Acts 2.43 and Communism. This is fun stuff folks!

[JanMichael]

Look. I'm a Secular Humanist but I gotta tell you that this sort of Christianity has the makings of Marx, and is something that really has been watered down it seems by today's "believers"...

I wonder how many people have actually read this stuff???

The Fellowship of the Believers

42They devoted themselves to the apostles’
teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of
bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with
awe at the many wonders and signs performed
by the apostles. (OK, this part is circus like but I can accept the time and place...) 44All the believers were together
and had everything in common. 45They sold
property and possessions to give to anyone who
had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together
in the temple courts. They broke bread in
their homes and ate together with glad and sincere
hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor
of all the people. And the Lord added to their
number daily those who were being saved.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure that someone will try to say it's just a charity thing BUT "They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who
had need."? And "had everything in common."?

I hear "anyone" not "Only those we like" or "Only those like me". I hear "in common"...

[whistle]

1. I'm telling you, it's 1st century Christianity, no wonder the Romans

...felt so threatened.

[BoogDoc7]

2. Couple things...

One: Only enforced within the community, and then only when someone lied about their giving.

Two: No governmental recommendations or requirements. This was a way of life that was being adhered to, not a system of government.

Three: No one was forced to join, and no one was MADE to sell all their possessions. It was done freely.

Four: Does not mean that it is something that HAD to be done for future, and the text does not read that they denounced all material things and lived in the same "class." It almost seems that upper and lower class people were doing the same thing here; and also, nothing states that they weren't being good capitalists in their businesses.

[JanMichael]

3. Hey it's all about pickin' and chosin'.

Unless one's a Literalist and even then the mixed messages can be a bitch:-)

[fishwax]

9. Hahaha! Nothing says they weren't developing a working space ship either

:eyes:

"33Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth."

That's Jesus himself talking. And he may not have been talking about a system of government, but he wasn't talking about "only when someone lied about their giving" either. The communal life of the apostles wasn't enforced by government, but it was demanded by the words of their leader.

Those in America who speak/insist upon/have pipe dreams of a "Christian government" do so with thoughts of restricting abortion, preventing obscenity, and intolerance towards gays, etc. But Biblical passages that envision a Christian society (like the one quoted in the OP) don't say anything about that. They talk about abolishing personal property and devoting ALL resources to helping the sick and the poor. So anyone who tries to push their "Christian government" talk but bristles against any restriction of free enterprise is peddling a heresy.

[BoogDoc7]

11. I don't see...

Where the passage restricts free enterprise (nothing forbade them to buy, sell, and make profit - which is what Paul did on his off time as a tentmaker, btw) or abolishing personal property (selling to meet needs did not require that personal property was deemed a sin).

Then again, I rarely read something into a text that isn't there.

[fishwax]

13. You "rarely read something into a text that isn't there" except pts 1 & 3

in your earlier post which are more or less contradictory, in addition to having no root whatsoever in the text.

And of course point 4--since it doesn't prohibit free enterprise, then free enterprise must be allowed. Which isn't exactly reading something into the text, but rather reading "everything" into the text by virtue of negation. Nothing in that passage says that the apostles couldn't use the name of Christ as a merchandising tool and sell replicas of the shroud of turin for three easy payments of ten denarius each. But I think the apostles would have frowned on that behavior too.

"All believers were together and had everything in common." -- "Everything" is their property. Communal property. Not personal property. Everything.

I didn't say that posession of personal property was a sin, but it was discouraged by Jesus and was apparently basically "not done" in the fellowship of believers, since "everything (was) in common."

(edited for clarity)

[IrateCitizen]

19. Ahhh... a libertarian. How quaint.

You're completely missing the point here WRT early 1st century Christian communities. The issue at hand is not that it was a "material" dialectic, but rather that their communitarian lifestyle came about due to a spiritual dialectic.

People in these communities did NOT believe in private property. They shared everything equally among the community and kept no wealth for themselves as individuals -- rather, everything was pooled together.

That's not to say that they didn't engage in the economy COLLECTIVELY. Sure, they sold goods and services in order to have the necessities they needed to survive. But that is not necessarily the definition of CAPITALISM, as you would like to portray it, because it had nothing to do with the accumulation of wealth (which is the organizing principle of capitalism, otherwise it would be called "marketism").

The fact is that there are currently communities living under these same principles. They're called Bruderhof communities. They live communally, running and working small businesses from which all the income is shared equally among all members of the community. They don't do this for profit, but rather to supply the things they need for life. While this may be engaging in the marketplace, I would hardly apply the label "capitalist" to anyone living in such a community.

[LostInAnomie]

4. Communist ideals and Christianity have a lot in common.

That is except for the whole "Religion is the opium of the masses" thing.

[JanMichael]

5. It's all that and everything else. Toss in TV and bam.

Well, wait, it didn't work toward Cooperation over Consumerism...Oh well, so much for Hope.

But it coulda...

[MissMarple]

7. They both seem to have Utopian characteristics.

The perfection of humanity is such an illusive ideal. I think that's why I prefer Star Trek, Terry Pratchett, Harlan Ellison, and other umm.... shall I say, free thinkers.

[fishwax]

10. There have been numerous Christian Socialist movements

in America as well as Europe over the years, before and after Marx. :D

[bloom]

6. I've always thought

from what I was taught - that anyone who really took Christianity seriously would be poor - or at least not have much.

