Socialism is becoming more accepted in our society. Proponents of it are more open in advocating for it and it holds less of a stigma than it once did. However, there is still a large percentage of people that reject this political and economic philosophy – many of these are religious people. Those who promote socialism, if they want it to gain popular support, must find a way to convince these individuals of the alleged virtues of the system.
What is socialism? In a nutshell, socialism is the belief that a central, national government ought to oversee and control all aspects of the economy, rather than leaving private businesses and individuals to conduct their business as they see fit. It is rooted in the notion that all property and wealth is to be shared and the national government is the entity which determines how they are to be shared. Of necessity, socialism demands a strong centralized government to be able to function in this way.
Some of the proponents of socialism are attempting to use the Bible to defend their ideology. This only makes sense since many of the ones they are trying to persuade to embrace socialism claim to follow the Bible. So let us briefly examine some of the arguments that are made using the Bible to defend this philosophy.
The purpose here is not so much to promote one economic philosophy over another, but to examine whether or not the Bible is being used accurately by those who use it to argue for socialism. Timothy was admonished to be diligent to learn how to “accurately [handle] the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). Is the word of truth being accurately handled by those who use it to defend socialism? Let us notice a few arguments.
Alleged Examples of Socialism
The most common Bible example used to defend socialism is the early church. When the church was established on the day of Pentecost, Luke records, “All those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need” (Acts 2:44-45). A little while later, Luke stated that among the believers “not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them” (Acts 4:32). Funds collected “would be distributed to each as any had need” (Acts 4:35).
Some will argue that this sharing and having all things in common is the foundation of socialism. Therefore, the political/economic system is simply built upon the foundation of the early church.
These brethren certainly shared, but that did not make it socialism. Socialism assumes that all things are common property (whether the property owners like it or not) to be used according to the will of the national government. Property owners have no choice, but are forced to participate. This is in no way akin to what was done by the early church. Yes, the brethren shared and considered their possessions to be common property; but this was done voluntarily, not by force.
When Ananias and Sapphira brought money from the sale of their property to the apostles, they brought only part of the proceeds while trying to present it as the whole amount (Acts 5:1-3). As punishment, both were killed by God (Acts 5:5, 10). Were these two punished because they kept some of the price of the land. Those who are trying to promote socialism will adamantly affirm that they were. They then jump to the conclusion that it must be morally right for the government to forcibly take from the prosperous whatever amount they deem necessary. Yet this is nowhere near what this passage is teaching. Ananias and Sapphira were punished for lying (Acts 5:3), not for withholding some of the purchase price. How do we know? Peter explained the principle of personal property rights – they were free to use their resources as they saw fit: “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?” (Acts 5:4). Before and after the sale of the property, they had the right to use their possessions as they desired. Even though many of their brethren were voluntarily selling property to donate the proceeds to the church, no one could be forced to do so.
Socialism depends upon the forced confiscation of property and wealth by the government so it can manage these in the way it sees fit. It is ludicrous to attempt to twist the Scriptures enough to make them support this system. The Biblical support is just not there.
The Need to Help the Poor
Many argue for socialism on the basis that we need to help the poor. It is certainly true that we should be eager to “remember the poor” (Galatians 2:10), but this is not the issue. Proponents of socialism often try to depict their opponents as having no concern for the poor. But the reality is that there are several ways to help the poor. Socialism is just one way man has invented to (allegedly) help those in poverty.
God has a plan to help the poor. His plan begins with individuals helping their fellow man. When Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, this man helped the man in need by taking time himself to help him and using his own money to provide necessary care (Luke 10:30-37). Addressing our individual responsibility, Paul wrote, “So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10). To the Ephesians he wrote, “He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need” (Ephesians 4:28). James also discussed the primary responsibility of individuals in the matter of benevolence: “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27).
In addition to the primary responsibility of individuals to help the poor, God has given local churches the task of helping needy saints (Acts 4:32-35; 11:29; Romans 15:26; 1 Corinthians 16:1). Helping those outside the church is left to individuals (Galatians 6:10).
The ideal of socialism is that the state would care for those in need, taking any resources necessary from the population in order to provide the necessary aid. For someone to promote this concept, he must argue from some source other than the Bible. God’s plan in the Bible calls for individuals (primarily) and churches to help the needy – not government. God has ordained a specific (and different) role for civil authorities – to punish evildoers (Romans 13:4), protect the innocent (Romans 13:3), and to maintain a level of freedom which allows us to serve God in peace (1 Timothy 2:2). There is no God-given role for government to help the poor. A distant, centralized government will simply not do as well caring for the poor than individuals will. In fact, the wise man alluded to this when he said, “If you see oppression of the poor and denial of justice and righteousness in the province, do not be shocked at the sight; for one official watches over another official, and there are higher officials over them” (Ecclesiastes 5:8). The larger a government bureaucracy gets, the more inefficient and inept it becomes. There is simply no Biblical support for the government taking the primary role in benevolence.
Capitalism and Greed
Socialism is offered as the alternative to capitalism (a free market system). The proponents of socialism will often attack capitalism for allegedly being rooted in greed. After all, if you are unwilling for the national government to take your income and savings at will, then you must just be selfish and unconcerned for others. This is a dishonest argument, for it unfairly (and often wrongly) attributes an evil motive to someone. The Bible is explicit in condemning this type of judging (Matthew 7:1; James 4:11-12). We are not “able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” as God is (Hebrews 4:12-13).
