Christian Socialism???

[Ian Gentles]

Nope, this is not a political post.

In Acts 2:43-45 we read
"And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all who beleived were together and had all things in commen; and they sold their possesions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need." (RSV)

My latest blog shows my feelings on riches http://ian-gentles.blogspot.com

But the words quoted are in scripture, so how do we see these words being carried out today?

Socialism politicaly dosent work simply because fallen humanes are greedy. Though the ideal does have benefits.

So how do we 21st centuary christians put the words quoted into action? Or do we just ignore them?

[Jim Chabot]

I see this passage as being descriptive rather than prescriptive. We learn as we read histories of both success and failure, in this case failure is evident, thus my view is that we should not seek to forward these words as suggestive to us. Rather a good example of a bad example. The passage in acts is summed up nicely in 1Cor, 16 which begins "Now concerning the collection."

For me it goes beyond ignore, to actively speak against.

[Craig Laughlin]

Nope, this is not a political post.

In Acts 2:43-45 we read
"And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all who beleived were together and had all things in commen; and they sold their possesions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need." (RSV)

My latest blog shows my feelings on riches http://ian-gentles.blogspot.com

But the words quoted are in scripture, so how do we see these words being carried out today?

Socialism politicaly dosent work simply because fallen humanes are greedy. Though the ideal does have benefits.

So how do we 21st centuary christians put the words quoted into action? Or do we just ignore them?

Good blog. Although I'm not persuaded that folks without a lot of money secretly wish they had it. I wouldn't turn it down if given to me (just like I wouldn't turn down a great singing voice, 6 more inches of height, or any number of things like this) but I'm not at all willing to do what most rich people have to do to be that way.

Sunday we had a group return from a WW trip in Honduras. After the service one of the folks who went shared with me about a conversation he had with one of the people from Honduras. It basically went, they (Honduran Christians) feel sorry and pray for Christians in the United States in large part because our wealth has made us spiritually impotent. I had that same conservation in a couple of other Latin American countries. We Westerners are really all very rich by world standards. One of the myths we tell ourselves is that other folks envy us and want to be like us. I think this applies both internationally and internally. Whenever I hear a rich (er than me) person say that my motivation for my opinions is envy I have to resist the urge to laugh. However, it does give me insight into my Latin friends.

I do think your blog gets at it pretty well. The real question is are we obedient (whatever our gift, money, music, organization, leadership, teacher etc. etc) to God's teaching and leading.

The text you mentioned tends to get pushed to extremes in my opinion. On the one side is the - Let's all have one bank account and live as a commune, on the other side is, this passage is irrelevant. - It seems to me the underlying principle is that we all have responsibility to help each other out, even if it costs us something and we give more of what God has given more of to us. (our gifts)

[James Diggs]

I see this passage as being descriptive rather than prescriptive. We learn as we read histories of both success and failure, in this case failure is evident, thus my view is that we should not seek to forward these words as suggestive to us. Rather a good example of a bad example. The passage in acts is summed up nicely in 1Cor, 16 which begins "Now concerning the collection."

For me it goes beyond ignore, to actively speak against.

What "failure" exists here?:

Acts 2:43-45 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

No mechanism is described here as how this was executed just that they shared all they had with one another and because they were sharing resources they could afford to sell property and stuff to help others in need. They used less because they shared and because of this were able to give more. You're right, no prescription is given in how (the mechanics) to pull it off, but I wouldn't consider their actions a failure in the least as it seems to really embrace Kingdom living and loving others (both in and out of the church community) as ourselves.

1 Corinthians 16:1-3 Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem.

This verse does not contradict the testimony in acts at all, the collection of money wasn't for their common living but a gift to the community in Jerusalem. There is nothing in Paul's letter here that denies or condemns the sharing of their resources with one another in away that they could free up anything extra so they could give to those in need.

[Billy Cox]

I see this passage as being descriptive rather than prescriptive. We learn as we read histories of both success and failure, in this case failure is evident, thus my view is that we should not seek to forward these words as suggestive to us. Rather a good example of a bad example. The passage in acts is summed up nicely in 1Cor, 16 which begins "Now concerning the collection."

I'll always remember the first time I realized that the book of Acts was not a snapshot of how the congregation should operate, but as you suggested, how it did operate. With that in mind, the book reads very differently.

[Doug Ward]

Nope, this is not a political post.

In Acts 2:43-45 we read
"And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all who beleived were together and had all things in commen; and they sold their possesions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need." (RSV)

My latest blog shows my feelings on riches http://ian-gentles.blogspot.com

But the words quoted are in scripture, so how do we see these words being carried out today?

Socialism politicaly dosent work simply because fallen humanes are greedy. Though the ideal does have benefits.

So how do we 21st centuary christians put the words quoted into action? Or do we just ignore them?

Good question, Ian. No, we do not ignore their words, but we also do not want to politicize them, which you clearly are not doing. There are voices within Christianity that stridently politicize these words, and use them as a call for socialism. The problem with this picture is that we do not give or sell our possessions, rather we have these taken from us, or never are allowed to have any - depending on the extent of the socialism. This robs the very act of generosity of its quality and power.

