Beck's worst nightmare: Early church was socialist

I really do wish it were as simple as calsailor states. But it isn't.

One of the theme's running through the dissent in America today is the distrust of the FEDERAL government. The power is just too concentrated. And the folks in DC like it that way.

As the government expands it finds ways to perpetuate itself. The standing government, those employees whose jobs never change with elections has a staff size measured in millions. These people toil at a bewildering array of boards and bureaux all of which have a single mission: keep the tax payer's money coming.

How many of these alphabet soup groups have been disbanded in your lifetime? For example the Dept Of agriculture has virtually no mission now. There are so few farmers that the ration of farmers to Ag employees is like 9:1. I'd bet that Ag has a lobbyist whose job it is to make sure that congress continues to fund the department.

Further, Federal power is far less susceptable to local control. A handful of people can run a crooked mayor our county supervisor out. What will it take to unseat Chuck Schumer? And why should my tax dollars be spent in manner HE finds appropriate? His constituency is vastly different from me and my neighbors. FEDERAL is part of the problem.

Is the government us? I'd like to think so but I think it is going to take some very hard and often ugly work to bring this monster to heel.

There seems to be a common theme among those who tend to agree with Glenn Beck about the state and the redistributive role of government. But many of you seem to believe that "government" is the enemy: They give to immoral ends, why should they decide, etc., But in the New Testament, Paul argues that the "government" is God's means for accomplishing his reign among people. In Romans, Paul points out that government is the model by which God's economy is accomplished. As has been pointed out, WE are the government, in the sense that the government is elected to serve in our names and in our stead. If we don't like the government, we vote it out. In the meantime, however, the government is given the task of ensuring that we can live in peace.

For those who claim that our money is ours to do as we wish, how do you come to that? I would like you to justify how everything YOU have is due to your own hard work and not benefited in any way by the work of others. I don't believe you can do it. That you went to school and received an education was because of those who came before you, built the schools, paid the teachers and provided books. The running of the schools was due to taxes paid by all members of society whether or not they have children. If we can be taxed to pay for the education of other people's children, because an educated population is a public good, then we ought to be able to say that a population which is not living in poverty, illness and desparation is also a public good.

Just as our education is the result of other's work and toil, so is everything else: our highways and communities; our police, military and fire services. Hospitals, and all other institutions all are contributed by many in society. Even if we start a company and it is the source of our income, we did not do it in isolation. Worker's compensation that provides for workers who are injured; the education of our workers, the electrical and postal system and so many other essentials in society are the result of collective effort and yes, taxation. What the Becks of the world don't want to admit is that the tax system as it currently exists is also protective of wealth and determines, to a great degree who prospers. Had Bill Gates been born in Somalia, do you think he would be one of the wealthiest people in the world? He himself has talked about the blessings and value of living in this country.

So, sorry, but I don't buy your little myth that "I did it my way, and by myself."

Pr Chris

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite hit the nail on the head: THE CHURCH (not the government) worked tirelessly to ensure that the needs of her members (and others) were met. As a Christian, I feel a deep need to help those in need around me on a daily basis. This need stems from my views that all we have (including ourselves) are gifts from a very kind God who loves us. This knowledge fills me with the need to work as hard as I can and then to share with and bless those around me.

To the young, rich man in Matthew 19, the Lord did NOT say “Go, sell what you have and give to Pontius Pilate, Hillel, Shammai, or the Sanhedrin, who can then fund a social program to help the poor.” Rather, it was much more involved and difficult for this young disciple…to him it was left to do the heavy lifting of not just giving the money away but, while doing so, teaching those principles taught by Jesus that would enable them to be spiritually and temporally blessed and then go and do likewise.

Nowhere in the scriptures do I find the Lord Jesus Christ or His apostles and prophets advocating a governmental role in this responsibility to ensure that all mankind (no matter what race, religion, political party, sex, or any other distinguishing factor...even the Samaritans were treated with kindness) is fed, clothed, sheltered, and taught those spiritual principles that will help them achieve true happiness. Nowhere do I find Jesus Christ asking the Sanhedrian, the Houses of Hillel or Shammai, or the ruling Romans for taxes to fund “Social Justice."

By all means, let us each, individually begin to “lay at the feet …” of our chosen ministers those resources we can commit to help the poor and needy. I hope that we all can become more charitable but beware the false prophet, who teaches her own philosophies disguised as the word of God. The Christian God never forced anyone to give what the government deemed as a “good gift.”

