I am a socialist. I am a Christian. I am not hidden about the fact that I believe the Bible is (first a document of love, but secondarily) a document of socioeconomic *equality*, aka socialism. While not a central theme in scripture, I have made it a central theme in my personal Christian paradigm for two reasons: 1. I believe that advocating for the poor is simply a more relevant, modern expression of who Christ is (more-so than saying non-Christians will burn) and 2. because the vitriolic rhetoric from the right, beneath the flag of Christianity, is so antithetical to who Jesus is that I must raise my voice. The best example of the latter is Paul Ryan's recent use of his "Catholicism" to justify cutting $133 billion in food stamps while cutting taxes for the rich.
I have always pointed toward the early Acts church as the prime example of what a God-centered socialist community should look like, when Peter and Luke were swashbuckling church planters collecting and distributing wealth (and God striking down dead folks who lied about about their wealth in order to give less). But, I just stumbled across this scripture, which, I have found to be an even more precise thesis of where the bible stands on Socialism v. Capitalism... and it's from the words of Paul:
Context, context, context: in the days of the early church Paul was gathering a "collection" for churches who were struggling while taking means-based gifts from churches who could give. (Interestingly, he was often gathering donations from gentile churches to save the struggling Jewish churches). But his message transcends the subject of "tithing" (donating to churches) and really captures the Apostle Paul's perspective on wealth and giving in general: The concept of those with means helping those without not only comes from Paul himself, but he is drawing from the ancient story of the Israel, fresh out of Egypt gathering the bread of Mana.
(Read Exodus 16 if you need to, I'm assuming you know the story). For Paul to use this passage as a reference for why we ought to give is profound. This truly and deeply demonstrates that it is NOT God's will for his followers to have more than what we need, rather it is God's provisions ONLY that sustain; anything over that ought to be given away. The single Corinthian passage combines the Old and New Testament sentiments succinctly and powerfully. The grandest point is that Christ himself referred to his body as "our daily bread", so, whenever we partake of communion we are not only remembering his death and sacrifice, but also that he alone is what we need for sustenance; the accumulation of wealth is complete pure nonsense for the Christian.
Now let us go back and compare Ryan's sentiments above with those of Paul's here. Cutting benefits to the poor to cut taxes for the rich, it not only differs from the Corinthian passage, it is entirely the opposite! It is a tragic misinterpretation of scripture that is beyond the point of egregiousness, it is malicious. The Catholics have a term for when paths of followers become this divergent: "excommunication".
A sidenote on Extremism:
Christianity, the most populous religion on Earth, currently lacks much extremist action. Arguably the Norway shootings are the most contemporary, but beyond that Islam exponentially carries the most extremist actions in our world today. There are great examples of Christian extremism throughout history (The crusades, the inquisition, the Jewish Genocide, the KKK), but currently there are few active extremists under the flag of Christianity. Why is this?
I'm no expert, but I'd assume that the answers would range from the practical (Christians are in charge of most of the world's leading markets) to the theological (Jesus Christ is simply a non violent ambassador of sacrifice). But an additional factor I'd like to develop as a cautionary tale is this: us. The answer is us, that is, us moderates. Us Christians who live out practical daily lives, trying our best to mimic Christ's love... it is our responsibility to speak out against extremism! And in the absence of our admonishment of extremism, extremism has one more shady damp spot where it can fester and rot.
Outrageous fundamentalist interpretations of scripture MUST be opposed by moderate Christianity, both for the sake of preserving our faith and for the resistance of extremism. When you hear "God hates fags", "God is calling me as a catholic to cut food stamps for the poor", or "God doesn't want healthcare for all" we cannot simply disassociate ourselves, we must actively fight for the moderate voice that is our faith, a faith of love and sacrifice before all.
A final word as a plea for moderation:
As a socialist, I believe that there should be
-A $5/gallon tax on gas
-75% reduction in defense spending
-90% tax on the rich.
-Free healthcare for all (especially aliens)
-Free Masters level education for all
But I don't advocate for such preposterous propositions; why? Because I'm a toothless, spineless, coward who doesn't believe in his convictions? Because I'm really not a Christian since I won't stand un-bendingly for what I believe? No. Because I'm a pragmatist. I vote for Obama not because I believe he can put into action my convictions above, rather because he can, as a moderate, steer our country in that direction. Why can't the other side meet me here, despite your more extreme convictions...
