I don’t see many “conservative Christians” discuss this topic, but frequently in the Bible there are calls for people to care for the poor, like the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), where the rich man was condemned for having the means to help Lazarus who was poor and in need and did not do so.
Therefore, “naturally” or “supernaturally”, God allows or makes people to be rich and poor which is unequal, and urges the richer to help the poorer, which makes them “more economically equal” (no?). Hence is it not a goal of “conservative Christians” to promote some kind of “economic equality” where all are able to be able to meet their needs? For the rich to voluntarily become poorer, and for the poor to become richer, or for all to have a certain amount of needs met, whether through their own earning or charitable aid?
An attempt at “absolute economic equality” would seem to be impossible or undesireable (hence I think of such economic equality as “relative”; there can still be richer or poorer, but is there a desire for trying to eliminate extremes on either end?).
So are “conservative Christians” for “economic equality”, or what do you think of this topic and issue?
You must log in or register to comment.
There is the line in the Bible as well that those who do not work, shall not eat. But surely it is the case that the thrust is towards alleviating intense poverty, which was much more of a pressing issue prior to industrialization.
Personally, I want people to think whatever they want concerning economics - the theology can be interpreted in a variety of ways concerning what should be done, and it does not need to have bearing on the political world.
So are “conservative Christians” for “economic equality”, or what do you think of this topic and issue?
Let there be super Capitalist “no wealth redistribution” conservaties and their opposites, IMO.
I do not want to cut anyone of any political background out of Christianity.
I think I might find fault with certain views on economics from a “Christian view”, but I do agree with allowing for a “broad tent” - sometimes there isn’t (at least in my understanding) “one absolute Christian political view” that everyone must have. Maybe certain communities strive with stricter rules while another works better with more lax rules, and both can be “Christian”. I think some arrangements might not be ok (like Catholics have condemned Communism, and probably orthodox too I’m guessing? Both for the disregard for personal property, and for being anti-religious inherently).
I did not get the whole story on the Orthodox situation with Communists - but what I remember is that some meeting was held and it failed to be ratified that Communism is incapable of being reconciled with Orthodoxy.
And that’s OK… Because I have grown toa gree with that: since it is possible for someone to reject the bad parts of Communism, it is possible to be Communist and Orthodox.
There are even people who do that.
I could see stripping Communism of its offensive parts, but then it wouldn’t be communism. I know a pope issued the Decree against communism - https://infogalactic.com/info/Decree_against_Communism
The Decree Against Communism was a 1949 Catholic Church document issued by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and approved by Pope Pius XII, which declared Catholics who professed Communist doctrine to be excommunicated as apostates from the Christian faith.
I think a main issue is the philosophy itself is atheistic materialism. The other problem I was thinking about while posting is that Communism’s attempt to abolish property, almost is like “universal theft” or makes it impossible to steal… this seems fundamentally against the basic Ten Commandments.
So I don’t know what it would look like but there is probably some left-wing leaning philosophy that Catholics would still be ok with, but I think they would oppose Communism itself for some of the aforementioned reasons
One thing to keep in mind is that a society often necessarily has many different ideologies and outright requires that will be in opposition because no one ideology can provide all the answers. Japan has Shinto and Buddhism and confucianism as influences. Western Europe is influenced by Christianity, Germanic and Celtic warrior culture, and Greco Roman philosophy. America is influenced by Christianity, liberalism, and an almost medieval ideology that paints the founding fathers and the nation they created as a divine gift from God.
The reason that that’s important to keep in mind is that every culture is going to hold competing and different views because you need to have different ways of thinking in order to survive as culture. If you have exactly one ideology then any of the holes in that ideology are going to end up being the death of you.
To give an example of what happens to cultures that don’t have this multifaceted worldview, when Islam came about in the 9th century a lot of Christian empires were completely swallowed up and destroyed because they didn’t have a warrior culture to push back when someone came around trying to take what they had. Islam was founded by a warlord and so when this aggressive new abrahamic religion came around, the cultures that didn’t have anything to counter it we’re just swallowed up. Meanwhile, the Western Europe not just defended themselves against Islam but actively aggressed against it in pursuit of reclaiming Israel. History doesn’t remember this stuff very nicely, but without that warrior spark Western Europe would have become Islamic, and as an example of that modern-day Spain went was an Islamic caliphate for several centuries.
