What is Christian Socialism?

Now these "dreamers" referred to, lived in the imagination of their own hearts, and the New Testament is used to help these men very much indeed. When the New Testament is taken up by the natural mind, they proclaim what is called Christian Socialism, which sets up a standard of the gospel and dictates to everybody. You have no right to this large property! You have no right to these privileges that you assume! I am as good as you, and better too! This is the style these men take up with regard to the New Testament, thereby entirely twisting the word in order to gain advantages to themselves and to deny all the truth. It is really dreaming about what ought to be, according to their mind, and to claim everything that they covet from those that are in a dignified position in the world — "likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion and speak evil of dignities." They defile the flesh by what they convert scripture to. They consider themselves the equals of all, and not only so, but speak evil of dignities, so that there is evidently no fear of God before their eyes at all. And this shows that there is something very lamentable in the perversion of the gospel, the perversion of the New Testament. It is their own bad and selfish purpose that causes them to do this. The whole principle of the New Testament is this: what those that are of Christ do. Well, they feel according to Christ. What is that? Why, it is the principle of love that gives, that does not seek its own. Do you think these kind of men have any idea of giving? They only talk about other people giving. So this is all dreaming, as it is called here. Very justly Jude launches out into these strong terms, "Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities."

Socialists have attempted to enlist the "Sermon on the Mount" in the service of their nostrums. But, to speak only of Property: Christ's words as to sacrifice suppose individual ownership. "Christian Socialism" was a plank in Bishop Westcott's platform: in his "Social Aspects of Christianity" he speaks of the saving, not only of men, but of the world (p. 86). Again, the Bishop of Truro (Dr. Stubbs), in his "Vox Clamantium," would make the object of the Church the reorganization of society (p. 355). For healthier teaching, see D. M. Panton, "Socialism and the Sermon on the Mount."

It has often been said by misguided people that Christian Socialism is the highest policy for the Christian. We have shown that to engage in any kind of politics, reactionary or otherwise, is not Christian. But it has been urged that Christ was a Socialist. Never was there a bigger mistake, showing complete ignorance of His character as Man. He was a Theocrat, that is, every word and action of His were governed by God Himself. He could say, “I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father has taught Me, I speak these things … I do always those things that please Him” (John 8:28-29). What a happy world it would be if all its inhabitants could truthfully say that. It would make life less complicated. We should not need safes in which to secure our treasures, nor keys to lock our front doors, nor lawyers to a very large extent, nor policemen, save to regulate traffic, nor prisons, reformatories and the like, nor armies and navies. Staggering taxes would be a thing of the past.

The condition that Isaac’s wife had to be – of the same kindred –raised a further difficulty. Given that Abraham lived about 400 miles away from the rest of his family (probably a more daunting distance at the time than London to New Zealand today) there was a strong possibility that, even if she consented to the marriage proposal, she might not be willing to leave her country to be joined to Isaac. In this case, would Isaac then go to live in her country? Abraham’s response is decisive. It was what we would call today, a ‘conditio sine qua non’ namely that Isaac’s wife would be willing to leave all, her family, friends, country, etc., in order to be with him. It is a striking illustration of the need for the church to be willing to become a stranger to her surroundings. Under no circumstances would Isaac move to Mesopotamia in order to live there with his wife. A well-known lesson, but how well has it been learned? The answer is very little whether we look at church history (e.g. the church losing her character of a stranger in the period of Pergamos, Rev. 2:12-17), or at modern multi-facetted endeavours to link Christ’s name with earthly or even worldly initiatives. These start with ‘Christian Socialism’ and ‘Christian’ political parties, and there is no end to them.

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.

But, we conclude, Theocracy is the only cure for the world’s woes. Socialism is the negation of God, and must perish by fires of its own kindling.

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.

How is it then that Socialists wrongfully claim Him as the great Socialist? It is because He was against oppressors, and worldly pomp and glory, because He moved among the humble and sinful and went about doing good. All this and more is blessedly true, but no action of His sprang from Socialism in any shape or form.

