Socialism of Christ

by Austin Bierbower

  First, then, He calls on His followers, like Baboeuf and Cabet, to work and not profess only; to show their love for the community by laboring for it and in it and not merely by talking about it. "Not every one," He says, "that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven." It was the tendency of communists, then as now, to loudly profess and admire the community, but not to be willing to work hard to bring it about or to make it successful when in it. "If any man," says Christ, "will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross," showing his faith by his works, and his sincerity by his fruits.

  lie wants no drones in His cause or in His community; none who seek a subsistence while shirking their duty—the common bane of modern communities. He cursed the barren fig tree as a type of the fate of all such parasites, who enter merely for the loaves and fishes, and are a dead weight on the industrious. "Every branch that bringeth not forth good fruit He taketh away." The unprofitable servant He orders to be cast into outer darkness.

  He distinguishes between the hearers and the doers of the Word. They that only hear and accept His sayings and system are compared in their efforts to construct a community, to a foolish man who built his house upon the sand. "And the rain descended and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house,

  Socialism of Christ—§

  and it fell; and great was the fall of it." But those who both accept and carry out His principles, are compared to a wise man who built his house upon a rock. " And the.rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock."

  He likewise compares those who receive His Word, or system, to seed sown; those who accept it in time of peace and ease, and give it up in trouble and work, to seed that falls among thorns, which the thorns soon choke; and those that accept it without thought, and carry it no further than the mere acceptance, to seed that falls where there is no depth of earth, and so springs up, or is adopted, merely because there is no depth of earth (as most communists now accept their system, who adopt it simply because it requires nothing but a little thought to do so,) but wither away when the heat and scorching sun of labor and trial come.

  Christ wants all to work, because on work depends the mutual support of all, and the success of the community. He recalls His disciples constantly to the fundamental principle of the community, that one soweth and another reapeth; and reminds them that they themselves have been the recipients of the work of others. "I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labor; other men labored, and ye are entered into their labors. Ye ought, therefore, to work and not to faint." "Work," He again says, "while it is called day; for the night cometh when no man can work; " in other words, work while you can, and let others do so; for the time will come to all when, in sickness or old age, they must be maintained as a burden by the work of others. Earn therefore your place, and "let every man bear his own burden," and so, on the whole, "bear ye one another's burdens."

  As another inducement to diligence a reward is held out to be given according to the work done. This is the promise always made to revolutionists, whether in the interest of a kingdom, a republic, or a community. The pretender promises titles, rank, ministerial offices, generalships, spoils, and other preferments, according to the bravery and successful work of his followers. So we are informed by Christ that "the Son of Man shall come and reward every one according to his works."

  In a community where all ranks and distinctions are to be abolished, the rewards offered are, of course, to be only such as are possible under such circumstances, namely, the honorable and responsible positions in the administration of the community—to rule over ten cities, or five cities, or two cities, according to the as- "pirant's ability, such ability (as in St. Simon's community) to be estimated according to his works. For in all communities it is proposed, while keeping all persons equal, to yet reward merit. Cabet, in his Icarian system, provided prizes for discoveries, inventions, and other great services; while the rest insist that their fellow citizens will naturally reward all worthy persons by elevation to the highest offices and most desirable places; so that men of talent and attainments will fill the presidency, the secretaryship, and the place of teacher, while the less ambitious and less serviceable will occupy the common laborer's place. "For unto every one that hath, to him shall be given and he shall have more abundantly, and frpm him that hath not shall be taken away even that he hath." And "With what measure ye mete it shall be meted to you again."

  Christ illustrates His idea on this subject by the parable of " a certain nobleman who went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom;" or, as it is elsewhere related, "The kingdom of Heaven is as a man traveling into a far country who called his own servants and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to every man according to his several ability, saying, Occupy till I come. * * And it came to pass that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called to him, * * when he that had received five talents came and brought five other talents, and he that had received two talents came and brought two other talents," and each received the approbation of his lord: "Well done good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things ; enter thou into the joy of thy lord." And so one was made ruler over ten cities, and the other over five cities, according to their respective ability and work. And

  the man who did not improve his talent, lost it, and lost also his future opportunity, his talent passing to him that had ten talents. And when he justified himself on the ground that in the community one takes up where he laid not down, and reaps where he did not sow, the answer is, "Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knew- est that I reap where I sowed not, and gather ~ where I have not strewed ;" and an order is given to " cast the unprofitable servant out," to take his chances in individualism.

  Christ further enforces the idea that one in position, as well as one out of it, if he does well, shall be promoted and go up higher, and if he does badly, shall be put down; thus "setting up one and putting down another." " Who then," He asks, in speaking on this subject, "is that faithful and wise servant whom hie lord hath made ruler over his household to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing. Verily, I say unto you, he shall make him ruler over all his goods." And, in contrast with this, He says, "But, and if that evil servant

  * * shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken, the lord of that servant shall come * * and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites."

  And thus, in general, Christ, after He had sufficiently aroused His people, and instructed them on the necessity and advantages of a community, called their attention to its practical work. He reminded them in particular of the fact that the work of destruction and radicalism was but temporary, and would soon be over, and that the work of founding and building up the new system would principally engage their attention. He came, He said, not to destroy but to fulfill the law, and intended, in the end, to "restore all things."

  He therefore wanted in His followers not only braves and warriors, but workmen and laborers, men not only to fight and propagate, but to toil and produce; somebody to sweat as well as to bleed. He made a special call for laborers in His vineyard, men for the plentiful harvest which was ripe for the sickle. The social temple thrown down was to be rebuilt, the earth which was to pass away was to be followed by a new one, the titled and the dignitaries—the aristocracy and the officers—which were to disappear, were to be replaced by an equally diligent company of new and faithful men in every department of life.

  Thus, therefore, in various ways, was the idea of communism and its duties developed by Christ and His followers, until every important phase of the subject was illustrated and enforced.

  Thus far,
however, all was positive. The projected community was, as yet, only theoretical, and while it remained unrealized the expectations were great, the schemes unlimited, and the principles and measures extreme. As is always the case with the positive part of such a work—with the instilling of the idea and the propagation—much is said and done that runs into the ridiculous and impractical. The people being called to a radical and revolutionary work, and encouraged by extravagant promises, are necessarily carried to extremes.

  Accordingly the next work of Christ and of the leaders of this communism, is to recall the people to the practical—to moderate their wishes and expectations, and to restrain themselves within the bounds of common prudence and common sense. Communism has always gone first to extremes in projecting the unabridged ideal and desire, and then been restrained within the possible in order to get itself into practical operation. Accordingly we find a gradually developed series of checks to radicalism and a subsequent letting down of the high ideal to a more practical level, with the consequent disappointment of the more radical and sanguine.

  First, after having given the impression, whether intentional or not, that there would be no marriage in the new community or kingdom, but that the people would live in a sort of concubinage, or free love, Christ indicates that the existing social relations will not be disturbed, and in particular that marriage will be kept intact. For He had at first told His hearers that in the new kingdom the people would neither marry nor be given in marriage, which was construed to point to a state like that of Plato's community of women, or like the similar system proposed by St. Simon and some other modern socialists, which has been put in actual operation in the Oneida community and, to a small extent, among certain spiritualists. The women, it was thought, were all to belong to all men, which would be the solution of the sex problem in Christ's community.

  For, as every system of socialism has had to deal with this subject, that of Christ could not escape its consideration. As therefore Plato proposed a community of women, Mohammet a limited plurality of wives, the Essenes and modern Shakers an abolition of marriage and of all substitutes for it, the French communists their various systems of libertinism, and the Mormons their unlimited extension of the marriage relation, Christ appeared to fall in with the general enthusiasm on the subject, and to adopt something like Platonic love.

  I say He at first appeared to do so. His relations with the family were certainly not of the ordinary kind. He acknowledged no paternal ancestors or authority. He was deemed by many a bastard, " one born out of due time," a Melchiza- dek '' without father." He did not call His mother mother, or recognize His brothers and sisters as having the usual family claims upon Him, but He said instead, "Whosoever doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven, the same is my mother, my sister and my brother;" He called Himself the Son of Man, not of any particular man, but of man in general. As He knew no lines of nations or tribes, He appeared to know none of family. He never spoke of family or home affections, or mentioned any of His relatives; He never gave commands to love parents, children, brothers or sisters; but, on the other hand, He says, "If any man come to me and hate not his father, mother, wife, and children and brothers and sisters, he cannot be my disciple." He did not Himself appear to have any special tenderness for His parents, or to care for their concern about Him; but told them that they ought to know that He must be about His Father's business. Though He often spoke of His father, He never meant by that term Joseph, but one who was the father of all the race. He appeared to teachHis disciples to turn away from their earthly parents, as from kings, and to say " Our Father which art in Heaven." And in speaking toothers He often mentioned their Heavenly Father, but never their earthly fathers. He had, in short, no antecedents and no history that showed Him specially in sympathy with the marriage system; and hence He not unnaturally was taken to be in favor of a new social order in this respect.

