Christianity and Wealth Distribution: A Disparity Between Doctrine and Deeds
Today I want to discuss a topic often overlooked in conversations about Christian history: wealth distribution. I should note upfront that this is more of a personal reflection than the empirically researched articles I usually write. I stumbled across this topic while digging deeper into the Bible and the history of Christianity. Though I consider myself an agnostic atheist, I was baptized and confirmed as a Roman Catholic, so I wanted to explore Christian culture out of genuine curiosity and share what I've learned with you.
Wealth Distribution in Christianity
Already in Rome, giving existed. Rich people paid for cities, infrastructure, festivals. It was seen as their duty, it was expected and their are multiple examples of people going bankrupt through this process. But arguably something changed, when Christianity spread, something happened to this idea of giving. It became more internal to societies. More morally charged and importantly it became more about giving the poor not just the city. About people who can't give anything back.
At the very basis of Christianity, and at the very basis of why it became so popular, is wealth distribution. Not just ideas about faith or heaven, but about who gets what. Who owns what. How we share. This is fundamental. We cannot push it aside. It is part of the core of Christianity and one of the reasons why it spread so fast.
The biblical foundation is clear. Jesus said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20). He told followers: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" (Matthew 19:21). The early Christians in Jerusalem lived this: "All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need" (Acts 2:44-45). Paul wrote about equality: "Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality" (2 Corinthians 8:13-14).
Interestingly and also fittingly, Emperor Julian, one of the last pagan rulers, wrote in one of his last letters before his death that the Christians were gaining influence not only because of their preaching, but because they gave to the poor. He was worried. He even told pagan priests to start doing the same, as it made christianity more and more popular. Julian complained that "These impious Galileans not only feed their own poor, but ours also; welcoming them into their agape, they attract them, as children are attracted, with cakes." In another letter, Julian wrote, "I think that when the poor happened to be neglected and overlooked by the priests, the impious Galileans observed this and devoted themselves to benevolence."
Naturally, that also explains part of why Christianity became so widespread. It wasn't just ideas about the soul or heaven, it also was food, beds and help for those who had less.
Is Solidarity and Giving and Invention of Christianity?
Crucially, here is something I need to point out: all of this doesn't mean Christianity invented the idea of solidarity and wealth distribution. I don't think that is true. These values didn't emerge through Christianity. I believe they were already there, in people and their moral intuitions and I think we don't need divine revelation for that. I've written about that in one of my early articles:
My belief is, people created christianity and its psychological constructs, its fundamental ideas. Therefore people projected something already within them onto Christ and the values implemented in the bible. Naturally this also means, some ideas we would nowadays condemn are also part of this very same system. Such as slavery, some antisemetic influences etc. All this is not new and not something I want to focus on, but it is indeed important to point out to go further. Besides, this does not mean the value system implemented in Christianity not also had some good ideas, like wealth distribution, loving you neighbour and your enemy.
Hence, I think humans indeed "picked up" those values, inserted them into belief systems, which accelerated them. A very strong and potent psychological chonstruct. Although I dont believe these systems couldnt have developed without christianity (which many atheist tend to do) we cannot just brush away that christian movements institutionalised them.
What used to be a personal or elite matter became collective. Monasteries started treating the sick. At first just for the rich. But by the 4th century, public hospitals emerged. Places where poor people received medical help, even if they had no money. That was, indeed, new. For example Basil of Caesarea built one of the first major complexes.
The first real public hospital actually was a Christian invention. Basil built what was called the Basiliad, a large complex that included hospitals, hospices, wards for travelers who were sick, and units for lepers. Same goes for poorhouses, for orphanages, widows' support, homes for the elderly. All that stuff we now take for granted didn't exist in that form before. And it arguably systems of wealth distributions exists in the way we know it today, because of Christianity.
Modern Christianity and Conservatism
And yet, today, when people talk about a Christian society or Christian values, it sounds completely different. Obviously this is not new. It is an old story.
Nonetheless I find it absurd that in our modern society conservative voices want to get back to “Christian values”. However, suddenly it means low taxes, deregulation, market freedom, self-reliance, no interference. But if you take the history of christianity seriously, then that's a strange conclusion. Because it's hard to reconcile cutting welfare and praising the market with a religion that institutionalised care for the poor and giving up ones own posessions. It doesn't match.
Crucially, I'm not saying Jesus was a socialist. I'm not interested in stretching historical categories like that, although it is indeed possible to do so. But something we shouldn't ignore is how central these redistributional elements were in the rise of Christianity. I fundamentally believe that if you want to claim Christian values today, then logically, that should include at least some willingness to fund public services (like health care). To tax inheritance. To tax extreme wealth. To build housing. To feed people. But also to lower the taxes for people who have less. Redistribute. To make sure no one falls through the cracks.
If you want to be a Christian: dont just believe, act out.
This brings us to an interesting point that Christian theorists like Tom Holland have made: our (western) society/ value system is fundamentally Christian, and even atheists in Western society act out Christian values. This is quite funny, since it seems that the more progressive, liberal and therefore atheistic societies become, the more they act out Christian values in this specific sense. Thus, people like Jordan Peterson, who emphasize that actually behaving and acting out Christian values is the basis of being Christian, makes conservative free market capitalists (like himself) less Christian than many progressives.
All of this makes the current political situation even stranger. Because again self-declared Christian leaders are on the rise, but somehow fewer actual Christian policies. Less public funding. Less welfare. Less structural support. I don't know what that tells you either about the need for Christianity in our modern society or the need to reformulate what Christianity actually means.
Hence the paradox: more Christianity in words, less in practice.
The Psychological Background of the Paradox
I believe this perversification of Christianity can be explained by the psychological function it serves for many people (besides that this obviously can be observed all over history). At its core is the profound human desire to live, which translates into a yearning for eternal life, for heaven and, ultimately, for self-salvation. For many, the decision to become Christian may (subconsciously) stem less from pure faith and more from a deep-seated, narcissistic fear of death.
It is only natural, then, that people motivated by self-preservation would "cut out" the parts of Christianity that call for a less self-centered existence. This does not mean all who identify as Christian are self-centered. Rather, it suggests that many who profess the faith are not truly Christian from a behavioral point of view. We do see clear evidence of genuine faith in the many Christian societies dedicated to helping the poor and the sick, and in the numerous individuals who selflessly contribute to these causes.
This highlights what I think it means to be Christian: it should not be a subconscious, psychological flight from death rooted in self-interest. Instead, it should mean behaving as if belief is not a transaction, acting with true conviction, without the expectation of getting something in return. Ironically, in some way here Christians can learn from some atheists in order to become more Christian.
Fittingly Jesus put it: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?" Matthew 16:24-26 (NIV)
If you want to learn more about the exact history and how important the concept of giving really was within Christianity, check out this great Podcast episode by Bart Ehrman:
Spotify Is Christianity Good for the World?
or this article which I found interesting
Ondari, W. O. (2001, June). Poverty and wealth: A Christian perspective. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Faith and Learning Seminar, June 17―29 (pp. 344-362).