By Brannon S. Howse

As a young man, Karl Marx was dismissed from several universities for his radical, revolutionary views. An atheist and a secular humanist, he wrote the Communist Manifesto with his friend Friedrich Engels. Marx did not believe in the spiritual world or life after death, only in the natural, material world, and he valued people only for what they could do for the State. Is it any wonder, then, that the worldview of Marx—communism—has been responsible for the murder of as many as 500 million people?

Marx hated the free market and capitalism—and their roots in the Protestant Reformation—perhaps because he was a lazy slob who wanted other people to take care of him. He lived largely off of his friend Engels, who drew an income from the family business. How perversely ironic that Marx spread his hatred of capitalism while drawing his livelihood from the fruits of capitalism! Isn’t that always the mode of operation for those who follow the economic philosophy of communism, the most virulent form of socialism? 

Marx was such a reprobate that out of his six children, three died of starvation while still infants, two others committed suicide, and only one lived to become an adult. The Marx family was often hounded by creditors. Yet, when Marx received a gift of 160 pounds (about $500), he neglected to pay his bills, his rent, or to buy food for his starving family. Rather, he went on a two-month drinking binge with his intellectual buddies while his wife and infant children were evicted from their apartment. Marx, the parasite, also spent his wife’s inheritances from her mother and uncle, causing his family to live on the edge of financial ruin for years.

Among the many infectious ideas Marx promoted was his hatred for the traditional family. Instead, he favored “a system of wives in common.” Needless to say, Marx did not have a great marriage, and when his wife died, Marx didn’t even attend her funeral. Not only was he a negligent husband and father, Marx was such an uncaring, arrogant bully that he had few friends. Even those who agreed with his teachings did not like him as a person. As a result, when he died, less than a dozen people attended his funeral (what goes around, comes around). 

The basis of Marxism is atheism. As Marx said, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

This obsession to obliterate Christianity manifests itself in many ways. Richard Wurmbrand was imprisoned for 14 years in Romania for preaching the Gospel. He also railed against communism. After his freedom was purchased, he found his way to America. 

A month after arriving in 1966, Wurmbrand testified before the United States Senate, and for the next three years, his testimony was the most-sold government document. The testimony is available online (http://members.cox.net/wurmbrand/communist.html), and if you read it, you’ll understand why it is so popular. It warns that communism cannot tolerate Christianity, and the communist strategy in America is to infiltrate religious institutions and use them to further the communist cause. Wurmbrand pleaded with Americans to oppose communism in any form:

The church can never have a peaceful coexistence with atheism. Everybody would laugh if I would say that health can peacefully exist with the microbe of tuberculosis, that the FBI can coexist peacefully with gangsters, that the church can peacefully exist with drunkenness, but communism and atheism is much worse than drug addiction and drunkenness. You drink a little wine and the next day it passes, but communism poisons youth and our children since 50 years. How can there be peaceful existence with this on the side of churchmen and the church leadership I cannot understand.

Pastor Wurmbrand explained that communists do not really care whether or not people become communists per se but only that they do not oppose communism. Pointing out the unbiblical ideas and values of communism leads to cruel and murderous actions against dissenters. In outlining the communist approach, Wurmbrand explained that churches do not need to teach communism, just a liberal Christianity that allows for the acceptance of what communists want to accomplish:

Romanian Communists are very interested in the fact that you have here in the States, something like 300,000 [liberal clergy] on their side. They can’t very well win them for Communism, but they can win them for a leftwing Christianity which supports Communism.

In addition to his congressional testimony, Wurmbrand wrote several books cautioning against communism. Unfortunately, Wurmbrand's warnings have largely gone unheeded, and we are now suffering the consequences. Numerous churches throughout America and the world promote the communism of Marx under the umbrella of social justice, but Christians should pursue biblical justice, not social justice. Social justice is a masking term for the economic philosophies of communism and socialism. 

Social justice promotes the redistribution of income in the name of “the common good.” Among world influencers, it is important to note that “common good” is used by the Vatican and the pope over and over. That should not come as a surprise when we realize the term “social justice” was coined by a Catholic Jesuit. Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio, who lived from 1793 to 1862, was an Italian Catholic scholar of the Society of Jesus who coined the term social justice.

My friend and frequent Worldview Weekend radio guest Carl Teichrib, explains that many denominations now actively promote “social justice”: 

In today’s Christian world—and Western culture in general—there’s a myriad of changes taking place, and with it comes new language. “Social Justice” is certainly in the spotlight. Jim Wallis of Sojourners uses this term repeatedly. Brain McLaren’s book Everything Must Change seeks to reframe Christianity in a social justice context. The Christian Reformed Church has a social justice office, as does the Salvation Army; and the Mennonite Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Canada, and an endless list of other denominations and church bodies speak of “social justice.”

Communism hides under many names such as social justice, common good, or even white privilege. 

FBI founder and director J. Edgar Hoover, in his 1958 book Masters of Deceit, explains why communists insert their people as the heads of churches and other such organizations to promote communism in the guise of social justice: 

To make a known Party member president of a front would immediately label it as “communist.” But if a sympathizer can be installed, especially a man of prominence, such as an educator, minister, or scientist, the group can operate as an “independent” organization.

