Communism

MON., SEPT. 23, 1991, 5:59 AM
FARM, STUDY

The Sunday morning forum that you currently attend focused yesterday on Karl Marx, the originator of the modern concept of communism. It was an informative hour but not very spiritual. You are not surprised that I propose to rectify that on this dark, cool morning.

As indicated in the reading and the comments by Bart, Marx didn’t “invent” this concept, but extracted it from the writings of others. The book of Acts records, briefly, the attempt by early followers of Me, as the Risen Christ, to live together, holding everything in common. Whatever anyone earned he brought it and gave it to the group. If anyone acquired property or goods of any kind she brought it and gave it, completely. Ananias had tendencies that were too capitalistic (wanting to keep some profit for himself and his wife). He was basically a good man, and he died of shock induced by his conscience rather than being struck down by Me. Others, later, displayed similar tendencies, and so you don’t read much more about “early Christian communism.”

It is a beautiful, utopian system for living, but it requires all to have the spirit of sharing plus great feelings of selflessness. Now you can see why one essence of Christianity works against easy success of such a system. Christianity has a heavy strain of individualism, which is amplified by certain cultures, particularly yours. Individuals make decisions for Christ. Individual are saved. Oh, there is a corporate spirit in a church or any fellowship of Christians, but the commitment of a man dos not automatically bring the same commitment from his wife or from his children. Within any Christian family or group there is typically a range of allegiance and dedication… and of selflessness.

Communism works best when there is a bountiful supply of what is needed… and what is wanted. If the food and water supply is insufficient, such a situation tends to kindle selfishness just when equal sharing is necessary. You read much these days about a desired national system of medical care, where all would be entitled to any necessary tests and treatment and there would be no exclusions for inability to pay. Yet, as the television segment told, there are differences in the ability and motivations of physicians. So… who gets the best? Can a workable system give equal needed care to 250 million people? Taxes have to be forced from some people now. Would those who are well be willing to pay more tax in order that those who are sick or diseased receive all the care they need… even if the condition was at least partly “self-induced.” Will medical personnel work with equal dedication for a lesser wage? Will medical school become less costly to students? You shall see whether there is sufficient desire for equality in your land.

Suppose that your church, instead of its usual voluntary, “free enterprise” approach to stewardship, relying on conscience alone, decided to tax each member equally. One form of equality would be that each member be required to pay $1,000 a year. Another form would be the traditional tithe – each required to give 10% of gross income to the church. Would all remain in the fold? Almost certainly not. Another possibility would be a computer program that would analyze each member’s income and legitimate expenses and give forth a figure that such a one should give to the church.