That's a difficult question to answer thanks to socialists who continually redefine words so that they win any argument by definition. Today, any concern for the poor is called socialist. By that definition, the first Jerusalem church was socialist. But must we accept the socialist definition? What are socialism and capitalism really? Who has the authority to define them?
The honest thing to do is to go back to the people who launched those systems. I do that here for capitalism. I haven't done that for socialism, so let me give a brief history of it. The first depiction of socialism appeared in Plato's Republic, which was inspired by Sparta. Plato required that the state own all property and the children. The state employed nannies who raised all children so that parents couldn't know who there children were and give them advantages over others. A philosopher would be the absolute monarch.
Modern socialism appeared in France in the early 19th century as a result the Renaissance fascination with classical Greece and Rome. People read Plato's Republic and decided to implement it. The first prominent socialist was Henri de Saint-Simon. He promoted state ownership of businesses and a dictatorship of scientists. Updating Plato, the philosopher king became a junta of scientists with a mathematician as the supreme leader. One of the best books on the origins of socialism is F.A. Hayek's book, The Counter-revolution in Science. Marx added little to Saint-Simon's socialism.
So, from its beginning, socialism required common ownership of property through the government. The government wasn't involved in the Jerusalem church's decision to share property. And socialism requires all people to give all of their property to the state. But giving to the poor in the Jerusalem church was voluntary, as Peter made clear in the episode involving Ananias and Saphira. So, it fails the criteria for socialism developed by its founder.
Since the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union in 1991 followed by its rejection in Eastern Europe as well as the revelations of the mass deaths in the USSR and China, US socialists have worked hard at verbal gymnastics to distance themselves from both where each murdered over 30 million of their own citizens. All socialists deny that the USSR and China were ever socialist. Some promote cooperatives as the best expression of socialism today. And all have defined any giving to the poor as socialism.
If the Jerusalem church in Acts wasn't classical socialism, was it a commune? Taking the verses above literally and without context, it does sound like it might have been a commune. After all, it says believers "had all things in common" and "divided them among all, as anyone had need." That sounds like a kibbutz in early Israel.
However, context paints a different picture. In the Greek, the words for the verbs are in the present and imperfect tenses. A more accurate translation is, "...and they were having all things as common and were selling their possessions and goods and distributing them to all according to need." Why are the tenses of the verbs important? The present and imperfect tenses indicate something that was ongoing for a period of time. In other words, they didn't sell everything at once and rely on distributions from the Apostles. They were continually selling things as they saw a need.
Later, in Acts 4:34-36 they were still selling things and the Greek uses the same tenses, present and imperative. Barnabas sold a parcel of land at that time and gave it to the Apostles. The Greek tenses for "sold" is in the aorist tense, meaning it was a one time action.
A commune requires all believers to give up private property or leave. But Peter told Ananias and Saphira that such giving was voluntary, never compulsory in Act 5. Members of a commune rely on distributions from the common fund for all of their daily needs so that no one gets more than others. But by chapter six and the appointment of deacons, the Jerusalem church distributes funds only to widows, not to everyone as in a commune.
Paul restricts the list of widows whom the church supports in 1 Timothy 5. Then in 2 Thessalonian 3, Paul ordered that men who don't work shouldn't be allowed to eat. But in a commune, everyone eats the same amount regardless of how much they work or don't work. Paul instructs Christians to work so that they will have something to share with others in need in Ephesians 4:28 and 2 Corinthians 9:11. Finally, Paul stated that any man who doesn't provider for his own household is worse than an infidel in 1 Timothy 5:8. Together, those passages sound like private property where the worker provides for his family first then shares with those less fortunate. It sounds like capitalism.
One more point: a couple of people still owned property much later. In Acts 9, Peter stayed with Simon the tanner in Joppa, who owned a large house. Granted, it isn't in Jerusalem, but it's reasonable to assume Christians outside Jerusalem would follow the mother church's example and Simon didn't. In Acts 12, Peter gets arrested and delivered from prison by an angel. He goes immediately to the house of John Mark's mother where much of the Jerusalem church has gathered to pray for him. Clearly, Mark's mother hadn't sold her house and given the proceeds to the Apostles. Yet, the church met in her house to pray for Peter because she was a righteous woman.
Christians on the left will complain that my analysis of the verse in Act 2 is merely rationalization and I'm twisting the meaning of the passage. We should pay attention only to a literal reading of the verses with no other input. To those I would mention the principles of hermeneutics. Sound interpretation requires considering the context of a verse to determine what God intended it to mean. To handle the Word of God honestly, we must consider the context of the rest of the New Testament.
The Jerusalem church in Acts did not practice socialism and was not a commune. People living under a capitalist system can have concern for the poor and give to them. History proves that Christians have always helped the poor. But we have given more to the poor under capitalism because we have much more to give. I recommend Marvin Olasky's book, The Tragedy of American Compassion for the US history.
No comments:
Post a Comment