The assertion that Jesus was a socialist is misguided and incorrect
because the premise is grounded in the liberal ideology of American
politics, not in biblical exegesis. 
Introduction
In a dispute between secular liberals and Christian conservatives, the canard that Jesus was a revolutionary radical liberal is made with no great surprise. This claim has its roots in the New Testament narrative that chronicles Christ’s ministry of helping the poor, the disabled, and the oppressed. Analogously, we are supposed to infer that since liberals advocate programs that redistribute upper-tiered wealth to the lower class that this makes them faithful stewards of God’s kingdom.
Liberalism and Conservatism Defined
Today’s liberalism, sometimes called “social liberalism” or “welfare liberalism,” is a reform movement that seeks to enhance the welfare of the populous through government intervention. This branch of liberalism seeks equality of life, and therefore tends to promote “leveling” programs that take from the prosperous and give to the underprivileged. Welfare, affirmative action, and Medicaid are good examples of such programs.
Today’s conservatism, sometimes called “classical liberalism” or “neo-classical liberalism” is a philosophy that also seeks to enhance the well being of the populous. Freedom, as understood by conservatives, is a freedom from government, not freedom through government. By promoting personal industry and a competitive free market, the populous is encouraged to be successful by the fruits of their own labor, not by government entitlements or dependency. The trademark of conservatism is keeping government small and efficient, but powerful enough to protect her citizens from the threat of harm and fraud. Crudely put, conservatism sees government primarily as a protector, whereas liberalism sees her as an enabler.
Understanding liberalism and conservatism in terms of government size and function presents somewhat of a problem for our question. Jesus didn’t talk much about government, and therefore it would be difficult to frame Jesus’ political ideology in terms of being a political liberal or political conservative. This is important, and we’ll get to this point later. However, for the purposes of this article, we will address some of the common passages liberals use to bolster their argument that Jesus was on of their ilk.
The Charitable Giving of Conservatives and Liberals
One such passage is in Luke 4:18-19 where Jesus says,
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
The obvious meaning of the passage is that Jesus was anointed to advance charitable works. Prisoners would be freed, the blind would receive sight, and barriers for the oppressed would be removed. This was Jesus’ mission. So, let’s take a look to see how charitable liberals are.
Arthur Brooks, a behavioral economist and a director of nonprofit studies at Syracuse University, authored a book entitled “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.” Using ten databases from scientific surveys in the past decade, Brooks compiled statistics on charitable contributions by self-professed liberals and conservatives. He found that secular liberals who believe fervently in income redistribution via government programs gave far less to charity than conservatives. On average, religious conservatives gave 3.5 times more than secular liberals, and when “religious giving” was excluded from the analysis, conservatives still contributed more to charity than liberals annually.
In his book, Brooks concludes that liberals want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes, but are more reluctant to write checks to support such causes. Byron Johnson, a sociology professor and director of the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University, corroborated Brook’s conclusions from an independent research project called, “A Report of Faith in America.”
Brooks’ analysis delivers a serious blow to the liberal’s claim to Jesus. Forcing others to make charitable contributions that one is disinclined to do without external compulsion is called hypocrisy. And hypocrisy was among the most serious charges Jesus laid on the Pharisees during the New Testament era. In Matthew 23, Jesus says,
“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.“
Jesus Believed in Charity, not Socialism
One of the most commonly cited passages used to support that Jesus was a liberal, or perhaps even a socialist, is Matthew 19:21-22, where Jesus says,
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Some liberals interpret this passage as an endorsement of socialism. A young wealthy ruler sought Jesus’ advice, asking him what he must do to receive eternal life. After a brief exchange, we discover the young ruler was proficient in matters of the law, and yet he felt something was wanting. Jesus struck to the heart of the matter, instructing him to surrender his wealth and to follow him. The young man was unable to abdicate the one thing he valued most, his sense of security. It was a common theme in Christ’s teachings that unless you can forsake that which you value most, you cannot be his disciple (Matt 10:37 16:24, Luke 9:23, 14:26, Mark 8:34). For instance, in Matthew 10:37, it reads,
“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”
This passage is no more about promoting dysfunctional families than the passage about the young ruler is about promoting socialism. The key to understanding these passages is that Jesus utilizes one central theme – nothing must come between Jesus and his followers. In the first passage, it’s one’s possessions; in the second passage, it’s one’s immediate family. Both stories exemplify that Christ demands nothing less than complete devotion. Wealth and family are valuable possessions, but should not stand between you and Jesus. The moral of the story is sacrifice, not socialism.
In order to put Jesus’ values into proper perspective, one has to consider the purpose of good conduct. For instance, the scriptures portray Jesus as weak on defense (turn the other cheek), big on social programs (give to the poor), harsh on the wealthy (nearly impossible for the rich man to enter heaven), soft on punishment (he who is without sin, cast the first stone), and pro-taxes (render unto Caesar what is his). It would appear that the New Testament is a haven of liberal ideology. However, nowhere in the scriptures did Jesus petition a government to deliver on any of these commitments. Instead, Christ implored his followers to sacrifice of themselves. The act of kindness and brotherly love must germinate from the individual’s heart, not the policy of some lifeless institution that mandates a sacrifice. And there is a good reason for this. The purpose of charitable giving is not to level out the inequalities of society, but to benefit the soul of the benefactor.