I am irked by people who take great pains to wilfully misunderstand others. I never listen to Beck but it is easy for anyone who is fair-minded to grasp what he was saying.

Christians don't generally believe that charity is charity if it is coerced. Nowhere did Christ state that people should be forced to be good. Christians try to teach the concept that we should "choose" to help our fellow man -- not put guns at our neighbors' heads and "make" them perform charitable acts.

But the left are another animal altogether. Many don't mind coercing others to do whatever they happen to think is good. Many think the government ought to be the one doing the coercing.

When a church strays from teaching what Christ taught and teaches what certain political parties teach, they tend to use political jargon in place of religious jargon.

"Social justice" is political jargon. It has a meaning quite different from voluntarily doing good for one's fellow man. Social justice is about coerced charity and coerced redistribution of wealth. Social justice stems from a belief that mankind cannot spiritually progress to a more compassionate level of being. The government must therefore intervene and make people do whatsoever certain holier-than-thou people happen to think is just -- without regard for the person whose property gets confiscated, and without regard for other religious laws like "thou shalt not covet" and "thou shalt not steal".

It needs to be noted that the early Christians were sharing what they had with their own kind. They were not taking care of the masses. That is quite clear as you read through the epistles. They had an agenda and that was to proclaim the "Good News" of Christ. Many of them were being persecuted and had most surely lost their ability to earn a living.

Thistlethwaite cites the Christians selling their possessions in Acts 4 as proof that they believed in "socialism". I wish to point out that each of them was in complete control of whether he/she wished to do it or not. We read in Acts 4 of a Levite, of the country of Cyprus, named Barnabus who sold his land and brought the proceeds and laid it at the feet of the apostles. This must have created a lot of thanksgiving and praise because the very next thing we read is in the 5th chapter when a man named, Ananias, and his wife, Sapphira, did the same thing. But these two kept back some of the money, but making everyone believe that they gave it all. We know this because Peter asked Sapphira if they sold it for such an amount. She said. "Yea, for so much". Well, Sapphira was struck dead immediately just as her husband was when Peter confronted him earlier. Peter made it clear that Ananias was not obligated to sell his property, or that he was obligated to give it all, but that he had sinned by lying unto God.

TO BE CONTINUED

CONTINUED:

Here's how it reads: "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." (Acts 5:3,4)

We know that the Church was taking care of the widows because we read in the 6th chapter of Acts that the Greeks were murmuring against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily ministration. The apostles were too busy ministering the Word of God to handle the situation, so they chose a committee to oversee the distribution.

TO BE CONTINUED

CONTINUED:

On this matter of taking care of the widows, the apostle, Paul, gives a teaching in 1 Timothy 5. He states that the widows should be taken care of by their own families so that the Church would not be burdened with their care. He instructs the widows under the age of 60 that they should remarry so that they wouldn't become busybodies and gossipers. Paul also teaches that all believers should be responsible for themselves. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 he states, "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread." Too bad that our secular government doesn't make that a mandate for our welfare programs.

Finally, on Thistlethwaite's use of the story about the rich young man with great possessions. This young man wanted to know what he needed to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus instructed him to sell all he had and give to the poor. The young man thought he was fine because he kept God's commandments and honored his father and mother. But Jesus, who knows all men's hearts, knew that the young man's true god was his money and that is where he put his trust. God's first Commandment is, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Jesus was not advocating that all Christians should sell all their possessions. Only those whose god is money. The true gospel is about justice, truth, honor, fairness, against corrupt government, politicians and judges. It's about responsibility for self, not looking for handouts and the easy way out. But, since we're all born sinners, it starts with putting your faith and trust in the One who died for our sins and can change our evil hearts to one that can do good works; Jesus Christ!

Perhaps other nations' texts borrowed from Judaism. I am just saying...There were many ancient nations that assimilated the "gods" of the nations they conquered into their belief system. This pluralistic approach (not unlike our modern age) ensured that these now subjected nations would be less likely to uprise against them. I know that Babylon was like that (and Babylon, like Assyria, was one of the nations that conquered Israel).

Matt 25:15 is one of the few passages that most contemporary historical Jesus exegetes agree on with respect to being authenic.

