The focus is on the common ownership of property (κοινά). Most informed readers of the Bible realize, considering Acts 4:32-35 and other key passages, that the idea of a community pooling its resources and redistributing them so that none would be in need is not an idea that began with Marx and Engels.[2] For the Bible, however, it is not even an idea that began with Acts! The ideal of the community, whose leader is God, and whose resources the community is to share equally, is an idea that finds expression in the Old Testament (especially in Deuteronomy 15). One also finds it as early as the third millennium B.C. in the temple-run city-states of Samaria. In these cities, the people brought all the grain to the temple and the members of the priesthood redistributed it to the people. The idea is that God is the land- owner of all the earth, and so all the produce of the earth belongs to God. Food offerings are merely returning to God what is the best of the produce of God's fields and orchards and flocks. Access to shared resources is the right of all God's people. In Deuteronomy 15:4, God commands that "There will however, be no one in need among you because the Lord is sure to bless you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a possession to occupy." As children of God, we inherit the earth and its bounty, no one of us more than any other does. Thus, the community of faith does the right thing in assuring that God's children receive his or her inheritance. The Old Testament law had many mechanisms to assure that the community would not effectively disinherit the poor. The tribes were not to sell land given by divine lot to each of the tribes. This assured that the poor would at least have a right to farm the land or glean off the land of others in a hard year. The Lord gave specific laws mandating that the community allow the poor to glean in fields and orchards provided a safety net for the poor (Deuteronomy 24:19-22). They were to make loans to the poor without asking for collateral (Exodus 22:25-27; Deuteronomy 24:10-15, 17-18). There was also a tradition of "redemption" for those who fell into debt. One's nearest kin, called the go'el or "redeemer" had the social responsibility to pay one's debts or buy one out of debt servitude so that dire poverty did not afflict a member of the family. The laws of Jubilee in Deuteronomy 15, however, mandate the remission of debts and the manumission of slaves every seven years just in case one did not manage to escape serious debt or debt servitude by appealing to one's kin. The intent of the idea that everyone lives under God's protection and survives because of God's bounty was to place everyone on an even footing regarding possessions and property. As with so many ideals, however, there is no certainty that ancient Israel ever fully realized this ideal. In Luke's gospel, Jesus continually challenges his followers to sell all they have and share the proceeds with the poor (12:33; 14:33; 18:22). This implies that Israel was not actively practicing the old covenant law and the laws of Jubilee at this time. If they were, theoretically, there would be no "poor." Divesting of one's property, however, also made one free to follow Christ and this freedom, as well as the benefit to the poor, was of the utmost importance to the disciples.
Of course, given the political history of socialism over the past two centuries, it should come as no surprise that commentators on this passage have divided over its interpretation. Is the practice of the Jerusalem church recounted here a ‘failed experiment’ or an ‘ideal of the kingdom’ to which all Christians should endeavor to return? However, before coming to either of these widely separated conclusions, it is best to understand precisely what the practice may have been in the early Jerusalem church and how their practice would have related to the ideals and customs of their broader society.
This text relates one of the many epoch-making moments related to God’s missionary community. Only in this way can we explain a miraculous eschatological moment described 32 Now the whole group of those who believed (πιστευσάντων) were of one heart (καρδία) and soul (ψυχὴ). This divinely inspired state of being not only illustrates a harmonized church, it also reflects a harmonized heritage: The Greek ideals of apata koina and koina ta philon Luke smoothly integrates with biblical expressions (“one heart and one soul” compare Deuteronomy 6:6) and a Jewish concept of attaining equality between those not of equal rank.
