Читать книгу Called to Community - Thomas Merton - Страница 15

7

Christian Communism

◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆

José P. Miranda

“All the believers together had everything in common; they sold their possessions and their goods, and distributed among all in accordance with each one’s needs” (Acts 2:44–45). “The heart of the ­multitude of believers was one and their soul was one, and not a single one said anything of what he had was his, but all things were common. . . . There was no poor person among them, since whoever possessed fields or houses sold them, bore the proceeds of the sale and placed them at the feet of the apostles; and a distribution was made to each one in accordance with his needs” (Acts 4:32, 34–35).

Anticommunist commentators allege that this is Luke’s personal point of view, and that the other New Testament writers fail to corroborate it. . . . We shall see that the hypo­thesis is false, for Jesus himself was a communist. But let us place ourselves hypothetically in the worst possible position: that only Luke teaches communism. With what right, indeed with what elemental logic, is it thereupon asserted that communism is incompatible with Christianity? . . . If at least the Lucan part of the New Testament teaches communism, how is it possible to maintain that communism is at odds with Christianity?

Let us suppose (not concede) that there are parts of the New Testament which lend footing to the projection of social systems different from Luke’s. Well and good. That some Christians today may prefer these other parts of the Bible to Luke’s is their affair. But with what right do they deny the name Christian to what the Lucan part of the Bible teaches emphatically and repeatedly? The origin of the communist idea in the history of the West is the New Testament, not Jamblicus or Plato. . . .

A second anticommunist allegation against the texts we have cited from Luke is that the communism of the first Christians failed. It is flabbergasting that sermons, documents of the magisterium, books, and bourgeois public opinion should brook the notion that this is an argument. The Sermon on the Mount failed too, but this does not deprive it of its normative character. . . . What should concern us is to find out why it broke down, and bring communism to realization without committing whatever error caused the first Christians to break down. This would be the logical conclusion if our objectors had the flimsiest desire to be guided by the Bible. But what our objectors have done is make an antecedent and irreformable decision to disagree with the Bible, and to this purpose they bring forward every pretext, even if it tramples upon the most elemental logic.

To cite that initial failure is pure pretext. It is as if we told ourselves we were eliminating the Ten Commandments because they failed in history. . . .

The third objection runs as follows: the communism of the first Christians was optional, as can be seen from Peter’s words to Ananias, “Was it not still yours if you kept it, and once you sold it was it not yours to dispose of?” (Acts 5:4). . . .

According to Luke, what is optional is not communism, but Christianity. Peter does not tell Ananias that he could have come into the Christian community without renouncing the private ownership of his goods. Nor could he say such a thing after it was explicitly emphasized that of the Christians “not a single one said anything was his.” Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit by pretending to become a Christian via a simulated renunciation.

The objection belongs to the type of reader who thinks a work can be understood without understanding the thought of the author. Luke would have to have been a very slow-witted writer if he claimed to assert, in the Ananias episode (5:1–11), the optional character of communism, when four verses earlier he has insisted that “whoever possessed fields or houses sold them,” and so on, and two verses above that, “and not a single one said anything was his,” and still earlier, “all the faithful together had everything in common.” This is the Luke who had recorded these words from the lips of Jesus: “Every one of you who does not renounce all he has cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33). . . .

Let it be well noted that this last verse cited is concerned with the simple fact of being disciples of Christ, and not of some “special vocation” or other. See the beginning of the passage: “Many crowds accompanied him, and he, turning, said to them . . . ” (Luke 14:25). He is not addressing the Twelve, but the crowd. It is a simple matter of the conditions for being a Christian, exactly as in the texts we cited in Acts. What is optional is to be a Christian, to be a disciple of Christ. ◆

Helmut Gollwitzer

We should not in the very least weaken Luke’s text. The commentaries of some New Testament scholars make the meaning quite clear, while others try to smooth it away. They say, for instance: It turned out very badly for the first church in Jerusalem, what they did there. The hasty distribution of the little bit of property they had eventually resulted in their having nothing at all. Then among all the Christians of that time they were called “the poor of Jerusalem,” and a collection had to be made for their support.

