Frederick Denison Maurice
In a word, yes. There are today, and have been in the past, people whose Christian ideals lead them to see value in a socialist-ordered society. During the 19th century, there were Christian Socialist Movements in the UK and the US. The themes of brotherly love and cooperation over competition are woven into the intricate pattern of Anglican thought.
Encyclopedia Britannica, a neutral source, says "the term [socialism] was first used to describe the doctrines of Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Robert Owen, who emphasized noncoercive communities of people working noncompetitively for the spiritual and physical well-being of all (see utopian socialism). ...The origins of socialism as a political movement lie in the Industrial Revolution. Its intellectual roots, however, reach back almost as far as recorded thought—even as far as Moses, according to one history of the subject. ... Early Christian communities also practiced the sharing of goods and labour, a simple form of socialism subsequently followed in certain forms of monasticism. Several monastic orders continue these practices today."
But when most of us think about socialism (and communism), we think about Karl Marx , whose vision was harsh in comparison to these earlier thinkers. Marx believed humanity could flourish only when the basic needs of all were guaranteed. His system set up a central authority (government) that would ensure the distribution of necessary goods to all people. In his view, conflict, rather than brotherly love, was the catalyst for growth; "the path to socialism proceeds not through the establishment of model communities that set examples of harmonious cooperation to the world... but through the clash of social classes. “ (Britannica)
Not everyone with socialist ideas felt that way. Let me introduce you to Frederick Denison Maurice, a Christian Socialist who became a loyal priest in the Anglican Church (The Study of Anglicanism, p. 169), a professor at Cambridge, and is commemorated in the Episcopal Church calendar. He once stated, “I seriously believe that Christianity is the only foundation of Socialism, and that a true Socialism is the necessary result of a sound Christianity.” (Maurice quotation from www.bartleby.com/222/1309.html)
Christian Socialism in the Church of England
Maurice was born in 1805, died in 1872, and is one of the founders of the Christian Socialist Movement in England. He felt religion should, could, and wasn't addressing the real problems society faced at the time. His religion, perhaps, was closely tied to Matthew 25:31-- those who are the blessed of the Father are those who feed the sick, clothe the naked, serve the least. "We have been dosing our people with religion when what they want is not this but the living God," Maurice once wrote. (Lesser Feasts and Fasts, p. 206).
"Maurice rejected individualism, with its competition and selfishness, and suggested a socialist alternative to the economic principles of laissez faire. Christian Socialists promoted the cooperative ideas of Robert Owen and suggested profit sharing as a way of improving the status of the working classes and as a means of producing a just, Christian society." ( source of quote : www.cdsp.edu/~mgrau/courses/hsst2189/studweb/WebsitesFall02/king/index.html)
- He considered competition to be against the church's teachings, favoring a "science of partnership" in which people worked together instead.
- Rather than being an opiate of the people, as Marx said, Christian socialists saw religion, not ideology, as the key to solving social ills. "[T]he demand of the Gospel for brotherhood and the coming of the Kingdom of God in its undimmed clarity and uncompromising character " would be the foundation for a new way of life (as Ernst Troeltsch puts it in The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, p. 726) .
- Not surprisingly, Maurice supported the idea of cooperative workers' unions and educational institutions. He founded the Working Men's College.
- Maurice also believed that the sacraments (baptism, Holy Eucharist) were an expression not only of humanity's union with God, but of our union with each other.
Closeness with Christ brought a kind of sweetness to this brand of socialist thought that was missing from the thinking of Marx.
After much struggling with orthodoxy (he was the son of a Unitarian), Maurice was ordained to the priesthood in 1814, and was appointed Professor of English Literature and History at King's College in London; he later was appointed to the chair of Theology. He lost these positions following publication of his Theological Essays in 1859, but resumed teaching in later years. He addressed his detractors in a sermon delivered in 1862, saying his beliefs were drawn from, not arguing against, the teachings of Christ.
In the end, however, Maurice was raised to a position of respect. "In later years," Lesser Feasts and Fasts (2001, Church Pension Fund) states, "he was honored even by former opponents. He was rector of two parishes, and was professor of Moral Theology at Cambridge from 1866 until his death." The collect (prayer) assigned to him echoes his main theme:
"Keep alive in your Church, we pray, a passion for justice and truth; that, like your servant Frederick Denison Maurice, we may work and pray for the triumph of the kingdom of your Christ..." (Lesser Feasts and Fasts, p. 207)
Maurice is commemorated on his birthday -- April 1st. (Since that is April Fool's Day in the US, some may think this proves God has a sense of humor.)
Coming up in Part Two: Modern Christian Socialism; Christian Socialism in the United States; Monasticism
Comments
Angela, depends what you mean by socialism. A Christian cannot support socialism in the form of government EVER. A Christian cannot condone the forced removal of goods from one person to forcibly be given to another. Voluntary socialism is theoretically possible at a sub-government level. At the community or neighborhood level perhaps. But ALL members must 100% voluntarily subscribe to all the precepts. But the term socialist today does not refer to a community giving all their stuff to a common fund, and then redistributing it. Socialism refers to government run industry and control with with wealth and goods redistribution that is involuntary and coerced. A Christian cannot and should not ever support such unbiblical forms of government.
Great peace. I wonder where a democratic-republic-or republic, depending on who you ask-(US government) is in the Bible.
What in the Bible supports the form of government that we have?
The Bible teaches us that nothing on this earth belongs to the human beings who inhabit it. Everything, including we the people, belongs to God. We are to be good stewards over what we have, and give of ourselves to those who have not. There is nothing wrong with "having" but there is sinfulness in hording.
No one ever explains how socialism is anti-Christian. They just say it is and expect you to accept it.
CW, I wrote an article on the Bible and giving, and it explains precisely why socialism (in government) is anti-Christian.
If you can point to a single instance of Jesus forcing someone to give to another, I'd like to see it. Where is the coercion found in Scripture? No one is arguing that our government is the biblical model, what we are saying is that socialism in government is unbiblical. Voluntary giving of any and all goods is fine. Involuntary giving is not.
Richard,
I also read an article by you that promoted forcing your "morality" through legislation. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus force anyone to convert or to follow him. He gives them the choice to do so of their own free will. What's the difference? Why pick and choose which parts of your morality and faith you want to include in legislation? Giving is part of the faith. Why not use legislation to promote giving? Or helping those who are less fortunate in whatever way. Programs, perhaps (you know the principle to teach a man to fish?). I find it disingenuous to want to impart SOME parts of Christianity through legislation, but leave out other parts. You know the parts that may include giving up conservative principles like "free market" and charity only happening in the private sector? Why are those things left out of the government, but you write about having legislation be lead by faith principles? Makes no sense.
CW, I have no problem legislating "encouraging" to give. This is precisely what tax breaks for charitable giving entail. What I have a problem with is legislating a forced "charitable" transaction. Since all laws are moral judgments, all laws should submit to the Christian God's revelation on what is right and wrong. This is what I meant in that article. So the laws are bound by God's revelation. There isn't an inconsistency in that.
I disagree with you that the ends justify the means, CW. I doubt you'd walk next door and rob your neighbor to feed your family. So why have someone ask a government to do it for them? We agree that we should do all we can to provide for the poor. But we disagree in how the means to do this are to be obtained. Jesus never condoned coercive tactics for obtaining money. You seem to transfer responsibility from individual believers to a secular government.
Perhaps you could share the scriptural basis for your views to help the discussion.
BTW Angela, it was a very well written article. I don't mean my comments negatively toward you. I simply think that any socialism involved in government is unbiblical. The principles of socialism are fine within a completely voluntary community (as you noted is possible). The danger comes when someone may take your article and then go and support aspects of the President's agenda thinking that they are being true to God's word by supporting socialist policies in government.
Richard, do you remember in Mark when the Pharisees and Sadducees came to Christ and asked if it was right to give over to Caesar a payment? (Taxes...which they were obliged under Caesar's rule to pay?) The Lord looked at the denarian and noted that it was the mark of Caesar's government that lay on it. He told them to pay to Caesar what was Caesar's and to God what was God's. This government creates, regulates and produces MONEY. And we are obligated not to shirk our reponsibilities as tax payers. What the government does with that money later (pay for wars we don't agree with, hire contractors that behave badly, build schools or even provide for health care...) is the business of the government. If taxes are robbery, when the money is used to care for people, then why are they not robbery when used to destroy people? What makes paying taxes deplorable or ungodly, when they are used for a godly purpose (caring for your neighbor) vs. an ungodly purpose (paying for contractors).
Richard, you asked that I provide scripture to back up my claims. I implore you to do likewise. Scripture, not your political principles. Scripture, not what you "think" or "believe" to be true. Scripture, not your interpretation of said scripture. That is something that I have yet to see. You have yet to lay out an scripture that supports your assertion that socialism is ungodly. You continue to call the obligation of others to pay taxes "robbery". See my other comment on why the term "robbery" is only used for taxes that pertain to helping someone. How does that make any sense?
Giving is not charity. Taking care of your neighbor is what you are commanded to do as a Christian. Charity is showing love. You have an obligation as a Christian to not only spread the gospel but to also feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and look after the sick. You're not doing "extra" when you do so. You're doing what you are obligated as a Christian to do.
As always,thanks for all the comments.There is nothing in this article that promotes any modern-day government.It says the Marxian version of socialism was not what Christian socialists advocated.Richard, you make an interesting leap to the Obama Administration.The President has sworn to defend the Constitution, which is not a socialist document. And, in his policy of seeking "common ground" -- finding solutions that satisfy both Democrats and Republicans, he does not appear to be coercive.In fact, many of his detractors have been frustrated by his refusal to give up bipartisanship and push forward without those who disagree. You are free to believe that socialism is anti-Christian if you wish, but there is little biblical evidence to support this claim. As CW stated, we were designed to be the stewards of God's creation."You give them something to eat," (share what you have) was Jesus' comment to the disciples when faced with feeding thousands of hungry people.
Re: "forced removal of goods" -- then is the income tax, which is not voluntary, also against Christian principles? There is a Biblical precedent for government gathering and re-distributing goods, however: Gen 41:33-57 when Joseph, a government official, ordered the storing of grain (1/5th of the produce)and re-distributed it during the famine. His rise to political power is seen as sanctioned by God - "God has made me fruitful in the land of my misfortunes" (41:52)and, "God sent me before you to preserve life" (45:5), "It was not you who sent me here, but God; he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt." (45:8)
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!