Luke 12:33

[Guest]

I have already weighed-in on this, and don't need to repeat the points I made earlier (I am not sure that they have been addressed by subsequent posts). I would like to tell a little of my story, however.

When I became aware of the terms of discipleship, in 1970, I was 16 and was still partially impressed with the culture of the hippies, who had renounced the materialistic values of the post-World War II American Middle-Class (i.e., their parents). Since the hippies tended to be socialistic/communistic in philosophy and often lived in communes, my tendency was to read these values into the teachings of Jesus and the life of the primitive church.

As a vagrant domestic missionary, my lifestyle did not generate much income, so I was one of those who stood more to gain than to lose by the adoption of communal values. I did not covet what others had, mind you, since materialism is the one sin which has never held any attraction to me whatsoever. To this day I have no interest in owning anything, and have accumulated only such things as seem indispensable to my ministry and the needs of my children.

When I did not live in my VW van, I always lived (while unmarried) in shared housing with other Christian brothers. We called our houses Christian community houses, though there was no prearrangement that those living there would have all things in common. All who lived in these houses were poor, and sharing among ourselves was simply spontaneous and instinctive.

In the seventies, I read books about living in Christian community. A favorite at that time was one called "Living Together in a World Falling Apart"—written by a couple who had traveled the country visiting Christian communes and writing about them. This couple eventually settled into an anabaptistic-oriented community in Chicago called "Reba Place Fellowship"—a long-standing Christian ministry that has a "common purse" policy.

I read of the Hutterites and of the Bruderhof, and I thought that moving to such a place would be quite ideal. The only reason I did not move to one of these places was that I was actually very involved in ministry in California, and did not find any opportunity to break away and relocate. I knew people who had visited Art Katz's "Ben Israel" community, in Minnesota, and Keith Green specifically "prophesied" to me that I should join his common-purse community in Woodland Hills, CA (before he transplanted the whole thing to Texas).

One reason I didn't join with Art Katz or Keith Green was that they seemed to be very domineering leaders, which made their groups seem a bit like personality cults to me. I started a common-purse community house in Albany, Oregon, in 1978, which only lasted two months before some of the residents began bickering to the point that the whole ministry was disrupted. So I continued to live in houses with a few brothers, in California, through most of the seventies.

In 1983, I started the "Great Commission Community" in Bandon (later in McMinnville), Oregon. There were originally seven families that moved from Santa Cruz, California, to establish this work, which included a nine-month Bible course. We saw ourselves initially as a Christian Community that happened to be running a school. In time, we found it necessary to de-emphasize the community aspect, and just call the ministry "The Great Commission School."

The Great Commission Community was originally housed on a 16-acre compound which had once been a military prep school (the property is now owned by Jon Courson's church and is run as a retreat center). At one time, we housed fifteen families and multiple single people, with housing space to spare.

In organizing this ministry, I opted not to require residents to share a common purse. The reason for this was that I had concluded from experience and reading about common-purse groups that they (designedly) destroy the soveriegnty of the family units. When I say they do this "by design," I don't mean to imply anything sinister. It is simply considered to be a desirable spiritual ideal that the autonomy of the individual and of the family be absorbed into the identity and concerns of the group.

In a situation where all the heads of households labor for income, which is then put into a common fund and distributed evenly according to the needs of each family, the husband has little or no latitude to make sovereign economic decisions for his family. Especially in groups that are not very prosperous, where each family's allotment is minimal, a husband who wishes to do something special for his wife or children cannot work extra hard and save up for such special things. All that he earns—whether little or much—belongs to the community. "Those who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack" (2 Cor.8:15). It seemed to me that it somewhat "castrates" the husband, if, in order to take his wife out to dinner on her birthday, he has to go to the powers that be and request a few extra bucks.

When I set up the Great Commission Community, my ideal was not a "common purse" but a "common heart." The idea was that each man was steward before God of his own earnings. Each man should be as concerned about other families' well-being as about his own, but the degree to which he gave to the needs of others was strictly voluntary—as was the case with the early Christians (Acts 5:4).

Christianity does not abolish the principle of private property (Matt.20:15/ Luke 8:3/ Acts 5:4; 28:30/ Heb.10:34) or individual stewardship (Luke 19:12-23; 16:12/ Matt.24:45; 25:14-30). The abolition of private property would render the sin of theft impossible, since property that belongs to nobody in particular cannot be stolen from anyone. Yet, the New Testament condemns thievery (as if it were a real possibility), and commands repentant thieves to labor with their hands so that they can give of their earning to the poor (Eph.4:28).

