The Book of Acts tells the story of the early church. And there are some interesting details about the first Christians that may surprise you.
For example, the early Christians held everything in common. Acts 4:32 states,
Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.
This got me thinking about economics, specifically the words “socialism,” “Marxism,” and “communism.” These words are being aimed as accusations against a specific political party. And it seems to be a certain brand of Christianity from the far right that launches these words as accusations against their political opponents. But they often use them without distinction, which makes me think they don’t really know what these words mean.
I am no economist. And I know that claiming the members of the early church were socialists is anachronistic. But wow. Acts certainly makes the economics of the early Christian movement sound like socialism.
In fact, I’m convinced that if any politician advocated for an economy that reflected the early Church’s economy, they would quickly be accused of socialism, communism, and Marxism.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, socialism is a “social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.”
That sounds a lot like how Acts describes the early church, where “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.”
Interestingly, Acts 4 goes even further in describing the economy of the first Christians:
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
I’ll leave it to those steeped in economic philosophy to state with certainty what this economic system might be labeled, but I do know that it looks to me like it is very close to socialism. It certainly isn’t the American economy of capitalism.
The Early Christian Economy
In her book Economy of Grace, theologian Kathryn Tanner provides a helpful theological explanation of the early Christian economy.
Her argument is that God is the gift giver who expects nothing in return. “God’s gifts are not put forth in any way that would demand or coerce a response from the recipients: often they do not even appear to be gifts” (pg 70).
This may surprise many, but God doesn’t demand or coerce a response from us because of God’s fullness. God doesn’t need anything we could offer because God already has everything.
This makes it so that God’s gifts are freely given. That’s God’s economy. Tanner’s theology matters because when we make God out to be stingy or demanding, we miss the radical Christian message that from Christ’s “fullness we have all received grace upon grace.”
God’s Economy
The Christian mission is to participate in the fullness of Christ, which is in receiving “grace upon grace.” That is God’s economy. When we truly receive that grace, the proper response is to offer that grace to others. The early Christians knew that this was far more than a spiritual matter. Offering grace to others isn’t just about forgiveness. It is also about creating an economy, as Acts tells us, where goods are “distributed to each as any had need.”
I am not saying that Christians should be socialists. But I am saying that for Christians who want to take the Bible seriously, the economy of the early church should challenge and inform our our economic systems.
We should certainly not use the word “socialism” as an accusation. For one thing, no politician on the Left is arguing for socialism. The accusation is patently false. For another thing, those promoting an economy where goods are distributed so that everyone’s needs are met are closest in spirit to the early Christian movement and God’s economy of grace.
