How should Christians respond to Socialism? A response to John Piper

In his latest ask pastor John podcast, John Piper answered a question in relation to the ongoing political campaign of Bernie Sanders. I suppose it was inevitable that a renowned evangelical pastor, in a country noted for its links between evangelicalism and right-wing politics, would eventually be asked a question about a high profile politician, currently in the public spotlight, who identifies as socialist (of one sort or another). 

Socialism has always been something of an uncomfortable political bedfellow for a country close to a rabid phobia of state involvement in anything. So an American evangelical answering the question 'how should Christians think about socialism?' was never likely to end in unmitigated endorsement. And whilst it is true that no political system will ever be perfect, and certainly no political system will ever fully align with scripture (and scripture was never intended to make one do so), let me explain why I disagree with pastor John.

Before I go on, I should point out that I have been here before. In response to a post by John Stevens, National Director of the FIEC, some years ago I outlined why I disagreed with his position on socialism (and, therefore, by extension with Wayne Grudem and Barry Asmus). You can read that article here. I am an FIEC pastor and I really like John. I often read his blog and find his posts quite insightful and helpful. Likewise, I've found much of what Wayne Grudem has written highly valuable and helpful. And, in the same vein, I like John Piper too. I find his writing and preaching usually very helpful, he is theologically excellent and he is a huge asset to the church (as are these other men too).

First, let me highlight where I agree with Piper. His opening salvo regarding the church - "in the church no one should go hungry. In the church no one should be without a place to stay..." etc - is spot on. His closing line in that very same paragraph, that within the church all this should be without compulsion, is absolutely correct. Nobody should be under any doubt that the church ought to be generous and giving without coercion and force. I can also agree that Acts 2:44-45 is not an example of the early church being demanded to give to those in need. There was no compulsion, just a heart changed by God's Spirit. Beyond this, Piper is quite right that "thou shalt not steal" does indeed indicate the ability to keep what is yours and Paul does emphasise cheerfully giving, freely and not under duress (cf. 2 Cor 8-9). I basically agree with Piper's view on funding state churches (if not entirely for the reasons he intimates).

Here, however, is where I think Piper goes astray. He argues that socialism either (1) establishes legal, government or military coercion to establish social ownership at the expense of private ownership; or, (2) uses coercion to establish social control — if not ownership, at least control of the means of production in society. He goes on to state "And thus, through control, you effectively eliminate many of the implications and motivations of private ownership."

Now this errs in presuming that scripture demands private ownership. Yes, scripture presumes the existence of private ownership, but it never suggests that it is inherently good or the fundamental basis of state economics. Equally, Piper errs in presuming that socialism stands against all forms of private ownership. I see no reason to believe either of those presumptions are necessarily true. 

A further problem with Piper's answer is that his application of the above verses rule out taxation and state funding for just about anything. If giving freely is the driving principle then, by definition, all forms of taxation and state intervention are out of the question. This means no governance, no military spending, no forms of revenue. The logical conclusion renders the national coffers the equivalent of a charity living on sporadic handouts at the whim of the people. All giving must be free and not done out of compulsion. Even the right-wing social conservative Peter Hitchens recognises this principle (see here at 4:40 as an example). As he says: "every state has to intervene in something. Once you've decided you must intervene to create a navy, then you've pretty much sold the principle".

Moreover, whilst I agree with Piper's view on the giving in Acts 2:42-43, it is a category error to apply it to politics and economic systems. It is interesting to me that, when the Spirit is at work amongst a true community of believers, things appear very much more socialist than capitalist. However, that is not a basis for arguing these verses represent some sort of socialist manifesto. These verse clearly describe the Spirit at work within a community of believers and we cannot simply apply it to political and economic systems on the world stage. For exactly the same reason I do not think 2 Corinthians 8-9 can be applied to world economic systems, the principle of generous, free giving would be a similar category mistake. Paul is talking about giving within the community of believers. He is talking about what should happen amongst those who have been made regenerate toward other Christian people in need. He is not talking about what should happen at a governmental level or within economic systems.

