In part one of this post I explained that the proponents of the gospel of envy, both secular and religious, present some form of class struggle as humanities greatest problem. And salvation for them consists of winning this struggle and restoring "social justice". Not only do I disagree that any form of social injustice, either real or imagined, is the problem that humanity needs salvation from, I also disagree with what they consider to be unjust.
A comparison of the biblical view of what is unjust with that of the proponents of the false gospel of envy will be the focus of this post. I will start by attempting to paint a picture of social injustice as defined by the gospel of envy.
I want to be careful not to paint with too broad a brush. There is a fairly wide spectrum of how people define the unjust within envy religion. It ranges from those that see any level of variation in wealth or possessions as unjust, to those who have the right categories for what is unjust but try to shoe horn people into those categories who don't belong and even those who have the right categories and people in them but have elevated the issue of injustice above humanities real problem thereby distorting their gospel message and view of salvation.
The people at the top end of this scale aren't hiding behind any religious fig leaf. They are the people like Marx who preach the envy gospel in its pure secular form. They preach a completely classless society brought about by the abolition of economic freedom and the installment of a strong central power and command economy. This utopian idea has been throughly debunked by history in every way. The means these people preach have never come close to bringing about the ends that they promise. First of all, social classes remain they just take different forms. In a free capitalistic society you will have some class distinction with varying levels of wealth and material possessions. In a communist/socialist society the classes remain in the form of a ruling class and a serf class. The difference is that in the "utopia" you aren't able to change your circumstances through hard work and determination. Not only does it not create a classless society it also doesn't raise the living standards of those that it claims to "liberate". At best the result of this system is abject poverty and scarcity of goods and at worst mass graves. When planning an economy becomes the job of the state every aspect of the lives of the people (cogs in the wheel) becomes the business of the state. They say, "our plan would work if only,________). You can put many thing in that blank space. Things like, "families would have only one child", "the infirm were put out of their misery freeing up the money it takes to care for them", "the elderly didn't live so long", "we could implement a strict form of eugenics", "we implement the finale solution", "we liquidate forty percent of the population", etc... This is the way these social experiments always end. There is no historical exception and there never will be an exception. All the premises this gospel is built upon are lies. And one of the biggest is that the existence of social classes resulting from economic freedom are inherently unjust. This form of the gospel is so obviously contrary to scripture that it is hard to believe anyone calling themselves a Christian could ever advocate it, but sadly they do. On top of scriptures disagreement with what they label as unjust it is also completely at odds with the means these people use to accomplish their goals. The Christians who believe this false gospel believe that they are going to create the Kingdom of God on the earth. Do they really believe that the tool that will be used to do that is Ceasar's guns? Everything that the government does it does with the inherent threat of force. That is fine when the government doesn't stray from its legitimate role of protecting the people from others who wish to harm them. But when that force is turned on the nonviolent non-dangerous public the government has relinquished its legitimacy. But I digress. The Kingdom will never be built by the muzzle of Ceasar's guns!
Finally, lets consider the error of elevating social injustice, even legitimate forms, to an improper level of importance. Putting it in a place where it eclipses mans real problem (the one that will send him to hell) or replaces it all together. I will start by saying that I believe the primary cause of this error is that humanities real problem becomes very unfashionable and politically incorrect causing people to reject it and put something else in its place e.g., social injustice. After doing this the biblical account of Christs work no longer makes sense because it is addressing a problem they no longer accept. So they redefine the gospel and Christs work turning Him into nothing more than a moral example and His death on the cross into merely an example of self sacrifice that we are to emulate. We are living in just such a cultural climate where the biblical view of mans sinfulness and impending judgment are repulsive concepts. This explains why we have seen much growth in "Christian" movements who have given in and redefined the gospel in this way.
I want to be careful not to paint with too broad a brush. There is a fairly wide spectrum of how people define the unjust within envy religion. It ranges from those that see any level of variation in wealth or possessions as unjust, to those who have the right categories for what is unjust but try to shoe horn people into those categories who don't belong and even those who have the right categories and people in them but have elevated the issue of injustice above humanities real problem thereby distorting their gospel message and view of salvation.
