Asher Sisneros

[Author’s note: Originally, these Marxist essays were written as one long essay. However, my research went into far more depth than I anticipated, resulting in an essay far longer than I planned. Because the section on Christianity became so long and deviated somewhat from my original thought, I broke it off into its own essay.]

There are already many books and articles that attack Marxian economics, but fewer attack Marxian ideology. Even so, ideology, worldview, and religion are the foundation of how people define what is right and wrong and what is good and evil. 

An ideology does not need a theistic god to be a religion. All it needs is to define where sovereignty lies and what the basis of morality is. Based on that standard, modern-day political ideologies like Woke-ism or economic ideologies like Marxism are nothing more than man-centered religions. Even atheism which is touted as anti-religious is a religion itself. The only difference is that it glorifies human intellect as the sovereign standard of truth instead of something divinely inspired like the Bible. Marxism is no less a religion because it gives god-like sovereignty to the proletariat and defines morality as its will.

If the capitalist West wishes to vanquish any legacy of Karl Marx, it must attack the ideological and religious foundation he built on. If his underlying assumptions about economics, sovereignty, and morality are thwarted, the entire socialist dogma will crumble. But that will only happen if socialism is recognized as not only impractical but also deeply immoral on a religious level and if its foundation is shattered. 

Marxian ideology must be universally acknowledged as anti-Christian by all of the Church. Throughout history, some Christians have had socialist-leaning sympathies, usually referencing Acts 4: “Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them before the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each according to their need” (Acts 4: 34-35). However, Acts 4 has nothing to do with Marxism or a violent uprising of the proletariat. 

The biblical economist Dr. Gary North addresses Acts 4 in his magnum opus, An Economic Commentary on the Bible: Genesis to Revelation. First, all of their charity was completely voluntary. The Christian tradition has always encouraged charity because “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7), but that is very different from State-enforced Marxism. To quote North, “The [communal] ownership of the Jerusalem church was voluntary, limited in Acts to that one congregation, and administered by men with special revelation from God. What has this to do with modern socialism, which is compulsory, imposed on all people in a society, and administered by bureaucrats backed up by the police? Nothing.”¹ 

Even more importantly, people who interpret Acts 4 as a pro-socialist passage completely miss the point. The Christians in Jerusalem were not making an economic statement or forming a utopian society. On the contrary, they were making a spiritual statement and preparing for the coming fall of Jerusalem.² Just like the Christian martyrs who lost their lives in Nero’s Colosseum, the Christians who sold their property in Acts 4 were showing one thing to the pagan world around them: their faith. 

Jesus prophesied that the Jewish Temple would be destroyed and said “Not one stone shall be left upon another” (Luke 21: 6). He also said the fall of Jerusalem would happen in their lifetime (Luke 21:32). The Christians sold their property and gave away the proceeds as a statement of faith and a wise act of foresight, not to create a utopian society. Liquidating their tangible assets like real estate gave them more flexibility to flee when Roman troops marched on Jerusalem. 

It was also an act of trust. By giving their capital to the apostles, they graciously gave the capital necessary for other Christians to flee and trusted in God to provide for their needs. Jerusalem was the largest city in Israel, so real estate there would have been costly. But here the Christians were, selling expensive real estate and giving away the proceeds. In short, they were trusting in Jesus’ prophecy and trusting in God’s provisions. That trust was wise because, in AD 70, Emperor Vespasian sent his son Titus and the Roman army to burn Jerusalem to the ground. 

Some Christians may think Christianity is compatible with Marxism because of improper interpretations of Acts 4. But the doctrine of Christianity—the worldview described in the Old and New Testament—is fundamentally opposed to the presuppositions of Marxism, and the two philosophies are not only incompatible with each other, they are directly opposed to each other. 

If anything, Christianity relies on the sovereignty of the Triune God of the Bible. A summary of the Christian message is that God’s law is sovereign, humanity could not keep that law, and they needed a Savior in the person of Jesus Christ to forgive those who repent of their sins. If He and His law are not sovereign, then men and women do not need a savior, and all of Christianity falls apart. Nowhere does Marx glorify the higher law of God. Instead, all of his presumptions are built on the sovereignty of the proletariat, and famously said his object in life was to “dethrone God and destroy capitalism.” 

As the owner of all creation, God gave humanity the authority to govern the earth as a steward: “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth’” (Genesis 1:26). As stewards, it is incumbent on men to govern the earth well. In the parable on the talents, Jesus condemned the steward who did not multiply his master’s possessions (Matthew 25:14-30). When people pollute the earth and destroy land and creatures, they are renegade stewards destroying God’s property. But the mere act of governing creation—from owning property to cultivating land—is biblically called for. 

It is true, Solomon says in Ecclesiastes: “I returned and saw under the sun that—the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor favor to men of skill; but time and chance happen to all” (Ecclesiastes 9:11). Job is also evidence that sometimes, things happen to people on earth that are unrelated to their actions. 

Although history may seem to be governed by nothing but chance in the short term, once again, Jesus’ parable of the talents speaks of long-term coherency between input and output. Though the righteous suffer hardships, the Bible says it produces patience (James 1:2); and though the wicked seem to prosper, their wealth is stored up for the righteous (Proverbs 13:22). 

As good stewards—as vassals to Christ—all humanity is instructed to govern the earth with wisdom. Returning to Jesus’ parable, the servant with five talents used hard work to turn that into ten talents; the servant with two talents turned it into four; and the servant with one talent did nothing. Marxian economics would take the profit from the two diligent servants and redistribute it to the lazy servant. But that is not what Jesus said. On the contrary, he rebuked the lazy servant and gave even more to the diligent servants.

To quote the biblical economist Dr. Gary North:  

The Bible tells us that such [productive] efforts will not go unrewarded, whether on earth or in heaven (1 Corinthians 3). The habits of discipline, thrift, long hours of effort, investment in work skills, and the instruction of children in this philosophy of life will not be wasted. … When men are taught that [the] capitalist (free market, meaning voluntary exchange) system is rigged against them, that they have a legal and moral right to welfare payments, and that those who live well as a result of their own labor, effort, and forecasting skills are immoral and owe the bulk of their wealth to the poor, we must recognize the source of these teachings: the pits of hell. This is Satan’s counter-philosophy, which is expressly intended to thwart godly men in their efforts to subdue the earth to the glory of God. 

This radically anti-Biblical philosophy is not simply a matter of intellectual error; it is a conscious philosophy of destruction, a systematically anti-Biblical framework that is calculated to undercut successful Christians by means of false guilt and paralysis.³

To Dr. North’s point, consider the all-too-famous passage in Proverbs that addresses poverty and its link to laziness: 

Go to the ant, you sluggard! 

Consider her ways, and be wise,

Which, having no captain, 

Overseer or ruler, 

Provides her supplies in the summer, 

And gathers her food in the harvest. 

How long will you slumber, O sluggard? 

When will you rise from your sleep? 

A little sleep, a little slumber, 

A little folding of the hands to sleep—

So shall your poverty come to you like a prowler, 

And your need like an armed man. 

(Proverbs 6:6-11)

Readers may incorrectly come to two extremes after reading about Jesus’ parable of the talents, the ant and the sluggard in Proverbs, random and spontaneous chance in Ecclesiastes, and the misery of Job. They may conclude that there is rarely coherency between hard work and prosperity or that there is always coherency between hard work and prosperity. But neither of these conclusions is correct. 

The issue comes from conflating duty and reward/consequences. Joe Morecraft III once defined wealth as “the result of God’s blessings on your hard work, thrift, and foresight. You have to work; you have to save your money; you have to plan for your future; you can’t be lazy—but ultimately, it’s the blessing of God that causes you to profit.”⁴ General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson echoed that statement when he said, “Duty is ours; consequences are God’s.” The point is that, as the omnipotent creator of the world and governor of the universe, God is completely sovereign over everything. The message of Job is that God determines rewards and consequences and that He is just in His judgments. On the other hand, people have a duty to be diligent, “good and faithful servants” (Matthew 25:23); they have a duty to govern the earth, to multiply the capital goods in their possession, and to exercise stewardship responsibly. What results from that diligence is completely in God’s hands. If someone is blessed with material possessions for diligent faithfulness, he or she should praise the Lord with thanksgiving. Assuming the profit is earned justly and not through coercion, theft, or criminal behavior, that begs one question: If profit is the result of God’s blessings, who is the Marxist to deem it immoral? 

Where Christianity advances a philosophy of voluntarism and thanksgiving, Marxism pushes for envy and violent revolution. Jesus Christ even told his disciples that while the Mosaic law forbade adultery, He commanded them to not even lust after a married woman and envy her or else they commit adultery in their hearts (Matthew 5:27-28). How is envying the material possessions of another man any different? Even worse, how is taking his wealth by forceful revolution anything but theft and murder? Dr. North mocks this contrast by saying, “The commandment against theft does not read: ‘You shall not steal, except by majority vote.’ We need to have private property rights respected not just by criminals, but also by individual citizens who find that they can extract wealth from others by means of state power.”⁵ In this sense, the religion of God says do not envy, and turn the other cheek; while the Marxian religion of man says envy, take, and use the sword. 

1. Dr. Gary North, Sacrifice and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Acts, (Dallas, GA: Point Five Press, 2012), p. 3 ↩︎
2. Ibid, ch. 3 ↩︎
3.  Dr. Gary North, Liberating Planet Earth, (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987), p. 121 ↩︎
4.  Pastor Joe Morecraft III, “Prosperity and Faithfulness: Genesis 26,” (Heritage Presbyterian Church, Cumming, Georgia: Sermon Audio, July 16, 2023), ts. 20:28-21:02 ↩︎
5.  Ibid, p. 122 ↩︎