Posted by
GFC on Monday, October 05, 2009 6:52:32 PM
Today on the Hannity radio show a caller used the example of the early Christian church to support Marxist thinking. Hannity frequently guides liberal callers into agreeing with a modified version of the Marxist motto "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." The caller used the early Christian church to argue essentially that this redistributive thinking is Biblically proper, yet for all his puffing about his theological creditials, the caller misses key distinctions between the practice of that early church and marxist/socialist/progressive/[insert your favorite label for the same general idea here] government.
The passage at issue, Acts 4, describes the behavior of members of the early church who gave what they had to the church which would then distribute needed resources to other church members. Because of this, no member of the church lacked the things he needed. This passage is a favorite of those who believe the government should take from some and give to others, but consider these important differences betweeen the early church and governments today.
First, this passage deals with the church, not the government. It describes how the church behaved, (perhaps the church should still act that way, but that is not the issue here), and does not suggest that the government should do the same. The church is also supposed to celebrate the Lord's supper and has a mission to share the gospel with the lost; these are not the roles of government.
Second, the people who were giving were doing so voluntarily, not under compulsion. When the government seeks to redistribute there is no choice, you must pay the taxes and don't get to choose how much you want to pay. Today there are plenty of churches and charities to which people can and do voluntarily give thereby following the example of the early church.
Some may argue that giving was not voluntary by pointing to Acts 5 where two members of the church chose to hold back rather than giving all to the church. They end up being killed by God for doing so. This argument misses what actually happens in the passage. The husband and wife sold land, gave some of the proceeds to the church and held some for themselves. The problem was that they lied and said that they had given all to the church. The apostle Peter says that the land was theirs as were the profits, then asks why they lied. They are condemned because of the lie, not because they held back. The giving in the early church was voluntary and it was fine to not give everything so long as the people were honest about what they were doing.
The third and final point to make about the early church giving is that the distribution of the donations was to the members of the church rather than the populace as a whole. This is not to suggest that no money should ever be giving to other poor, but to point out that the church was making sure that the members had their needs met.
Put these three ideas together. The people of the early church voluntarily gave to help other members of the local church. This was not about the government forcefully taking from some to give to others. It was about individuals freely and voluntarily helping other individuals.