Perhaps you’ve noticed an annoying trend among leftist politicians: invoking the Bible to sell their socialist schemes.
We all remember Obama’s defenders pointing out that, like Obama, “Christ was a community organizer.” A political action committee formed by nominal Christians to support Obama calls itself “Matthew 25.” Matthew 25 says, in part, things like: “For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink…naked and ye clothed me.” Obama himself announced: “It's that fundamental belief—I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper—that makes this country work.”
Now on the surface this sounds great.
Didn’t Christ tell the rich gentleman to “sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven” (Luke 18: 22)? Doesn’t the book of Acts tell us that “all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need” (2: 44, 45)?
But what’s the catch? How is Christ’s charity, as taught in Scripture, different from Karl Marx’s or Obama’s “charity”? How can you tell the difference?
Well, the main difference is that Marxist redistribution requires
coercion.
Christian charity is voluntary—which is what makes it meaningful. Christ did not hold a gun to people’s heads and demand they share. He didn’t threaten them with fines or imprisonment. But Marxists do just that.
Obama is now
proposing mandatory civil service for, among others, high schoolers and college students. He labels this “serving” to “meet the nation’s challenges.” In fact it is a sort of socialist draft. If you refuse, you could be punished by the federal government. This could include monetary fines, refusal to allow you to graduate or work, or even imprisonment. How charitable does that make you feel? [
Update: since this post went up, the official Team Obama site has changed the words "a plan to require" to "setting a goal." Make of that what you will. Perhaps they caved to pressure.]
Another difference between Christian charity and Marxist “charity” is that the former requires sacrifice on the part of the distributor. In a Marxist government, the party that is being charitable (the government), sacrifices nothing of its own. Instead, it robs Peter to pay Paul.
If I stole your wallet at gunpoint, then distributed the cash to my neighbors, they might think I’m quite a charitable guy. I might earn their allegiance for years to come. But I have not sacrificed anything of my own. And you, as the victim of my theft, didn’t really exhibit charity. You simply had no choice in the matter.
It’s easy to give away things that aren’t yours, especially when you get the accolades for it. But, philosophically speaking, you can’t be charitable with someone else’s money.
One of my goals is to train my children to be attuned to the “advertising tricks” of the socialists. Are they using “sharing” and “fairness” as code words for “involuntary confiscation”? Are they substituting phrases like “Christian charity” for “government-imposed redistribution”? When celebrities and politicians speak of helping others or doing our fair share, are they advocating doing it with their own cash or with yours? And are they proposing a penalty if you don’t do it?
That’s the difference between Christians and Marxists: voluntary sacrifice versus third-party coercion. True charity, like just about every other human transaction, should be voluntary.
