Socialism in the Bible?

----- Original Message -----
From: M Shover
To: Sam Kegley
Sent: 2008-10-28 19:48
Subject: Fw: A few things to ponder


Thanks Martha and Lyle-

Christians will better follow this, because the non-believers just do not want to hear anything that mioght make them lose the election. Am I implying something in this? Yes, somewhat, but some believers are being fooled.

Sam




The following was written by one of the pastors at our former church and sent to us via e-mail from him, as part of a monthly letter. He is a campus pastor too (heading to Florida State next week - hence when he mentions a student at UNC, the questions were addressed to him.) Thought you might want to chew on this - long but worth the read and you'll like his example near the end.

What's Wrong with Spreading Around the Wealth?
There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks about
Barak Obama's comment to "Joe the Plumber" that he wants
to "spread the wealth around." In addition, a radio interview
Obama gave in 2001 has now surfaced in which he uses the
same language - even calling our Constitution "flawed" because
it did not "redistribute the wealth" and a "tragedy" that our
Supreme Court has never corrected this problem.
Of course, to many people, the concept of redistributing
the wealth and spreading the wealth around is nothing more than
socialism or, in the words of Karl Marx, "From each according to
his ability to each according to his need."
Last week, a student at UNC Wilmington asked, "What's so
wrong with spreading the wealth around? What's wrong with
socialism? Isn't that what the Bible teaches?"
Actually, the Bible doesn't teach socialism, but it is
not uncommon for people with a shallow knowledge of the
Bible to think that it does. They point to the following verses
as evidence:
And 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
For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were
owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds
of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be
distributed to each as any had need. Acts 4:34-35
Sounds like socialism. None were rich; none were poor; everyone
shared with one another. The perfect society.
But there are a couple of important distinctions to make here.
First, those who gave to the poor did so voluntarily. Socialism is
mandated by the government; true charity is freely and voluntarily
given from a loving heart. In socialism, the government takes from those
who have and the government gives to those who lack. This is forced --
you have no option of whether or not to participate. There is no love
involved in socialism on the part of the giver. And there is usually not
much gratitude on the part of the receiver because he / she feels
what they receive is not a gift - it is something to which they are
entitled.
Second, in the Bible passages above, the acts of charity were
carried out by the church - not the government. Biblically, the role of
government is to protect the innocent and punish evil people (Romans
13:1-7). The church is the redemptive institution that is best able to
serve the poor. Giving to people in need can be destructive if not
given with the proper discernment (as is evidenced by the abysmal
failure of many of our "war on poverty" programs). While our government
may provide an ultimate safety net for those trapped in poverty, the
church is best equipped to help with the problems that lead to poverty.
Along these lines, notice that the material goods distributed in
the book of Acts were given to those who were part of the Christian
community. They took care of their own poor (Acts 2, 4) of their own
widows (Acts 6), etc. They didn't simply give indiscriminately to anyone
who seemed to be in poverty.
OK, maybe it's not Biblical, but is Socialism Wrong?
I have several other problems with a government feeling
it is there duty to "redistribute the wealth" and to "spread the
wealth around." Here are several of those reasons.
I asked the idealistic student who believed in spreading the
wealth around what she thought was the opposite of "socialism."
She had no idea. Finally, a friend tried to bail her out and offered
"capitalism" as the opposite of socialism. Well, not exactly.
The opposite of "socialism" is freedom. When we give the
government power over our money and the right to redistribute it,
we give up our freedom to control our own possessions. Ultimately,
socialism says that property belongs to the state - or, in some cases,
to the collective community (which, in all practical terms, still means
the state).
I oppose socialism because it takes away individual freedom.
Secondly, and closely following this last point, I oppose socialism
because I believe in ownership of private property. This is established
in the Bible in the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shall not steal." (Ex 20:15).
What I have is mine and is not to stolen from me. If the government has
the right to come take it from me, it isn't really my property - it's theirs.
Third, I oppose socialism because it doesn't work.
The goal of socialism is to eliminate poverty. Of course, Jesus said we
will always have the poor with us (Matt 26:11), so I don't think any
system of government will ever prove Him wrong. But beyond that,
socialism just hasn't worked. Look at socialist societies and you will
find the more socialist it is the poorer it is. Travel the world and you
will see that no place has as much prosperity as America does. In
America, even our "poor" often have living conditions that are the
envy of much of the world. Yes, there may be a big gap between
the rich and the poor in America, but there is also a huge gap
between the poor in America and the poor in most other countries
of the world.
Fourth, socialism is based on a faulty view of human nature.
It assumes that people will work hard and produce even if they
don't receive the reward of their labor. Again, this just has not
proven to be the case. Just try going to a restaurant in a socialist
country where you don't give tips and see what type of customer
service you will receive. And ask if that perky server you get in
an American restaurant would be as nice to you if she wasn't
hoping to get a bigger tip when the check is paid. Socialism doesn't
really reward greater and better work and so you rarely get it.
On the contrary, Scripture teaches that "The laborer is worthy
of his wages" (1 Tim 5:18). Proverbs is filled with promises that
harder work will produce greater financial reward. Socialism
takes this away.
Many young people have not experienced this in the workplace,
but can understand the following illustration from school-work.
A father was talking to his college-aged daughter about socialism:
she was for it, he was against it and she couldn't understand how he
could be so calloused against the less fortunate.
The father asked his daughter what here GPA was. She proudly
reminded him that she was pulling down a 4.0.
"What's your roommates GPA?" he asked.
"She's barely passing her classes. She parties a lot and doesn't
turn in a lot of assignments," his daughter answered.
"Well, you don't really need a 4-point and she is almost failing.
I think we should take one or two of our points and give them to her so
she doesn't fail."
The very thought horrified the daughter. "That wouldn't be fair,"
she protested. "I worked hard for these grades and she doesn't take
her school work seriously."
"Precisely," said the father. "And now you know why I'm not
a socialist."
Why is there so much Poverty in a Rich Country like America?
I'm sure there is no simple answer to that question, but many
things come to mind:

Drug and alcohol abuse
Discrimination
Poor education
Immigrants just starting a new life in a new country

All of these things may contribute to poverty, but do you know the
number one factor contributing to poverty in our country?
It is the breakdown of the family.
Being the child of a single mother - especially if the child was conceived
out of wedlock and never grew up with a father - is the number one factor
correlating with poverty in America today (and I'm sure this is an even
greater cause of poverty in most other countries of the world).
To those who want to address the problem of poverty, I know of no
better solution to offer than that we help young people abstain from
sexual relations until after they are married. But this is such a radical
solution in a land obsessed with sensual gratification that I doubt such
a solution will ever gain much traction. Therefore, we'll just throw more
money into failing schools, etc, while ignoring the root issues that are the
direct result of violating the Seventh Commandment, hoping that we can
get around the principle God has laid out that we will reap what we
sow (Galatians 6:7). (Note: For a fascinating article addressing poverty
and its causes, see http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/ArethePoorGettingPoorer.htm)
Keep praying for our country.
We are experiencing serious problems right now - the result of unbridled
borrowing by individuals, businesses, banks and governments. We have
not seen the worst of it yet. And, we have a serious election in a week.
Be in prayer.
God bless,
Tom Short



Mary in WestervilleOH
(DH Mark, DS Luke 13, DS John Richard 10 - home from RP March 05)