Tag Archives: communism

Can Communism Be Christian?


I cannot begin to count the number of times someone has pointed me to the book of Acts and the early Church as support for “Christian Communism.”

“And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” Act 2:44, 45

Sadly, this is all of Scriptures most of these people know. They ignore the extreme poverty of this Jerusalem Church, how Paul had to bring them food from Gentile Churches just to survive. When the Romans destroyed the temple, along with all Jerusalem, in AD 70 the experiment in “Christian Communism” ended. Some Christian groups have, for a short time, attempted “Christian Communism” and all have ended in dismal failure. Probably the most famous of these failures were the Pilgrims at Plymouth Plantation. They nearly starved to death until they allowed private ownership and private property.

So what do the Scriptures teach about economics? In the Millennium “they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.” Micah 4:4 Though the LORD God is ruler and owner of all by right of creation, He grants the right of personal ownership to nations, families and individuals.

We should also have compassion on the poor. This compassion should include personal donations to the poor and laws to help people out of their poverty. Though this is not a “welfare state” where a secular humanist government replaces God, it is public help.

Since Paul wrote, “if any would not work, neither should he eat,” 2 Thess 3:10 public assistance should only be for those who are incapable of working.

Modern Communism, by contrast, takes by force. Instead of being “communal,” a willingness to share, it murders any who resist. Modern Communism is hatred and force on the lowest level. It is the antithesis of love, and God is Love.

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History

Ultimate Evil?

Our youngest son, an Army Sergeant, sent us a link to the Kony2012 video about Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony that’s been viewed more than 100 million times on the Internet. This was the first we had heard of this particular video. The film was in production in November 2011 so we are not so very “out of it” not to have heard of it before now.

The premise of the Jason Russell video seems to paint Kony as an ultimate evil. The documentarian formed a friendship with an African boy who fled his village and family to live in a dormitory to escape kidnapping by this madman. He also brings in his own young son and seems to be promising to make the world a safe place for children by getting Kony arrested.

Kony did great evil in Uganda. Boys were forced to kill their own parents and mutilate others who would not support him. Evidence of these killings and mutilation are in the film. It also shows the sad conditions in the dormitory were the boy refugees live.

More than one Ugandan group claims this video should be pulled because it distorts the issues surrounding Kony. Angelina Jolie claims the real criminals are the US-backed established government of Uganda, though the video promotes continuing US support. Others call for Jolie’s execution as a traitor. It is a highly polarizing issue. We know that much for certain.

It is clear that Kony is now in hiding, no longer even in Uganda. He has 300 or fewer kidnapped child soldiers still under his influence. Ugandans who saw the film hurtled objects at the screen in protest. They say it is a picture of Uganda that is out of date and does not do justice to the victims of this evil. They claim it portrays a white man as the only one who can come to the rescue of black people.

The filmmaker protests that if anything like this ever happened in New Jersey it would be taken care of immediately, but that we are ignoring the situation in Africa. Gang initiations, intimidations and virtual abductions, in New Jersey and elsewhere, are not “being taken care of,” so this is not a valid argument. The film, however, has done a good work in raising awareness of a serious problem in Africa, even if it has done it imperfectly.

But the real point is that this is occurring all over the world in different circumstances. Girls are sold as sex slaves in Thailand. Female babies are aborted, killed and abandoned in China under a one-child per family system. Women in Muslim countries are stoned and both sexes murdered for dissent. Human beings become drug test guinea pigs in psychiatric studies when their real “sickness” or “crime” is disagreeing with their country’s government.

Kony is evil. But he is only one of many people who kidnaps, murders and pillages. Murders under communism’s leaders worldwide probably defy numbering at this point. Stalin, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, Ho Chi Mihn, Mao, Lenin, Marx, Khmer Rouge, and the list goes on. Why are these and contemporary murderers ignored in favor of this one evil?

As Bastiat says in his “The Law, “To understand the problem is to know the solution.” Kony was not the world’s first warlord, nor will he be the last. Many predict that as soon as he is removed, someone else will take his place. Slavery has been around for thousands of years and will still be here when we are no longer alive. The problem is that evil men use the law for plunder. This attracts more evil men to positions of power. When the law is only used for justice, not plunder, then evil men will not desire political office because they cannot profit from it.

Warlords exist because there are personal gains. When the opportunity for personal gain is cut off and justice is enforced, then the invisible children around the world will no longer be kidnapped.

The purpose of the law is to enforce justice. Kony is just one small example of a worldwide crisis of the breakdown of law and government. To agitate for the removal of a single warlord will accomplish nothing, though the warlords and others like them need to be removed. The profit motive, the rewards for perverting justice, must be removed.

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Writing, Reviewing, Publishing, and about Blogging

Right and Left

One of the saddest lessons I learned about modern culture is the fact that many people jump to conclusions without reading more than one or two lines. The facebook post “A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left,” Ecclesiastes 10:2, created a firestorm. Solomon wrote this 3000 years ago, but modern parallels seem obvious. It seems that people who think of themselves as modern “progressives” or the Left, do not know the history of these terms and become infuriated when they are used properly.

The most important meaning of left hand and right hand is the final judgment. “And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Matthew 25:32-34

The modern use of the “right” and “left” come from the French Revolution. In 1789 AD, the National Assembly in France divided between supporters of King Loius XVI who sat on the President’s right and supporters of the revolution who sat on the President’s left. The local French press called these political positions the right and the left. When the Legislative Assembly replaced the National Assembly with all new members in 1791, the self proclaimed “Innovators” or “Progressives” sat where the left sat in the National Assembly. Next to them, in the middle, sat the self proclaimed “moderates” or “centrists.” The remaining seats were called the “right” though these men represented many different views.

One hundred years later came the rise of Communism. Various groups, such as trade unions, civil rights movements and Utopians allied themselves with Communism and called themselves “the Left.” The phrases “Left” and “Progressive” were the labels these people chose for themselves and promoted in thousands of books, pamphlets and speeches. From Russia to the United States journalists began using these terms. The Left was the name of those who supported Communism in some way. People who partially supported some form of Communism were called “moderates” by the Communists and the Press. Whoever opposed Communism was called “the Right.” The terms left or progressive, center or moderate and “right wing” are neither insults nor precise. They have been used this way for over 200 years

The terms “right wing” or “the right” are Communist terms used by Communists. All that a Communist means by the term “right-wing” is “opposed to communism.” Joseph Stalin called Adolph Hitler “right wing” because Hitler’s Germany attacked Communism. Lenin called the supporters of the British crown “right wing.” In the United States, the term “right wing” means a supporter of the United States Constitution and private property.

Not every “progressive” today is a Communist. Today the terms “left wing” and “right wing” are so common that the meanings are blurred. But all “progressives” are some sect or denomination of Secular Humanism. Secular Humanism is known throughout the world, but in America it is now our Establishment of Religion. The main purpose of America’s government-funded school system exists to indoctrinate into this belief system. We explain the religion of Secular Humanism in more detail in our book Antidisestablishmentarianism. Our blog has both the preface and the introduction as well as links to purchase.


Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics