"They were selling their possessions and distributing the proceeds as people had need" (Acts 2:45).

I fidgeted more in my office chair as I compared this language with the language of many socialists:

"Only conscious organization of social production, in which production and distribution are carried on in a planned way, can lift mankind above the rest of the animal." - Friedrich Engels

Does the passage in Acts prove the early New Testament church was a socialistic society? Should Christians become socialists? 

Were the Early Christians Socialists?

Socialism can be defined as an economic system where production, distribution, and exchange is owned and regulated by the community. In the early New Testament church, we see an economic system where the distribution and exchange was clearly owned and regulated by the community.

So, you might say, it is obvious then: the early Christians were socialists!

But do not be too hasty in your conclusions. There is one very important difference between the economic system of socialism and the early Christians in Acts, namely, who had authority over the system.

For socialists, authority lies with an elected official (or team of officials). He is the responsible leader who has won the favor of the community and oversees the distribution process.

For the early Christians, the person with authority was Jesus Christ. Although Jesus' physical body had suffered death, He resurrected and gave specific instructions to His followers. Jesus said, "I have all authority" (Matthew 28:18-20).

Jesus declared His authority and said Christians are to do everything in His name. Although Jesus will delegate His authority to various people of the church, He alone is the source of that authority.

But without Jesus as the source of authority, we have a problem.

It is often assumed that if everyone rallies together under a banner of love then the leaders and their followers will transform into selfless people.

This is not true.

And while a love rally might cause you to change your behavior for a time--opening up a door for a person or giving your spare change to a homeless man--relying on happy feelings to motivate you to be selfless is only temporary. Everyone, no matter how happy he or she is at the moment, will eventually succumb to the old ways of "me, myself, and I."  (Remember Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5?)

No matter how benevolent the elected leader of the community, the community will suffer because most people will eventually stop sharing, and you cannot force people to share. The moment "sharing" is made into a law, sharing becomes a tax.

The reason we cannot sustainably become selfless people is because we are sinful people. The Bible is very clear about this. Without Christ, we are unable to look past our own needs and truly consider our neighbor's needs.

According to Romans 3:10-12, no one is righteous. No one!

Socialism is problematic because it assumes people will selflessly share with others given the right earthly leadership. On the hand other, capitalism is theoretically a better solution than socialism because it actually assumes people are self-interested.

Capitalism: The Better Choice?

Capitalism is an economic system where production, distribution, and exchange is owned and regulated by the free markets.

The free markets are a place where people trade in order to try and make a profit that is free from any forced redistribution from the government. As people freely trade, goods and innovation are being created for the sake of profit. The vast majority of great inventions were created under the banner of seeking a profit without forced redistribution (e.g. electricity, phone, computer, Internet).

It is unlikely that this kind of innovation would be possible under an economic system where most of the profit is immediately seized and redistributed by the government. People want profit. And this is not a destructive desire to society.

Adam Smith once famously said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Assuming the government is able to keep the free markets "free" (no monopolies), profit serves to attenuate the self-interest of people since it only can be created in the event that a useful product or service is being sold. So while the reality of human existence is sinful self-interest, encouraging the free markets actually helps to redirect human self-interest into something that is beneficial to society.

Capitalism, however, can be just as flawed as socialism. Why? Sin! Sinful people mess up any good economic system. While socialism is often flawed with people who feel entitled and the government's waste of resources, capitalism is often flawed with materialistic people who lord their wealth over the poor.

Only Christ can change both capitalistic and socialistic sinful, self-interested hearts from constantly thinking about "me" alone to being able to share with others joyfully.

The Leadership of Christ

When the early Christians formed a community, the sharing was a spontaneous response to the leadership of Christ. Christ is the perfect leader because He modeled what we are supposed to do and He gives us the ability to do it.