Does greed exist in a capitalistic system? Of course. No honest person can deny this, nor should anyone attempt to deny it. And we must freely acknowledge that greed is a problem. Paul said it “amounts to idolatry” (Colossians 3:5). But we should remember a simple fact: Greed will exist under any economic system, even socialism. In socialism, you have the greed of the ruling class who desire to gain control of the nation’s wealth and use it as they please. You also have the greed of sluggards who make a living from the labors of those who work, while they themselves refuse to work. So yes, greed exists in capitalism; but it certainly also exists in socialism.
While greed exists in both capitalism and socialism, neither one is rooted in greed. Capitalism is based upon the freedom and responsibility of an individual to provide for himself. Socialism is based upon a centralized government controlling and regulating an economy, such that an individual must look to the elites in power to see what they will allow him to do and to have.
Conclusion
Again, the purpose of this article is not to advocate some political position, but to examine the claim that socialism is rooted in the Bible. As we have seen, it is not. Yes, the early Christians shared their possessions with their needy brethren; but this is a far cry from a centralized government confiscating property from one group of citizens to redistribute to another group that the rulers in power have chosen to help. Yes, we are to help the poor; but this does not mean that civil authorities are to take the primary role in benevolence. Yes, we are to guard ourselves from greed; but this does not mean that we reject capitalism, for greed can also easily exist in a socialistic society.
When people try to use the Bible to advocate socialism, they are not being honest with the word of God. Instead, they “distort…the Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). We must be on guard against this perverting of the gospel, just as Peter warned in the next verse: “You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness” (2 Peter 3:17).
The problems we face, individually and collectively as a society, will not be solved by placing our trust in government, but by placing our trust in God. As the psalmist wrote, “It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes” (Psalm 118:8-9).
Right on, right on!
well thought out, well written and delivered in truth and love
Thanks for the positive comments. Anything that is in any way related to politics can be a touchy issue in the realm of Bible study. But we can’t ignore these things and we need to examine how they measure up to the word of God, especially when people are trying to use the Bible to defend them.
I think you may have slightly missed the point. I for one do not think religion has any place in politics. However, when one looks at the reasons for a state of any sort or looks at possible ‘states of nature’, I think many socialists would argue that states are created to maintain the equilibrium of nature. Now this does not simply mean holding back individuals from accumulating too much personal wealth (in any form), it also means providing for those who struggle to provide for themselves or for their children. A socialist state may be based on helping those that for some reason, due to nature have struggled. This of course is a value commonly promoted in the bible (I’m not religious myself but quite right!).
You do point out that there are roots of socialism but they are a far cry from centralised government. However, much of this can be attributed to a change in scale. A few members of a small tribe helping a friend in need is very different from what we might see in modern urbanised civilisation. This creates a huge issue of how to deal with this in modern society. It is here that we should think about accepting sacrificing personal freedom (not a lot mind) in order to maintain our moral values. There is also another factor in the modern world that should be considered. We now know that the consumption of the human race will be the death of us should we not turn back the increase we have made in the last 5 centuries or so. We should also consider sacrificing personal freedom in the form of consumption for the sake of our children and future generations.
I do agree with much you say, but what you target as ‘socialism’ is not necessarily the ideal situation in the eyes of many socialists. I agree, the bible does not promote state socialism. However, I do believe it promotes socialism in it’s rawest and purest form, particularly the new testament.
Sorry that this reply may appear incoherent in places, I went off on a few different tangents but I very passionately believe that market capitalism does not comply with the values promoted in the bible. I agree that state socialism also fails to do this. But looking at the core of socialist moral values on a simply fundamental level, it does suit much of the bible content. The Sermon on the Mount being a key example.
Anonymous, anyone who wishes to make an argument in favor of socialism in any form, is certainly welcome to make their argument. However, my point in this is that the Bible cannot be used to support socialism as I defined it in the article – “the belief that a central, national government ought to oversee and control all aspects of the economy, rather than leaving private businesses and individuals to conduct their business as they see fit.” Nowhere in the Bible is this commended.
You’re certainly correct that we should be interested in helping the poor and less fortunate. But the Bible places that responsibility upon the individuals, not the state. Government bureaucracy is a poor way to take care of the needs of others (Ecclesiastes 5:8).
Many good points. However, you haven’t really adequately explained the reason for the early believers selling all their land, houses, and possessions, and giving everything to the apostles to distribute. This is a far cry from the modern example we are told to live by, where each person gives tithes and offerings, but they keep the rest for themselves and their families, they invest, and save, and buy properties, etc. What is the Bible saying here? Is it endorsing this for all believers? What is the significance of this? It’s not enough just to say it was voluntary. Many socialist communes are voluntary, for example the kibbutzim in the modern state of Israel. People choose to live like that; they could live in the city instead. I still want to understand these passages in Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-35. Would you please explain them to me?
Ari, the reason why the early believers sold their lands to help their brethren in need was because of the exceptional circumstances that had arisen. Be careful not to confuse SHARING with SOCIALISM. SHARING is voluntary and people can choose to come together in communities and share possessions if they like. SOCIALISM is forced upon people from a government that has gone beyond the role which God ordained for it. As I pointed out in the article, the brethren in Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:32-35 SHARED their possessions with those who had need. The level of sharing was exceptional because of the exceptional need that existed among the brethren.
there might be room for democratic socialism but most likely people in the us will not vote on this. without making a porfit ho can big bis help the poor at all/
socialism is government imposed stealing