Piper moves on and takes aim at the economic system of Denmark and others in Europe, arguing that over half those who live in such places live off the state in some way. He simply states this as negative without giving any grounds for why this really represents a problem biblically (save his spurious logic outlined above). By all means make a case - as he goes on to imply - that there are economic problems with socialism (such as you believe them to exist). What seems specious is to suggest that biblical descriptors of what ought to happen within the church should define what happens at a state economic level.

Now, there are some biblical principles and doctrines that ought to be brought to boot on this discussion. First, as I argued here, tax is not inherently unbiblical. It does not amount to state theft and it is not akin to sin. Both Jesus (Mk 12:17) and Paul (Rom 13:6f) make that clear enough. If tax amounts to state theft and/or sin, then Jesus and Paul are clearly encouraging all believers to participate in sin. It is evidently not the case that is what they are doing. To quote Peter Hitchens, if you take Jesus' and Paul's points, "then you've pretty much sold the principle". Ergo, far from being sinful, taxation can indeed be a force for good.

Second, let's refer back to Piper's reference of Acts 2:42-43. It is clear enough that this is what happens when the Spirit is at work in God's people. Free, generous giving without the need for compulsion. The question is, what do we do for those who are not so indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Are we likely to see widespread, free giving without compulsion. Years of Western capitalism, which allows the rich to keep much of their money, rather suggests not. Even in America, where there is more of a culture of charitable giving, even the slightest probing makes clear enough this is to avoid losing more money through taxation! It is not charitable like Acts 2, it is a selfish bid to avoid such charity!

It is theologically and empirically obtuse to presume that making a few people very rich will work for the benefit of all. James 2:6f makes the case clearly enough. The doctrine of total depravity also speaks against the idea that the unregenerate would likely give their money away simply out of the generosity of their own hearts. If James, along with the doctrine of total depravity, suggest individuals may need some encouragement in helping their fellow man, and it be not sinful to implement taxation, it follows that taxation as a means of helping the poor is a thoroughly biblically consistent position. Moreover, if scripture obligates the believer to care for the poor and needy (e.g. here and here) and the above means are not sinful, it strikes me as thoroughly reasonable to campaign for a high tax, redistributive system as an excellent means to care for the less fortunate. The Christians, campaigning for higher taxes on themselves as a means of achieving these ends, seems to be perfectly consistent with these biblical imperatives.

Free market capitalism makes no credible allowance for total depravity and inculcates greed as its very motivating force. It allows the rich to remain rich and does nothing, ultimately or inherently by the very nature of the system, to help the poor. Indeed, untrammelled free market capitalism uses sin to motivate and does nothing to encourage the biblical imperatives to have an eye for the poor, needy and less fortunate. If nothing else, socialism at least attempts to address the very problems the bible considers problems. It, contrary to popular belief, actually takes better account of total depravity than does the capitalist system. It is no coincidence that the Socialism of the British Labour movement was started by a Scottish lay preacher and built on the back of Welsh Methodism. Free market capitalism can hardly be said to have been borne out of any adherence to biblical principles. 

As Piper rightly notes, "every economic and political system will eventually collapse where there are insufficient moral impulses to restrain human selfishness and encourage honesty and good deeds even when no one is watching." It strikes me that capitalism makes no effort to address either of those issue. It rather hopes for a 'trickle down' effect (or a work of the Holy Spirit to give them a heart to share aright). A presumption that the rich will try to hoard their money necessitates a system that redistributes their wealth (total depravity nigh on demands it for the unregenerate). Given that politics cannot instil a work of grace, you tell me, dear reader, how Christians ought to respond to socialism.

It's just a thought but here's how we might fund a response to the asylum seeker crisis

I, along with most of Europe, have watched on as we see increasing numbers of people fleeing their home countries and seeking refuge in the Western World. Up until now I haven't made any comment because there are plenty of others who have offered far better analysis and opinion than I could have done (see here, here, here, here, here and here among others). Frankly, there are a limited number of lines one can take on this issue: either let them all in, let none in or let a proportion in. Each of these views have been presented reasonably forcefully elsewhere.

