Two stories being shared on social media this past week have caught my attention. First, there was an interview Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition gave where she suggested that there was something “unchristian” about the welfare system in the United Kingdom.
Then, there was this meme doing the rounds.
It’s striking that the originator doesn’t just think that socialists shouldn’t be allowed to preach but also anyone who doesn’t realise that socialism is apparently unbiblical.
My response to the second one, as someone who is very much not a socialist is that he has either never read his Bible or doesn’t understand what socialism is. You see, socialism is simply about society owning the means and sharing the proceeds of production. Now at that level, there’s plenty in the Bible to support those things in principle. First of all, consider how the OT law provides in a number of ways for everyone to share in the goodness of the land. This includes provision of gleaning and the Jubilee debt cancellation laws. Now, that’s not socialism in the sense of state or communal ownership but there are curtailing elements of redistribution, quite and a sense that people cannot own things absolute for themselves.
Then, you have in the New Testament, examples of the early church holding things in common. We can be in a rush to minimise political fall out from that and miss the high levels of sharing and equity that this suggests. Kemi Badenoch is right that there isn’t a state welfare system but there is a strong sense throughout Scripture that God’s people are meant to look out for each other. Indeed, whilst those things are specific to God’s people, there may be sensible wider principles for society, part of God’s common grace.
Does this mean then, that socialism is Christian and that it is in fact anti-Christian to oppose the current welfare system, to seek to reduce the welfare bill and be against measures such as the lifting of the benefits cap in the budget. I want to suggest not and here’s why.
If US evangelicalism leans rightward with a suspicion of anything that might be seen as socialist, in the UK, the reverse is true. Those on the centre right have been seen as harsh, uncaring, selfish. A lot of that perhaps goes back to some famous or infamous words from Margaret Thatcher which led eventually to Thersa May commenting that people saw the Conservatives as “the nasty party”. In 1987, Thatcher gave an interview where she said “There is no such thing as society.” It’s that quote that is seen by many as the single biggest piece of evidence for an individualistic, neo-liberal agenda of me first. So, it is worth looking at the full quote
“I have a problem, I’ll get a grant. I’m homeless, the government must house me. They’re casting their problem on society. And there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.”
At that point, it becomes clear that by “society”, Thatcher means “The State”. She is referring to society, or the state as an abstract entity, something that people can go to whenever they need something. It’s perhaps the same as what May (of said “nasty party” fame) would later refer to as the “magic money tree.” Thatcher is arguing that we cannot rely on an abstract, impersonal, benevolent force. We might equally of course paraphrase her to counter some of the idealogues on the right and say:
“There is no such thing as the market. There are individual men and women and there are businesses.”
Returning to Thatcher’s point. It means that any welfare payments are possible because individuals are paying taxes and when the tax burden falls heavily on people, then families are affected, they make sacrifices. It also reflects a Conservative/right wing leaning towards the preference that it should be people looking out for one another, rather than through the tax and benefit system. The argument is that this counters the tendency to de-personalise compassion. David Cameron would of course modify Thatcher’s words by saying:
“There is such thing as society. It’s just not the same thing as The State.”
Now, those on the centre right can legitimately claim, I would suggest, that a view of society where individuals and families are freed to look out for each other and where the State isn’t too heavily involved is just as legitimate an application of the Biblical principles described above.
What that means then, is there is a reasonable debate to be had over the best way to provide for those in need, the best way to show compassion. Socialists will argue that it is through the State regulating behaviours and finances so that it oversees the fair distribution of wealth. Conservatives would argue that where an extensive benefits bill is funded by higher taxes and that slows down the economy, comes in the context of higher inflation and so requires control on wage increases, then people are not being lifted out of poverty.
It is helpful for Christians to ger behind the headlines, slogans and memes and think through carefully how we should approach questions about welfare and poverty in a compassionate and Biblical manner.
Faithroots 