...and that probably doesn’t mean what you think it does. In my recent post on Christian anarchism, I said that the early church, at least in Jerusalem, practiced “libertarian communism,” and that there’s a lot of evidence that this was widespread and long-lasting within the church. But I anticipate some confusion (‘libertarian communism’? isn’t that a contradiction in terms?) and pushback on this point. Here I will clarify my claim and provide further evidence in its support.
“Communism” defined
Most people, at least in the West, think of states like the U.S.S.R., Maoist China, and modern-day Cuba when they hear “communism.” Strictly speaking, this is incorrect. As an economic system, communism is an economy which is conducted on the principle “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” Within the Marxist framework, a fully communist society would be classless and therefore stateless; although I’m not a Marxist, I would agree that communism implies a horizontal, and therefore stateless, society. None of the authoritarian leftist, Marxist-Leninist regimes listed above have ever reached full communism, nor did they ever claim to have done so, although they are said to be “Communist” in ideology because they claimed to be working toward such a society.
Socialism, on the other hand, refers to a system of property rights in which workplaces (or “means of production” to use the outdated leftist phrase) are owned by the workers themselves. This definition presupposes development from a modern economy with a worker/owner distinction, so it can’t really be applied to pre-modern economies (which were primarily feudal or slave-based). However, we can apply the term “communist” to pre-modern economic relationships. As anthropologist David Graeber points out, in every society there is always some amount of “baseline communism” — that is, economic relationships conducted on the communist principle — even if this is just sharing between family and friends. [1]
In addition to communism, Graeber identifies two other types of economic relationships which are found (to varying degrees) in nearly every human society: exchange and hierarchy. “Exchange” refers to relationships where some kind of equivalence is expected between traded items; this tends to predominate in societies where most relationships are impersonal and/or violence is widespread, so long-term relationships based on trust between parties are not expected. [2] “Hierarchy” refers to relationships where there is formal inequality between parties, and so there is no reciprocity; one party (the ‘superior’ one) comes out ahead by design. [3] This is usually based in violence which becomes systematized over time.
We can make a distinction between “formal” and “informal” communism, following Roman Montero. [4] Formal communism refers to economic relationships in which the principle “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” is regulated by formal rules, whereas informal communism refers to communist relationships that are not formally regulated. In modern society, communism is usually encountered informally (e.g., between family, friends, and coworkers). We can also make a distinction between “authoritarian” and “libertarian” communism, where the former is regulated by some centralized (human) authority and the latter is regulated, if at all, by decentralized relationships between people.
With these definitions in mind, we can consider which economic relationships predominated in the early church. If communist relationships predominated over exchange and hierarchy among early believers, and their beliefs and practices actively cultivated communism, then we can truly say that the early church was “communist” in their economic structure. If the early church was communist, then we can also look into how formal or informal, and how authoritarian or libertarian, this economic structure was.
Internal evidence from the early church
We can begin with the paradigmatic case of communism in the early church: the first community of believers in Jerusalem as described by the book of Acts.
Now all the believers were together and had all things in common; they were selling their possessions and goods and distributing the proceeds to all, as each had need. Every day, as they continued together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. (Ac 2:44–47)
Now the whole group of believers were of one heart and soul, and no one said that anything he possessed was his own, but all things were in common for them... There was no one in need among them, for as many as owned lands or houses were selling them and bringing the proceeds of what was sold. They were laying it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as anyone had need. (Ac 4:32, 34–35)
It’s fair to say that this is an idealized depiction of the early Jerusalem church, but it does present this community of believers as fully communistic. In fact, the slogan “to each according to their need” plausibly originated from this very passage. [5] As depicted by Luke, this was an informal communism, because each person’s property remained formally under their authority (Ac 5:4) but “no one said that anything he possessed was his own” (4:32). It was also more libertarian than authoritarian, since the contributions were apparently voluntary (grounded in ethical obligations rather than any threat of force). Even so, there was also a formal aspect to the communism, whereby a centralized group of apostles received the proceeds and distributed them according to need (4:34–47; but cf. the plural verbs at 2:45).
