Original Meaning
FOR A SECOND time Luke describes the quality of the radical sharing that the first Christian community practiced (see 2:44–45). This time he describes it in greater detail. The fact that he mentions this issue twice suggests we should regard it with some importance.
Luke first presents what was at the heart of the practice of sharing—a deep unity (v. 32a). In the Gospels the disciples often quarreled among each other and had to be corrected by Jesus (Luke 9:46–47; 22:24–27); but in Acts the Twelve are a unified group (2:14; 5:29; 6:2–4), and this unity now spreads to the entire church. This is often the case: When the leaders are united, it helps the members to be united too.
“One in heart and mind” (kardia kai psyche mia) describes a comprehensive unity. As John Wesley put it, “Their loves, their hopes, their passions joined.”1 What joined them was not simply a common affiliation to the church. There was a spiritual unity and a unity of passionate commitment to a mission. Therefore, right in the middle of this description of unity we find what looks like an interpolation regarding the witness of the apostles (v. 33). Community life is never an end in itself; a vibrant community is a community in mission.
Included in this unity was the sharing of possessions among the believers. They did not consider their possessions as their own, but “shared everything they had” (v. 32b). This sharing extended to material possessions. As a result “there were no needy persons among them.” But for that to happen, some costly sacrifices had to be made by some believers who sold their lands and houses (vv. 34–35).
This practice of selling land and giving it to the church has been called Christian communism. But it is different to communism in two ways. (1) It was an entirely voluntary renunciation of wealth. Unlike Communism and the Qumran community of the first century, the sharing of property was not legislated. In fact, Peter told Ananias regarding the land he sold, “Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?” (5:4). The implication is that believers did not have to sell their land or give all their proceeds to the church.
(2) Private ownership continued in the church. Acts 12:12 mentions the house of Mary the mother of John Mark. Earlier we were told that people met in each other’s homes for meals (2:46). Thus, what is mentioned here is not a renunciation of all private property by everyone in the church. David Gooding points out that “the phrase ‘those who owned lands or houses’ [v. 34] is describing people we would call nowadays ‘landlords’ or ‘property owners.’ ”2 Brian Capper thinks that what happened was that the wealthier members, like Barnabas, who had extra land and possessions, sold some and gave the proceeds so that the poor could be looked after.3 In this way they were following the advice of John the Baptist, who said, “The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same” (Luke 3:11).
There are five verbs in the imperfect tense in verses 34–35. The imperfect describes continuous action in the past. In other words, this selling of land is something that took place regularly.4 The NIV rendering (“from time to time”) attempts to express this idea. In other words, whenever there was a need, those who owned land asked themselves whether the Lord wanted them to sell this land. Some did and then gave the proceeds to the leaders to distribute wherever there was a need. I do not think this was an easy decision to make. But some did make it, and the result was the elimination of poverty in the church.
The apostles administered these funds during the early days of the church, but with the appointment of seven men to serve tables in 6:1–6, such administrative responsibilities were delegated to others. Barrett sees the record of the practice of placing things at a person’s feet as a Lucanism. Luke mentions it three times in connection with offerings brought to the apostles (4:35, 37; 5:2; cf. 7:58). It “emphasizes the authority of the apostles,”5 while Marshall thinks it “suggests some kind of legal transfer expressed in formal language.”6
Bridging Contexts
UNITY OF HEART and mind. Paul insists that the unity of heart and mind described here (v. 32) was the norm for Christian community life: “Make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose” (Phil. 2:2). We must strive for such unity with utmost dedication: “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). The desire to obey and please God is a key ingredient of such unity: “May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:5–6).
What is described is a passionate unity or a unifying passion. This characteristic is communicated by one of Luke’s favorite words, homothymadon, translated “with one mind” or “with one accord” in the earlier translations but “together” in some newer translations (NIV, NRSV). E. D. Schmitz describes this word as signifying a “unanimity . . . not based on common personal feelings but on a cause greater than the individual.”7
Christian sharing and possessions. Mammon has always been a key obstacle in the spiritual life (1 Tim. 6:10). Since fellowship is a spiritual reality, this aspect needs to be ironed out at the beginning of a church’s life. That is why Luke mentioned this concept in his first summary description of the community life in the church (2:44–45). Today too we should be looking at what it means to extend oneness of heart and mind to our possessions.
Keeping the priority of evangelism. Verses 32 and 34 are about the sharing of possessions. But sandwiched between them is a verse about evangelism (v. 33). Why this detour? Because community life is never an end in itself. Harrison comments: “Maintenance of the group was not the primary consideration. . . . Above all, this was a witnessing community, and for this reason they enjoyed ‘much grace’ from the Lord.”8 It is easy for a movement to concentrate so much on consolidation after its initial growth that evangelism loses its place of priority.
Luke guards against giving any impression that there was any period when the early church did not evangelize. Acts 1 gives the commission as it came from the lips of Jesus (1:8), and in the same chapter Peter tells the believers that Judas’s replacement had to be a witness of Christ’s resurrection (1:22). Every chapter of Acts (except ch. 27) says something about evangelism. This first church history textbook is essentially a history of evangelism.
The redistribution of wealth. The practice in the early church of sharing possessions through the redistribution of wealth has not been viewed favorably by many contemporary Christians. Capper gives three reasons for this sentiment. (1) Some extreme Anabaptist groups derived the basis for their radical community life from our text. (2) Socialist thinkers over the last hundred years used this passage in defense of their views on the organization of the state. (3) Many scholars have a negative assessment of Acts as a historical source and suggest that this sharing never really happened—that Luke created an ideal community, not a real one.9
It is true that some Greek writings present an ideal model. Plato in his Republic presented such a utopian society, and many scholars have insisted that this type of community was alien to Palestinian society. The force of this argument has been reduced considerably by the discovery, through the Dead Sea Scrolls, of a strong model of radical sharing in the Essene communities. This had been recorded by historians like Philo, Pliny, and Josephus. But “our information about this practice was substantially augmented by the discovery of The Rule of Community (1QS) from Cave 1 at Qumran, which contains the legislation which governed the practice of the community of goods.”10 We might also point out that Luke does not describe a utopian society, for the next chapters tell us about the sin of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1–11) and about the Hellenic Jews who grumbled about the inequitable distribution of food (6:1–6).
Others scholars have claimed that Acts records an experiment in community living that failed. They say that some of the early Christians were starry-eyed idealists, who were generous to a fault. They were so enthusiastic about giving that they unwisely sold their possessions so that the Christians were without their regular sources of income. One critic says, “The trouble in Jerusalem was that they turned their capital into income, and had no cushion for hard times, and the Gentile Christians had to come to their rescue.”11
In answer to these critics, we must mention that there is not the slightest hint in Acts that the sharing of these early Christians was a mistake, even though when Luke wrote about this practice, he was aware of the financial difficulties of the church at Jerusalem. Luke mentions this practice twice in Acts, and the first time, after describing the community life, he writes, “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” (2:47). Note the statement in the present passage: “With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all” (4:33). This was a powerful and healthy church.
There is also evidence that this practice was followed even after the New Testament era.12 In other words, succeeding generations of Christians did not view this pattern as a mistake. Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) wrote of the Christians in the second century, “We who valued above all things the acquisition of wealth and possessions, now bring what we have to a common stock, and communicate to [share with] every one in need.”13 The second-century pagan Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata (c. 115–200) describes Christians as ethical but easily duped by charlatans. In his tale The Passing of Peregrinus, he writes of them:
They show incredible speed whenever any such public action is taken [the arrest of Christians]; for in no time they lavish their all. . . . They despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property. . . . So if any charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk.14
While rejecting the naive simplicity reflected here,15 this quote shows that Christian sharing and generosity were still making an impact on outsiders in the second century.
Moreover, the poverty in the Jerusalem church was not caused by this attitude of sharing. There were many reasons for this poverty. The Jerusalem church began with many poor people. Fisherman and peasants migrating from Galilee would find earning a living difficult in the capital city. Moreover, “since many Jews returned to Jerusalem to die, it is likely that the church had a higher proportion of older converts.”16 Possibly persecution took the form of economic discrimination.17 Christians likely did not have access to the Jewish system of supplying the needs of people like widows. Finally, Jerusalem’s economic situation was in bad shape in the first century, having deteriorated through constant famines and shortages and continued unrest (see Suetonius, Tacitus, and Josephus).18
What principles are there in this section that we can follow in today’s world? At different times Christians have practiced a radical community by fully giving what they owned into a common pool, out of which personal needs were then met. Many Roman Catholic orders that adopted a monastic lifestyle in the Middle Ages operated like this. Anabaptist groups, such as the Amish and the Hutterites, also followed this type of Christian communism. In the sixteenth century the Hutterites, who began in Moravia in Europe, grew to about 25,000 through their farm colonies known as Bruderhofs. Amish groups are still found in North America. Different groups of sincere Christians still exist that decide God has called them into a community to share in a radical community of goods, yet they do not insist on this for everyone. They see it rather as a specialized call.
It is true, of course, that if wealth becomes a hindrance to one’s spiritual life, we may be required to renounce it, as the rich young ruler was asked to do (Luke 18:22). We should also not forget that Jesus himself said, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor” (12:33). Thus, while an important Christian practice is described here, we should be careful about using it to make absolute rules about sharing property that apply to all Christians. Rather, we should see this as a challenge to us regarding our attitude toward each other in the body of Christ and our attitude toward wealth. We should not regard anything we have as belonging exclusively to us but as belonging primarily to God; as his stewards, he expects us to use it wisely. We should ensure that there is no one in need in the body of Christ.
A great majority of Anabaptists today do not follow the way of a radical community of goods but, in the words of an Anabaptist scholar, “Possessing many of the same ideals, they have preferred to live and do business in society. Yet they hold private property as a sacred trust to be shared both within and outside the church family in many forms of relief work and mutual aid.”19 Thus, often when disaster strikes, the Mennonites (who are Anabaptists) are among the first to volunteer their services and expertise. They have developed a lifestyle that has been fashioned by Paul’s advice regarding the rich: “Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share” (1 Tim. 6:18).
Giving to a central fund. In the early church money was given to a central fund, out of which it was disbursed to the needy (vv. 34b–35). I do not think we can make a rule that this is the only method to give to the needy. Sometimes we may give gifts directly to needy persons. But in keeping with our conviction that the narratives of the Bible can give examples that inspire us,20 we may view this practice as an example given for our inspiration.
Contemporary Significance
MAINTAINING A UNIFYING passion today. While being one in heart and mind is considered the usual model for Christian community life, it is not easy to maintain in today’s individualistic society. We do not like having anyone “pry” into our personal lives, which would be necessary if the model shown in Acts were to be followed. For this reason many have lowered their standards and settled for a functional unity that comes more from secular management studies than from God’s Word. People agree to work according to a plan, even through they may not be “one in heart and mind” with it. But can we jettison this biblical model so easily? Given the fact that there are so many commands to this model of unity, we should not be satisfied by lowering our standards.
This is an area where the church needs to be countercultural. In a society where people deny the community orientation that is part of human nature in order to protect their privacy, close Christian community life may be one of the most important prophetic messages we can give the world. No one cannot deny one’s essential humanity without sooner or later feeling a void inside. The church must present itself as the group that can adequately fill this thirst for community in the heart of the human being.
But such deep unity is not easy to maintain. If our standards are high, our expectations from each other will also be high. Consequently the pain of disappointment will also be high. I believe this is a primary reason why people have lowered their standards of what to expect from Christian community. It is too painful to try to be one in the way the Bible describes unity. But the great blessing of completeness in life, motivation to holiness and excellence, and security that comes from those to whom they are accountable await those who attempt this.
I see five key biblical requirements needed to maintain a biblical level of unity. (1) Individuals must crucify themselves. This is clearly taught in Paul’s great passage on unity (Phil. 2:1–11), where Christ’s humiliation is presented as the model for our lifestyle if we are to maintain unity within the body. True, at times small annoyances will confront us; at such times a crucified self uses long-suffering. As Paul said just prior to urging the Ephesians to maintain the unity of the Spirit, we must “be patient, bearing with one another in love” (Eph. 4:2). When we are hurt in a conflict situation, crucified selves follow Paul’s admonition: “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (4:32).
