Thinking Out Loud
3/4/11 at 11:35 PM 0 Comments

Why Churches Embrace Marxism

text size A A A

I can distinctly recall part of a conversation I had with a fellow pastor several years ago, in which he stated that communism was first started in the church. I was slightly shocked to hear him say that, but was more interested in why he would bring such a notion up to me since we really were not even talking about that subject in the slightest. Perhaps he was responding to some of my sermons or my writings which clearly state my position that communism is the most insidious form of evil known to modern human history! When our pastoral leadership should be exercising their duties as the "watchmen" as described in Ezekiel 3:16-21, they themselves have become the actual breaches in the wall of protection for the people.

For example, Cuba's now president emeritus Fidel Castro came to Harlem, New York in 1995 and was received as one of the world's greatest rock stars. He visited the Abyssinian Baptist Church spoke from the pulpit with pastor Calvin Butts and other ministers flanking him on each side (See Question: how can a self-professed atheist be given such a place of prestige in a place we know and dedicate to be "the Lord's House?" Even though it is readily known that Castro is an overt enemy to the United States and freedom itself, there seems to be a fatalistic lapse of memory of how many hundreds of thousands of lives he has extinguished! As Christianity values the individual human life, the communist ideology that Fidel Castro has been driven by only sees that human life as how it fits into the collective. Yet, many of our churches embrace to latter, and see him as the role model and hero.

Another example is much broader, but just as telling. Many of our churches have apparently determined that our federal government is the best entity to perform that duty of distributing benevolence.

I will show you where the confusion begins—where Christianity ends in the church and socialism begins. If you would focus your attention to the Biblical verse in Acts 4:32-35, it says...

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

This is the account of the initial effort of the church to take care of members who were in need in one way or another. The first thing we must consider is the heart unity that ruled the day. They were of one heart and one soul, meaning that they did live in an environment of "koinonia" or communion. They lived in an environment of sharing goods and services.

On the other hand, I call to your attention where the train leaves the track. As the believers sold their properties, they bolstered the church's treasury for benevolence as they placed the money at the feet of the apostles. It was as if they were saying, "We entrust you with this wealth in order to take care of those in need." Please pay careful attention to the last part of verse 35—"... and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." This is a key part of the ideology concerning benevolence. For the body of Christ, we know that it was the Holy Spirit that moved upon the hearts of the early believers. He inspired them to sell their houses and their land to give to the church for careful and diligent distribution.

In contrast, there is a popular phrase similar to Acts 4:35b that goes like this...

"From each one according to his ability, to each one according to his need." Does it sound quite similar to the Biblical verse? Many of you may already know what it is, where it came from and who said it; and its source does have a significant meaning in terms of what we truly believe and our ensuing behavior. The latter phrase came from Karl Marx, known as the Father of Communism. The essential difference between the Biblical account and Karl Marx's ideology in Who (or what) motivates the people to give (or relinquish)!

The church in Acts chapter 4 is motivated by divine love to give. Here the giver is rewarded with a sense of goodness. On the other hand, the Marxist model requires the use of legislative decree and governmental force to essentially extract revenue from the general public for the purpose of exercising a form of benevolence. In this model, the individual often feels resentment, and sometimes even guilt because of their efforts to pay as little as possible. This is why class warfare erupts so frequently today—those who pay the most in taxes are continually subjected to the demand for them to pay even more.

In addition to that, many church leaders have determined that they also need the power of the government to enable them to be successful. This is where the Christian and Marxist philosophies collide and become a hybrid such as liberation theology. In essence, this is also a form of false Christianity that clearly aligns the church with what is spoken of in Revelation 13 and 14. Pastors who embrace socialism and communism at the expense of true Christian benevolence are conditioning their people for government dependency and the willful acceptance of the mark of the beast!

Along with the Marxist belief for benevolence comes the church acceptance of other contradictory matters such as abortion, homosexuality and racial/class warfare. The cause of Jesus Christ becomes subordinate to the drive for "social justice."   

It is a fact that the words "socialism" and "communism" no longer have the same meaningful impact today as they did for those a generation ago. I contend that these two words have been used more in the last two or three years than they have been mentioned in the past forty! I conclude with two definitions derived from their philosophical intentions instead of their dictionary meanings, which describe the technical aspects of the economic strategy instead of the behavioral state of the human individual. Simply put, socialism is when the people believe that government is God, and communism is when government becomes God.

CP Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s).