Jesus and the Christian Socialist’s Problem of Evil

Jesus and the Christian's socialist problem of evil, by Joshua Mahorter.

In philosophy and theology, there is an issue called theodicy, or the problem of evil.

The problem of evil has been stated and restated several times throughout history.

Put very simply, if God is all powerful and good, then why is there suffering and evil?

In fact, these very questions and issues, among others, are the bulk of the Old Testament,

book of Job. Job 9, 22 to 24. It is all one. Therefore, I say, he destroys the guiltless

and the wicked. If the scourge kills suddenly, he mocks the despair of the innocent.

The earth is given into the hand of the wicked. He covers the faces of its judges.

If it is not he, then who is it? Job statement, it is all one, basically means,

it's all the same thing, or then it doesn't matter. In other words, nothing matters because if God

is not responsible for evil and suffering, then who is? Job struggle concerning God's righteousness

and wisdom in suffering. Recognizing that God has a right to punish sinners,

see Job 417, especially as the sovereign and holy creator, asks why God created man if only to

suffer, why God would allow suffering seemingly disconnected from our actions, see Job 24.

Whether man can be right with God and whether God can be justified and vindicated, see Job 9

2, stated other ways in the history of philosophy. Is God willing to prevent evil but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both

able and willing? Then once come with evil, is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Epicurus 341 to 270 BC as quoted in John Hospers in an Introduction to Philosophical Analysis.

Third edition, Routledge 1990, page 310. Is God willing to prevent evil but not able?

Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and

willing? Once then is evil. David Hume, 1711 to 1776. Dialogues concerning natural religion,

edited by Nelson Pike, Bob's Merrill Publications, 1981, page 88.

Briefly, the problem of evil is this, if God knows there is evil but cannot prevent it, he is not

omnipotent. If God knows there is evil but can prevent it but desires not to, he is not omnipotent.

George Smith, the case against God, Prometheus Books, 1979.

Over time, many have attempted to answer this argument and resolve the problem of the Odyssey,

including this author, but the Odyssey in general is not the main point of this article.

Rather to present an issue for the Christian Socialist and Progressive and their conception of Jesus.

The problem that the Christian Socialist must face regarding Jesus, assuming that this Christian

believes what the Bible teaches about Jesus according to the historic Christian faith that is

supernaturalism, miracles, historicity, et cetera, is that he was and is capable of providing

universal health care through divine healing and world hunger, but that he either failed to do so

and slash or did not desire to do so. Put another way. Socialist Christians must accept that

Jesus was either unable or unwilling to heal and feed everyone, thus making him incapable or evil

according to their socialist standards. Let it be clear that I do not hold to either of these

conclusions because I do not share socialist ethical presuppositions. Jesus and Christian

socialist presuppositions. Many ethical arguments for socialism, especially in their stronger forms,

rest on several key premises. One, that significant material inequality, particularly when

paired with unmet basic needs, is morally suspect. Two, that property rights, especially in

productive assets, are not absolute but subordinate to the common good. Three, that those with

substantial surplus have a moral obligation to alleviate the needs of others. And four, that

collective mechanisms, including course of state action, may be justified in enforcing these

obligations. To be fair, Christian socialists and progressives might reject these or qualify

these premises or the conclusions, especially in the case of Jesus. That said, to the extent that

Christian socialists or progressive socialist sympathizers argue that the possession of surplus

resources in the presence of unmet need constitutes a moral failure, one that justifies coercive

redistribution. They face a crystallological tension. The Gospels portray Jesus as having both the

power and compassion to alleviate suffering, yet exercising that power limitately rather than

universally. If their moral principle is applied consistently, it would seem to require either that

Jesus failed to fulfill a moral obligation, or that the principle itself is incomplete.

Jesus and universal health care, what the Christian socialist has to face here, is that Jesus had

the ability to heal all people for all time, but did not. Since Jesus of Nazareth obviously did not

and does not currently heal everyone, then the socialist uniquely has to wonder why.

While all Christians must grapple with this question, the Christian socialist, due to their

ethical presuppositions, has an added problem with Jesus. The Christian socialist, believing Jesus

had the ability to heal everyone, should believe that Jesus therefore had the ethical responsibility

or duty to heal everyone he could. It is true that Christian socialists could fairly deny that they

necessarily hold the ethical presupposition that Jesus had to heal everyone if he were truly good.

However, this seems hard to avoid given the common argument regarding what they imagine they could do,

via the coercive state, of course, with the money of millionaires, billionaires, and trillionaires.

If Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are ethically compromised because of their abundance, which could

be redistributed and shared with the world and the state, then what about the divine son of God

who demonstrated his miraculous ability to heal and was not ultimately limited by scarcity or

finitude. If Christ's desire is not questioned, then the socialist must question his competence or

ability. Christian socialists would have to argue for Jesus's impotence that Jesus sincerely wanted

to heal everyone, but was unable to do so. Even if the progressive Christian socialist follows the

path of theological liberalism, Christianity separated from the Bible, its worldview presuppositions,

for example, supernaturalism, and the historic faith such that key terms and concepts

can be reinterpreted by a modern perspective and argues that Jesus was not divine and did not

really do miracles in the traditional sense, this is just another version of the failure of Jesus's

power and ability. Such theological liberals, arguing from Jesus's example, must deny most of what

the New Testament presupposes and teaches about Jesus's words and actions, only to arbitrarily impose

their worldview onto Jesus. This lacks consistency, evidence, and authority. Further according to the

New Testament, even during Jesus's life and ministry, Jesus did not heal everyone and even walked

away from situations where he could have healed more people. In fact, while Jesus healed many,

he did not heal everyone who wanted to be healed or who came to him to be healed.

