Posted on 11/02/2008 8:54:30 AM PST by SeekAndFind
While I truly tremble at the mere mention of the name "Jesus" in the same sentence with the word, "socialism," this question is one of the central issues of this presidential election, with Barack Obama a convert to the Marxist Black Liberation Theology practiced by Jeremiah Wright. And I believe it deserves consideration.
Of course, who am I to even attempt to answer such a question? I've spent two days now trying to figure out where to begin.
After all, Jesus preceded Marx historically by nearly 19 whole centuries. In addition, Marx built his entire socialist philosophy on the initial premise that God was merely a human delusion, and the second that religion was nothing more than an "opiate of the masses."
Therefore, any attempt to make Jesus a socialist begins with many contradictions.
As Pope Benedict XVI has written:
"Let us recall the fact that atheism and the denial of the human person, his liberty and his rights, are at the core of the Marxist theory...Moreover, to attempt to integrate into theology an analysis whose criterion of interpretation depends on this atheistic conception is to involve oneself in terrible contradictions. What is more, this misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of the person leads to a total subordination of the person to the collectivity, and thus to the denial of the principles of a social and political life which is in keeping with human dignity."
Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have had to confront various forms of liberation theology and socialist interpretations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And both concluded unequivocally that all such attempts at transforming Christianity into a political creed, giving special favor to the materially poor, was like mixing oil with water. They simply do not mix.
As Pope Benedict XVI explains further:
"In its positive meaning the Church of the poor signifies the preference given to the poor, without exclusion, whatever the form of their poverty, because they are preferred by God...But the theologies of liberation...go on to a disastrous confusion between the poor of the Scripture and the proletariat of Marx. In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle."
So, what is the Christian meaning of the poor? It is simply that there are a host of ways to be poor. And according to the Christian faith the worst form of poverty is not material; it is spiritual. One can be rolling in money and material goods, but be spiritually impoverished. One can be materially poor as dirt, but spiritually rich.
Jesus did make many statements about the virtues of being generous with one's own material wealth, whether it be great or small. However, the innate crux of every one of Jesus' admonitions to give to those less fortunate was freedom. Unless the deed was done freely, according to the giver's own free will, there was no blessing in the deed at all.
Today, the faith component of Barack Obama's candidacy rests upon this one particle of Jesus' ministry, that by coercively "spreading the wealth" to all by means of a state collective distribution center we will somehow achieve the kingdom of Jesus on earth. In this belief, Obama is backed by a host of religious left people of a host of faiths, most predominantly those claiming to be Christian.
Much of the theological component to the Christian left's support for Barack Obama is found in Matthew 25:31-46, which refers to the Judgment of the Nations at the prophesied Second Coming of Christ.
Matthew 25:31-32:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats."
The Gospel writer then goes on to define how God will separate the "good" nations from the "bad" nations, based upon how each nation has treated the "least of these" among them. These "least" are enumerated by Matthew as the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the ill, and the imprisoned. In the Gospel, Jesus tells the nations, when you did good to these "least" you did it to me, and you will be deemed good and worthy of the God's kingdom.
This judgment of the nations was to occur at Jesus' Second Coming. According to Catholic Biblical commentary, the definition of the "least of these" described in Matthew was not absent theological meaning. Although there is some disagreement over the authentic meaning of these verses, "a stronger case can be made for the view that in the evangelist's sense the sufferers are Christians, probably Christian missionaries whose sufferings were brought upon them by their preaching of the gospel."
The real problem with assuming that all of these merciful works can be taken at face value and given a purely political meaning is that these words were intended to apply to Christian missionaries carrying out the Great Commandment given by Jesus immediately before his Ascension into heaven.
And what was that Great Commandment?
"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
Gospel of Mark: 28:18-20
Personally, I think one could write volumes about this intersection of faith and politics. Indeed, volumes have been written. And what we are left with is still the very question that Jesus posed to the Apostle Peter:
"Who do you say I am?"
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She blogs at commonsenseregained.com
When Jesus forgave sins, He said: "Go ye and sin no more."
He did not say: "Party on dude."
You don't see the difference between a small community of belivers, and forced giving through taxes?
Another community of believers, the Plymouth colony, failed dismally in about two years.
Also noteworthy is an absolute lack of commandment to do so in the word. Not to be a trouble maker? Hmmmmmm
The most forgotten commandment is not to COVET.
This tells me that God thinks a stable society needs people to earn their own things and not take them from others.
The fictional character Hannibal Lector said that before you commit a crime, you COVET. COVETing is the gateway drug to evil.
Barack Obama honored Saul Alinsky and Alinsky honored Lucifer, who did a spectacular job of illustrating this point.
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. Matthew 22:20-21
The title is so off base. Jesus is and always will be a theocratic monarchist.
exactly. Jesus knew the heart of man.
Can't quibble about that... LOL....
:>)
I didn’t think you would.
Millions for Charity! Not one Penny by tribute!!
I think Jesus would want me to give from my heart.
I don’t think He would strong arm my money away from me to give to someone to lazy to work for it.
And as the Author says, socialism strips God from public view. I can see Christ giving a sermon on the mount now, ‘don’t believe in me. I am not here. Nothing to see, so move along’.
Feels more and more like the Last Days; but someone assured me that the antiChrist won’t be married, so it can’t be Obama.
Ping, for this is an important question.
I haven’t read through the responses, but they should be enlightening.
One of my favorite utterings by Jesus isn’t very often mentioned.
It basically goes, “Whoever hath, more will be given; whoever hath not, more will be taken away.”
I’m too scattered with other stuff right now to chase down the chapter/verse/gospel book citation, etc.
It comes across as very harsh, really, but to me, it basically means it is up the individual to make sure they do whatever is necessary to earn and keep whatever it is that is good, be it faith or stores or health or what have you...I see it as an exhortation to personal accountability for one’s circumstances.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but if so I’d welcome anyone’s input.
The way I think about it is that those who have faith in Jesus will have that faith increased if they seek His truth.
Those who have no faith will find the wide and easy path to ruin increased, and their faith will be ever diminished. But, I am no Bible scholar, either.
Think about the parable of the mustard seed?
Jesus said that we should willingly and lovingly help our neighbor. He even said that if we give plentifully but without love that we can’t please God.
But, government taxation and wealth redistribution is quite the opposite.
In my opinion, Jesus most certainly would not forcibly take from one to give it to another.
It is our job to help others in need, not the government’s. Therefore, it is my opinion that Jesus is not a socialist. There is nothing loving about thee sterile welfare state, and if we have not love, we cannot please God.
1 Cor 13:3: “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” KJV
“If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it but if I didn’t love others, I would have gained nothing.” NLT
When the state attempts to do the job of loving and caring, it not only does a poor job, as an institution cannot “love”, it also discourages the people form loving and caring for each other, because the government is in essence saying that it’s not our job, it’s the job of the state.
Again, just my opinion, but I think the Word supports it.
I went and checked where it was I’d remembered that verse from, and it’s at least found in the Parable of the Talents, if not elsewhere also...so, it’s the old “use it or lose it” thing.
But I don’t really even consider myself a Christian anymore, even though I recognize the spiritual truth in His teachings.
NO!
Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife.
Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.