Some op-eds:

Samuel T. Lachs

"Lachs [Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, 341] notes that the Lukan version may be based on the visit to Rome by Archelaus to seek confirmation that he was to inherit a portion of Herod the Great's kingdom following his father's death. However, the phenomenon of a wealthy slave owner leaving property in trust while away on business hardly seems to require any particular historical event to prompt this version. The specific features found in Luke's version may simply reflect the different social and historical setting of Luke-Acts, which some date to early 2C.

Lachs [p, 341] also notes that burying money or valuables, or any entrusted property, in the ground was considered the safest way to keep a bailment and freeing oneself of any responsibility for their loss. This is also reflected in various parables of Jesus, as well as being a blessing for archaeology."

"Ched Myers & Eric DeBode

Myers & DeBode[1] note the problematic nature of this familiar parable:

This has been for many an unsettling story. It seems to promote ruthless business practices (v. 20), usury (v. 27), and the cynical view that the rich will only get richer while the poor become destitute (v.29). Moreover, if we assume, as does the traditional reading, that the master is a figure for God, it is a severe portrait indeed: an absentee lord (v. 15) who cares only about profit maximization (v. 21), this character is hardhearted (v. 24) and ruthless (v. 30). "

from "http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=178_The_Entrusted_Money"Views
PageDiscussionView sourceHistoryPersonal

Why bring up fiction? Archaeologists have found that the story of the Jew Bible about the covenant that God signed with the Israelites has been plagiarised from an Assyrian text dated to 670 BC

http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/source-of-bible-covenant-with-god-discovered/

"Incidentally, Jesus talked more about money than he did about any other subject!" ????

What NT are you reading??

"To one [the master] gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability."
--- Matthew 25:15

Why does the master not give to each servant equally? Doesn't Social Justice require that the master give each an equal share of his wealth?

No. It does not.

The truth is that half of all people who win the lottery will file for bankruptcy within ten years. For various reasons, they are not good stewards with what they have or what you would give them.

Glen Beck might argue that because all men are not good stewards, that the rest of us have no responsibility to provide for their needs, but he would be wrong. Caring for the sick and the poor is clearly mandated by Christ Himself.

But a liberal interpretation of Social Justice often amounts to utter foolishness. Give an alcoholic an equal share of your wealth and within a short time you will be half as rich and the alcoholic will have spent the rest on vice. Give a lazy man half of your money and that money will delay the lazy man's needs rather than satisfy them.

"Goodness without wisdom invariably accomplishes evil."
--- Robert Heinlein

This is the challenge of our day. How do you provide for the basic needs of those who refuse to get a basic education? How do you care for those who spend what little money they have on drugs, alcohol and gambling instead of food and shelter. How much do you take from the hard-working man's family so that the lazy man won't starve? These are questions that the modern forms of communism and socialism refuse to answer.

So in the end, Glen Beck's ultra-conservatives and the uber-liberals seeking to redistribute the nation's wealth are both wrong. Christians should give wisely and according to the needs of those receiving the gift. Where you can, teach men to fish instead of handing them a fish. And remember, opportunity is often a far wiser and longer-lasting gift than money.

Only authoritarian forms of socialism and communism distribute "by force." We live in a democracy, where we have a voice and vote. We are not autonomous, however - we live in a community, and that requires that we put the needs of the community above our own.

Voluntary giving is no substitute for creating a just society. The prophets tell us that the first purpose of government is to care for the least. Jesus' "Nazareth Manifesto" drew from Jubilee - the year when all land was to be returned to its original owners, and slaves were to be freed (among other things). This was to be legally enforcable - not just voluntary.

Jesus said that we are to go beyond that - not ignore the demands of justice. Where justice demands that we care for the least, love demands more - that they be regarded as our brother and sister. Our spiritual growth does not come from the fact of our giving - whether we are coerced or give voluntarily - but from our heart's attitude toward our giving, and toward our brother/sister who receives it.

In answer to those who claim that we should not have to pay a "coercive" government taxes to take care of the poor - that it must be voluntary charity, I would urge them to remember Jesus' own words, that if you are forced to carry a soldier's pack one mile, carry it two, and if forced to give your coat, give your garment as well. The idea is that we go beyond what is demanded of us in caring for others. Even if we are "coerced," that does not limit our response, but gives us an opportunity to do even more. That is the spirit of the kingdom.

The central prayer of all Christians, The Lord's Prayer (or Our Father), is a prayer calling the presence of the kingdom into our present experience - asking that the justice and righteousness of the kingdom might be ours "even today." That is it's central message. When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray, like John the Baptizer taught his disciples to pray, they were not asking how to go about praying (fold your hands, bow your head, use good King James English), but rather what they should pray for. Jesus, in his answer, points them to the center of his message - one which had little to do with "personal salvation," but which was focused on the coming kingdom of God.

Incidentally, Jesus talked more about money than he did about any other subject!

I suspect that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the terms, "socialism (including democratic socialism) "communism" and their relationship to the early Christian church. I suggest that the early Christians practiced a from of "communalism," which refers to a group of people who practice communal living and common ownership of goods.

Socialism refers to an economic philosophy in which workers own the means of production of goods and services. Communism refers to an economic/political system in which a totalitarian state (acting on behalf of the people) owns the means of production and distribution of services. Communalism, on the other hand, refers to a societal (or sub-societal) system in which people choose to share their lives and their goods -- a much more accurate description of the early Christian church.

In regard to charity being voluntary, with no involvement of the government, this was not the belief of Martin Luther. He recognized that the princes, i.e., the government, had confiscated church property at his bidding during the Reformation. Dealing with the fact that much of the monies taken were for the relief of the "deserving poor," he stated that the civil authorities now had the responsibility to assist the poor. He praised the town of Leisning for enacting an ordinance for the care of the poor. If Luther had no theological objections to government dispensing charity, why should Beck? Or is it that Beck is more sagacious and knowledgeable of religion than Luther? we know from his pronouncements that he is ideologically purer and more knowledgeable of basic economics than that early socialist, Teddy Roosevelt.

Can you imagine what a super being would feel after hearing the words of the likes of Glenn Beck? Such abusive, dishonest, inhumane, mentally unstable leaders have dominated conservative religions for decades, but Beck is ...special. He became one of the figureheads for the racists who a screaming jihad against our President. Beck's misuse of religion is only outdone by his bigotry.

The early church fathers were not ambivalent in regard to supporting the poor:

St. Ambrose: “You should be reproached for nothing less than robbery when you are wealthy and can be of assistance and yet reject the requests of the poor."

St. Chrysostom: “God wanted us to be dispensers, not lords, of His riches."

The last quote is the most inimical to Beck and his ilk, i.e., it states clearly the early church’s belief regarding one’s riches. Riches are dispersed to men by God, and no one has earned them through their own labors. Many labor arduously, but few are rewarded with riches. Failing to redistribute treasure is hoarding wealth that is God’s. The notion that Christians have no obligation to spread their wealth around, as with the notion that usury is not a sin, is of recent origin, and is almost exclusive to the American church. Beck’s speculative rantings in respect to Christian charity are baseless and fly in the face of two millennia of church history. Christ did not teach greed.

Then there is the "non-profit" group, The Center for American Progress. John Podesta is the president of the CFAP making over $250,000/yr with eight managers/fellows averaging $200,000/yr each. Contributions made to CFAP for 2008 were in excess of $28 million.

The Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite currently works for the CFAP as a senior fellow. She was not listed on the IRS Form 990 for 2008 but senior fellows at the CFAP typically make $200,000/yr. Ref. guidestar.org

Those interested in social justice should direct donations away from "non-profits" like the CFAP and into things like universal health care.

Charitable giving cannot possibly pay for the needs of the poor and unfortunate in our huge interconnected society. Right now many of the unfortunate are that way because they cannot find a job. Unemployment compensation from the Government it what keeps many from destitution.

Now, do the true believers in voluntary giving think that (a) there is a possibility that the billions of dollars distributed by the Government for unemployment compensation could and should be funded and equitably distributed by voluntary giving or (b) its not the Government's worry or responsibility to help the unemployed avoid destitution?

In the case of (a) I doubt that there are any serious plans to organize a charity to fund and run a national unemployment compensation program. Of course when destitution comes, there are soup kitchens and homeless shelter cots available, mainly funded by voluntary donations. But even here the Government provides direct cash subsidies (Google Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program).

In the case of (b) if it's not a Government responsibility to provide for the needy, and it's purely a matter of discretion on the part of public to perform functions that are demonstrably beyond its means and inclination, would Jesus approve of the ensuing blight on the poor and unfortunate?