And... would live on communes.



I don't think very many people take it seriously.

[meow2u3]

8. This communitarianism was entirely voluntary

The problem with Communism, apart from its enforced atheism, is that not only was collectivism imposed on the masses from the top down, but also that the government meted out hardly enough for ordinary folk to survive.
1st century Christian communitarianism, on the other hand, was practiced in small towns and everybody agreed to it.

If the governmet tried nowadays to impose a sort of communism with a Christian face on it, it will be nothing other than theocratic tyranny.

[fishwax]

18. Theocratic tyranny is alive and well, though

I agree with your point about that to impose a Christian communism would be theocratic tyranny.

But we put up with lots of theocratic tyranny in this country, from the enforced outrage over Janet's wardrobe malfunction to policies towards AIDS research and foreign aid and attitudes about homosexuals. The standard of Christian fellowship established in the Bible seems to be one of communal property. But very few Christians would advocate making the rest of the country live up to that standard.

On the other hand, there is a vast right-wing fundamentalist movement that would like to make enforce other standards that they somehow find in the Bible, all in the guise that we are a "Christian nation," etc. Passages like the one from Acts are quite useful in highlighting the hypocrisy of that attitude.

[knitter4democracy]

12. Shoot, we've known that for years.

It usually messes with their heads if they think too much about how many times Jesus said to sell all we have, give to the poor, and follow Him. That gets ignored because, just like the rich young man, it's just too hard.

The Church has always, well, at least the Eastern Church, encouraged this kind of community. It's what the monastics still do.

[Yupster]

14. I think you're right that Christianity and communism

have the goal of communal living in common.

The early communities of believers through the monasteries of the Middle Ages to the communes of the last couple of centuries to me is a pretty straight line.

Where communism deviates is by bringing government into the mix though.

I think it's a misunderstanding of Christians seen often by many on the left.

They think that when Jesus said to help the poor that means you should pay taxes and offer government programs. Fundamentalist Christians see it completely differently.

They see Jesus as teaching the obligations of caring for the poor as an individual responsibility. That's why they adopt kids, volunteer at the local AMOS, or at the St Vincent DePaul Society, or the Crisis Pregnancy Center.

The Romans at the time had the most advanced social welfare program of the ancient world. Yet, Jesus didn't lead marches on the Governor's Palace to increase the bread dole.

Also, the end of the Good Samaritan story was not the Samaritan sending a message to the local centurian that there was a guy who needed help. It was to use his own money to help him.

When the rich guy asked Jesus how much he should give to the poor, the answer was daunting. All, he was told.

In the parable of the sheep and goats, Jesus says when the end time comes people will be sent to heaven because when he was hungry they fed him and naked they clothed him. When asked when they ever saw Jesus hungry, he says the powerful, whatever you do to the least of people, you do to me. That's a scary lesson to a Christian and motivates much charitable giving.

It's not the anti-Christian Scroogian message of I pay my taxes, isn't that enough? Are there no orphanages or poor houses?

Or the even worse than Scroogian hypocritical message that turs the Christian message upside down that taxes should be spent to solve these problems, but I should pay less. Those other people over there should pay more.

And what of government? It's to be dismissed as unimportant. You individually do good works and will get your rewards in the next life, not in this one. Whatever some particular government demands, you should give and not offer trouble, but the important kingdom is god's where you will live someday, not whatever empire calls itself sovereign at any particular place or time.

I think Christians are natural Democratic voters, and should be understood and courted.

But currently, the misunderstanding is so great I think there's a long way before inroads will be made, and that's a shame.

[Green Thumb]

15. Besides the differences above

about no one being forced to participate, there is also this jewel...

2 Thes 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

No one gets a free ride.

And also this.

And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strewed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strewed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
(Mat 25:15-29)

[fishwax]

16. The context of the quotes undermines the meaning you've presented

The context of recent translations often refer to idleness, though the King James version used "disorderly" rather than idleness.

The context of that verse in Thessalonians refers to those who "walketh ... not after the tradition which he received of us." The same tradition of common property (one can easily assume) as is described in the Acts verse of the OP. And, of course, the idea of "if any would not work, neither should he eat" refers to spiritual work, not working for the man. Certainly nobody gets a free ride, but if rather if one does not share the communal work than they should not share the communal bread.

The second selection is a parable clearly referring to spiritual rather than monetary wealth. Unlike the following quote from Luke 14, which is not a parable but rather the moral:

So therefore whosoever he be of you that renounceth not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

[IrateCitizen]

17. It's not communism, it's communitarianism.

It's an historical fact that 1st century Christians lived a communitarian lifestyle, one in which everything was shared freely amongst the community, and there really was no such thing as "private property". However, this was a much more spiritual dialectic than a material one, which is where it vastly parts company with communism.

Marx believed that society's ills could be solved through a radical redistribution of wealth, without addressing any of the metaphysical aspects of freely giving up and sharing wealth. Therefore, since it was a materialist dialectic trying to address a metaphysical problem, it was doomed to fail.

There are actually communities today that live by these early communitarian Christian principles. I've actually been in contact with a member of such a community in the NY Hudson Valley recently, for another matter. You can check them out at http://www.bruderhof.org (if that doesn't work, try .com).