More surprising than this talk of “one heart and soul,” however, is Luke’s assertion that “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common (κοινά)” (v. 32). Was Luke thinking like Karl Marx, linking every human attitude and action to an economic source? Luke was not a Marxist. Yet, he also knew the wisdom of the saying that that where our possessions are, our hearts will be also. A surprisingly large amount of the book of Acts deals with economic issues within the community, just as much of Luke’s first volume, his gospel, deals with matters of money (consider the parables of the Debtors, the Good Samaritan, the Rich Fool, the Unjust Steward, the Rich Man and Lazarus and the Pounds.) Wealth is not, for Luke, a sign of divine approval — it is a danger.[3]
“How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” says Jesus in the gospel of Luke (18:24). Yet, the verses following this passage reveal that the power of God enables a man named Barnabas to sell his field and to give the proceeds to the apostles, who then distribute these riches to persons in need (vv. 35-37). The early church is clearly a community that takes care of its own and serves as an example of the kind of world that God intends for all. Justin Martyr observed about his own church, one that existed not too many years after Luke wrote Acts, “We who once coveted most greedily the wealth and fortune of others, now place in common the goods we possess, dividing them with all the needy.”[4]
Luke reveals the source of this amazing community’s unity and generosity (verse 33). While he notes is that the Lord gave “great power (δυνάμει μεγάλῃ)” only to the apostles the entire church receives “great grace (χάρις μεγάλη)” — the gift that enables people to receive the “testimony (μαρτύριον) of the apostles concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus and the community to act faithfully upon it. This “great grace” so changes human nature that the general statement made in verse 32 — “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions” — Luke will show as put into practice in verses 34 and 35. They sell lands and possessions, and they bring proceeds from the sales to the apostles for equitable distribution.
Luke’s account of the specific practice is quite straightforward: Any who “owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold” (4:34) so that the apostles had it available for distribution. This general statement would appear to find confirmation by the specific example of Barnabas who “sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money” to the apostles (4:37). Yet, it does not seem as if the practice was that simple. Does it make sense that Barnabas might have owned only “a field” and not a house somewhere? So why is there no mention of Barnabas selling that property and him bringing its proceeds to the apostles? Notice as well that Peter will comment to Ananias that both his “unsold” house and the “proceeds” from its sale were his “own” and remained “at [his] disposal” (5:4). There was not a universal expectation that all members of the community would convert all their real assets to liquid ones that one might more easily share. Additionally, unless the community adopted some form of communal living arrangement, one must wonder at the logic of selling all homes and thus increasing the need for housing among members of the community.
A more likely description of the actual practice, then, would seem to arise from keying in on the phrase “laid it at the apostles’ feet” (4:35, 37). While it is certainly possible that people contributed money in this manner, more important than the physical gesture would be what the language conveys about the apostles’ authority. To put something at another’s feet is to subject it to their authority, the point even of bowing at a sovereign’s feet as a symbolic gesture recognizing the right to rule. Thus, whether there was an actual transfer of assets or not, what was recognized was the responsibility of the members of the community to provide for the needs of others and the authority of the apostles to direct and manage such distributions. Both those aspects are present as well in the later support by the much broader Christian community precipitated by the Jerusalem famine (again, see 11:29-30).
Thus, the text does not indicate that those with lands and goods sold all they had, impoverishing themselves for the sake of equality (although the tale of Ananias and Sapphira does indicate the gruesome fate of anyone who keeps back “some of the proceeds” of a property sale [5:1-11]). The gift of great grace creates an actively empathetic community which naturally does all it can to provide for its poorer members. Grace enabled these early Christians to transcend the fixation on self and replace it with concern for the whole community as the highest priority. The holy power that broke the bonds of death on Jesus has now broken the grip that Christians have on their private possessions.
However, was this goal of fulfilling the needs of everyone within the community a uniquely or even a particularly Christian one? Luke Timothy Johnson (in his Sacra Pagina commentary on Acts) does an excellent job of documenting that it was not. Within the Hellenistic world, two fundamental traits were associated with bonds of friendship. One is that a person did not consider possessions restrictively one’s own; they were always to be available for the common need (cf. Plato, Critias 110C-D). The reason for this sense of the common good was because friendship was ideally a bond that forged the parties to it into “one soul” (here in Acts 4:32 as ψυχὴ μία; see Johnson for specific citations of parallel statements from Euripides, Aristotle, Plato, Cicero and others). Similarly, the language about the “needy” 34 There was not a needy(ἐνδεής) person among them, echoes the promise of Deuteronomy 15:4 that God’s blessings (cf. the mention of “great grace” [χάρις ... μεγάλῃ] in Acts 4:33) would mean that there would be “no one in need among you.” Johnson observes that the Jerusalem church, “Luke tells us, realizes for a moment the best ideals both of Hellenism and Judaism concerning life together” (91).