There has been a lot of talk over whether we refer to this as a migrant or a refugee crisis. For what it's worth, I don't think it is either. It is an asylum seeker crisis. A refugee is somebody who has applied for asylum and been granted leave to stay. A migrant is somebody moving for reasons other than fear of persecution in their home country. All the people coming, detained in camps or seeking to move are trying to claim asylum in Europe. None of them have automatically been granted leave to remain, so they cannot be classed as refugees yet. None of them claim to be coming for reasons other than seeking refugee status, so they cannot be deemed economic migrants yet either. They are uniformly asylum seekers. If we grant them asylum, they will be refugees. The terms migrant and refugee have been bandied around as emotive terms to underscore particular predisposed views. The people in question are, however, undoubtedly and factually asylum seekers.

We are reasonably well acquainted with the issues surrounding asylum in Oldham. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) tells us, at the end of 2014, there were 36,383 pending asylum cases in the UK. Greater Manchester housed around 4,000 of those asylum seekers and Oldham in particular received c. 600. My own church has a significant number of asylum seekers and refugees in attendance and are reaching c. 5% of the Oldham asylum seeker population. So, though I am no expert, I am aware of many of the issues surrounding asylum and refugee status.

Having said all that, I am firmly in the camp that says we should welcome more. The biblical imperative strongly suggests, if not demands, we allow more asylum seekers into this country. Any claims of being "swamped" or too much strain being placed on public services do not hold up to scrutiny. For example, in Oldham we have a population of c. 220,000 people, of which 600 are asylum seekers. That amounts to around quarter of a percent (0.27%) of the local population. This is in line with the national level which stands at 0.24% of pending asylum cases. The Greater Manchester region has c. 2.7m people of which c. 4000 are asylum seekers. This amounts to 0.0015% of the regional population. Though they are disproportionately spread throughout the region (1), the boroughs that house a larger proportion per population are in line with the national average and the region as a whole is well below the national average.

I am sympathetic to the argument that the burden ought to be spread. Just as we are seeking a joined up approach throughout Europe, it doesn't seem unreasonable to look for a joined up approach across the UK. There is a good case to be made for asking each of those in the public eye if they are willing to take refugees into their own local areas or, as some have been suggesting, into their homes. If they agree, they truly mean it whereas a refusal is nothing short of demanding others meet the costs and burdens of doing that which will salve their own consciences from a distance (2). I can see why some are frustrated that Rochdale, which houses 1 in 41 of all asylum seekers in the country, supports more than the whole of the South East of England, covering 8 counties and housing only 441. Nonetheless, even the disproportionate placement of asylum seekers in particular areas amounts to a minuscule proportion of the overall population and can hardly be said to be a huge drain on resources even in the most burdened areas such as Rochdale and Bolton.

One of the central problems is that parts of the asylum system has been farmed out to private companies. G4S and Serco run a number of detention centres and are often involved in the placement of asylum seekers housing. As such, these companies are inclined to place asylum seekers in the cheapest possible housing making the greatest amount of profit on the contacts taken out with the government. It is little wonder that Rochdale and Oldham carry a larger number of asylum seekers than the South East because housing in and around London, with an ever-extending commuter belt, is astronomically expensive. The asylum seeker has no choice in where they are placed and there is a "no choice" policy that means they can be placed anywhere outside of the South East region. Typically this is in places with cheap, or "hard to let", housing.

None of this information is new or different to anything anyone has put out before. The reason I decided to comment was because I saw this on twitter:

Wenger confirms Arsenal will donate £1 for every ticket sold vs Stoke to the refugee crisis http://t.co/sQBiRkndG4 pic.twitter.com/rB7gvcWFGL

— Indy Football (@IndyFootball) September 10, 2015

Whilst on the face of it, this seems very nice it hardly scratches the surface. What is even more interesting is that even if the Emirates Stadium were full to capacity, this would raise a maximum of £60,000. When one considers the millions clubs spend on players each season without any thought whatsoever, this seems pitiful. The Manchester United manager just claimed that £58.8m on a new player very few people know much about was "ridiculous".

