In that post, he rightly notes that the early church lived in a communal manner, "sharing all things in common."
He rightly notes that the Merriam Webster definition of communism is, "a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed."
He also rightly notes that the communism of the early church was not Marxist Socialism. Of course.
And, in the final small paragraph, he rightly notes that the modern church does not look like the early church - at all - when it comes to the question of communal living.
Stan concludes with...
I would suggest that too many of us lack that "It's not about me" perspective. I would argue that we ought to be people changed from within, more concerned with the welfare of fellow believers than our own. If we are not, we have a problem, don't we?
Which is fine, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go very far, does it?
I asked Stan (in comments that won't be posted, per normal) why he didn't explore that more? Is he saying that HE, himself, is not interested in exploring it more because he doesn't have the selfless "it's not about me" perspective?
But still, I'm glad to see Stan admit that the early church literally DID embrace a communal life style (we might call it communitarianism, to help differentiate from Marxist Communism). I'm glad that he pointed out that the modern church, presumably himself included, do not even try to mimic the models left by Jesus and the early church.
But having done that, it would also be helpful if conservatives like Stan would help conservative conversations on this topic by pointing out, "So, we can SEE why communism of some sorts has an appeal to people taking Jesus and the early church and the Bible and following God seriously - it's quite biblical, at least in some form or the other..."
It would help if such people would help dispel this fear of "COMMUNISM!!" that is at the heart of so much conservatism today and help discussions about the difference between Authoritarianism and Tyranny versus Ideals of living Communally.
We can and should all be able to agree that tyranny is a bad thing, so when conservatives hear modern progressives talk about Communism, they can start with the assumption that we are not talking about tyranny. At all. Let that be a non-starter, for simple decency and honesty's sake.
And from there, they could continue to make the case why there certainly is something beautiful, holy, wonderful and biblical/Godly about the notion of living communally.
And from there, by all means, discussions about the historic difficulties of living communally (as well as the historic difficulties of living in isolation and as individuals and living capitalistically) and make the case that, in spite of the difficulties, maybe we should be following the example of Jesus and the early church more closely... trying to learn from mistakes of communities in the past and take it a step at a time, but at the same time, quit demonizing "communism" and using it as a scare word to inspire fear of their fellow citizens and in some cases, their fellow church members.
The scare words should be Tyranny and Authoritarianism (the latter of which, too often, pops up in conservative thinking), not Communism/Communitarianism, which has a wonderful, rational and biblical grounding. Maybe, when you conservatives see some crazy wild-eyed liberal 20-something in a Che tshirt talking loudly about communism, they could lead with the commendation that, "Yes, living communally, with a concern for the least of these and a desire to share things in common is a great ideal to be living for! How do we get there without the complications of any of the negative connotations of modern Marxism when it has devolved into deadly authoritarianism?"
Conversation is a great thing.
13 comments:
Communion means nothing less than being in a sharing relationship of thought and feelings and faith and communication that a *common *union is experienced between all those in communion.
Communication itself can be intensified beyond a shared symbolic world to such a degree that we is it in anatomy indicate the face of contact between body parts: “an opening or connecting passage between two structures.”
And so, theologically, communion refers to the physical, mental, emotional, spiritual connection of worshippers liturgically performing and thereby perceiving, experiencing, oneness in faith.
And not just with one another.
God is in communion with all of us in a heightened, special way. One in thought, feeling, and embodiment… because Christ is present.
If we are in common union one with each other and all with god, then complete love and care is supreme act of worship.
Love and care to whom?
All of creation.
To refuse is to exit common union.
If Jesus advocated for communism as you're defining it (by referencing some published definition), there could be no 7th Commandment. Since there is a 7th Commandment, Christ could not have advocated for communism as you're defining it.
?
First, what the hell does that supposed to mean? "Thou shalt not steal..."? What does that have to do with, as Acts puts it, "holding all things in common..." or ideas of communal living AS FOUND IN THE BIBLE?
Secondly, it's not as I'M defining it. I was quoting STAN who was quoting that radical Merriam Webster standard English definition. That definition being...
"a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed."
But again, it's not as I am defining it. It's as the word has been defined in standard English.
BEFORE YOU SAY ANYTHING ELSE, acknowledge to me that you understand this very basic reality.
Now, as you may know, words can have different meanings and definitions. We could speak to the more Marxist understanding (as found here in Wikipedia)...
