Twitter Files: The Definition of Socialism

It seems one of Biblical Conservatism's recent posts has sprung an interesting series of responses on Twitter.  Ultimately, the problem is that too many liberals don't actually KNOW the definition of Socialism!

For the record, Wikipedia definines socialism as follows:

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.

Seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Socialism is specifically an economic system, and in our modern society it colloquially means a system of government. Which brings us to our mystery tweeter, who will be referred to here as Boo-Boo Bear (Boo-Boo's real name and handle have been whited out):

So much is wrong with what Boo-Boo had to say. For one, he never actually backed up my thesis in the original argument which stated specifically that JESUS was not a Socialist, but rather that Christ's actions were privately charitable by distributing both miraculous which were His to give and tangible gifts that were donated to Him also therefore His to give.

As far as the Church at Antioch, I believe Boo-Boo is missing out on the important theological message of Acts 2:44-45 and is instead reworking it into a political theory. First, the text of the passage:

⁴⁴ Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, ⁴⁵ and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. - Acts 2:44-45 (NKJV)

Two major issues with relating Acts 2:44-45 with Socialism. One, and this is perhaps the most important, the believers in Antioch were not FORCED to share their goods with each other. There was no government authority requiring it of them. It was 100% Voluntary.

Secondly, (now we will enter not into the realm of  fact but the realm of theological theory) I believe the early church was not applying some form of pre-Marx Marxism, but a different, very familiar concept: family. 

Throughout the New Testament, Christians referred to themselves as "brethren" and "brothers." I believe the actions of the Church in Antioch was acting as a family, caring for each other and sharing their possessions. 

Those who have read my blog have heard me mention my good friend and fellow blogger the JC_Freak. We attend church together and lead a Bible Study together. He and his wife are two of my dearest friends. I refer to his son as my nephew. If the Lord someday blesses me with children, they will call him and his wife Aunt and Uncle. In every way but genetics, he is my brother. I consider him, his wife, and his son my family in precisely the same way I consider my parents and two sisters family. The only thing missing is a genetic relationship.

Much like the Church at Antioch, we often share possessions. For example he still has my copy of "Moneyball" which he borrowed. (Dude, I want that back.) When his car needs serviced, he often hangs out at my apartment, even if I'm not at home, because it's close to the garage. When my car was in the shop in October, he and his wife loaned me one of their cars for a couple days. We've shared countless meals together and have supported each other through the most difficult times in our lives.

This is the model of the Christian church that Antioch modeled. Not socialism. FAMILY.

The difference, in a nutshell is simple: Treating people like family is a choice. Socialism is a government requirement. No, Boo-Boo, Jesus did not promote Socialism. Jesus promoted Christians treating each other as FAMILY.

Balancing Truth and Forgiveness

As a Christian in our modern politically correct world, we're constantly asked to put aside our beliefs and just "live and let live." Unfortunately, as Christians, we are also called the speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). Sadly, too many of our fellow believers fail on one of these two requirements.

The more liberal amongst us fail to speak the truth. They fall prey to the liberal political correct mentality of not wanting to offend people so they instead believe the intellectually dishonest concept that "all faiths are different roads to the same God" or are equally valid etc.

This is logically impossible, because: 1. God either has a son or he doesn't, making it impossible for the God of Islam and the God of Christianity the same. 2. Jesus Christ is either the Messiah or he isn't, making it impossible for Judaism and Christianity to agree. 3. There's either one God or many, making all three of these religions not able to be the same as any polytheistic religion. 4. Jesus is either who He said he was: God, the Messiah, the fullness of the Godhead Bodily, one third of the Triune God; or he's either a liar and/or crazy person. Jesus being "just a good teacher" is not an option Christ himself gave us.



To use a Biblical comparison, the people who try to shoehorn their own Christian faith into these illogical compromises are the modern Sadducees, the sect that, in the time of Christ, was known for compromising their faith with Rome to get along.

Then there's the other extreme. The modern Pharisees.  These individuals are the ones who strictly adhere to the Biblical truth, but do so by screaming at people about how they're going to Hell and even calling things sin that aren't sin. (For example, you show me where in the Bible it says that Christians shouldn't drink alcohol in reasonable moderation?  If you think I'm wrong, go read John 2. Then explain to me why, at feasts, it would be practice for hosts to serve the best wine first and the inferior after people have well imbibed if it's just grape juice and not alcohol?) Believe it or not, as a Christian, these are the ones who bother me more.

