Socialism and Christianity
By W. L. Sims
Are the Two Systems Compatible? — Would Christ Be a Socialist if He Were Here Now?
THIS is the first of two articles by Elder Sims on the subject of Christianity and socialism. In this article, he shows that the teaching of Christ is out of harmony with the doctrines of the socialist, and that therefore the dream which many have of uniting the two for the purpose of reforming the world, is a delusion. Next week he will show that the teaching of many leading socialists themselves makes it clear that they have no regard for Christianity in advancing their theories for the "betterment of the social order." EDITOR. MANY present-day advocates of socialism, from pulpit, platform, and press, maintain that the teachings of Jesus and the Scriptures support the doctrines and methods of socialism. If this claim is true, then every follower of Christ should welcome the teachings of socialism. If, on the other hand, the claims and aims of socialism are not founded upon the principles of Christianity, then no advocate of socialism is justified in claiming that Christ, if He were on earth to-day, would champion their cause. THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION
Worcester's dictionary defines socialism to be "a science of reconstructing society on an entirely new basis, by substituting the principles of association for that of competition in every branch of human industry." This definition is endorsed by Webster, the Century, and the Standard. The choice lies between cooperation and competition. Therefore the socialists would have it appear that if Jesus would not advocate cooperation according to socialistic principles, He must endorse competition. To show that the foregoing conclusion does not necessarily follow, we will briefly contrast the teachings of Jesus and the Scriptures with the doctrines and methods of socialism. By a careful reading of the New Testament, we learn that the principal business of Jesus was to spread a doctrine of life that made a man's economic or temporal conditions a secondary matter. Matt. 6: 31-33. According to the teachings of Jesus, a change of heart was of far more value and importance than a change in outward conditions. "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Matt. 16: 26. Here in this fundamental principle the teaching of Christ differs absolutely from that of socialism. The two systems are as wide apart as are the poles. The socialists regard poverty as about the worst thing that can happen to a man. Their great plea is to abolish poverty. In seeking to own the world and all things therein, they would destroy the individual capitalist, and make of him "a useful citizen"—a laboring man. But when Jesus appeared among men, He chose to cast His lot not with the rich, but with the poor laboring class. He was poor. He said, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay His head." He never taught that poverty was a hindrance to one's spiritual growth. Philosophers of socialism tell us that the poor do not have a fair chance to develop fine characters; but Jesus thought and taught differently. He considered the rich to be the most handicapped. When the rich young ruler, who thought so much about his wealth that he forgot the needs of his neighbors, came to Jesus, the prescription that Jesus gave him was unsparing. He said, "Sell that thou hast, and give to the poor." Matt. 19: 16-22. Jesus did not thus speak because He hated the young capitalist, or because He was against the system that was in vogue at that time, whereby this young ruler was enabled to obtain his great possessions. It was because He loved him, and wanted to save him from the love of money, which is the root of all evil. And Jesus knew it would be worth the price. The giving by Zaccheus of half his goods, delivered him from the bondage of avarice, and Jesus asked no more. Luke 19: 1-10. Jesus did not rebuke the possessor of riches, save when these hindered the growth of a man's noble character. NEITHER ENDORSED OR CONDEMNED ANY ECONOMIC DOCTRINE
Jesus, in His teachings, never endorsed or condemned any economic doctrine. He treated industrial questions exactly as He treated political questions — He let them alone. He talked of love for one's neighbor, but He never so much as hinted at a social program for demonstrating it in the industrial world. "My kingdom is not of this world," He declared. John 18: 36. At one time, the kingdoms of this world were offered to Him. Matt. 4: 8, 9. At another time, the people were ready to do anything that He might suggest. They were ready to cooperate with Him in any municipal reform He might advocate. They were so earnest that they would have taken Him by force and made Him king if He had not withdrawn Himself from them. John 6: 15. Hence Jesus, throughout His life, persistently kept aloof from everything political, and from all the affairs of the state. And so faithfully did He stand on this principle, that when a certain man came to Him and said, "Speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me," Jesus replied with the words, "Man, who made Me a judge or a divider over you?" Luke 12: 13, 14. NO EFFORT TO EQUALIZE DISTRIBUTION
From these clear words of Jesus, it is easy to be seen that He would not identify Himself with a movement to equalize the distribution of wealth as a political or industrial measure. The government under which Jesus lived was corrupt and oppressive. On every hand were crying abuses. The rule of competition was in full swing. There was extortion, graft, intolerance, and grinding cruelty. Jesus did not call for municipal reform. He did not formulate a socialistic program. He did not organize a "Law and Order League," a "Good Government League," or a "Civic Improvement Club." Neither did He recommend such matters to become the business, or to occupy the time and labors, of His disciples and the church. No; the Saviour attempted no civil reform. He attacked no national abuses, nor condemned the nation's enemies. He did not interfere in the least with the authority or administration of those in power. And if He were here to-day, He would be the very same Jesus that He was then, for He is "the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever." He would hold Himself aloof from all political and industrial questions. Hence He would not be found promulgating the doctrines and methods of socialism. "MAN IS GOOD, SOCIETY IS BAD"
"Man is good, but society is bad; hence society must be reconstructed," say the socialists. "No," says the gospel of Jesus Christ; "society would be all right if man were good." Society is what men make it. Even socialism could never make a society better than the individuals composing the society. The fact is, man is bad. He is selfish, and needs to be reconstructed, to be changed by the grace and Spirit of God. If society were made up of such changed men, then as among the believers in apostolic days, social conditions would be transformed. Equal privileges and comforts would be provided for all, for each would be looking for the others' interest. But this is the work of Christianity alone. "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." Acts 4: 32-35. IT CAN NOT REFORM THE WORLD
Such a condition can never be accomplished by socialism. Therefore we conclude that it is the height of folly to expect socialism to584succeed in reforming the world. The transforming grace of Christ is the only power that can do it. The ethics of Christianity are founded on love, the ethics of socialism are founded on force. One is the power of love; the other, the love of power. And power without love will be intolerant, oppressive, and cruel. Such would be the rule of socialism if it had its own way. The ideals of socialism being incompatible with the selfish nature of man, the only basis upon which socialism could hope to succeed would be the enforcement of the socialists' regime under the principles of militarism.