As individuals, we need to realize that our possessions, are not for us to enjoy, but to be used in the service of Christ. This starts with regular tithe, not out of obligation, but joyful participation. Yet it does not end there. We need to have open hearts to the moving of the Spirit, even if the Spirit moves through our checkbook.

Let me also add this goes to the life of the church as well. We have a number of churches in our denomination now who just refuse to contribute to their Apportionments. I love the way we support scholarships at our colleges, and the work of missions around the world. However, a plague of selfishness has hit us at the local church level. We cannot talk to our people about generosity, if we withhold from the work of the larger kingdom as well.

Finally, I do not mean to relegate this to the life of the church. There are countless, everyday ways we can advance the work of Christ in our communities through sharing and generosity. It is in this area I think much more can be done. I know that in recent weeks, I have felt the tug of the Spirit toward the direction of Kiva.org, thanks to people here.

[Billy Cox]

No mechanism is described here as how this was executed just that they shared all they had with one another and because they were sharing resources they could afford to sell property and stuff to help others in need. They used less because they shared and because of this were able to give more. You're right, no prescription is given in how (the mechanics) to pull it off, but I wouldn't consider their actions a failure in the least as it seems to really embrace Kingdom living and loving others (both in and out of the church community) as ourselves.

..

This verse does not contradict the testimony in acts at all, the collection of money wasn't for their common living but a gift to the community in Jerusalem. There is nothing in Paul's letter here that denies or condemns the sharing of their resources with one another in away that they could free up anything extra so they could give to those in need.

Consider Acts 4:32-35

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

That sounds like mechanics to me. It is a very good definition of how to transition from providing help, to needing it. I just don't see a Kingdom ethic in committing economic suicide. It sounds a lot like selling one's birthright for a pot of stew.

Isn't it interesting that Paul set about to raise money from the Gentile congregations to help the brothers in Jerusalem who were in need?? Could it be that they were reaping a bitter harvest from their self-inflicted destitution?

I have a theory that the apostles oversold the 'Jesus is coming back' narrative to the point that the early congregation did things with no regard for the future.

[Ian Gentles]

I think being concious of others situations can help. Sometimes I do find christians with money forget others might not be as they are. Simple illustration, I'm invited to play golf at a course I really cant afford. Not being childish, but cant others maybe understand this?
Maybe christian socialism needs be be an attitude, rather than a practice? We need to concider each other. I dont envy my richer brethern, for I know they also will have their crosses to bear. I appreciate them in that, their money goes a long way to financing the church.
I agree about third world christians often being happier than we christians in the west. In my youth I grew up in a working class community, our church was mostly working class folks. There was more of a community feeling, being all alike in income bracket.
Living in the west costs a lot of money, as we all know. Therefore finances become more of a strain than maybe in third world? They are sadly poor, but happier often.

[James Diggs]

Consider Acts 4:32-35

That sounds like mechanics to me.

You mean this part?

For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

I am still not seeing this as the prescribed mechanism but what people chose to do from time to time, yet all the time they considered their neighbor's as themselves.

In the next part of the story Barnabas sold a field he had owned and gave all the profit away. I don't see where this was required of him because he had already been part of the community and was a property owner as part of the community. It sounds like he made the choice to sell his property as a need arose.

But then, following Barnabas example (his name did mean “son of encouragement”) Ananias and Sapphira did the same thing, except they held back money for themselves- but presented it to the Apostles as if they were giving all the profit from what they sold just as Barnabas and others had done (from time to time). It seems to me the grievance against Ananias and Sapphira is that they presented what they did as if it was something it wasn't and undermined the point of the whole thing.

It is a very good definition of how to transition from providing help, to needing it. I just don't see a Kingdom ethic in committing economic suicide.

I don't know Billy- I can see this maybe if you hold hard to a mechanical system that gave the apostles absolute top down control over everyone stuff. But I doubt this was the case, especially when you consider that it was a top down food monopoly that expanded the empire of Pharaoh and enslaved a nation of Jews.

Contrast this to how God broke them of the ways of Pharaoh in the wilderness with the "wonder bread" from heaven, I can't imagine that the Kingdom ethic has anything to do with making sure we have enough for the future.

The Disciples were (obviously) followers of Jesus who likewise provided more than enough while teaching in the wilderness too. When they shared, as they lived for the sake of the "common good" (in the way Walter Brueggemann means it) they lived out the Kingdom ethic of getting out of the rat race of everyman for himself that causes us to hoard more than we need out of fear that we might not have enough. Such things are like the way of Pharaoh, rooted in his bad dream (skinny cows) and anxiety of not having enough, so in response he manipulated others in order to "secure" himself and his empire.

This also might inform us as to what was so grievous of Ananias and Sapphira deceit, as they tried to manipulate others for the sake of themselves.

Isn't it interesting that Paul set about to raise money from the Gentile congregations to help the brothers in Jerusalem who were in need??

Or it could be they wanted to continue to expand the sharing as the community kept expanding by meeting more and more needs.

