Communal living: a failed Pentecost experiment

08
Jun

Scripture: Acts 4: 32 to 5: 5 Nigel Bunce

Acts 2 describes an experiment in communal living. Everyone shared everything. But very quickly, the situation changed. Two chapters further on in Acts, husband and wife Ananias and Sapphira heard that Barnabas sold a piece of property, and gave the money to the apostles. So Ananias and Sapphira decided that they’d like to be acclaimed as well. But they decided to keep back part of the proceeds for themselves

 

After Peter’s speech to the crowd on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 43-47)

“All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. “


An experiment in communal living

Everyone shared everything. But very quickly, the situation changed. Two chapters further on in Acts, husband and wife Ananias and Sapphira heard that Barnabas sold a piece of property, and gave the money to the apostles. I assume that everyone said what a good egg Barnabas was.

So Ananias and Sapphira decided that they’d like to be acclaimed as well. But they weren’t up-front like Barnabas. They decided to keep back part of the proceeds for themselves. Somehow, Peter got wind of what had happened. Perhaps he was really up on local real estate. Peter called out Ananias, who fell down dead. Perhaps he died of shock and embarrassment.

Why did Ananias and Sapphira decide to cheat?

As Peter said, the property was theirs to do with as they wished. What had gone wrong with the communal living ideal?

My guess is that the experiment had been, in a sense, too successful. It’s similar to what I said last Sunday. About joining a large versus a small congregation. You can slip into the back of a large congregation anonymously. But not a small one.

People often behave worse when they are in a large group. Especially with people they don’t know well. That’s why there’s much less petty theft and similar crime in a small village than in a large city.

I have read that 50 is about the maximum size of a group in which everyone knows everyone else personally. It’s probably why hunter-gatherer groups seem to have ranged in size from an extended family to fewer than ~100 individuals

Hutterites are Anabaptist Christians. The movement began in the 1500s. They adhere strongly to the ideals of communal ownership according to Acts 4 and 5. Typical colonies comprise 60-200 individuals. When a colony grows close to the upper size limit, it splits into two daughter colonies, which share the resources equally. This size limit has worked for them for nearly 600 years.

Without the safety valve of limiting the size of the group, communal ideals seem to evaporate. In Communist societies, a ruling group, and/or an autocrat, seems to emerge quickly. He, or they, rule the masses without concern for their welfare. E.g., Soviet Union.

Relevance to churches

I said last Sunday that large parishes must develop smaller groups within the larger congregation. In order to foster a sense of belonging. This leads to a top-heavy administration, with an emphasis on committees and rules. I suspect that abuses of one kind or another happen more easily in large congregations because of the anonymity factor.

Parishes of fewer than 50-100 have less committee structure. For example, at St. George’s, we make a monthly liturgy plan. But often the details get changed on the fly. That flexibility isn’t possible in a larger group.