"Jesus was a socialist" -- rebuttal

[Vouthon]

@DaveBj your argument is almost right but not quite.

Jesus did not explicitly call for the Roman Empire to adopt state ownership of property, welfare redistribution or social benefits. All of his teachings are to be understood in the context of the religious society he had founded, that is the Church.

However, you are wrong to suggest that Jesus made the communalization of property among his disciples ‘voluntary’. He didn’t.

The first disciples in Jerusalem actually did relinquish private ownership like Benedictine monks always have done too. The Didache , known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (circa. A.D. 50 - A.D. 80), makes this clear: “ share all your possessions with your brother, and do not claim that anything is your own (cf. Acts 2:44-45) ”

Pope John XXII issued the bull Quia quorundam of 10 November 1324, noting:

“ the Gospel life lived by Christ and the Apostles did not exclude some possessions in common, since living ‘without property’ does not require that those living thus should have nothing in common…And this, to have some things in common in respect of ownership. . ”

And likewise Pope John XXII in Quia vir reprobus (1329):

If he means that no believer had individual ownership, what he says is true, in respect of the time of which the Scripture speaks ; because Acts 4[:32-] says explicitly “None of them said that anything he possessed was his.”

Which is to say, that Our Lord and the apostles only had property in common. Our Lord expressly mandated this: Luke 14:33 : So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions

Later church doctrine relaxed this earlier practice of apostolic communism, making it voluntary within the context of monasticism.

In our monastic orders, which are modelled after the pattern of the early church in Acts, private ownership is prohibited. From the Rule of St. Benedict:

Benedictine Abbey of Christ in the Desert

Chapter 33: Monks and Private Ownership - Benedictine Abbey of Christ in the…​

Above all, this evil practice must be uprooted and removed from the monastery . 2 We mean that without an order from the abbot, no one may presume to give, receive 3 or retain anything as his own, nothing at all–not a book, writing tablets or stylus–in short, not a single item , 4 especially since monks may not have the free disposal even of their own bodies and wills. 5 For their needs, they are to look to the father of the monastery, and are not allowed anything which the abbot has not given or permitted. 6 All things should be the common possession of all (Acts 4:32) . 7 But if anyone is caught indulging in this most evil practice, he should be subjected to punishment.

The communism of property here is not “voluntary” or charitable.

In the early church, this practice was general. Ever since, it has been consigned to the religious vocation - for those striving for apostolic perfection.

 

[DaveBj]

it would be remiss of us not to keep in mind that the first disciples in Jerusalem actually did relinquish private ownership like Benedictine monks always have done too. The Didache , known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (circa. A.D. 50 - A.D. 80), makes this primitive stance abundantly clear: “ share all your possessions with your brother, and do not claim that anything is your own (cf. Acts 2:44-45) ”

And, as I have pointed out above, that practice led to the total impoverishment of the Jerusalem church. Meanwhile, decades later Paul would write, “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” 2 Cor. 9:7, KJV

D

 

[Vouthon]

That verse from St. Paul is commending charitable giving, yes, but it does not negate the apostolic communism of the Jerusalem Church.

This was the earliest practice in relation to ecclesiastical property and ownership by the disciples.

While one makes a voluntary decision to join a monastic community, the abolition of individual ownership is not voluntary within the context of the community.

St. Benedict cited Acts as the biblical reference point for the Benedictine practice of enforced common ownership of possessions.

Jesus’ command in Luke 14:33 (“ So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your [private] possessions ”) was, in the the context of the early church, unequivocal. You actually, according to the bare letter of the command, could not become a proper disciple otherwise. The Greek literally says that one is “ incapable of becoming ” a follower of Christ, as the Eastern Orthodox scholar and NT translator Professor David Bentley Hart explained in the article I cited earlier.

It was far closer to the Benedictine practice than most people seem to realize or admit and the church’s magisterium, in the past, actually interpreted this statement as a reference to the early Jerusalem church having “no individual ownership”.

Now, what I’m not arguing is that this should be the case today. There were some very good reasons that church practice and doctrine developed in these areas, not least for reasons of pragmatic exigency and it was never put forward as a model for secular governments to adopt.

