'Love thy neighbor' is not a socialist manifesto

The 2026 midterm elections brought a new wave of “Christian” voices into Congress. James Talarico in Texas, Adam Hamilton in Kansas, and Sarah Trone Garriott in Iowa were among the Democrats who campaigned on a message rooted in faith, compassion, and the biblical command to “Love thy neighbor.”

Invoking the words of Christ does not automatically confer His authority upon a political platform.

The Good Samaritan did not petition Rome to pay for the wounded man's care. He opened his own purse.

Christian compassion is not optional. Jesus commanded it. But the tendency to equate biblical love with socialist policies requires closer examination. Before deciding what government should do in the name of love, we must understand what Jesus meant when He commanded it.

'A new commandment'

On the night before His crucifixion, Jesus gathered with His disciples and gave them a new commandment: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another" (John 13:34).

Those words followed an extraordinary demonstration of humility: Jesus, their Lord and teacher, knelt to wash His disciples' feet. The one deserving of service became the servant. His example established that true love demands something of the person offering it.

Later, Jesus made that sacrifice unmistakable: "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).

Within hours, He would demonstrate those words upon the cross.

Christ's definition of love is neither sentimental nor politically convenient. It demands personal sacrifice, obedience, and fidelity to truth. In John 14:15, He declared, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

Love and obedience

Love and obedience are inseparable. Consider the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan did not merely express concern for suffering. He interrupted his journey, spent his resources, and assumed responsibility for a stranger. His mercy crossed cultural boundaries and required self-denial. It reflected the very love Christ commanded of His disciples.

There is a profound difference between sacrificing what belongs to you and claiming moral virtue by redistributing what belongs to someone else. Christ commanded His followers to give of themselves, not to outsource their obedience to the state.

Yet socialism can offer a counterfeit of Christian love, promising compassion through government power while relieving the individual of personal sacrifice. It is easy to appear generous when the responsibility of sacrifice is placed on someone else.

The Good Samaritan did not petition Rome to pay for the wounded man's care. He opened his own purse. Biblical charity begins with a willing heart and an open hand. Socialism replaces both with political coercion, letting people congratulate themselves on compassion they delegate rather than demonstrate.

History's warning

History provides sobering reasons to distinguish compassionate government promises from their lived-out consequences.

The Soviet Union promised equality through central planning, forced collectivization, and repression. Millions suffered under policies that subordinated individual lives to state objectives. Chronic shortages and stagnation eventually exposed the system's failures.

Venezuela's experiment with extensive state intervention, nationalization, and price controls, compounded by oil dependence and economic mismanagement, contributed to devastating shortages, inflation, and mass emigration.

Cuba's state-dominated economy has struggled with persistent shortages and limited productivity. Its government also imposed severe restrictions on religious institutions.

China, the communist regime, was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution because the collective was treated as more important than the individual. Socialism does not solve class inequality; it simply replaces one hierarchy with another — party officials and connected elites above ordinary citizens.

Eroding boundaries

Some will argue that America is not embracing full-scale socialism, only borrowing certain policies while retaining the safeguards of a constitutional republic. But democracy is not an automatic safeguard against government overreach. Elections determine who exercises political power; constitutional limits determine how far that power can reach.

The danger is not that every government program inevitably leads to communism. It is that each expansion of state authority deserves scrutiny, particularly when it transfers decisions from citizens and independent institutions to political officials. A government does not have to become authoritarian overnight to gradually erode the boundaries that keep its power in check.

History reminds us that the promises of government are no guarantee of its results. It can promise equality while establishing a privileged ruling class. It can promise collective security while depriving citizens of the independence necessary to build their own futures.

That is why compassion cannot be measured merely by political intentions.

Can families afford necessities, pursue opportunity, and build financial security? Can communities flourish, civil liberties survive, and voluntary institutions operate independently? Can churches worship freely, teach Scripture, and serve their neighbors without government coercion?

These are not peripheral concerns. They are essential questions when evaluating policies advanced in the name of government money like grants, tax hikes, and universal health care.

RELATED: The most dangerous evil can look remarkably like good

Amanda Cassingham-Bardwell/Getty Images

Essential questions

In my November 1 article, "America doesn't need a Jesus made in our political image," I examined how James Talarico's interpretation of Scripture concerning Mary and abortion raises serious questions about allowing political commitments to govern biblical interpretation.

Christians must apply that question consistently, regardless of which party invokes the Bible. Communicators must remain free to examine these claims publicly and defend biblical teaching without political intimidation.

Jesus did not merely promise love. He demonstrated it through the ultimate sacrifice.

Political leaders invoking His name should be prepared to defend both their interpretation of Scripture and the real-world consequences of their proposals.

Love is not measured by the generosity of a government's promises, but by whether our neighbors are genuinely helped. Christ commanded us to love one another, not to surrender our judgment to anyone who claims to govern in His name.