Remember when Reagan asked...

[Spock]

kj wrote:
Christians should pay their taxes .... kj.

And so should christian churches and any other religious organization.

[kj]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=kj]
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=kj]
Very different. Christianity is not a political and economic theory.

This is true in the case of Western modernity, but in fact many early Christians considered their faith to be the core of both their political and economic lives. Not disagreeing with your statement in the present context, but it has not always been so. In modern times, the remnants of these traditions exist in voluntary lay religious communities (Sant'Egidio, for example), convents and monasteries, etc. Members exist alongside modernity, but govern themselves by different standards.
Actually I would agree that a large percentage of Christians still consider their beliefs important in any facet of their life (political or economic). But Christianity is a religion, not a political or economic system. The idea that bothers me here is that many consider paying taxes some sort of charity or a sign of generosity. It's not, because it's required. Christians should pay their taxes, but charity goes way beyond that. And Jesus was most definitely neither a socialist nor a capitalist. All the talk on either side of this argument is missing the point. kj.
Part of what i was trying to say is that there actually still are places (granted, they are mostly isolated communities) where Christianity actually comprises both the political and economic system in place. The economy of an abbey generally reflects that of a commune, where everything is shared and there is virtually no private property. The political authorities are established by divine practice, and the procedures through which the community is governed follow religious, not secular, principles. Again, i'm not saying this is commonplace, but i often find it instructive to note the exception. Just because Christianity most places is not a political and economic system doesn't mean that Christianity is never a political and economic system.

I agree that Christians are duty-bound to pay their taxes (Romans 13:7), but they are also required to be charitable (2 Corinthians 8:3 and Acts 11:29, for example), though many of the New Testament references focus on supporting other believers. Of course there's little question that Jesus himself promoted acts of personal generosity and selflessness that exceed our normal definition of 'charity,' but certainly encompass it. You're right - Jesus was neither a socialist nor a capitalist, and he emphasized that over-emphasis on political or religious systems can distract us from the fundamental responsibility we have to love one another.
I guess I can't agree that christianity actually ever is a political/economic system, but I do agree it can inspire, guide, etc. political and economic systems. But generally, I think christianity is more focused on individual behavior than on institutional "behavior". I agree it's interesting to think about what kind of gov't Jesus would have created, but I think he avoided that kind of exercise for good reason. I think Jesus' suggested mode of influence was more along the lines of; each person has a sphere of influence about 15-20 people "big", which is where you exert most of your effort. I can't see him saying something like, "get out the vote!". I recognize this is debatable, even among christians, though. kj.

[kj]

Spock wrote:
[quote=kj]
Christians should pay their taxes .... kj.

And so should christian churches and any other religious organization.
I'll just give you the abridged version of my argument (that's expanded ad nauseam elsewhere) that the separation of church and state goes both ways, and that there's the very real threat that the gov't could use taxation as a tool of oppression against religions. kj.

[kj]

August West wrote:
[quote=kj]
But Christianity is a religion, not a political or economic system.

Socialism and Christianity are both ideologies, drawing comparisons is possible.

kj wrote:
And Jesus was most definitely neither a socialist nor a capitalist.

I believe Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew, a minor bother to the Roman occupiers, and, as such, an executed criminal. But any conjecture about Jesus' identity is just that.
Hopefully you can recognize that virtually no christians agree with you (christianity is not just an ideology to a christian, etc.), so there's really not much to discuss there. kj.

[Grace62]

kj wrote:
[quote=August West]
[quote=kj]
But Christianity is a religion, not a political or economic system.

Socialism and Christianity are both ideologies, drawing comparisons is possible.

kj wrote:
And Jesus was most definitely neither a socialist nor a capitalist.

I believe Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew, a minor bother to the Roman occupiers, and, as such, an executed criminal. But any conjecture about Jesus' identity is just that.
Hopefully you can recognize that virtually no christians agree with you (christianity is not just an ideology to a christian, etc.), so there's really not much to discuss there. kj.

I see what AW is saying in that you can certainly draw comparisons between the Gospel and modern day understandings of socialism and capitalism, ... However, I'll agree with kj that religion and ideology are different in some important ways, primarily that religious belief usually derives from a single text that some, but not all, followers, view as infallible. Most socialists, for example, don't believe that Marx was infallible or had the last word. There are other important differences, but I'll leave it at that.

Looking at the parables alone and out of context, you could easily make the case that Jesus supported either socialism or capitalism as we understand them today. You have to include an understanding of 1st century Palestine, the economic, political, and social forces that were at work then, the conflicts between Romans and Jews, to put the message of Jesus into context. Also looking at the parables, I would disagree with kj that he was mostly talking about individual relationships and not society as a whole. Very frequently he was talking about the latter.

