Part I – All Things CommonNot only did the early church meet regularly for worship, study and eating meals, they also shared property. For us as capitalistic-raised USAmericans who deeply care about property (the Cottons are busy working on securing a home now), the idea of everything being “held in common” feels odd and maybe even wrong. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this arrangement continued for very long in the early church. It is really the ideal form of “communism,” in which the accumulated wealth of the community is redistributed by a central authority (the apostles) according to the needs of the people. It seems to work only on a very small scale, mainly due to human sin. The central authority tends to become power-oriented rather than service-oriented and individual initiative is squelched (as we have seen in communist governments of the 20th century). The question I am starting to ask is even if the structure doesn't hold (pure communism), does the priority of everything belonging to everybody still hold as a spiritual principle?
It's worth asking what it would be like to be in a community where very little is “mine” and everything is God’s. Economically, it would mean the debate about the “haves and the have-nots” would be over. There are some who argue that pastors should be equally compensated throughout the system or even compensated to the level of their family need, a radical application of Acts 4:32ff. In Mexico, for instance, the pastors consider the greatest appointments to be the ones where the most ministry can be done, where the biggest challenges are, not where the best salary is. There really is a sense in the early church that what we have in resources (talent, training, time, physical prowess and strength, and wealth) have a claim on them by God for the benefit of others. We are “blessed to be a blessing.”
This passage has special meaning for us in that one of the early people who made this kind of economic sacrifice was Barnabas. He sold everything and put it at God’s disposal into the hands of the apostles. It is there that we learn that Barnabas might have been his name in the community (as “a son of encouragement”) and that his given name might have been Joseph. Barnabas’ commitment to community was complete.
Part II - Lying to GodThe story of Annanias and Sapphira is just downright weird. They lie about what they have and only say they are giving all their property. If you had wealth or property for which you had worked hard, it would be very tempting to want to keep some back for yourself. The apostles catch them in the lie and the Holy Spirit strikes them both dead. I guess that’s what happens when you lie to your preacher!
I think we’re all glad this standard doesn’t still happen today. But the seriousness of what they did is worth considering. They were joining a Christian community where the expected commitment was giving everything to God, no holding back. The economics was merely a sign of that total commitment. Annanias and Sapphira did hold back.
Quite often, with our busy, distracted and proprietary lives, God ends up with our leftovers (our leftover creativity, time, and wealth). I have discovered that what I do fully give over to God is where I experience true partnership with God in what I have and do. When God is only given our leftovers, we end up being the ones in spiritual and communal poverty both individually and corporately. While I’m not for going back to this fully communal model of being the church, I am convicted about how my sense of personal ownership and status gets in the way of me being fully deployed for God for the benefit of others. How about you? How might the people of St. Barnabas better carry out this bibical model of community?
2 comments:
Ok, I am going to try this again, I think all the brilliant comments went into the posting I just lost.
I see this matter clearly as one of the heart. Joseph/Barnabas gave what he had out of his response to what God had done in his life through Jesus. His gift was completely a grace response. He was willing to surrender all and follow Christ. We see more how he does this later in Acts- he gives more than just his property (which is hard enough) He devotes his life to following Christ's leading .
Then, on the heels of this story, comes another pair who seem on the verge of doing the same thing. But they hold something back. I wonder if part of why they gave to begin with was because Barnabas had done so. Maybe they gave for show- so everyone could see what they had given as well. Maybe they held back because they were afraid to fully commit .
Perhaps they just wanted it to look like they had.
Perhaps they thought the movement was a "flash in the pan" and wanted to save something for later in case it all fell apart.
God doesn't call everyone to give all their possessions away for the common good- He does call us to give as a grace response to give in accordance to God's grace in our life- which in theory equals giving it all.
I hedge my bets every day. I have held back something for most of my life- What if I mis heard God? What if I need this later? It's all about a lack of faith /trust on my part. Sure, I have a willingness to walk and sometimes run next to the train, maybe even jump on the side and ride it as it's leaving the station- but tend to jump off before it really gets going- afraid to take the full ride with Christ.
Thankful that God has not decided to "smote" me yet-and given me the opportunity to truly follow Him.
Thanks for your comment Marti, especially about this being a response to grace. And learning to give all that we are and have to God may not mean the same thing for each of us - and it may happen gradually as we learn to trust that grace more. Good insights and thanks for sharing them.
Post a Comment