It is this ideal of the bond that should exist between human beings and its practical expression through each person contributing to the needs of others that Luke is holding out to both his ancient and modern readers, then, and not a specific mechanism for structuring the Christian community. His purpose is not to present this ideal as a uniquely Christian one, but to suggest that through the Spirit’s actions (see 4:31 and the Pentecost account that immediately precedes 2:43-47), especially through the leadership of the apostles, it had been possible to achieve (however yet imperfectly) this common good sought by all people. Those who recognize that they are “one soul” with others also recognize that the needs of others are thereby their own needs as well. One would no more withhold from them one’s resources received as blessings from God than one would withhold them from one’s personal need.
Even the book of Acts itself, funded by Luke’s wealthy patron Theophilus, stands as testimony to the power of this great grace.
By the time of the early church, however, when stable communities of Christians were forming as permanent additions to major population centers, concern for the poor may have begun to take on more importance regarding divestiture than the freedom to "leave all and follow." It also seems clear that simple divestiture was not the goal. This passage, as well as Acts 2:44-45, describe the early Christians' divesting themselves of their belongings, stating that they "had all things in common" and that "they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds," but the proceeds were to go "to all, as any had need." One was not expected simply to give up one's possessions for the sake of the action to just anyone. The proceeds went only to those who had need. This is not exactly radical divestiture for its own sake. It is also clear from both Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:32-35 that this common life was inspired by and accompanied by the great acts that God was doing through the disciples and among the members of the early church. Many signs and wonders as well as the shared common life inspired new converts to join the church (2:43). Great and powerful testimony to the resurrection increased grace for the company (4:33), such that the new converts were happy to share their possessions with the community and lay the proceeds of selling their property at the apostles' feet for redistribution. The divestiture was voluntary also, as Luke illustrates by the two example stories - one positive and one negative - that follow Acts 4:32-35.
I would now like to expand the reach of our reflections to some political and economic matters that seem connected to this passage.
The Bible contains much honesty about projects that did not work. One such project was the experiment of holding all possessions in common and distributing to everyone as they had need. The disciples had this kind of life with Jesus. Jesus called them to become part of his community of followers only after they sold everything they owned. After the resurrection, the disciples thought they could duplicate their experience with Jesus in the new life of the community. They discovered it did not work. I find this amazing. The disciples had the most authentic of Jesus anyone could have. They thought they could repeat it in a literal way. It did not work. Could this be a lesson to history? People often come to Jesus through sets of experiences: unknown tongues, tears, intellectual persuasion, warm feeling, spiritual retreat, a denomination or other religious group, and so on. In our immaturity, we tend to think everyone must pass through the same funnel. We gain in spiritual maturity when we recognize that people come to Jesus in many ways. We might also suggest that Jesus invites people to him through multiple means because people are so different from each other. Our immaturity desires the duplication of our experience in the lives of others. Our maturity desires the duplication of Jesus in the lives of others, regardless of the experience it may take another to be in that place.
One effect of developing a friendship with Jesus is to experience community with others who follow Jesus and to share generously what one owns. Virtues such as generosity or compassion increasingly become part of one’s life. One reason why high tax rates are morally questionable is that it lessens the moral choice of individuals to practice generosity toward others, since our first obligation is generosity toward our families. God granted Adam and Eve the nobility of care for the portion of the earth God gave them. Every human being ought to have the same nobility granted him or her. The commandment not to steal suggests ownership of property. We can give generously only that of which we already possess. Compassion helps to bridge the gap between those who have and those who do not.
