Sept. 2, 2026
Marx and Moody: What the Church Left Undone | Dr. Gregg Quiggle
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Karl Marx and D.L. Moody lived at the same time, watched the same cities industrialize, and asked the same question about the poor. One had a doctorate, wealthy patrons, and a theory of history. The other had about five years of formal schooling and a Bible.
Dr. James Spencer talks with Dr. Gregg Quiggle about Marx and Moody: Two Contemporaries. Two Gospels. Two Tombstones. One Choice., the new book Quiggle co-wrote with Erwin Lutzer for Moody Publishers. They work through where Marx's system runs out of road, particularly its silence on how a state ever relinquishes power, and why that silence traces back to a thin account of the human heart. They also take up Moody's conviction that charity is life on life rather than a check sent across the tracks, the difference between the early church in Acts and state redistribution, and the harder question Quiggle raises near the end: how much traction would any of this have today if evangelical churches had actually taken up Moody's model of hands-on engagement in their own communities?
Purchase:
Bread and Bibles: D.L. Moody's Evangelism and Social Action
Follow and subscribe
Subscribe to Thinking Christian: https://episodes.thinkingchristian.org
Website: www.thinkingchristian.org
Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.
Transcript
00:00:01
Speaker 1: The world is becoming increasingly proficient at telling stories that deny God. As such, we need Thinking Christian to become as natural as breathing. Welcome to the Thinking Christian podcast. I'm Doctor James Spencer. Through calm, thoughtful theological discussions, Thinking Christian highlights the ways God is working in the world and questions the underlying social, cultural, and political assumptions that hinder Christians from becoming more like Christ. Now on to today's episode of Thinking Christian. Hey, everybody, welcome to this episode of Thinking Christian on Doctor James Spencer and I'm joined today by one of our recurring guests and friends, doctor Greg Quiggle. I'm really excited to have him on the program today to talk about a new book that he has written with Pastor Irwin Lutzer, Marx and Moody, Two Contemporaries, Two Gospels, Two Tombstones, One Choice, and that just actually released yesterday. But from what Greg and I talked about in the pre show recording, even in pre it was tracking really well on Amazon, and so excited for you, man, this is great.
00:01:05
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's nice to write something that somebody might actually read for a change.
00:01:10
Speaker 1: That's normally the goal I just haven't had it happen yet.
00:01:14
Speaker 2: Yeah, well it's being of academic existence.
00:01:19
Speaker 1: Well, this book's really interesting because I'm not exactly sure that people would immediately put Marx and Moody together. So why don't we start there? What was the conception of Marx and Moody in this comparison?
00:01:35
Speaker 2: Well, first off, most people probably don't know that their lives overlapped by a little over forty years. So they are contemporaries. These are not people that lived in radically different places and times. Now it is true, they come from quite different backgrounds. Karl Marx's Jew German converts to Lutheranism and then eventually jettisons any sort of Christianity at all. He is highly educated and is given opportunities that Dwight Moody will never see. Moody, by comparison, is born in rural Massachusetts, has maybe five or six years of formal education. He grows up basically fatherless. His dad dies when he's four, in really rank poverty. So they come from really different worlds, but they share a common world in this sense. Both of their lives will ultimately be focused on the emerging urban center, so industrialization, immigration, all these sorts of things that are going to pour into what we sometimes refer to as Gilded Age with the rise of the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts and folks like this Carnegie and all that happens as a part of that. Really are the worlds in which they both inhabit. Mark spends a good portion of his time in London. Moody will also be in London. So although they are one is American and one is European, they do have common experiences in terms of seeing the impact of industrialization, urbanization, immigration on these massive urban centers.
00:03:44
Speaker 1: One of the things that strikes me between, you know, in the contrast between Marx and Moody is the difference in the backgrounds. So you know, we talked we've talked about Moody before, where Moody has you know, more of a fifth grade level of education before he goes off to help his family. Marx is schooled like he has academic training. He's captured by the philosophy of Hegel, very much involved with rethinking Hegel's dialectic. It's i would say, one of the three big sort of influences on him. He's also looking at sort of a theory of history, and you know the critique of political economy, but so much of that is grounded in Hegelian philosophy, which produces this dialectic right of pull and push. We might say, we don't have to go too far into Hagel, but just to underscore the point that they are coming at this from two very different vantage points, even though they're intersecting in time. Marx is a much more studied person than Moody. Moody is not ignorant by any stretch of the imagination, but he's not interacting with the academic tomes in the same way or that Marx is.
00:05:00
Speaker 2: No if you walked up to Dwight Moody and said, explain Hegalianism, he would probably laugh and say, let's go for a ride in the cart or something. Moody is a concrete, practical thinker. He's a farmer at heart to some extent. Marx is theoretical and philosophical. So one is looking at it from a kind of a bottom common man perspective. The other one, although his work is focused on the plight of the common man, is addressing it from a theeal, theoretical, philosophical perspective.
00:05:54
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think at that time, you know, you have Hegel, who obviously does some things with God, although his later students really push back on that aspect of his philosophy. They feel like it gives too much away. And so you also have a gentleman named Feuerbach who would have argued that religion is self alienation, human self alienation. It's keeping us from realizing who we truly are, in other words, and so you have these two very different philosophies. Because Moody as uneducated, his lack of formal education does not leave him ignorant of scripture. And so for Moody it's going to be no, we find our true humanness, although I doubt he'd ever say it that way, we find our true humanness in following Jesus Christ. Whereas for Marx it's no, religion is sort of the opiate of the masses. It's keeping people dull and numb and keeping them from understanding what true humanness looks like. And so for him, religion is an obstacle. For Moody, religion really is specif particular Christianity is the solution.
00:07:03
Speaker 2: Yeah. So not only that Moody believes in life after death. He believes in the eternal, so he is not interested in just addressing the current and the secular. He's also interested in preparing people for the next life while addressing the plights they find themselves in in this life. But since he believes in the eternal, he prioritizes the eternal. Now. What is unique is what Moody does is he refuses to use the eternal as an excuse to not address the temporal, or the secular, or the concrete or this life. Now. He prioritizes them, but he does not in any way, shape or form, make one important to the exclusion of the other. Marx isn't interested in that. Marx's concrete materialism, this is it, and so he's not into and so thus his comment, it's the opiate for the masses. Oh, people use the idea of the eternal as a way to justify or make them able to oppress people. It'll get fixed in the next life, don't worry about it. That is certainly not what Moody is saying, But he's also saying it it will get fixed in the next life. But that doesn't let us off the biblical hook to address this life as well.
00:09:08
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's an interesting dichotomy here because Marx obviously moves more towards socialism where there's going to be I suppose the more popular way to understand it, and I'm sure it's more nuanced than this, but I'm just going to say it advance our conversation. Socialism there is no real ownership. Everybody shares everything in common, and so there's a redistribution of wealth across society. The socialism. For Moody, he's not advancing socialism, but he is redistributing wealth, primarily his wealth and the wealth that is given to him. And he's doing that as he sees needs everywhere. And so there's a sense of odd resonance there in the sense that both care about this sort of redistribution, both see the inequities in society and seek to address them. Rudy from a very much a love of God, and then you know, sort of that emerging as love of neighbor, Mark seemingly from more of a sense of what I would And this may be too generous, but I would say like a deep sense of justice that is misguided by his unwillingness to contemplate God.
00:10:26
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, he's utterly naive about the state. His idea that yes, there is no ownership. Everything is owned by the state. So the state then becomes the arbitra and the one that redistributes, and YadA, YadA, YadA. Well, you know, name a state in the history of the world that acted justly towards all its people. I mean, why should I believe that the state is going to behave anymore with any more charity than the capitalist All that does is allow those who are in power in the state. And all you have to do is look at the communist states under the old Soviet Union. Yes, the workers got YadA, YadA, YadA, but don't think for a minute that the members of the High members of the polit bureau weren't living high on a hog. They absolutely were, excuse they had all kinds of fancy cars, you know, better food, better clothing, vacation places. So what was the difference between Leonie Brezhneff and Rockefeller. Frankly nothing because he had all this stuff because he was the head of the state in that sense. So there's a kind of naivete there. And the other thing that Moody would say is Christians are under an obligation to act justly. If you're a Christian and you own a business, pay your people properly, treat your workers with respect. Now he's going to get criticized for not saying that enough, and frankly, that is probably fair early in his career. But you talked about Moody growing and his understanding. One of the things that we see as he gets older, as he begins to say, this is not right the way that people are treating workers. This is wrong, and the Bible teaches that we're not supposed to treat people this way. What's interesting is, and it's outside of the realm of this book, but in the Catholic Church they are developing Catholic social thought, and this is where we get ideas like minimum wage et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Because it's a matter of justice. For Moody, it's a matter of charity. Love God loves me. I'm undeserving. I am obligated to love my neighbor and make sure that he is appropriately rewarded for his labor. And those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to labor must be taken care of. And he did that practically all the time.