The modern Sadducee tends to arrive at the conclusion that everyone is right in their beliefs out of a heart of love. They know someone of another faith that they care deeply about and do not want to believe they are unsaved. Rather than possibly ruin the friendship by evangelizing that person, they allow themselves to believe their friend is saved through Islam or Buddhism or whatever they believe.

How do we make that balance? How do we find ourselves between the Pharisee and Sadducee?

The balance is set out by Christ in the Gospel of John Chapter 8:2-11:

² Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. ³ Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, ⁴ they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. ⁵ Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned.  But what do You say?”  ⁶ This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.

⁷ So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ⁸ And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. ⁹ Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. ¹⁰ When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

¹¹ She said, “No one, Lord.”

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” (Emphasis Added)

It is the sentence in bold that is the most pertinent. Jesus both forgave the woman caught in adultery AND laid out the expectation that she turn from her sin.  He both loved and forgave her, while loving her too much to let her stay in her sin. That's who Jesus Christ is...He loves us enough to forgive us and loves us too much to leave us in our sin.

In real life application, as Christians this means we must hate sin. The actual act of sin, both our own and others, should be detestable to us.Yet, as Christ demonstrated, we must also love the sinner, as Christ loves us. It is both possible and reasonable for us, with God's help, to separate these two. 

An Open Letter to Pastor Charles L. Worley

If you haven't seen the video already, Southern Baptist Charles L. Worley called for for death to "queers and homosexuals." It is my prayer that this Open Letter reach Pastor Worley as a loving rebuke from one Christian to another. In that regard, I do hope you will help this letter on it's way to the Pastor that this loving rebuke might come to his eyes, as instructed by 1 Corinthinans 5:12.

Dear Pastor Worley:

I am writing this open letter as a fellow Christian, following what I believe is the requirements set forth for Christians to correct other Christians when they fail to live up to the high standards of Jesus Christ.

I found your statements calling for death to ""queers and homosexuals."  As a Christian, I find this attitude appaling, not because I agree with homosexuality or gay marriage, but because I believe, as the old adage says, "Thus, but for the grace of God, go I," and so do you, my friend.

I know I am a repentant sinner, not a perfect person, and that I was guilty of sin but that I am no more, not because I am righteous but because of the spotless blood of Jesus Christ, my Savior and Lord who took the penalty for my sin on the cross at Calvary so that I wouldn't have to pay my own penalty.

Your theology on sin is not wrong, my brother. But here is where you are wrong: You too are a sinner, one washed in the blood of the Lamb, as I am, and declared righteous by Christ through faith.  I would like to remind you of what the Apostle Paul wrote:

 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NKJV) (Emphasis Added)

Were you a thief before you were saved? Even once? Did you covet before you were saved, even once?  Your speech alone qualifies you as a reviler, my friend. We were all lost sinners before we were saved by the Blood of Jesus, my friend. Or did you forget:

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. - Romans 3:23-24 (NKJV) (Emphasis Added)

Do you recall the actions of our Lord Jesus with the woman caught in adultery?

³ Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, ⁴ they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. ⁵ Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” ⁶ This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.

⁷ So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ⁸ And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. ⁹ Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, ent out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

¹⁰ When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

¹¹ She said, “No one, Lord.”

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” 
- John 8:3-11 (New King James Version)

Pastor, I must say you are missing the entire point of our faith. 

I understand your frustration in the way some Christians have failed.  Certain of the more liberal elements of our faith focus on "Does no one condemn you...neither do I" and they are wrong for ignoring that Jesus did call people to repentance. I share in your frustration at this attitude among Christians, forgetting that important addition "Go and sin no more."

However, you failing to recall the mercy that our Lord showed this woman. Clearly, Jesus hated the sin. He did not say "keep committing adultery, that's just fine I accept you anyway." But, and this is important, if He followed your dictum, Christ himself would have cast that first stone at her.  He did not.

Our God is a God who separates His love of a person from his anger at their actions. Christ saw people and He also saw sins.  Separately. He hated the sins, but He loved the sinners...like you and me, for example. While we may not be guilty of one particular sin, it doesn't mean that the sins that we are tempted with are somehow worse.  (I know of a pastor who has said to me on multiple occasions that he wishes that all sin was as unenticing to him as the sin of homosexuality...I share that sentiment with him.)  I am, however, tempted with other sins. 

Remember, I pray, the gift that you received...and that it is not your own righteousness, for only one who is righteous on his own can rail on PEOPLE with such visciousness.  Until that day, I pray that you will remember that you were a beggar once too...one who was shown where to find bread...and then remember that your goal should be to show more beggars where the bread is, instead of demanding other beggars be killed.

In Christ,

Christopher C. Bastedo - Editor of Biblical Conservatism

Letter Bag: Christianity is not Liberal Faith

Time for another installation response to a commentator on Biblical Conservatism!  Today, we have an anonymous comment from the post Republicans Should Block This Jobs Bill! Block it Immediately!.  In keeping with Biblical Conservatism tradition as it pertains to anonymous comments, I will be referring to our nameless friend as Chewbacca for the sake of this post. Now, to the comment:

"There is no such thing as a compassionate conservative. True Christians are liberals." - Anonymous

Wow, Chewbacca, just wow.  There's some great liberal civility on display, now isn't there? 

But seriously, Chewie, it seems to me that you define compassion as intention, and only applicable when doled out by government. This is where we differ. Conservatives are incredibly compassionate people.  For the record, I believe the typical Neighborhood Liberal is also very compassionate. The difference, however, is that conservatives expect results from our compassion, not just good intentions.

Government is notoriously bad at taking care of the needy. The statistic has been prominent for decades now that government spends only about $.35 for every $1 on care for the needy.  Private charities like the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the like are able to give $.85 of every $1 on care for the needy.  Some private charities are able to give as much as $.95 on the $1 to the needy.  That's a staggering difference! 

The reason for this, Chewbacca, is twofold.  One, private charities operate largely with volunteers and that cuts their overhead.  Two, and more importantly, private charities can allow themselves to be taken advantage of, because they are giving charity, not welfare.  Private charities spend donations, not compulsory taken taxes.  Government cannot allow itself to be taken advantage of because they are spending other people's money, thus they have to put up red tape to prevent fraud (they fail miserably at it too).  Hence government is quite inefficient at caring for the needy!

Also, and this is even more important for you to understand, Chewie, compassion is not making poverty comfortable.  The problem with our system is it makes poverty a comfortable state, one that people are willing to kick back into poverty and just stay there.  Charity is about providing needs to those in poverty.  Compassion is not keeping people comfortable in poverty but giving them the means to meet their needs until they can lift themselves out of poverty. 

As far as "all true Christians" being liberal, I'm afraid you need to go read your Bible again.  Liberalism teaches that the government should care for the needy, and calls that compassion.  The Bible never says "give your money to the government, let the government care for the needy."  Ever.  The Bible tells people "you care for the poor."  It tells farmers not to glean the edge of their fields so that the needy can just walk up and help themselves to food.  It tells people to give alms to the poor as they are able.  Directly, Chewbacca, not via government.  YOU give to the poor. Then of course there's the part in the Bible that has a progressive tithing system, right?  Wait...the tithe is 10% across the board?  That sounds like a flat tax to me, doesn't it sound like that to you, Chewie, and isn't that a conservative principle?

I wrote an extensive treatment on this subject which I called Treatise on Biblical Conservatism.  I'd ask you to read it, as it contains direct scripture quotes to back my argument.

In short, Chewbacca, I do not doubt your legitimate compassion.  However I think your faith in government to care for the government is poorly placed.  Your heart is in the right place, my friend, I truly believe that, but your desires do not achieve compassionate results.  It only creates compassionate intentions.

Chewie, I would tell you that it is possible to be a liberal or a conservative and be a Christian, because God is not political.  However, His government for Israel was a localized, Federalist, conservative government.  I stand on the same premise I began this blog:  God is a conservative, and if God is a conservative, it's hard to say that Christians cannot be one.

Comments are always welcomed on posts, provided they are in line with the Rules for Comments.  Please note any comment may become subject matter for a future post, as my personal interest and news cycles require.