January 21, 2010
Sorry for not getting this out sooner. Dixie had to leave the meeting for a bit and we didn't get any other notes taken so we decided to copy and paste a whole chapter from the book we used as we talked about United Order. The name of the book is "The Challenge of Our Times" by Cleon Skousen. The chapter we read from was Chapter Twenty-Two; Did the Early Christians Practice Communism?...
Chapter Twenty-Two
DID THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PRACTICE
COMMUNISM?
Today we live in an age of pressure and haste when people Today read as they run and think when they can-usually amidst a dozen distractions. Consequently, many find it convenient to let other people-with more time for study-do their thinking for them. This is helpful but dangerous. Sometimes it leads to widespread acceptance of concepts which are entirely erroneous.
Tonight we are going to discuss one of those problems which has grown up through centuries of misunderstanding and heaped confusion upon our own generation because very few people have taken time to study it. This problem may be stated in tonight's question: "Did the early Christians practice communism?"
What Is Communism?
In the minds of many people Communism simply means the "vesting of all property in the community." (Ency. Americana, 1946 ed., Vol. 7, p. 417). It means that the individual gives up all claim to his property and thereafter shares his goods and his labor with the other members of the society. All this sounds like a system of true brotherhood. Unfortunately, however, when this system has been practiced, men have found that it contains unavoidable problems which always destroy brotherhood.
For example, Communism requires that a small group of leaders be given supreme power to dictate to the individual members of the society what they think is best for the group. In fact, in the absence of a strong centralized authority, Communist systems promptly fall apart.
Historically, the existence of this central authority has always led to friction and rebellion. This has usually been met by suppression of minorities who attempt to rebel. So, what starts out as a brotherhood ends up with imprisonment for any who oppose the small group of men who stand at the head of the community.
The second problem in Communism which destroys brotherhood is the fact that the system must be geared to a slow pace. The more progressive members feel inhibited because they are impeded. Soon they want to free themselves from this unnatural restraint so they can function more rapidly and efficiently. They soon learn, however, that because they are a minority they are forced to accept things as they are. This creates a smouldering resentment which may eventually explode. In all Communist countries today the ruling class has found it necessary to meet this danger by setting up powerful police systems and sending impatient progressives to concentration camps.
The third problem inherent in Communism and which makes it difficult for men to remain brothers is the restraint of individual tastes and creative expressions. Communism has a tendency to set strict standards for diet, clothing, housing, art, employment, transportation, music, literature, and even science which may be entirely obnoxious to individual tastes and desires. Because Communism is a controlled society, these standards are always restrictive and citizens of Communist societies, both ancient and modern, complain of the irritation and resentment resulting from this restriction of creative expression.
What Do Communists Say About These Problems?
Now, advocates of Communism do not deny the problems we have just mentioned. They honestly admit them. That is why Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and their associates were quick to point out that a Communist society could not survive without a militant force to put it in power and then keep the members of the group subservient to the dictates of those in charge.
Lenin made this very clear when he said: "Those who are opposed to armed uprising, those who will not prepare for it must be ruthlessly cast out of the ranks of the supporters of the revolution and sent back to the ranks of its enemies . . . the day is approaching when the force of events and conditions of the struggle will compel us to separate enemies from friends according to this principle." (Selected Works of V. I. Lenin, Vol. 3, p. 351). Lenin, of course, is here referring to the principle of armed force. Nevertheless, there are those who still feel that somehow a Christian brotherhood could make Communism work without force.
In the past a multitude of experiments have been made by well-meaning individuals who set up Communist societies. All of these, however, found the problems we have mentioned so difficult that they either abandoned the system or altered it to such a degree that it was Communism in name only and not in practice.
This, therefore, brings us to a deeper appreciation of the significance of our question for discussion tonight. If the early Christians practiced Communism, as many have supposed, how were they able to make it work? No one else since that time has been able to keep Communism alive without violating the basic ethics of Christian teachings. In fact, what is the basis for thinking that the early Christians practiced Communism?
What Do The Scriptures Say?
The sum total of the evidence in the scriptures may be found in two verses of the Book of Acts. Acts 2:44, 45 reads: "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." If we interpret the phrase "all things common" as meaning that they pooled everything together and placed title in the group, then the next verse is a direct contradiction; for it says they went ahead and sold their properties so as to have the means of helping those in need.
But let us turn to the second passage which is found in Acts 4:32, which reads: "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."
