The book of Acts includes two summary passages that
describe the character of the first century church (Acts 2:42-45; 4:32-37). In both references, Luke, the author of Acts,
narrates that the early believers gathered for worship, prayer, fellowship, and
the breaking of bread. Even in our
churches today, these actions are familiar and normal to us, as these are still
considered the central acts of worship of the gathered people of God.
But perhaps more striking to our ears are the
statements in which Luke tells us that these believers “would sell their
possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.” He goes on to say, “no one claimed private
ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.” “There
was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold
them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.”
What might cause such radical generosity among these
believers? For sure, it was the power of
the Spirit that compelled them to share what had been their own with the needy
of the community. Indeed, the indwelling
Spirit transformed their understanding of property as that which is privately
owned, to viewing private property as that which must be shared with
others. Their sharing with others
demonstrated that there was a reevaluation of worldly possessions in light of
the new work that God was doing in Christ.
But was the relinquishing of private property simply
a form of asceticism through which the believers renounced the things of this
world to focus on the things of God? To
some extent, we would have to say yes. However,
the giving up of private property for the well being of others was not simply
an expression of genuine generosity that both provided for the needs of others
as well as liberated those who acted this way from the temporal things of this
world. This action was also a major step,
if not the major step toward the formation of the beloved community.
The giving over of one’s possessions for the good of
others was more than a simple life void of the distractions of private
property. It was something much greater;
it was one of the primary characteristics of community living among the early
believers. Indeed, without the giving up
of possessions to share with others, true community among the believers would
not have been realized.
Consequently, these earliest followers of Jesus
instituted something radical for their world.
For sure, there were other communities in the Hellenistic world which
held common possessions, following the teachings of those like Aristotle, who
taught that friends held things in common.
And the community at Qumran, which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, lived
this way. But Luke’s narration of these
summary portraits of the early church informs us that what they were practicing
was different from much of the world around them, and the significance of their
common living was brought on by the gospel and the power of the Spirit.
Yet, while the actions of giving up private property
in the new people of God may have been something radical, and remains so today,
the reality is that these actions, according to Luke, were actually normative
for Christian identity and community. Luke’s
narration of their selling private possessions is not so much for the purpose
of informing us of the ideal to which the church is to attain, though this
reason is there. Rather, the practice of
community sharing among the early believers was a fact of being the Jesus-following,
sprit-empowered, people of God. It was
who they were.
The portraits of the church in Acts, therefore, are
not primarily models of unreachable ideals the church is to hopelessly pursue;
though Christians should continue to pursue authentic community through such
acts. Instead, these narratives express
that which was and is normative for the church to be the church. To act differently means to be less than what
the church is to be.
Through the practice of sharing possessions, the
believers were materially expressing something deeper that was essential to
their being the community of Jesus.
Simplicity and communal sharing of possessions had become the normative
economy of the new people of God, and this practice opened the way for other
normative practices that shaped the community.
Service became the normative model of social
relationships, instead of holding power over the other. Inclusive welcoming of all, rather than
exclusion, became the norm of community formation. And humility, not power, became the norm for
living in peace. Once the right to claim
private possessions was reevaluated in light of God’s new work to create and
shape a new community, and once these symbols of status were removed through
the guidance of the Spirit, service, inclusion, and humility further shaped and
characterized that community.
Western Christianity,
and especially our American brand of Christian religion, has privatized
religion to the extent that we cannot legitimately call it Christian, at least,
I think, from a biblical perspective. This privatization of Christianity is in
direct opposition to the original call of Jesus, who, although calling individuals
to follow him, called them to a social community in which they were formed by
his character and the Spirit and in which they found new existence and
identity.
The pictures of the early church in Acts portray
what Jesus envisioned as normative for the community of faith; a community through
which individual character formation takes place that shapes the broader
collection of God’s people into a true community of sharing, service,
inclusion, and humility.
No comments:
Post a Comment