Some, in an attempt to avoid the radical implications, have suggested that this was an “unusual moment in the life of the early church” which “[f]or all we know... lasted six months”, which was certainly never normative or prescriptive for believers. [6] The problem with this assertion is that it’s simply false. In fact, communism is prescribed for believers in two other first-century Christian writings:
You shall not hesitate to give, nor shall you grumble when giving, for you should know who is the good paymaster of your wages. You shall not turn away from someone in need, but share all things with your sibling, and do not say that anything is your own. For if you are partners in what is immortal, how much more in what is mortal? (Didache 4:7–8)
You shall have all things in common with your neighbors, and do not say that anything is your own. For if you have the corruptible in common, how much more the incorruptible? (Epistle of Barnabas 19:8)
Both of these documents were held in high regard in the early church, and were even considered to be Scripture by some. The Didache (also known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) is thought to have been written in the mid-to-late first century, most likely from Syria. The Epistle of Barnabas was written some time between AD 70 and the mid-second century from Alexandria in Egypt. This shows that communist economic practices were considered normative among early believers for at least several decades after the beginning of the church, and over a widespread area.
The commandments in the Didache and Epistle of Barnabas share some phrases with Acts, specifically that “all things” are held in common and that believers “do not say that anything is [their] own” (Ac 4:32). However, they also have a common rationale for this practice — that believers share an immortal and incorruptible hope, so they should also share mortal and corruptible things — which isn’t found in Acts. This points to a shared tradition (whether written or oral) independent of Acts which goes back to the very early church, that believers should share all things with their brethren in need and not regard anything to be their own. [7]
These practices continued to be widespread among Christians well into the second century. The mid-second-century Christian apologist Justin Martyr states,
[We] follow the only unbegotten God through his Son... we who formerly delighted in fornication, but now embrace chastity alone; we who formerly used magical arts, dedicate ourselves to the good and unbegotten god; we who valued above all things the acquisition of wealth and possessions, now bring what we have into a common stock, and communicate to everyone in need (First Apology 14)
In an apologetic context, this could just be an idealized depiction of the church. But Justin later describes in detail the ceremony that took place in the churches on every Sunday, where (recalling Acts 4:34–37) those who are present deposit their belongings before the deacons, who distribute them to “all who are in need” (First Apology 67).
Similarly, the early church father Tertullian wrote in AD 197 from Carthage: “One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives” (Apology 39). The extent to which this informal communism was practiced is evident from the fact that Tertullian is careful to distinguish it from pagan cults which shared even their wives. Like Justin, he gives a detailed description of the formal communism practiced on each Sunday, where a voluntary donation would be made to support any brethren in need, prompting even the pagans to remark, “See how they love one another!” (Apology 39)
If Paul’s writings are any indication, communism was practiced not only within each church, but between churches as well — at least, that was the ideal. Throughout much of his ministry, he took up a collection from the gentile churches for the relatively poorer Judean churches (Rom 15:25–27; 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8–9; Gal 2:10). This was following a decision by the apostles that “according to their ability, each would send relief to the brethren in Judea” (Ac 11:29). Paul gives his rationale for the collection as follows:
For you know the generosity of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, that being rich, for your sake he became poor, so that you may be made rich through his poverty... Not that there should be relief for others and hardship for you, but equality. Your present abundance will be for their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, so that there may be equality. As it is written, “The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.” (2 Cor 8:9, 13–15)
For Paul, the early Christian communism follows the paradigmatic case of Jesus’ own sacrifice, the perfect expression of agapē (cf. especially 1 John 3:16–18, which makes the exact same point). He also quotes Exodus 16:18 about the gathering of manna in the wilderness, which shows that his vision of economic equality extends back to Israel’s very origins. Paul is careful to emphasize that the collection for the Judean churches is voluntary, not based in a commandment (2 Cor 8:8; 9:6ff), which means that this communism was informal and libertarian. For me, this is reminiscent of the libertarian communism that was implemented by the Catalonian anarchists during the Spanish Civil War, in which different villages created regional federations to share resources with one another. [8]
Our clear, direct evidence for early Christian communism dries up around the end of the second century. However, there are tantalizing hints in the later church fathers that this continued into the fourth century. Basil of Caesarea in his Sermon to the Rich says that the rich unjustly seize goods which are rightly “for the benefit of all in common”; in an ideal society,
if we all took only what was necessary to satisfy our own needs, giving the rest to those who lack, no one would be rich, no one would be poor, and no one would be in need.
