Charity is not socialism.
In the latter part of Acts 4, we read about those members of the church having received the witness of the Holy Ghost giving all their possessions to the church, to hold all goods in common, that their be no poor among them. At the beginning of Chapter 5 we read of Ananias and Sapphira. They sold a piece of land, they conspired to hold back part of the money, and Ananias brought the rest to the church. Peter asked why Satan had entered into his heart, and Ananias realizing his secret was known, died. Sapphira came looking for him, and was asked whether they sold the land for a certain amount, she also lied, and died. (sorry for the rhyme) Why did this happen? Was it because they withheld part of the money from the church? No, it was because they represented the money donated as the price of the land. They lied to God.
That was lengthier than I wanted it to be. Why do I mention this? I am tired of seeing in class work, I am tired of seeing on TV, and other media, the representation of Socialism somehow being God's plan. Of course some try to finesse it, to call Christ a socialist, or that being charitable is socialist. Others will say that the United Order (a communal living arrangement similar to the practice mentioned in Acts 4, practiced in small groups by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) was a form of socialism.
Trust me, this is not a political post. Let's review some of the history of communal living. Shall we?
The pilgrims came to this land in 1620. They all agreed that they would have a communal shelter, that no one would own land, and that all would work for the good of the community. Result? Nearly half of them starved. The next year, they parceled out the land, where each family had ownership, and could keep the results. Results? The first Thanksgiving. They were taught how to grow crops, and had good harvests. The pilgrims were a very tight knit religious community, and yet, when given the opportunity to live off of other's labors, some did.
I mentioned the United Order previously. People would establish a community, and essentially own stock in that community. It was built on the pledge that each person would carry their load, and only take from the common store that which they needed. It was a voluntary system. No one was forced to join, and people could be asked to leave if it was felt that they were not doing their share. Ultimately, the practice of living the United Order was discontinued, for several reasons, one of which was that some people would not work to their full ability, as they were fed whether they did or not.
Socialism looks really good on paper. People would own the means of production, and they would each thrust in their sickle with all their might. At the end of the day, they would receive their compensation. There would be no poor. There would be no rich. All would contribute to the good of the whole. On paper. In reality, when people see that they can't advance, they may not work as hard as they did. Those who weren't working hard, receiving their compensation anyway, may work even less. What happens? See the Pilgrims, above.
Man was given agency. No one is forced into the Kingdom of God on earth, and once there, no one is forced to carry their brother. When people reach the point that they have no desire to sin, then they willingly help those that need assistance. We are taught that charity is the pure love of Christ. That we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, not because we are forced to, but out of love.
Not socialism, the pure love of Christ. Ananias and Sapphira were not struck down because they had wealth, Peter himself said that they had had use of the property, it was theirs. No, it was because they lied to God, and being judged by God through His Prophet, Peter, were found wanting.
That was lengthier than I wanted it to be. Why do I mention this? I am tired of seeing in class work, I am tired of seeing on TV, and other media, the representation of Socialism somehow being God's plan. Of course some try to finesse it, to call Christ a socialist, or that being charitable is socialist. Others will say that the United Order (a communal living arrangement similar to the practice mentioned in Acts 4, practiced in small groups by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) was a form of socialism.
Trust me, this is not a political post. Let's review some of the history of communal living. Shall we?
The pilgrims came to this land in 1620. They all agreed that they would have a communal shelter, that no one would own land, and that all would work for the good of the community. Result? Nearly half of them starved. The next year, they parceled out the land, where each family had ownership, and could keep the results. Results? The first Thanksgiving. They were taught how to grow crops, and had good harvests. The pilgrims were a very tight knit religious community, and yet, when given the opportunity to live off of other's labors, some did.
I mentioned the United Order previously. People would establish a community, and essentially own stock in that community. It was built on the pledge that each person would carry their load, and only take from the common store that which they needed. It was a voluntary system. No one was forced to join, and people could be asked to leave if it was felt that they were not doing their share. Ultimately, the practice of living the United Order was discontinued, for several reasons, one of which was that some people would not work to their full ability, as they were fed whether they did or not.
Socialism looks really good on paper. People would own the means of production, and they would each thrust in their sickle with all their might. At the end of the day, they would receive their compensation. There would be no poor. There would be no rich. All would contribute to the good of the whole. On paper. In reality, when people see that they can't advance, they may not work as hard as they did. Those who weren't working hard, receiving their compensation anyway, may work even less. What happens? See the Pilgrims, above.
Man was given agency. No one is forced into the Kingdom of God on earth, and once there, no one is forced to carry their brother. When people reach the point that they have no desire to sin, then they willingly help those that need assistance. We are taught that charity is the pure love of Christ. That we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, not because we are forced to, but out of love.
Not socialism, the pure love of Christ. Ananias and Sapphira were not struck down because they had wealth, Peter himself said that they had had use of the property, it was theirs. No, it was because they lied to God, and being judged by God through His Prophet, Peter, were found wanting.
Comments
Post a Comment