Friday, July 19, 2013

Christianity and the Left

This probably won't appeal to all readers, at least not in the same way, but for those whose religious faith is a big part of their life, I thought this was worth bringing up, since it appears anyway from time to time.

Especially in the past few years, under Obama, there has been a particular philosophical/theological debate, on and off that has accompanied his expansion of the welfare state with health care and so on. (It predates Obama by a long shot, of course, but it was all the rage a couple years ago.) Maybe his programs are socialist and maybe they aren't, but even if they are, many leftists have argued, what's so bad about that? America is still a Christian nation (sort of), and taking care of the poor is "the Christian thing to do," so why not embrace socialism or knock-off versions of it? Why should men of faith be fiscal conservatives?

I could flesh it out further, but no doubt everyone understand what I'm getting at. As one anecdote, back when ObamaCare passed, I was discussing the bill with a very liberal friend of mine who of course supported it. In the course of the conversation, she said something like the following: "I don't see how you can oppose this bill. You claim to be a Christian, right? Didn't Jesus say it was the duty of his followers to help the poor and needy? And isn't that what this bill is trying to do? You talk all the time about how much you hate socialism, but it's something you should be supporting."

An irksome statement, but not a very surprising one. The fact is, a lot of mainstream Christians have said the same thing. As a lifelong member of the Methodist Church, for example, I have heard many in that body call on Christians to support "social justice," whatever that means. One can also find such elements--often prominent ones--among the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, and so on.

At the time, I dismissed my friend's comment with a few derisive snorts and a mention of the difference between the spiritual and earthly realms, and the difficulty of applying the principles of the former to the politics of the latter. Upon later reflection, though, I don't think I gave a satisfactory answer. After all, citing the words of Jesus, "My Kingdom is not of this world," or Luther's "Doctrine of Two Swords," doesn't exactly explain why one should support or oppose a living wage or a single-payer health care system. And the original question is a powerful one. If I consider myself a Christian, which I do--a fairly crappy one, to be sure, but I make an effort to live up to the name--how can I stand against a philosophy such as socialism, which offers a program to improve the material conditions of the poor by giving them more care and socioeconomic equity? Aren't I called on to perform good works for those less fortunate? And doesn't socialism--or socialistic policies--offer a chance to do just that?

Yes, kind of, but. The problem, I think, when one talks about following a "Christian socialism," a socialistic policy that adheres to the Gospels, is believing that the end goal of performing such good works is to help the poor. Make no mistake: acts of charity and material aid for the benefit of those in need is, from the Christian perspective, an absolute good, and pleases God. The trouble, however, is that helping the poor is not the end goal of good works. Controversial, I know. But consider this: when St. James penned the famous line, "Faith without works is dead," whose faith was he talking about? Those for whom the works were being performed? No. He was referring to the faith of those performing the works. For service and charity to others is how Christians express their faith here on earth. Neglect it, and faith becomes stagnant, a mere internal acknowledgement of the Good News and making no tangible difference in the believer's life and character. Moreover, these works are not intended merely to provide comfort and security for individuals the rest of their days. They are intended to provide a conduit for the transmission of the message of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, and the salvation of all those who believe in Him, without which no one can enter heaven.

And this is what I think those who talk about social justice or some similar term forget. Christianity is not Christianity without the transcendental message of salvation and eternal life. Nor is it Christianity without that personal expression of faith. The emphasis is on the inward, individual soul, and its transformation through faith and the works that faith results in. What happens to that emphasis, that relationship between the divine and the individual, with the implementation of a so-called "Christian socialism"? Simply put, it is destroyed. Because while a state might, theoretically, achieve the goal--of providing for the less fortunate--that Christians often strive for, it cannot--especially when the state is as populous and far-flung as ours--provide that same faith, that same connection with the heavenly realm that the traditional faith-based religion can. By having an impersonal, bureaucratic structure performing the function of material support, it not only prevents individual Christians from taking part in the relief of the poor, more importantly, it destroys their initiative to do so. In a world in which everyone's needs are supposedly taken care of, what reason is there for a believer to interact with the downtrodden when the state will do it for them? And what does that do to the development of one's own faith? If it cannot go forward, it stagnates. Thus, by seeking to fill the spiritual void in men with material satisfaction, "Christian socialism" guts the transcendency of the religion, inevitably coming to mean nothing different from regular socialism.

This process is clearly on display when one considers the developments in once-Christian nations. It is surely no coincidence, I think, that Europe, where the idea of a far-reaching welfare state has long been accepted, has rates of church attendance that are in many cases abysmal. America is guilty of similar trends, true enough, but this interventionist ideology is less well established, and its citizens also happen to attend church more frequently. Is it too much of a stretch to say that the two are connected? Can one, for God's sake (so to speak), pick out a country or region where a strong tradition of left-wing government goes hand-in-hand with widespread, evangelical Christianity? (And no, Latin America doesn't count.)