The early Christians felt rich in Christ so it was easy for them to freely choose to share with others (2 Corinthians 8:9-10). No earthly community leader, no matter how benevolent, will ever both perfectly model selfless behavior and change our hearts so we can imitate him. But Christ, our wonderful leader, shows us how to live and changes our hearts so we can live like Him. Because of Christ's radical sacrifice, I am now free to go beyond profit as my hope (capitalism) and beyond a false hope in the government's ability to save me (socialism).

This community of early Christians was beyond any earthly economic system--it was the body of Christ! I am now a member of that same body and Christ has given me a new heart that is now able to share and love in the same way as those joyful early Christians who "were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need."

Extra notes:

Here are some other ways the Christian activity in Acts 2:44-45 differed from socialism:

• This activity involved believers in Christ, not the unbelievers in society around them.
• The beneficiaries of the sharing were fellow believers, not the unbelievers.
• The believers freely chose to share what they had. No one imposed the sharing upon others. Indeed, the free choice to share was one of the traits that made it so striking to the unbelievers around them.
• This sharing lasted for a limited time, and seems to have been how the church responded to the particular needs of that moment.
• It was based on complete dependence upon God, freeing the givers to give, and allowing the recipients to receive with humility and thanks­giving. Political redistribution regimes typically portray themselves (rather than God) as the benefactors of mankind, which is nothing short of idolatry.

Shane Enete is an adjunct finance professor at Biola University. He is also the author of Practical Generosity, which is available for purchase through WinePress publishing.

Shane's article can be found in the Spring 2012 edition of The Brink magazine.

Political rhetoric in the media is drenched with feigned optimism, bloated clichés, and false promises of a future utopia—"If you'll only vote for me . . ." Both conservatives and liberals demonize the other, promoting their own ideals and policies as the obvious choice. If you're searching for humility, contemporary politics is not the place to look. Arrogance is rampant despite the fact our country is confronted with challenges that aren't nearly as clear-cut as politicians claim.

Most troubling, perhaps, is the number of politicians who either claim to espouse traditional Christian values or even profess faith in Christ. Both leading candidates in the 2008 election played this card. Another thing they held in common, ironically, was the tone of their campaign ads and biting speeches. While political policies differ, the way a candidate's ideas are conveyed is quite similar. Their claims are proudly asserted, not submitted for public scrutiny. Some Christian candidates act as though their policies are obviously superior because of their conservative credentials. 

This runs contrary to Christian humility, which is essential to a believer's life both privately and in the public arena. More than anyone else, Christians have theological grounds for true humility: we were once alienated from the life that is in Christ. Yet God in His mercy—through the work of Christ and the power of the Spirit—has called us to Himself. Therefore, Christian citizens no longer have the luxury of pointing fingers of blame across the aisle!

In contrast, the truth of the Gospel is the one thing that promotes a sense of humility that clings to the truth and presents it in a humble way. The Christian knows that "except for the grace of God, there go I." In other words, Christians have to be Gospel-driven in their approach to political engagement if their message (policy birthed out of a Christian worldview) is going to penetrate the minds of those they are trying to persuade.

It's incredible to read Paul's defense of his apostolic authority and ministry in 2 Corinthians. He was bold and tenacious, yet his words were deferential to his readers. He did not appeal to eloquent speech or cunning tactics. He didn't even appeal to the innovative methods that "Barnabas and the gang" had concocted after they returned from a church growth conference. Instead, he pointed to two things: (1) the work of Christ and (2) the authority given by Christ to minister in His name. What is the lesson for us? One must know to whom he belongs and in whose name he ministers if his politics are to be humble.

This view transforms the way Christians approach politics. We need not flee voting booths. In fact, we are specifically called to a proper relationship with our governing authorities (Mark 12:17; Romans 13; 1 Peter 2:13-17). However, it is with a demeanor of humble submission and civility that we voice the truth. The fact that Christ humbled Himself to the point of death is our example. Peter goes to great pains in the second chapter of First Peter to remind us that Christ, though innocent, suffered for us. He did not revile His tormentors though He was mocked. If this is true, how much more ought Christians conform to the way of Jesus in their speech and in the political sphere?

