Did the Early Christians Practice Communism?
A few students have secretly or even openly defended Communism because they considered it to be an important set of principles practiced by the early Christians. Such persons often say that they definitely do not condone the ruthlessness of Communism as presently practiced in Russia, but that they do consider it to be of Christian origin and morally sound when practiced on a “brotherhood basis.”
This was exactly the attitude of the Pilgrim Fathers when they undertook to practice Communism immediately after their arrival in the New World. But as we have seen earlier, not only did the project fail miserably, but it was typical of hundreds of other attempts to make Communism work on a “brotherhood basis.” Without exception all of them failed. One cannot help wondering why.
Certain scholars feel they have verified what Governor Bradford has said concerning “brotherhood Communism,” namely, that it is un-Christian and immoral because it strikes at the very roots of human liberty. Communism—even on a brotherhood basis can only be set up under a dictatorship administered within the framework of force or fear. Governor Bradford found this to be true. Leaders own literally hundreds of similar experiments concur. Students are therefore returning to ancient texts with this question: “Did the early Christians really practice Communism?”
The belief that the early Christians may have practiced Communism is based on two passages. Here is the first one:
“And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men as every man had need.”{231}
Two things might be noted here. First, the people formed a community effort by coming together; second, they sold their possessions and goods as they appeared to need cash proceeds for the assistance of their fellow members. It does not say that they sold all their possessions and goods although it is granted that at first reading this may be inferred. Neither does it say that they pooled their resources in a common fund although this has been assumed from the statement that they “had all things common.”
What they actually did is more clearly stated in the second passage which is often quoted:
“And the multitude of them that believed was of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”{232}
Here we have a declaration indicating that the common effort was not a legal pooling of resources in a communal fund but rather a feeling of unity in dealing with common problems so that no man “said” his possessions were his own but developed and used them in such a way that they would fill the needs of the group as well as himself.
That this is a correct reading of this passage may be verified by events which are described in the next chapter of Acts. There we read of Ananias and Sapphira. They had a piece of property which they decided to sell. They intended to give the proceeds to the Apostle Peter. But the author of Acts says that when they had sold the property they decided to hold back some of the proceeds even though they represented to Peter that their contribution was the entire value of the property received at the sale. For this deceit Peter severely criticized them and then, in the process, he explained the legal relationship existing between these two people and their property. Said he, “While it (the property) remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it (the money) not in thine power?”{233}
In other words, this property had never been required for any communal fund. It belonged to Ananias and Sapphira. It was completely in their power. After the property was sold the money they received from the sale was also in their power. They could spend it or contribute it. If contributed, the money was a freewill, voluntary offering. It will be seen immediately that this is altogether different from a Communist’s relationship to property where there is a confiscation or expropriation of each member’s possessions, and the proceeds are distributed by a single person or a small committee. The member thereby loses his independence and becomes subservient to the whims and capriciousness of those who rule over him.
It would appear, therefore, that the early Christians did keep legal title to their property but “said” it was for the benefit of the whole community.
This is precisely the conclusion reached in Dummelow’s Bible Commentary. It discusses the two passages we have just quoted and then says: “The Church of Jerusalem recognized the principle of private property. A disciple’s property really was his own, but he did not say it was his own; he treated it as if it were common property.”
Dr. Adam Clarke’s commentary also makes this significant observation concerning the Apostolic collections for the poor: “If there has been a community of goods in the Church, there could have been no ground for such (collections)… as there could have been no such distinction as rich and poor, if every one, on entering the Church, gave up his goods to a common stock.”
This, then, brings us to our final comment on this subject, namely, that the Master Teacher made it very clear in one of his parables{234} that property was not to be owned in common nor in equal quantities.
In this parable he said the members of the Kingdom of God were as servants who had been given various stewardships “every man according to his several ability.” One man was given a stewardship of five talents of silver and when he “traded with the same and made them other five talents,” his Lord said, “Well done!” However, another servant who had been given only one talent of silver feared he might somehow lose it, so he buried it in the earth. To this man his Lord said, “Thou wicked and slothful servant!” He then took this man’s one talent and gave it to the first servant where it could be developed profitably.
Two things appear very clear in this Parable of the Talents: first that every man was to enjoy his own private property as a stewardship from God. Second, that he was responsible to the earth’s Creator for the profitable use of his property.
All of the evidence before us seems to clearly show that the early Christians did not practice Communism. They did not have their property in common. Instead, they had their problems in common. To solve their problems, each man was asked to voluntarily contribute according to his ability “as God had prospered him.”{235}
When carefully analyzed, this was simply free enterprise capitalism with a heart!
The student will also probably recognize that whenever modern capitalism is practiced “with a heart” it showers blessings of wealth, generosity, good will and happy living on every community it touches. The ancient Christian order was a great idea.
APPENDIX E
What is the Secret Weapon of Communism?
(This is the text of a speech delivered May 6, 1953, to 1,150 guests at the annual banquet of the Washington State Parent Teachers Association. At the time this speech was given the author was serving on the faculty of the Brigham Young University.)
One hundred years ago there was a little school of philosophers in Europe who called themselves “pure materialists.” They had their headquarters in Germany. Two of those materialists carved a place for themselves in history. Through their speeches and books they lighted a flame which, in a century, has created more distrust, insecurity, bloodshed, war-mongering and destruction of property than all the criminal and gangster elements in the world combined.