Talk:Christian socialism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christian socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section dubious[edit]

I am adding the Dubious tag to the Criticism section, for the following reasons:

1) Statement: "Lawrence Reed, in Rendering Unto Caesar, writes that Jesus was not a socialist in that he promoted voluntary giving and charity rather than the mandatory taking by government (taxes).[46]" Neither taxation or "taking by government" are characteristic traits of socialism or Christian socialism.

2) Statement: "Johnnie Moore (Professor of Religion at Liberty University) writing on the homepage of Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes, says Jesus was a capitalist.[47]" That's not a criticism (or an argument or a claim) its a statement.

3) Statement: "Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association, says Jesus was a capitalist who advocated "voluntary redistribution of wealth".[48]" Redistribution of wealth takes place in all value systems, and whether voluntary or mandatory, neither are characteristic of socialism or capitalism.

I am sure someone with good content knowledge could find legitimate, well-sourced criticisms of *Christian socialism*, without relying on the views of political commentators or straw-man arguments. Prime Lemur (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prime Lemur to me, criticisms of socialism don't belong in this section. If we want, we can link elsewhere, but criticisms should be more specific to Christian socialism.
The section would, ideally, have two subsections: criticism of Christian socialism for religious/theological reasons (from the right) and criticism of Christian socialism from the left, by secular or atheist sources.
in theory, the latter would also apply to Islamic Socialism, etc., but different religious socialist ideologies are uncommon enough that it wouldn't be the end of the world to stick them here. But we could also consolidate them into a single article and link that. Owlblocks (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 13:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC): It is entirely possible that one or more of the sources cited might be used to formulate a criticism suitable for this section. I'm not saying they definitely cannot ... its that the way they've been used in this section was unsatisfactory. Additional: Please see the section on this talk page about Pope Leo XIII. Also Pope John Paul II. Just don't fall into the trap of criticism of socialism ... this article is about *Christian socialism*, not socialism-in-all-its-forms. Prime Lemur (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prime Lemur: I absolutely agree with everything you said. These are merely criticism of socialism rather than Christian socialism; and honestly, not even good ones. I'm sure Christian socialists may argue that Jesus didn't promote voluntarism but that we ought to do to that; or in a Robin Hood-esque example that it's actually the rich that get wealth redistribueted in their favor; that it wouldn't be possible without workers and their labour; and that progressive taxes are merely a balance of that. Honestly, they should be removed; I don't think they're reliable sources and basically right-wing talking points and sources. Either we insert actual, reliable criticism of Christian socialism, or there should be no Criticism section at all. I'm honestly surprised the section it's still there.--Davide King (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Haddon Spurgeon would be a good non-political person. He even went so far as to compare democratic socialists to Baal, saying:
"They are going to regenerate the world by Democratic Socialism and set up a kingdom for Christ without the new birth or the pardon of sin. Truly the Lord has not taken away the seven thousand that have not bowed the knee to Baal but they are, in most cases, hidden away - even as Obadiah hid the Prophets in a cave." (A Dirge for the Down-Grade and a Song for the Faith)
"Knock at no door which thou wouldst not have opened. Or it may open on a sudden, and thou wilt stand confounded. When persons speak for a cause which they do not really believe in, they may have to pay dearly for their words. Some who defend Socialism may soon have too much of it." (Proverbs and Quaint Sayings)
"I would not have you exchange the gold of individual Christianity for the base metal of Christian Socialism" (One Lost Sheep) (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spurgeon definitely seems better than the people used in this article. But the quotes above are platitudes, not criticisms really.
This discussion has been going on since Dec 2018... isn't it time to arrive at a solution? Unless better criticisms from an honest Christian viewpoint can be found, the whole section should be erased, I'd say. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"which followers believe to be based on"[edit]

There is zero need for the "clarification" "which followers believe to be", the simple "based on" is perfectly adequate and is neutrally worded. The needless addition is not clarifying this is a belief, but suggests that it is not actually "based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth". Following the wording of, among others, Christian communism, Christian pacifism, and Buddhist socialism, there is no need for the extra addition. Your phasing is weaselly and non-neutral. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

concur -----Snowded TALK 08:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The insertion of these words certainly does not suggest "that it is not actually "based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth"", but if there's a consensus here that the words are unnecessary I will give way. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Acts verses and info on Hutterites from New Testament section[edit]

Before removing this material again, please see which states "Hutterites practice a near-total community of goods: all property is owned by the colony, and provisions for individual members and their families come from the common resources. This practice is based largely on Hutterite interpretation of passages in chapters 2, 4, and 5 of Acts, which speak of the believers "having all things in common". Thus the colony owns and operates its buildings and equipment like a corporation. Housing units are built and assigned to individual families but belong to the colony and there is very little personal property." Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to this article. Where does any RS say that they are Christian Socialists? And the Bible verses are, in this context, padding. If there is a RS, then by all means include a brief reference to them. With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, their way of life is socialist. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines socialism as a "social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.... Early Christian communities also practiced the sharing of goods and labour, a simple form of socialism subsequently followed in certain forms of monasticism. Several monastic orders continue these practices today." Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is original research. Until you can find a reliable third party source which says they are socialist we can't include it here -----Snowded TALK 07:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research, it's logical deduction. If Marlboros are cigarettes, and the Surgeon General says cigarettes cause cancer, it's not original research to say "Marlboros have been found to cause cancer". Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Believing in strict adherence to biblical principles, Hutterites practiced church discipline and established in their communities a rigorous system of Ordnungen, which were codes of rules and regulations that governed all aspects of life and ensured a unified perspective. As an economic system, Christian communism was attractive to many of the peasants who supported social revolution in sixteenth century central Europe; Friedrich Engels thus came to view Anabaptists as proto-Communists." Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]