Notice that this verse implies that each Christian kept his individual property, but said it was for the benefit of the whole group. Now, it is one thing to lose control of your property and the private initiative which goes with it by turning it over to a Communist society; it is quite another thing to keep legal title to your personal possessions but treat them as a stewardship under God which you are duty bound to develop for the benefit of yourself and your brethren in the Christian community. Turning all your property over to the community is Communism, but treating your property as a sacred stewardship is not. Now, which procedure did these early Christians follow?
Did Early Christians Practice Communism or the
Stewardship Principle?
The next chapter of Acts gives the answer. There we have a description of the procedure which was followed by Ananias and his wife in contributing to the Church for the benefit of those in need. The scripture says that Ananias and his wife had a piece of property which they desired to sell in order to provide money which they could give to the apostles. Now, if these Christians had been practicing Communism, Ananias would have turned the property over to the group for appropriate disposition, but this is not what happened. Ananias, as owner of the property, sold it on his own initiative, but after selling he and his wife decided they would hold back part of the amount, although they would pretend they gave all of the proceeds from the sale. When they came to Peter, the spirit of the Lord touched his understanding so that he knew of their deceit. He turned upon the two of them in righteous indignation.
Now listen to what he said to Ananias and his wife because his words indicate the attitude of the apostles toward property belonging to the members of the Christian community. Peter said, "While it (the property) remained was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" (Acts 5:4). In other words the decision of selling or retaining the property rested with Ananias and his wife, and when they had sold the property to make the contribution, it was still up to them to decide how much they would contribute. Their sin was in pretending they were giving the whole proceeds of the sale when in fact they had withheld part of it.
It seems clear from this incident that when the members of the early Christian community said that what they possessed was not their own they simply meant that they looked upon their property as a stewardship and treated it for the common good of all. If they had a good profit, they shared liberally with their brethren. If they had a meager profit they shared what they could afford. Or to put it another way, they had all things in common as far as their mental attitude was concerned, but legally they retained their property as private possessions. Such an arrangement was entirely in keeping with their Christian ideology and it avoided the problems which would have arisen if they had entered into a Communist pact by pooling their property into a single community fund.
What Do The Authorities Say?
Although there has been a widespread misunderstanding of the principles of cooperative effort practiced by the early Christians, the authorities have stated the case clearly. In Dummelow's Bible Commentary, these observations on the verses previously quoted are found: "The Church of Jerusalem recognized the principle of private property. A disciple's property really was his own, but he did not say it was his own; he treated it as if it were common property." (p. 824).
The Christian ideal of treating one's possessions as being a God-given trust for the welfare of one's fellow men is called the stewardship principle. It has always been the teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the stewardship principle is the basic Christian practice for both ancient and modern times. As Joseph Smith said in his diary: "I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd Chapter of Acts, designing to show the folly of common stock. In
Nauvoo every one is steward over his own." (Doc. History o f
the Church, Vol. VI, p. 37).
When a person treats his property as a stewardship, it gives him the blessing of voluntarily sharing his substance with those in need. It is conducive to a spirit of brotherhood. It leaves a man with all the initiative and creative expression he may desire, but makes the poor the beneficiaries of his labor to the extent he voluntarily desires to give it. Out of such an arrangement comes peace and good will toward men.
Why There Is No Such Thing As "Christian Communism"
Communist principles, on the other hand, seem to violate every instinct of human nature. They destroy initiative, nullify free agency, suppress inventive exploration, minimize the dignity of the individual and make a god out of "the state" -to which is delegated complete, unrestricted control over life, liberty and property. During the lifetime of Karl Marx his principles were put to work on a brotherhood basis in many communities throughout the world. Although he was violently atheistic and said his purpose in life was to "dethrone God and destroy Capitalism," nevertheless, many thought they saw in his program the elements of a Christian Utopia.
But of the many communities where the Communist experiment was tried, none found it possible to permanently succeed. It was only when the professional revolutionary, Lenin, put a whole nation under the sword that it was possible to force any appreciable number of human beings to endure the practice of Communist theory for any length of time. Like so many other weak systems of government, it can only survive in an atmosphere of the slave state with a supreme dictator at the head.
So, in answer to our question, "Did the early Christians practice Communism?" Let me summarize by saying that superficially it may appear from the two brief verses of scripture in the Book of Acts that they did, but when we analyze what Communism really is and then compare it with the procedure which was actually followed by the early Christians, we can say that they were practicing the principle of stewardship and not Communism.
And now may I leave with you this gem of divine wisdom from a modern scripture which says: