Is Communism Replacing Christianity? - Ep. 938 - July 6, 2026

Can Communism Replace Christian Community?

Can a political system deliver the kind of justice, generosity, and shared provision that Christians associate with God's kingdom? On The Smith and Rowland Show, Allan Smith and Jeff Rowland argue that it cannot, because the kingdom principles found in Scripture depend on Jesus as King and Christian character in the people.

Their discussion moves from Acts 2 and the 1960s counterculture to socialism, communism, political ideology, and biblical prophecy. At its center is a hard question: when concern for the poor becomes a government program, has Christian charity been replaced by something else?

Acts 2 and the question of communal living

The conversation begins with communal living in Acts 2. Smith and Rowland point to the early believers who shared their possessions, sold property, and cared for one another as a community.

Their reading of the passage focuses on several patterns:

• Believers gathered closely around the apostles' teaching and fellowship.

• People sold possessions and goods when others had needs.

• Resources were shared within a community of faith.

• The people expected the kingdom of God to arrive in a direct and immediate way.

The hosts do not treat Acts 2 as a generic political blueprint. Instead, they connect it to a particular expectation: Jesus would return, rule from Jerusalem, and establish His kingdom on earth.

That interpretation is debated among Christians. Some readers see Acts 2 as an example of voluntary, Spirit-led generosity rather than a permanent command for all Christians to surrender personal ownership. One discussion of the passage makes the distinction between living in close community and operating as a formal commune in this examination of Acts 2's shared life.

Smith and Rowland's central claim is that shared resources make sense only when Christ rules the community and its members live under His authority.

The kingdom message behind the sharing

The hosts connect Acts 2 with Peter's preaching in Acts 3. In their view, Peter called Jerusalem to repent with the promise that God would send Jesus Christ. They believe the early church lived with the expectation that Christ's return could come soon.

Therefore, they see the sale of possessions and the gathering of believers in Jerusalem as kingdom-focused conduct. Jesus was expected to rule, and the people were preparing their lives around that hope.

Smith and Rowland distinguish this from what they call the current "dispensation of grace." They believe salvation through God's grace is the message offered today, while the complete earthly kingdom has not yet arrived. The kingdom message still matters, they say, but Christians should not confuse the early church's setting with a political case for compulsory economic equality.

The hippie movement and a social shift

The show opens with jokes about the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and a fictional sponsorship from the Beatles. That lighthearted exchange leads into a wider conversation about the cultural upheaval of the 1960s.

The hosts mention Woodstock, the hippie movement, communal living, and the Jesus movement. Woodstock comes up as a famous event of that era, held on a dairy farm, which gives Smith an opening for a joke about offering his own farm for a future event, for a fee.

Behind the humor is a serious claim. Smith describes the 1960s as a time when a social dispensation emerged. He does not use the phrase as a formal biblical doctrine. He means that the culture took a major turn in how people thought about authority, shared life, property, morality, and freedom.

The hosts portray the hippie movement as promoting peace, love, communal living, and the idea of leaving ordinary structures behind. Their image is familiar: people piling into a Volkswagen van, traveling together, and trying to build a shared life outside traditional institutions.

The Jesus movement within the era

Smith and Rowland also make an important distinction. They acknowledge that the Jesus movement rose during the same broad era and say they believe many people genuinely came to faith in Christ.

That creates the tension at the heart of their argument. Christian conversion and social imitation may exist near each other, but they are not the same thing.

A desire for community, simplicity, generosity, and care for the poor can lead people toward Christ. Yet the hosts argue that the same desires can also be redirected into a political movement that does not submit to biblical authority.

They do not dismiss every person who participated in the hippie movement or every expression of shared life. Their concern is with building a communal system apart from Christ's leadership.

Why the hosts see socialism as an imitation

Smith and Rowland argue that socialism and communism borrow ideas that sound familiar to Christians. They point to equity, provision for those in need, shared resources, and a community where no one lacks basic necessities.

They also acknowledge that some people may support those ideas from sincere motives. A person may see poverty, high housing costs, hunger, or inequality and want a fairer society. The hosts do not claim every supporter has the same motive.

However, they insist that good goals cannot justify a system they believe relies on government control and forced redistribution. Their comparison is clear:

For the hosts, the difference comes down to authority. Who directs the giving, and what kind of character holds the community together?

A counterfeit kingdom, in their view

The show's theological argument goes further. Smith and Rowland say Satan imitates what God does. They refer to biblical imagery of Christ riding on a white horse and argue that evil often presents a counterfeit version of something good.

