Perspectives Podcast - Is Christianity more Socialist or Capitalist?
Episode Description
In this episode Senior Pastor, Dr. Kurt Bjorklund has a conversation with Joel Haldeman and Todd Harris about if Christianity is more socialist or capitalist, what the difference is between socialism and capitalism, what the Bible says is good and bad about these ideas, where the church fits in compared to the state, and more!
Episode Transcript
Kurt Bjorklund: Hey, welcome to the Perspectives podcast. This is a podcast of Orchard Hill Church where we address current issues from a Biblical perspective. And we chose the name Perspectives intentionally, because although hopefully at times, we will clarify what the Bible says about an issue, what we really want to do is address issues that are often not addressed explicitly in the Bible, but instead deal with things that have inferences or things that are by implication importance. So, for example, today we're going to talk about capitalism and socialism. And to my knowledge, the Bible doesn't say, you should be a capitalist or a socialist. Instead, it teaches some principles. And so, by inference, there are some things for us to learn and work through. I'm joined today by Joel Haldeman, who is our campus pastor at our Strip District location. Welcome, Joel. And Todd Harris. Todd is a person who works with intervarsity and directs their multicultural mission in our region. And so, we're excited to have Todd join us. And both Joel and Todd have young kids. And Todd, by the way, congratulations, I hear you're expecting again. Your life is about to change yet again. And so, let me just ask you guys this before we jump into a heavy topic. Let's take a light one first. Tell us something that has been funny or surprising with your kids this fall.
Joel Haldeman: All of this staying home from school has made my kids really strange. I've just seen that they need socialization. And yesterday afternoon, we went to the park for a while and just kept staying long into dinner time because they just needed to play with other kids. So, it's been funny to see how weird they’ve become.
Todd Harris: I think largely, the funny thing I'm noticing as our youngest, she's not quite two, but is really developing her personality. Seeing how different our current youngest and oldest are. He is by far the most risk adverse. He gets really nervous about heights and about other things like trying new food. She broke her elbow a few weeks ago, had surgery, and the next day wanted to be climbing around on things. So, she's our climber and will try anything once or more.
Kurt Bjorklund: Well, let's take a few moments and just frame this conversation. And part of why I thought it was important for us to maybe have this now is that you hear a lot of talk about socialism, all of a sudden. For a long time it was kind of assumed that Christianity was part of the American way, which is the whole idea of each person earns their own way and does what they need to do - kind of the idea of capitalism. But between the political process and even several religious leaders, from David Bentley, Hart and onward, have kind of advocated for a more socialistic view. And then there are people saying that people are advocating for socialist views. I've certainly seen people say that's what Tim Keller is about, and some different things like that. And so, I'd love to just frame the conversation first, just so we're all kind of talking about the same thing, because the words can mean different things to different people. So maybe if either Joel or Todd, if one of you could jump in and kind of define capitalism for us and give us a very quick, biblical understanding of why that might be an acceptable way to think. And then if the other one could kind of grab socialism and kind of say what that is and give a definition of it. So, whoever talks first gets to choose which one you want to do.
Joel Haldeman: I think what surprised me in looking at the definitions is that they really deal with who owns the means of production of a nation. And that was a bit of a surprise to me, because when I think of socialism, I think of aspects of our government that support people that have needs. And in that sense, according to that very strict definition, that's not the means of production. So, for the government to tax all of the people is not necessarily an issue of socialism/capitalism.
Kurt Bjorklund: I understand what you're saying. So, let's back up just for a second. What's the difference between a capitalist view and a social view just on a base level before we get into the minutia of that?
Joel Haldeman: So, socialism would say that the means of production is owned by the states. And the definition of that political and economic theory advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole or owned by the state. Now, another definition did say all property, natural resources, and means of production are owned by the state. Those are two pretty different definitions. When you include property in that, that is a totally different thing. Whereas capitalism will say that the country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Kurt Bjorklund: Okay. All right. And, Todd, what do you see? Maybe even on a popular level. I know that there's some academic definitions of these things, but when people typically think of them, they typically would say things like capitalism means that I get to own and decide what I need to do with minimal taxation other than for the public good. Whereas socialism would typically be more thought of as let's produce a higher tax burden, especially in our country, maybe not the government owns all production, but there's a higher tax burden, in order to ensure the public good of those who are less fortunate. That would typically be how people think of it in our country. Even if there's more nuanced definitions that are academic. Todd, what would you see in that?
Todd Harris: Well, I also think that these terms and ideas are loaded with moral judgments. So, in an individualistic culture like the U.S., especially in some segments of our population, we value very heavily the idea, as you said already Kurt, that individuals are responsible for their own well-being and taking care of their family. And we aren't thinking of ourselves as belonging to much else other than the nuclear family that we share living space with. And so, it's much easier to conceive of a world in which both my accumulation of wealth, success, and protection for the future is dependent on my own individual effort and ability. So, pull yourself up by your bootstraps makes a lot of sense, especially if you have access to the means of generating wealth and things like that. However, there are a lot of people in our country, especially as we consider those immigrated here, who come from more collectivistic background. These are two ends of the same cultural value continuum. And they see themselves not primarily as an individual, or even necessarily as part of the family, although there's a lot of identity wrapped up in their nuclear family, they see themselves also as part of a bigger community that has a history, both positive and negative, are good and bad. And because they identify as part of a bigger community, they have no problem seeing themselves as belonging to them and their resources, this community. I think because we are so individualistic in the U.S. and seen perhaps as the most individualistic country in the world, we've loaded capitalism and individualism up with this kind of moral goodness or righteousness. And anything that has that something different on the opposite end of the spectrum, makes it really difficult to see any validity or helpfulness of the idea. I had to look up the definitions this morning. I have a basic understanding. But I tend to think, because of my background and training, a lot more about the things that contribute to how likely we are to see the validity of the idea and what keeps us from understanding one another.
Joel Haldeman: Todd led a seminar at our campus in the Strip District a few weeks back, and we spent a bunch of time on this very subject, specifically trying to understand race and racial tension better. And this difference between approaching something as seeing it as an individualistically versus collectively, I think is really right at the core of how we need to think about this issue as Christians. Because even as I did my reading on this, I was like, wow, I'm not finding anything on how Christianity could support socialism. But that's me thinking as an individual. That's me reading biblical texts individualistically. And you're right. I think it does change a little bit when you start to see this from a collective perspective instead. I think it's helpful.
Kurt Bjorklund: Well, part of what makes this difficult as we use those terms, is the Bible doesn't address it directly. Meaning it doesn't say if you live in a socialist country, or if you live in a capitalist country, here's how you should think about things. What the Bible does do is it clearly gives two things that seem to be competing. That is part of why this is a question. And I would assume, a lot of listeners right now would say this isn't a question. The Bible is more capitalistic, therefore, that's right and socialism is wrong. But probably what's at view here, is there are places in the Bible where clearly we see wealth being affirmed, not that it should be the highest good, but that people had wealth, personal wealth, and it was okay. We see land ownership being okay. We see the production of goods or services being seen as a positive. We see individual responsibility being something that matters - the text says, if you don't work, you should not eat. And so, all of those things would bleed capitalistic in terms of our understanding. Meaning it would be really hard to make a case that there shouldn't be some kind of a capitalism inside a culture. At the same time, there are texts that indicate that we should care about people who do not have, and that societal structures contribute to the capacity of individuals to make it. And so, that would tend to lean more toward this idea of the collective good asking those questions and saying, how do we have a just society that makes sure that there are things that are fair in our society. So, just to take an example that would be very current. This fall, students have not by and large gone back to school across our country because of covid. And what we know is true, is that kids who lose out on going to school between ages three and eight, in terms of development, if you don't read by third grade, your chance to ever read well and function at a high level really go down drastically. So, one of the things that's happening right now is with kids missing out on in-person instruction, families with a higher socioeconomic ability, have a much greater chance to help their kids through this and to navigate it. Families with less economic vitality, have a much less likelihood of being able to do that. As a society, capitalism, in a sense, could say, well, that's up to them. Pull themselves up by the bootstraps. In a more socialistic kind of way of thinking, you say, no, this is a collective issue that we need to think about. And so that's maybe just an analogy, other than that's the kind of a place where you say, okay, this is how this cuts two different ways in terms of how we look at that.
