Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Was the Early Church Communist?

In the book of Acts we are told the following about the early church in Jerusalem:

Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common....There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

So is communism the Christian ideal? Individuals who accept Marxist ideology or liberation theology may certainly argue this way, and use this passage as a proof text. But is the Bible really teaching communism as a normative and ideal way of life for Christians?

Jay Richards addresses this question in his book Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem.(1) He points out four important things to remember when examining this passage:

  • First, this passage mentions nothing of class warfare or the idea that private property is immoral, as does modern communism. Rather, Christians were sharing freely and spontaneously.
  • Second, neither does this passage mention anything about the state. The state is nowhere to be found. It is not the government that is confiscating property and collectivizing industry.
  • Third, later in Acts 5 when Peter condemns Ananias and Sapphira, he does not condemn them for keeping part of the proceeds but rather for lying about the amount they received. In fact, in verse 4 Peter explicitly states the property was rightfully theirs even after they sold it: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal?"
  • Fourth, the Bible never makes the communal life of the early church in Jerusalem prescriptive for Christians. Furthermore, it doesn't even seem to be the norm for the Jerusalem church but was rather short lived.

On this last point, Walt Russell in his book Playing with Fire gives us two important criteria for determining whether or not a particular behavior of Christians in the book of Acts should be considered normative and prescriptive for us today (2):

  • First, is the behavior repeatedly emphasized or is it a recurring theme within the broader narrative of Acts?
  • Second, is this recurring pattern of behavior closely aligned with Luke's main emphasis on a universal, Law-free identity for God's people?

Examining the communal lifestyle of the early church in Jerusalem by these two criteria shows that it fails on both accounts. This behavior is nowhere mentioned again in the book of Acts or even in the entire rest of the New Testament. It also does not fit with Luke's main purpose for writing the book of Acts.

Therefore, given the context and indicators within the passage itself and the fact that this behavior is not to be considered normative or prescriptive, it certainly cannot be argued that communism is in anyway the Christian ideal or was even practiced by the early church. Marxists and liberation theologians will have to find their proof texts elsewhere.

(1) See Money, Greed, and God, pgs. 22-24.

(2) See Playing with Fire, pgs. 218-223.

1 comment:

Charmaine said...

Seeing that you have studied the LDS religion and beliefs, I think this will make sense.

You are spot on. The scriptures say nothing about the state. Only that this is the way that they lived - and that it is the ideal. As a member of the LDS church, this is what I refer to as "God's Plan." That everyone lives together and that there are no people who go without. Communism is what I refer to as "Satan's Plan."

A point of LDS doctrine is that there was a great war in heaven fought between the followers of Jesus and the followers Lucifer. Satan presented a plan in which all of God's children would go to earth and there be forced to make the right choices. Jesus' plan was to allow men to choose. The result: a war between all the host of heaven about Liberty or Freedom.

Communism forces people to take care of their neighbor. They are given no credit for the good they may have chosen to do on their own. Including taking care of his neighbor and excellence as a hard worker or intellectual thinker, or an inventor - the list can go on and on. It's gives men no freedom and no credit. Whereas, Capitalism allows men the means to take care of himself, his family and others - as he chooses. Thereby, Capitalism and Liberty give individuals the credit and take it away from State.