Christianity and Matters Such as Marxism, Capitalism, and the Poor - by Rev. Anthony Wade (leftist agitator)

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

Rev. Wade exhibits his typical bombastic, non-self-aware approach once again. He has withering criticism for Roger McKinney, whose sole misstep was to state an opinion contrary to Rev. Wade's Marxist world view. He does his best to twist, misrepresent, and infer evil intent, but fails so spectacularly that we are surprised that he published this screed.

Rev. Wade fancies himself as a Defender of Doctrine, but as a polemicist he is woefully unqualified. And, as is also typical for him, he will quote some Scripture at the beginning but never touch his Bible again.

------------------

(Socialism is not free. Capitalists do not oppose healing and often do it for free. Compassion and mercy have nothing to do with socialism.)

Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed. - Proverbs 19:17 ESV

Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him. - Proverbs 14:31 ESV

But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. - 1 John 3:17-18 ESV

If you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday. - Isaiah 58:10 ESV

In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" - Acts 20:35 ESV

For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.' - Deuteronomy 15:11 ESV

If Jesus were physically here today, He'd promote capitalism

There is nothing more fun and annoying to watch than self-titled Christians argue over what human definition they believe fits the creator of the entire universe. God is an evangelical! No wait, Jesus was definitely a Republican! No, no, He was definitely a capitalist! If you think this sounds absurd that is because it is but do not think for a second that arguments like these are not being made every day by people trying to shove God into the box they feel most comfortable in. The above link is to a recent article declaring if Jesus were physically around today, He would be promoting capitalism by someone named Roger McKinney. Mr. McKinney apparently has an economics degree as well as seminary. (Rev. Wade acknowledges McKinney's expert credentials, but it never will come to bear on his presentation. Rev. Wade apparently knows more than McKinney, and will even disparage him once or twice.)

Heck of a mix there. McKinney has also written a book entitled "God is a Capitalist", so at least he is consistent with his unbiblical claims. Let's reason together once more and hold the bible up to these fanciful claims. (Rev. Wade will never quote the Bible again.)

"Roger Olson, Emeritus Professor of Christian Theology at Baylor University, recently published an essay with the title, "Why I Am a Socialist: Because I Am a Christian." He added, "I do think that laissez faire capitalism, especially its Social Darwinist variety, is contrary to the spirit, the ethos, of Jesus Christ, which is compassion for the weak, the vulnerable, the 'little ones.'" What would Jesus advocate for if he were here, in person, physically, today?" 

In other words, today Jesus would be a socialist, according to Olson. But the professor errs in his logic, hermeneutics, history, and economics." - Roger McKinney

Interesting, so a fellow academic postulated that some tenets of socialism line up better with the teachings of Christ than capitalism. McKinney feels the need to respond. Now let me be clear, I do not promote the idea that God is a socialist anymore than a capitalist. (Actually, Rev. Wade will only criticize the idea that God is a capitalist. In fact, it is clear from his prior writings, and what he presents today, that he is a leftist.)

The notion that we can define in human terms, the beginning and end of everything, is nothing short of pure human arrogance. (But Rev. Wade will continue on to define God for himself.)

Are their (sic) traits in socialism and capitalism that mirror some of the teachings of Christ? That is what we are about to find out.

"The obvious error in Olson's reasoning is his logical leap, called the non sequitur fallacy. Olson believes that compassion requires the state to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Otherwise, there is no compassion. What about charity? Olson never mentions it. Is there really nothing between socialism and ruthless oppression of the poor? Olson believes so. The Bible says we should care for the poor, but insisting that only the state can provide for them is an Evel Knievel logical leap across the Grand Canyon. 

A PhD in theology ought to be familiar with the principles of hermeneutics, which are logic applied to interpretation of the Bible. One of the primary rules to guide this interpretation is to consider the audience. When Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor," and encouraged His followers to give to them, was He addressing politicians? No, politicians avoided Jesus and He wasn't a political policy wonk, anyway. He spoke to crowds of the most common people in the nation, many of whom would become part of His Church. So, He encouraged individual charity to the poor. Charity in the Bible is never enforced by the state. It is required by God, not the government." - Roger McKinney

Charity is a wonderful thing but often abused in this manner by people like McKinney, who are seeking to make excuses for why the government should not help poor people. (The quote does not tell us  McKinney opposes the government helping poor people. And, Rev. Wade will never tell us how charity is abused.)

Any cursory review of the entire bible (Which Rev. Wade will never quote again...)

shows a God who cares deeply about those most needy and marginalized. Yes, God does expect Christian charity but that is hardly all He expects. (What else does God expect? Rev. Wade will not tell us.)