Marx was educated at a secularized Jesuit high school, and interestingly enough, he and Jesuit Taparelli were contemporaries: 

Marx and Engels fleshed out their “science of socialism” during the same time frame as Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio’s “social justice.” And The Communist Manifesto was published the same year that the Society of Fraternal Democrats called for social justice. Under Communism, wealth redistribution was to be used for social ends. In this structure, private property for personal gain was viewed as the cornerstone of the class system and was seen as the cause of social injustices and strife. Wealth redistribution, therefore, was aimed at producing a society where all people were economically equal. Hence, the abolition of bourgeois property (that of the capitalist class) was the key to Communism.

The Church of Rome via its Maryknoll and Jesuit Orders has promoted, aided, and propped up communism when it served its interests. The Pope’s latest visit to communist Cuba more than proves the point. Roman Catholic Humberto Fontova wrote an article entitled “Pope Blesses Castroism.” Read the article and weep for those suffering under Castro’s police state. And yes, the Pope had time for the Castro brothers but no time for those languishing under them. In fact, the day after the Pope left the island, Castro’s thugs arrested “at least 43 Cuban dissidents.”  

This sort of thing is not brand new. In 2009, the Vatican, through a Jesuit newspaper, praised Karl Marx. Richard Owen of The Times Online reports: 

L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, said yesterday that Marx’s early critiques of capitalism had highlighted the “social alienation” felt by the “large part of humanity” that remained excluded, even now, from economic and political decision-making. 

Georg Sans, a German-born professor of the history of contemporary philosophy at the pontifical Gregorian University, wrote in an article that Marx’s work remained especially relevant today as mankind was seeking “a new harmony” between its needs and the natural environment. He also said that Marx’s theories may help to explain the enduring issue of income inequality within capitalist societies. 

“We have to ask ourselves, with Marx, whether the forms of alienation of which he spoke have their origin in the capitalist system,” Professor Sans wrote. “If money as such does not multiply on its own, how are we to explain the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few?”

Professor Sans’s article was first published in La Civiltà Cattolica, a Jesuit paper, which is vetted in advance by the Vatican Secretariat of State. The decision to republish it in the Vatican newspaper gives it added papal endorsement.

As we will see in Chapter 5, communism also hides within a mixture of socialism and capitalism known as communitarianism or “communism lite” and is being aggressively promoted by the Church of Rome and prominent neo-evangelicals. 

Today’s young people get a heavy dose of social justice curriculum written by individuals such Bill Ayers. As a result, many people tell me they are pleased that their church or denomination is involved in social justice. But Carl Teichrib explains why social justice is completely unbiblical:

“My church has a social justice mandate… This is something I support.”

Sounds nice, but can you tell me what you mean? The usual response I get, thankfully, centers on feeding the poor, helping at a homeless shelter or safe house, assisting the elderly, working with troubled teens, or supporting an orphanage.

Sorry, that’s not social justice. The dominant social justice concept for the past 150 years has been centered on the sliding slope of Papal-advocated wealth redistribution, and a Marxist version of Collectivism. Feeding the poor and assisting the helpless, from a Christian perspective, isn’t social justice—its Biblical compassion, a generous act of love. Such acts of compassion engage individual lives, and are based on the Christian call of loving others more than self. This is the heart of compassion: An individual sees a need, and operating out of love, reaches to meet that need. Churches too are to function in a similar manner. A need is evident, and moved by compassion, the congregation works to solve the dilemma. Coercion never enters the picture, nor does a political agenda emerge, nor is a call for economic equality heard.

The Biblical parable of the Good Samaritan demonstrates true compassion (Luke 10). A Jewish man has been beaten, robbed, and left to die on the road. Various people pass him by, including the religiously pious. However, a Samaritan traveler sees the individual, and although the Samaritan is culturally alienated from the beaten man, he recognizes the desperation and individually takes action—dressing his wounds and providing a place of rest and refuge. And the Samaritan pays for it himself without demanding remuneration or compensation, either from the victim, his family or community, or from the government or ruling class.

However, if the Samaritan were a supporter of the dominant theme in social justice, he would have acted with a different motive for different ends. The Samaritan would have used the occasion to lobby for social transformation.

The robbers were really victims of an unjust economic system, and had acted in response to the oppression of the ruling class.

In order to bring justice to this oppressed class, and to steer them back to a caring community, equitable wealth redistribution should take place. The rich must be taxed to fund necessary social programs. A more equitable society is needed.

Who will pay the victim’s medical bills? The community or the rich.

This tragic event, the Samaritan would tell us, is a graphic reminder of the class struggle. We are all victims of an unjust economic order. Therefore, we must be the “voice of the voiceless” and advocate for radical social change.

In the social justice framework there is another agenda that lurks behind the tragic: A political/economic cause is piggybacked and leveraged—the cause of economic equality through wealth redistribution. This isn’t about truly helping the victim; it’s about using the victim. 

Biblical justice, on the other hand, never seeks to dismantle class structures. Evil actions are condemned, but this isn’t specific to a particular social strata. Consider the words of Leviticus 19:15: “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. But in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.”

Mark W. Hendrickson compliments the commentary of Mr. Teichrib when he writes:

[Biblical] Justice not only means that nobody is to be picked on because he is poor or favored because he is rich, but that (contrary to the doctrine of “social justice”) nobody is to be picked on because he is rich or favored because he is poor.

The fundamental error of today’s ‘social justice’ practitioners is their hostility to economic inequality, per se. Social justice theory fails to distinguish between economic disparities that result from unjust deeds and those that are part of the natural order of things. All Christians oppose unjust deeds… [but] it isn’t necessarily unjust for some people to be richer than others.

God made us different from each other. We are unequal in aptitude, talent, skill, work ethic, priorities, etc. Inevitably, these differences result in some individuals producing and earning far more wealth than others. To the extent that those in the ‘social justice’ crowd obsess about eliminating economic inequality, they are at war with the nature of the Creator’s creation.

The Bible doesn’t condemn economic inequality. You can’t read Proverbs without seeing that some people are poor due to their own vices. There is nothing unjust about people reaping what they sow, whether wealth or poverty.

Jesus himself didn’t condemn economic inequality. Yes, he repeatedly warned about the snares of material wealth; he exploded the comfortable conventionality of the Pharisaical tendency to regard prosperity as a badge of honor and superiority; he commanded compassion toward the poor and suffering. But he also told his disciples, “you have the poor always with you” (Matthew 26:11), and in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:24-30) he condemned the failure to productively use one’s God-given talents—whether many or few, exceptional or ordinary—by having a lord take money from the one who had the least and give it to him who had the most, thereby increasing economic inequality.

The Lord’s mission was to redeem us from sin, not to redistribute our property or impose an economic equality on us. In fact, Jesus explicitly declined to undermine property rights or preach economic equality when he told the man who wanted Jesus to tell his brother to share an inheritance with him, “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you” (Luke 12:14).

Many within the apostate church, civil government, the educational establishment, national and international corporations, charities, foundations, and nongovernment organizations (NGOs) have bought into what is called the sustainable development version of communitarianism. Henry Lamb explains this danger: 

From the highest rafters of academia comes another enemy of freedom: Communitarianism. This is a belief system that opposes both authoritarianism and individualism, and promotes instead a social organization that is governed by policies designed by civil society to limit individual freedom as required for the benefit of the community. Dr. Amitai Etzioni is credited with founding this communitarian movement. 

For more than 200 years, all these questions were addressed by elected representatives of the community. Individual members of the community have always been free to propose projects to meet unmet community needs. Elected officials who failed to respond to the wishes of the community could always be replaced at the next election.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the environmental movement, joined by “social justice” advocates, grew impatient with the rate of change under this traditional policymaking procedure. That’s why the President’s Council on Sustainable Development declared, “We need a new decision process. …” This new decision process is constructed on a communitarian philosophy and employs the consensus process. 

Typically, these councils have been initiated and funded by special interest groups or by the federal government—not by the local community. These councils inevitably create a plan that incorporates the recommendations set forth in Agenda 21, the U.N.’s bible on sustainable development. These plans limit individual freedom and impose individual responsibilities in order to create a community that the vision council has determined to be in the best interest of the whole.

Satan has used socialism, communism, and Marxism to build his “new order”—his own kingdom. He seeks to destroy Christianity, free nations, national sovereignty, and laws based on the character and nature of God. The devil has used dictators committed to Marxist/Leninist philosophies to kill countless Christians. Why? Because only committed Christians build God’s Kingdom, making them Satan’s greatest obstacle. 

In every way possible, Satan encourages people to violate the Ten Commandments. The doing away with private property (stealing), for instance, forces service to the State alone in order to survive. This fulfills the enemy’s plan that people ultimately are not really serving the State but the one who stands behind the authoritarian State—Satan himself. In John 10:10, Jesus points out that “the thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.” Satan—and his tool, the communist State—is a thief. He loves Communism, socialism, and Marxism because any version of such a government does, indeed, steal, kill, and destroy.

Later in John 10:10, Jesus offers the good news: He came so we would have eternal life. This is a precious promise for the untold numbers of Christians and Jews who have refused to worship at the altar of Satan (serving the State) and who have been imprisoned or murdered as a result. 

Christians can take hope that God’s Kingdom will come and crush Satan’s dominion, as foretold in the book of Daniel. Until that day, believers must realize that failure to oppose socialism, communism, and Marxism is to agree with a satanic plan that fuels injustice, cruelty, antifamily values, and anti-Christian worldviews. 

One final quote captures the essence of what Marx believed and what he thought should be done: “The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed.” He may have been dead wrong, but that doesn’t change the reality that the worldview of Marx is alive and well in America and around the world. The influence of Marx’s ideas is overwhelming, and his vile legacy continues despite the indisputable failure of his atheistic, communistic worldview wherever it has been tried.

Copyright 2012 ©Brannon Howse. This content is for Situation Room members and is not to be duplicated in any form or uploaded to other websites without the express written permission of Brannon Howse or his legally authorized representative.