Communism as a Replacement for Acts 2: What Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland Warn About
by Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland
When a culture starts calling old ideas by new names, it gets harder to spot what’s really being sold. In this episode of The Smith and Rowland Show, Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland argue that “democratic socialism” is not a fresh political option, it’s communism with a cleaner label. They also make a strong biblical claim: what many people point to in Acts 2 was never meant to be copied by the state, and any attempt to force it without Christ as King turns into a counterfeit.
They cover New York City politics, state control, propaganda, the role of government under God, and why the church can’t afford to treat these shifts as someone else’s problem.
The show’s opening jokes, and why the tone changes fast
The episode starts the way long-running shows often do, with the kind of banter that signals friendship and routine. Alan greets Jeff with an intentionally over-the-top title, “Padre Senor Pastori Apostolic A Roland,” then jokes about exposing Jeff’s “true identity.” Jeff plays along, and Alan adds that this is why people call him “Bishop Rowland,” with a repeated “hashtag” for emphasis.
Then they announce a sponsor, a Dixie Cup with a black lid, which gets its own moment of praise. Alan jokes that it’s “universal,” and Jeff adds the key feature in plain terms: “containing hot coffee.” They even riff on being “all inclusive” because the cup has “Dixie” on the side.
It’s light, but the humor sets up the contrast. Alan notices Jeff has a “far away look,” and says he’s “dreading” whatever is coming next. That read is correct. Jeff doesn’t ease into it, he states it flat out.
“Democratic socialism” and why they call it communism with a new label
Jeff’s opening line is direct: “I’m anti-communist.” From there, he and Alan talk about New York City’s new mayor, referred to as “Mamdani” (they joke around with “mom Donnie,” “man Donnie,” and “Donnie”). They describe him as a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist,” and they both object to the label. In their view, the phrase is designed to soften the real meaning.
Their argument is simple: communism has a bad reputation in the United States, especially for people who grew up during a time when the country defined itself as openly anti-communist. They point out that America fought wars in that posture, and that “communism” used to be an immediate red flag for many voters. So, they believe the rebrand helps the same agenda gain acceptance.
They also frame this as a propaganda problem. If the name changes, the emotional reaction changes. What would be rejected under one name becomes “reasonable” under another.
They mention election results as part of the trend, saying that 12 democratic socialists won elections out of 24 candidates they were watching. Their concern is not limited to New York City, they see it spreading through local offices and municipalities where fewer people pay attention.
The biblical role of government, and why “collective good” becomes a trap
Alan ties the conversation to a teaching he recently did at Grace Place on separation of church and state. The core point in his summary is that Christians live with dual citizenship. Believers are citizens of the Kingdom of God, and they also live under earthly governments because they were born in a nation and a community.
From that framework, they state what they believe Scripture sets as the basic job of government: to protect people, property, and freedoms. That is the measuring stick they use for everything else.
In their telling, communism flips that purpose. Instead of protecting freedom, it removes it. Instead of protecting property, it confiscates it. Instead of protecting people, it presses them into compliance, often “for the collective good.” They keep returning to that phrase because they see it as the moral cover that makes coercion sound compassionate.
They connect this to the modern push for “equity,” as they define it in the conversation: making outcomes the same by force, rather than guarding opportunity and allowing merit to matter. Alan agrees that equal opportunity is right, but says equality based on merit is not the same thing, and that forced sameness does not line up with how Scripture treats work, reward, and responsibility.
To underline the danger of government control, they quote Ronald Reagan’s well-known line. Alan calls it the scariest statement someone can hear: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” The point is not that all government action is evil, but that unchecked power has a predictable drift, it grows, it controls, and it punishes dissent.
They add a few New York City examples mentioned in the episode: talk of state-run or city-run grocery stores, and a subway fare increase. They joke that the fare went up “to fund the freak when it turns free,” using humor to highlight what they see as the central contradiction, if something becomes “free,” someone still pays, and the system still has to extract the money from the public.
Why they say propaganda works, even when policies don’t
A big part of their frustration is not only the platform of “democratic socialism,” but the person they describe as carrying it. They say the mayor they are discussing has never had a job in his life, and yet now holds executive power in the largest city in America. That detail becomes a symbol for them, what they see as voters being persuaded by narrative instead of track record.
From there, they broaden the concern beyond one city. Jeff cites a cultural shift on college campuses, saying surveys show students are now close to split between preferring democracy and preferring socialism. To them, that signals a generational change in what people fear, what they respect, and what they think government should do.
They also argue from history. In their view, communist regimes share a consistent pattern:
- Poverty becomes normal for average citizens, even if leaders live well.
- Power concentrates in rulers and party leadership.
- The Bible and the gospel are restricted, controlled, or punished.
They mention Russia as an example, including the claim that preaching the gospel there carries a three-year prison term. They also mention Argentina as another place where they say gospel freedom is constrained. Whether the details differ from place to place, their core claim is consistent: communist systems do not stay neutral toward the church, they pressure it, limit it, or try to replace it.
They also point to Venezuela’s collapse and Cuba’s instability as modern proof that the economic promises do not hold. In their telling, leaders end up confiscating goods and wealth, while ordinary people live under pressure and lack.
Acts 2 communal living, what it meant then, and what it does not mean now
This is where the episode becomes more than politics. Alan and Jeff address the common argument Christians hear when communism is debated: “Didn’t the early church do this in Acts 2?”