[rjmacs]

kj wrote:
I guess I can't agree that christianity actually ever is a political/economic system, but I do agree it can inspire, guide, etc. political and economic systems. But generally, I think christianity is more focused on individual behavior than on institutional "behavior". I agree it's interesting to think about what kind of gov't Jesus would have created, but I think he avoided that kind of exercise for good reason. I think Jesus' suggested mode of influence was more along the lines of; each person has a sphere of influence about 15-20 people "big", which is where you exert most of your effort. I can't see him saying something like, "get out the vote!". I recognize this is debatable, even among christians, though. kj.

Hmm, well i suppose we can agree to disagree. Where we likely get hung up here is on what the word "Christianity" means, and that's a discussion that if started will never end nor produce good results. And it's okay to have different understandings of the term, as long as we stay respectful and love one another as ourselves.

I'll push back a little bit on Christianity being "more focused on individual behavior," though, for two reasons. First, institutions comprise the actions of individuals in the context of historical actions by other individuals - so individual and institutional behavior, though not identical, are thoroughly bound up in one another. Secondly, whether you approve of it or no, since its establishment Christianity has deeply affected how institutions behave. The notion that Christianity doesn't, or shouldn't, concern itself with how institutions work is a very recent trend in Christianity, and it's far from universal even today. We come back to what the term means here, but suffice it to say that there are plural views...

Thanks for such an interesting and respectful conversation about this. How cool!

[kj]

>>Also looking at the parables, I would disagree with kj that he was mostly talking about individual relationships and not society as a whole. Very frequently he was talking about the latter.

I'd agree he was talking about society as a whole, as in every individual in existence, but I don't think he was talking about how institutions (economic/political) should "behave", as in how they should operate and be built. Individuals within the institutions for sure, but not the institutions themselves. There's a lot of guidance about how churches should be set up, but I'm not aware of any guidance related to types of governments (again, guidance for leaders as individuals, etc.). kj.

[rjmacs]

kj wrote:
I'd agree he was talking about society as a whole, as in every individual in existence, but I don't think he was talking about how institutions (economic/political) should "behave", as in how they should operate and be built. Individuals within the institutions for sure, but not the institutions themselves. There's a lot of guidance about how churches should be set up, but I'm not aware of any guidance related to types of governments (again, guidance for leaders as individuals, etc.). kj.

Do you mean Biblical guidance? The general recommendations to early Christians in the Bible (from both Jesus and the apostles) were to withdraw from broader society, form communities of believers, evangelize and await the imminent return of the messiah. Not much room in that plan for rebuilding governments, etc. They truly didn't expect that those institutions would be around much longer; the task of adapting Christianity to a world awaiting the Second Coming for decades, centuries, and millenia fell to the Church (used generically here to describe organized Christianity). That was a difficult and contentious task, in no small part because the Bible doesn't offer much direct guidance. In that sense, it's possible to say that Christianity is concerned with individuals. There's a tension here, though, because this same Christianity was really not concerned with a world in which Christians would need to wait so long that they'd need to make governments, build institutions (other than the Church), etc. Only after it became clear that Christ's return was not imminent did Christians turn - often reluctantly - to these tasks.

[Spock]

kj wrote:

I'll just give you the abridged version of my argument (that's expanded ad nauseam elsewhere) that the separation of church and state goes both ways, and that there's the very real threat that the gov't could use taxation as a tool of oppression against religions. kj.

What makes church's so special? I don't see any constitutional support for your two way argument.

The government already use taxation as a tool of oppression against citizens.

[Grace62]

kj wrote:
>>Also looking at the parables, I would disagree with kj that he was mostly talking about individual relationships and not society as a whole. Very frequently he was talking about the latter.

I'd agree he was talking about society as a whole, as in every individual in existence, but I don't think he was talking about how institutions (economic/political) should "behave", as in how they should operate and be built. Individuals within the institutions for sure, but not the institutions themselves. There's a lot of guidance about how churches should be set up, but I'm not aware of any guidance related to types of governments (again, guidance for leaders as individuals, etc.). kj.

I wasn't referring to any "guidance for setting up government."
Jesus (and the Bible in general) refer to justice a lot. Think of Martin Luther King jr and the civil rights movement, his faith was his guide in calling for sweeping societal changes, and he needed gov't on board to do that. Likewise a century before the abolitionists were inspired by their Christian faith to fight for the end of slavery, an institution supported by gov't and whose end had to be mandated by gov''t. It's impossible to separate these things and say that the gospel is only about relationships between individuals, it's not.