Jesus and Socialism: What Does the Bible Say?
Editor's Note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Regent University, its faculty, administration, or affiliates.
As a Christian economist, I frequently encounter discussions about biblical economics.[1] No passage states what a Godly economy is, but the Bible deals with economic issues extensively. So, just as great systematic theologians developed biblical theology, we can develop a systematic biblical economic understanding as well.
The “Big Question” in this is whether Jesus and the Bible support socialism or capitalism. Younger Americans have the most favorable view of socialism by any demographic group,[2] and some young Christians mimic this.[3] While people have always projected their views onto the Bible and Jesus to justify their actions, linking Christianity and socialism is an odd pairing from a historical perspective. Marx considered Christianity a tool of the oppressor/capitalist class, and he wanted to dispense with it as much as he did with capitalism. The idea of Christian Socialism would have been humorous or horrifying to him.
So why this linkage now? Below are some (but not all) causes for this development:
Historical Ignorance
People under the age of 35 have no memory of the Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall fell 34 years ago. They do not know the lengths people went to escape the Soviet Bloc and other Communist “paradises.” They have not read Alexander Solzenitsyn’s books about the gulags or seen Soviet leader Kruschev pound his shoe and proclaim his intention to bury the West. That is ancient history, not well taught, and many think it has no lessons for us.
Misapplication of Scriptures
Young people do not seem to know what socialism is. They think it is a nicer, more inclusive system than capitalism and see a quest for justice congruent with Jesus’ ministry and His concern for the poor, dispossessed, and downtrodden. It is true that Jesus was concerned about these people and acted on it, but there are some essential distinctions.
First, no passage commands or even suggests that ministering to the poor is a government function. It is for individuals and the churches. One could argue: If individuals and churches did better, we might not be having this debate. Government taking from some to give to others is not Biblical charity. It is not sacrificial; it is not personal; it is not based on the recipients’ true needs; it is not an expression of love; and it does not preserve the recipients’ dignity. It is much more like the Pharisees announcing their alms giving with parades and trumpets.
Second, the foundation of the market system is enshrined in the commands God gave the Israelites in the Torah. There is not much to the market system, what Marx called capitalism. All that is needed is private property and voluntary exchange. If people can own stuff (land, buildings, animals, equipment, but also ideas and labor) and can exchange those things as they see fit, that is capitalism, and it naturally emerges. It does not have to be imposed, but it must be protected.
That is exactly what God did with the commands “Thou shall not steal” and “Thou shall not covet.” Both protect private property and make the distinction between mine and thine. Add prohibitions on murder, kidnapping, full access for all to the courts, along with a host of free-market concepts, and we get capitalism.
Most often, socialism has to be imposed. It is unnatural for societies relying on politics to convert man’s nature, while capitalism accepts man’s nature and uses it to serve others.
Definitional Misunderstanding
Part of the problem is that people do realize socialism is a system with certain conditions, the main one being the abolition of private property. Socialism is about collective ownership, which extends all the way to an individual’s ideas and thoughts. Socialism abolishes private property ¾ and individualism with it. The problem is that socialist politicians use this misunderstanding to their advantage to gain support, while letting their supporters define socialism however they want, yet quietly knowing exactly what they intend to do with political power.
We should be nicer to each other, but that is not socialism. Socialism is collective ownership, and that is slavery.[4]
But What About the Early Church?
But Baugus, what do you do with this account from the second chapter of Acts?
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who 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.[5]
Clearly, the Early Church, which was populated by many people who knew Jesus in the flesh, practiced socialism, right? Well, yes and no. There was collective ownership within the Church, as with a family. Most families are a little socialist: Resources are allocated based on need, regardless of who earned them; ownership of many things can be fluid (not all things, siblings are quick to establish whose toy or side of the room is whose); and chores are assigned by parental command ¾ not a labor market.
In very small communities, where true personal knowledge and love between members exist, a light form of socialism works. But as communities become larger, personal knowledge weakens ¾ or is non-existent ¾ and socialism cannot work. With the Early Church, notice there was no command that anyone, even another church, follow this example. Also, there was certainly no expectation that the larger society would use this model. After all, they were selling their possessions in the marketplace.
The shortcomings and flaws of modern implementations of capitalism are real. No system will live up to its potential if humans participate. The question is, how do we make it better? When the Church had lost its way, we had a Reformation ¾ not a replacement. The biblical example is clear: We should be charitable and not think too highly of our possessions. But in the marketplace, free-market exchange of private property ¾ what we call capitalism ¾ is the way to make the land flow with milk and honey.
[1] For more on this discussion see my book: The Biblical Path for a Prosperous Society
[2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capitalism-among-young-adults.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[3] https://www.centerforbiblicalunity.com/post/one-third-of-churchgoers-and-half-of-young-adults-prefer-socialism-over-capitalism
[4] This argument is laid out in detail in F.A. Hayek’s boot The Road to Serfdom.
[5] Acts 2:42-47 (NIV) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202&version=NIV