There is no coincidence. And this is the virus within liberal Christianity. If it sets as its goal a world of "social justice," well, that can in theory be realized, but once it is, then what? When the socialism in Christian socialism has been put into practice, what's the use of hanging on to the Christianity, when the religion has been subordinated to worldly aims? For that matter, is there any religion left at all? The fact is, Christianity and socialism/socialistic ideas are incompatible. They not only pursue different aims; those aims bring them into conflict with one another.

So, there. Obviously this won't be of much interest to those who aren't Christians. And it's not intended as an analysis of the economic ideas behind liberalism or socialism, or to suggest that one cannot be both a sincere Christian and committed to a communitarian ideology. I would hate to live under a government run by the likes of Jim Wallis, for example, yet I have no doubt of the man's personal faith in God. What I wish to do here is to refute the argument often presented to Christians, and to propose that not only is it possible to be a Christian and a small-government conservative, but also that if Christianity can be said to favor any political system (a very big if), it not only is but must be closer to capitalism than to socialism. As philosophical systems, Christianity and socialism don't have room for each other.

(Note: I'm gone all this week on a family trip, and will not be back until Sunday evening. I won't be looking at my computer, so make whatever critical comments you want, just know that I won't be around to read them, so nyah nyah nyah.)

16 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

the left uses this argument quite a bit. I just wrote to an oped writer for our local news paper who tied it into an article about abortion. She was pretty reasonable, acknowledging people of good will had legitimate differences, but went on to talk about how could someone who professes to be be "pro-life" vote to cut spending on programs which are aimed at helping innocent children. I replied that it is hard, but countered if we do not try and address the issue of spending more than we make (as a country) we risk losing our ability to fund anything.

AndrewPrice said...

Well said.

The fundamental problem with the idea your friend enunciated is that she doesn't understand Christianity. Christ was very specific that he had no interest in the political system. His purpose was to get people to consider their own actions and their own conscience. Thus, you have a duty to help your friends and neighbors and even strangers, you have a duty to charity, and you have a duty to avoid sins. You cannot farm those duties out to the government. That is simply nonsense.

Moreover, you can't do evil to do good, but government is about the use of force to make people do things they oppose. Show me anywhere where Jesus EVER suggests that we have a right to force others to conform to our beliefs?

So her view essentially translates to: "How can you be a good Christian if you don't advocate using the government to force people to do things you should be doing yourself?" As you can see, that's nonsense.

LL said...

There is a big difference between taking your money at gunpoint and allowing people to generously donate whatever to whoever.

Anthony said...

*Shrugs* People citing religion as a justification for whatever the heck they want to do, including but not limited to taking away other people's freedom is a universal practice (nods towards Santorum et al).

The Bible is a massive book and people can and do find in it what they want to find, especially if all they want/need is a quote to pepper a speech with.

For example, the Bible was cited both by those who opposed slavery and those who defended it. The anti-slavery side won so now the common consensus is that the proslavery side twisted the Bible to suit its purposes, but on contentious issues, that always seems to be the case.

Until a divine messenger appears and comes down unambiguously on one side of an argument (and perhaps not even then) then the Bible will remain a favorite justification for nominal Christians everywhere no matter what they are doing.

tryanmax said...

Very good article T-Rav--and a good pithy summary by Andrew. I'm going to put all of the above in my quiver.

Perhaps I'm being scattergorical, but I can easily relate this to an internal debate I had about technological discipline devices. You know, e-alerts, automatic shutoffs, the like. I had asked myself whether these really represent discipline or are a false substitute, especially from the Christian perspective. (Don't worry, this is going somewhere.)

Ultimately, I realized that the Bible has a running theme of instructing its adherents to structure their situations in order to aid their discipline. Sometimes it is hyperbolic ("If your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out") but more often it advises accountability and fleeing temptation. (Certainly, digital minders could hinder the relational aspect of human accountability, but that is another discussion.)

Where I find the connection is that, if we were to set up a socialist system, what we would be doing to one another is undermining the opportunities for discipline. Don't misunderstand me, the discipline always comes. But if the small disciplines are rejected--such as those staved off by what is described as "Christian socialism"--larger disciplines will take their place--depression, unrest, war.

Rustbelt said...

Off topic, but I'm going to be traveling today and won't be back until late tomorrow night. Though I normally try to post my WWI updates late so they don't interfere with the conversation, I won't be near my computer for the rest of the day. So, I'm going to post it now.

Rustbelt said...