00:14:11
Speaker 1: Do you see in Moody's thaw, Greg So, when he's talking about that and we're talking about Christian charity, we're seeing him sort of advocate for these things, particularly as you said later in life. I remember something about the trusts that were being set up for children, you know, making sure that your children had you know, so much. But his comment was, you know, don't make you know, you're you're setting them up financially, but you're also setting them up for spiritual ruin, like they still need to work. This is an important aspect of society. And so there was that ethos about him. But was he speaking more to the broad general sort of system or is he speaking to Christians within that system or was it just a little bit of both. I think either way, I you know, I'm interested to sort of think that through in relation to marks.
00:14:59
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a little of both. I think if you I think Moody would say there is nothing wrong with being rich as long as your gain is not done in an unjust manner, and then you are obligated to plow that back into those who are less fortunate. Now he has no time for people who are lazy. That that's right, That no way that ain't happening. But for people that work hard, particularly wives and children. What he did during the course of his entire life was raised money from wealthy people to provide social services we would call them, for these people. And he saw that as a correct reading of the Bible. That's what the Bible teaches, that we care for those who cannot care for themselves. The rich must care for the poor, as long as the poor are actually working.
00:16:37
Speaker 1: I remember something, and we'll see if you remember this or if I'm just totally misremembering it about dial Moody. He had given a critique of what I believe or called mission churches. And his part of his comment, and this is going somewhere back to, you know, sort of the comparison between Moody and Marks. But as I recall it, his critique was that these rich churches, we're sending money sort of across the pond, you know, across the tracks, we might say, I guess, to these poorer churches and these poorer individuals. And mister Moody gave this critique, and he said, why don't you just go over there and give them a ride in your carriage? Why aren't you engaging more specifically with yes. And so while we talk a lot and appropriately talk a lot about Moody sort of taking this creating these social services through the wealthy donations from the wealthy, I think it's also really crucial to highlight the fact that Moody never intended to keep the rich away from the poor or vice versa, that he viewed this as part of this whole complex that he's looking at is saying, no, we need to be with each other. Yes, there isn't a rich poor aspect of this.
00:17:51
Speaker 2: That is absolutely correct, James, and thank you for bringing that up. Moody did not think that just giving money away was all that God required. He required us to be engaged practically, face to face, you know, flesh on flesh kind of engagement with each other. I think that's one of the reasons he was so moved by the YMCA, because one of the things the YMCA did was it brought business men into the why to help young men who were immigrating to cities and masses, to give lectures, talks, you know, teaching them, hey, here's how you do this, here's how you do that, so that it wasn't just a matter of here's ten bucks. It was life to life. I think that's a term, you know, life on life evangelism or life on life discipleship, that you need to engage with these people as people. They're not horses. You don't just buy them carets. You know that, of course they need carrots, but these are human beings and so you need to have your hands in their lives. And that's what the church is about. It's not one group sits over here, another group sits over there, and they send him money every once in a while. It's this much more life on life engagement that is central to what it means to be a faithful Christian. To answer jesus question or the question, who is my neighbor, it's the good Samaritan did not just give the guy money. He actually took care of him and and gave him money. And that's I think that's the part of this that Moody has something to say to us today. It's too easy to just write a check. What we need to do is really see these people as human beings as Jesus sees them, and pour ourselves into their lives.
00:20:28
Speaker 1: And I think part of where I wanted to kind of get to with this is you see, Moody, And what's hindering all of that that you just discussed, this sort of Christian obligation, the care of neighbor, the overflowing of the love of God in material ways, not just in giving up money, but actually in time and embody to sort of care for one another. I think one of the things that he would say is it's sin. It's our unwillingness to yield to the spirit of God. It's our unwillingness to love God with all we are and have it's selfishness. It's these things that are creeping in all over the place. But I think interestingly he has a solution for that, and it's the Gospel. It's the ongoing work of sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Like there's a theological element to deal Moody's understanding of this where Christians are going to be moved forward progressively, not perfectly, but progressively toward a greater love of neighbor. I would argue that the biggest problem in Marxist system is that he offers no solution to the sort of overpowering nature, the overreach of a state. So for those of you who are unfamiliar Marx theorizes that what's going to have to happen in order for the bourgeoisie right to be overcome by the proletariat is a revolution some sort of Usually it's a violent revolution. Once that vile revolution takes place, then what you'd have as a transnational state that is going to be managing the economic relations between people, and that transnational state is to eventually relinquish power. Now he gives no mechanism for that relinquishment of power. He gives no understanding of how that's going to go. And I think in part it's because he is lacking in his deep understanding of how hard the human heart actually is. How do you deal with selfishness? How do you deal with greed? Now that is not me saying the only solution to this is sin, right, It's like, I think it is more complex than that. But you see it in Marxist philosophy. As he draws this forward, he has no solution really to maintaining these sorts of relationships between people, because if you got rid of the government completely, he intuitively knows that's going to be chaotic. And yet keeping the government doesn't really solve the problem because greg as you noted like there's excess at the top. They're not participating in society in the same way as Marx was sort of trying to map this out, And so Marxism one thing you could say for this sort of socialist vision, it is in part problematic because it has no way to buffer against the same sort of excess is that he's critiquing at the beginning. It just doesn't really solve the problem. You can always have people, yeah, you can always have people taking advantage of the system, where I think Moody at least has this sort of the theological understanding and obviously you and I agree with this. It's the right and understanding. Right, we need to be changed. It's the people who are screwing things up. So until we're transformed, nothing's really going to be set right one hundred percent.
00:24:01
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's a naive understanding of human nature. Now, we can talk about humans being kind and generous, and we can pull our anecdotes out and that's all true, but human beings are also incredibly selfish, power hungry, cruel. Anybody that's looked in the mirror and thought honestly about their own life can find that they find the selfish part of themselves, the cruel part of themselves, the power hungry part of themselves, the egotistical part of themselves. And simply doing away with classes doesn't fix that. I mean, it's naive. If I can quote Peter Townsend from the who you know, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. We don't get fooled again. Well apparently we do. This is, you know, take from the rich, give to the poor till there ain't no rich no more. Now, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be incentives and et cetera, et cetera, to make things fair and to be as just as possible, et cetera, et cetera. That's that's equally naive. This notion that somehow the the the blind hand of the market will drive all this, well, that's Bologne. We saw that in in Rockefeller and Carnegie and the great robber barons. The government finally had to pass antitrust laws, we had to develop labor unions. Those were all necessary things. Why, because of the nature of the human heart. So the problem with Marx is exactly what you said. It is utterly naive about what human beings are really like and what the state can accomplish it. It's just incredibly naive.
00:26:20
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think there it's sort of saying, and maybe I'll agree with this. I would say that the and I don't mean this in the Old Testament law sense, although it would encompass the Old Testament law. But I would say the law and the Gospel do two different things, you know. I go to that passage where Jesus is challenged on divorce and the Pharisee asked him, so, why if this was so bad, why didn't Moses tell us to issue a certificate or divorce? And what does Jesus respond? He says, it's because of the hardness of your heart that Moses gave you that command. But I'm telling you that from the beginning it was to be male and female joined for life, one flesh. There's an ideal that Jesus is affirming. But then there's also the reality of the situation that the law is maintain managing right. And so when we look at these systems, there's an important aspect I think. I think it's actually really crucial of this sinction. The Gospel transforms, the Gospel changes the human heart, The Gospel regenerates us, recreates us. Law keeps us in check. Yeah, and so law reveals certain things about God's order. It gestures towards God's justice, It shows us, you know, sort of where God's order draws lines, and it keeps us in theory, in principle, it's supposed to keep us from going across the lines that shouldn't be crossed. Right, So, if you're going to get divorced, that's bad enough, but then we also want you to make sure that you're taking care of the woman that you just divorced. Largely the purpose of a lot of those old Testament laws, and I would argue that as we carry that forward into national laws, we see very similar things. These are not solutions, but they're not trivial sort of half measures either. These are important systems and structures that we're putting in place that need to adjust and make sure that the excesses of sin are being restrained. And I think that as we're looking at something like a we know republican democracy in the United States, and I don't mean republican by the party, but republican by the philosophy. But we see republican democracy in the United States, we see capitalism in the United States, and then we compare that to socialism with Marx. What we need to understand is they're both doing something very similar. They're just approaching that in very different ways, and each of them is going to have their chinks in the armor that really have to be dealt with. But ultimately, what Moody seems to be doing is saying, I'm going to look at it from a theological reality. I'm going to be calling Christians to the Gospel. I'm going to be calling non believers to the Gospel, and then the Holy Spirit is going to be working on them, and these things will adjust to a certain degree. Arguably, I would say he's he's a bit naive on that to a certain degree. Mood he is he over He may over stretch or have a greater optimism for how much can actually change simply through you know, Christian conversion. But at the same time he's getting the problem rate and the solution rate. I think he's just missing sort of more of a structural element. We're on the Mark side. Marx is structuring, but he's not really understanding the underlying problem and the deep solution that needs to be there.
00:29:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that's exactly right, James. I think I think at the end of the day, Marx fails to deal with the fundamental problem. It's what Luther called the curve of the self into the self. You know, it's this human beings are fundamentally selfish, and it's just history is replete with that. Again, just look in the mirror and think about yourself. How much are you willing to give away to somebody else? How much of what you worked for are you willing to give to somebody else, even if you're a believer. And you know, so, as we talked before we were on the air, you know, a lot of the New Testament was written as a result of these sorts of strife, strife between Jews and Gentiles. Why was the office of deacon created in the Book of Acts. Well, you know, the more Palestinian Jews are getting more than the Greek oriented Jews, so we have to it's the same old stuff. And I just don't think that the solution that Marx proposes works. It just doesn't. I mean, you've heard the old joke about the college professor who gave out the exams to everybody, and when they come back, everybody has the same grade, and they're you know, hey, I you know this guy didn't even study. Wait a minute, you know, and he said, well, it's socialism. Everybody gets the same and the you know, the class goes up for But wait a minute, that's not right. I worked more, I studied more. Sorry, that's just there's a all. All these ideas are great on paper till it's till it's hitting you. Yeah, you know, to abolish private property, Okay, it's great, but you know it's not just for the guy in the big house down the road. It's for you and your little house.
00:32:19
Speaker 1: That's right.
00:32:19
Speaker 2: And what sounds great initially when you start to think about it carefully, are you willing to work hard for somebody else who is not willing to work hard. I don't think human beings think that way.
00:32:39
Speaker 1: It doesn't feel like we think that way. And I think that is sort of an underlying problem with marks we see it. You know, we shouldn't treat these systems as that they're clean, like as as they're totally separate, right, and so, you know, there are elements of socialism already baked into our democracy. As capitalists as we are, we have things like welfare to help people out. We have things like unemployment to help people out, and those are appropriate social programs that are you to be used to help those who are down in their luck. They're having problems, you know, they can't get work, et cetera, et cetera. And yet you know, we talk a lot about the abuses of those programs, and the abuses we talk about are really more related to things like all these people just don't want to work, they're lazy, or they're what have you. Now we talk about misappropriation funds and all that other kind of fun stuff too, But the point is we identify that basic aspect of what you're talking about. There are some people who are who are giving welfare two who could be working and they're not. That is one of the basic fundamental arguments that it's always made. And so even in our system, we are identifying that as a problem. And it's a problem that you it's very difficult to get around because even when you tell the story about the teacher who gives all the students the same grade, Right, maybe if he gives everybody an A, that's all right, But I'm guys, seeing he doesn't. You almost have to assume that everybody gets a C. Yep, because when you're averaging these things out right, if somebody else gets an F and you're borrowing from the A to pull that up, you're going to hit a C. And so now the person with the A gets to C, the person with the F gets to CE, and the person with the A is like, WHOA. I put way more effort into this than a C effort. Hey, that's just the way it is. And I think we're fundamentally really opposed to that, in part because we're looking for individual achievement.
00:34:42
Speaker 2: Yes, and I want to be quick to say it's not fair to say that poverty is a result of laziness, or even that most poverty is the result of laziness. Correct, there certainly is, that is part of it. But there are injustices in the system, and the system can be improved. The question is is the improvement that Marx is providing really an improvement. I think it's it just doesn't work. It hasn't worked successfully anywhere in the world. Now. There are a few people that will still do well. Christian the early church was socialists. Look at acts, they had all things in common. No, that's not what the text says the Church did not come in and take all their goods away from them. They chose to give their goods and share them among each other. That's entirely different than the state saying I'm going to take the vast majority of the money you make, and I'm going to equally distribute it to everybody. Moody would say the early Church was behaving according to scripture because they were choosing of their own will to love their neighbor and giving it to support each other. That's not socialism. That's community charity. That's what amish do. I mean, build a barn. Everybody, go help build the barn.
00:36:32
Speaker 1: That's right. And I think you see that distinction even more clearly when you read Paul. You know Paul a couple times and his letters talks about not muzzling the oxen while it's treading grain. And yet Paul, in order that the church would not be hindered by his request for funds, foregoes the reception of those funds and works a different job. And I think that that sort of ethos is what the Christian community in early acts is actually doing. It's saying like this, these things that we have are not our own all. In some ways, they're following Deuteronomy sixty five, right, love the Lord your God, with all you are, with all you with with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength. Well, that last word strength is ode and Hebrew it's the same word that's translated very in the phrase very good at the end of Genesis one. And so what you have is this interesting like adverbial reference in Deuteronomy sixty five. It probably refers to something like your muchness, like all of your resources, that you have, all of your excess. This is what goes to God. And so I think that there's an interesting way in which that's what they're following. But again we see that as sort of a theological motivation, not a motivation that is demanded by a state, right, And I think that there's there's a clear distinction in scripture between what you're Yeah, you know, the socialist sort of tendency. Right, Yes, we should all choose to be charitable to one another and care for one another in community versus the state is going to tell us exactly how to go about doing that exactly, that's yeah. And so the one is Christianity, the other is socialism. And to a large extent, Marxism.
00:38:30
Speaker 2: Yes, clearly, the Bible teaches people of means have an obligation to be charitable to those without, particularly those who are without through new fault of their own. Paul also says, if you don't work, you should need and I understand in a complex economy like ours, there are people that are wanting to work and they can't through no fault of their own. That's not what he talking about, So you know it, It seems to me that that is that is what Paul is talking about. That is that we are obligated to take care of each other as long as we are all doing what God commands of us, and that is to work to the extent that we are able. To Let me.
00:39:29
Speaker 1: Let me shift gears a little bit here because I'm kind of interesting. I know you and Erwin wrote this together. I'm wondering what the impetus for this was. Did you know when you guys got together, did did you and Erwin sort of talk about a little bit why now for this book?
00:39:48
Speaker 2: Yeah, Irwin was the driver of this. This was his idea. I think he was concerned about the rise of interest in socialism and flat out communism in the United States, and he felt like and believed that these two men that were contemporaries, and by the way, Moody was frankly, far more well known than Marx was when they were alive. That's clearly been flipped. But Moody was virtually everybody in the English speaking world knew who Dwight Moody was. They you know, Karl Marx who. But he believed that these two men who were contemporaries addressing the same problem from radically different perspectives. That is frankly in play again. So how are we to think about the world. So, you know, Irwin did the section on Marx. I am not a Marx guy. I'm given a large portion of my life to Dwight Moody. And he knew that I had written previously on Moody's social vision, so it was kind of low hanging fruit for me to just pick this up. So Irwin is the author and the researcher of the first half on Marx. I did the section on Moody, and the contrast should be clear and sharp for the reader. And then you know, pick one. That's the point one choice. What are you going to invest your life in how are you going to see the world and so, and this is where Erwin is a pastor and I'm an academic. You know, he wants to bang and I need that. That's the application the challenge people the So at the end of the day, that was the impetus for the book. Now, I think the driving impetus was the you know, the political climate in the United States, particularly right now. And I don't engage in significant amounts of political analysis. And again, him being a pastor, in me being an academic, we are interested in somewhat different things. He sees things I don't. So I think it was a concern for him about what pastorally he was hearing, both in the country and in the church about Marxism generally. That's I think that's a fair reading of the impetus.
