I know this is probably trampling over old ground, but please indulge me. Are the teachings of Jesus supportive of socialism? I am bewildered about what to believe about Christianity. I am firmly committed to the ideal of personal responsibility within the context of societal freedom, but I'm worried that this conflicts with New Testament teachings. Help!

I can say for sure, but if you go to the Acts of the Apostles (2:42 or so)...you'll see a few things.
One,that the people followed the heirarchy & the teachings of the apostles.
Two, that they celebrated the Eucharist.
Three and most related to your question, they not only formed a community, but sold all their things to support one another and share in the communal life.
This sounds very socialist. I'm sure the Apostles tried to maintain the integrity of Christ's teachings.

I am not a socialist or a communist. Am I, therefore, not a Christian?

I personally don't agree with socialism--it has it has its negative effects on society. The way I see it...back then, they knew that love, through self-sacrifice and giving to others, they could not only be doing the will of God, but experiencing the beauty of God's love. That's way they sold & gave to the community. But, that's all they could do! It was barely A.D.

There were no annuities, investments, charitable trusts, etc. The only way to help was to sell what you had. So, it seems like socialism, but that's all you could do to help your suffering neighbor--was just to sell what you had. We, personally, try to live practically and not in excess. We give of our time and of our money to the poor and keep the poor and suffering on our minds. I subscribe to Maryknoll magazine and give to them so I don't forget the rest of God's people around the world. I don't know if this is enough. But, living in the US it is hard sometimes not to get caught up in excess and forget the poor.

This, for us, keeps us grounded and in the spirit of giving. We also invite others to give.

I think instead of wondering if your a Christian based on whether he was politically a socialist or not is a bit skewed. Instead, loving one another and doing His will of caring for the poor in spirit was and is the message.

As long as society doesn't forget to tend to the poor, the suffering, the poor in spirit, the marginalized, being Christian is not alienated. We should also give, at times, to the point where it does feel like a sacrifice. Many sacrifice to buy the car they want (excess). Why not buy a practical car and give (instead) to the poor? This can clearly be done in a free society.

I think what is needed in addressing a question like Ann’s is a better understanding of the historic distinction between the Church and the State within historic Christianity, a distinction evident both in NT writings and especially, the later writings of the Church (probably most exhaustively treated in Augustine's "City of God"). A few brief notes of further explanation:

1) Jesus, as he is portrayed in the gospels, was principally concerned with divorcing idea of the state, or polis, from the kingdom of God. The widespread Jewish opinion of his day held that the coming Jewish Messiah would conquer the enemies of Israel by means of the Divine State--e.g. the Messiah would be "Commander-in-Chief" of the celestial army. He did no such thing. Rather the NT writers present him as "conquering the world" via his death and resurrection, and in the process, receiving authority from his Father over the nations, and most especially, the Church. Jesus brought the “kingdom of God” to men, which was “not of this world.” (Jn. 18:36)

2) Jesus’ rule over the nations is played out through the Church as the mediating institution between God and man. The State, on the other hand, though divinely sanctioned (Rm. 13:1-4), is NOT the central locale of God’s ministry on earth. In other words, to directly address the question posed, the State is NOT the institution that mediates equal distribution of wealth through centralized planning. The best that the State can do is to enforce justice and restrain evil in the world, but, as the socio-economic catastrophes of the 19th and 20th centuries show, it can only mess things up when it infringes on free citizens’ abilities to give voluntarily.

3) The story of the Church holding all things in common in Acts 2 is the story of the Church, not the State. The passage shows the first-generation church, through voluntary giving and under apostolic oversight, showing charity and hospitality to one another. The passage says nothing about Rome regulating these acts of giving in order redistribute wealth to every citizen of the polis. The Church, as the divinely instituted locale of the work of the gospel on earth, advocated for a form of giving that was not compulsory, but rather was voluntary, for as St. Paul said in one of his letters, “God loves a cheerful giver.”

4) If the State begins to adopt centralized economic policies which seek to redistribute wealth evenly to its citizens, it ends up infringing the charitable work done directly by the Church as well as other “mediating institutions” (i.e. religious orders, philanthropic groups such as Red Cross, Rotary International, and countless others). I would argue that it is precisely this error which fueled Socialist disasters of the 20th century: translating biblical language concerning the Church into the work of the State, thus, coupled with the expanse of technology and industry, forming the Socialist, Positivistic, and Utopian philosophies which drove Europe and the Soviet Union to totalitarianism and economic catastrophe.

So in answer to Ann’s question, I would argue that no, Jesus was, and is, not a Socialist. He is for the Church, which, through its prophetic work on earth, informs and mediates the delicate relationship between the State, poverty, and the individual.