I have a theory that the apostles oversold the 'Jesus is coming back' narrative to the point that the early congregation did things with no regard for the future.

I think they certainly did jump the gun in that regard involving other things, but I am not sure this is the case here. I think the sharing was actually more sustainable than the way of Pharaoh.

[Dale Cozby]

In Acts 2:43-45 we read
"And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all who beleived were together and had all things in commen; and they sold their possesions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need." (RSV)

So how do we 21st centuary christians put the words quoted into action? Or do we just ignore them?

I would prefer the term Christian Communism to the use of the term socialism. Communism requires a revolution whereas socialism is more of an evolution.
You are correcct that socialism and communism fail in the world system because the world is fallen and corrupt. It has not been redeemed and as thus the high ideals of communal living will not work with unrepented fallen humans.
Even within the communal living philosophy it only works when several key components are in place.
1. It must be by free association. No one is born into it for life though they may be raised in it until they reach an age to walk away. Members need to be able to walk away if they disagree with the group or if they do not live by the groups expectations then the group should be able to remove them from the commune.
2. The group needs to make its community property and private property rules and expectations explicit from the beginning.
3. Changing any rules or expectations is problematic in that it should be by consensus not democratic vote. This keeps it from being just a majority rule, and it keeps it from other forms of rule as well that show themselves are coming from another source than the Holy Spirit.
4. All the members must be willing to put others first always and trust the individual members(includes self) are going to be able to prosper more greatly than if they were working for just themselves.

I think there are several examples of Christian Communism working in the 21st century. Probably the ones that come to my mind are, even though I disagree with some of thier beliefs and practices, the Amish.
Thier form of communal lifestlye has been fairly consistant through the decades of the 20th century and into the 21st. I don't have any around here to speak to, but the fact they are still around proves they haven't self-destructed.

[Larry Parsons]

Nope, this is not a political post.

In Acts 2:43-45 we read
"And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all who beleived were together and had all things in commen; and they sold their possesions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need." (RSV)

My latest blog shows my feelings on riches http://ian-gentles.blogspot.com

But the words quoted are in scripture, so how do we see these words being carried out today?

Socialism politicaly dosent work simply because fallen humanes are greedy. Though the ideal does have benefits.

So how do we 21st centuary christians put the words quoted into action? Or do we just ignore them?

I think everyone knows that these three verses have been used by Christian socialists for years as a proof-text to prove that that the church should be practicing socialism. Yes, the early Jerusalem church practiced financial sharing but i wouldn't call it socialism. Notice the contexts of these two verses are found. On the day of Pentecost, when Jews from around the Roman Empire had gathered in Jerusalem, Peter preached a sermon which immediately added 3,000 new believers to the church (Acts 2:41). Shortly thereafter, 5,000 more were converted (4:4). Because the new Christians needed to receiving instruction in the faith, most, if not all these new converts stayed in Jerusalem (2:41-42). They only brought enough with them for the feasts they didn't planned on staying in Jerusalem. The church of Jerusalem was face with special situation and the Christains of Jerusalem step in to supply the need. This was special situation that occur in Jerusalem it wasn't meant for the church to continue this practice. If we did we would be selling condemned property and given the money to the church. Because this what Jerusalme Christains were doing. So this passage is poor proof that we should be practicing socialism.
Thanks
Larry

[Jim Chabot]

What "failure" exists here?:

Luke was a historian, he is clear as to his intent. Thus he chronicles what happened. Without regard for the future, a bunch of people rid themselves of their possesions, lived off of the money and then went broke. Once their foolish actions caused them to become a burden, Paul takes it upon himself to collect for their welfare.

The folks in acts were a good example of a bad example, they were foolish and they were a failure in their economic dealings. Nothing in the text is encouraging toward following their failed economic policies. Unless one is waiting for the Hale Bopp Comet perhaps?

[Billy Cox]

I am still not seeing this as the prescribed mechanism but what people chose to do from time to time, yet all the time they considered their neighbor's as themselves.

I'm not suggesting that the apostles demanded economic suicide, but that it was an example of eschatological groupthink leading to the same outcome. I don't see how that can be sustainable. It would be like selling my farm in exchange for enough money to feed a large community for a month. Food is notoriously non-renewable unless one has access to the means of production.

I realize that this is almost unanimously preached as some kind of soft-focus ideal of how the congregation should function - even if it's partially explained away as some sort of allegorical or spiritualized lesson. In light of the Disneyfied preaching of Acts, I understand that my suggestion that the Twelve messed up pretty bad from day one could sound downright blasphemous, but it's a reading that fits with the narrative in Acts and is bolstered by Paul's letters.

I even go so far as to say that the ministry of the Twelve was almost a total loss which segues quite nicely with the call of Paul. By the time that Paul returns to Jerusalem to try and salvage the unity of the church, very little is left of the Jerusalem church - the entity that James is leading when Paul returns is more a sect of Judaism than a Christian entity.

Or it could be they wanted to continue to expand the sharing as the community kept expanding by meeting more and more needs.

As far as I recall, the collection was for compassionate ministry - a veritable bailout for the Jerusalem church - and not to expand the food program. I'll have to check on it.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Wonder if the saying God provides (maybe even His name Jehovah Jira) is hollow, or could the early Acts church have really really believed it and could He have?

[David Graham]

I think that the Jerusalem church's care for it's poorer members (Acts 2: 43-45) needs to be understood against the context of their expectation of the Lord's imminent return. i.e. It was not an attempt by the early Christians to usher in a new economic system governed by the principle of "Christian Socialism". The fact was that many of the new converts were poor (perhaps widows, orphans, lepers, blind, lame etc....) and couldn't provide adequately for themselves, and so those who were able supported these for the remaining time before the Lord's expected return. But..... it didn't happen, and mostly the church didn't repeat the "support process" with the same intensity as the Jerusalem church had done.

IMHO socialism even from a Christian perspective is an unsustainable system that is counter productive to both the greater society and to the poor it supposedly endevours to assist. I don't believe that we should embrace an economic system that removes from an individual the incentive and responsibility to as much as possible work towards improving their own standard of living (at the very least to provide for their own needs) as well as willingly contributing towards the betterment of society as a whole.
A generous enthusiastic Christian benefactor who has succeeded in her/his work can inspire others to "go and do likewise". Socialism however, in whatever form it takes, tends only towards dragging people unenthusiastically either economically up or down towards a common mediocrity.

[Randy Wise]

Nope, this is not a political post.

In Acts 2:43-45 we read
"And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all who beleived were together and had all things in commen; and they sold their possesions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need." (RSV)

My latest blog shows my feelings on riches http://ian-gentles.blogspot.com

But the words quoted are in scripture, so how do we see these words being carried out today?

Socialism politicaly dosent work simply because fallen humanes are greedy. Though the ideal does have benefits.

So how do we 21st centuary christians put the words quoted into action? Or do we just ignore them?

I don't get the impression that everywhere the gospel was preached in the NT the people had that same reaction (sold everything) and that certainly isn't the gospel message. But the fact that it happened was why it was written down. ref "ACTS"

The importance is "Christ Jesus"

To me those people were like offered "firstfruits" and that was "Holy" to the Lord. That is why "I" believe God was angry with "Ananias and Sapphira" and called them out in their lie.

Randy

[Ian Gentles]

I think we need to be concious of the needs, financial position of others, far more than we are. Does old widow Brown have a plumbing problem? Can someone in the church fix it for her? etc etc.
Today the state usualy takes up the burden of the poor, we pay taxes for this to be available.
Maybe our attitudes are more in question. Do we see Dr Smith as more important than single mother Miss Gray, for instance? The equality of all christians is scriptural, but we can use a worldly status measure for peoples worth.

[Diane Likens]

I think we need to be concious of the needs, financial position of others, far more than we are. Does old widow Brown have a plumbing problem? Can someone in the church fix it for her? etc etc.
Today the state usualy takes up the burden of the poor, we pay taxes for this to be available.
Maybe our attitudes are more in question. Do we see Dr Smith as more important than single mother Miss Gray, for instance? The equality of all christians is scriptural, but we can use a worldly status measure for peoples worth.

Well said, Ian!

[John Reilly]

In acts 2: 43-48 we see the church at its best perhaps as God would envisions his church in his heart. We must avoid politically charged terms like socialism and communism and even theocracy. But God still desires to be King of Israel and of the Christian. Jesus desires to be Prophet, Priest, King and Savior. The money aspect for us is to illustrate where our heart is. A young man struggling to tithe in our church just purchased a new harley davidson motor cycle. Tithing remains a huge challenge today for Christians never mind having everything in common, just try giving a full tithe, plus 10% more for world missions and other local needs.

[Jim Chabot]

Wonder if the saying God provides (maybe even His name Jehovah Jira) is hollow, or could the early Acts church have really really believed it and could He have?

Paul, I think you are on to something here, I wish I had the time to devote to a good discussion, but between work and campmeeting, I've been going from 6AM till close to Midnight most every day and there's still almost two weeks of camp ahead for me.

I wouldn't say that His name, function or promise is hollow at all. I do believe that they were a sincere and believing people, while I also believe that their belief wasn't in line with God's promise. We still see this evident today as some embark on what they call "blind faith" they head way out on a limb and trust God to provide. My question for many years has been this. Do we, or should we expect God to provide without a promise from Him that He will? Is God obligated to provide when we misinterpret His promise? Or, as my thoughts direct my life, do we allow God to lead? Do we search the Scriptures for direction as we live out our faith, and then do we trust the promises of God as we allow Him to lead us in the path?

What I see in the Acts passage is a church filled with zeal and exuberance. These we incredible times, the Messiah has come, sure He didn't come in quite the same way that they had predicted for they had misunderstood somewhat. I believe that they were eagerly anticipating a soon return of the Lord in power and glory, and yet his return was some 40 years future. In their eagerness they sat back and waited, they planned on an event that didn't come to pass in the timeframe they envisioned. The spirit of Harold Camping was alive and well, they messed up.

