Early Church Example

[mindlight]

In Acts 4 v 32-36:

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),

Is such sharing practical in the church. It seems the church in Jerusalem was in trouble by the great famine and the other churches had to help it out (Acts 11). Is this teaching applicable in the age of the welfare state and safety net. How does it compare and contrast with the book of Proverbs about the lazy man ending up poor and the hard worker gaining the fruits of his labour.

Are we all called to willingly give up wealth like the rich man with Jesus or to be good stewards of the wealth we are given. How should we measure our responsibilities to our poorer brethren in the Third World.

 

[ClementofRome]

The early Church lived a communal existence out of shear necessity. Becoming a Christian meant, loosing one's job...loosing one's family...etc. It was serious survival mode and it, with the power of the Holy Spirit, worked.

Ultimaltey, the commune would fall by the wayside. It is a great idea in concept, but they never work long-term. I believe that this was a unique period in which they were being fully protected by God for survival and growth (see Ananias and Saphira). Once the infant Church got its legs underneath it, the commune was not longer necessary.

 

[mindlight]

The early Church lived a communal existence out of shear necessity. Becoming a Christian meant, loosing one's job...loosing one's family...etc. It was serious survival mode and it, with the power of the Holy Spirit, worked.

Ultimaltey, the commune would fall by the wayside. It is a great idea in concept, but they never work long-term. I believe that this was a unique period in which they were being fully protected by God for survival and growth (see Ananias and Saphira). Once the infant Church got its legs underneath it, the commune was not longer necessary.

These moments have occurred on occasions through Church History.

The monasteries preserved knowledge and purity of faith through the dark ages.

Small groups of Christians in China today face similarly crucial times. The church is growing fast there in hostile circumstances and is often in survival mode. These underground churches support each other financially and spiritually.

The giving in this passage was voluntary. Churches have regularly called on their members to give for the preservation or expansion of buildings and of support for church workers and missionaries. Again and again believers have given as their community has had need. Most church buildings testify to the contributions of countless generations of Christians

Israel in the wilderness was also such a community in many ways.

Maybe you are right and it is crucial times of great significance in which these communes are necessary. But are they also part of the reason why the church is so successful in these periods. Is a commune a sign of God doing great things at a crucial moment.

 

[ClementofRome]

These moments have occurred on occasions through Church History.

The monasteries preserved knowledge and purity of faith through the dark ages.

Small groups of Christians in China today face similarly crucial times. The church is growing fast there in hostile circumstances and is often in survival mode. These underground churches support each other financially and spiritually.

The giving in this passage was voluntary. Churches have regularly called on their members to give for the preservation or expansion of buildings and of support for church workers and missionaries. Again and again believers have given as their community has had need. Most church buildings testify to the contributions of countless generations of Christians

Israel in the wilderness was also such a community in many ways.

Maybe you are right and it is crucial times of great significance in which these communes are necessary. But are they also part of the reason why the church is so successful in these periods. Is a commune a sign of God doing great things at a crucial moment.

I completely agree with you. Yes, we have seen the underground go into action where and when necessary. When things get tough, the persecuted stick together, so to speak. Thanks.

 

[Peter]

Point of order. The "dark ages" are unique to the West, as is the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment.

Please explain if you mean Western or Eastern monastics.

Thank you.

The Reader Peter

 

[billwald]

In Acts 2 the Church thought that Jesus would return in weeks or months. As time passed the event horizon of the Church increased.

 

[mindlight]

Point of order. The "dark ages" are unique to the West, as is the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment.

Please explain if you mean Western or Eastern monastics.

Thank you.

The Reader Peter

Well I suppose I was referring to the Western Monastics mainly. Did the Eastern monastics survive the Muslim/Turkish invasions in any kind of way such that their input preserved a Christian influence on their societies?

 

[mindlight]

In Acts 2 the Church thought that Jesus would return in weeks or months. As time passed the event horizon of the Church increased.

Is this faithlessness on our part? That we no longer anticipate Christ's return with the same keeness of the early believers and in the way he seemed to imply that we should. Our transitory existences are brief and the time between being saved and meeting Christ is not that long for all believers.