It is painfully ironic that McKinney blames Olson for being myopic, (McKinney never accuses Olson of being myopic.)

while he is encouraging the opposite myopia. (Um, yeah, no. McKinney is making his case for his views in opposition to Olson. That is the nature of debate, to present contrary views.)

He knows full well that charity alone will never be able to meet the needs of the poor in society. (Is this true? McKinney knows this?  Charity cannot meet the needs of the poor? Like the Church did for hundreds of years before the advent of government programs?

Even if it is true that charity cannot meet the needs of the poor, how does that justify government getting involved?)

The other thing at work here is rampant hypocrisy. (Note the strong terminology. But Rev. Wade will not identify the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy involves one's interlocuter stating a particular belief then acting contrary to that belief. McKinney will make no statement regarding the topics Rev. Wade will raise in the next few statements. 

McKinney would have needed to address these topics in order for there to be the possibility of hypocrisy.)

Biblical interpretation does not mean you check your brain at the door. (Who has suggested this?)

If the bible encourages taking care of the poor that is what it encourages and to look for reasons why the government is exempt is not required. (McKinney did not claim anything about the Bible exempting government. But McKinney is quite correct. One of the main themes of the Bible is to teach righteousness. Obedience to God by caring for the poor is an expression of righteousness. Governments cannot be righteous. Period. Compassion and care for the poor always has been an individual obligation for those who would want to obey God.

But more to the point, Re. Wade has written perhaps dozens of his "devotionals" blasting the NAR for its supposed dominionism. The NAR wants to influence what Rev. Wade believes is an evil institution, and he says this is heretical. Yet Rev. Wade wants government compassion because the Bible doesn't exclude it, but doesn't want Christians involved in the evil institution that is apparently obligated to care for the poor. What?)

Especially when you do not do so with other issues. For example, the bible says nothing about abortion but the McKinney's of the world (Does the reader see how Rev. Wade's rhetoric perfectly conforms to leftist bumper sticker slogans?

Hypocrisy must involve McKinney himself, not people Rev. Wade supposes are like him.)

looked at the bible as a whole and saw that life mattered to God, regardless of what laws man passes. (Here we see Rev. Wade engaging in some sleight of hand. He thinks that Christians infer their opposition to abortion from the Bible, and that is analogous to inferring government poverty programs. In other words, Christians are hypocrites. Rampant.

But of course there is no comparison. Science and morality informs us that abortion is the taking of a human life, so invoking government protection of the unborn child is a justifiable activity, and ought to be a government obligation. 

However, giving care to the poor via government involves no precept of the Bible or the Constitution, is not precipitated by invoking either of them, and therefore confers no duty to government. In fact, there is no constitutional authority at all for government to redistribute taxpayer money for the benefit of those it deems worthy.)

We see this similar hypocrisy regarding Romans 13, which is wielded when we do not like a given law and then revered when we do. We are rank hypocrites and it is not lost on the world that needs the gospel. (Rev. Wade continues his superficial equivalencies. Now we are dealing with a direct precept of Scripture in Romans 13. The interpretation and application of that precept certainly varies, but that does not impugn those who do so in various ways. Moral questions that derive from biblical precepts have been thoughtfully debated for centuries.

Further, Romans 13 does not come to bear on government behavior.)

"Another important principle of hermeneutics is to consider the historical context. Olson needs to read Jerry Bowyer's book, The Maker Versus the Takers: What Jesus Really Said About Social Justice and Economics, which shows that Jesus' attacks on the rich took place when he preached in Judea where most rich people had stolen their wealth from others. The Bible often condemns the wicked wealthy, but portrays wealth gained honestly as a gift from God." - Roger McKinney

Ah-hah! So it was Professor Plum, in the Library, with the Candlestick! So, when Jesus says in a teaching that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven, He really meant only rich Judean men? (Rev. Wade dishonestly portrays McKinney's remarks. McKinney makes no mention of a cultural context that restricts Jesus' teaching to rich Judean men.)

That is not hermeneutics beloved. That is proof texting extrapolated out to its worst conclusion. It is making it up to fit your narrative. (Rev. Wade is unaware of his own irony.)

It is similar what women do to justify preaching and pastoring over men when the bible clearly forbids such. (Rev. Wade seems beholden to pulling out irrelevant concepts as if they somehow come to bear on the discussion.)

Suddenly the letters Paul wrote were only meant for the individual congregations and not teachings for the church.(?? When did McKinney talk about Paul's teaching, or even mention him?)