John Chrysostom, the late fourth century archbishop of Constantinople, makes a similar point: “the rich... possess things which belong to the poor, even if their property be gained by inheritance; in fact, from whatever source their substance is derived” (Discourse on Lazarus II.4). He held that the rich are parasitic on society, and a society of all poor people would end up far more successful than a society of all rich people (Homily 34 on 1 Cor 13:8). St. Ambrose held the same view: the rich “are usurping what was given in common for the use of all. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich” (On Naboth). Sadly, this traditional Christian view dwindled as the church became entangled in the politics of empire.
External evidence from the pagan world
If all we had were testimonies from within the church, it might be rightly objected that this is just an idealized picture which wasn’t actually practiced. Fortunately, we have hostile witnesses from the outside pagan world who confirm that early believers did practice communism, and this was ridiculed by outsiders! The second-century Syrian satirist Lucian wrote an entire satire, called “The Death of Peregrinus,” about a traveling huckster who takes advantage of Christian communism to live affluently without working. Here’s an excerpt:
...their first lawgiver [i.e., Jesus] persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence. So if any charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk. (Peregrinus 13)
For Lucian, communism is not only a practice of Christianity, but the defining practice, which to him is ridiculous; they’re “despising all things” and inviting charlatans to take advantage of them! Thanks to their generosity, Peregrinus was able to “live in unalloyed prosperity” (16), what simpletons!
Whether or not this is a true tale, it’s clear that the early Christians did have to be on guard against those who would take advantage of their communism. Paul himself faced this problem with the Thessalonian church, where some believers were living in idleness off of the church proceeds; the solution was that “anyone unwilling to work should not eat” (2 Thess 3:6–15). Likewise, the Didache says that churches should receive and care for any travelers who come in the name of the Lord, but “beware” of those who stay for long periods of time without being willing to work (12:1–5). The fact that this was even a danger shows the extent to which informal communism was practiced.
Well into the fourth century, hostile witnesses still confirm that at least some Christian communities were practicing communism. The pagan emperor Julian “the Apostate” writes in a letter that the Christians “are bidden to sell all they have and give to the poor,” and orders that the collective funds of the church of Edessa should be confiscated so that “poverty may teach them to behave properly” (Letter 40). In another letter he takes this matter more seriously:
For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans [i.e., Christians] support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us. (Letter 22)
The generosity of the Christians, both for their fellow believers and apparently others, made the Roman Empire look bad by comparison, which caused a PR problem for Julian. As a result, he orders the high priest of Galatia to teach the pagan temples to also contribute to the poor “by teaching them that this was our practice of old,” so as to “not... allow others to outdo us in good works” (Letter 22). This is an example of how radical movements like early Christianity can effect change in the wider system without becoming ingrained in that system (in other words, being in the world without being a part of the world).
The basis for early Christian communism
The historical evidence clearly shows that the early Christians practiced informal and formal communism on a large scale, over a widespread area, for over a century after the beginning of the church. But to what extent was this a deliberate result of their theological beliefs vs. a mere historical accident? Let’s look at the influences that led the early church to practice communism on an unprecedented scale.
The Essenes were another second-Temple Jewish sect that intentionally practiced full communism, although not as successfully as the Christians. Josephus describes their communism in detail, saying that those who joined them gave up their possessions to be “common to the whole order,” whence they were distributed by the “stewards” of the community “for the uses of them all”; this was a formal process regulated by rules (Wars 2.8.3, 6). There was also an informal communism whereby “every one of them gives what he has to him who wants it, and receives from him again... what may be convenient for himself” (Wars 2.8.4). Philo says that their communism extended to food and clothing (Apology for the Jews).
