An important difference, however, is that they were not arguing that the Roman state should proceed likewise. There was always an outside; membership was voluntary, and those who chose to could make their way in the big, bad world on their own (or those who became a threat to the integrity of the group could have it thrust upon them for a season — what Paul calls being “handed over to Satan”).

I think it is difficult and dangerous to extrapolate national policy from this. It's a question that I don't think the NT addresses, and the OT can only be made to address it by making anachronistic assumptions about the place of any given nation in salvation history. We may have some unique opportunities to encourage our respective governments toward greater justice, and we should always seek to model such justice in our communities.

I agree that Acts is descriptive rather than necessarily prescriptive, more example than mandate. But we also don't get a lot of competing or contrasting descriptions, so we do well to take that example seriously.

An important difference, however, is that they were not arguing that the Roman state should proceed likewise. There was always an outside; membership was voluntary, and those who chose to could make their way in the big, bad world on their own (or those who became a threat to the integrity of the group could have it thrust upon them for a season — what Paul calls being “handed over to Satan”).

I think it is difficult and dangerous to extrapolate national policy from this. It’s a question that I don’t think the NT addresses, and the OT can only be made to address it by making anachronistic assumptions about the place of any given nation in salvation history. We may have some unique opportunities to encourage our respective governments toward greater justice, and we should always seek to model such justice in our communities.

I agree that Acts is descriptive rather than necessarily prescriptive, more example than mandate. But we also don’t get a lot of competing or contrasting descriptions, so we do well to take that example seriously.

An important difference, however, is that they were not arguing that the Roman state should proceed likewise. There was always an outside; membership was voluntary, and those who chose to could make their way in the big, bad world on their own (or those who became a threat to the integrity of the group could have it thrust upon them for a season — what Paul calls being “handed over to Satan”).

I think it is difficult and dangerous to extrapolate national policy from this. It's a question that I don't think the NT addresses, and the OT can only be made to address it by making anachronistic assumptions about the place of any given nation in salvation history. We may have some unique opportunities to encourage our respective governments toward greater justice, and we should always seek to model such justice in our communities.

I agree that Acts is descriptive rather than necessarily prescriptive, more example than mandate. But we also don't get a lot of competing or contrasting descriptions, so we do well to take that example seriously.

Or, they seem more evangelically left only because they are constantly compared to the current domination of discourse by the evangelical right, when in fact they are located more squarely in the center. That’s just my opinion, though.

“They practiced communalism, but they weren’t exactly espousing Marxism.”

They may not have worn red stars and murdered Anastasia, but the principles are quite similar. Communalism is simply a non-threatening synonym for communism, at least in its purest (non-Soviet) sense. These first Christians, the ones God apparently chose as an example of a possible church structure, chose to organize themselves in a way that would be called radically leftist if seen today. They definitely didn’t choose to go with market capitalism.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that’s how things should be. Those sections in Acts are certainly ‘descriptive’ rather than ‘prescriptive’. What is true, however, is that whether we like it or not the teachings of Jesus and the actions of our spiritual ancestors lean quite a bit towards the political left rather than the political right. So when we see guys like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo skew liberal at times, there’s a lot of biblical precedent for them to do so.

Unfortunately his moral center leans left. :)

Love the words, but the actions, whether intended to or not, do feel to be guided an ‘evangelical left’, which has different poster children than the evangelical right, but all the same genetic disorders.

Or, they seem more evangelically left only because they are constantly compared to the current domination of discourse by the evangelical right, when in fact they are located more squarely in the center. That's just my opinion, though.

“They practiced communalism, but they weren't exactly espousing Marxism.”

They may not have worn red stars and murdered Anastasia, but the principles are quite similar. Communalism is simply a non-threatening synonym for communism, at least in its purest (non-Soviet) sense. These first Christians, the ones God apparently chose as an example of a possible church structure, chose to organize themselves in a way that would be called radically leftist if seen today. They definitely didn't choose to go with market capitalism.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that's how things should be. Those sections in Acts are certainly 'descriptive' rather than 'prescriptive'. What is true, however, is that whether we like it or not the teachings of Jesus and the actions of our spiritual ancestors lean quite a bit towards the political left rather than the political right. So when we see guys like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo skew liberal at times, there's a lot of biblical precedent for them to do so.

Unfortunately his moral center leans left. :)

Love the words, but the actions, whether intended to or not, do feel to be guided an 'evangelical left', which has different poster children than the evangelical right, but all the same genetic disorders.

Yes, it is a bad thing…about as bad as the shift to the right was 20 years ago.

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

Hell, according to Acts the first Christians were communists.

Yes, it is a bad thing…about as bad as the shift to the right was 20 years ago.