God and Socialism?

What has God to do with  Socialism? Within  contemporary political and theological language God and Socialism do not mix. In fact Socialism does not mix well in any of the normal forms of contemporary thought or language. Socialism in the popular imagination is assumed to be a discredited political economic system which was  discredited with the fall of the  “communist” societies of Eastern Europe. And of course everyone knows including many self described Socialists, who should know better, that Socialism is primarily about either protecting the welfare state, or the extension of the power of governments into the economic life of societies in order to supposedly meet human needs.
Since every one thinks that they  ”know” these things,  socialism has been relegated to outside the norms of “realistic” and “civilized” conversation. Thus  one of the surest ways a potential political leader can be marginalized  is to be  tinged with the label of “socialist.”

 

 Even those individuals and people who secretly in their heart of hearts believe that a little socialism might be a good thing will never admit it publicly due to fear of the consequences. Further more because everyone believes that socialism has no future in the real world it is considered an act of folly for any one, who wishes to be taken seriously, to suggest it as a real alternative for society. One may discuss socialism in the smallest of private circles. However any attempt by individuals to discuss socialism outside of these circles is to risk being seen as naive, out of touch, as perhaps even being morally diseased in some way. So why talk about God and Socialism?
 
God and Socialism should be discussed because the moral character of God and God’s kingdom and justice can not be understood without talking about Socialism. The very nature of the justice teachings of the Bible as manifested in the Torah, the Prophets, and Jesus’ teachings on the Kingdom of God can not be separated from the political ideals and values of Socialism. I know how outrageous this sounds to most people so I will explain. I will first explain what socialism is not and then I will explain what it is. After that of course I will be able to show its significance to the kingdom of God.

 

One of the commonest errors perpetuated is that Socialism is the equivalent to the failed Communist systems of the old Soviet Union and of the other “Communist”  regimes of Eastern Europe. The fact is that Communism  was based on a perversion of the teachings of Karl Marx which came to interpret communism  as being about one party states, dictatorship, the repression of political and religious freedoms, atheism, etc. I can discuss how this perversion of Socialist ideas developed in another  post. However be assured that Communist totalitarianism was no more socialist than  the Crusades and the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages were authentically Christian. Socialist values are  the opposite of the values that have become associated with  Communism.

 

The other common myth  is that socialism is all about government domination of economic institutions. Let me  state  simply that socialism is not all about the state. So what is it then?  I do not want to discuss the concrete structures of a socialist society in this writing. I will do so in latter posts.

What I want to do is to discuss socialist  values and its broad vision of liberation. I think that an understanding of Socialism’s values and its  broad vision of liberation is necessary in order to show its importance in interpreting the  vision of Jesus’s  kingdom of God. Without the ideas of socialism the vision of kingdom as interpreted in the world  falls flat and becomes cramped within the confines of capitalist restriction.

 

Socialism can be defined by a relatively few values. Some of these values are:  solidarity with the oppressed and the poor, political and economic equality, a desire for the restoration of meaningful human community, democracy, freedom, and of course justice. Any self proclaimed Socialist movement which in its real practice systematically violates these principles is actively  opposing socialism  regardless of its political rhetoric.  Values such as  democracy, liberty, and fraternity (community) can hardly be viewed as being unique to socialism. These are also the values of the great French and American revolutions and are held by millions of people in the world today. The difference between the socialist project and other historical projects such as liberal republicanism  is that Socialists have used these values to radically critique the economic political structure of the capitalist economic system. It is Socialism’s contention that in the economic life of capitalism  these values are in fact suppressed. Therefore  socialists desire to create a political movement that will make these values the real basis of the economic life of societies and nations. 

 

So what does the political economic vision of Socialism have to do with the kingdom of God. The answer to this is all about the proper meaning of the kingdom of God. If as conservative Protestantism does one interprets the kingdom of God  as being purely about the after life, heaven, hell, and an other worldly salvation then of course socialism can have little relationship with this. If Jehovah Witness like, one interprets the kingdom of God as being about a millennium which will be established solely by a supernatural intervention of God in history, then again the socialist vision has little relevance. However if one believes that human activity has a significant role in the movement toward the kingdom of God on earth: and if one believes that the kingdom of God is about the development of equality, justice and solidarity on earth,  then Socialism is of great value in interpreting the meaning and direction of that kingdom.