And yet the promise of provision was still there, they lost sight of it and they failed to follow in the way that brings His provision. The book of Proverbs is very clear, laziness and lack of industry will bring ruin, while hard work, eagerness and honesty will garner His provision for us. "A little sleep a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will overcome you like a thief." His wonderful provision is NOT available to the idle and to the lazy, that is a promise!

[Jim Chabot]

In acts 2: 43-48 we see the church at its best perhaps as God would envisions his church in his heart. We must avoid politically charged terms like socialism and communism and even theocracy. But God still desires to be King of Israel and of the Christian. Jesus desires to be Prophet, Priest, King and Savior. The money aspect for us is to illustrate where our heart is. A young man struggling to tithe in our church just purchased a new harley davidson motor cycle. Tithing remains a huge challenge today for Christians never mind having everything in common, just try giving a full tithe, plus 10% more for world missions and other local needs.

I'm going to guess that this fellow will also struggle with the payments for this new Harley. While had he achieved victory over self in his giving, the blessings will come and that new Harley would come as well. Once we trust God with our finances, things go so much better for us and the worries which used to consume us subside. "Try me and I will open the floodgates of heaven!"

[Dale Cozby]

I think we need to be concious of the needs, financial position of others, far more than we are. Does old widow Brown have a plumbing problem? Can someone in the church fix it for her? etc etc.
Today the state usualy takes up the burden of the poor, we pay taxes for this to be available.
Maybe our attitudes are more in question. Do we see Dr Smith as more important than single mother Miss Gray, for instance? The equality of all christians is scriptural, but we can use a worldly status measure for peoples worth.

I am reminded of things from my familes past by this thread. The USA has not always been so prosperous, during the Great depression and Dust Bowl, Texas was turned into a desolate wasteland full of half starved, half naked, uneducated ranch hands that were also out of luck, unemployed and out of work. "California or Bust" was the declaration of a hope for a better life.(they are moving back to Texas now btw) During those years, towns put up signs reading, "No work here, Hobos move on." My grandparents and father lived on railroad property because grandpaw worked as a train engineer/fireman. Living that close to the tracks, which was the chief means for hobo traffic, my grandma and dad saw many thousands of men and boys and even familes walking the tracks or riding open traincars westward. Grandpa told them, and so did the railroad company, "Do not feed the Hobos" The railroad even hired security men to enforce the "no hobo" rules, and would beat the men with big sticks until they left railroad property. See if you did feed them the fear was they would stay around and then want to pay you back with some work and maybe get another meal or two, until you drove them off. Also being dirt poor, if they saw something worth stealing or needed they might help themselves before leaving. Manytimes crime was high near the tracks as a result. Using her own judgment and the conviction from being a deeply commited Christian(and Nazarene) she ignored her husband(grandpaw wasn't a Christian back then) and town and railroad landlords and fed them and gave them water, and might even wash thier clothes for them. Yes, she was poor as dirt. My dad had no solid shoes, he wore cardboard inserts to cover the wornout holes and the only pair of overalls he owned everyday. She and her daughters(my aunts) wore homemade dresses she made from feedsacks from the Cattlefeed store. Thier house had a dirt floor and no indoor plumbing plus the dustbowl made sure it was always dirty no matter how much she cleaned it. But she had some food and clean water and a roof over her head and she shared what little she had for herself and three children without government mandates or taxes or programs. She even made dresses from sacks for other children in the area besides her own. Oh did I mention she adopted my dad whose mother died giving birth to him?

Yes, Christian socialism can work, BUT only when people who have faith, live out thier faith. But it can never be forced, never demanded. God loves a cheerful giver.

I think when this great social experiment has run its course and the USA and other non-Christian Socialists nations are broke and in chaos, the Christian people will once again care for the poor, the orphaned, the sick as has always been our call before the government usurped it from us. It is interesting that in impoverished countries the church does so well in reaching the lost, by feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, orphaned,and more and here with our big socialist governments the church languishes as irrelevant. Hmm....

[James Diggs]

Is this thread largely operating from the assumption that what took place in Acts can properly be defined as socialism, communism or even "Christian communism"?

I don't think I can go far in the conversation with this as the primary assumption regardless if people are arguing for or against it.

[Craig Laughlin]

Is this thread largely operating from the assumption that what took place in Acts can properly be defined as socialism, communism or even "Christian communism"?

I don't think I can go far in the conversation with this as the primary assumption regardless if people are arguing for or against it.

Yes. Reading contemporary categories back into 1st century (and earlier) culture is a staple of eisegesis, especially politically motivated eisegesis.

The difficulty with this thread and so many others is that we all believe we stand on the truth of scripture but we do not share the same hermeneutic. Which is why, in my opinion, so many of the conversations eventually come back to that topic in one form or another.

