Church sharing in history

[mindlight]

In Acts 4 v 32-36 it says:

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement),


Apart from the early Jerusalem Church do we have many examples of this kind of sharing in the church. Did it work out practically for those involved. Are the monasteries and convents an example of such an arrangement. Why is it not more common today?

 

[Rick Otto]

of any examples that even come close.
I think monasteries & convents are too exceptional to be good examples of the same thing.
As far is it not being more common today... I blame everything on TV! (lol)

 

[mindlight]

of any examples that even come close.
I think monasteries & convents are too exceptional to be good examples of the same thing.
As far is it not being more common today... I blame everything on TV! (lol)

Monasteries and convents endured for millenia and formed the basis of crucial academic institutions for instance. They preserved knowledge and purity of faith hrough dark times and provided essentail services like medecine, education and alms giving to the poorer members of the community. Such giving and voluntary altruism could in this sense be pointed to as lying at the very roots of Western civilisation just as the commune of the Early post Pentecost church in Jerusalem was to form the basis of the church as a whole and its considerable growth since that point in time.

This arrangement seemed to combine the individual freedom we have come to value so highly in the West with the love and concern for fellow believers which was so crucial in times of growth in hostile circumstances.

It seems to me that capitalism is selfish and greedy by comparison and socialism is artificial and oppressive because it forces communalism on individuals

 

[Rick Otto]

"It seems to me that capitalism is selfish and greedy by comparison and socialism is artificial and oppressive because it forces communalism on individuals"

 

[constance]

There are certainly groups like this.
The Amish function in much this way, helping each other raise barns and bring in crops, caring for widows, etc.

Their cousins, the Hutterites, live communally.

There are also non-anabaptists who live communally. One group I have had interaction with is Jesus People USA in Chicago - http://www.jpusa.org/

Constance

 

[Islander]

Monasteries and convents are a good example of communal living. As a previous post pointed out forced giving (socialism) doesn't work well so Christians have the freedom to live like that or not. Unfortunately most of us choose not to live like that. Although I don't choose to live like that I choose to more like that than most and many sneer at that.

There are many individuals in church history (Saint Nicholas, Peter Waldo, John Wesley, etc.) who chose to live like that but not many groups.

One thing about the church in the New Testament is that is was relatively small, faced a lot of persecution and brand new. Communal groups tend to work best in those conditions and communes usually fall apart after they've been around a few years so time is the main factor. Size and lack of persecution in our society are other factors.

 

[Rick Otto]

"having a common enemy" factor.
When that enemy withdraws, we begin to focus on our own differences & begin to contend with each other.

 

[mindlight]

One thing about the church in the New Testament is that is was relatively small, faced a lot of persecution and brand new. Communal groups tend to work best in those conditions and communes usually fall apart after they've been around a few years so time is the main factor. Size and lack of persecution in our society are other factors.

But it seems to me that at various times in my own churches history people have come together to contribute to developments or rennovations for the church with great generosity. When they have has usually been characterised as times of great spiritual dynamism in this church. I wonder that if we were more generous and other focused as a matter of course whether the church would be all the healthier for that and thus able to make all the greater an impact on our society.

 

[TeresaOfLisieu]

Perosnally, I know I've searched a lot for people living as the first christian communities as told in the Acts of Apostles and also in Saint Paul's Epistles. Or at least was I trying to find people who aspired to this ideal of life. Monastries have stayed and tried to stick to this way of life, and some of them have opened their gates to lay people both single and married. Just to name a few, amongst the Catholic religious Communities you have the Congregation of Charles de Foucault, or more contemplative orders such as the Beatitudes Community. Ecumenic monastries also open their doors to lay people more abd more. That is quite evident with the Monastic Fraternity of Jerusalem or even Taizé (which you are perhaps more familiar with than the Monastic Fraternity or The Beatitudes Congregation). We must also keep in mind that those COngregations are all recognised by the Catholic and the Orthodox Church when it comes to Ecumenic Monastries.
I don't know if you have the possibility to meet any of those COngregations around where you live but it is a very rich experience of what brotherhood can be.

<>< "Oh Lord, may I be love in the heart of your Church"

"teresa"