But we have to be honest and concede that the earliest Christians practised a form of ecclesiastical communism.

Marxist communism is more than mere abolition of private ownership (which the church has practised and even encouraged at times within itself).

It is a collectivist ideology with a dialectic of violence, class struggle and a materialist analysis of human history, which aggrandizes the reach of the state into the lives of people living under it to a level that violates subsidiarity and freedom of conscience (rooted as it in our agency as autonomous beings created in the image of God). Both extreme libertarian individualism, on the one hand, and collectivist statism on the other are heresies.

Servant of God Dorothy Day is a famous Catholic who lived as an anarchist socialist, without her political beliefs making her in any way heretical. But statist communism is heretical.

It is Marxism, in all its forms, that the church proscribed.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Jesus wasn’t a socialist, he told people it was better to be poor: Don’t save for tomorrow. Give up everything to follow him. The person who gives up everything is the greatest among you. If you love money you must hate God.

Lazarus goes to heaven because he is poor.

Jesus wasn’t a socialist, he was against wealth.

 

[Vouthon]

The early disciples were not living in a state of enforced, abject deprivation.

They simply lived without any personal/private possessions or property, just as monks do today.

That’s an important distinction.

They had communal property and communal goods shared amongst themselves as need demanded.

That isn’t “poverty” as most would understand the term, its ecclesiastical redistribution of goods dependent upon need.

Some monasteries could be extraordinarily wealthy. It was just that no individual monk owned it personally because everything was owned in common, although obviously the more austerity and simplicity of living the better.

It’s personal possession/wealth that Jesus had a beef with, because it can lead to greed and selfishness. If wealth is shared amongst many based upon need, then it isn’t bad in and of itself. Hoarding is the problem.

 

[Vouthon]

Actually, Jesus didn’t make it voluntary and monasteries to this day do not make it voluntary.

If you want to become a Benedictine monk or nun, then you need to abandon all private possessions and share everything in common with the community. If you retain so much as a pencil for your own exclusive use, then you will be corrected on the first offence, disciplined on the second and booted out if you repeat it without contrition.

It is most definitely ‘imposed’ by the rules of St. Benedict. The Jerusalem church was no different, only that it required this of all the laity as well, whereas later church practice relaxed the severity quite significantly (for matters of practical expediency).

 

[Augustinian]

All things in common isn’t “socialism”, government control of our affairs is the definition.

 

[Vouthon]

I never said it was “socialism” and explicitly denied that it was put forward as a model for secular government.

But it is an incontestable fact that within itself, the Church has at various times and places commended the use of enforced, involuntary abolition of private ownership of property.

It still does to this day in our monastic communities. If you don’t believe me then please try to become a Benedictine postulant and when they tell you to abandon all of your personal possessions, decry it as an infringement of your constitutional right to private property and see what happens

We can call it what we like but most secular folk would label it “ecclesiastical communism” or “religious communism” in hindsight, so one needs to be prepared for that and not hide it because hiding this truth puts one on shaky ground.

 

[Vouthon]

It’s simple, the Rule of St. Benedict - which is the founding document of Western Christian monasticism - states plainly:



In saying this, St. Benedict of Nursia (c. AD 480–550) was emulating the Jerusalem church and applying its social order within a cloistered community of monks.

Common ownership and distribution by need were practised by both of them.

 

[ATraveller]

God sent His Son into the world to atone for sins not to support socialism or capitalism. God doesn’t care about whether the government owns land or runs a factory. The point of the Christian faith is humans are tainted by sin and are in need of a Saviour. If that’s not the core, it’s a false gospel.
Economics is a matter of organizing society not the heart of Christianity.

 

[Mary888]

Jesus never argued with Irod, the secular leader. John the Baptist did and according to the Gospel Jesus did not continue that argument he went to argue and discuss with the religious leaders and people. A socialist is always an activist because he is incolved in ensuring social justice. Jesus was indeed a poor king but he simply did not do anything that activist. Not that he encouraged unjust leadership but he was the Son of God, what he was interested in we do not see with our material eyes.