The people at the top end of this scale aren't hiding behind any religious fig leaf. They are the people like Marx who preach the envy gospel in its pure secular form. They preach a completely classless society brought about by the abolition of economic freedom and the installment of a strong central power and command economy. This utopian idea has been throughly debunked by history in every way. The means these people preach have never come close to bringing about the ends that they promise. First of all, social classes remain they just take different forms. In a free capitalistic society you will have some class distinction with varying levels of wealth and material possessions. In a communist/socialist society the classes remain in the form of a ruling class and a serf class. The difference is that in the "utopia" you aren't able to change your circumstances through hard work and determination. Not only does it not create a classless society it also doesn't raise the living standards of those that it claims to "liberate". At best the result of this system is abject poverty and scarcity of goods and at worst mass graves. When planning an economy becomes the job of the state every aspect of the lives of the people (cogs in the wheel) becomes the business of the state. They say, "our plan would work if only,________). You can put many thing in that blank space. Things like, "families would have only one child", "the infirm were put out of their misery freeing up the money it takes to care for them", "the elderly didn't live so long", "we could implement a strict form of eugenics", "we implement the finale solution", "we liquidate forty percent of the population", etc... This is the way these social experiments always end. There is no historical exception and there never will be an exception. All the premises this gospel is built upon are lies. And one of the biggest is that the existence of social classes resulting from economic freedom are inherently unjust. This form of the gospel is so obviously contrary to scripture that it is hard to believe anyone calling themselves a Christian could ever advocate it, but sadly they do. On top of scriptures disagreement with what they label as unjust it is also completely at odds with the means these people use to accomplish their goals. The Christians who believe this false gospel believe that they are going to create the Kingdom of God on the earth. Do they really believe that the tool that will be used to do that is Ceasar's guns? Everything that the government does it does with the inherent threat of force. That is fine when the government doesn't stray from its legitimate role of protecting the people from others who wish to harm them. But when that force is turned on the nonviolent non-dangerous public the government has relinquished its legitimacy. But I digress. The Kingdom will never be built by the muzzle of Ceasar's guns!
"The old-line Marxists used to claim that a single modern factory could produce enough shoes to provide for the whole population of the world and that nothing but capitalism prevented it. When they discovered the facts of reality involved, they declared that going barefoot is superior to wearing shoes.". ~Ayn RandNow lets consider those who have the right categories for the unjust but are shoe horning things into them that don't belong. One clear example of this is the belief that it is unjust that anyone should have to live on the "poor" side of town. If you read my posts titled "The Relativity of Wealth" you will see that in most cases people are labeled poor based on their relative wealth compared to others that live close to them. Being at the low end of a scale of relative wealth is no automatic indication of injustice. In this category you will also find that the idea that consequences for bad actions are considered an injustice. This runs contrary to scripture. Consider, Prov 10: 4 , Prov 12:27 , Prov 21: 5 , Prov 20: 4 , Prov 21: 25 , Prov 19: 15 , Prov 12:11 , Prov 16: 26 , etc... This is the natural order of things. The bible never calls these realities unjust. It is perfectly just for a sluggard to suffer poverty. It is actually beneficial to him. Eventually his hungry stomach will motivate him to work and fill it. It is also fairly obvious that if someone feels it is unjust for a man to suffer the consequence of poverty for his laziness they will also feel it is unjust for someone to suffer the consequence of hell for his sinfulness. This attitude puts them completely at odds with biblical Christianity. All this isn't to say that we can't ever help someone who is suffering the just consequences of their actions but it is saying that we should be careful not to declare unjust what God declares to be just. That is a very dangerous road to go down.
Finally, lets consider the error of elevating social injustice, even legitimate forms, to an improper level of importance. Putting it in a place where it eclipses mans real problem (the one that will send him to hell) or replaces it all together. I will start by saying that I believe the primary cause of this error is that humanities real problem becomes very unfashionable and politically incorrect causing people to reject it and put something else in its place e.g., social injustice. After doing this the biblical account of Christs work no longer makes sense because it is addressing a problem they no longer accept. So they redefine the gospel and Christs work turning Him into nothing more than a moral example and His death on the cross into merely an example of self sacrifice that we are to emulate. We are living in just such a cultural climate where the biblical view of mans sinfulness and impending judgment are repulsive concepts. This explains why we have seen much growth in "Christian" movements who have given in and redefined the gospel in this way.
The people who abandon the biblical gospel and adopt any form of the gospel of envy have as their spiritual fathers not Jesus and the apostles but rather Marx and the biggest mass murders who have ever lived.
