Sunday, August 31, 2008
Were the Early Christians Socialists?
Explanatory note: On this blog, I will focus on economic and financial matters, ranging from the household to a global scale. As the blog's subtitle suggests, my worldview is informed by my belief in Jesus and individual liberty, meaning I am a harsh critic of coercive government policies. I assume that most readers of this blog will identify with the latter mindset, though not necessarily the former. For that reason, I will restrict my explicitly "religious" posts to Sundays...
==========
There is an undeniable tension between economics and religion (hence the title of my speech [video, audio] at the Mises Institute a few years ago), and more specifically between laissez-faire capitalism and Christianity. In the lecture linked above, I go through the reconciliation more methodically; in the present post I just want to focus on a particularly troubling Biblical passage for the libertarian Christian.
In Acts 4:32 - 5:11 we read:
32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.
36 And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus, 37 having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 5
Lying to the Holy Spirit
1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.
7 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”
She said, “Yes, for so much.”
9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. 11 So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.
Now in light of a story like that, it's understandable how many Christians could think that their doctrine literally implies socialism, and in fact communism, by which I mean the violent imposition of collective ownership of all property. After all, upon a quick reading, it seems that the apostles (this is after Jesus left, btw) demanded that everyone throw their possessions into a common pot, and if anybody selfishly held back, he or she was executed. Not exactly Adam Smith material, eh?
However, I think that's an oversimplification. There are two crucial facts about the above story, which demonstrate that a modern-day communist revolution cannot be justified by reference to the early Christian communities:
(1) The apostles did not compel membership. Now I'm not claiming that Ananias and Sapphira signed a document saying, "We agree to turn over all of our property to the apostles for distribution, and we agree to be put to death if we are caught violating this pledge." But clearly the early Christians were not a roving band of thieves, seizing random people's property under threat of execution. So that right there jettisons any modern attempt to violently overthrow private property in a misguided attempt to recreate the early Christian lifestyle.
(2) Strictly speaking, Peter did not kill Ananias and Sapphira. Rather, God did (perhaps acting through the guilt of Ananias and Sapphira). I grant you that the distinction is tricky, especially in the case of Sapphira; e.g. is it correct to say that Peter healed the lame? Yes and no.
However, my point is that clearly Peter did not use physical force against them. And so if a modern-day Christian socialist wants to be true to this story, he shouldn't authorize men with guns to override bourgeois prerogatives. Rather, he should say, "Bill Gates, give all of your money to Henry Paulson, or else God will strike you dead." And then we could wait and see if God agreed with this.
==========
There is an undeniable tension between economics and religion (hence the title of my speech [video, audio] at the Mises Institute a few years ago), and more specifically between laissez-faire capitalism and Christianity. In the lecture linked above, I go through the reconciliation more methodically; in the present post I just want to focus on a particularly troubling Biblical passage for the libertarian Christian.
In Acts 4:32 - 5:11 we read:
32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.
36 And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus, 37 having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 5
Lying to the Holy Spirit
1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.
7 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”
She said, “Yes, for so much.”
9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. 11 So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.
Now in light of a story like that, it's understandable how many Christians could think that their doctrine literally implies socialism, and in fact communism, by which I mean the violent imposition of collective ownership of all property. After all, upon a quick reading, it seems that the apostles (this is after Jesus left, btw) demanded that everyone throw their possessions into a common pot, and if anybody selfishly held back, he or she was executed. Not exactly Adam Smith material, eh?
However, I think that's an oversimplification. There are two crucial facts about the above story, which demonstrate that a modern-day communist revolution cannot be justified by reference to the early Christian communities:
(1) The apostles did not compel membership. Now I'm not claiming that Ananias and Sapphira signed a document saying, "We agree to turn over all of our property to the apostles for distribution, and we agree to be put to death if we are caught violating this pledge." But clearly the early Christians were not a roving band of thieves, seizing random people's property under threat of execution. So that right there jettisons any modern attempt to violently overthrow private property in a misguided attempt to recreate the early Christian lifestyle.
(2) Strictly speaking, Peter did not kill Ananias and Sapphira. Rather, God did (perhaps acting through the guilt of Ananias and Sapphira). I grant you that the distinction is tricky, especially in the case of Sapphira; e.g. is it correct to say that Peter healed the lame? Yes and no.
However, my point is that clearly Peter did not use physical force against them. And so if a modern-day Christian socialist wants to be true to this story, he shouldn't authorize men with guns to override bourgeois prerogatives. Rather, he should say, "Bill Gates, give all of your money to Henry Paulson, or else God will strike you dead." And then we could wait and see if God agreed with this.
Comments:
Great post.
In the middle of today's sermon at my church, my friend turned to me and asked a very similar question:
"Does God favor socialism? Because that seems to be the impression I get when reading about the early Christians."
I told him that socialism as it is commonly conceived requires theft of property (which God is against) and what the early Christians were doing was voluntary.
He then asked me this: In an entirely free society, would God prefer us to live with voluntary communal ownership?
I wasn't quite sure how to answer this. On the one hand, Acts does appear to show such arrangements favorably. But on the other hand, Mises showed that the socialist central planning is impossible, and I see no reason why this wouldn't hold true for voluntary arrangements as well.
Your thoughts?
In the middle of today's sermon at my church, my friend turned to me and asked a very similar question:
"Does God favor socialism? Because that seems to be the impression I get when reading about the early Christians."