This is confirmed in the writings of the Essenes at Qumran. Their Community Rule describes the same strictly regulated, formal communism depicted by Josephus; participation was contingent on a rigorous entry process into the community, and goods were distributed by the community leaders (1QS 5–6). The Damascus Document provides a different perspective: there was an aspect of formal communism (a tax levied for the needy members of the community), but also informal communism, where members were expected to provide for each other without holding back (CD 6–7; 18–19). The same combination of formal and informal communism was practiced in the early church, but there it was more libertarian, as the leaders of the church played a lesser role than the leaders of the Essenes.
Some Greek philosophers also envisioned communism, but only between fellow virtuous philosophers, whom they considered to be the only people capable of real friendship. [9] A common saying was that “what friends have is common property” (koina ta tōn philōn), and for Aristotle, “brothers and comrades have all things in common” (Nicomachean Ethics 8.9). But freely sharing between social classes was considered a vice, not a virtue (e.g., Plautus, Trinummus 2.2). Between social classes, the proper economic relationship was patronage, which was a form of hierarchy (to use Graeber’s terminology), where wealth was transferred down in exchange for honor and subservience from the lower classes. [10]
Based on this, the most likely origin of Christian communism (which crossed social and cultural boundaries) is from its Jewish roots and not from outside Greek culture. Indeed, Acts 4:34 (“there was no one in need among them”) is likely an allusion to Deut 15:4 LXX (“there shall be no one in need among you”), which was a prophecy of the Sabbatical year when all debts would be forgiven (Deut 15:1–4). Jesus viewed his own arrival as the coming of the eschatological Sabbath (e.g., Mk 2:23–3:6; Lk 4:16–21; 13:10–17; John 5:1–18; cf. Heb 4:1–11). [11] This meant the permanent forgiveness of debts, and an end to relationships of exchange and hierarchy (which are fundamentally based in debt).
The Lukan Jesus makes this rejection of exchange and hierarchy explicit:
“If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive payment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. Instead, love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return.” (Lk 6:34–35)
“The kings of the gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather, the greatest among you must become like the youngest and the leader like one who serves.” (Lk 22:25–26)
David Graeber notes that communism (as opposed to exchange) is found precisely where giving isn’t associated with any expectation of return. [12] Jesus also rejects the hierarchical patronage relationships found in the pagan world (i.e., “benefactors”), where wealth was given in exchange for subservience. In the Lord’s prayer and elsewhere in the gospels, Jesus associates the Sabbatical practice of forgiving debts with God’s own forgiveness of our sins (Matt 6:12; 18:23–35; Lk 7:42–43; 11:4; cf. Didache 1:5–6). It’s clear that early Christian communism goes all the way back to the teachings of the historical Jesus.
In addition to Jesus’ explicit teachings, we shouldn’t lose sight of his actions. Love (agapē) was central to the ethic of the early Christians, and for them it was exemplified in Jesus’ ultimate self-sacrifice for our sins (John 15:13; Rom 5:8; 1 Jn 3:16). The two most prolific writers of the New Testament, Paul and John, explicitly connect Jesus’ self-sacrifice to the informal communism that they practiced (2 Cor 8:8–15; 1 Jn 3:16–18). It’s not hard to see how “love your neighbor as yourself” translates practically to “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” If we desire to love others as we love ourselves, then we shouldn’t withhold from them what we have that they need.
A few common objections
There are a few common critiques of the view that the early church was communist (for example: Sean McDowell; Kevin DeYoung; Jay W. Richards). For the most part, I think these critiques result from a failure to properly understand the concepts being discussed. It’s not a question of whether the early church was socialist (it wasn’t), or Marxist (of course not), or whether non-Christians were thrown into gulags (LOL). Rather, it’s a question of the extent to which the early church actively practiced and cultivated economic relationships according to the principle “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”
For one, many of these critiques confuse communism with socialism, or assume that communism is just the most extreme version of communism. (“Socialism is when the government does stuff, communism is when the government does all the stuff.”) This is not how these terms are used by political theorists. It would be utterly anachronistic to attribute socialism (i.e., worker ownership of workplaces) to the early church, since there was no widespread working class at that time. Socialism and communism may go hand-in-hand in a modern economy, but in pre-modern feudal and slave economies, communism could be (and was) implemented on a large scale without socialism.
