Supply-Side Jesus Is a Lie

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
Link to original article.

"NPR broadcast this piece. on American Christians' disagreement over Christianity's economic teachings, on Morning Edition today. Unsurprisingly, left-leaning Christians like me feel Jesus taught a basically leftist approach to social welfare issues; we feel that when Jesus is talking about feeding the poor and the hungry, comforting prisoners, and helping the homeless, that he means exactly what he says. Right-leaning Christians, perhaps also unsurprisingly, feel that Jesus forbids public spending on the poor, or taxing the rich, or interfering with personal economic liberty. Their Jesus generally sounds a lot like Ron Paul.


After the House passed its budget last month, liberal religious leaders said the Republican plan, which lowered taxes and cut services to the poor, was an affront to the Gospel — and particularly Jesus' command to care for the poor.

Not so, says Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee. He told Christian Broadcasting Network last week that it was his Catholic faith that helped shape the budget plan. In his view, the Catholic principle of subsidiarity suggests the government should have little role in helping the poor.

I know intramural religious disputes can seem completely mystifying to outsiders, and even to nominal insiders who haven't had much religious instruction. It's too easy to believe that whatever a particular preacher on TV (or NPR) happens to be saying on the air is "what Christianity teaches," but Christians disagree passionately about almost everything, including things that might seem straightforward and simple. So let me put this religious disagreement in context:

If Congressman Paul Ryan went to church yesterday, the first Bible reading he heard was this:

Acts 4:32-35
The community of believers was of one heart and mind,
and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own,
but they had everything in common.
With great power the apostles bore witness
to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus,
and great favor was accorded them all.
There was no needy person among them,
for those who owned property or houses would sell them,
bring the proceeds of the sale,
and put them at the feet of the apostles,
and they were distributed to each according to need.

How do I know what selections from the Bible were read in Ryan's parish yesterday? Because, like every Sunday, the same three readings from the Bible were read in every Catholic parish yesterday. So this reading wasn't just read in Paul Ryan's church. It was read in Rick Santorum's church, and Newt Gingrich's, and all five conservative Supreme Court Justices'. If they went to Mass yesterday, this is what they heard near the beginning of the service. And if they happened to sleep late yesterday, this passage comes by (like every single passage in the New Testament) every three years in a systematic rotation. They all know this passage.

Now, what the Apostles are doing in this passage might sound a lot like socialism. That's because it is a lot like socialism: no individual property, redistribution of wealth according to need, collective decision making, and what is basically a 100% capital gains tax.

Where did the Apostles get such ideas? From hanging around with Jesus, whom they worked with closely during his life and from whom (if you believe in the New Testament) they received further direct instruction shortly after his death and resurrection.

Now, if you don't believe in Jesus's resurrection, that's fine. If you're not interested in what Jesus or his personal disciples thought about economics, more power to you.

But if you're making a claim that Jesus opposed socialism, you're just making up your own Jesus who says whatever you want him to say. You aren't the first, so don't feel special.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
What's telling about this piece is, they don't know the Bible. That bit from Acts 4 is probably the most damning piece against socialism in all of literature. Why?

Because of what happened NEXT. They had to abandon this approach, because it wasn't long before they had loafers who would do no work, prompting Paul to declare "he who will not work shall not eat". It wasn't long before the distribution of food began to suffer from racism and personal preference, and they had to appoint the first church officers to make sure this didn't happen. They had people who pigged out and got drunk at the Lord's Supper on Sundays.

Eventually you had the personal example of Paul who mentioned that he had the right to be supported by virtue of his job as a traveling evangelist - but he refused to do so. He chose to work rather than take handouts.

And I've always said, if it didn't work for the Christians who at least had a sound basis for sharing - it just doesn't work. You cannot hope to get decent productivity out of people when everyone shares equally. The best situation to strive for is for everyone to care for themselves as best they can and to care for those around them as they are able.

And as an added note, what these folks promote is not Christian charity - they would just as soon balk and sneer at Christianity if some of its less palatable parts were required of them.

Paul said that God loves a cheerful giver - it is not Christian charity to compel money from others, no matter what you plan to do with it. That's just theft.
 
Top