Is Marxism compatible with the Christian faith?

Says Karl Marx: “We make war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keystone of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed. The true root of liberty, of equality, of culture is Atheism” (Secret Societies in Switzerland).

Christian, if you are true to Christianity you cannot be a Socialist. You are rightly Theocratic, and to meddle with Socialism even in your spirit is to grieve the Holy Spirit, which is not of this world, and which is within you.

Behold in this conflict the end of Democracy, Socialism, Bolshevism. Behold Absolutism such as this world has never seen enthroned, but an Absolutism that enthrones God, ends oppression and inequalities of every kind, and ushers in the reign of peace and righteousness.

Socialism, Communism, or whatever you like to call it, is absolutely and fundamentally wrong. It shuts God out of His own universe, if it could. It ignores the solemn presence of death in this world and all that it means. It can arrange for garden cities, but it cannot abolish the cemetery. It can give old-age pensions, but it cannot do away with death. It can for the moment ignore God, but God is, and will, in the end, demand an account of all men.

This beyond just controversy the article forbids, the force of which they overlooked. On the other hand Beza, Bengel, et al. are quite mistaken in the thought that the article with εὐεργεσίας points to God's beneficence in Christ, which would make here the poorest sense possible. The article is really by implication due, as often happens, to the previous phrase, μᾶλλον δουλευέτωσαν. Faith does exalt the lowly and humble the proud; but it does not misuse communion in the Spirit to equality in the flesh. Rather would it teach the believers because they know this or that, instead of despising their masters, to render the more service, because those that reap their good service are believing and beloved. And there was then, as now, urgent need to impress these lessons on souls, particularly on such as are in the subject-relationship. With these the apostle uniformly begins, when as in Ephesians and Colossians he exhorts both. A carnal acquaintance with the gospel readily falls in with the selfishness of the humbler class which shuts out Christ, and breeds socialism, the basest caricature in Christendom.

A glance at the reports of a Church congress, or the columns of a religious weekly, will show at once what prominence this subject has in the thoughts of most persons. Turning to the New Testament, we fail to find this prominence given, though, as in all else, enough is said to guide the people of God. At Pentecost, gifts of their means was as liberal as the sense of the grace of God to them. There were none that lacked: houses and lands were freely disposed of to meet the needs of the poor (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:34-37). The effort to make this appear like the socialism of the day fails entirely when we see the unique position of the believers at Jerusalem. There were large numbers of strangers, and many poor. Needs were great and pressing; love was ardent, faith bright. But even then it was entirely voluntary, not compulsory — which is a complete reversal of socialistic demands. (See Acts 5:3-4.) The love and faith remain for all time; the conduct is left to the individual believer, though liberality is ever the mark of those who have learned of God.

Community of goods is not, however, inculcated in Scripture: it is entirely foreign to its spirit. The rich had their duties, and the poor theirs as well (1 Tim. 6:17; James 1:9-10). All able were to work that they might have to give, not to the common purse, but to the needy. (Eph. 4:28; 2 Thess. 3:10, 12.) The needy Jews at Jerusalem were remembered and ministered to by their Gentile brethren (Acts 11:27-30; Gal. 2:10; Rom. 15:25-27. See also 2 Cor. 8 and 9). This liberality was to be shown wherever the need appeared, — even to the world, as ability was given. (Rom. 12:13; Gal. 6:10.) But it can be easily seen that these scriptures do not cover all the cases which seem at the present day to call for the expenditure of money. That the object of many of these calls is proper and necessary we have no question. The Lord's servants are to be supported while they work for Him at home and abroad; necessary expenses in the securing of meeting-places have to be met; the poor have to be cared for; Bibles and tracts to be printed and circulated.

