Thursday, March 03, 2005
Thoughts on Socialism
My wife and I have some very dear friends. They are great people. The wife of the couple is; however, an ardent socialist. This can make for some very interesting dinner conversation.
I understand how she can think that socialism is God's desire. You look at passages like the end of Acts 2 and conclude that socialism must be what God wants.
But then there are all those passages that run contrary, like all the laws in the Old Testament that affirm private property. Last night, once again teaching the high school Bible Study, I ran into the parable of the servants and the talents. One of the concluding lines of that parable is most decidely not socialistic:
Which brings up one of the reasons I oppose "Evangelical Environmentalism." Part of it has to do with something I said in my continuing discussions on recent church trends.
But there is another salient point. Environmentalism usually expresses itself as socialism. It does not involve money directly, but consider for example that it takes from the "rich" in the form of land and gives to the "poor" threatened species. Radical environmentalism calls into question the very concept of land ownership, because "the earth belongs to all of us."
It is dangerous, dangerous ground for Christians to tread. But my spirits are bouyed when I see blogs like The Commons. This blog is devoted to environmental action through entirely private means and the marketplace. I do not agree with everything I have seen there, but I think it is a great step in the right direction. I am especially fond of this post.
I understand how she can think that socialism is God's desire. You look at passages like the end of Acts 2 and conclude that socialism must be what God wants.
But then there are all those passages that run contrary, like all the laws in the Old Testament that affirm private property. Last night, once again teaching the high school Bible Study, I ran into the parable of the servants and the talents. One of the concluding lines of that parable is most decidely not socialistic:
Matt 25:29 - "For to everyone who has shall more be given, and he shall have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.That sounds remarkably like a widening gap between rich and poor to me.
Which brings up one of the reasons I oppose "Evangelical Environmentalism." Part of it has to do with something I said in my continuing discussions on recent church trends.
Movements, by the very fact that they are labeled movements, scare me in this regard. People become involved in the movement, instead of in the reason the movement was founded. For example, as Blogs For Terri mentioned today, the Philadephia Inquirer did a piece over the weekend on the Terri Schiavo reaction. I was interviewed for the piece, but did not make the article. The reporter was looking for people that thought Terri a 'symbol.' I told her I did not think there was anything symbolic about it -- this was just a woman whose husband was attempting to starve her to death. The reporter was more interested in the 'movement' around Terri than in Terri. That's the kind of thing that scares me.I am always worried that a movement in the church will become an idol.
But there is another salient point. Environmentalism usually expresses itself as socialism. It does not involve money directly, but consider for example that it takes from the "rich" in the form of land and gives to the "poor" threatened species. Radical environmentalism calls into question the very concept of land ownership, because "the earth belongs to all of us."
It is dangerous, dangerous ground for Christians to tread. But my spirits are bouyed when I see blogs like The Commons. This blog is devoted to environmental action through entirely private means and the marketplace. I do not agree with everything I have seen there, but I think it is a great step in the right direction. I am especially fond of this post.
Too often environmental policy discussions assume that the only way to advance environmental values is to create a government program or adopt new regulations. The potential for private initiative to conserve environmental treasures is overlooked. Yet where private action is viable, it is often superior to government efforts. Private preserves are generally better maintained than government parks and, where it's been tried, conservation through commerce has been more successful than the species protectionism embodied in the Endangered Species Act.I do not think the church can afford to go blindly charging into the environmental fray, without carefully thinking through all the ramifications involved. Blogs like The Commons are a good place to start.
A new report, Conservation through Private Initiative: Harnessing American Ingenuity to Preserve Our Nation's Resources, by my good friend (and sometimes Commons Blog contributor) Michael DeAlessi illustrates the above point, and suggests that private efforts have the added advantage of diffusing conflict. Whereas politics often produces a zero-sum game, voluntary initiatives can produce true win-win scenarios.