Contract ethical theory encourages the ethical principle of rescue. Those in need of aid are in a crisis: some external force threatens their lives, starving, in great pain, or bare subsistence in living conditions. Further, contract theory encourages the ethical principle of helpfulness. If I have information that would be of significant help to another that would save them time and effort in pursuing their life project, I have a moral responsibility to help them.
When we give to others what belongs to us, we act generously. Generosity is subjective, individual, affective, and spontaneous. Generosity owes more to heart or temperament than to mind or reason. Generosity means doing more than what the law requires, conforming to the sole requirement of love, morality, or solidarity.
Compassion imagines the suffering of another and recognizes one’s own vulnerability to it. It allows us to move beyond our group. One of the many problems of identity politics is that it views everything from within the context of one’s group, such as African-American, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. It refuses to imagine life in the context of what is not one’s self or one’s group. Compassion recognizes the common humanity that unites all individuals, groups, and nations, minimizing at least for a moment the differences that divide us.
Nietzsche views kindness as a weakness of the Christian community. Kindness is a form of cowardly life, in that people expect only that others should not hurt them. They want to please and gratify others, and so fail in the courage to seek their own happiness. The type of weakness as kindness does show itself in the actual community of the church, which can be a community as prestige and power oriented as any other human community.
Greed is the second cardinal sin of the church and works against the development of compassion. We cannot reduce generosity or greed to money. Still, money has the merit of being quantifiable. What percentage of our incomes do we devote to helping those who are poorer or less fortunate? Remember, taxes are mandatory and what we give to family or friends is out of love, not generosity. Most of us give less than one percent. Although generosity is not just financial, why would our hearts be more open than our wallets? We value generosity precisely because we lack it, our selfishness wins out, and it is conspicuous by its absence.
Generosity is the virtue of giving. We can give only what we possess and only on condition of what we own not possessing us. Generosity elevates us toward others, and toward ourselves as beings freed from the pettiness that is the self. The opposite of generosity is one who is low, cowardly, petty, vile, stingy, greedy, egotistical, and squalid. We are all these things; however, not always and never completely. Generosity sets us apart and frees us from these impulses.
Compassion takes its stand with others in their distress. It means to suffer with; yet, we often say that suffering is bad. How can compassion be good? This virtue takes seriously the reality of other persons. It shows concern for their inner life as well as their external circumstances. David Hume once said, “There is some benevolence, however small, infused into our bosom, some spark of friendship for humankind, some particle of the dove kneaded into our frame, along with the elements of the wolf and serpent.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau agreed: “Compassion is a natural feeling, which, by moderating the violence of love of self in each individual, contributes to the preservation of the whole species.” Compassion is at the heart of moral awareness. To experience kinship with the other person is the beginning of compassion. Sympathy is an emotional participation in the feelings of others. Compassion participates in the suffering of others. All suffering deserves compassion. Compassion lets us open ourselves not just toward all humanity, but also to all suffering beings. Aristotle, in his Rhetoric, suggests that compassion is a pain for an apparent evil, destructive or painful, befalling a person who does not deserve it. We recognize that such evil may fall upon us as well, and hope that someone may be there to help us. Yet, what difference does that make? The feeling of compassion is no less real, even if it includes self-interest.
Yet, pity entails some degree of contempt or superiority in the person who experiences it. Pitiful is justly a negative term, synonymous with inferior, pathetic, or contemptible. Compassion, however, presupposes no value judgment about the object of compassion. We can have compassion for someone we admire as well as for someone of whom we disapprove. We convey compassion or sympathy to one who suffers. Pity comes from the top down. Compassion realizes the equality that exists between the suffering person and the person who feels it; they become equal in sharing suffering.
[1] William Temple.
[2] Karl Marx (Critique of the Gotha Program).
[3] (William H. Willimon, Acts [Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988], 52).
[4] (I Apology 14:2-3).
No comments:
Post a Comment