The eighth commandment enforces the rights of personal property. There was some measure of communal life amongst the children of Israel, and in the New Testament we read of a brief period of Christian communism, when many sold properties, and in Jerusalem they had all things in common. But even then the rights of private property were not set aside, for Peter said to Ananias, "While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" (Acts 5:4). Yes, it belonged to Ananias, and no one had the right to grab it away from him. The law forbade stealing, and when today anyone is converted the word is, "Let him that stole steal no more" (Eph. 4:28).

At this point in His discourse the Lord was interrupted by a man who wished Him to interfere on his behalf in a matter of money. Had He been the social reformer or socialist, that some imagine Him to have been, here was the opportunity for Him to have laid down correct rules for the division of property. He did nothing of the kind: instead, He unmasked the covetousness which had led to man's request, and spoke the well-known parable concerning the rich fool. To reconstruct his barns, so as to conserve all the fruits given to him by the bounty of God, was just ordinary prudence. To lay all up for himself, and to neglect all the Divine riches for the soul, was the substance of his folly.

Did he appear as a great Social Reformer? He did not. On the one occasion when He was appealed to, and urged to interfere because of social and pecuniary inequality, He flatly refused to have anything to do with it (see Luke 12:13-15). Neither are we left here to be social reformers.

He Himself came into it with one great thought before Him. The supreme object that dominated the life of the Lord Jesus was the glory of God. Our benefit, great as it was, was not the primary thought before Him. He came into this world which at the instigation of Satan had cast off divine allegiance, always rightly representing God, always perfectly revealing Him, and ultimately working out redemption for sinners. In reading the Gospels, we see how again and again there was the temptation presented to Him to turn from the main line of God's purpose and run into a siding, but He never did so. I mean such instances as when a man came up to Him and said, in effect, "I have got a brother who is not straight speak to him that he divide the inheritance with me." The Lord's answer was, "Who made Me a judge or a divider over you?" His business was not to deal with social matters and to remove those inequalities which are so pronounced. Socialists actually wish to claim Jesus as one of themselves, even with a scripture like this staring them in the face. Here is a great social problem presented to the Lord, and He declines to touch it. It would have been leaving the main track of that for which He was here. There was also a national or political question raised about paying tribute to Caesar, but the Pharisees did not get the answer they expected, for the Lord only used the occasion to throw into relief that which was the supreme question: the rights of God.

Very beautiful, therefore, is the apostolic exhortation on the positive side. "But rather let him labour [idleness is neither right nor safe], working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to distribute to him that needs." (Ver. 28.) Thus does the Spirit cheer and direct the man whose hands were once put forth in unworthy ways; thus does He open a happy path where grace can vindicate its power, spite of a dishonest nature and habit; and he who was the stealer before he knew the Saviour's name, may now have fellowship with the spirit and practice of the great apostle (Acts 20:33-35), yea, and of the Master Himself, remembering His words, how He said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. To live is the worldly man's object in labour; to give is the christian motive. It is not a mere question of chance surplusage, but an express object, especially for him who has the consciousness of the mercy that delivered him from covetous sin and its shame and judgment. Only the toil must be about what is good and honest. In vain will you plead a benevolent or religious use of ill-gotten gain! No employment that is contrary to God's will is good for the Christian, but should be given up at once. The covenant of Sinai never enunciated such a motive for toil as this. To talk about the ten commandments as the rule for the Christian's walk now, is to go back from the sun which rules the day to the moon which rules the night; it is to eclipse Christ by Moses under the delusive profession of doing God service. In general, what the law exacted from those under it on the principle of right, the Christian is responsible on the principle of grace to exceed in every possible way. The scope of obedience is immensely increased; the inward motives are searched out and laid bare; the very tendency to violence, corruption, and falsehood is judged in its roots, and suffering wrongfully and withal in love takes the place of earthly righteousness for the disciples. Such is the unquestionable teaching of our Lord and of His apostles; it is darkened, undermined, and denied, by those who insist on judaising the Church by putting the Christian under the law as his rule of life. Truly, they "understand not what they say nor whereof they affirm."