"In Marxist thought, a communist society or the communist system is
the type of society and economic system
postulated to emerge from technological advances in the productive forces,
representing the ultimate goal of the political ideology of communism.
A communist society is characterized by
common ownership of the means of production
with free access to the articles of consumption
and is classless and stateless,
implying the end of the exploitation of labour"
But that wasn't the definition that STAN was speaking about and this post was in response to Stan's post.
Given that, I SUSPECT that you are saying that in your imagination, in a communist society, there could be nothing to steal, so to have a law against stealing would make no sense, since everything is communally owned. Was that your point?
If so, that would be based upon a caricature or flawed understanding of communism, not actual communism as is generally talked about - and certainly not as found in the NT. In communal living, for instance, you'd still have stuff that was "yours" and other stuff that would not be "yours..." Also, Marx believed in private property. Did you not know that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
https://www.cpusa.org/interact_cpusa/the-father-of/
I suspect that part of your problem is you're operating from a place that is not grounded in reality (in regards to communal living), but in fear and loathing. You've been brainwashed to hear "communism" and think "EVIL! DEATH! FASCISM!!" and thus, you can't deal with actual meanings of such words.
But you tell me.
Regardless, your "point," such as it is, is meaningless and nonsensical, not grounded in reality or dealing with anything at all that I have said.
Do you have anything ON TOPIC to talk about?
I've deleted Marshal's comment because he failed to do as I requested. Marshal, again:
BEFORE YOU SAY ANYTHING ELSE, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT "DAN'S DEFINITION." I'M TALKING ABOUT ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS OF COMMUNISM THAT STAN CITED FROM MW.
DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS NOT MY DEFINITION?
Beyond that, Marshal continued to misunderstand communism as I was referencing it, or as it has been understood throughout most (all?) Christian communities throughout history or as marxism talks about it.
Read closely and understand: There have been Christian communes/communities/communal arrangements throughout history. In NONE of these has "holding all things in common" meant "Therefore, my toothbrush is your toothbrush."
In communal arrangements and in communism, private property still exists.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?
Part of what Marshal said...
"It was you who spoke of "goods owned in common" and "holding all things in common" as that which is to be modeled, yet, as you understood, the 7th acknowledges personal property."
1. It's the BIBLE/JESUS/LUKE/ACTS that speaks of "Goods owned in common." I was speaking of that in reference to what Stan acknowledged the Bible teaches.
2. "Holding all goods in common" is not the same as "therefore, no one owns anything, therefore there can be no stealing..." "ALL GOODS IN COMMON" is a shorthand way of saying "we're going to share what we have and strive to make sure that everyone has enough.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY, now that I've cleared it up for you?
Marshal also said/asked... " Who determines what and how much one can reserve for one's self and still be compliant with your socialist demands?"
In most (all?) the Christian communities throughout history I'm aware of, it's generally been The People who decide what and how much one can have.
In a democratic marxist commune, the same would be true.
So, once again,
PRIVATE PROPERTY CAN BE HAD IN COMMUNAL ARRANGEMENTS...
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
THUS, STUFF CAN BE STOLEN IN A COMMUNAL ARRANGEMENTS...
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
THUS, THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NEGATING COMMUNAL IDEALS.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
Answer the boldened questions or go away.
Thou shalt not steal… from the common good.
Marshal puts his own preferences forward as scripture. The goats. The wheat, the land, the houses belonged to the clans. No one had private property. The head of the clan is responsible for distribution of the community’s goods. Socialists have the same, though elected, functionaries.
And as if communism doesn’t provide housing or furniture or everything people need. That is in fact, it’s mission: literally EVERYONE has what they need. Exactly as it says in Acts. Take from another what they need: you’ve stolen something.
Marshal is almost zero capacity to actually think.
You clearly ignore where I said "by referencing some published definition", so obviously I never said it's "your" definition. Acknowledge that, liar.
"In communal arrangements and in communism, private property still exists.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?"
If you say so. What does the guy with no toothbrush do?
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY, now that I've cleared it up for you?"
I understand the passage better than you do. I understand it is not a representation of the early church which we've abandoned as you or Stan suggest. They were doing nothing which wasn't common among the Jews of that time. It wasn't "a Christian thing" unique to the followers of Christ.
"it's generally been The People who decide what and how much one can have"
So it's a unanimous decision with no dissenters? Perfect agreement? You can confirm this how?
There's no Scripture wherein communal living is even suggested. You miss or pervert the point yet again.
I asked you to answer something before you said anything else... and you didn't. But since you're (sort of, lamely) answering questions, I'll let it stand while I wait to see if you answer what you've been asked...
Marshal... "If you say so."
Not "if I say so." It's reality. Period. Communal groups throughout history have had private property, in the real world. If there are instances of groups with no personal property (and hey, it COULD exist), I'm not aware of it. And I say that as someone who has studied communal living a good bit.
The Amish, the Hutterites, Koinonia Farm, the Mennonites, Jesus People USA, Catholic Workers Movement, the Bruderhof, Barnabas House, Genesis Community, etc, etc, etc... all have personal property.
It's reality.
So, once again: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?
Give direct answers, not mealy mouth vague nothings. Learn to have adult conversations.
What does the guy with no toothbrush do? I would imagine he's given a toothbrush and then IT'S HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY.
What part of "The reality is that communal living arrangements have personal property" are you failing to understand?
Marshal... "So it's a unanimous decision with no dissenters? Perfect agreement? You can confirm this how?"
Because it's in the agreement people make when they join, at least very often. IF a decision is made (often through consensus, look it up if you don't know/understand), and if someone truly objects, they are free to leave that particular communal arrangement.
And no, there's not perfect agreement. That's why people are free to leave.
I think I see, at least in part, why you're so hostile towards the idea of intentional communities: You're completely ignorant of them and in your ignorance, you strike out blindly, perhaps out of fear.
Here's a great place to start giving up your ignorance... the classic Christian book: Living In Christian Community, by Art Gish.
https://www.amazon.com/Living-Christian-Community-Art-Gish/dp/1579101593
I pointed out...
1. It's the BIBLE/JESUS/LUKE/ACTS that speaks of "Goods owned in common." I was speaking of that in reference to what Stan acknowledged the Bible teaches.
2. "Holding all goods in common" is not the same as "therefore, no one owns anything, therefore there can be no stealing..." "ALL GOODS IN COMMON" is a shorthand way of saying "we're going to share what we have and strive to make sure that everyone has enough.
And asked you:
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY, now that I've cleared it up for you?"
To which you didn't answer...
I understand the passage better than you do. I understand it is not a representation of the early church which we've abandoned as you or Stan suggest. They were doing nothing which wasn't common among the Jews of that time. It wasn't "a Christian thing" unique to the followers of Christ.
What am I misunderstanding? That the Bible literally says the believers "held all things in common?"
Here's that passage:
"All the believers were one in heart and mind.
No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own,
but they shared everything they had.
There was not a needy person among them,
for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them
and brought the proceeds of what was sold
and laid it at the apostles' feet, and
it was distributed to each as any had need." (Acts 4)
And...
"All the believers were together and had everything in common.
They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.
Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.
They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people." (Acts 2)
There's also Jesus' own teaching to the rich man...
If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matt 19)
“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father
has been pleased to give you the kingdom.
Sell your possessions and give to the poor.
Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out,
a treasure in heaven that will never fail,
where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Luke 12)
Jesus and the early church literally spoke of selling their stuff and sharing things in common, and by pulling resources, to be able to provide for those more in need.
Literally in these passages.
Do you recognize that reality?
Do you think that Jesus and the early church weren't all that serious when they said things like this?
Based on what? The Holy Book of Adam Smith 1:1? The Teachings of the Prophet Ayn Rand 6:6?
Marshal... "They were doing nothing which wasn't common among the Jews of that time. It wasn't "a Christian thing" unique to the followers of Christ."
Really? That's some claim. I've never heard that.
What's your source for this empty claim? It's not in the text of the Bible.
"What's your source for this empty claim? It's not in the text of the Bible."
It's not really something which requires a passage from Scripture in order for it to be true, given anthropological research which would bear out such cultural practices. But one can look at OT law to understand how Jews cared for each other. But then, being a serious and prayerful student of Scripture, you know this.
"Do you think that Jesus and the early church weren't all that serious when they said things like this?"
What I know is that you routinely pervert Scripture to force it to conform with your socialist perversions. Have you sold all your possessions?
Answer the questions, Marshal. WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE? SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM OR ADMIT YOU CAN'T.
Where in the Bible does it say that lots of people shared all things in common, beyond the early church?
If you can't directly answer questions like an adult, go find a child's blog to molest. No, wait, don't traumatize children with your perversions!
Future posts that aren't direct answers to these reasonable questions WILL be deleted.
I'm giving you WAY more wiggle room than I should.
Post a Comment