So all that being said, I have to admit my understanding of Christianity is more limited than I ever thought, as I teach it to my son I realize how little cultural osmosis actually passed on, but I’m learning it now and I don’t think you can interpret many of the stories in the Bible as anything but commandments from God to personally work to reduce the inequality between you and the poorest people you know by trying to help your neighbors and build a community based on charity and humility. I believe the phrase the love of money is the root of all evil comes from the bible, as well as the word Mammon which refers to a sort of toxic accumulation of wealth and love for the accumulation of wealth.
A lot of atheists end up criticizing “free market Jesus” has hypocrisy, and if Christianity were the only thing that supporting Western culture then it would be, but there’s a lot of different things that have happened in a lot of different things that can contribute to our culture, which is why the world looks the way it does.
I strongly suspect that if a person is a conservative Christian and their only guiding force is christianity, then there’s going to be an extremely strong push towards economic equality. On an individual level that can actually work out pretty well. It’s only once you’re trying to base an entire civilization off of just that when someone else is going to come in and start breaking things.
It’s only once you’re trying to base an entire civilization off of just that when someone else is going to come in and start breaking things.
Hmmm, why does this allow someone to come in and break things? Because like a rich billionaire or trillionaire might not play by these rules and have the power to upend such a society? Yet, if wealth was distributed more evenly (voluntarily), it would make it possible for everyone to become richer (people often view it the other way, that this is simply making everyone poorer I guess). Hence I guess the idea is the goal of everyone’s standard of living rising together.
It’s interesting you mention Islam versus a more pacifist (?) Christian order, it sounds like today we are experiencing that shift again and a revival for some of a “Christian warrior spirit” perhaps (?). I know Catholics have a long developed “Just War” theory, and protestants don’t seem to have a problem solving in the military for the most part, so it doesn’t seem like many who identify as “Christian” today are particularly averse to defending themselves or communities.
The ones who break things when you’ve got a strong push towards economic equality aren’t usually the rich, it’s the poor who are in their situation due to their own moral failings. It’s called the “free rider problem”, and one of the reasons why both Jesus and Lenin said “He who does not work shall not eat”.
You can definitely get sociopathic rich people, but often rich people learn how to play the game of life, and historically you actually ended up with a lot of philanthropy from the rich in cultures that encouraged it. I think our current culture is a bit damaged in that regards, we’ve sort of handed responsibility for the downtrodden to the state and we get taxed so badly that it’s not an unreasonable expectation that they be taken care of.
Let me give you an example. Someone we know recently became homeless. “Oh, poor thing” you might say – but he had the money to pay rent (provided by the government for that purpose), and then instead used that money on pot and cigarettes. Not for one day, not for two days, not for a week, not for a month, but for a year. After a year (and his landlord finding out that on top of that he was getting money for covid payments) he got kicked out of his apartment…and immediately got into another one. Well, guess what happened? For a year he spent the money he got specifically for rent on frivolities. He became homeless because despite having everything handed to him he wanted more.
A guy like that takes and takes and takes and complains he’s so poor. And he’ll demand more and more and he’ll look at anyone with more than him and demand to know why he isn’t getting his share. I know this because I lived it. I barely know the guy, but my wife and I have a soft spot for people who are down on their luck, and the levels of entitlement were off the charts.
Reminds me of another time… Someone I know had to take 6 months off work to care for his wife who was dying of cancer, and we donated a bit to help him ride through it. One of the free riders we know was outraged that despite getting constant help from us, the money I gave to the guy who was watching his wife die could have gone to her.
What I’ve found is that the people who will make the best use of help are people you practically need to chain the money to their hand. They’re proud, they don’t want hand-outs, but if you help them in their darkest hour then they’ll make great use of it and quite possibly never need help from you again.
With respect to your last paragraph, there’s an interesting concept out there called the “odin switch” – it’s an idea that germanic people are generally law abiding and decent people, but there’s something in them that if set off will turn them into barbarous lunatics. There’s a number of historical examples that support this idea. In this idea, the last thing you want to do is set of the odin switch and be on the wrong side of that. I think we see it with how unreasonably reasonable a lot of people are being with respect to stuff like the summer of love riots, but at this rate something will set it off, and if it does God have mercy on us all…
"The ones who break things when you’ve got a strong push towards economic equality aren’t usually the rich, it’s the poor who are in their situation due to their own moral failings. It’s called the “free rider problem”, and one of the reasons why both Jesus and Lenin said “He who does not work shall not eat”.
This
This is not an issue between rich or poor, and has nothing to do with kindness or charity. We are the same species, and some take a better care for dogs then their first neighbors and family. It is illogical and useless.