This got me to thinking about a more valuable approach. What if, rather than blowing astronomical sums of money on people who kick a piece of leather around a field for 90 minutes, the Premier League enacted a one year transfer embargo? What if each club promised to donate one year's transfer budget to support the refugee crisis? Rather than paying inflated wages and transfer fees for a few economic migrants who do very little work, why don't we apply the transfer budget of all 20 clubs toward the refugee crisis? Just this year that move would have raised £860m. Considering most asylum seekers are given £30 per week plus a small room in an unlettable house with several other asylum seekers, the rent for which couldn't demand more than £50 per week (and that's being generous), think of how many asylum seekers we could support with £860m.

Now this plan would have multiple benefits. It would curb exorbitant transfer fees. It would mean that football clubs necessarily focus on developing youth (at least for one year) rather than buying in foreign talent and would benefit both club and country. But best of all, it would provide nearly £1bn to help address the asylum seeker crisis. If such a plan could be extended across Europe (given that we are supposedly attempting a joined up campaign on this), there would be billions available in aid for those desperately seeking a new beginning. And very few people would lose out in the process. Even the footballers who might have been transferred will still rake in their astronomical wages for another year at the same old club and can push through that iniquitous "big money move" the following year if they so desire.

This is why I thought I would write something. I've got nothing to add to the crisis itself but I think I might have just hit upon a decent way of sharing some of the financial burden.

Notes

1. The Borough of Manchester houses just under 800 asylum seekers, 200 more than the Borough of Oldham, yet Manchester has a population of 515,000, nearly double Oldham's 220,000. Stockport supports only 100 (pop. 287,000) and Trafford 73 (pop. 232,000).
2. Though I don't agree with the whole article, this particular argument is made by Peter Hitchen here.

Changing the definition of child poverty: Right move, wrong motive and mendacious cover

Much has been made of David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith's latest proposal to alter the definition of child poverty. The current definition states a child is living in poverty if their household income is less than 60% of the median average. Gordon Brown first pledged to do away with child poverty, based on the old measure, but now David Cameron promises the same by altering the definition of the term.

First, let me say where I agree with Cameron. The current definition of child poverty is a nonsense. It is clearly true that in times of recession and depression, where median income falls, child poverty falls right along with it despite that same household having less money. Frank Field has also argued along similar lines. If the measure is simply to determine whether children are doing worse than average in any given year, then the measure does what it claims. If the idea is to determine whether children are better of in real-terms than they were before, then the measure is deeply flawed.

Nonetheless, this is where my agreement with Cameron's plans start and end. I have no issue with a change in definition per se. I do, however, object to both the timing and motive of the move as well as the supposedly superior definition being offered.

First, the timing. It will come as no shock to anybody that statistics due out this month are likely to show a significant increase in child poverty. There can be no doubt that this move has been prompted by such unhelpful numbers for the government. The Prime Minister had just over five years to tackle this problem of definitions but has only been prompted to do so now. All but the most naive  political observers will surely conclude this is a prime example of reality not backing up government plans thus the government seek to alter the statistics.

Second, the new definition proposed by the government is hardly an improvement on the old. In fact, I would go as far as to say it is worse. Rather than focus on household income, Cameron and Duncan Smith suggest we focus on 'life chances'. Instead of determining poverty levels on the basis of actual poverty, they will instead focus on things such as worklessness, educational attainment, drug dependency and family breakdown. Never mind the fact that, under certain circumstances, worklessness doesn't always make one worse off than those in work (1), it is clearly possible to have low educational attainment and make quite a lot of money, drug abuse is often rife (though hidden) amongst the middle-classes and family breakdown does not necessarily imply low income. Despite the flaw in the current definition, the existing measure at least looks specifically at income levels. For what is poverty if it is not linked to the money in your pocket?

