Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. ... There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)How is that not communism?
I see one, critical distinction. No one told them to do it. Go ahead. Read the passages for yourself. Look around and see if you can find somewhere that the Apostles said, "Now, if you're going to be part of us, you have to give up ownership of everything and share." Find one place that is a command to do this. In fact, at one point two people tried to pretend as if they were doing it when they weren't and Peter said, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" (Acts 5:4). That is, it was definitely not a requirement. They didn't even want gifts from people who didn't wish to give them. Lacking a coherent command, then, it can't really be called "a system" as Merriam-Webster terms it. It just seems to be ... a reality. A knee-jerk reaction. Just what happened.
So ... what happened? What caused this difference? Well, According to the text it was unity. They were "together." They were "of one heart and soul." They were not "all about me." They were dying to self. In Jesus's words, they had love for one another (John 13:35). It was what Jesus prayed for. "... that they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You have sent Me." (John 17:21). It was the same unity Paul begged for. "Complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind." (Php 2:2). What mind? "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." (Php 2:3-4). What mind? The mind of Christ who humbled Himself (Php 2:5-8).
How was the early church different from communism? Communism is a mandate; the early church was the natural product of changed hearts. Communism demands everything you own; the early church offered it freely. Communism is a government; the early church was selfless love, a spontaneous response from the heart. As such, there is no personal benefit -- no "thanks," no "atta-boy," no "well done" -- for the communist who gives all because it is mandatory. It doesn't speak well of your heart or your attitude or your selflessness. It is a mandate. Not so with Christian love displayed the way they did in Acts.
One question remains. It is not "How was the early church different from modern communism?" It is "Why is the modern church so different from the early church?" If the truth is that they "had everything in common" because "It's not about me," I would suggest that too many of us lack that "It's not about me" perspective. I would argue that we ought to be people changed from within, more concerned with the welfare of fellow believers than our own. If we are not, we have a problem, don't we?
No comments:
Post a Comment