Were the first Christians socialists?
Socialism is an economic model in which the community as a whole (effectively, the government) owns and regulates the means of production, distribution and exchange. We might cheerfully summarize socialism as a system in which "everyone shares everything." This unexamined summation makes socialism sound appealing, and perhaps even virtuous. Indeed, the book of Acts describes the early Christian church in this way:
All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.1
From this, should we conclude that the early Christians were socialists? Absolutely not.
To understand why this is so, we must recognize that having "everything in common" is only appealing if everyone has shared their possessions with each other voluntarily. There is an implicit assumption that everyone was free, at the outset, to choose whether to share or not. The early Christians had chosen to be Christians and to affiliate with one another. Yes, they had "everything in common" with one another, surrendering their personal possessions for the good of all. But they did so for the good of all within the church, and for the good of those to whom that church would minister. In doing so, they did not appropriate the possessions of everyone in their city, or indeed of anyone who did not freely choose to affiliate with the church.
If the early Christians had sought to confiscate the belongings of non-church members – whether by force or by edict – in exchange for involuntary membership in the church, that would be socialism indeed. But this idea is not appealing at all. It is the opposite of selflessness, the opposite of generosity, and the opposite of love. Generosity is virtuous. But as such, generosity is necessarily voluntary, because virtue is always predicated on the freedom to choose. If we are forced to do a thing, we do not demonstrate any virtue by doing it.
The point is well made by a story found later in Acts. Chapter 16 describes the wrongful imprisonment of Paul and Silas in Phillipi. They were falsely accused of violating Roman law, and when "mob justice" prevailed, they were severely beaten and thrown into prison. Subsequently, a violent earthquake freed Paul and Silas from their chains and threw the doors of their cells open. But famously, the two evangelists and their companions did not flee from their cells. As their panicked jailer contemplated suicide, Paul cried out, "Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!" The jailer was so struck by their conduct that he inquired about the gospel. He washed their wounds, took them to his own home, and fed them. That very evening, the jailer and his family became Christians themselves and were baptized. And why was the jailer so moved by the behavior of Paul and Silas? Precisely because it was voluntary. Following the earthquake, they were free to leave. But instead, they chose to stay.
Socialism is not virtuous, and cannot be, because virtue is not societal. Virtue is personal. A free society and personal possessions provide the necessary context for the practice of generosity, because an individual cannot be generous if nothing is first hers to share, or not, as she sees fit. In fact, socialism denies individuals the occasion for generosity. As such, we should oppose and avoid it.
We should all aspire to be as generous and selfless as were the early Christians. We should strive to be as fearless and bold as were Paul and Silas. We should tirelessly pursue virtue in general. And thus, from a civic standpoint, we should labor to preserve a free society in which we may do so. Socialism obscures the moral responsibility of the individual, overrides the voice of conscience, and removes the opportunity to cultivate personal virtue. The first Christians were not socialists. The last should not be either.
- Acts 2:44-45 (NIV) ↩︎