No one can give to the poor if he owns nothing to give. It is a principle of life, affirmed by Jesus Himself, and repeated by Paul, that the laborer is worthy of his wages (Luke 10:7/ 1 Tim.5:18). Communistic systems that deny personal property and stewardship would seem to be at odds with this principle.

The New Testament everywhere speaks as if houses were privately owned by the saints (Acts 12:12; 16:15; 17:5; 21:8/ Rom.16:5/ Col.4:15/ Philemon 2/ 2 John 10). Acts 2 and 4, as I have mentioned earlier, speak of people being in the habit of selling houses and lands as the needs in the fellowship arose. This would hardly be possible for them to do if they did not own the properties.

Though private property rights are not abolished in the community of the King, yet each member of that community is expected to be prepared to surrender these rights (and many others) for the cause of the King and His other subjects. The "common heart" of the brethren means that one can barely endure seeing a brother in need and unrelieved when we have sufficient for our own needs—and even extra. We understand that we are "not our own" (1 Cor.6:19-20) and that our possessions are really the Lord's for us to manage. So far as other humans are concerned, our possessions are ours, and others ought not to steal or covet them. On the other hand, from our own standpoint, none of us "says" that the things he possesses are his own (Acts 4:32)—because they are the Lord's.

Voluntary religion from the heart is the only kind of religion that God values. Coerced acts of sacrifice are not sacrifices made to God but to the people coercing them. The fact that most people who call themselves "Christian" in America know little of this communal spirit shows either 1) how little they have understood the gospel, 2) how little impact the Holy Spirit has made upon their lives, or 3) how rebellious they are against God—or a combination of the three. The solution, however, is not the imposition of enforced "generosity" by an institutional policy, but rather for so-called "Christians" to be converted and filled with the Holy Spirit.

Thus far my present understanding of the matter.

[Guest]

Hi Wayne! I have enjoyed reading your comments... thanks for posting! I was curious, since you are no longer a part of the Bruderhof community, what community are you a part of now? Do you have a particular job? Have you continued to pool all money together with other believers?

On another note, we have some friends who are considering joining a similar group in Waco, TX that portrays themselves as having anabaptist roots, but it is really an offshoot from the United Pentecostal Church. I have taken some time to get in touch with ex-members and it is pretty crazy how cult-like it is (actually, not really cult-like, but a full blown cult!) The leader reinterprets 1 John to say that if anyone does not believe that Jesus IS STILL COMING in the flesh, then he is not of God. They say that Jesus in the flesh is now referring to the leadership of this particular place, and that absolute submission to the leadership there is required to be a part of the group. (Of course, all of this is taught in pieces, and you are generally sucked in before you find out any of this). If you question the leadership (namely the "apostle") then you are "dis-fellowshipped" until you repent and do what the leadership said.

Because of the situation with our friends, and your experience with the group you were a part of, I would love to hear more about your experience there. From what the ex-members of the cult in Waco told me, there is a spiritual pull there. It is not something that we can reason our friends out of, but there is this Christian community lifestyle that is portrayed (that actually isn't a reality) and that it is sort of a pride thing in a way to want to be accepted by these people.

[Guest]

Hi Wayne! I have enjoyed reading your comments... thanks for posting! I was curious, since you are no longer a part of the Bruderhof community, what community are you a part of now? Do you have a particular job? Have you continued to pool all money together with other believers?

I am not a part of a community. I fellowship with a conservative Church of the brethren congregation here in Maine. I have hopes that I might find others of like mind who are interested in considering community but right now I'm not ready to run around the planet looking for community -that get's expensive and hard on the family.

I have been invited to participate in the establishment of a new Hutterite community in Tasmania, which is as far from where I presently live as one can go and still be on dry land. We will have to wait and see, as i do not feel inclined to go to the ends of the earth when there are in fact like minded believers in this corner of the planet.

On another note, we have some friends who are considering joining a similar group in Waco, TX...

Communities are quite varied, many of them have a great deal less in common with each other than one would suppose. I'm curious how a United Pentecostal church would consider itself to have Anabaptist roots. But that seems to be a popular theme these days perhaps.