Spare us. All wealth is not inherently evil. (?? This is McKinney's point. Rev. Wade apparently agrees with him.)

The love of such is and McKinney is showing that spectacularly. (Now Rev. Wade turns to personal attacks, especially egregious since there is no evidence in McKinney's presentation that he's attempting to justify greed.)

"Olson is also ignorant of the 150 years in which economists proved Marx wrong. But for Olson, ignorance of economics is no problem; Marx said it, and that settles it: "The socialism I embrace is not tied to any political party" It is not Marxism, although it believes Marx's critical analysis of capitalism has merit". it's best visible representations are in the Scandinavian countries." 

Olson is unaware that Finland (9), Denmark (10), and Sweden (11), rank above the U.S. (25) in terms of economic freedom according to the Heritage Foundation's index. But that doesn't mean those Scandinavian countries are capitalist. They are not. It means the U.S. is more socialist than the socialist countries Olson admires. Nor does he care that the poor in the U.S. are wealthier than the poor in Scandinavian countries because our standard of living is higher. But he recognizes that the U.S. has implemented many socialist programs: "Much of socialism is actually manifested in many things American society take for granted such as social security and Medicare and Medicaid and public ownership of many of the means of transportation, etc." 

Olson ignores the warnings of 19th century Christians who feared giving too much to the poor instead of too little, as Marvin Olasky demonstrates in The Tragedy of American Compassion. Indiscriminate giving, which government welfare programs do, encourages drug and alcohol abuse, laziness, and single mother-headed households that produce most of our criminals. Indiscriminate giving to the poor vastly increases their numbers as more choose not to work and encourages the vices that keep people poor. We have proven that any American who finishes high school, stays off drugs and alcohol, doesn't commit crimes, shows up to work on time, and is faithful to his wife or her husband, can live a middle-class American lifestyle, the highest standard of living in human history." - Roger McKinney

Yeah, we proved that in the 1950's and have spent the past sixty years dismantling it into oblivion now. (To what is Rev. Wade referring? What is this "it" that has been proved?)

Finishing high school now is a guaranteed ticket into the working poor. (?? Why does he think that a high school education is valueless? And if it is, why might that be? What evidence is there that the best one can do with a high school diploma is poverty?)

College is now required to have any shot at the lower middle class, (Again Rev. Wade makes an undocumented assertion, and this one doesn't even pass the smell test.)

which is rapidly being eradicated. (We should pause to note that Rev. Wade has previously claimed he taught English class. Ironic that the product of his teaching guarantees poverty.

He claims something is being eradicated. What is being eradicated, a college education, or the lower middle class?)

The racist attitude here is also quite stark. (Rev. Wade, being a leftist, relies on leftist tropes. Notice how Mr. McKinney mentions obvious problems and Rev. Wade jumps to race. Rev. Wade thinks poor people are black people. This of course is the real racism.)

This is the same welfare queen nonsense from the Reagan era. The notion that the social safety net can become a hammock is a racist trope designed to marginalize the marginalized even further. (Rev. Wade perfectly parrots the leftist narrative.)

The real problem is that the entry level of work in America is now not a step up from the poverty of government reliance giving no motivation to leave welfare. (Hmm. Rev. Wade suddenly agrees that people stay on welfare because it pays better.)

The solution is not to eliminate the welfare but rather to improve the standard of living. (Leftist talking points flow easily from Rev. Wade's word processor. This is a false choice. What if eliminating welfare improves the standard of living? 

Further, who decides what is a proper standard of living? And how is that achieved?)

Perhaps the more disturbing thing here is how quickly McKinney abandoned scripture and Christ as the barometer. (Again we note the irony.)

It does not matter what economists, who favor capitalism to begin with, think of Marx anymore than it matters what Marx himself thought. (Yes, it does matter. It matters because that is what McKinney is discussing, political theory. Rev. Wade does not get to decide what is important to McKinney.)

Finland, Denmark and Sweden do no (sic) matter either. The Heritage Foundation certainly does not matter. While it is true that there already is socialism baked into the American system that is irrelevant as well. (Rev. Wade summarily dismisses a variety of economic thought with a wave of the hand, as if we're not allowed to discuss what people think about economics and government.)

The only thing that matters is what God says. (Which of course means that what Rev. Wade says doesn't matter either.)

I randomly chose some verses you can find above in the key verses. This was not even trying hard, believe me. All of these things were not said because the Judeans were illegitimately rich. (Rev. Wade repeats his false claim.

Then what do these verses mean? Oh. Rev. Wade will not to tell us.)