I told him that socialism as it is commonly conceived requires theft of property (which God is against) and what the early Christians were doing was voluntary.
He then asked me this: In an entirely free society, would God prefer us to live with voluntary communal ownership?
I wasn't quite sure how to answer this. On the one hand, Acts does appear to show such arrangements favorably. But on the other hand, Mises showed that the socialist central planning is impossible, and I see no reason why this wouldn't hold true for voluntary arrangements as well.
Your thoughts?
Wow, your friend sounds pretty rude! You can tell him the following, though not during next week's sermon...
The standard Austro-Christian (how's that for an unnecessary term?) answer, I think, is that the early Christians thought Jesus was returning any day. And so they weren't really planning for the future, they were just trying to live in harmony. In a sense they were like retirees who draw down their accumulated wealth after a career spent living the acquisitive life under capitalism.
So in this standard view, you're right, even voluntary communes would suffer the calculation problem. You couldn't have oil rigs, hospitals with MRI machines, etc., because for those large-scale operations you need capitalist investment guided by market prices.
However, I'm not as sure about this answer as I am that God doesn't want Christians to violently collectivize all property. It seems one of Jesus' central lessons if that you don't need to worry about material things, and they will take care of themselves. E.g. a standard economic model wouldn't have predicted you could feed 5,000 people with some loaves and fishes.
Note, I am not necessarily saying, "Maybe God will continually perform miracles--like manna and Mitsubishis from heaven--if people stop enforcing private property titles."
But I think it's possible that if everyone respected property titles, then the productivity of labor would be so unbelievably high that people could afford to be extremely generous and unconcerned with material things.
So this isn't quite the Marxist view about scarcity being abolished in the New Socialist Order, but it's similar.
I think Gene Callahan (and others who might read this blog) has written on these matters, so maybe he/they will chime in.
(Oh and just a quibble, but Mises showed that socialist economy--the rational allocation of factors to their most urgent ends--is impossible, not that central planning is impossible.)
The standard Austro-Christian (how's that for an unnecessary term?) answer, I think, is that the early Christians thought Jesus was returning any day. And so they weren't really planning for the future, they were just trying to live in harmony. In a sense they were like retirees who draw down their accumulated wealth after a career spent living the acquisitive life under capitalism.
So in this standard view, you're right, even voluntary communes would suffer the calculation problem. You couldn't have oil rigs, hospitals with MRI machines, etc., because for those large-scale operations you need capitalist investment guided by market prices.
However, I'm not as sure about this answer as I am that God doesn't want Christians to violently collectivize all property. It seems one of Jesus' central lessons if that you don't need to worry about material things, and they will take care of themselves. E.g. a standard economic model wouldn't have predicted you could feed 5,000 people with some loaves and fishes.
Note, I am not necessarily saying, "Maybe God will continually perform miracles--like manna and Mitsubishis from heaven--if people stop enforcing private property titles."
But I think it's possible that if everyone respected property titles, then the productivity of labor would be so unbelievably high that people could afford to be extremely generous and unconcerned with material things.
So this isn't quite the Marxist view about scarcity being abolished in the New Socialist Order, but it's similar.
I think Gene Callahan (and others who might read this blog) has written on these matters, so maybe he/they will chime in.
(Oh and just a quibble, but Mises showed that socialist economy--the rational allocation of factors to their most urgent ends--is impossible, not that central planning is impossible.)
I think that you're right on, Bob, about the special circumstances being that the original church fathers thought that the end was very near. This almost universal belief caused people to act differently than they would have otherwise.
Also, in the earliest days of the church, time also may have seemed short due to the threat of persecutions.
Also, in the earliest days of the church, time also may have seemed short due to the threat of persecutions.
Interesting thoughts, Bob. I would point out, too, that Peter chastises Ananias not for keeping some, but for lying about it. He even says, in sum, "It was yours to do with as you pleased, why the pointless lie? You gained nothing by lying!" As you've noted, the point here is that it was voluntary - not coerced.
The lesson here isn't that the Christian ideal is to hold everything in common, and if we don't God will strike us dead. The lesson here is to not conspire and/or lie to the Holy Spirit: "Let your 'yes' be yes, and your 'no' be no." The point of the passage is to relate the establishment of the NT church to the OT temple - the presence of God was in the midst. Again, the lesson is more about honesty than economics.
Another valid take-away from this passage might be the ideal of swift justice, but state- or institution-mandated socialism is really nowhere to be found in this passage. The "Thou shalt not steal" of the 10 Commandments, though codified and valid only for Moses and the OT theocracy, remains valid in its eternal principle for NT Christians -- and it presupposes private ownership.
Post a Comment
The lesson here isn't that the Christian ideal is to hold everything in common, and if we don't God will strike us dead. The lesson here is to not conspire and/or lie to the Holy Spirit: "Let your 'yes' be yes, and your 'no' be no." The point of the passage is to relate the establishment of the NT church to the OT temple - the presence of God was in the midst. Again, the lesson is more about honesty than economics.
Another valid take-away from this passage might be the ideal of swift justice, but state- or institution-mandated socialism is really nowhere to be found in this passage. The "Thou shalt not steal" of the 10 Commandments, though codified and valid only for Moses and the OT theocracy, remains valid in its eternal principle for NT Christians -- and it presupposes private ownership.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]