Because of the situation with our friends, and your experience with the group you were a part of, I would love to hear more about your experience there. From what the ex-members of the cult in Waco told me, there is a spiritual pull there. It is not something that we can reason our friends out of, but there is this Christian community lifestyle that is portrayed (that actually isn't a reality) and that it is sort of a pride thing in a way to want to be accepted by these people.

Life in the Bruderhof communities really is wonderful. It is a village society ruled on Christian principles, primarily an ethic of selflessness and love. Where one sees it best is in children and the elderly.

I like to think that there is a spiritual magnetism that draws believers together. Certainly the day-to-day life and dynamic can't be described adequately to reason someone into life in community. Especially too as the mindset and spiritual orientation that would make one fit into a community really does not find reasoned expression in the way we like to parse verses of scripture and systematize the nuggets of truth. As one elderly brother said about life in community "If you can't do it to the joy and delight of your soul then you shouldn’t even consider it.".

I must offer this disclaimer about the Bruderhof, lest anyone decides to join them. At this point they have taken a very cultish turn. The members follow the whim of their Elder, who is an egotistical fraud and not a spiritual man at all. Rather than face disciplinary action from the larger ministry, he took the Bruderhof communities out of the larger Hutterite church and expelled even members of his own family, harassing them after they left to keep them quiet.

They were engaged in an organized telephone harassment effort against an 800 number set up by a group of ex-members to assist other leavers. I objected, particularly to the attitude toward these "enemies" of the church. I simply stood up in meeting and said "Brothers, this is wrong, Jesus told us to love our enemies and to do good to them". I was expelled from the brotherhood as a result of my impertinence, and as I could not be persuaded that the church was in the right with this and several other happenings I ended up taking a leave of absence, which turned permanent when I contacted other ex-members and investigated some of the events that were hidden from the members.

But that’s a long sad story, and there was, at one time, a lot of good in the Bruderhof Communities. Some of it still persists but it is under a cloud now.

[Guest]

In Acts 2:42, those that received Peter's word continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship. The word for fellowship here is koina denoting a group that meets around a central teaching or meets for reasons of mutual concern. Such diverse groups as trade guilds may have had meetings--koina/koinonia--since they had issues of mutual concern around which to rally. A Christian group obviously has fellowship when meeting to discuss, learn and practice Christ's teachings.

Then in Acts 2:44 those that believed are said to have had all things common. "Common" here comes from the same koina word group and would appear to emphasize the fact that all teachings of Jesus were taught and assimilated by the members of the body. The commonality came from a willingness to recognize Jesus as Lord and master.

It is not until Acts 2:45 that there is mention of selling of possessions and goods. While it has been pointed out that at least one man was instructed by Jesus to sell all that he had, it has also been shown that several disciples owned homes, boats and other personal property. Is it possible that the selling of goods may have referred to the selling of goods and services by disciples in the normal course of their everyday business and employment? As they were paid in wages or profit, they would have had extra money to donate to their brethren whom had lost employment due to persecution.

In Acts 2:46, breaking of bread was done house to house. If all houses were sold, how was that done? If your answer is that the houses were rented or maintained by groups of Christians living together, please give a scripture verse that would advocate that.

Thanks,

livingink

[Guest]

It is not until Acts 2:45 that there is mention of selling of possessions and goods.

Wow! One whole verse later! Therefore it couldn't have any relevance to Acts 2:44, the previous verse, could it?

Don't you think construing 2:44 to mean having the teachings of Jesus in common is quite a stretch?

I think the natural, fallen desire to possess can lead us into far-out exegesis in order to justify possessing our goods and homes. If we really see them as belonging to God, why would we make such effort to hang on to them?

Having said that, I must say that I am not yet a member of a communal group. There is more to the daily fellowship of Christians than mere community of goods. Community of goods should not be the primary basis for fellowship. But in my opinion it is an important factor, and should not be rejected for the sake of lust for Mammon.

[Guest]

Then in Acts 2:44 those that believed are said to have had all things common. "Common" here comes from the same koina word group and would appear to emphasize the fact that all teachings of Jesus were taught and assimilated by the members of the body. The commonality came from a willingness to recognize Jesus as Lord and master.

Reading the full context I can't really find support for that interpretation. I think we have to admit that the church in jerusalem held "all things common", whatever that meant, and that it was the common practice at that tiime for believers to sell posessions to supply the needs of all the brotherhood. It's going beyond the text to argue about whether or not they sold everything or lived communally.