Joel Haldeman: I think one of the issues that kind of muddies the water for this is that there's a difference between stating that this is what the state is going to do, this is what's going to be the case for everyone versus this is what someone has chosen to do. And so, an example of this, you talked about property. I would say, without a doubt, the Bible affirms our ability to own things - do not steal has built in it this proposition that you own things, that they are yours, and they don't belong to the state. At the same time, I'm thinking of this guy that I knew a long time ago. We were grabbing lunch one day, and he said that he was going pick up the tab and I said, thank you. And he said, well, it's all good. It's all God's money. And for him, he had this attitude of it all belongs to God. But I don't think that would be appropriate to force that upon other people. Does that make sense? That there's a difference between what we're forcing upon all people through government versus what somebody is doing as a result of their Christian maturity.
Todd Harris: And I think that issue of force also is connected to individualism versus collectivism, because individualists tend to really highly value liberty and freedom, right? We've seen that all over the place the last six months. Collectivist, well, while freedom and liberty may be important, particularly where collectivism or socialism is at its worst, oppressing people that they want their freedom. I just lost where I was going.
Kurt Bjorklund: Well, let me jump in and help you with that thought. There's an article I read recently by Tim Keller called A Biblical Critique of Secular Justice and Critical Theory. And he puts those very phrases that you were just using out there as ends of the spectrum individualism and collectivism. And for him, individualism coming from Locke and Hume and all of those, we ultimately are wholly the product of the individual choices we make. Whereas collectivism, which would be more Marx and the theory of communism, socialism, you are wholly the product of social forces and structures. And then what Tim Keller typically does is he takes complex issues and kind of boils them down and then says, here's something good from each of these. And so, you may or may not agree with his overall take here. But he says there's a libertarian view, which says, justice is basically about freedom, which means in order to have a just society, I have to be able to choose what's good for me, period. And that's what's good, meaning nobody should tell me how to use any of my money or anything. And so there should never be taxes, there should never be restraint, other than you know, a few things. The more liberal understanding, he would say justice is about fairness, meaning how do we have a fair society. And then moving farther to the collectivism side, he'd say, utilitarianism, justice is about happiness. So how do we help people achieve that? And then he would say postmodern, which is justice is about power. And that's where you get the oppressive structures. And that's really what critical theory does. Critical race theory, critical theory in general, defines every group as being either powerful and oppressing other people, or powerless, and the victim of other people. And so, he goes through and tries to talk through what each of these theories mean. One of the things I found helpful, just in his statement about this, was he said, the Bible does call us to care for people who are without, but it's still in the context of choice. And in the context of our choosing to use our resources that way, he would go so far as to say it's a commanded thing, something we must do, but that it shouldn't be compulsory from the government. And I thought that was an interesting way to look at that. Because what he was saying was, as a church, what we've done way too often is we've ceded the care of the marginalized in our society to the government by saying the government does it, therefore, we don't need to do it. And then functionally become all kind of capitalist individualist, saying, well, I just live my life and the government takes a portion of my money to care for the poor, therefore, I'm done with anything like that. So, if you take my example earlier, of the schools right now being shut down, in that way of thinking, it's like, wow, that's a problem for people who are poor, that stinks for them. But you know, I pay taxes and taxes go to help resolve that problem. And somebody somewhere is thinking of it. I guess that's good. And I think the challenge is to say, how do you live as somebody who says, I don't want to live, this would be me personally now talking, I'm not quoting anybody or anything, I don't want to live in a socialist world. I don't think that's a biblical worldview. But at the same time, I don't want to become a hard-hearted capitalist where I simply say, I just need to take care of me and my family, and the rest of the world, since I paid my taxes, I'm done. So how do you find that balance? Now, push back on this from you guys, in terms of when I say I don't really want to live in a socialist world. Where or how would somebody make a case against that from a biblical standpoint?
Todd Harris: My tendency is to think just about any way of organizing ourselves and providing for the needs of our people would work well, if at 1%. The problem is sin isn't the picture. And so I think the question of socialism, or I think that one of the ways in which you're using the term, is to describe government control, not just the shared ownership of production, but the issue that we individuals tend to equate with socialism is government control, infringing upon my liberties. I think the problem is with capitalism, because of sin, we can't count on people to demonstrate the incredible, radical generosity that we see modeled for us in the scriptures. And so the question is, if we in the church can't even detach our identities from our wealth, and the value of accumulating wealth, at the expense often of poor people, then how in the world can we say that someone shouldn't be telling us what to do? I'm not saying I'm advocating that. I'm just saying this is the issue with sin in the picture, sinful Christians even, hoarding, kind of circling the wagons, so to speak, so I can protect myself and future generations of my family from calamity. The church isn't being the church right now.
Joel Haldeman: I think that's really well said. That's our responsibility to take up, and I think you're right on. A little bit of what challenged me, just looking at this, is that with socialism, the state has some sort of control over the means of production and exchange. There are certainly times in the Old Testament where that is the case. Landowners were commanded to not plow to the edge of their fields, so that the poor could come through and collect, but they were not permitted to exchange goods on the Sabbath day. It was even regulated how much interest they could charge, how to sell things, and some sort of regulation on weights and measurements. And I think that we would all agree, maybe not all of us, but I think most people would agree that it is beneficial for the government to regulate some of those things. For the government to regulate weights and measurements, I really don't mind when I go to gas stations, and you see that little stamp on there that says somebody is taking a look at this pump and know that you're not getting ripped off. So, all that to say, the Bible certainly does say that the government can regulate the means of production in some way.
Kurt Bjorklund: Yeah, I think one of the struggles I have with socialism, is that it seems to really promote the idea of our identities being rooted in our wealth, and that it does produce envy and class warfare to a degree. And I do think that our identities, even biblically, have something to do with how well we are. I mean the Bible says there was a rich man, and there was a poor man. And so, it doesn't shy away from saying this is part of who we are. And yet, at the same time when I say our identities become, I think in the socialist way of thinking, it becomes not just oh, I make a lot of money or I don't, I have wealth or I don't, it's what drives how I see the world and how I function in the world. And it promotes this idea of, if I'm not wealthy, I have the right to take from the wealthy, or the government should take from them. And you even see this in some of the current politics right now. And I'm sure you've seen this with Governor Cuomo in New York. People are asking him to make a bigger tax on billionaires to pay for all the damage in New York City. And he's both resisted it and said he'd consider it. And part of what he's doing is he's trying to say, yeah, they maybe should pay more, but he realizes that if he does that, more people will move out of New York, move over to New Jersey or somewhere else, and he'll actually lose tax revenue simultaneously. And what I think sometimes happens in this mindset is, it says well, just because you have a lot, it should go to the corporate good, rather than being able to say, you know what, some people have earned a lot. Like if you take Jeff Bezos, for example. Clearly, the guy has made a lot of money by starting Amazon and running a great company. And we all like getting stuff delivered to our door in two days. So, we buy stuff on Amazon without even thinking of how it's skewing wealth in this world. Because it's such a good product for how it delivers. Socialism would say, he doesn't deserve to have the kind of money that he has. He should have it all taken away from him, and it should be given back to the "public good," whereas capitalism would say, in essence, no, he earned the money by setting up a great company, and that is what it is. He should pay whatever he pays in taxes, but it shouldn't be proportionately that much different than what everybody else pays. I guess what's concerning to me is when Christian's start to align with more of a socialist worldview, is it drives that identity of there is the rich and they are automatically oppressors of the poor, simply by having money. And I think that's one of the problems.
Todd Harris: Kurt, I see what you're saying. I think part of the challenge is that the three of us come from very similar backgrounds, and we would tend to talk about something that we don't understand through our own cultural lenses. So, we're talking about socialism, through the lens of capitalism. We see socialism a certain way because of where we sit. If we really want to understand how socialism views the world and social organization economic functioning, we need to talk to somebody who identifies as a socialist who says, I buy into that. The problem is, we don't have anybody like that in this conversation. I think that's a fair criticism. I think we have to acknowledge, there's nobody here who can really talk about how socialists really view that situation. Is it really that Jeff Bezos shouldn't have a lot of money because that means power consolidated? Or does it mean, if we go by the other definition of sharing ownership of production, that every one of his workers should own an equal share of the company? And so, he might be making his millions, but the other people that work there, they're also making more money than they would otherwise. So, I'm just wondering what would be different about this conversation as somebody who really came at this conversation from the other side and were here with us talking about it.
Joel Haldeman: That's fair. One of the very strong weaknesses of socialism from a Christian perspective is that it highly elevates the material world beyond what Christians should be comfortable with it being. And so just to take a quote from Bernie Sanders, since we're obviously talking about him, he says on his platform page, "The issue of wealth and inequality is the great moral issue of our time. It is the great economic issue of our time. It is the great political issue of our time." I don't have any problems saying that it's an issue that needs to be addressed in some way. That there's certainly a wealth gap that is a problem in our country. He says that it's the great moral issue, the great economic, and the great political. I just can't agree with that. Karl Marx was an atheist, and for Marx, the material world is all that there is. If somebody is an atheist and believes that this world is all that there is, then you have to think about how do we equalize things? How do we make the most of this world for all people? Because this world, and the quality of our life here is the highest good for all people. So, let me say this, and I could be totally off on this. I don't know that the Bible advocates for equality in this life. That certainly we are all image bearers, and all have the same value before God, but as you mentioned, the kings in the Old Testament had unbelievable wealth, and that was part of God's, sort of, ordained system of government. And so, that people will have inequality in this life, I think is kind of a given.
Todd Harris: But was it God's ordained system of wealth? He didn't want them to have a king. That was what the people wanted.
Joel Haldeman: Yeah, that's fair.
Todd Harris: In the beginning, he didn't set up a ruler over the people, he set the people up as rulers over the creation. And so, what does it look like to steward all of creation, including the wealth that we've generated in ways that are good for all people? And I think there are answers to that in the church that we need to wrestle with, and I think there are answers for the government. I don't know if we're going to agree, or even if what's good for the church is good for the government, and what's good for the government is good for the church. I think there's an additional tension we sit in there. I don't buy that was God's design for wealth.
Kurt Bjorklund: I would push back on that a little bit in this sense, Todd, and that is, if you make it from the kings argument, you're right, that you can't necessarily say, oh, that's true. But even in the New Testament, you see over and over again, that there's a disparity, and that is not necessarily a negative thing. And so, I think, Joel, your contention that the Bible doesn't necessarily say everyone should be equal in terms of economic well-being is true. I think it recognizes that there will always be poverty. Now it calls us to address poverty. So, it doesn't call us just to say we're okay with it. But there's a true understanding that there will be differences. And even if you look at the parable in Matthew 25, it's a parable that actually cuts both ways, in terms of what we're talking about here. It recognizes that there will be different levels of resources in terms of there's a five talent, ten talent, one talent, all of that kind of thing, and at the same time, that we’ll be held responsible for what we do with what we have. In terms of if we just spend it all on ourselves, that's not the biblical model. And so, but again, I think when you push to the heart of this, the real question is, who makes that choice? Is it a government choice or is it an individual choice to say, I've chosen to submit my resources to God, and to use them for something greater? And part of why we end up here, having this conversation, is a lot of times the "church," talking about the longer-range historical Church, has not stepped into the void of social structures. And so, we've left it to the government in many ways. And I think in America, you could especially make that case, in part, because our society has actually been one of the more just societies in history in terms of how it's treated people without the economic well-being. And sometimes we forget that in our conversations about this. Now, that doesn't mean we don't have a way to go. There are clearly issues. I'm not saying that. But in America, there are more opportunities for people to move from a socioeconomic class that's challenging to one that's better for them, than there are in a lot of other societies around the world or historically. And so, in that sense, America has been a just society. Now, you want to talk about healthcare being needed to be universal, or those kinds of things, I get those conversations. If somebody who doesn't have a job pays health care, that becomes a really big issue. And it does feel like it's a justice issue to a degree to say, wow, most of the people here can afford health care, and this person cannot because they don't have that kind of a job. And I do think there's some questions there in terms of public policy, and how do we have a just society where there is such a disparity on something like that.
Joel Haldeman: Yeah. And let me go back, I think maybe the phrase that I said was God's intention or something like that. I think from an Eden perspective, all people are equal. And from an eternity future perspective, all people will be equal. So, we're just talking about in between time.
Kurt Bjorklund: There's clearly the way and the place in time in which we're born creates inequality in and of itself. My kids growing up in suburban Pittsburgh schools, have a lot of advantages over somebody who grows up in a third-world country. Two kids born the same day will have two different potentials because of that. And that is something that is part of just the reality.
Joel Haldeman: And that most influential thing on those two different families is the family that the child was born into. And a child born into your family has greater opportunity just because of the zip code they're born into, and the family that they're born into, than someone born elsewhere. And that's where I think we just have to say that this world is full of inequality. And we want to do our best to right some of those inequalities but know that it's never going to go away.