Countdown to Catastrophe

JULY 19, 1914 (99 years ago today…)
–Part 1 of 2

In St. Petersburg, Sazonov meets with Czar Nicholas to discuss the information collected over the past few days, along with his meeting with Szapary. The Russian emperor jots down a few notes on the papers Sazonov brought with him.

“In my opinion, a State should not present any sort of demands to another, unless, of course, it is bent on war.”
-Czar Nicholas II of Russia

In Vienna, shortly before 10 A.M., the Austro-Hungarian ministers begin to gather for a secret meeting at Foreign Minister Berchtold’s private home, the Strudelhof. Security is so tight, everyone arrives in unmarked cars so as not to tip off foreign dignitaries. (Tisza’s explanation for leaving Budapest is that he has to gather more information on Balkan issues; Conrad takes a one-day break from vacation claiming that he is visiting his sick son.)
Once the Austrian Council of Ministers has been fully assembled, Berchtold goes over the basics. The “note with a time limit” (not an ultimatum) will be delivered to Serbian Prime Minister Pasic in Belgrade at 5 P.M. on Thursday, July 23rd. (That's roughly the same time that French leaders are scheduled to leave St. Petersburg following the Franco-Russian summit meeting.) Serbia will then be given 48 hours to respond. It is assumed that the harsh terms will make full acceptance impossible. Following that, Austro-Hungarian mobilization will start at midnight on the night of July 25th to July 26th. Most of the ministers agree to Berchtold’s plan. But once again, the only holdout is Tisza.
First, he complains that General Conrad isn’t stationing enough troops in the massive southeast province of Transylvania. (Austria’s armies are being assembled to fight Serbia in the south, and to fend off a possible Russian invasion from the northeast.) Although controlled for centuries by Hungarian nobles and German merchant towns, Transylvania has a large Romanian population. (It hasn’t been independent since the end of the Thirty Years’ War in 1648.) Tisza is worried not only about a popular revolt (inspired by the Serbs), but also about possible attack from opportunistic Romania. Conrad promises to declare martial law, set up expanded militias under official army officers, and to use as few Romanian nationals as possible.
Tisza is also concerned about Italy, which covets the Austro-Hungarian territories of Trieste and South Tyrol. Berchtold declares Italian intervention unlikely and drops the issue altogether. (Truth is, he hasn’t explored this possibility at all- even though German Foreign Minister Jagow has pointed out endlessly the need to placate Italy. It’s not the only German advice Betchtold has ignored.)

Rustbelt said...

Countdown to Catastrophe

JULY 19, 1914 (99 years ago today…)
–Part 2 of 2

Finally, Tisza again brings up his point that this must not be a war of conquest, and he wants that point agreed to unanimously and for that agreement to be made public. Any plans to annex territory, he declares, would only turn the Great Powers of Europe- especially Russia- against Austria. Despite protests from Austrian Prime Minister Sturgkh, Berchtold again agrees to Tisza’s demands.
Berchtold and the others, however, must have their fingers crossed behind their backs. Before the meeting ends, they adopt a non-public addendum to the agreement; it will allow Austria to “adjust its borders” (or, rather, absorb key territories) for reasons of security- including the part of the border where Princip and the other assassins crossed into Bosnia.
Following that, the “note with a time limit”- drawn up by Berchtold and his staff- is quickly agreed to by the Council. (He never bothered to allow Tisza, German Ambassador Tschirschky, or even Emperor Franz Joseph to read an early draft.) The ministers never bother to plan on how they might keep Italy neutral. Nor do they follow another piece of German advice. Jagow had specifically urged Berchtold to write another note, outlining Serbia’s guilt in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the evidence proving it. Instead, Berchtold keeps Berlin in the dark. (They hadn't uncovered the evidence, anyway.)
Finally, the ministers agree on the note’s final wording and Berchtold heads back to work to prepare the copy to be sent to Belgrade.

BevfromNYC said...

"For example, the Bible was cited both by those who opposed slavery and those who defended it. The anti-slavery side won so now the common consensus is that the proslavery side twisted the Bible to suit its purposes, but on contentious issues, that always seems to be the case."

Substitute "Constitution" or even "Laws" for "Bible" and that sentence is still true. The only difference to me is that "The Bible" or religion in general requires the development of a conscience and a morality (as in knowing and understanding right from wrong) that the "Constitution" or "Laws" do not do necessarily.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony and Bev, The problem I have with the injection of religion into politics is that you aren't getting religion in politics, you are getting politics hiding behind a religious veneer. And I mean this for both side, Santorum's "Christianity" has as little to do with the words of Jesus as the Catholic Church's liberation crap of the 1960s/1970s had to do with the words of Jesus. In fact, if Jesus came back tomorrow, Rick Santorum better watch his ass because "I hated all the people you told me to hate" isn't going to go over all that well.

So Bev, sadly, I have to disagree that religion or "The Bible" requires any sort of development of a conscience. To the contrary, there are a vast number of people who claim to love the book but have reinterpreted it their own way to become a weapon to justify their own hatreds and prejudice or their own political aspirations... "God says I should own an SUV!"

Ultimately, the problem with mixing government and religion is that religion is personal. It defines your relationship between you and God (or whatever you call it). Politics is about power and the use of it to control other people. Those two things simply are not the same.

Kit said...

This is one reason why I like what I call "Independent Verification". Or you could say "Secular Verification" or "Empirical Verification".
Basically, if you make a claim that we should do x and outlaw y because "the bible says so" you need to provide independent, non-Biblical proof that doing x is good and that legally allowing y is a bad idea.

Kit said...

This saves you the time of (1) having to prove the Bible is the True Word of God or (2) getting into a Bible Verse-quoting war with a Christian who disagrees w/ you.

BevfromNYC said...

"...I have to disagree that religion or "The Bible" requires any sort of development of a conscience. To the contrary, there are a vast number of people who claim to love the book but have reinterpreted it their own way."

First of all, WHAT???? You disagree with ME! Stop that immediately or I will have to report you to...well, I am sure there is a government agency for reporting stuff like this!

Okay, now that that is out of the way. I should have said that religion is supposed to teach (requires) morality and consciousness about our surroundings and how we effect them. That we are human and are at the mercy of biology, chemistry et al., so there can be multiple interpretations of what the word "is" means. Our brains do not always grasp the deeper meanings of right and wrong, that may be why the Ten Commandments are really pretty simple in the Christian Bible (the Torah is a lot more complicated).

I mean, Christians burned heretics at the stake until someone had the realization that it might be a wrong. How did they come to the realization that it was wrong?

tryanmax said...

Kit, but how do you convince a Bible verse quoting "because the bible says so" Christian to even consider Empirical Verification? (I like that term best.) I'm sure you've had those conversations with people who think the only way of viewing the world is through (their interpretation of) the Bible. Even the simple logic that,"if your understanding of the Bible doesn't comport with reality, then maybe you're reading it wrong," doesn't seem to get through.

Heh, kinda makes me think of a line from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. "The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate."

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Sorry, I will never disagree again! :P

As for the rest, I agree. Religion (other than Islam) is about teaching people morality and conscience. That's why it's a good thing, because it gives people a set of internal values that lead them to make the world better for all around them.

The problem arises when religion gets hijacked (look at Westboro Baptist for example) and it becomes about hate or exclusion, or when it enters politics.

The problem with religion and politics is that the people pushing this typically confuse the two and use their political views to define their religion rather than the other way around. Thus, they aren't pushing "what God wants," they are pushing what they want and they end up re-defining God as wanting what they want.

El Gordo said...

I have often warned of the Christian left. The problem is that most people are not really Christians (or Jews for that matter). A majority of people is never good at any particular hard thing. They are pagan, with a veneer of Christianity because they were born into it, and they are just looking for a cheap way to feel good about themselves. Many don´t like the restrictions religion imposes on them. So when a politician offers them a cheap way out, they think: Hey, I´m cheating on my wife and screwing my business partners and employees, and I´m not caring for my old mother they way I should, but if I´m voting for the good things the left promises, I´m still batting 300 in the eyes of God. So preserving the planet and making "society" more "just" are a pagan substitute.

But this is not a problem confined to Christians. In fact, it gets only worse in the absence of Chrstianity. If you look at Earth today, Christianity is the best thing that happened to mankind.

The salient fact is not that Christians burned heretics or justified slavery. People always found ways to dominate and kill, and other religions and atheist ideologies were generally worse by several orders of magnitude. Every system of thought or faith always gets hijacked because that is how people are. The most fanatically puritan and intolerant busybody today is likely to be a liberal, another term whose meaning has changed into its opposite within 50 years. So much for labels.

The salient fact is that the unique and radical Judeo-Christian idea of man as an individual being, created by God, in his image, having a personal relationship with God, fallen but not damned, made it impossible to continue. It is no accident that slavery was ended at a time when Christianity was relatively strong. The religion was in fundamental conflict with the practice for centuries and the tectonic stress became too great.

That is how progress was made, by advancing the Judeo-Christian view of man and the universe. Only western civilization advanced along this way, slowly and with many detours, often paying a high price for progress.

It is the only civilization worth having.

I am not a Christian but there is no excuse for not knowing the foundations of ones culture. Alas, too many people do not know and therefore the Christian left rises, not with religion (which declines) but with the left in general. They are Christian in the way the many quasi-fascist establishment parties of the 1930s or the British tories of the 1970s were "conservative": it doesn´t matter what they call themselves, they are a symptom of relative decline and regression.

Post a Comment