Let us recognize that in a democracy of this size we must meet in the middle to get anything done. Thanks for reading.
I have always pointed toward the early Acts church as the prime example of what a God-centered socialist community should look like, when Peter and Luke were swashbuckling church planters collecting and distributing wealth (and God striking down dead folks who lied about about their wealth in order to give less). But, I just stumbled across this scripture, which, I have found to be an even more precise thesis of where the bible stands on Socialism v. Capitalism... and it's from the words of Paul:
"Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: 'The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.'"
-2 Cor. 8 13-15, reference in v. 15 is from Ex. 16:18
Context, context, context: in the days of the early church Paul was gathering a "collection" for churches who were struggling while taking means-based gifts from churches who could give. (Interestingly, he was often gathering donations from gentile churches to save the struggling Jewish churches). But his message transcends the subject of "tithing" (donating to churches) and really captures the Apostle Paul's perspective on wealth and giving in general: The concept of those with means helping those without not only comes from Paul himself, but he is drawing from the ancient story of the Israel, fresh out of Egypt gathering the bread of Mana.
(Read Exodus 16 if you need to, I'm assuming you know the story). For Paul to use this passage as a reference for why we ought to give is profound. This truly and deeply demonstrates that it is NOT God's will for his followers to have more than what we need, rather it is God's provisions ONLY that sustain; anything over that ought to be given away. The single Corinthian passage combines the Old and New Testament sentiments succinctly and powerfully. The grandest point is that Christ himself referred to his body as "our daily bread", so, whenever we partake of communion we are not only remembering his death and sacrifice, but also that he alone is what we need for sustenance; the accumulation of wealth is complete pure nonsense for the Christian.
Now let us go back and compare Ryan's sentiments above with those of Paul's here. Cutting benefits to the poor to cut taxes for the rich, it not only differs from the Corinthian passage, it is entirely the opposite! It is a tragic misinterpretation of scripture that is beyond the point of egregiousness, it is malicious. The Catholics have a term for when paths of followers become this divergent: "excommunication".
A sidenote on Extremism:
Christianity, the most populous religion on Earth, currently lacks much extremist action. Arguably the Norway shootings are the most contemporary, but beyond that Islam exponentially carries the most extremist actions in our world today. There are great examples of Christian extremism throughout history (The crusades, the inquisition, the Jewish Genocide, the KKK), but currently there are few active extremists under the flag of Christianity. Why is this?
I'm no expert, but I'd assume that the answers would range from the practical (Christians are in charge of most of the world's leading markets) to the theological (Jesus Christ is simply a non violent ambassador of sacrifice). But an additional factor I'd like to develop as a cautionary tale is this: us. The answer is us, that is, us moderates. Us Christians who live out practical daily lives, trying our best to mimic Christ's love... it is our responsibility to speak out against extremism! And in the absence of our admonishment of extremism, extremism has one more shady damp spot where it can fester and rot.
Outrageous fundamentalist interpretations of scripture MUST be opposed by moderate Christianity, both for the sake of preserving our faith and for the resistance of extremism. When you hear "God hates fags", "God is calling me as a catholic to cut food stamps for the poor", or "God doesn't want healthcare for all" we cannot simply disassociate ourselves, we must actively fight for the moderate voice that is our faith, a faith of love and sacrifice before all.
A final word as a plea for moderation:
As a socialist, I believe that there should be
-A $5/gallon tax on gas
-75% reduction in defense spending
-90% tax on the rich.
-Free healthcare for all (especially aliens)
-Free Masters level education for all
But I don't advocate for such preposterous propositions; why? Because I'm a toothless, spineless, coward who doesn't believe in his convictions? Because I'm really not a Christian since I won't stand un-bendingly for what I believe? No. Because I'm a pragmatist. I vote for Obama not because I believe he can put into action my convictions above, rather because he can, as a moderate, steer our country in that direction. Why can't the other side meet me here, despite your more extreme convictions...
Let us recognize that in a democracy of this size we must meet in the middle to get anything done. Thanks for reading.