[Jim Chabot]

I am reminded of things from my familes past by this thread. The USA has not always been so prosperous, during the Great depression and Dust Bowl, Texas was turned into a desolate wasteland full of half starved, half naked, uneducated ranch hands that were also out of luck, unemployed and out of work. "California or Bust" was the declaration of a hope for a better life.(they are moving back to Texas now btw) During those years, towns put up signs reading, "No work here, Hobos move on." My grandparents and father lived on railroad property because grandpaw worked as a train engineer/fireman. Living that close to the tracks, which was the chief means for hobo traffic, my grandma and dad saw many thousands of men and boys and even familes walking the tracks or riding open traincars westward. Grandpa told them, and so did the railroad company, "Do not feed the Hobos" The railroad even hired security men to enforce the "no hobo" rules, and would beat the men with big sticks until they left railroad property. See if you did feed them the fear was they would stay around and then want to pay you back with some work and maybe get another meal or two, until you drove them off. Also being dirt poor, if they saw something worth stealing or needed they might help themselves before leaving. Manytimes crime was high near the tracks as a result. Using her own judgment and the conviction from being a deeply commited Christian(and Nazarene) she ignored her husband(grandpaw wasn't a Christian back then) and town and railroad landlords and fed them and gave them water, and might even wash thier clothes for them. Yes, she was poor as dirt. My dad had no solid shoes, he wore cardboard inserts to cover the wornout holes and the only pair of overalls he owned everyday. She and her daughters(my aunts) wore homemade dresses she made from feedsacks from the Cattlefeed store. Thier house had a dirt floor and no indoor plumbing plus the dustbowl made sure it was always dirty no matter how much she cleaned it. But she had some food and clean water and a roof over her head and she shared what little she had for herself and three children without government mandates or taxes or programs. She even made dresses from sacks for other children in the area besides her own. Oh did I mention she adopted my dad whose mother died giving birth to him?

Thanks for the story Dale, it is so encouraging to hear stories where folks hunker down and overcome their adversities, while helping others. So often today, we seem to mostly hear the whiney stories of those who have no hope whatsoever, and it's easy to feel defeated and fatalistic. It's good to hear that we can still overcome, God still provides.

And thank you again! My maternal grandfather was a hobo, when his family could no longer provide for him, he struck out on his own and "rode the rails." When I was little he would tell me story after story about how he saw this country from beneath a rail car. He made it sound as if his time on the rails was filled with wonder and excitement, even though it was filled with danger, one had to know how to take care of oneself to survive as a hobo. Eventually when he had made his way west, he found work with the AT&S.F. Railroad, coming back east when they went out on strike. He was on strike for better than fifty years, they were never recalled.

Yes, Christian socialism can work, BUT only when people who have faith, live out thier faith. But it can never be forced, never demanded. God loves a cheerful giver.

He sure does! And He is good to cheerful givers!

I think when this great social experiment has run its course and the USA and other non-Christian Socialists nations are broke and in chaos, the Christian people will once again care for the poor, the orphaned, the sick as has always been our call before the government usurped it from us. It is interesting that in impoverished countries the church does so well in reaching the lost, by feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, orphaned,and more and here with our big socialist governments the church languishes as irrelevant. Hmm....

Amen!

[Paul DeBaufer]

Paul, I think you are on to something here, I wish I had the time to devote to a good discussion, but between work and campmeeting, I've been going from 6AM till close to Midnight most every day and there's still almost two weeks of camp ahead for me.

I wouldn't say that His name, function or promise is hollow at all. I do believe that they were a sincere and believing people, while I also believe that their belief wasn't in line with God's promise. We still see this evident today as some embark on what they call "blind faith" they head way out on a limb and trust God to provide. My question for many years has been this. Do we, or should we expect God to provide without a promise from Him that He will? Is God obligated to provide when we misinterpret His promise? Or, as my thoughts direct my life, do we allow God to lead? Do we search the Scriptures for direction as we live out our faith, and then do we trust the promises of God as we allow Him to lead us in the path?

What I see in the Acts passage is a church filled with zeal and exuberance. These we incredible times, the Messiah has come, sure He didn't come in quite the same way that they had predicted for they had misunderstood somewhat. I believe that they were eagerly anticipating a soon return of the Lord in power and glory, and yet his return was some 40 years future. In their eagerness they sat back and waited, they planned on an event that didn't come to pass in the timeframe they envisioned. The spirit of Harold Camping was alive and well, they messed up.

And yet the promise of provision was still there, they lost sight of it and they failed to follow in the way that brings His provision. The book of Proverbs is very clear, laziness and lack of industry will bring ruin, while hard work, eagerness and honesty will garner His provision for us. "A little sleep a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will overcome you like a thief." His wonderful provision is NOT available to the idle and to the lazy, that is a promise!

Except that Acts doesn't say that they were lazy. We know that happened in Thessoloniki because Paul's letter specifically addresses that issue in that church.

Had a father-in-law who suggested that if you own two houses and one is sitting empty, let some homeless stay in it, give them a leg up. Weird, he actually practiced what he preached. Could this have been what was going on. That people were giving up the excess for the good of all, keeping that main flock or orchard for continued income?