One of the biggest hindrances to maintaining unity is hurt individuals who, in their efforts to solve a problem, give vent to their hurts. This may take the form of a battle for justice or truth, but is actually a battle to retrieve a hurt ego. A crucified self does not insist on its own way (1 Cor. 13:5). It should be willing to compromise on nonessentials for the greater good.
When self has been crucified, then we can follow Paul’s injunction, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21). Paul uses the verb “submit” twenty-three times in his letters. F. F. Bruce says, “Reciprocal submission is a basic element in Christian ethical tradition.”21 This is hard to envision in our individualistic age, where terms like submission imply that one’s individual freedom is being jeopardized.
Many Christians refer to abuses of this principle of submission to eliminate it completely from their lives. They do not feel a church has any right to makes demands on members. They choose which church they will join and choose to leave it when “it does not meet their needs.” Such people will not get the benefit of deep fellowship from any church and will not receive the security and enrichment that comes from spiritual accountability. We must not allow abuses of the principle of submission to cause us to miss out on the great blessings that come from it.
(2) Leaders should make maintaining this unity one of their primary responsibilities. Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:3, “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace,” is particularly applicable to leaders. I think the biggest challenge I have had in leading Youth for Christ in Sri Lanka for twenty-one years has been that of attempting to maintain this principle, especially among our leaders. It is easy to get so engrossed in fulfilling our mission that we ignore or postpone dealing with matters of unity in the body. But that is suicidal, for such issues will emerge; when they do, they usually emerge as huge conflicts, sometimes even resulting in people leaving the group.
You cannot force a person to walk in the light. But if he or she does not, you know that no true fellowship is possible with that person (1 John 1:7). The leader’s task is to pray and act so that everyone walks in the light with each other. (Incidentally, working towards this goal has often resulted in the onset of revival in the church.) Perhaps the most dangerous hindrance to unity that can come from a leader is for him or her to take sides when cliques form and rivalries appear. Leaders must resist the tendency to lower their standards of unity and settle for less than a body life with one heart and one mind.
(3) Believers, especially team members, should meet often to share openly. The picture we get from the Gospels about Jesus’ band of disciples is that of a group who spent a lot of time traveling, worshiping, talking, ministering, and learning together. It is when we “walk in the light” that “we have fellowship with one another” (1 John 1:7, NASB). But such openness of fellowship takes time to forge and maintain.
In this busy world we must find time for what we consider important—including regular meetings. Leaders should insist that such meetings take place. Each team member may be so engrossed in his or her particular mission that they lose sight of the importance of meeting with other members. Leaders should insist that these meetings be a priority by others on the team. Through them spiritual accountability can be forged. One of the greatest dangers in Christian ministry today is that many leaders are not accountable to anyone spiritually. We have developed good systems of financial and ministerial accountability by which our financial and ministerial activities are monitored, but we have forgotten the need for spiritual accountability.
The leaders should set a tone that allows people to share openly. This is well expressed in the “bands” or little companies that John Wesley set up for members in the early Methodist movements. Because of the sensitive nature of what was discussed at these meetings, he separated the men and women in these groups. He made the following rules:
In order to “confess our faults one to another,” and pray one for another that we may be healed, we intend, (1) To meet once a week, at the least. (2) To come punctually at the hour appointed. (3) To begin with singing or prayer. (4) To speak each of us in order, freely and plainly, the true state of our soul, with the faults we have committed in thought, word, or deed, and the temptations we have felt since the last meeting. (5) To desire some person among us (thence called a Leader) to speak his own state first, and then to ask the rest, in order, as many and as searching questions as may be, concerning their state, sins, and temptations.22
(4) Christian fellowship is essentially a spiritual unity in Christ. “Encouragement from being united with Christ” (Phil. 2:1) enables us to be “like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose” (2:2; cf. Eph. 4:3). One of the ways to maintain this spiritual tie is to practice those things that will help deepen it. Through these we enjoy unconsciously what unites us, and that makes us realize that our differences are inconsequential.