At one point, early in his ministry, according to Mark's description, Jesus was healing many

at Simon Peter and Andrew's house. They began bringing to him all who were ill and those who were

demon possessed, Mark 132. In fact, the whole city had been gathered at the door, Mark 133.

It is reported that Jesus healed many who were ill with various diseases, Mark 134.

Early the next morning, Jesus extracted himself from the situation to find a secluded place,

to pray alone, and when his disciples found him, Simon Peter said,

everyone is looking for you. Mark 137. Jesus had already demonstrated his powerful ability to heal,

but instead of continuing, he said, let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby so that I may

preach there also. For that is what I came for. Mark 138. In reality, all the people that Jesus healed

got sick again and died, even the people Jesus resurrected from the dead died again.

While the Christian can accept this because Jesus had higher priorities and the miracles were signs

that pointed to his nature, kingdom, and gospel, the progressive Christian socialist should find

it hard not to criticize Jesus. Jesus and ending hunger. First, let it be stated that unlike

Communists, Jesus actually fed people. What the Christian socialist has to face here is that Jesus

had the ability to feed all people for all time, ending world hunger, but did not. It is worth

noting that Jesus would not have had to redistribute wealth since he could create it.

After the miraculous feeding of the 5,000 men, not including women and children, and an attempt

of the people to make Jesus king by force against his purposes, John 615. John records that the

same crowds located Jesus, hoping he would meet their physical needs and political desires.

In this context, he chided them, John 626 to 27. Jesus answered them and said,

Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the

loaves and were filled. Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to

eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you for on him the Father, God, has set his seal.

Note that Jesus' rebuke was that the crowds failed to recognize the significance of the

sign of the loaves and fishes and come to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, and the one with

the words of eternal life. See John 668 to 69. They only sought satisfaction of physical hunger,

still a real and acute human need. Keep in mind that Jesus did not make these statements in 21st

century America, but in a world where hunger and starvation were existential realities as they

have been for all of human history. According to the Gospels, Jesus had the ability to feed thousands

of people miraculously. In fact, John portrays Jesus as God in the flesh who created all things that

exist. John 11 to 3, 10, 14. Therefore, his power was not inherently limited. In this context,

Jesus sought to elevate the perspective of the crowd from physical satisfaction of hunger

to the spiritual satisfaction of believing in Jesus for eternal life. John 629, 40, 47, 64.

The main point of the entire passage is encapsulated in a single statement of Jesus in this context.

I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never

thirst. John 635. Jesus, though he had the ability, did not make it his mission and priority to end

world hunger or even the hunger of all around him in his own day. Conclusion. Jesus is not the

ally that socialists and progressives, Christian or otherwise think he is. Jesus affirmed the

legitimacy of private property, Matthew 2015, see Matthew 1918, Mark 7 to 22, 1019, Luke 1820,

the legitimacy of voluntary contract, Matthew 2013 to 15, and private secret voluntary charity,

Matthew 614. He refused to act as a judge in cases of unequal distributions of wealth, Luke 1213 to 15,

and rejected the concept that extra wealth ought necessarily be used for the poor, John 1218.

Further, the Christian socialists cannot consistently use Jesus, the early church or the new

testament as a moral case for socialism, the welfare state, or coercive wealth redistribution.

Ronald J. Cider, author of the guilt-provoking rich Christians in an age of hunger, was not a socialist,

but was a proponent of an extensive welfare state in Jesus' name. In his book, he actually showed

contempt for private charity, contrasted against the welfare state. First, institutional change is

often more effective. The couple called water that we give in Christ's name, Matthew 253542,

is often more effective if it is given through the public health measures of preventive medicine

or economic planning. Second, institutional change is often morally better.

Personal charity and philanthropy still permit the rich donor to feel superior,

and it makes the recipient feel inferior and dependent. Institutional changes, on the other hand,

give the oppressed rights and power. David Chilton, a point-by-point critic of Cider's book,

responds to the above quote. Now, if only the Lord had thought of that. Instead of the book being

about personal charity, personal charity is just an imperfect stepping stone to institutional

state welfare programs. Such a program cannot be derived from the old or new testament or the

teachings of Jesus. Further, Christian socialists, welfare state trumpeters see Matthew 6.1.4,

and those like Cider must face a pertinent issue. If the moral claim is that the failure to use

available resources to eliminate suffering, constitutes an injustice, warranting coercive

correction, then the life of Jesus creates an unavoidable tension. The Christ of Scripture,

though possessing both power and compassion, did not equalize wealth and hunger or permanently

eradicate disease. One must therefore conclude either that he failed morally, that he lacked the

ability, or that the moral premise itself is mistaken. The crowds attempted to make Jesus

king by force, John 6.15, because they had inappropriate views regarding his kingdom and kingship.

In this case, satisfaction of physical hunger led them to the conclusion that Jesus would achieve

their political goals, defeat their enemies, and satisfy all their material needs. Similarly,

many today exhibit a mirror image of this, vesting political views, elites, and policies with

religious spiritual significance. Christian socialists and others of similar views legalistically attempt

to lay a burden on the followers of Jesus that he did not lay on them. Jesus criticized those who

tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move

them with so much as a finger, Matthew 23.4. Jesus also criticized neglecting the commandments of God

to hold the traditions of men, Mark 778-913. If Christian socialists appealed Jesus to mandate

the comprehensive alleviation of material inequality and suffering, even to the point of requiring

what he did not explicitly command, then they must account for why Jesus himself,

though possessing both the power and compassion to do so did not bring about their universal

elimination. For more content like this, visit mezys.org.