All right, Luke might have said, perhaps in their enthusiasm they did not do it very cleverly. Then you do it better, more effectively. Think out a communism in which one does not become poor but through which all people are really helped! Enthusiasm must also include some common sense.

Other commentaries say, and probably we too: Yes, that was a voluntary communism, a communism of love, not a horrible communism of force like we saw in the Soviet Bloc!

Quite right, says Luke, so show me your free-willingness. Where is your communism of love? Perhaps it has come to this forced communism because the hungry people have waited in vain for two thousand years for the Christians’ communism of love!

Others argue along a different set of lines, claiming that it is not the abolition of private property that concerns Luke but rather an inner freedom from possessions.

True, Luke might say, they may have retained title deeds over the disposal of their property, as the historians claim. But what belonged to them they put at the disposal of the church with the one goal, as it says here, that none among them went short. So keep the titles to your private property, but come along with what belongs to you, with the one goal – that no one among us suffers need! . . .

What, then, is the result of taking seriously Luke’s nice, edifying account of this time of first love? The whole thing is beyond us, people say. It may have been possible in their small circles at that time, first in Jerusalem, then in Corinth and Philippi, that no one was in need. That was a shining sign of the resurrection, and others pointed to it and said, “See how they love one another; no one suffers need among them!” But today, when we can’t help seeing the millionfold need of humankind, it is no longer possible.

This can only mean one thing: becoming a Christian today is beyond us. Tasks come in from all sides and we see our feeble strength and vanishing means, our egotism and the fetters of private property, and don’t know how to go on. We can understand why today many Christians suggest one should understand the gospel altogether differently, that one should not apply it to social relationships, but only to community with God and the consolation of the forgiveness of sins.

Oh, yes! The consolation of the forgiveness of sins is very important, especially when we notice in such an account that our sins consist not only of personal thoughts and deeds in opposition to God, but also our involvement in the public sins of this order of death. This terrible social order, which in reality is a disorder, has had from the very beginning the slogan, “That belongs to me!” The possessors defend their possessions against those who have less or nothing at all.

Here we are ensnared, and none of us can get out because we have to take care of ourselves, our families, and our old age. How can we escape this appalling, sinful social order? When we think about this, how can we still laugh and enjoy our gardens? How can we drink our coffee at breakfast when we know that it is offered to us at a reasonable price through the infamous policies of our governments, at the expense of the hungry in coffee-producing countries? In such blind alleys, the consolation of the forgiveness of sins is certainly necessary. But forgiveness of sins can never mean, “Carry on just as before.” The same goes for the individual sins for which we need forgiveness – the promise of forgiveness is always at the same time both comfort and thorn. This thorn says: demand freedom, try freedom, at least begin to seek freedom, simply refuse to cooperate! This thorn, this thorny question, asks: What can we do so that everything does not simply go on as before? This thorny question sinks right into our hearts through Luke’s report. . . .

“They had all things in common, and distribution was made to each as any had need, and there was not a needy person among them.” The praising of God and the sharing of possessions, the Lord’s Supper and the common table, the vertical and the horizontal – a complete life – is present in the true resurrection church. And the horizontal is the manifestation of what happens, concealed, in the vertical. The horizontal – our relationship with others – is the test of the genuineness of the vertical – our relationship with God.

It is all one freedom: the freedom of rejoicing in God, our freedom toward other people, and the freedom never to say, “That belongs to me.” We have been promised such freedom, which is the answer to our longing for a fellowship in which “ours” belongs to everyone, no one suffers need, and we are there for the others in a meaningful life.

Therefore we pray, Lord, lead us into this real, practical life of resurrection. Break the fetters and make us free for a new life! ◆