“An error is the more dangerous in proportion to the degree of truth which it contains” ~Henri Frederic Amiel
"The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency." ~Pope John Paul II
"The Nazis are well remembered for murdering well over 11 million people in the implementation of their slogan, 'The public good before the private good,' the Chinese Communists for murdering 62 million people in the implementation of theirs, 'Serve the people,' and the Soviet Communists for murdering more than 60 million people in the implementation of Karl Marx's slogan, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' Anyone who defends any of these, or any variation of them, on the grounds of their 'good intentions' is an immoral (NOT 'amoral') enabler of the ACTUAL (not just the proverbial) road to hell." ~Rick Gaber
2 comments:
Chris, I can see you are well-intentioned, and I agree with you in that the lazy should go hungry in hopes of motivating them, but there is a line that can be crossed, even without intending to do so.
For example, let's look at the life of Jesus. Would you categorize him as having lived his life on earth as a communist, socialist, capitalist, facist, or any other -ist??? To do that you can take a look at different events: He healed the sick, but did he charge them??? Is this an action a capitalist would do??? He fed the multitudes who had come to see him and didn't charge them. He chased the money changers and traders out of the church. Now we know this wasn't a communist act since they don't believe in God, but was it a capitalist act??? Jesus also said that you will be rewarded according to your actions. The ones who doubled their talents were rewarded, while the one who hoarded it up and didn't use it was punished. Sounds like a capitalist. He would also test people to see if they had faith to warrant being healed, which is another capitalist move.
There was also the incident of the old widow offering the last coin she had. Jesus praised her to the disciples saying she had given more than others who had offered a lot more. This doesn't sound like a capitalist, although some capitalists are happy when they've milked you dry.
There are many other instances, but my point is that we cannot blame one system without blaming them all. I am actually writing my own book on this (My observations and theory) and I have come to the conclusion that capitalism without socialim will fail in as much as socialism without capitalism will. You might disagree, but think back to the earliest civilizations or to the beginning of any community. People come together and they live in the same town, village, or even country...why??? Because there is safety in numbers. They can work together to repel any enemies, to grow food, etc. But, this also always for entrepreneurs who provide goods or services others might need. So, you have a sanitation worker who will need a doctor and a doctor who needs the sanitation worker. However, the problem lies in the fact that some actions are indeed worth more than others and this causes inequality. If you are the doctor and you work hard at your job, you will require $50 per hour. I, on the other hand, am a sanitation worker who also works hard, but I only make $10 per hour. Now, you might say it takes more time to become a doctor and you have to pay for student loans, that's true, but does that mean that because I wasn't able to afford that education that I should continue to suffer...not being able to be healed by the doctor who I perform work for all the time??? Was I to die, who, then, would perform his job??? It might be someone who doesn't perform the job as well as I do. Or, if it's a small village and I'm the only sanitation worker, should the village not step in to ensure that an integral part of their society is preserved???
Well, as I said, there is a lot of thought in your post, but comparing economic (not so much as political) systems on the basis of christianity is tricky because the Bible itself is unclear as to which people should be using. Look, again, at the situation in the garden of Eden...God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed without them working for it...capitalist God??? I don't think so.
Thank you for your reply Sakabaka. And I appreciate the fact that you didn't call my intentions into question. All too often this day and age rather than deal with the ideas of someone who disagrees with them, people call their intentions into question and try to label them a hater. So I really do appreciate it.
I think our disagreement can be explained by the fact that we have different conceptions of what capitalism is.
Capitalism is a ethically neutral system of economic freedom. It is simply an atmosphere of freedom in which people are free to buy sell and trade with each other. People are free to donate their services and their money.
Like i said capitalism is a morally neutral system. Like oxygen. Greedy people breath oxygen but we don't then condemn oxygen as evil for sustaining their life. Likewise capitalism should not be blamed for the examples of individual greed that it is so often tarred and feathered with.
I think Jesus's life on earth is perfectly consistent with a life that can be lived in a capitalist system.... Yes, there are many examples of capitalists donating their time and healing the sick free of charge. There are countless example and statistics that show capitalists feed the hungry for free. Jesus ran the money changers out because they were in the temple...
When Jesus was a carpenter did he charge for his work? We know Paul did when he supported himself as a tent maker.
There is nothing in the bible that says that a system of economic freedom is inherently evil. The bible deals with individual greed and rightfully diagnoses its source as the human heart and not economic freedom (capitalism).
Did Jesus preach that we should use Cesar's power to enforce economic equality? All forms of collectivist government use guns and the threat of force to accomplish their goals. Can you provide any scriptural evidence that this is the method that Jesus was seeking to use? How about any of the apostles in the book of acts? They didn't even want believers to use the secular government to settle their legal disputes.
Thanks again for commenting and I hope we can continue this conversation.
Post a Comment