They acknowledge the text plainly. In Acts 2, believers sold what they had, came together, and held goods in common. They also give a present-day example close to home, a group they call the “12 Tribes,” which they describe as an international Christian community that lives communally. In their description, members sell what they own, live under a group of elders, work without personal wages, and have their needs met within the community.
They do not deny that communal living can exist among Christians. They deny that the state can copy it.
The missing context they say people overlook in Acts 2
Alan emphasizes that Acts 2 also says the believers continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine. For him, that matters because the sharing of resources was not a random economic experiment. It was life under spiritual authority, shared belief, and active obedience.
They also explain the setting as a unique moment in redemptive history. Jesus told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Holy Spirit. When the Spirit came, it produced unity, power, and common mission. In their explanation, the believers gathered and shared because they were oriented toward the Kingdom message they were preaching at that time, a call to Israel to repent, with the expectation of the Messiah’s return and rule.
Jeff puts it in everyday terms: they acted like Jesus might be back “next week.” That expectation changes how people hold money, property, and plans.
Alan adds another point tied to their end-times view. They say that when Christ returns and rules and reigns, there will be a real Kingdom order on earth, and under that headship, a communal kind of provision makes sense because the King is righteous, present, and uncontested. Alan says it plainly: he believes Acts 2, but he is not selling everything now because Jesus is not sitting on the throne in Jerusalem. When Christ does, he says, “count me in.”
Their conclusion is that communal living works only when the core conditions are real, not forced.
Why they call communism a counterfeit of Acts 2
Alan states the key idea: communism is the counterfeit of Acts 2. In Acts 2, the giving is voluntary and Spirit-produced. In communism, the giving is compelled and enforced by the state. In Acts 2, the authority is rooted in Christ and apostolic doctrine. In communism, the authority is rooted in corrupt rulers who want to be king.
They also say this is why the model collapses in history. If you put a corrupt “king” over forced sharing, the system will not produce joy or unity. It produces fear, control, and punishment. They describe it as a “replacement” move, something stepping into a space that belongs to Christ’s Kingdom and trying to imitate it with worldly power.
Replacement thinking, culture shifts, and the warning they keep repeating
As the episode widens, Alan and Jeff connect several trends under one spiritual category: replacement.
They first apply it to theology. They mention replacement theology in the church (the idea of replacing Israel with the church), and then draw a parallel to government replacing the church under communism. They argue that communist countries do not support Israel, and they see that as consistent with a worldview that tries to erase biblical categories and biblical covenants.
Then they apply “replacement” to culture. They talk about replacing moral boundaries, replacing standards, and trying to swap out what God set in place with something else that is sold as “better.” Jeff repeats the phrase “same spirit,” and they connect it to the larger pressure Christians feel when public life turns hostile to biblical speech and biblical practice.
They also circle back to their New York City concerns with added details from the episode. They describe the mayor as unqualified even apart from ideology. They also mention a controversial appointment, saying a trans woman is placed over the fire department and that the person has only been on EMS. They add that the mayor took an oath on the Quran and tell the audience to “do with that whatever you will,” while still presenting it as part of a broader shift in leadership and public values.
They name other places they see this moving, including areas they describe as being under Muslim control, such as Dearborn, Michigan, and parts of Minnesota. They also mention a 400-acre mosque and planned community in Texas, with Sharia law as the concern. They compare these changes to what they say has already happened in Europe.
One example they use is a redheaded female preacher in Australia. In their account, she can preach openly, but if a homosexual person asks for prayer to be set free and she prays, she could face five years in prison. They add that parents of a child could also face prison for the same action. Their point is the same one they have made throughout: when government expands, freedom shrinks, and religious liberty does not survive long under systems that demand ideological agreement.
What they say the church must do before freedoms tighten further
Alan and Jeff do not end with politics as the solution. They end with the church’s assignment.
They say the real answer is for the church to rise up, preach the gospel, and get people born again. Alan stresses that Christians often ask God to “deliver us” while refusing to do the work of the Great Commission. He calls out the habit of becoming tired, taking breaks, and then acting shocked when a culture grows darker.
He also points to a problem closer to home: people sitting in church, assuming attendance equals obedience, and leaving unchanged. In his view, weak discipleship produces weak resistance, and weak resistance invites stronger control.
They expect the political trend to continue. Alan says he believes a democratic socialist will run for president in a coming election cycle. They also discuss Bernie Sanders as an example of how far the movement has already come, claiming Sanders could have gained the nomination if party leaders had not blocked him.
They also connect the pattern to what they call “the spirit of antichrist,” saying counterfeit kingdoms try to preempt what Christ will one day do in fullness. They mention figures like Hitler and Stalin as examples of rulers who tried to build total systems that demanded loyalty and crushed dissent. They end by saying they will pick up that thread in the next episode.
Where to follow The Smith and Rowland Show
For more from Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland, they point listeners to official channels where the show and related teaching can be found:
They also note you can listen on Amazon, Apple, or Spotify.
Final takeaway: Acts 2 isn’t a government program
Alan and Jeff’s main claim is easy to state, and hard to ignore: Acts 2 sharing was born from Holy Spirit unity, not state pressure. When the state tries to copy what only Christ can lead, it becomes coercion dressed up as compassion. The episode ends with a warning and a challenge, the church can’t sleep through rising control and then expect freedom to remain. The question they leave hanging is not only political, it’s spiritual: will believers treat the gospel as urgent again, while there is still room to speak?
Comments