 

 

Glenn King

What Socialism is not

The widespread belief spread by both the conservative right but also by many persons who do define themselves as socialist is that socialism is primality about a take over of the private enterprise economy by the government. This is false and I will be posting a series of article by both myself and other writers which hopefully will dispel this belief. The first writing is a very good article called “What Socialism is Not” printed within Torch and Rose the newsletter of the Social Democrats, USA.

Glenn

dispelling some falsehoods

Given the name of this group it should be no great surprise that the theme of socialism is central to my political life. Socialism also has a strong role on my theology and particularly my understanding of the kingdom of god and of human justice. Socialism of course has a bad rap in American society. In the next few posts I will present several of my own writings and one writing by from the web site of Social Democracy, USA. Hopefully these writings will dispel some falsehoods that people have regarding the nature of socialism. The first writing is a condensed version of the description of my God and Socialism Yahoo group.

a name change

I am back on this blog again. I have been busy and have not been able to maintain activities on it. However from this point on I think that I will be able to begin posting regularly. I am  announcing another name change. I do not see any great reason to explain this change. I think that after some time readers will understand why.

Glenn

Making things Uncomfortable?

       In my previous post I argued that the biblical evidence suggest that  God’s attitude toward the rich is ambiguous at best. God as the Latin American liberation theologians argued a couple of decades ago favors the poor and in general condemns the rich. This of course goes against the comfortable assumptions of North American Christianity. Therefore why make these argument.

I am not writing this in order to make those who have some comfort in life feel guilty about some of the wealth that they have earned as a result of the work that they have done. Neither did I write this because I believe that the poor are morally better than are the rich. I do not believe that they are. Neither do I believe in the radical views of some of the Latin American liberation theologians that God is found uniquely in the faces of the poor. I have worked as a welfare worker my whole life and I do not see the face of God in people who apply for food stamps any more than in any other people. What I do believe though is that God is the advocate and liberator of the poor because great injustice has been done to them. God is the righter of injustice.

         Some explanation is needed. The Bible was written within a agrarian society in which the most important form of property was land. The Bible was not written by economists who could describe mathematically why the vast majority of people in most societies become poor and very small elites become very rich. They knew that it had something to do with

 interest rates, the adding of field to field,  unjust laws and bad law courts.  But in general they do not go into concrete details of the process.

         Now in the modern world particularly within the wealthiest societies on earth a lot more is known about the historical process of the  historical accumulation and creation of wealth. Thus we also know more about the development of both riches and poverty both in its absolute and relative forms.  And the fact is that  all historical societies have been run in such a way that wealth is always accumulated by a few and not by the majority of

people who do the work of society. For example, what should be crystal clear, is that any large transnational corporation or other wealth generating enterprise does not exist solely because one man did all of the work and thus created this wealth himself. No billionaire makes his millions because his work is so much more valuable than the work of the tens or hundreds of thousands of his worker / employees. He in fact is rich because the accumulation of profit that ultimately creates the great corporations of society are always said by law to be owned by him, his immediate predecessors and other folk like them.

        The great mass of working people who do the vast majority of the work never receive the lion’s share of the profits produced by their labor. The basic fact is that societies are  organized as they are  because governments are ultimately controlled by and support the control of the rich over the productive work and wealth of society. I think that this is the fact that the biblical prophets kept running up against. This is the reason I believe that ultimately the bible has a strong bias against wealth and the rich.

       Now from a practical point of view, I no longer believe that it is likely that any type of political movement can be built that would actually  challenge the capitalist basis of modern society. The old socialist and communist movements have failed miserably in their dream of a just society. The basic fact is that a state owned economy is ultimately no more just than is a purely capitalist one. The socialist vision failed and is now completely discredited in the minds of the majority of people in the West and in fact probably in most of the third world as well.

       However What I do think is that the biblical critique of wealth and poverty and its concepts of justice and oppression are very relevant in how we do politics in this society. For example the politics  of Christain political conservatives

that states that government should not help the poor with public assistance, Medicaid, universal health care or with policies that “God forbid” would give a few more percentages of the national income to the poor are simply anti-biblical. The idea that only Christians through their churches should support the poor through charity is completely insane and denies spirit of what the Bible teaches. Well, I will end here. As I announced when I formed this site this is a place to discuss religion and politics. For some what I have said will be totally unacceptable. Well I can only write what I believe. If that makes my views too out side the margin of political and theological correctness, so be it.