These critiques also often assume that “communism” and “socialism” refer only to the statist, authoritarian socialism associated with Marxist-Leninist regimes. As such, they think that it’s a slam-dunk rebuttal to point out that the early church’s economic relationships were voluntary. But this only shows that the early church practiced libertarian (rather than authoritarian) communism, not that they didn’t practice communism at all. Rather than the U.S.S.R., a better modern parallel to the early church would be rural Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, where anarchist revolutionaries established full (libertarian) communism on a large scale. [13]
Another critique, made by Jay W. Richards, is that the practice of communism was an unusual and very short-lived stage in church history (possibly as little as six months in Jerusalem only!). This is simply an ignorance of historical reality. As I have shown, both formal and informal communism were normative and widespread within Christianity until at least the end of the second century.
Finally, a more nuanced critique points to Acts 5:4, which says that the proceeds of Ananias’ sale of land were still at his authority. If his proceeds weren’t immediately owned by the community, it is argued, then the church wasn’t practicing communism. But this ignores the distinction between formal and informal communism. Ananias wasn’t legally obligated to provide all his proceeds to the church, but he clearly had a social and moral obligation to do so. (He’s obviously not portrayed in a good light in the rest of the passage, Acts 5:1–11). In our modern world, where there’s thought to be such a stark distinction between the personal realm and the political realm, this may be hard to grasp; but in the ancient world, the political was considered an extension of the moral, personal realm.
In summary, the critiques of early Christian communism either result from a failure to understand the terminology, an ignorance of the historical evidence, or a failure to recognize the distinctions between formal vs. informal and authoritarian vs. libertarian communism. I haven’t yet found a critique which doesn’t fall into one of these errors. There are very good historical and theological grounds for thinking that the early church practiced and actively cultivated libertarian communism on a large scale, and so it can be truly said to be “communist.”
What are the implications?
I think there are two big implications of this, one for modern-day Christians and the other one for modern-day leftists (of all stripes, not just Christian). First, Christians who uphold and support the capitalist structure of the modern world are compromising with the world, and to that extent are not leading ideal Christian lives. I’m a bit loathe to say this, since the majority of Christians aren’t economic leftists, but I don’t see any way around it. To be clear, I’m not saying that non-leftists aren’t Christian, but to the extent that they support capitalism they aren’t ideal Christians (as no one but Christ truly is). If we are Christian, we should be economically leftist.
Another implication is for modern-day leftists. State socialists and anarchists often disagree about who has been more ‘successful’ in the past at implementing communism. (In my opinion, the anarchists win the debate hands down; no Marxist-Leninist state has ever achieved full communism, whereas anarchists have done so, for example in the Spanish Civil War). But by this metric, the most successful one is Jesus, who initiated and guided the early church in their successful practice of full communism for more than a century. For this reason, if they're really concerned with the viability and successfulness of a movement, every socialist should not just be an anarchist, but a Christian anarchist.
______________________________
[1] David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years (Melville House, 2011), 97–102.
[2] David Graeber, Debt, 103–108.
[3] David Graeber, Debt, 109–113.
[4] Roman Montero, All Things in Common: The Economic Practices of the Early Christians (Wipf and Stock, 2017), 25–26.
[5] Luc Bovens and Adrien Lutz, “’From Each according to Ability; To Each according to Needs’: Origin, Meaning, and Development of Socialist Slogans,” History of Political Economy 51, no. 2 (Apr 2019): 237–257.
[6] Jay W. Richards, Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem (HarperOne, 2009), 22–24; “After Pentecost, was the Church Communist?,” The Stream (5 June 2017).
[7] Roman Montero, All Things in Common, 62–64.
[8] Sam Dolgoff, The anarchist collectives: workers’ self-management in the Spanish revolution 1936-1939 (Black Rose Books, 1990), 121–128.
[9] Roman Montero, All Things in Common, 35–42.
[10] Ibid., 42–45.
[11] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress Press, 1996), 294–296, 390–396.
[12] David Graeber, Debt, 99.
[13] Sam Dolgoff, The anarchist collectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment