“From the story of Saul, who came to be known as Paul, we draw the lesson: that when people want freedom they will get it.”

I wonder if Mr. Chodorov had ever come across “Communism and Socialism” by Dr. C.F.W. Walther?

I was recently given a copy of this out-of-print book by Pastor Herman Otten. In it, Walther does an excellent job of discerning the proper Christian perspective of communism.

Quoting from Walther’s text in examining how Christian example (action) may APPEAR to be communist in nature but ought rather to be a condition of the heart:

“Thus far it seems as if these examples really favored communism.
We read, however, of no other Christian congregation
of the apostolic age in which such an order of things was instituted.
And furthermore we read in Acts 5:1ff., “But a certain
man” (Luke thus continues) “named Ananias, with Sapphira,
his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price (his
.wife also being privy to it) and brought a certain part, and
laid it at the apostles’ feet.” This Ananias also wanted to be
looked upon as a loving benevolent and merciful Christian man.
T a this end he sold his possessions, but kept back part of the:
price, and brought the rest to the apostle Peter under the pretense
that this was the enire sum that he had realized. “But
Pete1:said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to
the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the
land? While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it
was sold, was it not in thine own power?” It is particularly
worthy of note that Peter here says: “While it remained, was it
not thine own?” We see from this that the first Christian congregation
at Jerusalem had not instituted such an order of
things that each one would have been compelled to give up his
possessions, but the Christians did this without restraint, from
free choice. For Peter here testifies to Ananias: “It would not
have been wrong for you to keep your house and land.” Yes,
he even adds: “And after it was sold, was it not in thine own
power?” “Thou couldst have said: I will give one-half, and all
would have been well; no one could have made it a matter of
conscience. The reason why it is such a shameful deed, is because
thou wouldst be considered a loving and benevolent
Christian, whereas thou hast done secretly just the contrary
to what thou pretendest to have done.”

…..and further:

“In his heart, IF RIGHTLY
UNDERSTOOD, every Christian should be a communist. In
other words, a Christian should always be ready and willing
to give up all he has for the benefit of his suffering brethren,
whenever their necessity requires it.”

Walther goes on, however, to examine why a heart of ‘communist’ compassion must be discerned from communist society – a Biblical Christian imperative perhaps more rightly considered the spirit of charity, not a call to societal coercion: (quoting again)

“2. The efforts of the communists are in conflict with
definite doctrines of Christianity.
We not only do not find anything in the Scriptures in defense
of the communist system, but the Scriptures teach directly
the opposite.
In the first place, it is in conflict with the scriptural doctrine
of personal property, as contained in the seventh commandment.
The seventh commandment teaches: “Thou shalt
not steal,” and with these words overthrows the entire system of
communism. Do not misunderstand me. By this I would by no
means say that the communists desire to steal from others. No
indeed, they say, on the contrary, that the rich are the thieves,
as Proudhon has declared: “Holding possessions is theft.” But
this is what I would say: just as certain as the seventh commandment
declares “Thou shalt not steal,” so certain it is that
everyone should have his own personal property. For, if according
to God’s will I should hold no personal property, God
would not have forbidden others to take anything away from
me. If no one is permitted to take anything from me, it is presupposed
that I have something, and that, personal property.
Consider this well. ……….

…….The efforts of the socialists and communists are, in the
second place, opposed to the Scriptural doctrine of the Fifth
commandment and other passages, according to which the
government alone has the power of the sword……
……But this conflicts with the Holy Scriptures, in which we have the word of God for these declare: “Thou shalt not kill,” and
respecting the government alone they say: “he beareth not the
sword in vain.”

This last part here (bearing the sword in vain) is what I was reminded of when reading through the part of Chodorov’s article where he says:
“When youth prefers prison to the barracks, when a job in the bureaucracy is considered leprous, when the tax collector is stamped a legalized thief, when handouts from the politician are contemptuously rejected, when work on a government project is considered degrading, when, in short, the state is recognized to be the enemy of society, then only will freedom come, and the citadel of power collapse.”