Tuesday, March 24, 2020

Were the First Christians Socialists?


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)