Giving ought to be Voluntary, not Compulsory
In Matthew 6, Jesus instructs his disciples to give to the needy only in secret so one’s philanthropy is not seen by men. He warned them that if they displayed their charity in public, they would not receive their heavenly reward. This passage is enlightening. If the purpose of charitable giving were to improve the well being of the poor, then why would it matter if such acts were in public? In fact, it could be argued that public giving would promote and produce likeminded behavior, which would ultimately benefit the needy. And yet, Jesus states that God would withhold His reward if they made a public display of their giving. The answer is quite clear – it’s not about the poor, it’s about a willful sacrifice.
The Purpose of Giving is to Promote the Gospel
And this brings to me to my last point. In Luke 16:15, Jesus tells the Pharisees,
“You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight.“
And in John 5:44, Jesus tells the people,
“How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?”
The moral here is that goodness is judged good by God alone; it is not man’s prerogative to determine what’s morally right. When Jesus healed the boy at Capernaum, he said,
“Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders, you will never believe.”
Jesus did not heal the boy because the boy’s illness brought him near to death, but because it might introduce onlookers to the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus healed the paralytic at the poolside, he told him to stop sinning or else something worse may happen to him. Jesus didn’t heal the man because paralytics ought to have equal standing with others in society, but rather to induce in him a morally productive life. And when Jesus applied mud to the eyes of a blind man thus restoring sight, he told his disciples that this man was blind so that the glory of God might be revealed in him. This last example is a strong testament to the purpose of good works, which is to show the world that Jesus is the light – the mediator sent for the world’s atonement. It is important to note that Jesus’ purpose of good works is not the message of secular government programs, nor is it the goal of liberalism in general.
Jesus was not a liberal in today’s sense. What he did, he did for God, not for men. In Matthew 26:7, Jesus’ disciples were angered when they saw a woman pour expensive perform on Jesus’ head. They thought it was wasteful because it could have been sold and given to the poor. Jesus responded,
“Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.”
Jesus’ point was although charitable deeds are good, they do not take priority over Jesus and his message. This same message can be read in Acts 6:1-4, where the Greek Jews complained that their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. As a result, the twelve disciples gathered together to render this conclusion,
“It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the world of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn over this responsibility to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
The idea is that charitable contributions, although virtuous, does not supersede the ministry of God.
Conclusion
The assertion that Jesus was a socialist is misguided and incorrect because the premise is grounded in the liberal ideology of American politics, not in biblical exegesis. Not one place in the bible did Jesus advocate it was the function of government to do what loving human beings ought to do on their own. As noted above, conservatives are not opposed to social programs. We shed our blood, donate our time, apply our labor, and voluntarily redistribute our income to the poor. And quite frankly, research shows we are better at it than liberals. Jesus was a conservative because he promoted charitable giving on behalf of individuals, not government. Jesus was a conservative because he promoted the hard work and success of the individual, not the legislative body of the government. Jesus was a conservative he saw giving as a ministry of the gospel, not a secular and spiritless exercise of government in order to level the economic playing field. Liberals may claim Jesus as their own, but Jesus would not claim them as his own. It takes a lot more to give from your personal resources than it does to compel others to give through taxation.
Ruminator
you speak well -write. The collective consciousness you mention is as MM says and found in Romans 2-3. Sociologists and in our case Translators of language in remote areas of the world find the same stuff. Cilvilized nations express a collective consciousness in expressing charity.
Charity has its roots in language in the Greek ‘charis.’ The meaning is Grace. We use gracious, genteel in the sense of a compassionate gift.
Rationalism or belief systems which choose to reject whatever the Religious state is a view of man. What is fascinating, very few can live in a world system without concepts of wonder, delight, atltruism, disdain. The parts of MAN which make Man Man are found as an extension of the Rational, Mechanistic, Biological etc. explanations.,
Prisoners of War cannot live without Hope. Husbands and Wives express the need for companionship and romance. These are part of the makeup of man and are a necessary part of existence even when rejecting a spiritual world as relevant.
Thoughts to think upon.
Have a good one.
Dale
Ruminator,
I only quoted Scripture to point out that your idea was not a new one, nor is it unique to the agnostic/atheist perspective.
I don’t think people believe in God because of supposed personal or societal benefits, but rather because it is natural to give one’s creator His due. If one comes to the conclusion that God is who He says He is, one is obligated to respond.
We are all on a journey of discovery. One of those discoveries, I think, is God. Those who seek will find.
So there are two layers of moral sensibility. One is instinctive or pre-existing, and one is cultivated deliberately (or not, in the case of the psychopath, “bad seed” or certain varieties of delusional psychosis, the latter of which could mean no guilt, but that’s another discussion).
I don’t doubt that many people are sincerely devoted to God, I just wonder how many are “on the fence.”
For that matter, the existence or non existence of God is a fact, one way or the other, isn’t it? Even for the agnostic, who says not that it could never be known, but that it cannot be known at this time?
