I can’t find evidence of anti-communism in the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not all Christians are Benedictine monks, neither are they all instructed to become monks. Luke 14:33 is intended for the Apostles, not every living Christian
 
There’s many forms of communism. A federation of communes is one of them. Society can decide as a whole to grant a piece of land for the priests to work in as long they understand the land belongs to society, it is not their private property.
 
I think that “socialism”, of some kind of non-state-based ecclesiastical form, is actually an accurate description of the early church practice.

The term didn’t exist then, of course, but in retrospect it wouldn’t be far wrong.
 
Last edited:
The references for that section are scriptures. I think you should look again!
 
The practice in the early church was different.

In the earliest phase in Jerusalem, there was no “double-standard” as would later arise. With the exception of celibacy, every believer lived like later monks still do today - having no personal property, devoting themselves to prayer etc…

The double-standard emerged, really, as a legitimate concession to human weakness and practicality as the church swelled in size.

But well into the second century, pagan authors such as Lucian still commented upon the fact that the Christians they had been exposed to had no private ownership of property but used everything in common.

Note that the verse refers to “disciples”, not “apostles”.
 
Last edited:
They were Christians, they were not required to sell it or give it to the Church, or the proceeds from selling it to the Church.
 
2 billion people from Albania to Estonia lived under communism, and in many countries there were even attempts to reconcile Christianity with communism, but communism as it turned out denies the existence of a free man.
 
Curious11 said:
There’s many forms of communism. A federation of communes is one of them. Society can decide as a whole to grant a piece of land for the priests to work in as long they understand the land belongs to society, it is not their private property.
Click to expand...
And society as a whole can decide to take it away again or to use it for a different purpose whatever is decided by a majority to be good for the society. Majority rule is still a “class” system of sorts. And if the majority rules in favor of something which is not for the good of society and goes against God, than that is opposed to the Bible.
 
In our monastic orders, which are modeled after the pattern of the early church in Acts, private ownership is prohibited if you wish to become a postulant - as part of an actively enforced law. From the Rule of St. Benedict:

Above all, this evil practice must be uprooted and removed from the monastery. 2 We mean that without an order from the abbot, no one may presume to give, receive 3 or retain anything as his own, nothing at all–not a book, writing tablets or stylus–in short, not a single item, 4 especially since monks may not have the free disposal even of their own bodies and wills. 5 For their needs, they are to look to the father of the monastery, and are not allowed anything which the abbot has not given or permitted. 6 All things should be the common possession of all, as it is written, so that no one presumes to call anything his own (Acts 4:32). 7 But if anyone is caught indulging in this most evil practice, he should be warned a first and a second time. 8 If he does not amend, let him be subjected to punishment.
Click to expand...
Note how St. Benedict cites the verses in Acts.

The church’s sacred tradition, therefore, recognizes that prohibition of the use of private property for religious reasons is legitimate and not an infringement of freedom. In the early church, this practice was general. Ever since, it has been consigned to the religious vocation - for those striving for apostolic perfection.

I should note that I am not a socialist or communist by political persuasion. I simply recognise that the early church literally did, for a period, own everything in common and abolish private ownership. The church documents (i.e. Didache, medieval papal magisterium) I cited make that clear as well.
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with that. I am well aware of the religious communities that make that free decision to do so. But being a Christian does not require it, even if that is how some lived in the past or are living currently. That is my point from the Book of Acts, they were not required to do so even though many did.
 
Yes, but how am I supposed to know the Church’s opposition to communism isn’t motivated more by fear of losing its property than theological convictions?
 
No offense, but some people say Christianity does the same thing.
 
But that can happen in our society. Some people argue that the election of Trump is proof of that. Whether it is or not is not my concern, but it can happen in a democracy, a capitalist one at that
 
I completely get what your saying but the point I’m making is that, while one makes a voluntary decision to join a monastic community, the abolition of individual ownership is not voluntary within the context of the community.

St. Benedict cited Acts as the biblical reference point for the Benedictine practice of enforced common ownership of possessions.

While I understand that this might be controversial, in today’s context, Jesus’ command in Luke 14:33 (“So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your [private] possessions”) was, in the the context of the early church, unequivocal. You actually, according to the bare letter of the command, could not become a proper disciple otherwise. The Greek literally says that one is “incapable of becoming” a follower of Christ, as the Eastern Orthodox scholar and NT translator Professor David Bentley Hart explained in the article I cited earlier.

It was far closer to the Benedictine practice than most people seem to realize or admit and the church’s magisterium, in the past, actually interpreted this statement as a reference to the early Jerusalem church having “no individual ownership”.

Now, what I’m not arguing is that this should be the case today. There were some very good reasons that church practice and doctrine developed in these areas, not least for reasons of pragmatic exigency.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top