Common Goods

[intheway]

I am also a bit confused (troubled) as to this article..

XXXVIII. Of Christian Men's Goods, which are not common.
The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same; as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

In relation to these Scripture:

Act 4:32 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Act&chapter=4&verse=32&version=kjv#32)¶And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any [of them] that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.Act 4:34 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Act&chapter=4&verse=34&version=kjv#34)
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,Act 4:35 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Act&chapter=4&verse=35&version=kjv#35)
And laid [them] down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Act 2:44 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act002.html#44) And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

Were the Christians in the Book of Acts mistaken (falsely boasting)?

[Naomi4Christ]

Here's the plain English version:

Contrary to what some Anabaptists claim, the wealth and possessions of Christians are not common, as far as the right, title and possession of them is concerned. Nevertheless, everyone ought to give freely to the poor from what he possesses, according to his means.


What I take this to mean is that becoming a Christian is not the same as joining a commune. We still have ownership over our own possessions - they do not belong to the whole community. We are not expected to piously throw them into a big pot.

However, we are called to be generous and to look after those with less than us.

I imagine that the account in acts is the believers being led by the Holy Spirit to be generous with their possessions to distribute according to need, rather than being coerced.

Thanks, ITW, for bringing this up. It is certainly food for thought :)

[Naomi4Christ]

Here is a commentary on that article and the ones on either side of it.

http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_076_Allister9.pdf

[Tomoz]

Great point Naomi.
Also, the articles were written when Anabaptists were saying that holding things in common was the way that the church was meant to operate. The article isn't saying that one is not allowed as a Christian to live this way, but rather that it isn't something binding on Christians, contrary to what some radical reformers were saying when the articles were written.

The thing is that Acts is descriptive literature rather than prescriptive literature - as opposed to literature like the epistles, which tend to be more prescriptive than descriptive. Living with goods in common is a 'could' but not a 'should' - and the article is making that distinction.

[Naomi4Christ]

Great point Naomi.
Also, the articles were written when Anabaptists were saying that holding things in common was the way that the church was meant to operate. The article isn't saying that one is not allowed as a Christian to live this way, but rather that it isn't something binding on Christians, contrary to what some radical reformers were saying when the articles were written.

The thing is that Acts is descriptive literature rather than prescriptive literature - as opposed to literature like the epistles, which tend to be more prescriptive than descriptive. Living with goods in common is a 'could' but not a 'should' - and the article is making that distinction.
Also, it is insight into the politics of the Reformation.

It seems that the 39 Articles are knee-jerk reactions against Rome, but it is evident that there were groups much more reactionary than the Church of England. The 39 Articles were both addressing Roman abuses and deviations from the Faith, but also tackling those who went too far.

Via media, anyone? :)

[Tomoz]

Via media, anyone? :)

That would be lovely! I'll take mine with milk.

[karen freeinchristman]

Here's the plain English version:



What I take this to mean is that becoming a Christian is not the same as joining a commune. We still have ownership over our own possessions - they do not belong to the whole community. We are not expected to piously throw them into a big pot.

However, we are called to be generous and to look after those with less than us.

I imagine that the account in acts is the believers being led by the Holy Spirit to be generous with their possessions to distribute according to need, rather than being coerced.

Thanks, ITW, for bringing this up. It is certainly food for thought :)
Good post, Naomi. Also, we can remember that the new Church in Acts were assuming that Christ's return would happen within a very short time, so the way they ordered their lives reflected that thinking.