Does the New Testament Promote Socialism?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

What Acts 2 describes — sacrificial giving in a temporary situation

• The question posed (in the host's frame): the verses the frame cites at its head (their span stands in the frame) say, the first Believers had all things common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Does this mean the Bible advocates a form of Christian socialism (as the frame puts the question)? (The episode also carries an invitation, in Bernard's own voice, to the gathering it names — which stands verbatim-only, as episode furniture, not as part of the answer.) The host's question: the verses the question cites (their span stands in the question) say something that has raised maybe a few eyebrows, among those of us who live in capitalist, free market, economies in the west. The question reads them aloud: and all that believed were together, and had all things common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men ('and part of them to all men', as the reading stands), as every man had need. Now, some have used these verses — and a few others, from the book of Acts — to argue, that apostolics (as the question styles them) should adopt a communal lifestyle, and begin pooling our resources. Is that what the Bible is trying to say here? And if not, how should we interpret these verses? The answer: no. I don't believe the Bible is trying to tell us, that we should adopt communal living, or Socialism, or communism, or something like that. I don't think it's wrong, perhaps, for some people to try to establish some kind of farm, or communal existence, if they so desire. But I don't think that is the direct fulfillment of scripture. What's going on, in Acts 2: you have the birthday of the Christian church. And you have the new church presented as a paradigm, as an example. But it's a temporary situation. So you have to understand, that thousands of Jews had come, from different countries. There are 15 different nationalities mentioned, in Acts 2. They'd come to Jerusalem, to celebrate the Feast of Pentecost. And at that point, thousands were converted: the initial 120 disciples, plus 3 000 on that first day (as the figure stands). So obviously, many of them were from these other countries. And they were planning to go back to those countries. But probably many stayed in Jerusalem, to be part of this new church. They were expecting the Lord to come back. I don't think they had any idea, that it would be 2 000 years, or more (as the figure stands). They probably thought, in a few weeks. So initially, you had thousands of Believers, from different countries, staying in Jerusalem, waiting for the Lord to come back. Well: after a few days, you have practical Logistics: where are they going to sleep? What are they going to eat? And then, you also had many of the early Christians — are — very poor. And so the Bible explains, that the Christians had so much love, so much Unity, so much working together, that as these needs arose, people would say: well, I have a piece of land; I'll sell it; I'll give it to the apostles; and you can split it up, whoever needs it — these people from another country, or these very poor people, you know. And somebody said: well — well, you know, I've got maybe an extra house. Or: I've got a big house I don't need; I'll sell it; I'll move in with my son. Or: I'll buy a smaller house. And so Acts 2 describes the sacrificial giving, in unity. It also describes some other — they continued steadfastly — Acts 2:42 (in its own place, in this section): in the apostles Doctrine, and fellowship, breaking of bread, prayers. So they prayed together. They ate together. And I think that included the Lord's Supper, but also meals together, Fellowship. Which we do — it is fitting to have dinner, before or after church ('it is appetite to to have dinner', as the letters stand) — or, within reason, you know, good steward over the body. So they continued in prayer. They couldn't worship — they went from house to house, into the temple (as the sentence stands). So it's giving a holistic picture, to say: they were so unified, that they gave sacrificially. They gave, to help their brothers and sisters.

Scriptures: Acts 2:44-45; Acts 2; Acts 2:42

Not a commune — the rest of Acts, and the model that followed

• Now: to jump from that, to say they all joined a commune — or they sold all their homes, and they all bought a piece of land, and they all moved in together — that's not correct. Because, in Acts 4, you find them doing it again. So apparently, somebody still kept some houses. Then, in Acts 5, you find ananias and Sapphira (as the names stand in the letters), who sold a piece of property, and they lied, about what they were giving. The Apostle Peter made it very clear: it was your own; you could do what you wanted with it. And after it was sold, you could have kept whatever amount of money you wanted. But the fact that you lied: the Judgment of God has come. And then, even later — Acts chapter 12: you find the early church having prayer meeting, in the house of John Mark's mother. So at least John Mark's mother still had a house. And of course, the standard model — if you read Romans 16, and many other passages: there were churches, in different houses. So Romans 16 probably is referencing ('probably is a referencing', as spoken) five house churches, in the city of Rome. Then you read first and second Corinthians: Paul talks about raising up offerings, to help the poor in Jerusalem. He talks about supporting him, in missions. First Corinthians 16 talks about collecting money, once on the first day of the week. So presumably, they all met on the first day; they would bring an offering, and save it up. So if they're all living communally, they wouldn't need to be taking weekly offerings. So: as the church moved from those early days — you also have to remember, that that early situation didn't last very long — because persecution came; it scattered them, to many cities. And you also have to remember: in ad70 (as spoken), the Romans would conquer, and Destroy, Jerusalem. God knew that. The early Believers didn't know that. So those who try to maintain all their possessions, and pass it on to their descendants, and amass personal wealth ('and a mass personal wealth', as heard), and create Estates — all that would have been destroyed. God, knowing that, prompted them to invest in the kingdom of God, where it would be a lasting value. So that doesn't necessarily mean, that would be a model, for 2000 years, all countries of the world. So I think what we learned from acts is: sacrificial giving. Unity. Supporting the work of God, the kingdom of God. Supporting the poor, especially those in the church. But as time goes on: you have local churches; you have houses to live in; you collect weekly offerings; you support the ministry. And that's the model we follow.

Scriptures: Acts 4; Acts 5; Acts 12; Romans 16; 1 Corinthians 16

A word about capitalism — private property and individual labor

• Now let me just say a word about capitalism. While we, as the church, don't promote any particular political party, or secular system ('are don't promote', as the letters stand) — I do believe the basic thought of capitalism is based on private property, and free market. And that is based on Christian principles. Because what you see in the scripture is: every person is accountable to God, individually, for their own decisions. Every person has unique worth, before God. Should be treated, as an individual. And even though the Middle East was a — let's say more — I shouldn't say communal, but the culture was more Collective — is the term that sociologists use: a collectivist culture, where you think of the needs of the group; you think of your family; you think of your tribe; you think of your neighborhood; you think of your Society, more than yourself. Whereas Western culture is based on individualism. So there is a balance there. But the total collectivist idea is not consistent with scripture, because scripture holds each person accountable, before God, as an individual. And then Genesis talks about earning your bread, from the sweat of your brow. So — and Paul even talks about: if you don't work, you don't eat (the saying is priced in the refs note: the sayer is named and the words delivered, but no book is designated, so no entry is made). So there's this principle: you should be responsible — if you're able-bodied, of course, and so forth — you're responsible to earn your own living, to pay your own way, so to speak. Well, that also indicates, that we should respect private properties. If I work hard for something — for my bread, my food — I deserve to keep that bread. Well: if I earn some money, and I'm able to buy a car, or a house, that represents my work. It's not your work. So for you, or for the government, to take that car from me: you're not just taking something I possess. You're taking part of my life. You're taking part of my — the sweat of my brow. You're taking part of my time, that I invested in. So respecting private property really goes back to respecting the individual, and respecting individual labor. And socialism and communism are based on an idealistic philosophy, that doesn't work in the real world. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs: it sounds great. You know: if you can — whoever can work, you work. And whatever you need, we'll give you what you need. But it fails, because it doesn't respect the individual. And it fails, because it depends on an idealistic view of human nature — when actually, humans are sinful. So: maybe in heaven, we can all share, and it doesn't matter. But on Earth, if you have a system, where — if you can work, you need to work hard — but whether you work or not, we'll give you what you need: well, it creates a perverse incentive. Which has been proven, in Communists and social Societies (as the phrase stands). In the 21st century, we did a massive worldwide experiment, and we proved that it doesn't work. Because collectivist farms ('collectivists farms', as heard), in the Soviet Union, where everybody had to work together, would only produce a fraction of the output. But when they allowed people to have private Gardens, they are — were — vastly more productive, than these big Collective Farms. Because people, on the collective Farms, they knew: if I don't work hard, it doesn't make any difference how much I get. But in my private Garden, I get exactly what I put into it. And so a socialistic, or communal, system rewards the inefficient, and the lazy, and the slacker, and the cheater. And it punishes the hard worker. Whereas capitalism — I'm not saying it's perfect, because we're in a perfect world ('because we're in a perfect world', as spoken) — so no system is perfect. But done right, with respect for individual labor, respect for private property, free market, with regulations, to — you know — minimize theft, and fraud, and cheating, and pollution that's unnecessary, or detrimental — you know, there have got to be safeguards. So no system is perfect. But when you put all the safeguards, capitalism has proven to get the maximum, in a positive way, out of people. And it's maximum productivity, maximum creativity, new invention. But also People's Choice: so they get to choose, what they value. If they don't want to work extra, they don't have to. It's a trade-off. And some people make good choices, and some people make bad choices. But the point is: instead of the government making your choices for you, the individual can make choices: what do I value — my time, my money, new possessions — or, you know, I get to choose, and allocate. And the whole idea of the free market is: no matter how smart somebody is, no one person, no oligarchy, no group of experts, no governmental bureaucracy, can perfectly allocate, all across the world: who needs how much food here, and who needs how much clothing here, and who needs this Machinery here. Nobody can figure that out. But the market does it automatically, through prices. If you don't have enough of a certain commodity, the price goes up. And so people flock, to meet that need. And so the market is constantly regulating itself, you know, without any Mastermind. You know: the needs, and the resources, are allocated, as they should be. Now obviously, because of people's fraud, and greed, and sin, that can be distorted. And that's why you need to have government. And you need to have ethics. And you need to have the rule of law. And I lived in — I grew up in Korea. South Korea was a dictatorship. North Korea was 20 miles away. It was a Communist dictatorship. And we saw firsthand the difference. Even today, communist North Korea is a very poor state of development, with frequent famines, with Much Death, practically no Liberty. Whereas South Korea has become one of the marvels of the world, with a vibrant 21st century, highly technological economy. It's a perfect social experiment. Because here you had two groups of people, with the same culture, the same background, the same education, the same resources — of anything, North Korea had more resources. But yet, two different models of economics. And the results are drastically different.

Scriptures: Genesis (book-only)

Summary

• Well, to summarize: the role — the Church, of course, is not economic. But we can say, that acts 2 teaches the principles of unity, Fellowship, supporting the poor, supporting Mission, supporting the church. But it doesn't teach us, that we should live communally. Or that we should adopt a socialistic, or communist, model for the economy.

Scripture index: Acts 2:44-45; Acts 2; Acts 2:42; Acts 4; Acts 5; Acts 12; Romans 16; 1 Corinthians 16; Genesis (book-only).