I don’t get up in arms about too much. I’m not even here to argue whether socialism is good or bad. Whatever I think about socialism, Jesus simply didn’t advocate it. Let me explain why.
First, the definition of socialism. Here’s a direct copy and paste of the relevant definitions from Mirriam-Webster:
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Casually, when people refer to socialism, I believe what they mean is, “The government takes the money of people who have it, and redistributes it to those who have less of it”. I disagree with that idea, but I’m not really going to spend time here addressing personal disagreement with the philosophy. I’d rather stay focused on why Jesus didn’t support it.
Now, let me address the image above. It’s the one, or something like it, that I see most often when people want to call Jesus an advocate for socialism. This is in reference to something Jesus did that is recorded in all four Gospels. He fed a great many people. The account says 5000 men, but there were likely as many women and children as well. He fed them by taking one boy’s meal (five loaves of bread and two fish) and serving it to the rest of the assembled people, and then afterward, they collected 12 baskets of leftover food.
This was a miracle, obviously. Jesus had done something that didn’t have anything to do with political commentary, nor was it a social edict of some kind. It was compassion. Read the passage as it’s told in Luke:
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
But here’s the thing about this passage. This is totally voluntary. This isn’t taxation, it’s generosity. These people, new believers from all over the place both geographically and socially, who were Jews, Romans and so forth, became united in one purpose. This wasn’t governmental. These people were caring for each other out of love for each other. This isn’t socialism either. This is what it looks like to “love your neighbor as yourself.”
This is much more than socialism. It is a call to care for others yourself, and a call to sacrifice willingly to make sure people are cared for. It has nothing to do with a government taking, and then redistributing wealth. No, it’s more immediate, and more personal. You don’t get to tell someone else what to do with their money/property/time. It falls to you.
And if I may, that’s why I disagree with socialism. Because it ought to never get to that point. If you’re going to cite Jesus as your template, then you’re going to have to reckon with the fact that he doesn’t ask for governmental oversight. He calls for you to take it into your own hands and care for that person next to you. That’s how he does it himself.
The Bible says that giving should be done from the heart as you are led, not from compulsion, and not with a bad attitude. It’s not “from each according to his ability” at all. It’s deeper than that. It’s “from each according to his desire”.
We don’t get to rely on other people to give, and we can’t wait on the government to compel it.
Not if we’re using Jesus as our example.