I was recently confronted with the premise that the early church was founded on what would be considered the very “definition of communism.” We will explore whether there is merit to this claim and, if so; why do evangelicals tend to be the most virulent opponents of communism? Since many atheists have insisted that they have a more acute grounding in the scriptures, could it be that they are correct?

     The passages referenced for making the case that the Bible advocates for communism as a model for society can be found in Acts. As a point of clarification, Acts is the first book after the gospels and it gives an account of the church in its embryonic stage after Christ’s death and resurrection. As always, context will be provided as this is vital to the accuracy of the narrative. Prior to these details, we are told that the Holy Spirit has come upon the Christians who have gathered together:

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common.They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

     A similar scenario can be found in Acts 4 where it reads:

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the salesand put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

     Finally, turn with me, if you will, to Machinations 3 where we read:

And he spake unto them saying, “I command you, therefore, to rouse some rabbles and begin a political movement whereby the government is granted control over the means of production and private property is to be legally abolished. Render all you have to Caesar and he will ensure that this mammon is equally distributed from each according to his ability to each according to his need. If you move quickly, we can fast track this process to full-blown communism and we can then dissolve government and people can live together in harmony. For I have come not to lay down my life out of so that you can experience God’s mercy, but to fundamentally transform this nation and the world into a global kibbutz. If you possess the brain the size of a mustard seed, you will be able to imagine the paradise that can be created by overthrowing the bourgeoise and replacing them with the proletariat – just as Karl Marx envisioned.” And they marveled at his words, but many grumbled saying, “Who is Karl Marx and what does bourgeoisie and proletariat mean?”

     Okay, so there is no book of Machinations, but if we are going to get into the definition of words and concepts, then accuracy is essential. In fairness, I do take my critic’s point as this is at least an idealized version of what communal living could be like. There are several reasons, however, that this fails as an invocation to embrace a communist system.

1. Completely ignored are the concepts of choice and free will. This was an act of mutual charity, support and care within the church community. It was not adhering to a command from Christ, the apostles, a prophet, or any other God-established mandate to set up this system. Based on the passage itself, this was agreed upon by the members of the church. This is far more akin to an Amish or Mennonite community that sequesters itself from society and from government authorities as much as possible. It was not an effort to coopt governmental authorities to serve as trusties either for the country or for their sect. This is a description of how they chose to support one another; not a roadmap for how society or even Christians must function.
2. This was clearly a survival strategy in the face of intense persecution. The Roman authorities and Jewish leaders both saw the church as a threat and justifiably, the Christians knew they were in danger since their leader had been brutally yet legally murdered. They were in hiding and trying to survive as this was the time of martyrs like Stephen and the apostles. To prove this point, the following passage precedes the one referenced above from Acts 4 and refers to the Sanhedrin who were the Jewish leaders and they had religious, civil and criminal jurisdiction.

When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. “What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name.”

     This is clearly a case of the church caring for one another for their survival depended on the community coming together and gathering in secrecy. Nowhere was this established as a template or anything beyond a temporary arrangement of convenience.

• Back to the point I’ve touched on a few times – this was not a formal government-based    system to apply to a nation. There is nothing wrong in theory with people of their own volition setting up a cooperative that all mutually agree upon serves to meet the needs of those who voluntarily participate. The problem with communist systems in practise is that power is relinquished to centralized government authorities that are subject to corruption and inevitably, once they have control of “the masses,” they have the liberty to abuse their authority. This is ALWAYS the case because no matter how much atheists deny the obvious, man is not inherently good, but is given to sin and the lust for power. Relinquishing control of our lives and resources to the government is foolhardy and the examples are legion of the disaster that ensues. Only God is worthy of our willing surrender and this is a personal choice. No man has a right to demand our allegiance.

     This is not a clarion call to establish a communist system. In fact, those most committed to these Marxist ideas are the same people who demand limiting speech and religious freedoms. They maintain that this serves the greater good of the collective – that just so happens to mirror their personal philosophies. It is perhaps ironic that those who get most exercised over the biblical standard of mutual submission in marriage demand that we all lay down our autonomy to an unaccountable state. Under organized communism, only those with the power are free.

     On the other hand, the communal system adopted freely by the early church worked at the time because the apostles were trustworthy and the church was living under Christian principles which respect the rights of one another. This was a community in the truest sense and this type of relationship cannot be forced or manufactured. No system of itself is laudable or virtuous. Just as the American system of government was based on Christian principles and with freedom and right that emanate from God, John Adams perfectly expressed the promise and limitations of their Republic when he famously said: “Our Constitution made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

     While we know our propensity for evil makes freedom dangerous, relinquishing freedom to a godless system poses a far greater risk. There is no utopia this side of heaven and man’s attempts to bring it about – especially while vigorously fighting to push God and Christian values to the sidelines – will end in disaster. As a Christian, I know the cornerstone of any system must be Christ and any who fail to recognise this truth is unworthy of my trust.