Christian Socialism

"A socialist Christian is more dangerous than a socialist atheist” (67), says a character in Brothers Karamazov.  When distinguished from communism as a separate (if not related) ideology in modern times, socialism usually refers to an ideology of involuntary wealth redistribution that is not maintained with the same degree of political force as statist communism.  A socialist Christian could be more dangerous than a socialist atheist because he or she might believe that God endorses some case of involuntary wealth redistribution.  When a person thinks that God allows—or perhaps even demands—some abomination, misguided religious zeal can motivate great atrocities.  Is there such a thing as Christian socialism/communism?

Christian socialists or communists might appeal to the behaviors of the early church in the book of Acts, claiming Biblical affirmation of wealth redistribution.  The actual contents of Acts, though, neither prescribe any form of socialism/communism nor describe nonconsensual redistribution of resources.  Acts 2:44-45 recounts how early Christians voluntarily shared wealth: “All the believers were together and had everything in common.  Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.”  This is remarkably different than more recent socialism and communism—when a faction seeks to reorganize the resources of another group by taking that group’s resources, something quite contrary to the love-based actions of the early Christians occurs.

If a socialistic idea goes beyond the version of property redistribution in Acts 2, it cannot legitimately be held up as a Christian concept.  Other parts of the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, very forcefully acknowledge a right to private property.  Scripture even permits people to kill thieves who invade their homes at night, saying that in these incidents “the defender is not guilty of bloodshed” (Exodus 22:2).  The early church in no way practiced a form of wealth redistribution that deprived people of private property without their consent.  In Acts, the communism/socialism in the church was a voluntary system, founded on the mutual love shared by Christians who regarded each other as brothers and sisters.  To isolate a communistic or socialistic atmosphere from this ideological framework can quickly prove disastrous.  Divorced from uncoerced love, wealth redistribution will be fueled by egoism, covetousness, and a dehumanizing tendency to view others as means towards a self-focused (or state-focused) end.
​
Yes, there is such a thing as Christian socialism/communism, and it is described in Acts—but it is not obligatory for Christians and it does not deprive anyone of belongings against that person’s will.  No one had to surrender personal ownership of items.  Acts never prescribes this or credits God with commanding it.  It was a collective decision made out of genuine affection for fellow Christians, not a forced resource pooling in the name of God.  This crucial factor separates the actions of the early church from numerous other socialistic practices throughout history.

A Christian who mistakenly holds that God demands or encourages a different kind of socialism/communism, though, can be a very dangerous person indeed.  When an atheist is a socialist of any sort, he or she is not misrepresenting the nature of God.  Such a person does not think himself or herself theologically obligated to redistribute the property of others.  A Christian, though, might stubbornly resist all correction, embracing the idea that God wants or commands this redistribution.  This can prove dangerous indeed.


Dostoevsky, Fyodor.  Brothers Karamazov.  Trans. Pevear, Richard, and Volokhonsky, Larissa.  New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1990.  Print.