Curious Christian

Reflections on culture, nature, and spirituality from a Christian perspective

Was Jesus a Marxist?

Published by

Matt Stone

2010-08-07

A few things prompt me to ask this question.

Firstly, the many pro-Socialist comments by my mate, Ian Shanahan, who I think could have given Stalin a run for his money. His comments prompt me to ask is socialism more Christlike than capitalism? Is democracy more Christlike than dictarorship? To what extent are they reconcilable?

Secondly, the many anti-Marxist accusations launched against Jim Wallis and Rick Warren by critics such as Glenn Beck. Is there any truth to any of these accusations, of Marxist underpinnings to their social justice theology?

Thirdly, the Marxist leanings of liberation theologians. Is liberation theology something evangelicals can embrace uncritically? How balanced is liberation theology?

Personally, I find the Atheist philosophy of Marx a little difficult to reconcile with Christianity. I see some resonances with God’s concern for the poor. But given the choise between economic egaliatarianism and political totalitarianism on the left, and political egalitarianism and economic totalitarianism on the right, I have to ask, are there different options?

Tags Jesus, Politics

13 responses to “Was Jesus a Marxist?”

Steve Hayes

2010-08-07

Before discussing such things, you need to define your terms. Socialism is not identical with Stalinism, or even Marxism. Capitalism can mean an economic system that happened to develop in certain historical circumstances; it can also mean an ideology promoted by people like Ayn Rand, for whom an idealised form of this economic system is the best of all possible economic systems. What about the Victorian Christian socialists, who owed little to Marx and nothing to Lenin or Stalin?

LikeLike

Reply
Robin Vestal

2010-08-07

I hope the other option is really following Jesus. When I read the Bible it is clear to me that God is extremely concerned with poverty, justice, love, caring for each other…The whole concept of Jubilee which Christ implied he came to bring….
In some ways I think society would look more socialist but the key is that it is a voluntary giving of resources.
In a nonchristian society I think a libertarian type structure allows the most freedom of conscience, of wealth etc.
I am reading Paul Farmer’s Pathologies of power and it reminds me of why Liberation theology developed, why it is needed but of course there are excesses there as well.
It’s not easy…going back to your earlier post about selling everything and following Christ…how does that play out in our lives? To me it’s an uneasy tension between keeping what I need to live (how much is that and what is needed) getting rid of what I don’t need, giving to those that need resources as wisely as I can…but I’m never sure. The things we own can so easily become traps but what of our responsibility to care for those dependent on us? Even Jesus spoke out about those who would dedicate their resources to “God” and neglect to care for their parents…

LikeLike

Reply
Joe Szczepaniak Jr

2010-08-07

“You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.” – Matthew 26:11
This, to me, is a sign that Jesus was not a Marxist. For one thing, he is saying that there is no way to effectively eliminate poverty in its entirety. For another thing, he is saying this (in context) to justify the woman’s decision to allocate resources (an extremely expensive perfume, equal in cost to a year’s wages) to lavishing praise on Jesus in a purely impractical, emotional way. The disciples suggested she could’ve sold the perfume and used it to feed the poor. Jesus honored the woman’s decision. Why? Well, I have an idea…
I think Jesus was blessed by this because the woman was using her resources for the glory of God, but she was doing it in the way she felt led to. The Lord honored the use and the reasoning both. The disciples may have had used it differently, and have been justified in doing so, but this woman’s choice was her own, and she still used it to the same end–the glory of God.
I think it’s people’s responsibility to take care of the weak and needy. It’s the government’s job to empower their people to do so, by running things like national defense, fair trade, etc. The government should empower it’s people to be at their best, not expect them to be at their worst.

LikeLike

Reply
Kalessin

2010-08-07

Joe discussed:
“You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.” – Matthew 26:11
I once had an irate Canadian cite this verse in opposition to the “Make Poverty History” banner on my site from way back.
Was Jesus prognosticating, or just referring to the obvious realities of life in first century Judaea? Nothing suggests to me that this was a universal let alone prescriptive statement.

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2010-08-07

Steve, I thought I’d leave the defining of terms to the conversation. More fun that way 🙂

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2010-08-07

Robyn, the key word for me is “voluntary”. Socialism and Communism both rest on varying degrees of state intervention for wealth redistribution. Now, I’m not saying state intervention is always bad, but Jesus called for something more, for voluntary wealth redistribution. It’s the difference between law and grace.

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2010-08-07

Kalessin, I also wonder how we should interpret this verse in view of his eschatological propecies. I find it hard to imagine Jesus was saying grinding poverty would be found in the resurrection age.

LikeLike

Reply
brambonius

2010-08-07

If I read acts correctly, then the very first church was sharing possessions and had eliminated poverty among them….

LikeLike

Reply
Jonathanblake

2010-08-09

Brambonius, that’s exactly the thought that I had while reading the verse about “the poor being with us always.”

LikeLike

Reply
John

2010-08-11

Of course he was a Marxist.
He probably played a harp – like Harpo.
He thus inspired lots of images in Christian art featuring cherubs etc playing harps.

LikeLike

Reply
Andii

2010-08-15

Of course, the title is anachronistic. However, it might be worth considering the reverse proposition through the lens of whoever et was (Alistair Kee?) who proposed that Marxism was/is a Christian heresy. Marx’s best instincts were formed by Christian values:
.valuing people (because, ultimately they are made in God’s image and died-for by Christ);
.having a concern for the poor and marginalised (which was exemplified in Christ’s own praxis and that of the early church);
.and a respect for the material world (witness the early Christian resistance to Platonic dualism in the form of Gnosticism and hospitality to certain stoic ideas -see John’s prologue).
I would argue that it is unlikely that Marx would have got ‘there’ without being formed by Christian values; other cultures didn’t produce a philosophy which put the material, concern for the poor and a humanistic bent at the heart. The thing we need to have learnt from Marxism is the issue of structural rather than merely charitable engagement with the issues of addressing human welfare and justice: as Oscar Romero is supposed to have said, ‘When I give to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor are poor, they call me a communist’. It is for that stance he was martyred. He was right; we should ask (as part of the outworking of neighbour love) why the poor are poor and, where it is not their fault, address that.
The label doesn’t matter, that’s part of the message of Mt.25, surely?

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2010-08-20

Yes, you’re right, maybe we should regard Marxism as one of the ‘unpaid bills of the church’ as Phil puts it. It’s the movement we had to have when we forgot Christ’s calling for the church to be a witness to the powers and principalities. Structural reform is as important to relieving poverty as personal giving. Where Marxism went off track though, in my view, was firstly in its promotion of an alternative eschatology, and secondly its politically totalitarian approach in implementing its economic aims.

LikeLike

Reply
Mike Lowe

2010-08-23

Marx was a Jew of course, so it is probably more accurate to say that his ideology was informed by the social justice aspects of Judaism than by Christianity. By I agree with Andii on the importance of dealing with structural issues and that this is something we can learn from Marxism.
As to where Marxism went wrong – I tend to agree with Milovan Djilas, who went from being Vice-President of Yugoslovia to a high-profile dissident. Djilas said that the main problem with Marxism was that it was naive about human nature when it assumed that creating a just system would lead to the creation of just people. It seems that sin requires a deeper cure than structural reform.
For this reason, I think that the best of all worlds would be to combine a socialist concern for structural reform with a Christian concern for people’s souls. Holding these two things in balance is something that is rarely seen.

LikeLike

Reply