When Theocracy is enthroned, as it will be when Christ rules over Israel as their great King and over the nations as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, what will happen? There will be no sweated labour, no unequal laws, no legislation in favour of the upper classes to the detriment of the lower classes, nor in favour of the lower classes to the detriment of the upper classes. Legislation on the whole has committed both these evils, and Socialism put into plain language is class legislation and not national legislation, and is seeking, in its advanced section, to rob the rich for the benefit of the poor.

Let it be said at once Christ was never in the remotest sense of the word a Socialist. He upheld Theocracy as man had never done it before.

Take the charge of Christ being a Socialist under two heads.

It is painful that any one should, from Acts 2:47, reduce this 'great grace' to 'popular favour'. The next verse (Acts 4:34) does not give the reason why the people looked favourably upon them ('because they suffered none of their number to be in need', as if the church were a good benefit club!). Verse 34 merely exemplifies a special way in which the great grace upon them wrought; especially as it was no longer the simple immediateness of giving which was originally seen in Acts 2:44-45. Now, when lands or houses were sold, the prices were laid at the feet of the apostles, and distribution was made to each according as anyone had need. What a contrast between the spontaneous unselfishness here manifest and the formal rigour of monastic rule — Mendicant Friars and the like!

Among those distinguished by their self-stripping love for the brotherhood stands specially recorded the afterwards eminent name of Joseph, surnamed Barnabas (vers. 36, 37), Son of exhortation, or perhaps of consolation. Later on (Acts 11:24) he is characterized as 'a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith'. Here, a Cyprian, he is said to have been a Levite, yet possessed of a field, which he sold and laid the money at the feet of the apostles. The express mention of the circumstance here proves how little the practice had become compulsory; for why name Barnabas in particular, if it were a rule absolute and universal? Where men imitate in the world or even in the church, law-work supersedes grace, and the community swamps the individual to the destruction of love on one side and of conscience on the other. The grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ alone puts and keeps both in their true place, whether the individual or the body, because thus only God is God before man believingly. Popery and communism alike strive in vain to realize the unselfish grace of these early days in the church; for they are, neither of them, likenesses but caricatures, and are as far as possible from having the same source, character, or issue.

But what could be said about the assemblies in Achaia? Those in Macedonia had by this time contributed; would those in Achaia help? The question was already answered, for “Achaia,” he writes, “was ready a year ago, and your zeal has provoked very many.” (9:2.) They had promised beforehand to contribute the bounty, lit. blessing. A command to such Paul had none to give. He could only advise that their contributions should be ready against the arrival of the Macedonian brethren with him, because of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of their love. A year ago, he writes, they were ready to contribute, nor this only; they were also willing. It was not forced work with these believers. Their willingness was most manifest. As a willing offering he desired their help as each was disposed in heart: for God, he reminds them, loves a cheerful giver. It was not to be a burden on any, nor a regular tribute exacted; but saints were to help saints as each needed; their abundance at that time should be a supply for the wants of the poor saints in Judea, as the abundance of those in Judea at another time should be a supply for the wants of the poor among the Gentiles. The stream of abundance should be directed into the channels which were most empty, “that there maybe equality; as it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over, and he that had gathered little had no lack.” How really believers on the Lord were then regarded as one body, so that what was true of Israel in the wilderness, could be true of those who belonged to different nations, and were descended from different ancestors. Israel were as one family in the wilderness, the manna was for them all. Believers in the world now form one brotherhood, so the need of those afar off was to be ministered to as God should prosper their brethren. But observe, we have not community of goods enjoined, nor socialist principles advocated. The apostle calls the contribution “a blessing;” the Macedonians regarded the permission to join in it as a favour, and each one was asked to help as he was disposed. As God’s children they were to act as God acts, bestowing blessing on those in need of it.