1. Beck may not be a traditional Christian, but he claims to be an LDS Christian.

2. If Beck is a faithful Mormon, he most likely reads the Bible more than do most traditional Christian. (According to research done by the Barna Research Group, Christian based research company -- http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/54-protestants-catholics-and-mormons-reflect-diverse-levels-of-religious-activity?q=mormon)

3. I suspect that if one accepts the traditional Christian teaching of Jesus from the Bible that he is God, then I'd say that the Christian Right is closer to the real Jesus than today's liberal image of Jesus. Don't forget that according to the Bible, God (Jesus) killed people for lying about their contributions to the so-called socialistic apostolic Church.

When I was in high school, oh so many, many years ago (but not as far back as the lst Century), one of the sisters who taught us suggested that religious orders were true communist organizations, as with vows of poverty and obedience, they shared and shared alike; for her, the wrong was in Godless Communism as the former Soviet Union practiced (and we agreed that that was really an oligarchy).

The one good thing that people like Mr. Beck do is to make us think about what we truly believe, what kind of world we truly want; he is more snake-oil salesman than anything, but because he's definitely not subtle, maybe he's doing some of us a service...?

I believe the message of the Gospel is one of social justice and personal salvation.
I don't believe that social justice can be equated with socialism or communism. Redistribution of wealth was a part of the early church before the Constantian take over of the church. The early church is not in an exact model for how the political or economic system ought to operate except to the extent you believe as I do that to do justice means something more than charity, it is to establish systems that alleviate poverty. While it is true that we live in a pluralistic society whereby not everyone is Christian or any other religion, we make via our representatives decisions all the time about what we as a people value enough to justify using the coercive power of government. Sometimes we change our minds as with Prohibition, but other times we evolve as with civil rights legislation and striking down Jim Crow laws in the courts. We often do not understand how interrelated we all are so we don't see that if poor people go to the hospital without insurance it costs us in higher hospital and insurance prices. If we allow people to smoke in confined spaces where we eat and even though we don't smoke suffer health consequences due to second hand smoke then we call on government intervention. When the federal government taxes us and thereby pays for the interstate highway system (raising the living standards for all Americans)do we complain? Coercion is inherent in government and the only question is what values we want to express through our laws (ie, coercion). The lack of awareness of our interconnection often causes us to believe we are free and to neglect how oppressive poverty is to our fellow human beings. In the words of the writer Anatole France the law in its wisdom prevents the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges. Religious concerns about social justice sensitizes us to the fact that other peoples' poverty impoverish us. No political or economic system will usher in a utopia (as W.H. Auden wrote "Beware of systems so perfect people will no longer have to be good."), but we are to do as much as we can to promote justice.

A significant part of the early Jerusalem church were visitors to Jerusalem who were present when Peter preached his Pentecost Day sermon. Their livelihoods were elsewhere, and they needed economic support while remaining in Jerusalem to learn from the Apostles. Moreover, the sharing was voluntary. The pattern seen in these chapters is not reported in any of the New Testament churches addressed by Paul in his epistles (written before the Gospels and Acts)and cannot therefore be seen as normative.

It would be difficult indeed to find any "Gospel church" (a regrettably necessary redundancy) however small or large, that didn't dedicate a significant portion of its resources to benevolences. It is no contradiction to believe and act with compassion while recognizing private property rights.

The right to private property was written by the finger of God on stone tablets in the commandment, "Thou Shalt not steal!" It is also the essential underpinning to liberty and liberty is indispensible to the dignity of every man, woman, and child.
It is those cultures and nations that prize private property and liberty that have contributed most to human flourishing.

Jesus never said anywhere, "Sell all you have, and give it to Caesar!"

Socialism has always failed to deliver on its promises. The redistribution of wealth by governmental force has inevitably led to a form of equality for the masses, who are equally impoverished, while the leaders are isolated in their luxurious enclaves.

Less ambitious, but similarly predicated, social programs like LBJ's Great Society resulted in an entrenched welfare class until Clinton, pressured by the Contract with America, ended "Welfarfe as we knew it" and large numbers of people became poductive citizens.

The difference between socialism and the early church (or any church) is that government is an institution from which nobody in the country can escape while membership and participation in a church is voluntary. Early church members participated in the church because they wanted to, and while the church developed for itself a system of organization and leadership, it was not a ruling government, nor was its concern with the governmental authority of the day.

The problem with "social justice" Christianity is that it favors the material concerns of people and emphasizes redistribution of earthly wealth and political power over the actual spiritual calling of the church. Liberation theology and social justice Christianity essentially succumb to the second temptation of Christ by trying to gain political power on earth instead of investing in a heavenly kingdom, ignoring Christ's emphatic statement that his kingdom is not of this world. This brand of theology starts with a Marxist analysis of inequalities in society, and then it reads the Gospels and Acts through this lens to argue that the church's chief mission is to cultivate non-violent social and political revolution.