 

Glenn King

God and the Rich

          It seems to me that the mainstream biblical interpretation of both fundamentalist and liberal varieties generally either ignore or deliberately misinterpret the Bible on the issue of wealth. In general the tendency is for interpreters is to minimalize and to ignore the fact that Jesus, James, the prophets and the Torah  in general does not seem to like or favour the rich, and their riches. On the contrary the vast part of the Bible seems to be partisan to the poor and to those described as “oppressed.” I can cite a multiple number of scriptures to prove this. But a couple will do. Jesus said “blessed are the poor for they will inherit the kingdom of God.”  He also said “woe until the rich.” Note. these are paraphrased. If one wants some Old Testament examples I can refer them to Psalms 9-10 and Psalms 72.

      

The partisonship of the God of the bible for the poor and in opposition to the rich I think is fairly clear. The  issue is why is this the case? Those who attempt to explain the fact that the rich do not seem to enjoy favour in the Bible  generally respond by attempting to spiritualize and psychologize these traditions. Thus for norminative Christian Fundamentalism which has as its dominant concern an other worldly concern of salvation from hell and

and the award of  heaven, the issue becomes one of attitude. The status of being rich is not problematic because there is anything objectively problematic about riches in itself. The problem is only that the  wealthy often love their riches more than God. They then go on the explain how the rich young ruler and company obviously put their riches first.

 

       But the problem is that the Bible does not say anything that suggests that the rich young ruler and other rich persons necessarily put their riches  before God any more than do the poor or  any other people put what they have before God. Yes the Bible certainly states that trust should be in God and not riches or any other things. Most human beings are not totally faithful and put some things before God. And the rich however are no more guilty in this than others. Therefore attempts to psychologize the biblical hostility to the rich and to wealth does not work. 
      
     I would instead  argue that the answer the question is at least found in how  the Bible generally discribes  the poor. On this issue the Bible is clear.  With the exception of the book of Proverbs the Bible
tends to describe the poor as oppressed, suffering and in fact the victims of injustice. And God is generally seen as the liberator who brings justice to the poor. Again I can cite a multiple of examples to support this contention.

The question now arises – who are the wicked who oppresses
the poor?  Are they just common thieves and robbers in other words criminals? It is perhaps possible to interpret some of the references to the wicked in the Bible this way. But I think that in general  the rich, powerful and wicked are all placed by the Bible in pretty much in the same camp. After all again why does Jesus say “woe to the rich in pretty much the same breath as he says “blessed are the poor.”  Why did Mary say (Luke 1.52-53) that he “fills the hungry with good things but the rich he sends away empty.”

I will have more about this issue in future posts.

Glenn

Obama and Warren

During the last view days I have been working on developing
my first two blogs. Now I am ready follow the conversation here
more closely. Obama? First I really do not have a lot of interest
in what “spiritual leaders” say about him. Their expertize seems
to be more about heaven or alternate states of consciousness
than about politics.

However I do believe that Obama may become a great president
as exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt. Why? First what impresses me
about Obama is both his brilliant and flexible political intelligence
and his knowledge. I think that both his cabinet selections and
his prior political history give evidence of this. I am impressed that
he seems to take Abraham
Lincoln, America’s greatest president, as his role model. What
that means is that Obama will attempt to govern from the center.
From that center he will work hard to bring in more elements such
as the more moderate wing of the evangelical Christian movement.
By developing this center alliance a President Obama will be able
to make the major reforms on energy policy, environment, health care
and the economy needed by this nation.

This is the reason that he has picked Rick Warren to give the
opening prayer at his presidential inaugural. Yes Warren is not friendly
to gays. by all accounts. I can understand
why the gay community would be very unhappy about Obama’s
choice of Warren for this role.

However there are two ways of judging people politically.
One way is statically. One can look a person or group’s positions at the
present moment of time and determine that because of certain
litmus test differences that they have with oneself they are the
enemy. One
can also choose to look at them in a more dynamic way. This is in fact
what Obama in the precedent of Abraham Lincoln is doing.
Yes on the issue of gay rights Warren position is unacceptable to
the gay community and
to many within the Democratic Party. However in many ways
Rick Warren has been a leader in the push within the evangelical
camp to take on the issues of environment, global warning,
poverty, Darfur, etc. On all of these issues he could be an
invaluable ally to Barak Obama’s cause.

