As President Obama continues on his course to redistribute the nation’s wealth, his supporters are trying to co-op Christians by contending that this concept is inherently biblical. So it’s worth asking: Were the early Christians socialists? Does the Bible support socialism?

The Bible passage used most often to support this belief is Acts 4: 34-35. Here’s the sentence: “There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.”

Throwing out a quote from Scripture without any context is typical of the depth of analysis done by those who are least familiar with it. Let’s begin by acknowledging that the Bible does encourage us to give generously to others.

Surveys repeatedly demonstrate that it is religious people who give the most – and, despite recent rhetoric, Christians represent, by far, the majority of the religious people in this country.

In an August 2007 article on the subject of American generosity, reporter Ruth Ann Dailey of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette cited two highly visible studies on the issue. The first was a 2006 special on ABC’s “20/20” entitled “Cheap in America: Who Gives and Who Doesn’t?”

She highlighted host John Stossel’s finding that “the single biggest predictor of giving is religious participation.” In fact, she says that religious people in America are not only more likely to give to both religious and secular charities, but in making these contributions, they give four times more than others. “They are even 18 percent more likely to give blood.”

Ms. Dailey also references what some might call the definitive book on the subject of giving in America, “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism,” by Arthur Brooks. The publisher notes that Mr. Brooks’ research “demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate – far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills – all of these factors determine how likely one is to give.”

Former President George W. Bush built on the generosity of this base when he founded the Office for Faith-Based Initiatives “to enlist, equip, enable, empower and expand the heroic works of faith-based and community groups across America."

In the aforementioned biblical quote from the Acts of the Apostles, please note that the apostles didn’t command the early Christians to sell their homes and give them the proceeds. Instead, the people, out of their love for God, chose to sell their homes and give the proceeds to the Apostles.

Why?

First, because they loved the Apostles, whom they rightly saw as representatives of Jesus Christ. Second, because they shared the Apostles’ belief system and knew their money would be used to support the things in which they deeply believed. Love and shared values were the basis of their generosity, not coercion.

I don’t think any rational person sees the U.S. government or President Barack Obama as a representative of God. (Note: I said, rational person.) Rather, most Christians choose to give money to a church or organization in which they believe, or directly to a needy person – especially persons who fall between the cracks and do not qualify for government aid.

An example of the latter is an elderly diabetic woman I know who could not continue to live in her mobile home on her meager Social Security check if not for the generosity of those in her church. Another example is the young mother of two whose husband had a mental breakdown and walked out on the family. She moved into a small town-home in a not-so-nice area, but still had trouble paying for food, and the children could no longer afford to participate in any extracurricular activities – at least until they received help from a very religious friend.

Given all of this, wouldn’t it make sense for the government to encourage, rather than discourage, faith in God – which research demonstrates leads people to voluntarily help their fellow man – rather than to impose coercive programs and onerous taxes on its citizens?

Why is it that liberals feel people must be coerced? Is it because that is the only way they give to others? Or is it because liberals are afraid that no one will want to give to the causes they hold dear? Is it because they want us all to give to global warming initiatives rather than collections of warm blankets, to help those “unfortunates” who want abortions rather than couples who can’t afford to adopt, to help illegal aliens rather than blue collar workers get jobs in this country?

Christians – indeed, most religious people – are encouraged to see themselves as stewards of the money they earn. They thank God for everything they have. Therefore, they give as their faith and their consciences, which have been formed by their faith, dictate – not as the government dictates. In fact, I believe that most Americans do not want Uncle Sam telling them to whom or to what they should give the money they earn.

Don’t tax me so you can fund policies that are anathema to most Christians; such as clinics, hospitals or nursing homes who perform “merciful acts” of abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research, (which has cured no one), rather than adult stem cell research (which has cured many). Don’t subject me to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s rants about raising my taxes to pay for forced abortions in China (which just goes to prove that calling oneself a Christian and actually being a Christian are two separate things. But I digress.).

Final point: Let’s put that passage from Acts about giving to the needy in context. What context? How about the context of work? The Bible actually has quite a lot to say about this subject – none of which would give aid and comfort to those who would redistribute our wealth according to government dictates.

In 2 Thessalonians 3, the Apostles say they have striven to be good role models and have never eaten food received free from anyone. “In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.” They urge people “to work quietly and eat their own food” and not to act in a “disorderly” way or as “busybodies.”

The Bible does not encourage people to be dissolute freeloaders any more than it encourages immoral living or government redistribution of wealth. The Bible does encourage its adherents to love one another, to help one another, to exhort one another to live a good life and to do it all out of a love for One who is Love – that is, Jesus Christ, and not the government.

Don’t tell me it’s biblical for the government, or anyone in the government, to play God. It’s not. Don’t tell me it’s biblical for the government to take my money and give it to the causes it deems worthy of support – causes most Christians do not support. It’s not. And don’t tell me it’s biblical to give to those who choose not to contribute to society even when they are clearly able. It’s not.

As Jesus told the Sadducees in Mark 12:24 and 12:27: “Are you … misled because you do not know the Scriptures…? … You are greatly misled.”

To that, I have one thing to say: Amen.