This is one of the recurring themes throughout the bible and we would be wise to get on the right side of this argument. (Then what is the right side of this argument? Oh. Rev. Wade will not tell us.)

Stop demonizing those that need the most. (Again Rev. Wade reacts like a leftist. Mr. McKinney stated facts about the state of the culture among those on welfare. He demonized no one.)

Why in the world would you be believed when trying to share Christ if you refuse to share anything of this world? (Rev. Wade continues his leftist rhetoric. Despite this very thing being the subject of McKinney's article, Rev. Wade acts as if it doesn't exist. McKinney's purpose in writing was to deal with this very issue, bur Rev. Wade simply parrots a leftist bumper sticker slogan.) 

"Allowing Marx to define capitalism for him, Olson offers a dishonest depiction of it: "What would Jesus advocate for if he were here, in person, physically, today? I believe he would speak out prophetically, as did the Hebrew prophets, against those who advocate government that allows the weak, the disadvantaged, the sick, the disabled, the poor to fall through the cracks simply to keep in place 'economic freedom' for the rich and powerful." But having a drunk atheist define capitalism is as reasonable as letting atheists define Christianity; they won't come close to the truth. 

The 19th century was the golden age for laissez-faire capitalism in the U.S. and U.K. because theologians considered it to be Christian economics. It lifted citizens in both nations to extraordinary levels of prosperity compared to previous centuries. And because of our greater wealth, Christians took care of the poor better than anyone in history, without subsidizing alcoholics or men who refused to work." - Roger McKinney

There appears to be so much hate and disdain in the heart of Roger McKinney. (Another personal attack.)

But for the grace of God go I is something he apparently never considers. (That isn't in the Bible. Remember, what God says is all that matters?)

I am grateful that I won the "where were you born" lottery (Again and again Rev. Wade employs leftist slogans. There is no lottery. Clay, meet Potter.)

that automatically consigns so many to a life of abject poverty. (No one is consigned to anything. Unless Rev. Wade is demeaning God's sovereign will...)

I was not and am not, rich but I am not foolish enough to think that I did not have opportunities that so many people never have. (He sounds like he's experiencing guilt, but rather than assuage it by giving his money to the poor, he wants the government to give our money to the poor.)

A life on government welfare is not some extravagance that we should be taking offense at. (No one is doing this.)

We barely bat an eye when untold billions are doled out in corporate welfare (More leftist talking points. "Corporate welfare" is essentially certain tax breaks and/or subsidies carved out to encourage certain business activities. They are a matter apart from welfare, and not mutually exclusive.

And by the way, a lot of people do "bat an eye," including capitalists. This sort of government dealing is Marxist at its foundation. And most, if not all, these tax breaks and subsidies were created by, or with the participation of, the left side of the isle.)

but heaven forbid a penny goes to the poor (Welfare spending now accounts for 22% of the federal budget:

In 2022, $1.3 trillion is projected to be spent on welfare programs in the United States.

This is a bit more than a penny, Rev. Wade.)

without examining history and social economics through a Marxist lens. This is bad enough from the world but remember these are Christians making these arguments. (Rev. Wade is making his arguments in opposition to these folks. Therefore, we would be justified at laying the results of welfare programs at his feet, wouldn't we?)

Who would Jesus impoverish? (?? Welfare is impoverishment. Rev. Wade said so. This great program of government compassion, which Rev. Wade favors, is leaving people destitute. So we turn the issue back to Rev. Wade. Who should the government impoverish, and would Jesus be pleased with our current results after spending trillions of dollars on welfare programs with no discernable positive effect?)

"Yet Olson considers capitalism a great evil. Does he analyze the economic theology of great proponents of capitalism, such as Francis Wayland, a Baptist Pastor, president of Brown University when it was a Christian school, and author of one of the most popular economic textbooks of the 19th century? No, Olson doesn't bother. 

Few theologians have devoted the time necessary to learning economics. Like Francis Wayland, Paul Heyne was one who did, and he is worth reading, especially Are Economists Basically Dishonest? Christians should shun PhD-gilded theologians who, bored with theology, stray into the lanes of other disciplines like economics. They know no more than any random man off the street in other fields. And doing so, they dishonestly try to project the authority of their PhD in one field onto their ill-informed opinions in another. 

What would Jesus advocate for if he were here, in person, physically, today? He would promote laissez-faire capitalism, because He wrote the Book from which the principles of capitalism came." - Roger McKinney

Yeah, no. Just because man twists the teachings of Christ to fit their (sic) economic narrative does make Jesus a capitalist. McKinney sadly offered very little in terms of a defense of the notion he was proffering. (Well, at least he offered more than Rev. Wade...)

