Didn’t the ear­ly church prac­tice social­ism?

Social jus­tice advo­cates in evan­gel­i­cal cir­cles fre­quent­ly will point to Acts 2:40–47 and 4:32–37 as evi­dence the ear­ly Chris­tians prac­ticed social­ism. Acts 2:44–45 and 4:34–35 are main vers­es to which they point. Luke wrote,

^2:44 Now all who believed were togeth­er, and had all things in com­mon, ⁴⁵ and sold their pos­ses­sions and goods, and divid­ed them among all, as any­one had need.…

^4:34 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.

Was this social­ism?

Social­ism is “an eco­nom­ic sys­tem based upon gov­ern­men­tal or com­mu­nal own­er­ship of the means of pro­duc­tion and dis­tri­b­u­tion of goods and ser­vices.”¹ While at first blush we might be tempt­ed to think the actions of these ear­ly Chris­tians fit this def­i­n­i­tion of social­ism, a clos­er exam­i­na­tion of both social­ism and Luke’s his­tor­i­cal account lead us to con­clude oth­er­wise.

First, the gov­ern­ment was not involved. All of the con­tri­bu­tions made to the church “resource room” where mem­bers “had all things in com­mon” were vol­un­tary con­tri­bu­tions; they weren’t orches­trat­ed or coerced.

Sec­ond, not only was gov­ern­ment not involved, but also there appar­ent­ly was no orga­nized struc­ture in the church man­dat­ing and main­tain­ing “com­mu­nal own­er­ship of the means of pro­duc­tion and dis­tri­b­u­tion of goods and ser­vices.” Again, gifts were vol­un­tary — spon­ta­neous­ly giv­en and “divided…among all, as any­one had need.” We can put it yet anoth­er way: No cen­tral or advanced plan­ning took place.

Third, Luke wrote, “All who were pos­ses­sors of lands or hous­es soldthem, and brought the pro­ceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apos­tles’ feet” (emphases added). Church mem­bers could not give any­thing that did not belong to them in the first place, and they clear­ly did own prop­er­ty, for they were “pos­ses­sors” who “sold” resources and had “pro­ceeds” to show for their trans­ac­tions. They could use these pro­ceeds as they wished. Thus, pri­vate prop­er­ty and pri­vate prop­er­ty rights were real­i­ties in the ear­ly church, and prop­er­ty rights were hon­ored. Under social­ism, prop­er­ty is col­lec­tive­ly owned, so prop­er­ty rights don’t exist. In just a bit, we will see addi­tion­al evi­dence of prop­er­ty own­er­ship and prop­er­ty rights in the ear­ly church.

Under social­ism, prop­er­ty rights don’t exist.

Fourth, wealth gen­er­at­ed from the sales of resources wasn’t brought to the gov­ern­ment, but “laid…at the apos­tles’ feet.” This action is dia­met­ri­cal­ly opposed to social­ist tenets and ideals. Social­ism and its sis­ter ide­ol­o­gy, com­mu­nism, are deeply root­ed in athe­ism. In these ide­olo­gies, the state is God — but in the ear­ly church in Acts 2 and 4, the one true God was revered, wor­shiped, and hon­ored. Accord­ing­ly, dona­tions were brought to church lead­ers, who used these resources to meet church mem­bers’ needs.

We need to real­ize that Karl Marx him­self said,

• • • Com­mu­nism begins where athe­ism begins.
    • My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy cap­i­tal­ism.
    • There are, besides, eter­nal truths, such as Free­dom, etc., that are com­mon to all states of soci­ety. But Com­mu­nism abol­ish­es eter­nal truths, it abol­ish­es all reli­gion, and all moral­i­ty, instead of con­sti­tut­ing them on a new basis; it there­fore acts in con­tra­dic­tion to all past his­tor­i­cal expe­ri­ence.

In this 45-sec­ond audio clip from His ser­mon “The Bank­rupt­cy of Social­ism,” the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, long-time pas­tor of Coral Ridge Pres­by­ter­ian Church in Fort Laud­erdale, Flori­da, explains.

Prop­er­ty Rights Explic­it­ly Upheld

In Acts 5:1–11, Ana­nias and his wife Sap­phi­ra lied about a gift they had giv­en to the church, and they paid for it with their lives. They sold a piece of land and “kept back part of the pro­ceeds” but appar­ent­ly claimed they were con­tribut­ing the entire amount. Peter con­front­ed Ana­nias about his decep­tion with harsh words.

^5:3Ana­nias, 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.”

Ana­nias dropped dead on the spot and was buried. “[A]bout about three hours lat­er when his wife came in,” Peter ques­tioned Sap­phi­ra, ask­ing her if the amount she and her hus­band had giv­en was the actu­al price of the land, as the cou­ple pre­vi­ous­ly had assert­ed. Sap­phi­ra indi­cat­ed that it was, and Peter respond­ed with right­eous indig­na­tion. “How is it that you have agreed togeth­er to test the Spir­it of the Lord?” he asked. “Look, the feet of those who have buried your hus­band are at the door, and they will car­ry you out.” She, too, died sud­den­ly, and “the young men [who’d buried Ana­nias] came in and found her dead, and car­ry­ing her out, buried her by her hus­band.”

It’s impor­tant that we under­stand exact­ly what this cou­ple did that cost them their lives. Their egre­gious sin wasn’t that they gave only a por­tion of the pro­ceeds, but that they claimed they’d giv­en the whole amount when they’d giv­en only a por­tion. It was a lie — one that deeply offend­ed God and that rocked the ear­ly church.

Note care­ful­ly, how­ev­er, Peter’s words to Ana­nias, indent­ed above. Peter explic­it­ly affirmed that the cou­ple had con­trol over all they owned, as well as con­trol over the pro­ceeds that were theirs after the land was sold. Pri­vate own­er­ship of resources and the rights to man­age and use those resources as the owner(s) saw fit were oper­a­tive prin­ci­ples in the ear­ly church — includ­ing dur­ing the peri­od of time when the church exper­i­ment­ed with hav­ing “all things in com­mon.”

The Exper­i­ment that Didn’t Work

This brings us to a final point of which we should be aware. Although the ear­ly church didn’t prac­tice social­ism in the strictest sense, their exper­i­ment with hav­ing “all things in com­mon” was enough like social­ism to ren­der the approach they took unwork­able. The com­mon store approach was not “ever repeat­ed any­where else.”² Why? It sim­ply didn’t work! In fact, it cre­at­ed all kinds of prob­lems for the church and its lead­ers, includ­ing, some have not­ed, the ten­sions the arose among the church’s wid­ows in Acts 6:1–7.

Copy­right 2022. All rights reserved.

¹Jeff Myers and David A. Noebel, Under­stand­ing the Times: A Sur­vey of Com­pet­ing World­views, (Man­i­tou Springs, CO: Sum­mit Min­istries, 2016), 100.

²Dr. D. James Kennedy, in his ser­mon “The Bank­rupt­cy of Social­ism,” at approx­i­mate­ly the 15:18 mark.