When you say “those who seek will find” for whatever reason I find this to be a rapturous pronouncement, but could it not be also that one who seeks finds because finding is a forgone conclusion, hence the decision to seek?
What I hear from you is a cultivated sensibility in moral issues; however, the atheist wouldn’t take this as proof as a higher power.
I wouldn’t say that there are two levels. More like it that we are hard wired with a conscience, and that conscience must be discovered, cultivated, and refined. A Christian would say that the conscience is only a vague, spotty notion until God comes and gives it power in our lives.
Would an agnostic really say the existence of God could never be known? Or would he rather say that for him, he doesn’t know if God exists? The first scenario implies the possession of knowledge (i.e., “I know God cannot be discovered”).
I was being a bit coy with “those who seek will find.” Jesus said that about people who searched for God.
I wouldn’t expect that an atheist would take anything as proof of a higher power. But I would expect an atheist to eventually come to the realization that there is no morality apart from religion, and that any moral behavior exhibited by an atheist is rooted in religious influence.
Saying "Jesus was a Conservative" is like saying "Fish are attempting a Moonlanding". It is Nonsense. Did Jesus use social issues devisively? Did He Hate Gay people? Would he think FDRs "New Deal " and the concept of the social safety net were bad? Would he trek out phrases like "Welfare Mother's" to raise contempt for the poor? While we all understood that was code and he was refering to black women, and he was also Race baiting?
Let me offer you a Parable- in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, I remember seeing NBC News meet the man at the well. He was a farmer standing on his dessimated Farm in Mississippi, and he said, I quote, " I am not for Goverment hand outs, but we really need some help down here." What would Jesus say to this man? I firmly believe he would say " Yes, you certainly are in need of help. What do you mean by Goverment Hand outs? Are you saying you see the need for the collective resources of a society, being needed and utilzed to aid you in a time of crisis, but only YOUR OWN Crisis, Not the Crisis' of others?" Jesus would then inform this man of his conservative sins.
BTW, Jesus would never wave the American Flag, and he certainly wouldn't march off to "Pre-emptive war". Jesus cares about all of humanity. He would have angrily demanded a body count in Iraq, and not just a body count of US soldiers. He would have been part of what President G.W. Bush called a "Focus Group" of millions of Americans who took to the streets in protest in the run up to that war based on proposterous claims of Imminent threat. How many Conservatives were amongst those protesters?
Would Jesus have opposed the civil Rights movement? Or would he have "Lost the south for a Generation"? Lyndon Johnson was hardly a good Christian, but, Why was the Conservative south lost for SEVERAL Generations?
Does Jesus Hate Illegal Immigrants? Or would he employee them on his plantation, without working papers, while he race baited the lower class white people who voted him to power, due to the giant fence he planned to build?
Did Jesus think Taxation was an abomination? Or did he hold up a coin with Ceasar's Face on it, and say " Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" ?
Would Jesus like Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson or what was that guys name, the mega church leader, GW Bush's personal spiritual advisor, hated fags , was doing meth with the young male prostitute he hired? I dare you to claim he would, and as far as the gay mega church leader, "Gay" wasn't the issue that would have angered Christ.
Did the apostles share and share alike of all their resources? Completely socialist? Yes, Not that anyone is trying to dismantle a free market economy except in your twisted little imaginations… where any regulation is toxic….. because your super wealthy overlords, who tell you how to think, tell you they don't want to be regulated….but Jesus and the apostles, were a bunch of communal socialist hippies. REFUTE IT!
I can keep on going. Fish are planning a Moonlanding.
Trewth,
There are more than 100 comments on this old thread. Maybe you should take some time to read them. Many of your points are already dealt with.
It is obvious that you are confusing Republican with conservative with Christian. They are not the same.
Most, if not all of your questions are nothing more that leftist slogans. If you really want to know what conservatives believe, many here are willing to answer reasonable questions. But no one here is going to dismantle your litany of strawmen arguments, because they have nothing to do with conservatism.
Try again.
Trewth,
Please don’t belittle Christianity by equating it with socialism. Christ’s admonishment to care for the poor, the sick, and the disadvantaged was a personal admonishment; not a marching slogan for your personal version of ‘redistributive’ justice. You really shouldn’t selectively quote biblical passage either. The entire quotation says; “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s; and unto God that which is God’s.” The passage takes on a distinctly unique meaning when not ‘selectively’ quoted as you tried to do.
Christ’s example here on earth had nothing to do with urging ‘government’ intervention, nor redistributive justice. His entire ministry was aimed at personal redemption and the methods by which one may achieve salvation. He never encouraged rebellion against any government official, nor did he ever encourage any ruling entity (government) to enslave one group of people in order to serve the needs of another group.
If you had ever actually read a bible or the US Constitution, we wouldn’t have to be explaining such obvious differences to you. You make the same mistake as Falwell and the other neo-evangelicals you accuse: You so fervently believe in your political ideology that you elevate that to the level of religious dogma. Jesus loves you and wants you to earn salvation but not at anyone else’s expense: You cannot save yourself by telling others how to live; only by living yourself. Do you know what a Pharisee is? Look in any mirror for your answer.