The humility of Christ provokes the believer to submit his own arguments, ideas, and opinions to the same reasonable scrutiny he imposes on the policies of those with whom he disagrees. When we evaluate policy, we should not immediately reject the proposal simply because it comes from a liberal. This is logical fallacy. Good ideas are good ideas no matter where they originate. The question is whether the policy conforms to the Christian worldview. Does it promote the wellbeing of society, as God understands goodness? These are the thoughtful questions believers must begin to ask in their political engagement.

I gave up my political ambitions years ago. I didn't do this because I thought being a congressman was unspiritual. Sadly, many Christians who resist a career in politics do so because they've been told Christianity and politics don't mix. But Scripture and the witness of church history do not support this myth.

At the same time, many believers have gone to the other extreme, plunging themselves into the fray of public conversation with the same Christ-less, prideful rhetoric as those they hope to convert. If salvation is by grace, there's no room for boasting. In the end, the politics of Jesus don't parade through the streets riding on the back of a donkey or elephant. He comes instead as a lamb that was slain.

William Jackson Watts is Associate Pastor at Tippett's Chapel Free Will Baptist Church in NC, where he is also studying to complete his M.Div. at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. 

            Whether conservative or liberal, the debate rides the fence on three issues: compassion, fairness, and utopia. When we compare these issues to the redemptive work of Christ, there is revealing truth that should clarify the health care debate for us all.

            First, let's examine the issue of compassion. Those who call for health care reform tell the tragic stories of victims who suffer at the hands of the existing system. They hope to inspire compassion that leads to radical change, while opponents save their compassion for those that would lose benefits due to reform. Then there is fairness. Reform advocates believe that everyone deserves the same coverage and that this should be enforced by law. Dissenters say that this leads to nothing but entitlement, which they feel is a myth. Instead, people deserve only what they earn for themselves. Finally, there are those that believe we can achieve utopia in this world as it is. They believe that people get better as generations go by, and that we are smarter, more enlightened, and more capable than any past generation. They feel that health care reform is a progressive step in the right direction.

            So what does redemption say about health care reform? Well, a lot of those on that train are the same people who use the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) to condemn judgmental Christians. While what this Scripture says is highly important, what it doesn't say is equally important. And when it comes to compassion, nothing is said about legislation. Instead, the greatest show of compassion from our Savior was done of His own free will. When a disciple tried to fight the mob that came to arrest the Savior, Jesus said, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53) While Jesus' work spoke volumes about compassion, they said nothing about coercion.

            When it comes to fairness, I'm thankful Jesus didn't have much use for the idea. He told the adulterous woman that her sins were forgiven. He asked the Father to forgive those who crucified Him, because they didn't know what they were doing. Romans 5:8 tells us He died for mankind while we were still in our sins. Fairness wouldn't have let those stories end the way they did. Yes, fairness is a foreign concept in the Bible, and it makes me wonder where it came from in the first place. And entitlement just reminds me I was entitled to an eternal residence in Hell. People in their illusion of their own righteousness are feeling as if they are entitled to a far different destiny than reality suggests. And do you think for a moment this has nothing to do with why we feel as if we are entitled to free health care?

            Lastly, Jesus spoke of a utopia, but He said before we see that, He would come and get us to take us there. In John 14, we have the picture of utopia described for us by Jesus Himself, but verse 3 makes it clear that it is not here, not now, and not made by man. It is later, prepared by Him, and involves a trip to somewhere else.

            So with Jesus, compassion is best when done voluntarily, and fairness wouldn't pan out how we think. And utopia: it's not here, not now, and not of our own making. Jesus does, however, uphold the commandments that condemn stealing, whether it be from an individual or future generations that would pay for our mistakes. And he preaches we should be dependent on Him, not a government. And don't think for a moment there's nothing you can do about this issue. You have congressmen and senators who need your go ahead to vote for what they already know is right. Their phone numbers are just a Google search away. What would Jesus do? You tell me.