00:43:03
Speaker 1: James, Yeah, I think that's helpful. It accords with what I read a little bit in chapter eight Democratic Socialism Marxist Marxism Light, which I assumed was a pastor looter chapter. Yes, and you know, because you had told me you'd written mostly on the You've written the Moody parts, you'd written the Marxist parts, and and so I do think that that's a It's an interesting problem that we're facing right now in the United States because we are seeing more socialists communists being elected are close to elected in a variety of states. Obviously the primary one is the gentleman who was elected mayor in New York. Yes, Mom, Donnie, and and you know, we're starting to see some of these programs instituted the New York markets, for instance, the state or the city funded markets that are you know, cutting prices by a third. These are there's a sense in which you can look at that and go interesting and and also really good. You know, hey, glad he's helping people out. I think this is a you know, it's a nice program, this is fantastic whatever, But we very seldom read that as a whole system. I was listening to a news program the other day where they were talking about the New York bodegas who just weren't going to be able to keep up on price and we're going to suffer from competition with these city grocers, and the gentleman on the democratic socialist side, uh basically said, well, if you you know, if you can't make it in that business, maybe you shouldn't be in that business. It's like, well, wait a minute, this the city the city grocers have been you know, funded by millions of dollars in taxpayer money that you know, that's their business model. It's almost an unfair advantage. It is an unfair advantage. And so you know, you've got all of these sort of things ruling, and we're seeing them be promoted as these very simple solutions to extremely complex problems. And I think for people who haven't lived, you and I are old enough to remember Fidel Castro's sort of at his zenith in Cuba. We're old enough to remember the you know, the Berlin Wall coming down, and you know, the abolishment of socialism slash communism in eastern Germany. We're you know, I've got a friend who grew up in communist Romania and has told his story a number of times to me, which is just fantastic. Like, you know, he'd tell me get up in the morning, and he knew what he was going to do that day. He was going to go wait four hours in a line. And when I asked him what he was waiting four hours for, he said, whatever they had. He's like, it didn't or what you were waiting for you needed everything right, And I think that we don't always have that sort of historical context, especially younger generations, to look at these things and sit back and say, what have these things really wrought? And without demonizing one or the other, without saying, you know, republican democracy never has any problems. Obviously that's not true. But I think what we can say is that swapping systems. Kim and I came up with this analogy. When we'd look at new jobs, we'd say, the grass is never greener. The brown patches are just in different places, yes, And so when we're switching these systems, the brown patches are going to be in different places. And that, I think is it comes out well in the book. You know, when we talk about democratic socialism, it doesn't really feel like the book has a democratic emphasis to it, right, Like, Hey, we need to stick with the same system we've got. What it's trying to point to and gesture to is, look, we've got the Gospel, We've got a theological reality we can play into, and these things are really crucial. Having that theological understanding is really crucial to the way we live life on this planet.
00:47:13
Speaker 2: And I also wonder if the church had done its job and was doing its job, how much of this would have any traction. I was talking to a friend who, you know is he just retired, but he was in finance, and he said, the you know, the problem is the top ten percent is flourishing and when everybody else is struggling, these ideas get traction. He's absolutely correct. But what if what if the evangelical church had fully adopted Moody's model, that is, they were actively engaged, hands on in their communities, providing social services. So what if the churches had significant food depositories. What if rich suburban churches were really in full fellowship with poor urban churches and we're sending not just money but brain power down to help community development. What if? What if? What if? You know, if we had done more of these things, would this have as much traction as it does? And my guess is it would. In fact, Frederick Ingles at one point said the reason communism didn't catch up in England is because of Moody's revivals in the Salvation Army. Well that's pretty telling. Yeah, you know, when the church does what it's supposed to do, then it is sult and light and it's eleven or it's uh, you know it, it's sult and light and and it has a positive impact on life in the community. And I'm not saying that the church can do all that needs to be done. I'm not opposed to you know, social security, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But we certainly could do much more, especially if we cooperated to build social programs into the community, after school programs, programs for people with disabilities, informal education of food banks, employment services, basic skill, life skill stuff. These are things that we could be doing, and not many churches do them. You just don't. And I think had we been better at that, evangelicalism would be perceived differently. One and two, I think a lot of the traction for this would be undercut.
00:50:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's an interesting phenomenon. And the example I usually give is rounding up at the grocery store. You'll go to the grocery store, you'll pay your groceries and maybe you've got fifteen cents left on your bill and get up to a round number, and it's like, oh, would you like to round up? And what I think is happening in part is as we institute these social systems on a governmental level. It feels like rounding up is enough. In other words, the government now is taking care of all that, and we don't really have to think about it. It just comes out of my check. I don't really have any skin in the game to do this, whereas had we kept some of those things. This is something David Fitch argues in The Great Giveaway, which I think is fantastic. But as the Church gives away some of these things, we weren't cognizant of the downstream effects, just the formative effects of what that does to the Christian mind, what that does to the Christian world view, for lack of a better term, how we imagine the world around us. It's like, now all this stuff gets supported over to the government, and the church really is just where we get together and sing a few hymns. It's not quite that stark, but it certainly trends that way. And I think that you know, the argument you're making is sound. It's we needed those things, We needed to do those things. We need to engage in those things, not because we're trying to fix society primarily, but because these are constitutive of who we are as Christians. This is part of what it means to be the church.
00:52:28
Speaker 2: And they are commanded activities by God. It's a simple obedience. That's how Moody saw it. Yeah, well, why are we having this conversation. You know, the guy's poor, Let's figure out a way to fix it. I mean, haven't you read your Bible recently. That's kind of the way he would go at those things. Yeah.
00:52:51
Speaker 1: So well, it's a fascinating book. It's a fascinating contrast. I think, you know, again, Moody, he's sort of and I've found this as I've studied Moody and interact with Moody across his life. He's got a real earthiness to him. Yes, right, he's sort of in the grind. He's very seldom outside of the labor you know, everything from working in Civil War camps, you know, among the wounded, you know, to rebuilding after the Chicago fire. You get this sense about the man that he is just in the mess all the time, yep. Versus what we see in Marx, which he is an academic trying to think these things through, but very much disconnected. And I think this is some of the things that the pastor Lutter really helps clarify in the book, this is a guy who has wealthy patrons helping him to get through school, like he's not he's not getting his hands that dirty. You know, he's really pining. This guy thinking these things through and not really getting a whole lot of insight from a practical standpoint of actually working with the people on the ground. And I think that is one of those real fundamental distinctions between Marx and Moody, is that Moody is doing it and maybe needed to reflect a little more. Like we had the conversation with Mark Noll about you know, sort of this bottom up revolution and you know, the grassroots sort of a lame and approach that Moody really exemplifies, and how that was lacking some intellectual rigor. And it's fair enough, but at the same time, you know, you can't have all intellectual rigor and no connection to the ground. And I think you know what we're talking about is this spectrum and Marks and Moody just really highlight that aspect. So love the contrast. Love the book came out yesterday, so it's probably starting to sell like hotcakes and excited for you guys, and see how this goes and really appreciate again Greg you coming on and talking through Moody and the church and a little bit of Marx.
00:55:00
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me go buy a book.
00:55:04
Speaker 1: Yeah, and once again we'll put the I'll put the link to the book in the show notes. But once again, the name of the book is Marx and Moody. It's written by Greg Quiggle and doctor Irwin Lutzer. And the title, the full title is Marx and Moody, Two Contemporaries, two Gospels, two Tombstones, one choice. It's it's out on Amazon and I'm sure there are places, but we'll shoot a link in the show notes, so i'd encourage you to go get the book. Very good, Greg, you did fantastic Jawa Moody as always, and should also reference your other book, Bread and Bibles. You know you do have two of these, Yeah.
00:55:43
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you if you want a more detailed look at how Moody understood the relationship between evangelism and serving the poor, I did a previous book also with Moody Publishers, entitled Bread and Bibles, and it's about evangelism and social work and how mister Moody understood that the things that influenced his thought on these subjects, and then lots of things Moody did. People have no idea. They think he was just an evangelist. That's absolutely not true. He was an educator, He was involved in practically feeding the poor, getting people jobs, kind of on and on and on. So yeah, give it a read.