  But though Jesus had apparently held out this idea of the abolition of marriage, and of existing institutions in general, it was more apparent than real, and He subsequently returned to a more conservative position, resolving, like many of the later and more moderate communists—such as Cabet and Louis Blanc — to preserve the marriage relation. In restraint of their radicalism, He accordingly tells His followers that in the new kingdom the old state will, in this respect, be main- tained;that when that time and that state come, the people will be eating, and drinking, and marrying, and giving in marriage, as in Noah's time; that women will be at their work in the house and on the house-top, and that they will not be disturbed; that they will be grinding at the mill and performing other suitable duties, like the men, and not be called on to leave them.

  And not only so,but He would make the bonds of matrimony even tighter. He did not approve of the easy divorce laws of the Romans, or even of the more stringent ones of the Jews. Stick to your wife, He said, and, if you leave her, keep away from other women as your punishment. He had always been extreme in requiring chastity, giving no countenance to adultery, fornication or even impure thoughts; whether from a Shaker opposition to all associations with women, or from a desire to keep one to one. But now He clearly showed Himself to be most conservative on the marriage relation. His reproof of the woman of Samaria who had had seven husbands is evidence of this, as He did not regard her present husband as any husband at all. This monogamic opinion of Christ was, no doubt, His permanent conviction, as it was expressed early and late in His ministryjand the fact of an apparent vacillation or inconsistency on the subject, was due rather to the variety of views among communists, and to the speculations of His followers in particular, than to any lack of conviction or decisive preference on His part.

  For many of these issues and aims of Christ are due rather to the pressure of the subject in which He embarked, than to His own individual thoughts. He was, in the course of His work, called onto consider many subjects which always accompany such enterprises in which he had no

  special interest, but which, since He could not avoid them, He had to dispose of. They may, nevertheless, be carefully separated from His main purpose and principles. Christ was on all subjects prudent and moderate. If the traditions of His cause, and the impetuosity of His disciples carried His work into uncongenial connections and apparent contradictions, He always brought it back in time, and corrected, as far as was possible, the false impressions.

  Another subject on which Jesus found it necessary to give His followers conservative advice, was their internal divisions. Here, as in all socialistic and communistic movements, the apostles and Christians became too independent and individualistic for the realization of their own schemes. Communists have never been practical, and therefore the proposed communities have never succeeded. Nearly everybody has wanted to have his own way, even to the minutest particulars, and most would prefer to fail in all rather than yield a part. There has generally been, among a hundred communists, a hundred systems of communism —as many ideals as there have been idealists. Communism being a theory drawn

  from the imaginati on, and not from experience— a protest against existing states aud institutions in favor of untried ones—it could not be otherwise than tentative, and as self-conflicting as the different thoughts of which it is the product.

  The socialists have always been the irrecon- cilables in the state, the opposition in politics, and the "outs" in government. They have learned how to fight, but not to do much else; to tear down, but not to build up; to overturn (whether systems, dynasties or institutions,) but not to establish anything instead. An example of this we have in the burning of churches, palaces and cities in the French revolution, and in the general destruction wrought by the late Commune of Paris. As soon as one had a system, even of communism,the others,seeing its defects, began to fight it and pull it down. Trained by long practice to hunting out and magnifying the defects of the old systems, they could not be expected to overlook or excuse those (often of a like kind) that attached to their own ideal as soon as brought out into
clearness by attempts at actual construction.

  Accordingly, among the early Christians, as among all subsequent and preceding communists, there was a severer and more constant conflict between themselves than against their enemies. The early Christians were divided into many sects and parties, and their divisions have always been found irreconcilable. They disputed sometimes on doctrines and sometimes on policies. Their principal differences regarded the Church or Community, just as now there is a conflict among Christians over "the Church," although they give a different meaning to the word " Church."

  For the early church or " communion of saints" —"the ekklessia" or organization of the faithful—was, at first, nothing but a socialistic organization—a society or community of believers-— the "household of faith," "the congregation" or "general assembly"—in short, a democratic gathering of the whole. We have already seen that they had at first their goods in common, and various other features of an organized socialistic and political body.