[Larry Parsons]

Acts chapter 2 has nothing to say about helpinng the common poor of Jerusalem. No other time in history has a small church face such a problem as the church of Jerusalem face when 8000 new Christains join up with them all within a few days. All verse 45 is saying that they went out of the way to make the new converts comfortable while they were staying in Jerusalem. How can anyone get any kind of socialism out of verses 45-46?
Thanks
Larry

[Jim Chabot]

Except that Acts doesn't say that they were lazy. We know that happened in Thessoloniki because Paul's letter specifically addresses that church

You are right, it doesn't say that they were lazy. Still I'm pretty comfortable thinking that they lacked industry. It is written that a lack of industry will produce poverty, we know that they became dependant upon charity. And conspicuously missing is any explanation that would lead us in a different direction.

To stay on topic, I'm also reminded that when we are advised by God regarding financial matters two syrong threads emerge. We are to be generous, we shouldn't be surprised as the Spirit encourages us toward generosity. Equally evident is the promise of prosperity for those who follow God's instruction. Nothing in the Acts account will indicate that these folks were on a path whereby others should follow.

[Paul DeBaufer]

You are right, it doesn't say that they were lazy. Still I'm pretty comfortable thinking that they lacked industry. It is written that a lack of industry will produce poverty, we know that they became dependant upon charity. And conspicuously missing is any explanation that would lead us in a different direction.

To stay on topic, I'm also reminded that when we are advised by God regarding financial matters two syrong threads emerge. We are to be generous, we shouldn't be surprised as the Spirit encourages us toward generosity. Equally evident is the promise of prosperity for those who follow God's instruction. Nothing in the Acts account will indicate that these folks were on a path whereby others should follow.

I'm gonna push a little here. CotN local churches takes up and sends money to the District and to the General church and for missions. Do we do this because the denomination lacks industry? Because they are poor? Or do we do it to support the work that they are doing? I think we do it to support fine work, especially in the area of missions. Could that be a similar rationale behind the collection in Corinth for Jerusalem? Could the Jerusalem church have been helping to feed the poor. Let's not forget that poverty was rampant, the average pay of a single Denarius a day wasn't really enough to feed your family. People lived below the poverty level. Could it be that Jerusalem church not too unlike the CotN General church was accepting offerings to help them carry out their mission? I, personally, see something of a denominational thing happening, not that what the Jerusalem church did was a failure and that they lacked industry. Maybe something to consider?

[Billy Cox]

Could it be that Jerusalem church not too unlike the CotN General church was accepting offerings to help them carry out their mission? I, personally, see something of a denominational thing happening, not that what the Jerusalem church did was a failure and that they lacked industry. Maybe something to consider?

When I read Acts 21:19, I don't see a denomination with a missionary (Paul) merely chafing a bit at their efforts to control the message. I see the total collapse of anything resembling the movement that began at Pentecost, with James and friends orchestrating things that are remarkably similar to what the chief priest did to Jesus - namely stirring up the Jewish mob against Paul and attempting to kill him.

17*When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. 18*The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19*Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20*When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21*They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22*What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23*so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24*Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25*As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

How interesting that James shifts to passive tense in verse 21, as if Paul wouldn't know that James himself was spreading lies about Paul's message among those who were zealous for the Law. (see Galatians 2:11ff)

In short, there is no valid comparison between Paul's offering and today's denominational offerings, and in light of the very ugly events surrounding Paul's trip to Jerusalem, that's probably a very good comparison to avoid.

[Paul DeBaufer]

When I read Acts 21:19, I don't see a denomination with a missionary (Paul) merely chafing a bit at their efforts to control the message. I see the total collapse of anything resembling the movement that began at Pentecost, with James and friends orchestrating things that are remarkably similar to what the chief priest did to Jesus - namely stirring up the Jewish mob against Paul and attempting to kill him.



How interesting that James shifts to passive tense in verse 21, as if Paul wouldn't know that James himself was spreading lies about Paul's message among those who were zealous for the Law. (see Galatians 2:11ff)

In short, there is no valid comparison between Paul's offering and today's denominational offerings, and in light of the very ugly events surrounding Paul's trip to Jerusalem, that's probably a very good comparison to avoid.

I guess I'm not following your argument here. If I get the chronology right the situation you speak of occurs after Paul returns to Jerusalem with the offering he collected from the various churches. So, we have no idea what was in Paul's mind other than to help the central church to which the others owed fealty. In Acts 15 Paul goes to the Jerusalem church to get a ruling on whether or not Gentile Christians need to be circumcised, he did not undertake this decision on his own, he deferred to Jerusalem. While distributing the letter and teaching that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised he also collected for the Jerusalem church. When he returns is when they bring charges against him. But while he was out collecting he was still seemingly operating as though Jerusalem was the center of the church authority and then it is fitting that he collects for them and their efforts. No, this is not an exact parallel to the current denominational system but I still think it a fair possible analogy (like my non-commitment here? )

[Hans Deventer]

Yes. Reading contemporary categories back into 1st century (and earlier) culture is a staple of eisegesis, especially politically motivated eisegesis.

The difficulty with this thread and so many others is that we all believe we stand on the truth of scripture but we do not share the same hermeneutic. Which is why, in my opinion, so many of the conversations eventually come back to that topic in one form or another.

Yep. And turn out to be a waste of time and energy. Someday, you learn that presuppositions are rarely examined and even more rarely altered. But they define what discussions are helpful and what are not. That line, btw, isn't necessarily drawn between people. It is more often drawn between subjects. Just to name an example: I appreciate and respect Doug's scholarship as a theologian. But as soon as stuff gets political, I'm out. Same with our late friend Brad Mercer. I loved the guy for the way he followed Jesus and understood who He is, but all the same he was gun owning Republican. There was no way I could harmonize HIS theology with his politics. So you're slowly learning to separate issues, engage in some, avoid others. It's not an easy road but it's the only one I see ahead leading anywhere. Till the day Jesus returns.

[Ian Gentles]

Is this thread largely operating from the assumption that what took place in Acts can properly be defined as socialism, communism or even "Christian communism"?

I don't think I can go far in the conversation with this as the primary assumption regardless if people are arguing for or against it.

That wasnt my origenal intention.

[Ian Gentles]

Acts chapter 2 has nothing to say about helpinng the common poor of Jerusalem. No other time in history has a small church face such a problem as the church of Jerusalem face when 8000 new Christains join up with them all within a few days. All verse 45 is saying that they went out of the way to make the new converts comfortable while they were staying in Jerusalem. How can anyone get any kind of socialism out of verses 45-46?
Thanks
Larry

I agree, it was my intention, useing this passage, to look at how christians today might care for each other.

[James Diggs]

That wasnt my origenal intention.

I am sorry Ian that thread got co-opted with the assumption that Acts is about socialism- good or bad. That's why I dropped out of it. But if you want to start a different thread to try again tot talk about this passage of Acts I would not mind joining you.

[Billy Cox]

I guess I'm not following your argument here. If I get the chronology right the situation you speak of occurs after Paul returns to Jerusalem with the offering he collected from the various churches. So, we have no idea what was in Paul's mind other than to help the central church to which the others owed fealty. In Acts 15 Paul goes to the Jerusalem church to get a ruling on whether or not Gentile Christians need to be circumcised, he did not undertake this decision on his own, he deferred to Jerusalem. While distributing the letter and teaching that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised he also collected for the Jerusalem church. When he returns is when they bring charges against him. But while he was out collecting he was still seemingly operating as though Jerusalem was the center of the church authority and then it is fitting that he collects for them and their efforts. No, this is not an exact parallel to the current denominational system but I still think it a fair possible analogy (like my non-commitment here? )

I think that the offering's purpose was twofold...to alleviate a genuine need, and as a peace offering in hopes that the Gentile mission would somehow remain united to the Jerusalem church.

I find it profoundly sad that in Acts 21, James reiterates the directive (dietary restrictions, etc.) that came out of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. These were directives that -- except for the command to avoid sexual immorality -- Paul completely ignored and did not foist on the Gentile believers.

James was no dummy. He knew that Paul had failed to submit fully to the Council's authority, so peace offering or no, Paul had Hell to pay when he showed his face in Jerusalem.

As for a parallel to modern denominations, I suppose one could say that the powers that be might disapprove of what their representatives are doing out in the hinterlands, but they won't blink an eye at taking their cut of the money.

[Ian Gentles]

I am sorry Ian that thread got co-opted with the assumption that Acts is about socialism- good or bad. That's why I dropped out of it. But if you want to start a different thread to try again tot talk about this passage of Acts I would not mind joining you.

I used the word "socialism" in a christian context, not a political one. We are all equal in the Lord, and we are to care for the brethern, Its how this is outworked in our modern context was my thinking.

[James Diggs]

I used the word "socialism" in a christian context, not a political one. We are all equal in the Lord, and we are to care for the brethern, Its how this is outworked in our modern context was my thinking.

I know you didn't mean it a political context, I just thought you were giving it a creative title "socialism???". I am not sure though we can really put it in a "Christian" context though because the early church was not working from such categories. I think things like socialism and capitalism and many other political isms where people try to navigate what is good just and fair often stumble upon various ways they may find common streams of thought in scripture. I can see the socialist identifying with these passages of Acts and I can see the capitalist doing gymnastics to deny these themes in Acts. The same is true the other way around for other places in scripture- but none of those places are working from the point of view of any of these categories.

I love what you started to explore in Acts- I think a life of sharing that understands that we should live as if we have all things in common should be part of the life of the church. Communities are popping up that are trying to do this- and they are able to give more and bless more because collectively they use less. it's wonderful, counter cultural, and biblical. I would love to talk about different and creative ways we might incorporate such things into our modern lives. I would love to participate in conversation about that.

[Ian Gentles]

I think I have been missing the true point of this passage ( Acts 2:43-45 ). Maybe it should be read along side "Seek ye first the kingdom of Heaven and all these things will be added unto thee" The christians in Acts 2 were putting first the Kingdom of Heaven. The christian message, the Kingdom, meant more to them than their money/possesions, so they gave willingly.
We can force giving on no-one, yet where the Kingdom is truely present in christian lives, giving will follow.