00:56:28
Speaker 1: We'll link. We'll link to that one in the show notes as well, everybody. So I just encourage you to pick up both Bred and Bibles. Is great overview of really an in depth treatment of deal Moody's social vision and then you have Marx and Moody that won't disappoint. You'll enjoy reading this and it does give you a completely different perspective on the theological challenges that we're facing right now. So I always enjoy a good Quiggle Looser team up, and maybe we'll see more of these in the future, hopefully. Very good. Well, thanks again man for being here, and thanks everybody for listening. We'll catch you on the next episode of Thinking Christian. Take care. I just want to take a second to thank the team at Life Audio for their partnership with us on the Thinking Christian podcast. If you go to lifeaudio dot com, you'll find dozens of other faith centered podcasts in their network. They've got shows about prayer, Bible study, parenting, and more.
Speaker 1: The world is becoming increasingly proficient at telling stories that deny God. As such, we need Thinking Christian to become as natural as breathing. Welcome to the Thinking Christian podcast. I'm Doctor James Spencer. Through calm, thoughtful theological discussions, Thinking Christian highlights the ways God is working in the world and questions the underlying social, cultural, and political assumptions that hinder Christians from becoming more like Christ. Now on to today's episode of Thinking Christian. Hey, everybody, welcome to this episode of Thinking Christian on Doctor James Spencer and I'm joined today by one of our recurring guests and friends, doctor Greg Quiggle. I'm really excited to have him on the program today to talk about a new book that he has written with Pastor Irwin Lutzer, Marx and Moody, Two Contemporaries, Two Gospels, Two Tombstones, One Choice, and that just actually released yesterday. But from what Greg and I talked about in the pre show recording, even in pre it was tracking really well on Amazon, and so excited for you, man, this is great.
00:01:05
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's nice to write something that somebody might actually read for a change.
00:01:10
Speaker 1: That's normally the goal I just haven't had it happen yet.
00:01:14
Speaker 2: Yeah, well it's being of academic existence.
00:01:19
Speaker 1: Well, this book's really interesting because I'm not exactly sure that people would immediately put Marx and Moody together. So why don't we start there? What was the conception of Marx and Moody in this comparison?
00:01:35
Speaker 2: Well, first off, most people probably don't know that their lives overlapped by a little over forty years. So they are contemporaries. These are not people that lived in radically different places and times. Now it is true, they come from quite different backgrounds. Karl Marx's Jew German converts to Lutheranism and then eventually jettisons any sort of Christianity at all. He is highly educated and is given opportunities that Dwight Moody will never see. Moody, by comparison, is born in rural Massachusetts, has maybe five or six years of formal education. He grows up basically fatherless. His dad dies when he's four, in really rank poverty. So they come from really different worlds, but they share a common world in this sense. Both of their lives will ultimately be focused on the emerging urban center, so industrialization, immigration, all these sorts of things that are going to pour into what we sometimes refer to as Gilded Age with the rise of the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts and folks like this Carnegie and all that happens as a part of that. Really are the worlds in which they both inhabit. Mark spends a good portion of his time in London. Moody will also be in London. So although they are one is American and one is European, they do have common experiences in terms of seeing the impact of industrialization, urbanization, immigration on these massive urban centers.
00:03:44
Speaker 1: One of the things that strikes me between, you know, in the contrast between Marx and Moody is the difference in the backgrounds. So you know, we talked we've talked about Moody before, where Moody has you know, more of a fifth grade level of education before he goes off to help his family. Marx is schooled like he has academic training. He's captured by the philosophy of Hegel, very much involved with rethinking Hegel's dialectic. It's i would say, one of the three big sort of influences on him. He's also looking at sort of a theory of history, and you know the critique of political economy, but so much of that is grounded in Hegelian philosophy, which produces this dialectic right of pull and push. We might say, we don't have to go too far into Hagel, but just to underscore the point that they are coming at this from two very different vantage points, even though they're intersecting in time. Marx is a much more studied person than Moody. Moody is not ignorant by any stretch of the imagination, but he's not interacting with the academic tomes in the same way or that Marx is.
00:05:00
Speaker 2: No if you walked up to Dwight Moody and said, explain Hegalianism, he would probably laugh and say, let's go for a ride in the cart or something. Moody is a concrete, practical thinker. He's a farmer at heart to some extent. Marx is theoretical and philosophical. So one is looking at it from a kind of a bottom common man perspective. The other one, although his work is focused on the plight of the common man, is addressing it from a theeal, theoretical, philosophical perspective.
00:05:54
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think at that time, you know, you have Hegel, who obviously does some things with God, although his later students really push back on that aspect of his philosophy. They feel like it gives too much away. And so you also have a gentleman named Feuerbach who would have argued that religion is self alienation, human self alienation. It's keeping us from realizing who we truly are, in other words, and so you have these two very different philosophies. Because Moody as uneducated, his lack of formal education does not leave him ignorant of scripture. And so for Moody it's going to be no, we find our true humanness, although I doubt he'd ever say it that way, we find our true humanness in following Jesus Christ. Whereas for Marx it's no, religion is sort of the opiate of the masses. It's keeping people dull and numb and keeping them from understanding what true humanness looks like. And so for him, religion is an obstacle. For Moody, religion really is specif particular Christianity is the solution.
00:07:03
Speaker 2: Yeah. So not only that Moody believes in life after death. He believes in the eternal, so he is not interested in just addressing the current and the secular. He's also interested in preparing people for the next life while addressing the plights they find themselves in in this life. But since he believes in the eternal, he prioritizes the eternal. Now. What is unique is what Moody does is he refuses to use the eternal as an excuse to not address the temporal, or the secular, or the concrete or this life. Now. He prioritizes them, but he does not in any way, shape or form, make one important to the exclusion of the other. Marx isn't interested in that. Marx's concrete materialism, this is it, and so he's not into and so thus his comment, it's the opiate for the masses. Oh, people use the idea of the eternal as a way to justify or make them able to oppress people. It'll get fixed in the next life, don't worry about it. That is certainly not what Moody is saying, But he's also saying it it will get fixed in the next life. But that doesn't let us off the biblical hook to address this life as well.
00:09:08
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's an interesting dichotomy here because Marx obviously moves more towards socialism where there's going to be I suppose the more popular way to understand it, and I'm sure it's more nuanced than this, but I'm just going to say it advance our conversation. Socialism there is no real ownership. Everybody shares everything in common, and so there's a redistribution of wealth across society. The socialism. For Moody, he's not advancing socialism, but he is redistributing wealth, primarily his wealth and the wealth that is given to him. And he's doing that as he sees needs everywhere. And so there's a sense of odd resonance there in the sense that both care about this sort of redistribution, both see the inequities in society and seek to address them. Rudy from a very much a love of God, and then you know, sort of that emerging as love of neighbor, Mark seemingly from more of a sense of what I would And this may be too generous, but I would say like a deep sense of justice that is misguided by his unwillingness to contemplate God.
00:10:26
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, he's utterly naive about the state. His idea that yes, there is no ownership. Everything is owned by the state. So the state then becomes the arbitra and the one that redistributes, and YadA, YadA, YadA. Well, you know, name a state in the history of the world that acted justly towards all its people. I mean, why should I believe that the state is going to behave anymore with any more charity than the capitalist All that does is allow those who are in power in the state. And all you have to do is look at the communist states under the old Soviet Union. Yes, the workers got YadA, YadA, YadA, but don't think for a minute that the members of the High members of the polit bureau weren't living high on a hog. They absolutely were, excuse they had all kinds of fancy cars, you know, better food, better clothing, vacation places. So what was the difference between Leonie Brezhneff and Rockefeller. Frankly nothing because he had all this stuff because he was the head of the state in that sense. So there's a kind of naivete there. And the other thing that Moody would say is Christians are under an obligation to act justly. If you're a Christian and you own a business, pay your people properly, treat your workers with respect. Now he's going to get criticized for not saying that enough, and frankly, that is probably fair early in his career. But you talked about Moody growing and his understanding. One of the things that we see as he gets older, as he begins to say, this is not right the way that people are treating workers. This is wrong, and the Bible teaches that we're not supposed to treat people this way. What's interesting is, and it's outside of the realm of this book, but in the Catholic Church they are developing Catholic social thought, and this is where we get ideas like minimum wage et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Because it's a matter of justice. For Moody, it's a matter of charity. Love God loves me. I'm undeserving. I am obligated to love my neighbor and make sure that he is appropriately rewarded for his labor. And those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to labor must be taken care of. And he did that practically all the time.
00:14:11
Speaker 1: Do you see in Moody's thaw, Greg So, when he's talking about that and we're talking about Christian charity, we're seeing him sort of advocate for these things, particularly as you said later in life. I remember something about the trusts that were being set up for children, you know, making sure that your children had you know, so much. But his comment was, you know, don't make you know, you're you're setting them up financially, but you're also setting them up for spiritual ruin, like they still need to work. This is an important aspect of society. And so there was that ethos about him. But was he speaking more to the broad general sort of system or is he speaking to Christians within that system or was it just a little bit of both. I think either way, I you know, I'm interested to sort of think that through in relation to marks.
00:14:59
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a little of both. I think if you I think Moody would say there is nothing wrong with being rich as long as your gain is not done in an unjust manner, and then you are obligated to plow that back into those who are less fortunate. Now he has no time for people who are lazy. That that's right, That no way that ain't happening. But for people that work hard, particularly wives and children. What he did during the course of his entire life was raised money from wealthy people to provide social services we would call them, for these people. And he saw that as a correct reading of the Bible. That's what the Bible teaches, that we care for those who cannot care for themselves. The rich must care for the poor, as long as the poor are actually working.
00:16:37
Speaker 1: I remember something, and we'll see if you remember this or if I'm just totally misremembering it about dial Moody. He had given a critique of what I believe or called mission churches. And his part of his comment, and this is going somewhere back to, you know, sort of the comparison between Moody and Marks. But as I recall it, his critique was that these rich churches, we're sending money sort of across the pond, you know, across the tracks, we might say, I guess, to these poorer churches and these poorer individuals. And mister Moody gave this critique, and he said, why don't you just go over there and give them a ride in your carriage? Why aren't you engaging more specifically with yes. And so while we talk a lot and appropriately talk a lot about Moody sort of taking this creating these social services through the wealthy donations from the wealthy, I think it's also really crucial to highlight the fact that Moody never intended to keep the rich away from the poor or vice versa, that he viewed this as part of this whole complex that he's looking at is saying, no, we need to be with each other. Yes, there isn't a rich poor aspect of this.
00:17:51
Speaker 2: That is absolutely correct, James, and thank you for bringing that up. Moody did not think that just giving money away was all that God required. He required us to be engaged practically, face to face, you know, flesh on flesh kind of engagement with each other. I think that's one of the reasons he was so moved by the YMCA, because one of the things the YMCA did was it brought business men into the why to help young men who were immigrating to cities and masses, to give lectures, talks, you know, teaching them, hey, here's how you do this, here's how you do that, so that it wasn't just a matter of here's ten bucks. It was life to life. I think that's a term, you know, life on life evangelism or life on life discipleship, that you need to engage with these people as people. They're not horses. You don't just buy them carets. You know that, of course they need carrots, but these are human beings and so you need to have your hands in their lives. And that's what the church is about. It's not one group sits over here, another group sits over there, and they send him money every once in a while. It's this much more life on life engagement that is central to what it means to be a faithful Christian. To answer jesus question or the question, who is my neighbor, it's the good Samaritan did not just give the guy money. He actually took care of him and and gave him money. And that's I think that's the part of this that Moody has something to say to us today. It's too easy to just write a check. What we need to do is really see these people as human beings as Jesus sees them, and pour ourselves into their lives.
00:20:28
Speaker 1: And I think part of where I wanted to kind of get to with this is you see, Moody, And what's hindering all of that that you just discussed, this sort of Christian obligation, the care of neighbor, the overflowing of the love of God in material ways, not just in giving up money, but actually in time and embody to sort of care for one another. I think one of the things that he would say is it's sin. It's our unwillingness to yield to the spirit of God. It's our unwillingness to love God with all we are and have it's selfishness. It's these things that are creeping in all over the place. But I think interestingly he has a solution for that, and it's the Gospel. It's the ongoing work of sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Like there's a theological element to deal Moody's understanding of this where Christians are going to be moved forward progressively, not perfectly, but progressively toward a greater love of neighbor. I would argue that the biggest problem in Marxist system is that he offers no solution to the sort of overpowering nature, the overreach of a state. So for those of you who are unfamiliar Marx theorizes that what's going to have to happen in order for the bourgeoisie right to be overcome by the proletariat is a revolution some sort of Usually it's a violent revolution. Once that vile revolution takes place, then what you'd have as a transnational state that is going to be managing the economic relations between people, and that transnational state is to eventually relinquish power. Now he gives no mechanism for that relinquishment of power. He gives no understanding of how that's going to go. And I think in part it's because he is lacking in his deep understanding of how hard the human heart actually is. How do you deal with selfishness? How do you deal with greed? Now that is not me saying the only solution to this is sin, right, It's like, I think it is more complex than that. But you see it in Marxist philosophy. As he draws this forward, he has no solution really to maintaining these sorts of relationships between people, because if you got rid of the government completely, he intuitively knows that's going to be chaotic. And yet keeping the government doesn't really solve the problem because greg as you noted like there's excess at the top. They're not participating in society in the same way as Marx was sort of trying to map this out, And so Marxism one thing you could say for this sort of socialist vision, it is in part problematic because it has no way to buffer against the same sort of excess is that he's critiquing at the beginning. It just doesn't really solve the problem. You can always have people, yeah, you can always have people taking advantage of the system, where I think Moody at least has this sort of the theological understanding and obviously you and I agree with this. It's the right and understanding. Right, we need to be changed. It's the people who are screwing things up. So until we're transformed, nothing's really going to be set right one hundred percent.
00:24:01
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's a naive understanding of human nature. Now, we can talk about humans being kind and generous, and we can pull our anecdotes out and that's all true, but human beings are also incredibly selfish, power hungry, cruel. Anybody that's looked in the mirror and thought honestly about their own life can find that they find the selfish part of themselves, the cruel part of themselves, the power hungry part of themselves, the egotistical part of themselves. And simply doing away with classes doesn't fix that. I mean, it's naive. If I can quote Peter Townsend from the who you know, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. We don't get fooled again. Well apparently we do. This is, you know, take from the rich, give to the poor till there ain't no rich no more. Now, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be incentives and et cetera, et cetera, to make things fair and to be as just as possible, et cetera, et cetera. That's that's equally naive. This notion that somehow the the the blind hand of the market will drive all this, well, that's Bologne. We saw that in in Rockefeller and Carnegie and the great robber barons. The government finally had to pass antitrust laws, we had to develop labor unions. Those were all necessary things. Why, because of the nature of the human heart. So the problem with Marx is exactly what you said. It is utterly naive about what human beings are really like and what the state can accomplish it. It's just incredibly naive.
00:26:20
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think there it's sort of saying, and maybe I'll agree with this. I would say that the and I don't mean this in the Old Testament law sense, although it would encompass the Old Testament law. But I would say the law and the Gospel do two different things, you know. I go to that passage where Jesus is challenged on divorce and the Pharisee asked him, so, why if this was so bad, why didn't Moses tell us to issue a certificate or divorce? And what does Jesus respond? He says, it's because of the hardness of your heart that Moses gave you that command. But I'm telling you that from the beginning it was to be male and female joined for life, one flesh. There's an ideal that Jesus is affirming. But then there's also the reality of the situation that the law is maintain managing right. And so when we look at these systems, there's an important aspect I think. I think it's actually really crucial of this sinction. The Gospel transforms, the Gospel changes the human heart, The Gospel regenerates us, recreates us. Law keeps us in check. Yeah, and so law reveals certain things about God's order. It gestures towards God's justice, It shows us, you know, sort of where God's order draws lines, and it keeps us in theory, in principle, it's supposed to keep us from going across the lines that shouldn't be crossed. Right, So, if you're going to get divorced, that's bad enough, but then we also want you to make sure that you're taking care of the woman that you just divorced. Largely the purpose of a lot of those old Testament laws, and I would argue that as we carry that forward into national laws, we see very similar things. These are not solutions, but they're not trivial sort of half measures either. These are important systems and structures that we're putting in place that need to adjust and make sure that the excesses of sin are being restrained. And I think that as we're looking at something like a we know republican democracy in the United States, and I don't mean republican by the party, but republican by the philosophy. But we see republican democracy in the United States, we see capitalism in the United States, and then we compare that to socialism with Marx. What we need to understand is they're both doing something very similar. They're just approaching that in very different ways, and each of them is going to have their chinks in the armor that really have to be dealt with. But ultimately, what Moody seems to be doing is saying, I'm going to look at it from a theological reality. I'm going to be calling Christians to the Gospel. I'm going to be calling non believers to the Gospel, and then the Holy Spirit is going to be working on them, and these things will adjust to a certain degree. Arguably, I would say he's he's a bit naive on that to a certain degree. Mood he is he over He may over stretch or have a greater optimism for how much can actually change simply through you know, Christian conversion. But at the same time he's getting the problem rate and the solution rate. I think he's just missing sort of more of a structural element. We're on the Mark side. Marx is structuring, but he's not really understanding the underlying problem and the deep solution that needs to be there.
