Christianity, when properly understood, is a religion of losers
christianity
Are Christians supposed to be communists?
LinkAre Christians supposed to be communists?
I found Hart’s article provocative, but unconvincing. I think there are two main problems.
First, Hart claims that the traditional Christian defense of non-communist structures is that the Bible talks about not abusing wealth, rather than avoiding it. There is truth to this claim, but Hart misses the justification – it is less a grammatical argument (i.e., a debate over the definition of a word), but more an argument over the historical context in which that wealth was generated. One might argue that wealth generation today is also inherently exploitative, but if you believe that voluntary exchange can increase utility for all parties, this is not a claim that the Bible forces us to accept.
Second, Hart’s conclusion from analyzing how the early Christian church acted is that Christians ought be communists – without explaining what he means by “communist.” This does not obviously follow; there are several differences that go unexplained:
A. It is not clear that Christians shared wealth and literally did not own their own wealth. There were lots of voluntary gifts, but it did not seem to be the case that everyone gave (what was surprising about Ananias and Sapphira was not that they held back what they gave, but that they lied about what they gave). (This, I think, is the weakest point, and perhaps irrelevant – even if literally not everyone did / was expected to, the culture seemed to be that they generally did.)
B.
Even if the early Christians shared wealth, it is not clear whether that was meant to be a universally maxim or something expedient to that time and place.
The Acts church was in a unique position. The early church, brought together by Pentecost, primarily consisted of pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem from across the diaspora.
C. Even if the early Christians shared wealth and this was meant to be a universal maxim, it is not clear that this collective ownership would extend to broader society. Christians clearly have special duties to other Christians. An important piece of context is that, in the Old Testament, Israel was both a government and a religious community – and it is not always clear which principles were meant for which. There are clearly special obligations for other believers and Galatians 6:10 could even be read as implying a special financial commitment.
D. Even if collective ownership was meant to be extended to broader society, it is not clear that communism is the answer. Unless Hart means voluntarist communism, communism likely requires political change, and it is not clear how the church is meant to think about politics. Many (e.g., Hauerwas) argue that the church is explicitly meant to be apolitical and fight for the kingdom outside of the state. Jesus, the apostles, and the early church all had little to say about government, other than we should submit to it.
I do think Acts is a challenge to Christians living in a capitalist society that emphasizes individual maximization of utility and where models view utility as highly correlated to wealth. I am less convinced that Acts calls us to be communists.
The soul: Not dead yet
LinkNikabrik’s candidate
LinkHas “authenticity” trumped holiness?
LinkA field experiment of how American churches welcome newcomers
LinkAdam Ruben talks about his experience of being the only Jewish guy on an evangelical ski retreat (coincidentally, the very retreat I just got back from today). It’s definitely funny to see how some things never change (“Their trip is hot chocolate and board games”), but what I really appreciated was his ending comments – I think they’re quite deep.
Self-effacement and the celebrity church culture
LinkSelf-effacement and the celebrity church culture
Really great article by Mark Lauterbach on Doc Fullerton, the founder of Princeton Evangelical Fellowship, and the lessons he learned from Doc.
The neo‐orthodox theology of the young John Rawls
LinkThe neo‐orthodox theology of the young John Rawls
This is a journal article (ungated) from a few years ago (2007), but I found it absolutely fascinating. In it, Eric Gregory examines John Rawls’s Princeton senior thesis – there are some really fascinating findings here.
This paper examines a remarkable document that has escaped critical attention within the vast literature on John Rawls, religion, and liberalism: Rawls’s undergraduate thesis, “A Brief Inquiry into the Meaning of Sin and Faith: An Interpretation Based on the Concept of Community” (1942). The thesis shows the extent to which a once regnant version of Protestant theology has retreated into seminaries and divinity schools where it now also meets resistance. Ironically, the young Rawls rejected social contract liberalism for reasons that anticipate many of the claims later made against him by secular and religious critics. The thesis and Rawls’s late unpublished remarks on religion and World War II offer a new dimension to his intellectual biography. They show the significance of his humanist response to the moral impossibility of political theology. Moreover, they also reveal a kind of Rawlsian piety marginalized by contemporary debates over religion and liberalism
A dark Christmas for the Christians of the Middle East
LinkA dark Christmas for the Christians of the Middle East
Sadly, the tragedy of the Christians of Iraq — who span a whole range of doctrines and ethnic groups — is being replicated in many other places. Sectarian tensions are deepening around the world, and Christians are often the victims. Syria’s mostly Orthodox Christians are caught in the middle of the civil war between the government of Bashar al-Assad and its Islamist opponents. Egypt’s Copts are still attending charred churches, burned in anti-Christian pogroms and battling persistent anti-Christian sentiment. And now churches are even being targeted for attack by Hindu nationalists in India.