Was The Early Church Socialist?

30 posted on September 30, 2010

POSTED IN: Blog Posts, Church, Makes You Think

This topic and the title for this post isn’t meant to be divisive (although there are some who might take it that way). I really believe in reading the Bible with an open mind and heart and not shying away from the natural questions that arise out of a passage. Too many churches are used to tiptoeing around topics or verses that are hard to explain or might stir up heated controversy.

I’m not saying we need to always have the answers to tough passages in the Bible. Sometimes the best answer is, “Man, I really have a hard time with this verse and don’t really understand it.”

For example, here’s a couple of passages we have all read a lot from Acts 2 and Acts 4 about the founding of the early church:

And all the believers lived in a wonderful harmony, holding everything in common. They sold whatever they owned and pooled their resources so that each person’s need was met. They followed a daily discipline of worship in the Temple followed by meals at home, every meal a celebration, exuberant and joyful, as they praised God. People in general liked what they saw. Every day their number grew as God added those who were saved. (Acts 2:42-47)

The whole congregation of believers was united as one – one heart, one mind! They didn’t even claim ownership of their own possessions. No one said, “That’s mine; you can’t have it.” They shared everything. And so it turned out that not a person among them was needy. Those who owned fields or houses sold them and brought the price of the sale to the apostles and made an offering of it. The apostles then distributed it according to each person’s need. (Acts 4:32-35)

It’s an amazing and powerful passage about the impact these early believers had on their culture but it sounds rather idealistic, doesn’t it? Selling possessions and pooling resources to create equality among everyone? Nothing being owned individually but everything shared equally? Some might call that socialism or even Marxism.

Without getting caught up in political tangents or nasty discussions I’d like to know…

Do those verses apply to us today? Were early believers socialists?

TWEET THIS

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 30th, 2010 at 10:29 am and is filed under Blog Posts, Church, Makes You Think. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

22 Comments

Share yours!

Visit My Website

September 30, 2010

Permalink

1 Mike said:

It’s funny you bring this up, because I just had this same conversation last week in my group. I think labeling certain actions is, perhaps, not the best way to go about describing them. Between common decency and helping those in need, the goal is to end up with the sheep when they’re separated from the goats (Matthew 25:31-46). In the end, it really shouldn’t matter if it is or is not socialism at work — it’s about what needs to be done and how you can take action. After all, capitalism can take you only so far
Visit My Website

September 30, 2010

Permalink

2 Curtis Honeycutt said:

In the first century, people didn’t hang out with people who weren’t like them. It was SCANDALOUS to have people of all walks of life hanging out and doing life together. I think, in that sense, they were a bit socialist.
Visit My Website

September 30, 2010

Permalink

3 Erik Cooper said:

Socialism is government mandated. The early church was living into God’s Kingdom. A FREE people WILLFULLY CHOOSING to share their lives and possessions with one another out of their love for Christ. Same outcome perhaps. Different motivation. Key distinction for me.
Visit My Website

September 30, 2010

Permalink

4 Brad Ruggles said:

Great input so far. And good distinction Erik.
Visit My Website

September 30, 2010

Permalink

5 Mud Puppy said:

They were absolutely socialist.

The issue you will find however is that people will argue that it’s fine for the church (maybe even our mission), but not for a government.

The problem I have is that the church seems to be picking and choosing which parts of morality we want to impose on our government. The church wants their fingerprints all over the government, but only when it suits them. Socialistic tendencies doesn’t seem to suit them. Draw your own conclusions why.
Visit My Website

September 30, 2010

Permalink

6 Dave Wilson said:

This question has nagged at me lately too.

Act 2 displays a radical approach to money and possessions. But it seems that the epistles describe the presence of the rich and the poor in the church, and the well-to-do are not encouraged to sell all.

My uninformed opinion is that the church today could benefit from having more of the heart of Acts 2 and 4, but isn’t called universally to a fully “socialist” existence.

Dave
Visit My Website

September 30, 2010

Permalink

7 Clayton Bell said:

Erik highlights the main point- most socialsim is mandated from the outside into a person, regardless of their heart’s disposition. The early church was not required to but chose to display radical generosity and sacrificial giving. These traits should continue to be present in our 21st century churches.

Worship actions where the heart is not engaged and is forced out of false obligation and is totally denounced by the church as “religion,” but we recognize that many of the same actions can be done in a pure attitude of worship when the heart is engaged.

The question shouldn’t be “is it biblical to live a life of radical sacrifice and generosity” because of course it is! The question is- should it be mandated from an outside authority (church or civil government) or the result of an overflow from a transformed heart?
Visit My Website

September 30, 2010

Permalink

8 Brad Ruggles said:

Excellent contribution Clayton! Thanks!
Visit My Website

September 30, 2010

Permalink

9 Jay said:

I was going to offer a longer comment, but then I read Clayton’s.

He nailed it.
Visit My Website

September 30, 2010

Permalink

10 Nick said:

Clayton said everything I would have said, but probably better
Visit My Website

September 30, 2010

Permalink

11 Ric Booth said:

I wouldn’t call it socialism for the reasons already mentioned by Erik Cooper and Clayton Bell: Socialism is a form of government imposed by those in power. The first century church was anything but (those in power).

This brings up an interesting topic, though. I think good people, with good intentions, have attempted (over the centuries) to delegate the church’s responsibility of caring for those in need to the state. But, of course, we cannot delegate or legislate love.
Visit My Website

September 30, 2010

Permalink

12 Dave Wilson said:

This whole conversation reminds me of an interesting post on New Monasticism on the InternetMonk blog. It mentioned Acts 4 in an article about groups of intentional communities in poorer areas.

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/a-simpler-emerging-way

Don’t know if it’s bad manners to include a link in a comment. Brad, feel free to pull it if it is.

Dave
Visit My Website

September 30, 2010

Permalink

13 Sarah C said:

Makes me think of Shane Claiborne’s “Simple Way” community. Such a beautiful way to live, if we could put our selfish ways aside. (That is the key, AND the trouble!)

Here’s a great Shane quote:

“Where true love exists, capitalism wouldn’t be possible and communism wouldn’t be necessary.”

So – yes, I think it was. We sure have gotten a long ways away from that.
Visit My Website

September 30, 2010

Permalink

14 Aaron Guilmette said:

I think there’s what some would consider to be a paradox. While in Acts, they pooled their resources, there’s no indication of any of the problems that happened to the “common storehouse” of Jamestown.

In Jamestown, John Smith abolished the common storehouse based on II Thes 3:10, stating that if a man doesn’t work, he shouldn’t eat.

Once you have a society that truly follows the Bible and lives out life under grace and not law, communitiy sharing is a natural outcome. Jesus said that the law can be summed up in two commandments: love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. If you are living that, giving and sharing is the result.
Visit My Website

October 1, 2010

Permalink

15 April said:

It does sound like the idealistic way to do things in the church…. But I have to wonder if part of the reason why it worked for them had to do with their culture. When we visited David Cho’s church in Seoul (largest church in the world… something like 900,000 members), we learned about how it grew to be so big and their approach to church. After listening, it was apparent to us that what works in Korean culture would not work well in American culture based on our individualistic mindset as opposed to the communal mindset of the Koreans.
I just wonder if something similar is what makes this type of “ideal” church sound impossible to us.
Visit My Website

October 1, 2010

Permalink

16 @PaulStenbrueck said:

I was going to post something very similar to what Clayton posted earlier. The big difference between the early church and socialism is that in the early church they shared voluntarily whereas socialism mandates everything be held in common.

And while Acts 2:42 says “holding everything in common” the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 seems to participation was voluntary.

>>1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
>>
>>3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?

From Peter’s words it seems clear that Ananias personally owned the property. And after he sold it, he could have done anything he wanted to with the money. So, giving the money seemed to be voluntary. His sin was lying to the Holy Spirit.

All that said, I do think it would be awesome if there was more sharing and communal living among Christians.
Visit My Website

October 1, 2010

Permalink

17 TED GRIDER said:

You bring up some good points (and questions) however, a key difference is that when socialism is mandated by government and –in contrast– socialistic characteristics are lived out by the Church.
Visit My Website

October 1, 2010

Permalink

18 Danny James said:

Must remember that they were hanging out, waiting, because they thought the Lord was coming back very soon. Once they realized that they did not know when, they broke and scattered. Wondered if the Lord scattered to spread the church?
Visit My Website

October 1, 2010

Permalink

19 Bizzy said:

I absolutely agree that the key difference is the issue of whether the “socialism” is voluntary.

Another key aspect is the heart with which things are shared. Some might say this is part and partial to being voluntary, in that if your heart wasn’t right you wouldn’t give. Be that as it may, we do need to make the distinction. God measures a man’s heart.

Another distinction is that the early church could and did ‘punish’ for bad behavior. We are instructed not only to take care of one another but to take responsibility for our own needs as much as possible. In Proverbs and several of Paul’s letters we are told to work to provide for ourselves and not be a burden on others. This means that while we should be ready to give of what we have, we are not entitled to anything anyone else may chose not to give us. Socialism typically implies that just as you are required to give into the common pool, you are entitled to benefit from it.
Visit My Website

October 2, 2010

Permalink

20 BJ said:

very touchy topic, I think it has been stated many times that it is a mindset of sacrifice that we have to achieve. The gov’t shouldn’t force us to give up something to just give to someone as that creates a sence of intitlement of deserving something one didn’t work for. If we all are giving what we have, rich or poor, more or less, that is the true spirit of it so all are giving out of their abundance or lack of abuncance all they have, not just the top 10 pecent or the middle class to the lower financial classes of the segment of the population. So hopefully I tiptoed the pollitical and spiritual element of this topic without going to far….lol
Visit My Website

November 4, 2010

Permalink

21 Allen said:

The point mentioned earlier distinguishing the early church from socialism by citing the presence of a voluntary nature rather than a government-mandated nature is a false logic. Socialism does not depend on HOW a people come to share in the economic costs and benefits; it only depends on THAT a people share in the economic costs and benefits. This state of affairs could easily come about voluntarily of through involutary manners. Either way, an economic system in which the people as a whole own the means of productions and share in the economic responsibilities as well as the fruits of the labor is, by definition, socialist. If that state of affairs is derived from a forceful intervention on the part of an unelected central government, it is often referred to as fascism.

There are several examples of countries in the world today who are wholly socialist through the will of the people expressed in democratic processes. Christians simply do not like to think of the early church as being socialist because many Christians have been brought up in bigoted environments where socialists are put on the same plane with rapists and murderers.
Visit My Website

November 4, 2010

Permalink

22 Brad Ruggles said:

That’s a very intelligent and well-expressed point of view Allen. Thanks for lending your opinion to the subject.