Does the Bible Teach Socialism?

Note: Originally published in Appendix B of Modern Marxism: A Guide for Christians in a Woke New World.

Objection 6: “Socialism is just about helping people.”

Claim:

Socialism’s primary goal is to help impoverished, exploited, and marginalized populations. Economic inequality has led to an unjustifiable gap between the extremely wealthy and the majority of the world’s population. Socialism is the answer to an inherently unfair society.1

Quick answer:

Helping the poor is an essential goal, as God’s Word mandates loving others, bearing one another’s burdens, and meeting earthly (as well as spiritual) needs.2 But is that the real gist of socialism?3 The Merriam Webster Dictionary’s definitions of socialism focus on these elements:4

1. “The collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
2. A “system of society or group living in which there is no private property” and in which “the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.”
3. A transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

The first two definitions overlap significantly with the dictionary’s definition of communism—which, again, focuses on a system where people own goods in common, the state controls the means of producing goods, and private property may be eliminated.5 If dictionary definitions are any indication, the real gist of socialism is communism. The question now becomes, is communism the best, only, or most effective way to help the poor?

The events of the twentieth century suggest otherwise. Marxism (and neo-Marxism) overwhelmingly tend to worsen the problems they’re implemented to solve.6 Again, there’s no effective, lasting way to build a flourishing society on a faulty foundation.

The consistent application of a biblical worldview—which provides a foundation for combating poverty to begin with—is the starting point for genuine social progress.

If Marxism-based “solutions” are not the best (much less, the only) way to help the poor, what can mitigate poverty? While analyzing the complex factors behind poverty—and cycles of poverty—goes beyond the scope of this discussion, one point is clear. To respond effectively to real problems, we need to begin from a true foundation: God’s Word. The consistent application of a biblical worldview—which provides a foundation for combating poverty to begin with—is the starting point for genuine social progress.

Objection 7: “Marxism and the Bible are compatible, if not complementary. The Bible even teaches a form of socialism.”

Claim:

There is no need to choose between a Marxist worldview and a biblical worldview. Marxism (or neo-Marxism) and Christianity share many important overlaps. For instance, Old Testament gleaning laws required landowners to leave part of their crop to the poor. In the New Testament, the early church practiced a form of socialism, sharing their goods in common. Furthermore, social justice is a gospel issue. Marxism or neo-Marxism can be appropriate expressions of Christian concern for the oppressed.

Quick answer:

On the surface, certain biblical and Marxist or neo-Marxist concepts might seem to overlap. Both worldviews affirm that exploitation, injustice, and poverty are problems, and that combatting these issues is morally right. One key issue is that, although Marxism and Christianity use some similar terms, the definitions or underlying meanings of key words can often look very different.7

But humanity’s ultimate hope lies not in human effort, but in redemption, reconciliation, and restoration through Jesus Christ.

Even more foundationally, neo-Marxism and Christianity contradict at a worldview level. Chapter 2 summarizes just a few of these differences. For instance, God’s Word reveals that humanity’s core problem is sin. Scripture does call believers to alleviate sin’s effects in the world by loving others, defending the vulnerable, and meeting earthly needs. But humanity’s ultimate hope lies not in human effort, but in redemption, reconciliation, and restoration through Jesus Christ.

Marxism, in contrast, teaches that social or economic conditions are humanity’s core problem, with the solution being revolution—which may involve groups considered oppressed obtaining power at any cost. Chapter five also illustrated how, classically, neo-Marxism endorses an anti-biblical view of marriage, gender, and family.

The reality that Christianity and Marxism are very different worldviews helps explain why they define important concepts in vastly discordant ways. As chapter five unpacked, God’s Word and Marxism teach different understandings not only of justice, but also of truth, morality, oppression, and guilt. For example, neo-Marxism defines people as “bad” or “good”—guilty or innocent, oppressor or oppressed, sinner or saint—based on traits including gender and skin tone. This redefinition of guilt helps explain why neo-Marxists interpret society’s “sin condition” as a disbalance of power between oppressed and oppressor groups.

Social justice is not a gospel issue, but a false gospel issue.

Neo-Marxism believes humanity’s salvation from this “sin condition” demands breaking down the current society and rebuilding a new social order. The resulting transfer of power from oppressor to oppressed groups is considered “social justice.” To support this version of justice, neo-Marxism redefines morality in terms of “whatever takes away power from ‘oppressors.’” Along the way, neo-Marxism considers the authority for truth to be not God’s Word, but the inner feelings of the oppressed. These unbiblical redefinitions of guilt, sin, salvation, justice, morality, and truth illustrate how neo-Marxism teaches a different gospel from God’s Word.8 Social justice is not a gospel issue, but a false gospel issue.

These differences in biblical and neo-Marxist concepts lead to further differences in practice. For instance, the Bible teaches people to practice generosity by voluntarily giving of their own wealth (which ultimately belongs to God).9 This is what Zacchaeus, the formerly exploitative tax collector, did after he encountered Jesus (Luke 19:1–10). In drastic contrast, Marxism teaches people to practice “generosity” by confiscating other people’s wealth.10

What about Old Testament harvest laws? These laws allowed landowners to gather in most of their harvests while tithing a portion and leaving a remnant available for the poor to diligently glean. This system assumed private control over the means of and profits from production and did not entail equal outcomes for everyone regardless of personal diligence, motivation, or responsibility.11 Clearly, such a society looks quite different from the dictionary definition of socialism described above.

Not even the early church that “shared everything in common” biblically validates socialism. These early Christians shared their goods through voluntary generosity in a way that didn’t involve state control. So, the early church’s practices are also not comparable with a contemporary understanding of socialism.

To recap, Marxism (including neo-Marxism) and Christianity significantly differ on three levels: worldview, definitions, and practice. Despite some overlapping terms, these two worldviews rest on incompatible foundations. As chapter 2 explains, today’s form of Marxism represents one more battlefront in the ancient war of man’s word vs. God’s Word.