Print

By Tyson Thorne

May 20, 2014
 
 

FellowshipOfBelievers large

As promised last week, its time to examine the hostel situation referenced in Acts 2.41-.47 (also in 4.32-5.11). Many believe this passage is an approving nod toward socialism, which is a dangerous error. The situation in Acts was a voluntary and temporary arrangement that distributed resources based on need, while socialism is a form of government which enforces the equal distribution of wealth. Furthermore, the practice found in Acts did not dissolve property rights. Everyone retained what possessions they needed to live on, but gave generously out of their surplus to assist those who had a need.

This is further evident form the story of Ananias and Sapphira (5.1-.11), who died not because they had held back some of the money from the sale of their property, but because they lied and misrepresented their gift. The questions asked by Peter reveals this very fact: “Didn’t [the land] belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?” (5.4a). Clearly the question of ownership, of both land and profit, was not at issue. Rather, like the Pharisees and Sadducees, the couple wanted to be falsely thought of as righteous and pious. It is evident, therefore, that communism and socialism is not supported by these passages. Rather, an attitude of gracious charity and compassion are hallmarks of the faithful Christian.

Each of the two systems has a very different set of foundational beliefs about God and man. Examine the details of these systems below to guard against thinking the early church endorsed socialism or communism.

Socialism is a government controlled economic and religious system based on evolution and atheism, whereas the church body is a voluntary relationship with other believers all of whom strive to take on the nature and character of Jesus.

Socialism believes that man’s basic nature is good (or at the very least neutral) and is evolving to become better. The Church believes man’s basic nature is fallen (evil) and it’s only hope is redemption and sanctification through Jesus.

Because socialism believes man’s nature is good, it follows that he will work hard to help others be brought up to the same level of prosperity as himself. The Bible teaches man is selfish and needs motivations such as wealth and poverty to live rightly, though within the Church body giving is encouraged (but still voluntary) to help those in need.

Again, because Socialism believes man is good those in government can be trusted with unopposed power and to selflessly distribute the nation’s wealth. The Church understands man is fallen and needs accountability to distribute charitable giving and is never trusted with unopposed power.

Socialism believes mankind can guarantee fairness, equality and prosperity, and that failure at any point can be protected against by powerful governance. The Church believes that God alone can make and keep guarantees (and has done so many times throughout history) and that through God’s promises the believer is motivated to faith and good deeds.

Clearly there is a difference of loyalty between the two systems, one to man the other to God, one to humanism the other to theism.