The early church may have shared goods in common, but it was not a government, and therefore cannot properly be termed "socialist," and it did not fundamentally view the world through a Marxist lens of bourgeois-proletariat strife. Unlike citizenship in America (or any country), membership and participation in the church was entirely voluntary. The idea that sharing and caring for one another's needs is socialist is just plain silly.

Glenn Beck should not be taken seriously.

He's strictly an entertainer out to make money on the gullible.

Sad that people even watch him, get all ginned up, fearful and nasty. He appeals to the very WORST in people and stokes the fires of hate.

Sick indeed and those who take him seriously need to get lives.

A. A group of people who voluntarily pool their money for social justice.

B. A government, which through the threat of imprisonment for taxation coerces money from individuals to be distributed as the coercers see fit.

You do notice a difference between the two, do you not? In one case everything is voluntary. Anyone who wanted out of the group could be out of the group at any time and still live and function in those same lands.

In the other case you are coerced to give to someone who is corrupt and inefficient your money for purposes you may or may not support.

Do not for a second think that our present taxation system is anything close to the early church.

A better example would be a modern church in which their members tithe. If you want out of that church, you can walk. But if you are in it, you pay.

Please also keep in mind the lesson of the fish, where Jesus performed a miracle in turning 2 fish into enough fish to feed a multitude. You see it is very easy to make a socialist system work as long as you can magically create fish. It is quite another to create an effective socialist system when people radically differ on the best way to spend their money.

Most, if not all the comments regarding the "socialism" of the early Church ignore context. The early Church was a persecuted religious minority, as such communal living made some sense for mutual protection and support; but communal living is not a requirement of the Christian faith. Also, while Christians are called, individually, to be generous with their possessions (as all things really belong to God and are merely entrusted to us for a time), there is no command that Christian confiscate the possessions even if they can put the possessions to better use. In fact, I believe there is some sort of Commandment against that behavior.

The early Christians were certainly socialists, as stated by Susan Brooks Thistlewaite above. It was also voluntary, as stated by some commentaters on this blog. Those who didn't want to share, who didn't want to live by Christ's teachings, left, and at least early in the Church's history, without persecution. At the same time, Jesus was careful not to confront secular authority directly. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

What does that mean for us? We have a private life and a public life. In private, and in public, I try to live as a follower of Christ. As part of this, I believe in a certain amount of wealth redistribution, and I believe in a strong central government which supports the needs of all the people, but especially the less fortunate ones. I vote for that. That is my right, and voting is our way of life.

I also accept that my government reflects the beliefs and desires of a lot of other people, many of whom do not share my beliefs. Nonetheless, I abide by the laws of this government. When my government does not reflect my wishes, I vote against it. I do not seek to topple it. We do not live in a totalitarian state, and fomenting "rebellion" is unjustifiable. We have taxation, but we also have representation. That is as it should be.

I know Jesus is on my side. I also know Jesus won't guarantee victory for my party in November, but what is more important? It depends on who you are. I will teach my children well.

It IS right to share the wealth. But it IS wrong for the Gov't to "make it so".

There is too much to say in these comments, but sudffice it to say that Gov'ts change over time and the moneys they collect are more often than nit subverted from there original intent.

Let people give and serve out of their own sense of morality and charity. If you wish to convince people to do so, God bless you. If you wish to assist in strong arm distribution of other peoples money, might I suggest that you delve into Russion history before claiming moral rightiousness.

True the early churches were communist LIKE. I think there is a big difference between entering into a communal church and having a government tax and redistribute. If you decide not to be charitable in a church and keep something to yourself your quarrel is with God. God is just, which in this case might suck for you. If you don't pay taxes the government comes with guns and takes it and may throw you in jail. I trust the judgement of God much more than men with guns.

Here's another thing to consider. Many of those in the United States are not Christian. If you're a Muslim you have a specified 15% to give. If your atheist you might just want to give to what makes you feel good. If your a Christian does your faith give you the justification to decide how much everyone else will give.

The issue with Ananias and Sapphira was that they lied. They brought their tithe on the land that they sold but kept some. They pretended they they had paid more tithe than they did. They lied in order to look better than everyone else and hide their selfishness. When you lie, you lie to God. That is a serious offense.

Those who comment that sharing in the early church was voluntary ignore Acts 5: 1-11. Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, are discovered to have withheld from the church and Ananias is called to account. When Ananias is asked why some of his holdings remain unsold and not shared, he falls down dead. Later, his wife is brought in and asked the same question, and she is also struck dead. "And a great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard these things." Acts 5:11. Some voluntary system that one, huh?

@BeachyKeen02:
"If there is a devil roaming this earth, he's in a suit and advising FOX and the RNC."

Isn't that Karl Rove?

And, Jeff, if you acknowledge that supporting the poor is a moral obligation, then why shouldn't society enforce that obligation in exactly the same way that it enforces other moral obligations like not killing or stealing? If society has no right to make me pay a portion of my income to support the poor, then where does it get the right to tell me not to beat my wife or steal from my neighbor? The answer is that of course society has a right to make its wealthier citizens help in the support of its poorer citizens, because economic inequality, like murder or theft, is a public wrong that undermines a society's stability and its ability to provide the very opportunities from which the wealthy have benefitted. Be consistent, man.

jeff85 wrote: "...you're missing the one important part in this article -- choice. Socialism and communism take and redistribute "by force".
___________________________________________
Hey, Jeff...
All taxation, from its earliest days, has been done by "force" and it has always redistributive.
Turn off FoxNews, pal.

And how would Mr. Beck and his followers explain Jesus' statement that it is easier for a camel to pas through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? If you're going to accept the Gospel, you have to accept all of it, even the inconvenient truths that challenge your cherished political beliefs or material comforts.

The church, in general, does hold socialist ideals. I mean why do people think it's ok for anyone to be hungry or homeless. That "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" mess is a farce when you have no boots. Capitalism isn't bad, it's our form of capitalism that is because it is built on taking advantage of the citizenry with the Government's blessing since it benefits. The government should act to provide leaverage against the big conglomerates. And many of those so called Christian right fighting for their interpretation of Justice are just hypocrites trying to impose their vision of utopia on the masses. Religion is open to interpretation, thereby making morality relative to you and your lifestyles. Whether you like it or not, God still wanted you to love everyone and treat everyone amicably. So, how can you say you love God and willingly kill in his name like antichoice people or beat up homosexuals, which in some cases may actually be that way because of genetics not just personal preferences. That's for him to put people in heaven or hell. People need to read the whole Bible, in its context and stop picking out causes that suit their own personal wishes.

"But if Jesus was to preach like He preached in Galilee,
They would lay Jesus Christ in His grave," "Jesus Christ," Woody Guthrie, 1940.

Jeff85 -- I couldn't agree more. Giving to the poor/sick/etc. should be just that: giving. The point of what Jesus speaks about and what the early church did was showing to others the love that Jesus has shown to you. You are not really showing love as a Christian when 1) you don't choose to give but are forced to and 2) everyone else, even non-Christians, do the same because...they are forced to. You are not giving to the poor when it is taken and then distributed to whoever the government defines as poor or needy. And that leads to my problem with the idea of "social justice".

"Social justice" sounds fine and well, but who determines what social justice is? Congressmen? They are to determine the moral code? That is scary. In light of the many scandals and special interest groups...I am not sure that would be a good idea.

We should all be concerned with and give with what we can to the poor, but that, for the most part, should be an individual decision for their personal spiritual growth. The lack of concern or care for the poor, sick, etc. is not a problem of the government, but a sad indication of the spiritual state of our nation. A revival of the heart is needed in our country.

Nice thinking, but you're missing the one important part in this article -- choice. Socialism and communism take and redistribute "by force". The early church (and hopefully any church) redistributes by asking its members to participate. That is the difference. Forcing people to give is bad. Inviting to give is good.

Having our means taken from us and given to the poor doesn't allow us to grow spiritually ourselves. We need to choose to do it.

Jesus said to sell your possessions and give to the poor. Not to have the government set up a huge bureaucracy and take your possessions to give to the poor.

First: Beck isn't Christian: He's Mormon, and yes, there is a difference.

Second: Beck has probably never read the words of Jesus, and it shows.

Third: The Christian "right" is neither Christian, nor right.

Last: Beck is a snake-oil salesman who preys on the very people he despises: The poor, the inept, the lowly in spirit and means. If there is a devil roaming this earth, he's in a suit and advising FOX and the RNC.