 

[heymikey80]

The early Church lived a communal existence out of shear necessity. Becoming a Christian meant, loosing one's job...loosing one's family...etc. It was serious survival mode and it, with the power of the Holy Spirit, worked.

Ultimaltey, the commune would fall by the wayside. It is a great idea in concept, but they never work long-term. I believe that this was a unique period in which they were being fully protected by God for survival and growth (see Ananias and Saphira). Once the infant Church got its legs underneath it, the commune was not longer necessary.

I'm not terribly big on communes, but that never stopped me from considering anything when it comes to God's words .

What do you guys think about today? Do you think, Clement, that we're getting the legs pulled out from under us nowadays? Is there something the Spirit is urging us to do now that -- ok, maybe it's not direct and openly communal. But how do we rush to hold up those being taken down by more subversive and well quiet social destructions?

I can't talk about them all, that would be unwise. But say you were dealing with a family whose parents were getting a divorce. How do we go about showing the love of Christ through the family of believers in some exceptional way to get people through those rough spots? It's almost as if having special ministries to families in crisis hurts them more than developing close relationships among all families, regardless of their condition. There seems to be some kind of "shame" involved, yeah. But it's more. People in a crisis-family get a strong sense of "This is it, and it's gonna scar me emotionally." And indeed it does scar people emotionally. I wonder if there's a way to comfort and restore people from family crises by deepening the relationships in the family of Christ?

To me this is true ecclesiology -- the church in action. And I've just scratched the surface where I want to go with this. We also have untimely deaths in the families; we have new families into the area who aren't integrated into the community; we have the need to invite people into closer fellowship, and how do we go about that in an earnest way? But crises seem to be a tough thing as well.

I also think there's that issue of indebtedness that pervades my social groups, at least. People talk about their debts all the time. Is it possible -- should we as a church begin to deal with families that are surviving, but under a weight of debt that we can see some spiritual damage resulting from it? Can we get involved? Is there a way to keep from being offensive, and yet redeem the situation to good effect for all?

 

[ClementofRome]

I'm not terribly big on communes, but that never stopped me from considering anything when it comes to God's words .

What do you guys think about today? Do you think, Clement, that we're getting the legs pulled out from under us nowadays? Is there something the Spirit is urging us to do now that -- ok, maybe it's not direct and openly communal. But how do we rush to hold up those being taken down by more subversive and well quiet social destructions?

I can't talk about them all, that would be unwise. But say you were dealing with a family whose parents were getting a divorce. How do we go about showing the love of Christ through the family of believers in some exceptional way to get people through those rough spots? It's almost as if having special ministries to families in crisis hurts them more than developing close relationships among all families, regardless of their condition. There seems to be some kind of "shame" involved, yeah. But it's more. People in a crisis-family get a strong sense of "This is it, and it's gonna scar me emotionally." And indeed it does scar people emotionally. I wonder if there's a way to comfort and restore people from family crises by deepening the relationships in the family of Christ?

To me this is true ecclesiology -- the church in action. And I've just scratched the surface where I want to go with this. We also have untimely deaths in the families; we have new families into the area who aren't integrated into the community; we have the need to invite people into closer fellowship, and how do we go about that in an earnest way? But crises seem to be a tough thing as well.

I also think there's that issue of indebtedness that pervades my social groups, at least. People talk about their debts all the time. Is it possible -- should we as a church begin to deal with families that are surviving, but under a weight of debt that we can see some spiritual damage resulting from it? Can we get involved? Is there a way to keep from being offensive, and yet redeem the situation to good effect for all?

You ask some facinating questions. I do believe that individual Christian communities can and should work together for the common good, but it not a very "American" concept at present where we tend to be "rugged individualists." Do I bear my soul to my local Christian community? No. Should I? Probably. My western mindset is a very powerful force on me. I tend to want my family issues to stay within the family...is this a good thing....probably not.

There seems to be less of this mindset in Eastern Orthodoxy and I wonder if Reader Peter would be kind enough to address some of these questions from the EO perspective.