It is good to define the words we use. I use scripture to define scripture words and I let the world define the words it uses that are not found in scripture. Please don't mix the two. Every word of God is pure, refined seven times, like purified silver. Psalm 12:6 We are instructed to hold fast the form of truely defined words. Scripture words are truely defined by the stories they tell. Words used in scripture have the scripture stories to define them. The word Christian is used in scripture and it is well defined in that context as to what is intended. To a Christian the word Christian means someone who believes in God through the faith of His only begotten Son and follows Him, being transformed into His image. To others the word Christian means whatever they think it means; but we believe it means what God says it means in His word. Therefore we hold fast to the form of sound words. 2nd Timothy 1:13
The word capitalism is not found in scripture. It means whatever the currently popular teacher or textbook says it means. Books written from a socialist point of view tend to define capitalism as a greedy self-serving way of accumulating wealth at the expense of other persons. Books written from a moderate humanist point of view tend to say that capitalism has more good features including the power to help the poor by an outpouring of accumulated wealth. So the definitions vary, as your world position varies, or as the world view varies, on those words used by this present world system. But God's word changes not.
Scripture calls for private ownership and private rewards, and accumulation of good things tempered with the giving from those things to help other people. Scripture calls for diligent individual work that each person be fruitful, and for each soul to exercise love, mercy, and charity according to faith towards God.
Both capitalism and socialism have their own distinctions, but they also both borrow somewhat from the ideas of Christianity. Though they each have somewhat in common with the ideas of Christianity, let us be clear to recognize the distinctions.
Essentially, from the perspective of the closed system of scripture, socialism is a way of mass or group or government control of wealth;
and capitalism is a way of individual control of wealth.
From the socialist view, capitalism leads through centralization of wealth to the ultimate state of socialism. This was Karl Marx's hopeful goal: he expected to see capitalism destroy its private ownership through the increased centralization of wealth, till it ultimately became a social state.
----------
A response from another reader is given below. His answer represents a commonly held view. Many people equate Christianity and capitalism. That is why I am writing this response. People need to see the difference. Too many people have blurred the definitions, and consequently the things of God are not seen for what they are.
Good to hear from you.
I've always believed that Capitalism differs from socialism (which I divide, from left to right, into Communism, National Socialism and Fascism) only in its approach to property rights. Under Capitalism, you own your property and may dispose of it as you see fit. There's no real requirement, to my way of thinking, to "[set] profit as the motive to decide which action should be taken;" certainly none to follow a "dollar god." I think I'm in good company in asserting that America's most capitalistic period was also its most charitable. The most putatively rapacious capitalists even today distinguish themselves by their generosity.
Socialism does deny property rights, but there is socialism and there is
socialism. The only form that appropriates all property rights to
government is Communism. Fascism (Mussolini's Corporativa) shares property
rights with owners, who retain limited rights in partnership with
government. National Socialism is a hybrid, acting like Fascism until a
business gets big enough. At that point the National Socialists nationalize
it.
For nationalized businesses, National Socialism behaves like Communism.
I submit that what we're seeing with, say, Microsoft is a leftward
progression from Fascism to National Socialism on the part of our
government.
I think too that Capitalism "as taught in current public schools" is Capitalism from a Communist perspective. At least I would characterize our current public education system, a monopoly in which government owns the means of production, as a Communist microcosm in our greater body politic.
There's a short essay on my home page at Committee for Oklahoma Educational Reform which treats of these matters from my perspective. I'd appreciate it if you could find the time to look at it and let me know what you think. As for our public schools, I think you've already visited the Committee for Oklahoma Educational Reform at http://www.telepath.com/crcoombs/index.html. The essay "Of Education" on that page is the same as the one on my home page. I submit that the essay represents a Capitalist's response to the problems which plague our educational systems today. Just wanted to defend my core belief here. Keep the faith! Tandem vincitur, C. C.
You give a charitable opinion of capitalism, maybe true as you limited and defined the context; however in every piece of literature I've read on the subject, ie text books for public schools and colleges, the idea of Capitalism is severely defined as MONEY GRUBBING at any cost to other people. Obviously, those texts were written by people favoring Socialism.