00:29:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that's exactly right, James. I think I think at the end of the day, Marx fails to deal with the fundamental problem. It's what Luther called the curve of the self into the self. You know, it's this human beings are fundamentally selfish, and it's just history is replete with that. Again, just look in the mirror and think about yourself. How much are you willing to give away to somebody else? How much of what you worked for are you willing to give to somebody else, even if you're a believer. And you know, so, as we talked before we were on the air, you know, a lot of the New Testament was written as a result of these sorts of strife, strife between Jews and Gentiles. Why was the office of deacon created in the Book of Acts. Well, you know, the more Palestinian Jews are getting more than the Greek oriented Jews, so we have to it's the same old stuff. And I just don't think that the solution that Marx proposes works. It just doesn't. I mean, you've heard the old joke about the college professor who gave out the exams to everybody, and when they come back, everybody has the same grade, and they're you know, hey, I you know this guy didn't even study. Wait a minute, you know, and he said, well, it's socialism. Everybody gets the same and the you know, the class goes up for But wait a minute, that's not right. I worked more, I studied more. Sorry, that's just there's a all. All these ideas are great on paper till it's till it's hitting you. Yeah, you know, to abolish private property, Okay, it's great, but you know it's not just for the guy in the big house down the road. It's for you and your little house.
00:32:19
Speaker 1: That's right.
00:32:19
Speaker 2: And what sounds great initially when you start to think about it carefully, are you willing to work hard for somebody else who is not willing to work hard. I don't think human beings think that way.
00:32:39
Speaker 1: It doesn't feel like we think that way. And I think that is sort of an underlying problem with marks we see it. You know, we shouldn't treat these systems as that they're clean, like as as they're totally separate, right, and so, you know, there are elements of socialism already baked into our democracy. As capitalists as we are, we have things like welfare to help people out. We have things like unemployment to help people out, and those are appropriate social programs that are you to be used to help those who are down in their luck. They're having problems, you know, they can't get work, et cetera, et cetera. And yet you know, we talk a lot about the abuses of those programs, and the abuses we talk about are really more related to things like all these people just don't want to work, they're lazy, or they're what have you. Now we talk about misappropriation funds and all that other kind of fun stuff too, But the point is we identify that basic aspect of what you're talking about. There are some people who are who are giving welfare two who could be working and they're not. That is one of the basic fundamental arguments that it's always made. And so even in our system, we are identifying that as a problem. And it's a problem that you it's very difficult to get around because even when you tell the story about the teacher who gives all the students the same grade, Right, maybe if he gives everybody an A, that's all right, But I'm guys, seeing he doesn't. You almost have to assume that everybody gets a C. Yep, because when you're averaging these things out right, if somebody else gets an F and you're borrowing from the A to pull that up, you're going to hit a C. And so now the person with the A gets to C, the person with the F gets to CE, and the person with the A is like, WHOA. I put way more effort into this than a C effort. Hey, that's just the way it is. And I think we're fundamentally really opposed to that, in part because we're looking for individual achievement.
00:34:42
Speaker 2: Yes, and I want to be quick to say it's not fair to say that poverty is a result of laziness, or even that most poverty is the result of laziness. Correct, there certainly is, that is part of it. But there are injustices in the system, and the system can be improved. The question is is the improvement that Marx is providing really an improvement. I think it's it just doesn't work. It hasn't worked successfully anywhere in the world. Now. There are a few people that will still do well. Christian the early church was socialists. Look at acts, they had all things in common. No, that's not what the text says the Church did not come in and take all their goods away from them. They chose to give their goods and share them among each other. That's entirely different than the state saying I'm going to take the vast majority of the money you make, and I'm going to equally distribute it to everybody. Moody would say the early Church was behaving according to scripture because they were choosing of their own will to love their neighbor and giving it to support each other. That's not socialism. That's community charity. That's what amish do. I mean, build a barn. Everybody, go help build the barn.
00:36:32
Speaker 1: That's right. And I think you see that distinction even more clearly when you read Paul. You know Paul a couple times and his letters talks about not muzzling the oxen while it's treading grain. And yet Paul, in order that the church would not be hindered by his request for funds, foregoes the reception of those funds and works a different job. And I think that that sort of ethos is what the Christian community in early acts is actually doing. It's saying like this, these things that we have are not our own all. In some ways, they're following Deuteronomy sixty five, right, love the Lord your God, with all you are, with all you with with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength. Well, that last word strength is ode and Hebrew it's the same word that's translated very in the phrase very good at the end of Genesis one. And so what you have is this interesting like adverbial reference in Deuteronomy sixty five. It probably refers to something like your muchness, like all of your resources, that you have, all of your excess. This is what goes to God. And so I think that there's an interesting way in which that's what they're following. But again we see that as sort of a theological motivation, not a motivation that is demanded by a state, right, And I think that there's there's a clear distinction in scripture between what you're Yeah, you know, the socialist sort of tendency. Right, Yes, we should all choose to be charitable to one another and care for one another in community versus the state is going to tell us exactly how to go about doing that exactly, that's yeah. And so the one is Christianity, the other is socialism. And to a large extent, Marxism.
00:38:30
Speaker 2: Yes, clearly, the Bible teaches people of means have an obligation to be charitable to those without, particularly those who are without through new fault of their own. Paul also says, if you don't work, you should need and I understand in a complex economy like ours, there are people that are wanting to work and they can't through no fault of their own. That's not what he talking about, So you know it, It seems to me that that is that is what Paul is talking about. That is that we are obligated to take care of each other as long as we are all doing what God commands of us, and that is to work to the extent that we are able. To Let me.
00:39:29
Speaker 1: Let me shift gears a little bit here because I'm kind of interesting. I know you and Erwin wrote this together. I'm wondering what the impetus for this was. Did you know when you guys got together, did did you and Erwin sort of talk about a little bit why now for this book?
00:39:48
Speaker 2: Yeah, Irwin was the driver of this. This was his idea. I think he was concerned about the rise of interest in socialism and flat out communism in the United States, and he felt like and believed that these two men that were contemporaries, and by the way, Moody was frankly, far more well known than Marx was when they were alive. That's clearly been flipped. But Moody was virtually everybody in the English speaking world knew who Dwight Moody was. They you know, Karl Marx who. But he believed that these two men who were contemporaries addressing the same problem from radically different perspectives. That is frankly in play again. So how are we to think about the world. So, you know, Irwin did the section on Marx. I am not a Marx guy. I'm given a large portion of my life to Dwight Moody. And he knew that I had written previously on Moody's social vision, so it was kind of low hanging fruit for me to just pick this up. So Irwin is the author and the researcher of the first half on Marx. I did the section on Moody, and the contrast should be clear and sharp for the reader. And then you know, pick one. That's the point one choice. What are you going to invest your life in how are you going to see the world and so, and this is where Erwin is a pastor and I'm an academic. You know, he wants to bang and I need that. That's the application the challenge people the So at the end of the day, that was the impetus for the book. Now, I think the driving impetus was the you know, the political climate in the United States, particularly right now. And I don't engage in significant amounts of political analysis. And again, him being a pastor, in me being an academic, we are interested in somewhat different things. He sees things I don't. So I think it was a concern for him about what pastorally he was hearing, both in the country and in the church about Marxism generally. That's I think that's a fair reading of the impetus.
00:43:03
Speaker 1: James, Yeah, I think that's helpful. It accords with what I read a little bit in chapter eight Democratic Socialism Marxist Marxism Light, which I assumed was a pastor looter chapter. Yes, and you know, because you had told me you'd written mostly on the You've written the Moody parts, you'd written the Marxist parts, and and so I do think that that's a It's an interesting problem that we're facing right now in the United States because we are seeing more socialists communists being elected are close to elected in a variety of states. Obviously the primary one is the gentleman who was elected mayor in New York. Yes, Mom, Donnie, and and you know, we're starting to see some of these programs instituted the New York markets, for instance, the state or the city funded markets that are you know, cutting prices by a third. These are there's a sense in which you can look at that and go interesting and and also really good. You know, hey, glad he's helping people out. I think this is a you know, it's a nice program, this is fantastic whatever, But we very seldom read that as a whole system. I was listening to a news program the other day where they were talking about the New York bodegas who just weren't going to be able to keep up on price and we're going to suffer from competition with these city grocers, and the gentleman on the democratic socialist side, uh basically said, well, if you you know, if you can't make it in that business, maybe you shouldn't be in that business. It's like, well, wait a minute, this the city the city grocers have been you know, funded by millions of dollars in taxpayer money that you know, that's their business model. It's almost an unfair advantage. It is an unfair advantage. And so you know, you've got all of these sort of things ruling, and we're seeing them be promoted as these very simple solutions to extremely complex problems. And I think for people who haven't lived, you and I are old enough to remember Fidel Castro's sort of at his zenith in Cuba. We're old enough to remember the you know, the Berlin Wall coming down, and you know, the abolishment of socialism slash communism in eastern Germany. We're you know, I've got a friend who grew up in communist Romania and has told his story a number of times to me, which is just fantastic. Like, you know, he'd tell me get up in the morning, and he knew what he was going to do that day. He was going to go wait four hours in a line. And when I asked him what he was waiting four hours for, he said, whatever they had. He's like, it didn't or what you were waiting for you needed everything right, And I think that we don't always have that sort of historical context, especially younger generations, to look at these things and sit back and say, what have these things really wrought? And without demonizing one or the other, without saying, you know, republican democracy never has any problems. Obviously that's not true. But I think what we can say is that swapping systems. Kim and I came up with this analogy. When we'd look at new jobs, we'd say, the grass is never greener. The brown patches are just in different places, yes, And so when we're switching these systems, the brown patches are going to be in different places. And that, I think is it comes out well in the book. You know, when we talk about democratic socialism, it doesn't really feel like the book has a democratic emphasis to it, right, Like, Hey, we need to stick with the same system we've got. What it's trying to point to and gesture to is, look, we've got the Gospel, We've got a theological reality we can play into, and these things are really crucial. Having that theological understanding is really crucial to the way we live life on this planet.
00:47:13
Speaker 2: And I also wonder if the church had done its job and was doing its job, how much of this would have any traction. I was talking to a friend who, you know is he just retired, but he was in finance, and he said, the you know, the problem is the top ten percent is flourishing and when everybody else is struggling, these ideas get traction. He's absolutely correct. But what if what if the evangelical church had fully adopted Moody's model, that is, they were actively engaged, hands on in their communities, providing social services. So what if the churches had significant food depositories. What if rich suburban churches were really in full fellowship with poor urban churches and we're sending not just money but brain power down to help community development. What if? What if? What if? You know, if we had done more of these things, would this have as much traction as it does? And my guess is it would. In fact, Frederick Ingles at one point said the reason communism didn't catch up in England is because of Moody's revivals in the Salvation Army. Well that's pretty telling. Yeah, you know, when the church does what it's supposed to do, then it is sult and light and it's eleven or it's uh, you know it, it's sult and light and and it has a positive impact on life in the community. And I'm not saying that the church can do all that needs to be done. I'm not opposed to you know, social security, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But we certainly could do much more, especially if we cooperated to build social programs into the community, after school programs, programs for people with disabilities, informal education of food banks, employment services, basic skill, life skill stuff. These are things that we could be doing, and not many churches do them. You just don't. And I think had we been better at that, evangelicalism would be perceived differently. One and two, I think a lot of the traction for this would be undercut.
00:50:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's an interesting phenomenon. And the example I usually give is rounding up at the grocery store. You'll go to the grocery store, you'll pay your groceries and maybe you've got fifteen cents left on your bill and get up to a round number, and it's like, oh, would you like to round up? And what I think is happening in part is as we institute these social systems on a governmental level. It feels like rounding up is enough. In other words, the government now is taking care of all that, and we don't really have to think about it. It just comes out of my check. I don't really have any skin in the game to do this, whereas had we kept some of those things. This is something David Fitch argues in The Great Giveaway, which I think is fantastic. But as the Church gives away some of these things, we weren't cognizant of the downstream effects, just the formative effects of what that does to the Christian mind, what that does to the Christian world view, for lack of a better term, how we imagine the world around us. It's like, now all this stuff gets supported over to the government, and the church really is just where we get together and sing a few hymns. It's not quite that stark, but it certainly trends that way. And I think that you know, the argument you're making is sound. It's we needed those things, We needed to do those things. We need to engage in those things, not because we're trying to fix society primarily, but because these are constitutive of who we are as Christians. This is part of what it means to be the church.
00:52:28
Speaker 2: And they are commanded activities by God. It's a simple obedience. That's how Moody saw it. Yeah, well, why are we having this conversation. You know, the guy's poor, Let's figure out a way to fix it. I mean, haven't you read your Bible recently. That's kind of the way he would go at those things. Yeah.
00:52:51
Speaker 1: So well, it's a fascinating book. It's a fascinating contrast. I think, you know, again, Moody, he's sort of and I've found this as I've studied Moody and interact with Moody across his life. He's got a real earthiness to him. Yes, right, he's sort of in the grind. He's very seldom outside of the labor you know, everything from working in Civil War camps, you know, among the wounded, you know, to rebuilding after the Chicago fire. You get this sense about the man that he is just in the mess all the time, yep. Versus what we see in Marx, which he is an academic trying to think these things through, but very much disconnected. And I think this is some of the things that the pastor Lutter really helps clarify in the book, this is a guy who has wealthy patrons helping him to get through school, like he's not he's not getting his hands that dirty. You know, he's really pining. This guy thinking these things through and not really getting a whole lot of insight from a practical standpoint of actually working with the people on the ground. And I think that is one of those real fundamental distinctions between Marx and Moody, is that Moody is doing it and maybe needed to reflect a little more. Like we had the conversation with Mark Noll about you know, sort of this bottom up revolution and you know, the grassroots sort of a lame and approach that Moody really exemplifies, and how that was lacking some intellectual rigor. And it's fair enough, but at the same time, you know, you can't have all intellectual rigor and no connection to the ground. And I think you know what we're talking about is this spectrum and Marks and Moody just really highlight that aspect. So love the contrast. Love the book came out yesterday, so it's probably starting to sell like hotcakes and excited for you guys, and see how this goes and really appreciate again Greg you coming on and talking through Moody and the church and a little bit of Marx.
00:55:00
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me go buy a book.
00:55:04
Speaker 1: Yeah, and once again we'll put the I'll put the link to the book in the show notes. But once again, the name of the book is Marx and Moody. It's written by Greg Quiggle and doctor Irwin Lutzer. And the title, the full title is Marx and Moody, Two Contemporaries, two Gospels, two Tombstones, one choice. It's it's out on Amazon and I'm sure there are places, but we'll shoot a link in the show notes, so i'd encourage you to go get the book. Very good, Greg, you did fantastic Jawa Moody as always, and should also reference your other book, Bread and Bibles. You know you do have two of these, Yeah.
00:55:43
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you if you want a more detailed look at how Moody understood the relationship between evangelism and serving the poor, I did a previous book also with Moody Publishers, entitled Bread and Bibles, and it's about evangelism and social work and how mister Moody understood that the things that influenced his thought on these subjects, and then lots of things Moody did. People have no idea. They think he was just an evangelist. That's absolutely not true. He was an educator, He was involved in practically feeding the poor, getting people jobs, kind of on and on and on. So yeah, give it a read.
00:56:28
Speaker 1: We'll link. We'll link to that one in the show notes as well, everybody. So I just encourage you to pick up both Bred and Bibles. Is great overview of really an in depth treatment of deal Moody's social vision and then you have Marx and Moody that won't disappoint. You'll enjoy reading this and it does give you a completely different perspective on the theological challenges that we're facing right now. So I always enjoy a good Quiggle Looser team up, and maybe we'll see more of these in the future, hopefully. Very good. Well, thanks again man for being here, and thanks everybody for listening. We'll catch you on the next episode of Thinking Christian. Take care. I just want to take a second to thank the team at Life Audio for their partnership with us on the Thinking Christian podcast. If you go to lifeaudio dot com, you'll find dozens of other faith centered podcasts in their network. They've got shows about prayer, Bible study, parenting, and more.