One can be against material consumption and in favour of charity without being politically opposed to market systems. And there is no link between the Render passage and commands to be charitable. A link between this passage and injunctions to disregard material wealth as being important seems obvious – but a belief that money is not for loving doesn’t entail the idea that all taxation should be quietly paid and all laws followed.

If Tyler were aware of the idiosyncracies of Christian soteriology, he might notice that, as far as most of his current disciples understand him, Jesus did not see X as being ‘obtained via time and money expenditure’.

We might want also to ask whether it is harder for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a flame to burn downwards (Nazianzen on the Incarnation). Christians can’t buy X or work for it because it’s a gift.

Certainly Christianity has a ‘redistributionist’ tendency in that the wealthy are asked to give money away to the poor. That’s not the same thing as governmental redistribution of wealth, though.

X = X(tx, px)
Y = Y(ty, py)

where ty, py denote the amount of time and money devoted to secular consumption, and tx, px the amount of time and money devoted to religion. Since there are only 24 hours in a day, we can introduce the input constraint

tx + ty + H <= T

where T is total available time and H is hours of work. Since total money expenditure on religious and secular activities cannot exceed an individual’s income, we can also say:

mx + my <= I

where I is total income. Thus, if the wage rate is w and a person has non-earned income of R, total income is:

I = wH + R

Maximum obtainable income, if all the individual’s time were devoted to work, would then be:

Imax = wT + R

The rational consumer will thus seek to maximize:

U(X, Y)

subject to the above constraints. Assuming a standard Cobb-Douglas functional form, our utility function is:

U(X, Y) = X^kY^(1-k)

And our consumption functions are:

X(tx, px) = tx^apx^(1-a)
Y(ty, py) = ty^bpy^(1-b)

All three functions are increasing in both arguments, and exponential in the parameters, meaning a 1% increase in X yields a k% increase in utility. k represents the relative value of religious to secular goods; in other words, religiosity. a represents the relative value of time (over money) devoted to religion (for example, some religions will emphasize church attendance over charitable giving).

Maximizing, we have:

(i) tx* = ak(I*/w)
(ii) px* = (1-a)kI*
(iii) px*/tx* = ((1-a)/a)w

Let’s unpack these results a bit. Note that equation (i) has the term I*/w. Assuming most individuals derive the majority of income from wages, this term equals approximately T. Since T is the same for all individuals, we would expect little relation between income and church attendance (the real world will likely be different from this simplified model, since we know there are opportunity costs). But consider equation (ii). This contains the term I*, which means that as income rises, money expenditure on religious “goods” will rise proportionately. The share of expenditure on religious “goods,” (1-a)k, will then depend on religiosity (k) and the religion’s preference for time or money (a). Thus, the distribution of giving will be highly skewed according to income and, if the passages cited by Mr. Hadlow are anything to go by, skewed upward. Certainly implies that secular consumption and accumulation of wealth would be discouraged, but also, perhaps, suggests an inherent redistributionist tendency?

Of course, this is a very rudimentary model, and would, I am sure, benefit from incorporating further complications.

I’d direct you to ‘Catholic Social Teaching and the Market Economy’, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs. The principles of human dignity, solidarity, and subsidiarity advanced by Christ and His Church are not best served by Socialism. In fact Socialism has been repeatedly denounced by Popes:

“In working for a wage he works also for a full and perfect right to use his earnings as seems good to him. If, therefore, a man spends less on consumption and uses what he saves to buy a farm, that farm is his wage in another form, as much at his disposal as was the wage itself. It is precisely in this power of disposal that ownership consists, whether the property be in real estate or in movable goods. It follows that when socialists endeavour to transfer privately owned goods into common ownership they worsen the condition of all wage earners. By taking away from them freedom to dispose of their wages they rob them of all hope and opportunity of increasing their possessions and bettering their condition.” – Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII

“Socialism cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.” – Quadragesimo Anno, Pope Pius XI

“No Catholic can subscribe even to moderate Socialism.” – Mater et Magistra, Pope John XXIII

“Lured…by the greed of present goods…Socialists assail the right of property. While they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by lawful title, by labour, or by thrift.” – Quod Apostolici Muneris, Pope Leo XIII

16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony,
19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Or Luke 14:33? “In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.”