Was Jesus a socialist? Of course not but you do have to admit that many of His teachings were very much for the people and anti-establishment. (?? "For the people" and "anti-establishment" is not Socialism.)

Was He capitalist? Of course not and one can make a cogent argument that His teachings on wealth were clearly the opposite. (Maybe sometime before this awful "devotional" ends, Rev. Wade will make such an argument. In the meantime, let's quote some Scripture that illustrates the Bible's  view on wealth:

Pr. 11:1 The LORD abhors dishonest scales, but accurate weights are his delight.

This means that mutually beneficial exchange [i.e., capitalism] ought to be honestly expressed.

Pr. 14:23 All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty. 24 The wealth of the wise is their crown, but the folly of fools yields folly.

It is work, not talk, that is profitable. Wise people who are rich are noble.

Mt. 25:27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

Investment with a return is desirable.

Mk. 12:1-2 He then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard."

A landowner has a right to the proceeds of his land.

Mt. 20:1 For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard.

The Kingdom is compared to capitalism.  

Mt. 20:15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money?

A person should be able to spend his money as he sees fit.

Mt. 24:43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into.

A property owner is justified in preventing theft of what he owns.)

The problem of course is that Jesus Christ was neither capitalist or socialist. (Well, of course. But as we have seen,  much of His teaching was based on the idea of free, fair markets.)

He was the Son of God and because His kingdom was not of this world trying to define Him with carnal terms is folly. (Another confused sentence from the former English teacher.)

His message and ministry were solely about the eternal life, not this mortal one we have become so enamored with. (This is spectacularly false. Jesus had a lot to say about how Christians should act, what they should do with their time, money, and blessings. It astounds us how Rev. Wade can be so ignorant in pursuit of his agenda.)

He cared about money as much as He cared about politics, which is to say not at all. (Again, spectacularly false. Jesus had a lot to say about money. It was one of His primary topics.)

You want my taxes? Go catch a fish! Let me close by stating what should be obvious to everyone who claims to be Christian. Before the pandemic, in 2019, the United States had a combined wealth of 96 trillion dollars (No, individuals had 96 trillion dollars.)

yet 34 million people lived below the poverty line. (The "poverty line" is a political measurement, not a status. It is approximately the lowest 10%. There will always be the lowest 10% no matter how much money anyone has.)

Someone dies from poverty every 12 minutes in this country. (No one dies from poverty. People die from hunger, sickness. accidents, etc. And by the way, this happens within our welfare system, which Rev. Wade is attempting to defend.

Let's do the math, If 12 people die from poverty every 12 minutes, that's 5 per hour, 120 per day, or 43,800 per year. 43,800 divided by 34 million is 0.13%. There were 3,385,364 deaths in the US last year out of 330,000,000 people, which is 0.10%. That means 9800 more poor people died as compared to the general population. 

That's a small number, but still regrettable. We would need to ask, why did these extra people die? Was it due to poverty, or some other thing like lifestyle? What are the demographics [age distribution, occupation, crime, etc.) that may influence these numbers?

Our point is simple. Leftists love to throw out statistics without context in order to further their Marxist agenda. Case in point: Rev. Wade.)

If you think Jesus looks at these things and wonders how Marxism compares to the teachings of Francis Wayland then you are sadly mistaken. (McKinney was doing no such thing.)

Wake up before you are stranding before Christ trying to explain why you spent your life preventing poor people from being treated with an ounce of dignity, or even a hot meal. (Now Rev. Wade has crossed the line. If it isn't clear by now, Rev. Wade is a leftist. And like a typical leftist, it's an either/or. Either you support government programs or you want people to starve. Either you support Rev. Wade's perspective, or you want people to die. 

Rev. Wade shoots off with moral indignation based on nothing McKinney wrote. It's as if none of what McKinney wrote even existed. 

But again, this is typical leftism. Today is a new day. Yesterday doesn't exist. Nothing has ever been done before, so we need to do something. If you don't agree, you are greedy, evil, racist, a hater of the marginalized.)

Capitalist or socialist? Get over yourself and try helping someone. (?? This is McKinney's underlying point, that Christians have a personal moral obligation for which a government program cannot be substituted.)

Not theoretically, but actually. (...we suppose by supporting government programs and happily paying more and more taxes. We are absolutely sure that Rev. Wade is not talking about volunteering in a soup kitchen or getting out his check book to pay for someone's medical bills.)