I do however see the events recorded in Acts as a response and a model for how Jesus' command in Luke 12:33 can be put into practice. Dare I say that it is a better model than the typical American Evangelical church practices in regard to what Jesus said in Luke 12:33?

[Guest]

Paidion,

Please forgive my far-out exegesis although you seem to be coming to that same conclusion in the last paragraph of your previous post. Commonality must include all foundations laid down by Christ. You didn't answer either of my questions but do seem to think that I worship Mammon if I read between your lines correctly. Odd. The past year has taught me to do quite the opposite.

Ecclesiastes 6:19--Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work---this is a gift of God. 6:20--He seldom reflects on the days of his life, because God keeps him occupied with gladness of heart.


Wayne,

Thanks for the kind comment. I'm in the process of reading a National Geographic article about a Hutterite community and some of the things you mention seemed to jump out as possible drawbacks to that type of communal life. I have little firsthand knowledge of this lifestyle and appreciate your comments.

livingink

[Guest]

Livingink, I can see why you may have taken personallly my comment about "rejecting community of goods... for the sake of lust for mammon."
But truly I was not referring to any particular individual(s). I was just speaking of the state or attitude of some or many "Christians" today. For all I know, you may have a real heart for sharing with your fellow disciples. I regret for coming on so strongly, and for the sarcasm. I have to admit the sarcasm was directed at you, but the rest was meant in a general way.

I didn't know that you really wanted answers to your questions. I thought you were asking them just to show that community of goods was not actually practised by the first disciples. Again, I apologize. It is not wise to assess a person's writing by first impressions.

I found these questions in your post, and will attempt to address them.

Is it possible that the selling of goods may have referred to the selling of goods and services by disciples in the normal course of their everyday business and employment?

I suppose that is possible. When that is done today, the proceeds are not shared with our brethren, at least not in their entirety. But I think it is implied that in the text that all of their goods were sold and shared.
Otherwise it would not be possible for all who believed to have "all things in common" as the text states.

The fact of all "things in common" is repeated in chapter 4. There it seems even plainer that this was the case:

Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. Acts 4:32-35

In Acts 2:46, breaking of bread was done house to house. If all houses were sold, how was that done?

It's an appropriate question to ask. I cannot give a definitive answer. I can only speculate. One possibility is that the "lands and houses" of chapter 4 may refer to properties beyond their primary dwellings. Notwithstanding, I think (though I cannot prove) that their primary dwellings were communally owned, even though each family continued to dwell in the house that it previously owned.

I think also that "the Church at Corinth" or any locale, referred to the total of all congregations in that city, and that they all related to each other. Perhaps each congregation met in a home, and that those who met shared all material possessions. But they did not necessarily share with other congregations in their city. This explains why Paul was able to say in his letter to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as it is prospered, so that contributions need not be made when I come.

When a person who does not live communally reads this verse, he assumes that the "each of you" refers to each individual from a single congregation called "The Church at Corninth." But I think Paul meant each communal congregation within Corinth, was to set aside something for Paul to distribute to the needy.

[Guest]

Paidion,

You said:

"rejecting community of goods... for the sake of lust for mammon."

I am at a loss to understand why you seem to think rejecting communism is because of a lust for money. Where do you get that idea? It is not hard to think of many Christians who are materially blessed and yet very generous to those in need.

I will again ask a question I asked early on in this thread: Where do we find a precept in scripture for communal ownership of property and any other form of goods? An example does not necessarily establish a doctrine. Paul was a tentmaker and supported himself, at least for the most part. An admirable idea but not required of other evangelists as the scriptures make plain.

The story of Ananias and Saphira makes plain that their property was sold voluntarily, under no compulsion, and they would have been perfectly okay if they kept part and had not lied about what they had done. And who knows what other property they owned.

You admit to speculation; that is to a great extent all that we can do in regard to how far and to what degree the communal practice was extended. What evidence is there that it extended beyond the area of Israel and the conditions they were under?

Jesus' teaching about selling and giving to the poor says nothing about living communally.

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

you wrote:

1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as it is prospered, so that contributions need not be made when I come.

When a person who does not live communally reads this verse, he assumes that the "each of you" refers to each individual from a single congregation called "The Church at Corninth." But I think Paul meant each communal congregation within Corinth, was to set aside something for Paul to distribute to the needy.

But how would that square with this?

2 Cor 9:6-8
6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.
NKJV

How can someone give something he doesn't own? Just curious how that would work communally.