Would Jesus be a fiscal conservative?

[McCulloch]

There are some real issues and problems when it comes to environmental harm that would best be dealt with by the Market, as nearly all things are, and only furthered and perpetuated by the government.

Are the principles of market economy, (fiscal conservatism, supply side economics, reduction of Government spending, reduction of all taxes, reduction of Government regulation and trusting the economic forces of the free market to address any and all human problems except the spiritual ones) an expression of Christian ideals?
Are they consistent with being a disciple of Jesus?

[Iolo]

There are some real issues and problems when it comes to environmental harm that would best be dealt with by the Market, as nearly all things are, and only furthered and perpetuated by the government.

Are the principles of market economy, (fiscal conservatism, supply side economics, reduction of Government spending, reduction of all taxes, reduction of Government regulation and trusting the economic forces of the free market to address any and all human problems except the spiritual ones) an expression of Christian ideals?




Are they consistent with being a disciple of Jesus?

I'm with East of Eden on this one. Jesus' teachings don't have much if anything to say about government.




Thus, it seems to me the answer to your first question is "no." The answer to the second is "yes" by default.



To me, Christianity is a belief system that an individual takes on voluntarily. Each person also defines what being a Christian means from him or herself. To the extent that a Christian decides that part of being a Christian means following some or all of Jesus' teachings, and/or teachings of the OT, those teachings that they accept apply to them.

I can decide to tithe 10% if I wish, or I may decide not to. If not, then I probably should have some rationale for not following that particular Biblical teaching, but that is between me and my conscience and God, or if I choose, between me and the church I voluntarily decide to join.



So, I don't think Jesus or God takes a position on "fiscal conservatism" as a governmental policy. We as a group of citizens decide that, whether we are all Christians, only some are Christians, or none are Christians.

God's taxing standard was 10% for everyone, He didn't ask the wealthy in the OT to pay more. Proverbs says a lot about hard work and thrift, ect. Jesus was silent on politics, but I don't think He would recommend spending ourselves into a Greece-like situation from a common sense point.

I don't consider the 10% standard as applying outside of the OT theocratical Israel.

I agree, the OT and in particular Proverbs has a lot of good advice about thriftiness, not to mention honesty, justice, mercy, wisdom, etc.


As above, I agree Jesus was silent, or at least largely silent, on politics.

With respect to the last sentence, I think we need to differentiate between systemic issues and matters of personal decisions by leaders. Jesus probably would have something to say about a leader who made foolish or corrupt decisions. I don't think he would take a position on socialism versus capitalism.

One can, I think, run a socialistic state wisely and for the benefit of the people being governed. One can also run a capitalistic state foolishly and to the detriment of those being governed. In either case, I agree with Proverbs that having wise leaders is to the benefit of the people.

It seems to me, honestly, that you are not reading the New Testament but some other thing. Clearly Jesus saw the system of his time as grotesque, a capitalism avant le lettre, and any system that exploited the young and poor was outside anything even remotely tolerable. How can you justify your unscriptural beliefs? Why did the ealy Church hold all goods in common?

[micatala]

It seems to me, honestly, that you are not reading the New Testament but some other thing. Clearly Jesus saw the system of his time as grotesque, a capitalism avant le lettre, and any system that exploited the young and poor was outside anything even remotely tolerable. How can you justify your unscriptural beliefs? Why did the ealy Church hold all goods in common?

I think you need to be more specific on what your objections are. Certainly Jesus objected to the poor being exploited. I am not sure how that equates to a blanket condemnation of capitalism in all forms.

In addition, you don't address the distinction between governmental actions and systems and individual actions.

Yes, the early church did hold property in common. To me, this means socialism can be considered consistent with Christianity. This does not equate to capitalism being inconsistent with Christianity. See my whole post.

[Iolo]

It seems to me, honestly, that you are not reading the New Testament but some other thing. Clearly Jesus saw the system of his time as grotesque, a capitalism avant le lettre, and any system that exploited the young and poor was outside anything even remotely tolerable. How can you justify your unscriptural beliefs? Why did the ealy Church hold all goods in common?

I think you need to be more specific on what your objections are. Certainly Jesus objected to the poor being exploited. I am not sure how that equates to a blanket condemnation of capitalism in all forms.

In addition, you don't address the distinction between governmental actions and systems and individual actions.

Yes, the early church did hold property in common. To me, this means socialism can be considered consistent with Christianity. This does not equate to capitalism being inconsistent with Christianity. See my whole post.

Well, for instance, Dives and Lazarus: if you get your good things here, Hell is your reward. Take no thought for the morrow. The eye of a needle. The joke about who money belongs to - the only thing in Creation, apparently, that doesn't belong to God. The cleansing of the Temple. Can you imagine Jesus on the Stock Exchange? It seems to me that only an incredible spin can convince the Americans of their righteousness - though their self-righteousness, like that of the pharisees, is evident enough.

[micatala]

It seems to me, honestly, that you are not reading the New Testament but some other thing. Clearly Jesus saw the system of his time as grotesque, a capitalism avant le lettre, and any system that exploited the young and poor was outside anything even remotely tolerable. How can you justify your unscriptural beliefs? Why did the ealy Church hold all goods in common?

I think you need to be more specific on what your objections are. Certainly Jesus objected to the poor being exploited. I am not sure how that equates to a blanket condemnation of capitalism in all forms.

In addition, you don't address the distinction between governmental actions and systems and individual actions.

Yes, the early church did hold property in common. To me, this means socialism can be considered consistent with Christianity. This does not equate to capitalism being inconsistent with Christianity. See my whole post.

Well, for instance, Dives and Lazarus: if you get your good things here, Hell is your reward. Take no thought for the morrow. The eye of a needle. The joke about who money belongs to - the only thing in Creation, apparently, that doesn't belong to God. The cleansing of the Temple. Can you imagine Jesus on the Stock Exchange? It seems to me that only an incredible spin can convince the Americans of their righteousness - though their self-righteousness, like that of the pharisees, is evident enough.

You are still painting with a pretty broad and ambiguous brush.

You have some good examples here, but even these do not support the notion that all rich people are evil or that capitalism is inherently bad.

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man does place the latter in "hell." But why exactly is he there? Is it simply because he is rich?

It does not seem so. The issue seems to be whether he followed the teachings of Moses.

[19] "There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.
[20] And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz'arus, full of sores,
[21] who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
[22] The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried;
[23] and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz'arus in his bosom.
[24] And he called out, `Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz'arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.'
[25] But Abraham said, `Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz'arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.
[26] And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'
[27] And he said, `Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house,
[28] for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'
[29] But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'
[30] And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
[31] He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'"

The rich man is basically told he should have listened to Moses and the prophets and that his brothers can save themselves by doing so. The law of Moses does not require one to be poor, nor to forsake commerce or capitalism.




On the cleansing of the temple, I would ask how interpret Jesus' actions there. To me, the issue is not money in and of itself, but the particular use that is being made of the temple area and how money has come to corrupt temple worship.

[Iolo]

It seems to me, honestly, that you are not reading the New Testament but some other thing. Clearly Jesus saw the system of his time as grotesque, a capitalism avant le lettre, and any system that exploited the young and poor was outside anything even remotely tolerable. How can you justify your unscriptural beliefs? Why did the ealy Church hold all goods in common?

I think you need to be more specific on what your objections are. Certainly Jesus objected to the poor being exploited. I am not sure how that equates to a blanket condemnation of capitalism in all forms.

In addition, you don't address the distinction between governmental actions and systems and individual actions.

Yes, the early church did hold property in common. To me, this means socialism can be considered consistent with Christianity. This does not equate to capitalism being inconsistent with Christianity. See my whole post.

Well, for instance, Dives and Lazarus: if you get your good things here, Hell is your reward. Take no thought for the morrow. The eye of a needle. The joke about who money belongs to - the only thing in Creation, apparently, that doesn't belong to God. The cleansing of the Temple. Can you imagine Jesus on the Stock Exchange? It seems to me that only an incredible spin can convince the Americans of their righteousness - though their self-righteousness, like that of the pharisees, is evident enough.

You are still painting with a pretty broad and ambiguous brush.

You have some good examples here, but even these do not support the notion that all rich people are evil or that capitalism is inherently bad.

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man does place the latter in "hell." But why exactly is he there? Is it simply because he is rich?

It does not seem so. The issue seems to be whether he followed the teachings of Moses.

[19] "There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.
[20] And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz'arus, full of sores,
[21] who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
[22] The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried;
[23] and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz'arus in his bosom.
[24] And he called out, `Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz'arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.'
[25] But Abraham said, `Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz'arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.
[26] And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'
[27] And he said, `Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house,
[28] for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'
[29] But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'
[30] And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
[31] He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'"

The rich man is basically told he should have listened to Moses and the prophets and that his brothers can save themselves by doing so. The law of Moses does not require one to be poor, nor to forsake commerce or capitalism.




On the cleansing of the temple, I would ask how interpret Jesus' actions there. To me, the issue is not money in and of itself, but the particular use that is being made of the temple area and how money has come to corrupt temple worship.

It depends where you start out, I suppose. You begin with the assumption that capitalism must be all right really because (to my mind anyway) Christianity in the United States - and anywhere that accepts its values - is essentially a compromise with Mammon and, like the Mediaeval RC Church, has got good at juggling particular texts to deny the general meaning of the Scripture. I was brought up a 'Welsh' Christian Socialist. There are doubless limitations to that view, but when I read what Mary sang and what Jesus said and what the early Church did I find few obvious contradictions.

[micatala]

On the cleansing of the temple, I would ask how interpret Jesus' actions there. To me, the issue is not money in and of itself, but the particular use that is being made of the temple area and how money has come to corrupt temple worship.

It depends where you start out, I suppose. You begin with the assumption that capitalism must be all right really because (to my mind anyway) Christianity in the United States - and anywhere that accepts its values - is essentially a compromise with Mammon and, like the Mediaeval RC Church, has got good at juggling particular texts to deny the general meaning of the Scripture. I was brought up a 'Welsh' Christian Socialist. There are doubless limitations to that view, but when I read what Mary sang and what Jesus said and what the early Church did I find few obvious contradictions.

Interesting. I have never heard of Welsh Christian Socialism. Was this born out of the coal miners labor movement?

At any rate, I view the adoption or support of either capitalism or socialism as a largely separate issue to the adoption of religious views. Certainly a person's religious views can inform their economic views. I am not claiming my religious views require belief in Capitalism, and I don't even argue for capitalism on the basis of my religious beliefs.

I am only saying a person's religious beliefs can be consistent with support of capitalism. I also think religious beliefs can be consistent with socialism. You could make a case that Jesus was more of a socialist than a capitalist, but I think that case requires a lot of inference and assumption.

I would agree that the scriptures speak against greed and exploitation. They speak of helping the poor, showing mercy and compassion, forgiveness of debt. At points (e.g. in the Acts of the Apostles) they speak of holding property in common.

Still, showing mercy and compassion and being generous is not anti-thetical to capitalism. In addition, the Bible also implicitly condones slavery, in both th OT and the NT. It condones the use of money.

One problem is, in my view, that the Bible is not an entirely self-consistent document. It is certainly possible to find inconsistencies, and you could make the case some of those inconsistencies apply to this debate.