We can mention several activities that confirm us in our unity in Christ. (a) Worship and prayer come to mind first. Acts consciously presents the connection between unity and prayer in 1:14 and 4:23.23 Matthew 18:19–20 speaks of people agreeing in prayer and coming together in Christ’s name, which will result in Christ’s special presence. (b) Next is a common commitment to the truths of God’s Word. The result of ministry of the Word by apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers in the church is that “we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature” (Eph. 4:13). (c) Romans 15:5–6 shows how commitment to a common mission fosters unity: “May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” An evangelistic passion certainly becomes a motive for unity, as Jesus said in his high priestly prayer: “May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me” (John 17:23).
I will never forget a meeting of the Younger Leaders Committee of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization that I attended in Stuttgart, Germany. We had gathered to organize “Singapore ’87: The Lausanne Younger Leaders Conference.” Each one there was a leader in his or her own right. We came from different ecclesiastical traditions and had strong convictions about how the conference should be run. On the first few days it seemed as if we could not agree on anything, and the arguments became heated. Toward the end of the meeting, we had serious doubts whether we could even make the conference work.
On the last day our leader, Canadian Brian Stiller, led us in an extended time of worship. Hardly any decisions had been made regarding the conference. But we worshiped God for two to three hours. Our worship consisted of testimony, ministry of the Word, praise through prayer and song, and intercession. We all sensed that God had done something among us. We affirmed what had made us one and that God had knit our hearts together in a most wonderful way. In the few hours that remained, we were able to cover a volume of work much greater than what we did during the first few days of grappling. I believe the Lord richly blessed the conference, and the wonderful ties of friendship that developed among the committee members remain to this day. It was to me one of the sweetest experiences of the glory of the body of Christ that spans the globe and brings people of such diverse personalities and cultures into one happy family.
(5) The final key to maintain a biblical level and quality of unity is that of striving for agreement over a course of action. Acts 15 gives us a good illustration of this. When some men from Judea came to Antioch and brought theological confusion about the place of circumcision in the Christian’s life, Paul and Barnabas immediately took the long trip to Jerusalem. The church there summoned what is now known as the Jerusalem Council. Different groups were able to present their viewpoints. Under the statesmanlike leadership of James the council was able to come up with a solution that everyone agreed with (15:25–28).24 Luke reports the solution on the controversy about the neglect of Grecian widows in a similar way (6:5).
Often in our hurry to get about our business, we are impatient to grapple for such unity. This is a near-sighted strategy, for the resulting lack of unity stunts growth, affects spiritual vitality, and hampers the fruitfulness of the group.
Extending oneness to our possessions. How believers view their possessions is an important aspect of Christian fellowship. Usually when we think of fellowship, we think of spiritual unity, of good relationships existing within the community, and of the sharing of good feelings towards each other. But the characteristically Christian word for fellowship, koinonia, means much more than that. Historian Justo L. Gonzales has shown that in the Bible, koinonia and its related words have the meaning of partnership as well.25 Thus, we need to rethink our understanding of Christian fellowship in the light of what the New Testament records. True fellowship includes the attitude “this is not my own” to what one possesses. True accountability must involve our finances as well as other aspects of our lives.
Many people today do not like to talk to others about their finances; rather, they guard this area as if it is no one else’s business but their own. They do not want to be accountable to others about what they spend their money on. This is especially true when there are big differences in the economic situation within a community. If there are rich and poor in the same community, the rich might be embarrassed about how they spend their money while their poor brothers and sisters barely struggle to survive.
But refusal to share this aspect of our lives immediately lowers the level of fellowship. The poorer believers feel distant from the others, so that they do not have a sense of ownership of the enterprise. They may be tempted to be dishonest in using church funds. Satan may tempt a poorer employee of a Christian organization with thoughts like this: “How unfair it is for that person to be so rich while you are so poor—and both of you work for the same organization.”
I was once speaking to a leader of a Christian movement where there is a wide disparity between the salaries of different staff members. This person said that they have found it almost impossible to trust poorer people, especially in the area of finances. One of the best antidotes to this is an attitude of openness about all things, including possessions. In such a situation it is difficult for a dishonest person to survive; he or she will either change or leave the organization.
Most business organizations keep the salary book private and secret, and many Christian groups have adopted this approach. But that hinders the oneness we have from extending to material possessions, which will greatly reduce the depth of oneness. We must remember that Jesus’ team had a common purse (John 12:6; 13:29). The fact that the treasurer was dishonest does not negate the fact that Jesus considered such oneness about finances advisable for his team.
