In their book, Can a Catholic be a
Socialist? Trent Horn and Catherine R. Pakaluk offered the following
refutation of the common claim that the first Christians were socialists:
Were the First Christians Socialists?
The second chapter of
the Acts of the Apostles records how Peter’s first sermon after the Jewish
festival of Pentecost (which Jews call Shavuot)
resulted in 3,000 people being baptized and joining the fledgeling Christian
church. The Jewish historian Josephus and St. Luke, the author of Acts, confirm
that many of the visitors to Jerusalem at this time were pilgrims from all over
the Roman Empire. But instead of returning home after the festival, these new
converts “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the
breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42).
The early Church now
had a “blessing of a problem” on its hands. These visitors needed help finding
a place to live and a way to sustain themselves. Fortunately, the Christian
community in Jerusalem responded generously so that “all who believed were
together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and
goods and distributed them to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:45). But does this
arrangement entail “apostolic Communism”?
First, there is doubt
about whether first-century Christians completely renounced private property. Acts
2:45 uses an imperfect verb to say of their possessions, “They were selling and
were dividing them all” (in Greek, hyparxeis
epipraskon kai diemerizon auta)
instead of saying in the simple past tense, “They sold and distributed them to
all.” This seems to describe a continuing
process of selling extra property and goods in order to support the poor. But
in order to do that, Christians would have had to retain some property even
after becoming believers.
Moreover, although the New Testament contains
many commands to help the poor, it does not contain any commands for believers
to give up their possessions to communal ownership. If that were the case, we
would expect the biblical authors to discuss the issue of tithing, or required
giving. But as New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg points out, although
tithing was commanded of God’s people in the Old Testament, “no New Testament
text ever mandates a tithe but rather commands generous and sacrificial giving
instead” (Craig Blomberg, “Neither Capitalism nor Socialism: A Biblical
Theology of Economics,” Journal of
Markets & Morality, Vol. 15 No. 1 [Spring 2012], 211).
This can be seen in St. Paul’s petition to
the Corinthians that they give to a collection for poor believers in Judea. Pal
never commanded them to do this but instead he hoped it would be seen “not as
an exaction but as a willing gift . . . Each one must do as he has made up his
mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2
Cor. 9:5, 7).
But even if the first Christians renounced
some or all of their private property, that doesn’t mean every Christian is
bound to do the same. There is a difference between a description of what some Christians did and a prescription of what all Christians ought to do.
For example, the New Testament describes
Christian meeting in private homes for worship (1 Cor. 16:19), but that doesn’t
mean it is wrong for Christians to worship in churches today. Likewise, the
description of Christians selling property and bringing the proceeds to the
apostles’ feet for communal distribution (Acts 4:34-35) doesn’t mean this
behavior was a moral requirement for all believers then—or is now.
In response, critics like Hart contend that
the story of Ananias and Sapphira shows that renouncing property and giving it
to the apostles was mandatory because the couple was struck down for
withholding their property from the collection. But a careful reading of the
passage shows that the couple’s sin was not their mere withholding of property.
Peter says the property was theirs before they sold it and they would have
retained their right to use it even after selling it (Acts 5:4). Rather, it was
their lie to the apostles who represented God’s authority that incurred the
fatal judgment against them. (Trent Horn and Catherine R. Pakaluk, Can a Catholic be a Socialist? [El
Cajon. Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2020], 49-51)
Some might
argue that the “United Order” in early Latter-day Saint history was “socialist.”
For a refutation, see:
Elder Marion
G. Romney, Socialism and
the United Order Compared (Conference Report, April 1966)