Transcription
Were the earliest Christians socialists? This question continues to be controversial today, not least because many conservative Christians have culturally positioned themselves as being diametrically opposed to socialism, which is presented as being on the other end of an ideological scale. But the question defies a simple answer.
In this video, I'll first look at what socialism is and then look at the teachings in the New Testament and the early church fathers that could support the notion that they were socialists before finally giving my own evaluation of the evidence. So, first, what is socialism?
Britannica defines socialism as quote a social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation, but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it.
Miriam Webster gives two definitions. First, socialism is quote any of the various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. And second, quote, a system of society or group living in which there is no private property.
Note first that socialism does not have to mean Marxism or importantly state socialism in which a political state forcibly redistributes wealth or controls the nation's means of production. In fact, the earliest socialist thinkers advocated for voluntary socialist societies, cooperatives or communal associations that were not government-run such as Etienne Cabay, Charles Furier, Robert Owen, and FD Morris who was a Christian socialist who said in 1848 that quote Christianity is the only foundation of socialism and a true socialism is the necessary result of a sound Christianity.
However, with that being said, when most people from the USA today hear the word socialism, they assume this refers to the political ideology of state socialism. And if someone says they are a socialist, it is often assumed that this means they believe the state should enforce socialism upon the nation. As a result, it could be argued that if one believes in the principles of socialism but doesn't advocate for state enforced socialism, it could be unhelpful for them to identify as being socialist.
It must be noted that some of the core presuppositions of socialism are that each should give according to his ability, that each may receive according to his need, that income inequality is intrinsically wrong, that those who contribute to production have a greater claim to the wealth that is produced than those who merely own the means of production, and that wealth is a social product which should be communally distributed. However, socialists disagree considerably over what the practical outcomes and responses to these things should be.
With all this in mind, let's now look at what the New Testament says about these matters. First, in the book of Acts, we read in chapter 2 the following description of the first church community. All who believed were together and had all things in common. and they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all as any had need. So we see here that they had a communal ownership of property and that wealth was redistributed so that each received according to his need.
Then in chapter 4 we read the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own but they had everything in common. >> [clears throat] >> 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. We see here again that there was a communal ownership of property and wealth that each received according to his need based on the redistribution of their shared wealth and crucially that no one claimed that his belongings or wealth was his own.
Finally in chapter 11 we read the disciples determined everyone according to his ability to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. And here we have the other half of the key socialist mantra that each should give according to his ability and each should receive according to his need which turns out to quite literally be a composite quote taken straight from the New Testament itself. Now while the church community was not a political nation state remember that socialism doesn't have to refer to a staterun system but can refer to communal socialism.
Moving on to other parts of the New Testament, James chapter 5 says, "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you, and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter."
Note that James' key complaint against the rich here is that the wages of the laborers who worked their fields which they owned were not being paid enough. And so their wages were fraudulently kept back.
In the Gospel of Luke, we're told in the first chapter that God shall bring down the mighty and exalt those of a humble estate. He shall fill the hungry with good things and send the rich away empty. And in chapter 3, John the Baptist says, "Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise."
In chapter 6, our Lord Jesus Christ says, "Give to everyone who begs from you. And from one who takes away your goods, do not demand them back. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners to get back the same amount. So lend expecting nothing in return." He also says, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied, but woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry."
And in chapter 12, Jesus says that the man who lays up treasures for himself is not rich towards God, and the wealth he has should be shared with others. In chapter 18, Jesus says to a rich man that in order to inherit eternal life, he must sell all that he has and distribute it to the poor before declaring that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.
Finally, in chapter 25 of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, Jesus says that the nations will be judged according to how much they supported the needy and that to the nations that shall go away into the punishment of the age, it shall be said, "I was hungry and you gave me no food. I was thirsty and you gave me no drink. I was a stranger and you did not welcome me. Naked and you did not clothe me. Sick and in prison and you did not visit me. For as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me."
Turning now to the teachings of the early church, the Didache which was written in the first century says, "You shall not turn away from him that is in need. But you shall share all things of your brother and shall not say that they are your own. For if you share what is immortal, how much more things which are temporary." This is mirrored by the epistle of Barnabas which was written in the first to early second century and which many fathers considered to be scripture. It says, "You shall share all things with your neighbor. You shall not call things your own. For if you are partakers in common of things which are incorruptible, how much more of those things which are corruptible?"
Justin Martyr in the mid-second century said, "We who once valued above all things the acquisition of wealth and possessions now bring what we have into a common treasury and share with everyone in need." And the pagan writer Lucian said in the second century that one of the defining features of Christians is that they despise all possessions and share them mutually.
Also in the second century, Clement of Alexandria wrote this. "I know that God has given us the use of goods but only as far as is necessary and he has determined that the use shall be common. The use of all things that are found in this world ought to be common to all men."
Ambrose of Milan in the 4th century wrote the following. "Private property is not a matter of justice for it is not according to nature which has brought forth all good things for all in common. God has created everything in such a way that all things are to be possessed in common. Nature therefore is the mother of common right. Usucaption is the mother of private right. And you are not making a gift of your possession to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his."
John Chrysostom in the 4th century wrote, "'Mine and thine.' These chilling words which introduce innumerable wars into the world should be eliminated from the church. Then the poor would not envy the rich because there would be no rich. Neither would the poor be despised by the rich for there would be no poor. All things would be in common. And not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours but theirs."
And finally, also in the 4th century, Basil the Great wrote, "Fling wide your doors. Give your wealth free passage everywhere. As a great river flows by a thousand channels through a fertile country, so let your wealth run through many conduits to the homes of the poor. And I am wronging no one, you say, by merely holding on to what is mine. What is yours? Who gave it to you so that you could bring it into life with you? Why, you are like a man who pinches a seat at the theater at the expense of late comers, claiming ownership of what was for common use. That's what the rich are like. Having seized what belongs to all, they claim it as their own on the basis of having got there first. Whereas, if everyone took for himself enough to meet his immediate needs and release the rest for those in need of it, there would be no rich and no poor. When a man strips another of his clothes, he is called a thief. Should not a man who has the power to clothe the naked but does not do so be called the same? The bread in your larder belongs to the hungry. The cloak in your wardrobe belongs to the naked. The shoes you allow to rot belong to the barefoot. The money in your vaults belongs to the destitute. You do injustice to every man whom you could help but do not. If you are rich, how can you remain so? If you cared for the poor, it would consume your wealth. When each receives a little for one's needs, and when all owners distribute to their means simultaneously for the care of the needy, no one will possess more than his neighbor."
So, having looked at these quotations from the earliest Christians, let's try and answer whether or not they can be described as socialist. First, it must be noted that the earliest Christians never, as far as I'm aware, advocated for the state to be socialist and that it should seize the means of production and forcibly remove income inequality. They also, as far as I'm aware, had nothing to say about whether all the means of production should be communally owned. However, this does not necessarily mean that they cannot be considered socialists.
It is often claimed that the early church merely taught that we should be generous with our wealth and that their presuppositions are thus not at odds with capitalism. This is absolutely false. We can clearly see in the New Testament and the fathers the understanding that the poor are entitled to the surplus wealth of the rich, that the poor have a genuine right to financial aid from those who are able to give it. Basil says that our wealth belongs to the poor and Ambrose says that when one gives to the poor we are giving them what is their own by right. This is not a matter of voluntary generosity. It is a matter of justice. Hoarding wealth while one's neighbors are in poverty is not seen as merely a lack of generosity but as theft. Living in luxury while others lack necessities is seen as sinful. And those of surplus wealth who do not give to the poor are condemned as sinners because they are obligated to give their wealth to the poor as a matter of justice not of generosity. If the rich deny aid to the poor, they are not simply failing to be generous. They are denying them their rights and are committing the sin of theft against the poor.
Wealth is seen as belonging ultimately to God who intends it to benefit the whole community. Therefore, the surplus money you possess is not merely your own to do with as you please, but is God's. and he expects you to share and distribute it to the community as a matter of duty. If you don't do this, then you are disproportionately and thus unjustly possessing it.
Moreover, wealth inequality was seen by the earliest Christians as a structural problem, not just a matter of personal greed. John Chrysostom believed that if the economic system allows one person to possess enormous wealth while another person lacks their necessities, then the whole system is corrupt. He particularly criticizes wealthy landowners or employers whose laborers go hungry, believing this to be exploitation. The underlying assumption here is that if someone's labor makes you rich while they stay poor, then you are exploiting them. Thus, while Chrysostom never says this, there is an implicit understanding that laborers are entitled to a share in the profits of their labor because the wealth their labor generates belongs to people communally. It is their own wealth that they have worked to create and to be denied it is to be stolen from. An economic system that allows someone to get rich off a poor person's labor is seen as structurally rotten and sinful.
Finally, there is the fact that the earliest Christians weren't simply generous, but they formed and structured their communities to redistribute wealth among its members and collectively own wealth and assets. One of the roles of bishops was in fact to oversee the collectively owned wealth of the church and redistribute it so that each member received according to his need. This is far more than individuals being exhorted to be generous. This is a community that structures itself based on socialist principles.
So returning to the definitions of socialism we began with, the early church did believe that within the church there should be a voluntary communal ownership of property. They did believe that individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. And they also believe that everything people produce is in some sense a social product and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it.
So were the earliest Christians socialists? Well, it depends on how one defines the word, of course. But the early church did in many ways resemble what would later become socialism both in their communal structure and organization and in their ideological presuppositions about economic justice and the nature of wealth. They emphatically rejected the notion that if someone owns wealth or the means of production, then they are entitled to do what they please with them. They believe that all who contributed to the creation of wealth have a legitimate claim on that wealth and that within a just community, everyone gives according to his ability so that everyone may receive according to his need. This sounds a lot like socialism to me, but one thing is absolutely certain. This sure isn't capitalism. And if the church fathers saw how many so-called conservative Christians preach capitalist ideas today in the name of Christ, they would be enraged.
Now, if this video has convicted you and you're wondering how to change to be more in line with what Jesus, his apostles, and the early church fathers believed and taught, simply start with this. Look around at the people in your church. And if there are any members of your church who are genuinely struggling to make ends meet, aren't able to fully provide for their family's necessities, then it is absolutely 100% the moral responsibility of your church to ensure that they are taken care of and supported. Frankly, it is an outright abomination if your church has rich people in it alongside people who are truly struggling and yet they share the same Eucharist together and claim to be one body. If one person partakes of the Eucharist while being well-fed and another partakes of it while going hungry, this is an outrage. If this describes your church, then do something about it, please. Because Jesus's teachings about caring for the poor are not a minor part of his message. They are absolutely essential. And if your church is failing to obey them, then it is in considerable trouble and is guilty even of heresy. Repent. Repent of the ways that your church has disobeyed the Lord Jesus Christ in favor of aligning itself with the Antichrist ideology of capitalism. Because it doesn't matter whether or not you call Jesus's teachings socialist. What matters is that you obey them.