavia).

All I'm definitely saying is that the problem of church and politics, of faith and power, of Jesus and society is as old as the Sermon on the Mount and as intractably controversial as Ann Coulter. I concur with Jordan, MCB, and Ellul.

Burnside Writers Collective, huh? This is all making sense now.

great conversation!

Check out the 2nd chapter of acts as an example of how the church should behave. That happened within the confines of a seriously oppresive govt. Jesus didnt go political possibly because He knew how easily corrupted they can be.

We in the church have the greatest obstacle in the church. We cant get agreement among ourselves about what direction to go. So for now we keep dreaming and keep the pressure up while churches "roll up their sleeves" and begin to serve the communities they are in.

i love the heart and will serve where I am. C'mon christian leaders our God SPOKE light into existance we can certainly rely on His power to do this it is a small thing for our God.

We need to dream of change and work for change the, church is the place where this has to start. We need to be the example to follow.

God bless

A provocative article, indeed.

You said: "[T]here is no one system that is morally or spiritually superior to the others. What matters is how we operate within that system, and how we interact with the systemic flaws we find."

I couldn't agree more. We are allowed to have political opinions rooted in Christianity, but it is dangerous to speak of political systems as being Christian or unChristian. This is my biggest problem with the Christian Right.

[ps. I live in Canada. Social healthcare isn't all that bad].

I think if I had read this a year ago I might have agreed wholeheartedly. I love the goals of socialism - I think elevating the poor and marginalized in our society should be a top priority.
Socialism is a complex economic system to uphold. The money has to come from somewhere - as much as we may despise the evils of big business, they provide the majority of jobs, income, and tax revenue to the government. Without them, governments are unable to run social programs in the long run. This is the problem Chavez, and many other socialist governments run into. In order to effectively run social programs, businesses have to be given room to grow and produce, or else the revenue required for their upkeep will dry up.

This is why I consider myself a reluctant capitalist. As a fellow Christian, I would ask you to look further into the economics behind your position. Socialism is very attractive at first, however, it often ends up hurting poor people in the long run.

I agree that steps need to be made toward a more equitable society. However, those steps are often smaller, more fragile, and vulnerable to polarization when we bring words like "socialism" into the mix.

So yes, I agree with your fundamental goals, however, I believe we need to be careful not to alienate people through our unbridled idealism.

Very interesting article, Jack. I wholeheartedly agree that what matters most is not the system in place, but how we act within that system. I am hardly convinced that socialism is the answer, but I am equally, if not more, skeptical about unbridled capitalism. It seems what we really need is a political/economic system that is less concerned with individual rights and more considered with respecting the human dignity of the other. I appreciate your perspective, and enjoyed the article.