In their view, socialism and communism offer a substitute kingdom. They promise provision, fairness, unity, and shared wealth, but they remove Jesus from the throne.

The hosts describe this as more than a flawed economic plan. They see it as a spiritual replacement. Communism, they argue, tries to reproduce kingdom outcomes without the King.

A separate reflection on voluntary sharing in Acts 2 also frames the early church's giving as voluntary. That question of willingness matters throughout Smith and Rowland's argument. They believe Christian generosity loses its biblical character when government force replaces a willing heart.

Christian charity and government control

The hosts repeatedly say that Christians should help people in need. They refer to benevolence, sharing, generosity, and care for the poor as part of Christian life.

The issue is not whether Christians should help the poor, but who is directing that help and under what authority.

Smith and Rowland believe political movements can appeal to desires that are already present in Christians. Believers want justice. They want to see hungry people fed. They want families to have shelter and communities to care for those who are struggling.

Yet the hosts warn that a Christian desire used for a political purpose can take on a different character. A political system can use the language of compassion while asking the state to take control of property, work, and distribution.

They say the church gives believers the right structure for charity. Christians give because they love God and neighbor. The church can identify needs, encourage work, offer practical help, and call people to personal responsibility. In their view, that differs from a state system that distributes resources through coercion.

Shared work matters as much as shared reward

The hosts also challenge the assumption that communal living removes the need for labor. Even if a community pooled everything it owned, they say, people would still need to work the next day.

Food must still be grown. Homes must still be maintained. Children must still be cared for. Resources must still be produced before anyone can distribute them.

Their concern is that people may want equality of reward without accepting equality of responsibility. That imbalance, they argue, makes a communal system collapse.

• Shared responsibility means members continue to work, serve, and contribute.

• Shared reward means members receive resources from the community.

• The hosts believe a system fails when it promises the reward but no longer expects the responsibility.

For Smith and Rowland, Christian character is the missing factor in political programs. A community cannot endure if its members expect provision while refusing to contribute. They believe the Acts 2 model depended on a people transformed by faith, not on a government mandate.

Socialism, communism, and the promise of equality

Smith and Rowland use the terms socialism and communism closely, describing socialism as a step toward communism and communism as a system built around having things in common. They say the systems are difficult to separate in practice.

Their criticism focuses on the promise of equality. Smith gives an example involving three homes:

1. One person lives in a $50,000 home.

2. Another lives in a $200,000 home.

3. A third lives in a $400,000 home.

He asks which person the homeowner in the $200,000 house wants to be equal with. His answer is that people usually want equality with the person who has more.

"Everybody wants to be equal with the person they think has more than they have."

That example captures the hosts' view that political equality often becomes a demand to acquire another person's property or income. They argue that redistribution must begin by taking resources from someone before giving them to someone else.

Redistribution and the question of theft

Smith ties that argument to the Eighth Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal." He argues that forced redistribution violates the command because the state must take from one group to provide for another.

The hosts' concern is that equality enforced through taking from others becomes theft.

Their argument is theological and moral, not an academic definition of every modern tax policy or welfare program. They believe any political structure that relies on seizing property for redistribution has crossed a biblical line.

Smith illustrates the point with a lesson from his father. When a farmer loses a business, an auction may follow. Other farmers can buy cattle, equipment, and other assets at low prices, while the family who lost everything sits nearby in grief.

His father called that "buzzard buying." The phrase refers to profiting from someone else's ruin.

Smith and Rowland apply the same image to forced redistribution. In their view, one person's gain requires another person's loss, and the system encourages people to benefit from that loss.

Political ideology that sounds spiritual

The hosts raise another concern: political ideology can become so closely tied to personal faith that people cannot tell the difference between a political platform and biblical teaching.

They ask whether political ideas now receive more loyalty than the Word of God. In their view, people may assume their preferred political position is automatically what Jesus would support.

They reference the old phrase "What would Jesus do?" and argue that the question can be misused when it becomes a shortcut for endorsing a political ideology. A person may sincerely care about the poor, but Smith and Rowland say sincerity alone does not settle the question of how Christians should act.

The church, they argue, should shape believers' moral thinking before party politics does. That means testing every policy proposal against Scripture, not treating a political platform as a substitute for biblical conviction.

New York proposals and national control

The discussion turns to a New York political figure whom the hosts describe as supporting free apartments, groceries, and taking money from the wealthy to provide for those with less. The hosts present these as examples of modern promises that sound compassionate but, in their view, depend on government force.