Kurt Bjorklund: And that might be another challenge to socialism. A lot of times socialism, maybe not overtly in this country, but historically and academically, it has advocated for kind of transforming the family as the viable central unit for organization to society being the central unit for organization. Making families somewhat irrelevant in terms of the leveling of the playing field. And I would say that again would be an example of a place where that doesn't seem to square with Christianity to me. Where we would say, let's make sure that there's universal childcare, and all kids should be in it, so that all kids start out equal, no matter what. Now, I'm not saying that's called for, but I know Bernie Sanders, again, if we're going to use him, as an example, has said there's a revolution in childcare. It's one of the things he's called for in order to create this level playing field. Now, on one hand, again, I can see what he's saying because if you can take kids who are in socioeconomically disadvantaged places and say, you can now have a safe place to learn and to develop at a certain age. That's a really good thing from a public standpoint. But again, if you go back to academic socialism, that's where it has come from. That's one of the things that it has called for. And again, I think that's incompatible ultimately with biblical Christianity. All right. Any final thoughts you guys have? Things that you'd like just to impress on those who are listening and thinking about this issue, and who've stayed with us this long.
Joel Haldeman: I think one of the important issues for us, given that we live in a mostly capitalistic nation, is just acknowledging that we live in a day where greed is encouraged to flourish, and that we are sort of in this default mode to work for money instead of working for a calling. And I think those are both really important things that we need to pay attention to. And believing in that idea of calling instead of just working for maximizing.
Kurt Bjorklund: That's really well put. Too often in our day, we ask the question, what will pay the most? Not where am I uniquely qualified to contribute to the good of the world. Todd?
Todd Harris: I think there are two things. One, is responding to a comment earlier about what the Bible says about individual ownership, control, and who makes the decision about whether or not to give money to something, is the individuals. As I thought about this question ahead of today's conversation, and I think what we're doing, you can correct me if I'm wrong, is trying to address those among our listeners who are attempting to find themselves in the Scriptures. Which we all do often. I think the challenge is we're trying to find ourselves and justify our beliefs one way or the other from both camps. As we read the scriptures, sometimes we forget that the scriptures were written in a particular time, for particular people, to address particular circumstances. I think it's hard to find ourselves in Scripture because we, as most American capitalistic individualistic people, aren't truly represented in the scriptures. So really, I think that the question of is Christianity capitalistic or socialistic is the wrong question. I think the better question, in my mind, might be, what do we see in the Bible about what God thinks about how we should organize and resource ourselves, both society and church led? How should we lead and care for the least of these? Because I don't think necessarily that the church was meant to be either capitalistic or socialistic. I tend to think that there's room for both entrepreneurialism as well as a radical sharing of resources. And so, I think there are implications. There are assumptions that the church is going to be radically sharing resources and involved in the community. There's the assumption that the church leaders are teaching those who come week in and week out, what it looks like to steward financial resources well, and to not be slaves to the idolatry of money. And so, I guess all that to say, I think we need to ask a different question. I think we need to stop trying to find ourselves to figure out how to justify our position based on the Scripture. I don't think you guys are. I don't think we are. But I think some are, and we need to say, what does the scripture say? Can we learn about what God values and cares about? And then, how do we, given who we are, where we are, and the problems we're facing, live God's way in our place in time?
Kurt Bjorklund: I think that is well stated in the sense that sometimes what we try to do as Christians is we say we want scripture to validate what we already think so that we feel good continuing to live the way we want to live. And I think what is helpful in this conversation is actually to say what are some of the warnings of scripture based on the socioeconomic view or political view that I have. And certainly, if you are more capitalistic and you're leaning, there's the warning against greed, not caring for people, making everything about money, basing your security on money, rather than eternal things. I think on the flip side, there is a warning against being so corporate minded in your thinking that you don't insist on individual responsibility, people taking responsibility themselves and creating a society of victims. There’s a warning against devaluing the family as the central unit for well-being in the world and saying we can eradicate the family and create a society that works without a traditional understanding of what the family looks like. I think that’s a danger there. And so to me, I think that is my takeaway to say whichever way I'm going to lean, and I think sometimes you are a thinking person you are going to lean both ways at different times, it's rare that you would go completely one way. And I don't mean that you say today I'm a socialist, and tomorrow I'm a capitalist. I mean even the most hard-core socialist at some point says, hey, I own that, don't take that from me, it's mine. And even the most hard-core capitalist at some point says, what's important for the public good. And so, we all find ourselves asking those questions and to say how do I bring a biblical way of interacting to the world to bear and make sure I don't get more driven by my political theory than I do by the biblical teaching on those subjects. Thank you to those listening today!