 

[Sedona]

The problem is that the broader mindset with regards to socialist ideas has to do with the totalitarian regimes of the last century, which doesn’t reach the meaning behind the Facebook memes you are looking at, which point to the usefulness of certain socialist ideas such as Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that ensure the common good. With regard to Jesus of Nazareth, many of his ideas were socialist, especially if you study the history of the times in which he lived and then consider his teachings and his works. For instance, faith healing was just about the only sort of healing they had at the time. Messiahs who healed people by faith were common at the time of Jesus. Some of them were quite good. At the time of Jesus, there were a good number of other known Messiah’s circulating their ideas around the area where Jesus lived. Jesus had the fewest followers of any of them. One of the core differences between Jesus and the rest was that Jesus didn’t charge a fee for healing people. He healed them for free. In other words, he provided free healthcare, which is far more radical than the single payer system modern socialists support, where everyone pays into the system. He also talked about a redistribution of wealth. This can be seen in the backside of the beatitudes that you don’t hear a lot of from the pulpits. You hear the blessed are the poor part, but you seldom hear the other end that says woe to those who have, for they shall have not. It’s not likely that he was talking about after death, but in there here and now, because any sort of life after death was a new idea In Judaism at the time, and not yet an accepted idea among many Jews. For instance, the Sadducees are not thought to have believed in an afterlife. Anyway, this social order coupled with a few other things contributed to his demise, because that sort of talk will always get you in trouble with those in power. From an historical view, it could be surmised that Jesus was attempting to establish a social order for Jews that was very socialist.

All the best!

 

[Augustinian]

For instance, faith healing was just about the only sort of healing they had at the time.

Apparently you never heard of Hippocrates. The medical arts weren’t as advanced as they are now, but were still done.

 

[Sedona]

Of course I have. Faith healing was one of the few means available to common people aside from some practical measures. The medical arts were for the opulent class, which was hardly anyone in Judea, especially the class Jesus moved among. His largely illiterate following probably didn’t spend much time leaning back on sofas reading from Hippocrates, nor would they have access to written codices, nor the means to afford much in the way of the rudimental care prescribed therein.

All the best!

 

[HarryStotle]

It isn’t clear that he was in favour of eradicating poverty since one of the beatitudes is, “Blessed are the poor.” And he counseled the rich young man to give away all that he owned (i.e., embrace poverty and radical faith to follow Jesus.) Many religious orders down through history have required a vow of poverty – for members to make themselves poor for the sake of the kingdom.

So why would Jesus advocate the eradication of poverty when he stated clearly that it was a means to blessedness?

I am not clear that “championing social rights” would be a high priority, either. Primarily because what are considered to be “rights” in this day and age have lost all perspective and balance. The “right” to do or have what, and for what end, is rarely ever included in the debate. The “rights” are all presumptive and with very little understanding or explanation for why they qualify as rights,

 

[HarryStotle]

I never said it was “socialism” and explicitly denied that it was put forward as a model for secular government.

But it is an incontestable fact that within itself, the Church has at various times and places commended the use of enforced, involuntary abolition of private ownership of property.

It still does to this day in our monastic communities. If you don’t believe me then please try to become a Benedictine postulant and when they tell you to abandon all of your personal possessions, decry it as an infringement of your constitutional right to private property and see what happens

We can call it what we like but most secular folk would label it “ecclesiastical communism” or “religious communism” in hindsight, so one needs to be prepared for that and not hide it because hiding this truth puts one on shaky ground.

Your use of enforced and involuntary stretches the bounds of credulity, and puts your own claims on shaky grounds.

Religious communities were and are voluntary, and “enforced” in this sense only means that individuals who are voluntarily part of the community have an obligation to its rules, and thus its rules are mandatory for all who voluntarily choose to be part of the community. That fact does not make compliance involuntary. Nor is it enforced in the sense of removing volition or autonomy. A “vow” implies that the individual chooses to be subject to the rule, not that the rule is enforced to nullify the individual’s choice and remove their autonomy.

Those who refuse to comply are not taken out and shot, they are asked to leave the community. Compliance is voluntary.

Look, if we were all saints, socialism would work, but so would capitalism and any other form of economic life. The problem is that we are not all saints, and you cannot enforce sanctity as an imposed state on fallen human beings. God, himself, doesn’t even attempt that.