They predict that wealthy people would leave a city if leaders seriously attempted to take or heavily redistribute their property. Then fewer resources would remain for the programs that depend on them.

Their expected chain of events is straightforward:

• A city expands redistribution policies.

• People with substantial wealth move elsewhere.

• The city's available tax base shrinks.

• Supporters seek broader federal control because people can no longer leave the system.

Smith and Rowland argue that this is why local socialism cannot fully accomplish what it promises. They believe it must expand toward national control, where fewer people can escape its reach.

Communism and the Antichrist in the hosts' prophetic framework

The hosts connect their political concerns to biblical prophecy. According to their interpretation, a future Antichrist government will require a globalized system that brings nations, economies, and commerce under common control.

They refer to the mark of the beast and the biblical warning that people will not be able to buy or sell without it. In their reading, that future system requires international coordination and control over economic life.

Their prophetic sequence follows this order:

1. The church is raptured, according to the hosts' teaching.

2. A seven-year tribulation follows.

3. A global system of control emerges.

4. Jesus returns and rules from Jerusalem.

5. The kingdom pattern associated with Acts 2 finds its proper fulfillment under Christ's rule.

Smith tells a story about Jean Spriggs, founder of the Twelve Tribes movement, who invited him to join a communal community. Smith says he replied that he would give the group his dairy farm when Jesus sat on the throne in Jerusalem, because that is where he would want to be.

The point was direct. He believed communal living belonged under Christ's visible rule, not under a human-led religious or political system.

Lawlessness, anarchy, and control

Smith and Rowland also link the Antichrist to lawlessness. They mention calls to defund police, end immigration enforcement, close prisons, and avoid deportation even after serious crimes.

They interpret those positions as signs of a desire for disorder rather than reform. In their view, eliminating enforcement does not create justice. It produces chaos, and chaos can make people more willing to accept centralized control.

The hosts say political labels can hide the system being promoted. Political labels may change, but they believe the underlying goal is a government that can control property, movement, work, and public order.

They also argue that anarchy and communism can work together in this process. Anarchy tears down restraints, while communism supplies the centralized structure that promises to restore order afterward.

Historical warnings raised in the episode

Rowland recalls serving in the military from 1983 to 1986 with the 82nd Airborne Division. During that period, he says, the military studied communist Russia and other communist countries because they were viewed as enemies.

The hosts reference the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the fallout shelters Americans built during the Cold War. Their concern is that an ideology once feared by many Americans is now gaining support in American elections.

They also mention Russia under Stalin and the suffering connected with the gulag system, particularly in relation to farmers. The episode does not develop a detailed historical account. Instead, the hosts use the example as a warning about state control over agriculture, property, and human life.

Venezuela also enters the conversation. The hosts point to Nicolás Maduro as someone they describe as rising under the label of democratic socialism. They accuse him of taking the country's resources and use Venezuela as evidence for their claim that socialism and communism fail in practice.

These examples support the show's main position: political promises of equal provision can end in theft, scarcity, coercion, and concentrated power.

Can a person be both Christian and communist?

Near the end of the discussion, the hosts ask the question directly: Can a person be a Christian and a communist?

Rowland answers that someone can be an "extremely confused Christian" while holding communist views. Yet he believes the two commitments eventually collide.

At some point, the two belief systems meet.

For Smith and Rowland, the conflict comes back to ownership, work, generosity, and authority. Christianity calls people to give freely, serve one another, work faithfully, and submit to Christ. Communism, as they define it, requires property to be redistributed through state power.

They argue that a believer must eventually decide whether biblical charity can be replaced by political compulsion. Their answer is no.

The church, in their view, remains necessary because it teaches the difference between giving and taking, compassion and control, shared responsibility and demanded reward. Christian community cannot rest on government power alone. It requires people whose hearts have been changed.

Christian generosity cannot be legislated

Smith and Rowland see communism as a replacement for Christianity because it offers a material version of kingdom promises without Christ's authority. Their argument does not deny the need to help the poor. It insists that care for people must remain tied to truth, voluntary generosity, work, and Christian character.

Acts 2 presents a community that shared deeply because believers were united in faith and expectation. The hosts believe that pattern cannot be separated from the King those believers served.

A political system can promise provision, but Christian community begins with transformed people, not compulsory redistribution.

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), Is Communism Replacing Christianity? - Ep. 938 - July 6, 2026