A much better (and more creative) definition of poverty is obviously in order. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation offers one such measure. Rather than base their definition on median income (which is liable to change and throws up obvious anomalies) or 'life chances' (which is double-speak for ignoring how much money you actually have), they use a Minimum Income Standard (MIS). This is the minimum income - set by the public, ratified by experts and updated annually - according to costed basic essentials for families with children. This provides a moving measure according to current levels of income whilst not tying the definition to median incomes that will change during times of recession.

Worse than the timing and new definition, however, is the motive behind this move. This is not simply a case of government, once again, massaging figures. Rather, this move is now intended to soften opinion for further benefit cuts to be announced next week. First in line for the chop is working tax credits, largely paid to 'in work' families not given enough by their companies to raise them above the current poverty measure. In one fell swoop, families will have money taken away from them, in the form of tax credits, and simultaneously told that child poverty levels have improved because the measure will take no account of their income. If it be flawed to measure child poverty according to median income because it falls during times of recession, it is down right mendacious to use that as a basis for altering the definition of poverty whilst simultaneously revoking supplementary income for those working in the lowest paid jobs.

Very few will argue that child poverty does not need addressing. However, the way to address it is not to define it away and measure it in anything other than monetary terms. Nor, as Alison Graham from the Child Poverty Action Group pointed out, can any moral mission involve "taking away tax credits for our poorest children, no serious plan for the low-paid begins with making them poorer by cutting their tax credits”. Even if we concede that 'life chances' are a better measure of poverty, surely we can't ignore the glaringly obvious fact that income-levels and life chances are closely linked.

I am reminded that this is very often our approach to sin. If we simply define it away - saying what God calls sin is not actually sin - then our problem is gone forever. Yet, the solution to sin is not to so define it that we can pretend it's not there. The solution to sin is to actually get rid of it but, like poverty, that is easier said than done and not something we can do simply by our own hard work. The means of doing that is by coming to Jesus Christ in faith and having God remove it from us (2). Whether we want to admit it or not, we cannot define our way out of our problems. Whether sin or poverty, the solution must lie in actually tackling the problem by first defining what the problem really is. It is only once we accept the issue, according to a credible definition, that we can really begin to find a solution. 

The solution to child poverty is not to pretend its not there. It's not to measure it against things that define it away. It is to accept that no money makes for poverty. Only when we finally accept poverty is a lack of money which impedes life chances (not the other way around), can we begin to improve life chances by solving the issue of households with no money.

Notes

1. Consider those in work on part-time and zero-hours contracts. Compare inner-London council house subsidies/private landlord subsidies and child benefits to those elsewhere in certain low-skilled jobs receiving tax credits.
2. That is not to say we no longer sin. Rather, that our sin is no longer counted against us because it will have been punished in Christ

Tax avoidance, tithes and total depravity

Tax avoidance seems to have taken centre stage in the news of late. In particular, HSBC have found themselves in the firing line (see here). Many right-wingers have lined up to defend lower-level forms of tax avoidance (cf. Lord Fink, Nigel Farage, Toby Young, et al). The Labour leader, Ed Milliband, as well as other voices on the left (e.g. Owen Jones) have come out against the practice. The Prime Minister is trying to walk that tricky line between upsetting his friends in business - for whom aggressive tax avoidance seems standard practice - and the majority of voters who don't have the income to warrant employing personal tax accounts and thus generally dislike the practice.

There is obviously some talking past one another on this issue. This typically revolves around our definition of terms. When Lord Fink claims "everybody does it" he is almost certainly referring to pension contributions, ISAs and other tax deductible activities encouraged by government. If our definition of tax avoidance is utilising anything that reduces our taxable income, then yes, most of us engage in tax avoidance. However, if our definition of tax avoidance, as per Owen Jones' claim, is anything that avoids the tax government would ordinarily expect us to pay, then it is probably true that most of us do not engage in tax avoidance.

There is certainly something distasteful about government employing accountancy firms to help draft tax legislation who then win customers on their ability to avoid the very legislation they helped implement. At the very least, those of us without the income to warrant access to personal tax consultants are not on a level playing field. Even on a business level, when larger companies can write off their tax losses in the UK against other EU countries and thus avoid UK tax is not a level playing field for smaller, independent companies who have no such foreign presence.