Alan Skiles is a 2007 graduate of Free Will Baptist Bible College. He and his wife Grace reside in Jackson, TN, where he pastors Victory Free Will Baptist Church.

While those actions can be condoned or supported, I believe the impression that most resonated with me the most was the amount of passion I saw come from our generation, pouring out to support a particular candidate. From Twitter, to blogs, to Facebook statuses, I saw people our age come out to openly support and volunteer countless hours for the sake of a campaign. It amazed me the amount of pure raw passion they felt about their candidate.

Not just a candidate, but the issues for which their candidate stood. They were learned, educated, and informed about the policies of their candidate. They could defend their platforms. They could and, for the most part, did have intelligent conversations about the policies his or her candidate would support or enact if he or she was to come to power. They didn’t take someone else's advice or direction. They didn’t vote primarily along party lines. They chose for themselves. I heard cries of environmental concerns, the importance of the sanctity of life of the unborn, women’s rights, the support or abhorrence for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were passionate and committed to making their voices heard so their view may be supported.

All that has been over for a while and a new regime is in place. So, now what?

What is our role?
 
What does this mean for us, as Christians and as young adults?

It means all the fire and passion we felt trying to get our candidate elected can and should now be channeled for good. Presidents are leaders. All leaders have a team under them that makes them great or leads to their demise. Our choice is this: join the team and help make our world a better place, filled with Jesus’ influence, or sit on the sidelines. Show people there is a God who loves them and wants to be involved in their life or retreat to our homes and churches, only promising to pray for our leader.

That is our choice. While I always place a great deal of influence on conversations with God, I also realize He is expecting us to do something. Volunteer. Give of your time. Give of your gifts. And yes, give of your money. That means above and beyond your local gathering of believers. Obviously, first and foremost your volunteer efforts and monetary support should be designated to the local body you choose to worship with. If you aren’t doing that, you should begin there. But in Jesus’ day, He didn’t retreat to the temple hoping to influence from within the walls of His sanctuary. No, He entered the ugly world. The world with the sick and the sinful and the messy masses of people. He broke bread with them, invested in them, and made relationships that touched and changed people’s lives.

One of the biggest convictions I have felt throughout 2009 is the simple fact of how very blessed I am. In light of the bad economy, a mortgage crisis, turmoil in the Middle East, and poverty and famine in third-world countries, I am constantly amazed that I am privileged to live in a country that is free. Free to go to work each day and worship the God my soul craves for. Free to voice my concerns or support over a law or a policy. Free to disagree or agree openly with others around me. This realization has given me more of a sense of urgency to become more involved in cultural and society crisis—not just around the world, but all around me. Jesus called us, His sheep, to be involved. To clothe and care for the single moms, the orphans, the hungry, and the destitute.

As His followers, we are also called to do the dirty work. It isn’t easy. It takes effort. It takes investment in people. It can be time consuming and inconvenient. But it can also be the most rewarding and fulfilling thing you can do. As followers of Christ, we are not allowed to stand idly by and leave the government and the world’s leaders to their own devices. If we are truly concerned about the issues we so vehemently debated during the election, it is now our chance to do something about it.

Let me give an example. I heard many Christians chose their candidate over one huge issue—abortion. While the right-to-life issue is a top priority for me as well, I have to wonder, what if all the Christians who were so concerned about unborn children stepped up to foster or adopt a child or care for an unwed mother? Would this still be such an issue? Same goes for any hot-button issue. Is it really about the need of the issue, or is it just about winning a debate? If we as Christ followers left our pews and our life groups and our “fellowship times” and really entered the real world, what could we accomplish? If instead of eating out with our friends once a week we gave that money to a non-profit we believed was making a difference? If we looked past “those people” who are less fortunate than us to see a child of God that He loves and help them in their time of need, who could we help? I think we could change the world. At the beginning of a new phase, let’s commit to being involved. Let's commit to making a difference.

Either join the team or stay in your comfort zone. The choice is yours. It’s time to start using that passion for something that makes a real difference.