A recent conversation about Ayn Rand produced some interesting reactions from friends of mine, and it has me thinking about my own spiritual pursuits and how those thoughts are compatible (or perhaps not compatible) with my political leanings. It is difficult to affiliate myself with any political party merely based on the platform of the party, and the difficulty increases as I try to toss my religious beliefs into the mix. I find it fascinating the number of people who are so wholeheartedly certain God favors one political party over the other. Does it really seem plausible Jesus would 'endorse' one party over another? He was not interested in partaking in the complicated politics of his day (at one point, his followers tried to force him to be King, and he withdrew), I have no reason to believe he is interested now.
Let's address an 's' word....socialism, defined as 'a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.'
Even though it is difficult to summarize all of the nuances of the meaning of socialism, in the U.S. we are no where near true socialism. Social Security is not socialism. Even Medicaid is not socialism. We have evolved as a nation to realize the elderly, the infirm, abandoned/abused children and those who are not mentally capable of caring for themselves need some kind of assistance. The stark realities of the grim poor houses and orphanages of the past loom before us, if we don't make some government provision for protecting the most vulnerable amongst us. Has such assistance gotten out of hand? Yes, in many cases, but that's another conversation.
Even if we moved to full-on universal healthcare, it would not be true socialism. Nobody is asking Mitt Romney or anyone else to start adding the names of strangers (including that of the federal government) on to the titles of any of his properties, resulting in shared ownership. Furthermore, I don't believe a government based on actual principles of socialism is a good idea, and that seems to be the majority opinion in our country. It was, I believe, part of the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Politically, I can agree with her on that issue.
But here is the thing. When we go to the polls, our vote reflects what we believe the course of government should be regarding who will be protected best -- the 'haves' or the 'have-nots' to boil it down to the simplest of concepts -- that is up to each of us to decide as citizens. But individuals who claim to follow Jesus have a calling, on a personal level, which does not allow us to reject what he said about taking care of others. Oswald Chambers had an interesting take on the subject, "The institutional church’s idea of a servant of God is not at all like Jesus Christ’s idea. His idea is that we serve Him by being the servants of others. Jesus Christ actually 'out-socialized' the socialists. He said that in His kingdom the greatest one would be the servant of all." (see Matthew 23:11)
Jesus willingly gave up his rights for the greater good. Material possessions meant little to him because he knew of the temporal nature of things, and he encouraged his followers to develop a similar attitude of placing the needs of others ahead of our own, of not building more storehouses to hold our wealth, because it is foolishness to think we can take even a bushel of wheat with us when we die. He intended for wealth to be shared, and there is no way around it. We all have to decide to what degree we will follow his teachings on this matter, but we cannot deny this is what he requires.
On the surface, it seems to be a counter-productive way to live -- giving away our resources -- but when we live in a community of caring individuals, helping each other out where we see a need, our own needs are much more likely to be met should we ever require assistance. That's not a government function. That's a community function, ideally a local church's function.
So there you have it. In my opinion, rejecting the 's' word as part of this nation's form of government, if that is our majority choice when we vote, means that to an even greater extent, we cannot reject the 's' word in our personal relationships....that 's' word being not socialism, in this case, but sharing. Is it not right, if we are to follow what Jesus taught, we should use our good fortune to bless others?
It is a matter of symantics, but according to the political definition I have read of "Socialism", when more than 50% of a countries citizen are reliant on government assitance for their well being you have socialism. If we are not their, we a very close. I truely believe than within the community of Christ followers there is genuine concern for the poor, the widows, the orphans, but as an Elder in my church I seldom see the real orphans, widows and poor - I see the posers, the cheats, the opportunists. One on one I am able to sort out who is needy and who is just looking for an easy handout to pay for their next fix (my heart goes out to these people) but to put this discernment of who is needy and who is not in the hands of those looking for another vote could very well lead to a dependant society. The biblical model is churches serving churches regionally and churches serving the community locally, how then do we get back to that model now that we have pulled on the string of social assistance outside the church?
ReplyDeleteHow do we get back to the biblical model, you ask. I humbly offer an outline in my book, "The Least of These."
ReplyDelete