Of course, in order to be open about such things, it is essential that even the wealthy adopt a relatively simple lifestyle and avoid what others consider unnecessary extravagance. That is so hard for many people to do. They reason, “This is my hard-earned money. What I am spending it on is not sinful. I see no reason why I should not spend it this or that way.” This attitude breaks down the fellowship and makes the community much less powerful in terms of its eternal impact. By adopting a simple lifestyle, we are not stumbling blocks to poorer Christians, and by so doing we make true partnership possible.
Giving evangelism priority today. It is difficult in this age of specialization to integrate the various aspects of the Christian life into one church. As a result, we have churches that have become specialists in one particular area. The New Testament presents a church that tried to be faithful in all the areas of the call of God.
We noted that Acts is essentially a history of evangelization in the first few decades of the Christian era. When I studied church history in seminary, the focus was more on doctrinal controversies and the progress of doctrine. Important as that is, the primary factor in church history should always be the progress of evangelization. Kenneth Scott Latourette was right on the mark when he entitled his monumental seven-volume history of the church, A History of the Expansion of Christianity.26
It is the task of a leader to ensure that a movement “keeps the main thing the main thing.” Sometimes for a consolidation stage in a movement people who are good managers are chosen to replace the retiring visionary pioneer. This may be a wise move. But if the manager has no passion for evangelism, a slow rot can gradually convert the movement into a machine and finally make it into a monument.
This focus on evangelism will help maintain unity in the church. Albert Lee, who directs Youth for Christ in Singapore, has said that the church has many generals and that generals exist by battling. Thus, if they are not battling Satan for the expansion of the kingdom, they will end up battling themselves. All too often leaders’ meetings in churches that have lost their evangelistic passion become an unbearable test of patience because hours are spent battling matters that are of little consequence in connection with the growth of God’s kingdom. If we feel a passion to get the message to the lost and if we have crucified self, we will not waste time arguing over inconsequential things.
Sharing personal possessions today. “There were no needy persons among them” (v. 34). Paul wrote, “Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality” (2 Cor. 8:13). Relative equality is a goal every Christian should strive for. I use the term relative because people’s spending can vary according to their culture and responsibilities. But we must strive to have a situation where there are no needy people in the church. Thus, Christians should not decide on their lifestyle by looking at their peers in society, but rather after looking at the needs of the believers around them.
A Christian may save funds over a considerable period of time to buy something or do an improvement on her house. Others may think this is an essential expenditure. But then she may find that a fellow Christian has an urgent need that should be met, and she may decide to give these funds to her friend. There is a great freedom and joy that comes from such a lifestyle that is rich in giving rather than in using for oneself.
Sadly, we cannot say that there are no needy people in the church today. But often we do not know the needs of fellow Christians. The economically poor and rich often go to different churches. People like to be comfortable in church (I do not know from where in the Bible they got that idea!), so they go to churches with a majority of people like themselves. Some even go through an elaborate process of shopping for a church that they will be comfortable with. In New Testament times there was a cultural diversity in the church.27 Admittedly, that led to problems, such as in Acts 6:1–6, when the Hellenists complained against the Hebraic Jews. But they did not divide the church as a result; instead, they sought to solve the problem as it surfaced.
A great enrichment and a sobering effect await us if we worship and commune in an economically integrated church. We will be struck by the needs of others and realize how much of our expenditure is unnecessary and perhaps even sinful in light of the needs of others. That will force us to be generous. If we do not share, our fellowship with the needy will be hindered. It may also make us upset about the causes of poverty and drive us to do something about it.
This is how the Methodist revival resulted in so much social transformation. In the small groups of early Methodism the poor began to talk about their working and living conditions. The more wealthy members were appalled and did something to change that situation. This also drove them to be committed to a relatively simple lifestyle. John Wesley said in a letter to the Commissioner of Excise, replying to an inquiry about undeclared plate silver: “Sir, I have two silver teaspoons at London, two at Bristol. This is all the plate silver I have at present, and I will not buy any more while so many around me go hungry.”28
A vital awareness of the needs of the poor through fellowshiping with them also influences our priorities for church life. Roy Clements says that the early church father Ambrose, bishop of Milan (c. 339–397), “rebuked the church of his day for the amount of money spent on beautifying its church buildings, while neglecting the service of the poor.” Ambrose is reputed to have said, “A slave redeemed at the church’s expense is a far better decoration for the Holy Communion table than a golden chalice.”29
Giving does not become a major sacrifice when we realize that God owns our possessions. A good example of this attitude toward possessions is described by Juan Carlos Ortiz. When pastors first began to preach the message of discipleship in their church in Buenos Aires, many members brought the titles to their homes and apartments to give to the church. The leaders did not know what to do with this money. After six months of praying about this, they called the people and told them that they have decided to return everyone’s real estate. “The Lord showed us that he doesn’t want your empty houses,” they said. “He wants a house with you inside taking care of it. He wants . . . everything ready—for him. He also wants your car, with you as the driver.” But they added, “Just remember, though, that it all still belongs to him.”
Ortiz says that now all houses are open. “When visitors come to our congregation, we don’t say, ‘Who can take these brothers into your house.’ We don’t ask; we command because the house is already given to the Lord. And the people thank the Lord that he lets them live in his house.”30 I still think it is a good thing to ask, since some may be more ready to have someone in their house than others at a given time. But the principle is clear: If we say that our possessions belong to the Lord, we should act as if they do.
Now I am aware of some who say that if the poor would only work harder, they would make it without needing the help of others. I suppose that would be possible in an ideal society. But we live in a society where many need a push to get started. They simply do not have the opportunities or the motivation because of the environment they have grown up in. This is why in the Bible there are elaborate instructions on how the weak should be looked after as well as stirring challenges to help the needy.
The recent collapse of the economies of communist countries and of rigidly socialist welfare states shows how important it is to encourage personal initiative. It is easy to foster a destructive welfare mentality among the poor when relief is doled out indiscriminately. But this is not possible in the type of Christian community the Bible is talking about. Here the unity is such that everyone feels he or she is a vital part of the movement. It is not a case of rich donors helping poor people who think the rich owe it to them. Rather, it is the case of a community where everyone grows together as equals and contributes vitally with their unique gifts for the common good. Some give money while others give nonmaterial gifts.
Some years ago the governments of many countries began to do what the churches did in terms of social welfare. As a result churches reduced their social programs. But in recent years governments are allocating less funds for welfare programs. This means that the church (and other “volunteer organizations”) will once again have to take on a prominent role in helping the needy within and without the church.
Advantages of giving to a central fund. While giving to a central fund is not an invariable rule, there are some advantages in this method. (1) It avoids the unhealthy sense of obligation that a receiver can develop toward a donor. In countries with distinct classes, it is often difficult for a poor believer to regard a rich Christian as an equal. The receiver may develop a sense of obligation to a donor that prevents the two of them from acting as equals in the community of faith. Besides, this type of giving often makes “the poor too much dependent on a few rich individuals.”30
(2) If the administrators of the common fund are faithful and wise stewards of God’s money, they will ensure that the money is used responsibly. Often we respond to a need we see according to our emotional feelings at the time. That may occasionally be helpful. But sometimes money goes to the wrong people or in the wrong way because the giving was not preceded by careful consideration of some necessary factors. Sometimes the best way to meet a need is not to give relief but to help the person tackle the cause for the need. For example, it may be better to give a person capital to get started on a trade than to give him food. The trade will help him to earn money to feed himself and his family. As the common proverb says, “If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.” A responsible group that considers such issues carefully will therefore be a better initial recipient of our donations than a needy individual.
Lest we miss the challenge of this passage to us, I will conclude this study with a description of the church’s care for the poor that comes from the second or third century:
Be solicitous about their maintenance, being in nothing wanting to them; exhibiting to the orphans the care of parents; to the widows the care of husbands; to those of suitable age, marriage; to the artificer, work; to the unable, commiseration; to the strangers, a house; to the hungry, food; to the thirsty, drink; to the naked, clothing; to the sick, visitation; to the prisoners, assistance . . . to the maiden, give her in marriage . . . to the young man, assistance that he may learn a trade and may be maintained by the advantage arising from it.31