Socialism and Christianity
I enjoy some of the indignant reactions to the socialistic idea of "spreading the wealth", especially when those reactions come from those who call themselves christian.
Acts 4:32-35
"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need"
(disclaimer: I think using a verse in this way is a sin. I've never denied being a hypocrite)
posted by David at
2:58 PM
7 Comments:
How do you see this is a sinful way of using this verse? Whereas all things belong to God so essentially our entire existence is God graciously distributing His "wealth" to all of us. Giving to us what we don't deserve. I too, think it's funny when Christians get bent out of shape over socialism when the "Church" is a very socialistic organization. Even in terms of the gospel. We are all equal under God. He gives Grace freely even though we don't deserve it. There is no free trade on Grace. I realize that sounds very "church-y" but I think it's a good point you raise.
3:25 PM
I mention it as a sin because I'm using the word of God to be needlessly divisive. That being said, I do think the verse should be considered if we are to consider ourselves a "Christian nation", although, opening up that discussion would evoke a whole slew of other criticisms to spew from my mouth.
6:16 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
9:45 PM
I will say that I would love to see the church not abdicate it's responsibility to care for the widows and orphans and those in need. Sometimes the church does this well, sometimes not so well.
I was going to answer, but I think this time I'll bite my tongue, so to speak. ;) But I love ya Zach, honestly. :)
11:28 PM
Should this role be extended beyond the church's responsibility if we are indeed to proclaim ourselves as one nation "under God"? Or is that just a title that is meant to be a generalization? An implication of a vague and open ended justification of a cherry picked "morality"? If there are those who are pushing to give Christianity and official role within our political structure, wouldn't that mean a complete over haul of our economic system, positions on foreign and domestic policy, humanitarian interventions, etc?
6:46 AM
In theory, yes. But I think that people (generalize much?) who want Christianity to have an official role in our politics don't realize that being a Christian means more than being a good person by today's standards. It means going beyond all of that into all of the economic and social issues that we are facing today and drastically changing them.
11:24 AM
Hmmm... I would like to see a lot more local and less federal, but that is my more conservative leanings. I don't necessarily think the government should do nothing. On the other hand, there are limits whether we want it that way or not. On the other hand, I'm in a situation of supporting my daughter to a large degree. I get no tax breaks for that. Is it better for me to support her or the government? It gets tough to pay for both and still be charitable in other ways. The problem with the federal situation is that everyone has to be treated the same regardless of what they do with the help. I had a friend who received financial assistance because she had a drinking problem. How was this helping her?
The problem with the government becoming the primary charity is that it cannot offer love, tough or otherwise. It's not such an easy thing, really. In some ways it is easier to have someone take your taxes and let it be their problem. It's much tougher to actually get involved and care.
12:42 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home