Please consider a core idea in my heart, that I hope is godly, according to scripture.
There is a set of words, used by God, of which it is written, "Every word of God is pure, refined seven times like silver."
Restricting Christian definitions to those pure words of God is a prudent way to define things for Christian understanding.
Then, take other words, coined in the world, and used in the world such as Socialism, Capitalism, and explain those in the limited set of Bible words.
Point being: If every word of God is pure, refined seven times, like a series of simultaneous equations in sentence form, defining the each variable to a range, ...then if we want a pure definition of a thing in the world, we had better limit ourselves to using pure words from a purified context.
Second point: Since the Bible says God does not speak unnecessary words, He does not speak without a meaning and purpose, therefore, one purpose of saying every word of God is pure is to also say that other words are not necessarily pure......! The world is a big context. Words in the world are not very limited in meaning. They vary from region to region, and from person to person, not like the set of words in holy scripture, Hebrew and Greek.
Those words are determined by the stories they tell. So that when I reference the idea, We looked like grasshoppers in their sight, ..." it should bring to bear the whole weight of the story of spying out the land of Canaan, wherein those who returned from the land made that comparison to grasshoppers. Using the Bible for definition and trusting in purified words, with a fixed framework can be a good thing. .........
Your explanation of Capitalism includes mercy and charity. I can debate that with you. Most of what was passed off as mercy and charity was for appearances' sake, to be favorably looked upon by the church, etc.
Capitalism in the books is defined as following a profit motive pretty strongly.
If a few Christians also from time to time exercised mercy and charity, that does not change the definition of capitalism.
If many non-Christians from time to time gave alms for the sake of appearances, neither does that change the defintion of capitalism, seeking profit.
------
MAYBE MUCH OF THE PROBLEM LIES IN A MIXTURE OF TERMS BEING ACCEPTED AS RIGHT!
Scripture says You shall not plow with a mingled seed. Words are compared to seed in the parable of the sower.
So consider this alternative. Instead of mixing a word from the world together with a word from scripture, try letting that word from the world represent its own set of things and the word from scripture represent its own set of things.
Then see where they differ. Just because there may be some occassional overlaping does not mean both words represent the same totality. That is a common error in logic classes.
Draw two circles that slightly overlap. Just because they overlap does not mean they both represent the same area on the page.
I suggest this for the sake of clarity. You can't be a Christian and a Hindu. Neither can you be a Christian and a man who seeks profit as his highest goal. You can be a Christian with private property rights, private rewards, and the free will choice to exercise mercy and charity.
Socialism is government control and group rights opposed to individual rights, commonly in an atheistic government.
Capitalism is private control following dollar-god, commonly in a luke-warm so-called Christian government.
Christianity has private ownership, private rewards, individual responsibility, plus charity, mercy, almsgiving.
The Christian is not a Hindu. And Jesus was neither a Capitalist nor a Socialist; but He is Christ; and we should be like Him! Christ needs no names from the world. He has His own name, given to Him by the Father.
I do not believe you can find any published book that defines Capitalism as having mercy or charity in it.
You will find it defined in terms of profit and private ownership and private rewards.
Any instances of charity or mercy to which you refer in history are due to the influence of Christ.
As I said, many other instances of what was publicly hailed as charity in a public sense, for newspaper propaganda, ie to make some company or corporation look good, come under the explanation of the love chapter in First Corinthians, about people giving their life to be burned but not having charity. Explanation, they did it for some other motive. Some possible motives include to look good in the eyes of others,
to satisfy their own conscience about doing what is right, or because they thought they had to do it, or to gain a good opinion from someone,....in all those cases it was not out of love and concern for the recepient.
That is the point of the ideas in Corinthians about ....though you give you life and have not charity it profits you nothing in the sight of God...
Jesus gave His life because He truely cared about us. Who among us can often say the same thing?
Sincerely, Larry
Send email to editor on this subject or any other.