Kingdom Christians and Left-wing politics

[aussieandy]

I must admit I'm making this observation from some distance, but I have noticed among some whom I would consider "kingdom Christians" a strong political view that mirrors the progressive, and even the radical left.
....
The attitudes I encounter are quite different from what I see in Conservative Anabaptist circles, which might otherwise be religiously similar.

Has anyone else noticed this?

I've noticed. It is so easy for people on both sides of these issues to take on the views of their heritage or their surrounding culture. To me, looking at the Bible, it often mirrors the views of progressives -- or better said, the progressive views mirror the view of the Bible. There are notable exceptions. It is hard for many to look at issued individually; we so often agree with the culture in associating a whole lot viewpoints.

The big difference being that the Bible exhorts the Church to do the helping of others, whereas the Progressives advocate the government be the one helping others (and with your money). It is a huge difference.

Not all progressives do. Left Communists and Anarchists for example, want to tear down the nation state and want nothing to do with a capitalist government. They advocate that Worker's Councils or your Commune are the ones to help you, not Government.

[Josh]

I've noticed. It is so easy for people on both sides of these issues to take on the views of their heritage or their surrounding culture. To me, looking at the Bible, it often mirrors the views of progressives -- or better said, the progressive views mirror the view of the Bible. There are notable exceptions. It is hard for many to look at issued individually; we so often agree with the culture in associating a whole lot viewpoints.

The big difference being that the Bible exhorts the Church to do the helping of others, whereas the Progressives advocate the government be the one helping others (and with your money). It is a huge difference.

Not all progressives do. Left Communists and Anarchists for example, want to tear down the nation state and want nothing to do with a capitalist government. They advocate that Worker's Councils or your Commune are the ones to help you, not Government.

Aren’t they just trying to replace the existing government with the one they want, and amongst other things, seize all means of production?

[aussieandy]

Not entirely no. They see the Nation State (as did Marx) as an inherent institution of Capitalism. Therefore, the nation state, the money system and several other institutions would need to be abolished for Communistic society to form. Their idea of good government is a network and node approach where local workers councils, communes, factory committees or perhaps even religious congregations, would be the decision makers. On regional grounds, the network would form a council to come to a consensus on a larger scale issue.

I've seen this form of local governance in the Kibbutz communes and the Hutterites and it works pretty well. I still accept this style of government is much better. But I'm not prepared to go to war. Rather, the world will do that itself with or without us. They see capitalism as a self-destructive system (it will kill itself in time).

The debate in Left Communistic circles revolves around will capitalism kill itself off before it destroys life on earth (via climate change) or is early intervention necessary (via revolution presumably)? These days I prefer to just trust in God for the answer to this question personally, but it is a valid question.

[Ken]

Not entirely no. They see the Nation State (as did Marx) as an inherent institution of Capitalism. Therefore, the nation state, the money system and several other institutions would need to be abolished for Communistic society to form. Their idea of good government is a network and node approach where local workers councils, communes, factory committees or perhaps even religious congregations, would be the decision makers. On regional grounds, the network would form a council to come to a consensus on a larger scale issue.

I've seen this form of local governance in the Kibbutz communes and the Hutterites and it works pretty well. I still accept this style of government is much better. But I'm not prepared to go to war. Rather, the world will do that itself with or without us. They see capitalism as a self-destructive system (it will kill itself in time).

There is a difference between coffee shop leftists who hang around college campuses spouting the original Marxist nonsense from 170 years ago about how the capitalist state will just atrophy away leaving a workers paradise. And actual communist movements. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848 when James K. Polk was elected president at a time when the California Gold Rush was just starting and the Mexican-American war was just ending with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo. Slavery was at its peak and the US Civil War was still 13 years away. Electricity was still 50 years away. That was a very long time ago in political terms.

In actual practice, 20th and 21st Century Communist movements have always implemented totalitarian or authoritarian statist regimes, whether it was the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, or East Germany.

[aussieandy]

Except it almost wasn't. There was a time, in the international world conferences at the time after the Russian Revolution that the Italian Left, could of broke away and formed traditional Marxism. Unfortunately, the right wing of that party sided with Stalin and the majority, for reasons of failure to organise, got ousted and then exiled from Italy (they moved to France). Had that not happened, you'd have seen a very different italy and a very different model to what the Stalinist model was. It's important to note that such movements aren't 'inevitable' due to human nature but just how history played out. There was -almost- a different model but unfortunately, they were up against Stalin on the one side and Mussolini on the other. Even with the majority on their side, they through a lack of willingness to take action when the minority were making power plays against them, lost power.

[Ken]

Except it almost wasn't. There was a time, in the international world conferences at the time after the Russian Revolution that the Italian Left, could of broke away and formed traditional Marxism. Unfortunately, the right wing of that party sided with Stalin and the majority, for reasons of failure to organise, got ousted and then exiled from Italy (they moved to France). Had that not happened, you'd have seen a very different italy and a very different model to what the Stalinist model was. It's important to note that such movements aren't 'inevitable' due to human nature but just how history played out. There was -almost- a different model but unfortunately, they were up against Stalin on the one side and Mussolini on the other. Even with the majority on their side, they through a lack of willingness to take action when the minority were making power plays against them, lost power.

Well sure, but how long do you think a "stateless" Italy full of utopian communes and such would have survived in the cauldron of militarism and war that was that period in history? Just within Italy, the counter-revolution from the Vatican and Catholic conservatives aided by industrialists and other conservative forces would have been fierce and the resulting civil war would probably have looked like Spain with the same result if Germany had intervened as they most certainly would have due to Italy's strategic location.

The inevitable human nature part of the equation is the inevitable counter-revolution and resulting civil war. Which forces every communist regime to build an authoritarian and militaristic state just to survive no matter what their original ideals might have been.

[aussieandy]

Yes, I don't dispute this problem. It is one that vexed me in the day. The obvious solution I feel these days, is to put our energies into building the Kingdom of God. Man made solutions, whilst well meaning, aren't the actual answer alone. It was the flawed nature of human political systems that got me thinking there needs to be something better...

[Ken]

Yes, I don't dispute this problem. It is one that vexed me in the day. The obvious solution I feel these days, is to put our energies into building the Kingdom of God. Man made solutions, whilst well meaning, aren't the actual answer alone. It was the flawed nature of human political systems that got me thinking there needs to be something better...

I've come to conclude that change is either incremental or violent. Peaceful revolutions are an oxymoron. Real lasting change is hard, and it takes a long time. Like Martin Luther King said. The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

The only real question in my mind, whether you are talking about an individual, a religious movement, a political movement, or a nation, is whether you left the world a better place than you found it. That isn't perhaps the strictly Christian viewpoint. But it is how I judge Christian groups.

[Dan Z]

Yes, I don't dispute this problem. It is one that vexed me in the day. The obvious solution I feel these days, is to put our energies into building the Kingdom of God. Man made solutions, whilst well meaning, aren't the actual answer alone. It was the flawed nature of human political systems that got me thinking there needs to be something better...

I'm sympathetic to communal expressions as well Andy (Hmm...I guess that makes me "a leftist communist sympathizer" ) and have lived much of my life in intentional or unintentional (informal/organic) Christian communal settings. My understanding at this point in the journey is that the Marxist ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a good (and ultimately biblical) concept that, until Jesus returns to set all things right, can only be practically functional at the micro level (e.g. church-community) - and even then it can be fraught. Ultimately the Kingdom of God is communal after all. Personally, I have settled into being a part of a less formal, more organic approach to communal faith and fellowship.

However, I don't historically see any communist regimes who, in their human pride and weakness, have not succumbed to the temptation of Godless totalitarian power and corruption (I've also seen a number micro-communal experiments go that way as well under unprincipled/ungrounded leadership). As a Christian, I cling to the idea that the only trustworthy macro-government is headed by Christ and his rule of love, peace, and justice - like you, I work toward the building of that Kingdom.

[natashaasbj]

So they were persecuted for being liberal? Is that what you’re saying?

No one is saying they were persecuted for being conservative. Conservatives can be radical and threatening to the social order too. I don’t know that there is any real reason or even much accuracies in tying persecution to that spectrum, but maybe so.

Not liberal. Radical or revolutionary. A liberal in 16th Century Europe would have perhaps advocated reform within the church and social order. Like enlightened Jesuits perhaps. Anabaptists wanted to tear it down. They were not interested in reforming the church, they wanted to replace it. Kingdom Christianity or Anabaptism was a profoundly radical movement in the 16th Century.

You can't really impose modern conservative and liberal ideas onto 16th Century Europe because the issues have changed. But they were radicals or revolutionaries who were advocating a complete revolution in the social order. Yes they were doing it for religious reasons. But you can't disentangle religion and politics, especially then. They were persecuted as much for political reasons as religious because you can't really separate the two. They threatened the political authority of the Catholic church and the political power of the priesthood to govern civilian or secular affairs as much as religious affairs.

They were not "liberals"-they were revolutionaries for "HOLINESS" and separation of the church from the world.... Modern liberals entail everything which is against God's order of creation - abominable gay marriage, cruel baby-chopping in the womb, rebeliousness and destruction of property( vandalism) , women's so called rights to kill their own sons and daughters...Just tell me what the Lord is against - liberals will be FOR...Anabaptists would NEVER sympathize with such bunch...