The question that inevitably does the rounds is whether, if you could, you would accept the ability to pay one per cent tax. But it is a redundant question when most of us aren't in the position to do so. We can make any bold statement we like knowing we will never actually have to follow through on our claim. As the comedian David Mitchell put it when asked if he would pay 1% tax if he could get away with it, "well I certainly wouldn't say I would". This is probably closer to the truth than many of us like to think.

At heart, however, the issue is clear. It is not fundamentally one of the tax system (though that is an issue) but one of sin. Given the chance, the human heart will exploit whatever means it can for greed and gain. The OT system of jubilee years recognised this tendency. God instituted a system that would effectively redistribute wealth, stop long-term poverty and lifelong slavery. It was a system in which wealth and land could not be hoarded forever and the impoverished would not remain so generation after generation. Debts were mandatorily cancelled, land returned and slaves set free. God recognised, left to their own devices, the rich would exploit the poor in perpetuity and thus set in place a system to stop such practices.

It is this very tendency that always staggers me when Christians (rightly) uphold total depravity on the one hand, whilst (wrongly) maintaining trickle-down, capitalist economics will work for the many. Since when did the sinful human heart think, of its own volition, giving away wealth to strangers is a good idea? Since when did the sinful human heart think, of its own volition, I have a means of keeping more of my own money but I'm not going to utilise it? That some people don't do this is testament to common grace. That most do (or would do given the opportunity) rather underlines human nature. The OT system seemed to recognise that without legal structures to enforce wealth distribution, land return and slave release it simply would not happen. This is as true today as it ever was. 

A heart changed by the spirit of God may cause these things to happen without enforcement. The collection boxes of churches up and down the country are testament to this. However, even there, sinful human nature plays its part. My offering may be equal to the number of people watching me place it in the offering box. My tithe may be a portion of my income after my outgoings have all been taken into account. It may not be tax avoidance but it might be tithe avoidance. The Bible never dictates how much or how often we ought to give, it simply says believers ought to give. Yet we too continue to fight against the old man; greed or approval may still rear its head. As one minister friend was fond of pointing out: most people either want more money or a round of applause. If we are able to get both, what a day!

Greed is a powerful motivator. We shouldn't be surprised by tax avoidance because, in a system which openly encourages greed what are we to expect? There needs to be a system that doesn't simply expect greedy, sinful people to act in honourable ways. As the old quote says (often, probably wrongly, attributed to Keynes), “capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all".

Yet, though we are fast to point the finger, most of us pay tax through PAYE and have no opportunity to avoid it on any large scale. But what do our tithes and offerings suggest about what we'd do? Do we skim off our outgoings and other things to effectively reduce what we feel we ought to give? Are we generous toward the Lord and his people or are we greedy and seek to hoard our wealth for ourselves? 

If our response to the Lord's work, and our claim to love his people, doesn't extend to our wallets and purses then perhaps we haven't been affected by the gospel. If we skim off our tithes and offerings, using loopholes and arguments to justify what we give, then how are we any better than tax avoiders? In fact, surely we are worse. Many companies make little pretence they like paying tax and clearly say if they could pay less, they would. Their exploitation of loopholes is a logical outworking of that claim. We, who claim to love the Lord and say we support his work, are hypocrites if we seek to lessen our offerings. With our mouths we claim to love the Lord, his people and his work but with our wallets and self-justifications we don't.

Tax avoidance is a soft-target. Most agree the face-value of the tax owed ought to be paid by those that owe it. It is quite right they should come under pressure to pay their tax. It is also right the government should clampdown on existent loopholes. But we shouldn't forget that most of us are in no such position to do it. It is very easy to claim we wouldn't do the same when there is no reason to presume we will ever be in a position to make that choice. What we are in a position to see is our own generosity toward our saviour and the work of his church. That should give us a real insight into whether we would seek to avoid our taxes the same way given the opportunity.