Owing to our fallen nature decisions about appropriate forms of governance must ultimately depend upon not giving too much economic, judicial, or political power to one centralized body, but distributing it as widely as possible to keep fallen human beings in check. This is why the founding fathers wisely incorporated a system of checks and balances into the constitution, they assumed human beings weren’t perfect.

This is why a free market based upon voluntary interactions with a modicum of control has worked the best. It is nimble as fluid because it is based upon immediate feedback of current needs. Central economic planning has always been disastrous in its implementation, except on very small scales (like monastic communities).

The problem with socialism is that socialists presume that humans are perfect, at least they who advocate for socialism see themselves as perfect and are therefore, in their own eyes, fit to inaugurate their utopian dreams. Always to awful results.

When will the number of failed experiments and toll in human lives be sufficient to prove socialism doesn’t work?

 

[Brendan]

However, you are wrong to suggest that Jesus made the communalization of property among his disciples ‘voluntary’. He didn’t.

It is voluntary in the sense that the person had a choice. The example was the Rich Young Man in Matt 10. Christ presented him a choice that he could accept or refuse. The acceptance carried certain spiritual benefits, but no temporal consequences.

What Chirst did NOT do was send His Apostles to confiscate the man’s possessions against his will.

Likewise, the Rule of St Benedict. Submission to that Rule is voluntary, a free choice. A person could not be forced to submit to the Rule against their will. The decision to submit to the Rule is always a volunteer process that a person, throughout the discernment process, be free to reject.

 

[HarryStotle]

It is Marxism, in all its forms, that the church proscribed.

You are going to need to explain why the Church in the CCC and a number of modern popes in their encyclicals have condemned all forms of state ownership.

It is difficult to see how any Marxist or socialist state can effectively govern without a presumption that the State OWNS all goods and controls the economy.

By your lights, individuals give up all their rights to own or control goods to the State, even a Marxist state. How is that not ownership by the state? I don’t see anywhere where the Church proscribes State ownership and control of all property.

The de facto position of the Church is that as autonomous individuals we are stewards of what God has provided to us. As stewards we are entrusted with goods and talents to, each of us, build the Kingdom in the way that we best see fit. We will be held accountable for what we do with our talents (Cf. Parable of the Talents). Your presumption is that the collective will necessarily know and do better with resources than individuals.

The Church, being the Body of Christ, is a means by which we can pool (invest) our Talents and together work to more effectively build the Kingdom, but that decision remains ours. Not even the Church requires tithing, but leaves that decision to each of us.

Secular states have the mandate to keep society morally ordered. They do not, however, have the authority to confiscate all goods from all individuals and dictate how the economy ought to function. Absent that kind of power, Marxism is a non-starter as far as being a political option goes.

You either maintain individual autonomy (as the Church “proscribes”) or you remove it (as all forms of political socialism require.)

 

[blackforest]

In fact, neither socialism nor capitalism were gleams in anybody’s eye in 30 A.D.

Jesus wasn’t a capitalist, socialist, or proponent of any other kind of broad-scale economic system. He made it clear that His presence on Earth was not as any sort of political revolutionary.

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, joining a religious community is done on a voluntary basis.

However, it was exactly the same for the first Christians at Pentecost who belonged to the original Jerusalem Church that we are discussing. They had to be ‘baptised’ and enter the church as a result of their own free decision and then submit to its rules.

The Jerusalem Church, minus any celibacy requirement and cloisters, therefore functioned like the Benedictines writ large.

Why did the Rule of St. Benedict cite Acts as its scriptural authority? Because, as I said above, they were imitating the spirit of the original apostolic communalization of property ownership.

What happens if you refuse to obey your vow and retain personal possessions? Should you refuse correction, and then reproof from your superiors, after repeated attempts to bring you into line the only option is for you to be instructed to leave the community. The steps in this process actually come from Jesus:

“Moreover if your brother sins…go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.”. (Matt. 18:15-17)

And no, I have not applied this logic to state ownership of property and neither has the Church. I have been speaking purely about ecclesiastical governance and thought I’d made that clear.