So what is Obama to do? To not make overtures until
Warren changes on the gay issue? This would please the
gay community and the
Democratic Party base. However it could
also impede Obama’s attempt to create the alliance he needs
to deal with issues of major reform. Or should he in
a sense “forgive” Rick Warren and others holding similar positions
on the issues centered around gays and offer him some symbolic
honor be granting him the privilege of offering the invocation
at his inaugural. Of course Rev. Warren also has some problems here.
To many in the Christian Right Obama is little better than an
Anti- Christ.
Warren himself will be attacked for giving Obama his symbolic
support at the presidential inaugural.

To finish this up. I certainly could understand the idea that
Obama would have betrayed the gay community if he in fact
for the sake of political expediency has decided to support a political
program that leads to a denial of the rights of gay people.
However all that Obama is doing is offering a hand of friendship
to people whose help in the long run he may need. If this succeeds
the interests of all Americans including that of gays will be promoted.

As I stated in my first post this blog is in many ways an extension of

the ideas and activities which I have supported in the “God’s justice

and kingdom” an e-group of which I am moderator. This is actually the twin

post to my second post on this site “Homosexuality – Why the Passion?”

This post was written first and was a response to both some

discussion of some “spiritual leaders” views on President Elect

Obama and to the anger of many members of both the Democratic Base and

 of the homosexual community

 

Glenn

____________________________________________________________

Homosexuality – Why the passion?

Patrick, clearly the use of the word homophobe to describe those who hate or disapprove of homosexuals is literally inaccurate. While certainly there may be some fear in involved in some cases a better word would be “homothropy.” However who ever coined the word in the first place decided to use “phobe” instead of “throp.” In spite of the problems about the root meaning of the word, the Merriam Webter dictionary defines homophobia as being “the irrational fear of. aversion to, or discrimination of homosexuals.” So in spite of what is might have been meant originally by “homophobia” the word now more commonly means the dislike or hatred of homosexuals. Thus there is in fact little that is wrong with how the homosexual community uses the word.

That said I think it is a mistake to even get into an argument on how words are used. The issue is about how society should respond to homosexuality. Clearly Christian traditionalism believes that homosexuality is biblically wrong. The homosexual community believes other wise. Part of Christian traditionalism’s argument is that homosexuality is only a behavior or sin such as hatred, great, adultery, etc. Homosexuals however argue that it is more than that. That their sexual orientation is hardwired into their very being. If that is the case they can not change that orientation. I believe that they have the best of that argument.

Of course even if homosexuality is the manifestation of a genetic predisposition it is still possible for fundimentalist Christians to argue that it is still a sin and should be opposed. However, I really have to wonder why homosexuality is the sin that members of the Christian Right commonly love to hate. Because it is a threat to the family? But look there are many threats that are more dangerous to the family than is homosexuality, which to me hardly seems like a threat at all. What about adultery and the weak divorce laws. Why is not a strong national campaign raised against the evils of divorce and adultery. No it is always to homosexuals who are hit.

I will end this on the subject of the Bible. The Bible recognizes slavery and the domination of woman by their husbands. Yet most modern Christians understand that all forms of slavery are wrong and most if not all believe in the equality of men and women. They believe this in part because what ever the biblical practice the ultimate principles of love and compassion manifested in the bible seemed to ultimately in principle to oppose both slavery and female subordination as social institutions.

I would argue the same in the case of homosexuality. Actually the Bible
says little about homosexuality. Jesus does not even mention it. So why the rage over it? Well there are obviously other non biblical reasons. All that being the case it seems to me that certainly a biblical case can be made that love and compassion should be shown homosexuals rather than the dislike and hatred that the Christian right manifests. At a minimum American society should have laws to protect the rights of homosexuals to civil union and all of the economic and political benefits of society.

Glenn

The Theme?

So what is the theme here? In general most people certainly most persons who are not members of the Christian Right separate religion and politics into two separate airtight categories. To allow one’s theological thinking or basic religious world view to effect one’s political thinking and action is viewed as an intolerable imposition on the mandate of modernity.

My posts in this place will be based on the opposite assumption that political and theological thought go together as two sides of the same coin. Thus Jesus’ statements that he came to liberate the poor and that in some sense they are blessed have political consequences or meaning. This meaning, the interconnections between biblical and post biblical theological thought and political thought and action, etc is what will be discussed here. Certainly ideas such as the kingdom of God, justice, and other ideas from the political economic realm such as democracy, socialism, and ongoing issues of good old fashioned American politics will
be discussed here. Perhaps some may find this of interest.

Glenn