“...it is impossible to show that these passages teach socialism...” - Art Lindsley
This is part two of a post initiated by Josiah Daniels in response to Art Lindsley’s article for TheGospel Coalition. You may read Josiah’s initial post, here. Part 2 of Socialism vs. Redistribution will focus in on the logical complexities behind Lindsley’s article, and offer insights into how his project could more complete by addressing a few issues.
Lindsley’s post on The Gospel Coalition’s website starts off by claiming that Acts 2-5 is not an example of true communal sharing because the text portrays “a spirit of communal sharing rather than an actual commune.” He then bases that point on the fact that Acts 2:43-47 is marked by “imperfect tense verbs whereas one normally expects aorists ‘[once-and-for-all actions]’ in historical narrative.” In sum, Lindsley’s logic assumes the following: “‘imperfect verbs’ in the text do not explicitly connote full communal sharing --> therefore, no full communal sharing took place.
It is my contention that this grammatical argument is actually an argument from silence (i.e. a conclusion drawn from the absence of something). Under this logic, an opposite conclusion could be drawn: “Acts 2:43-47 does not say that the events were partially communal and then ended once giving became inconvenient --> therefore, it was a fully socialistic commune.”
The article Does the Bible Command Socialism? is also missing something quite important. It doesn't acknowledge necessary distinctions that should arise in this discussion. For example, one of Lindsley’s central arguments is: giving in Acts was voluntary --> therefore, there could not possibly be biblical basis for any sort of socialism (i.e. Lindsley last ph.).
While the giving in Acts may have been voluntary, it was certainly Spirit-driven (Acts 4:23-31), and under the direction of the Apostles (Acts 4:35, 37; 5:2). This sort of giving may not perfectly mirror Marxist socialism, yet it does not seem to be overtly antithetical. In order to avoid the sweeping statement, “The events were voluntary --> therefore Acts is anti-Marxist” Lindsley needed to answer these questions separately before drawing a conclusion: 1) “Were these Christians practicing any sort of socialism?” 2) “Does the overall sweep of the bible (e.g. Israel’s narrative history) give a basis for communal sharing that resembles socialism?” and then finally, 3) “Does Acts encourage the Christian community to favor socialistic tendencies? Further, and perhaps more important, the author also needed to provide a much needed distinction between command, encourage, and describe when it comes to the question of socialistic giving in Acts.
It is my contention that this grammatical argument is actually an argument from silence (i.e. a conclusion drawn from the absence of something). Under this logic, an opposite conclusion could be drawn: “Acts 2:43-47 does not say that the events were partially communal and then ended once giving became inconvenient --> therefore, it was a fully socialistic commune.”
The article Does the Bible Command Socialism? is also missing something quite important. It doesn't acknowledge necessary distinctions that should arise in this discussion. For example, one of Lindsley’s central arguments is: giving in Acts was voluntary --> therefore, there could not possibly be biblical basis for any sort of socialism (i.e. Lindsley last ph.).
While the giving in Acts may have been voluntary, it was certainly Spirit-driven (Acts 4:23-31), and under the direction of the Apostles (Acts 4:35, 37; 5:2). This sort of giving may not perfectly mirror Marxist socialism, yet it does not seem to be overtly antithetical. In order to avoid the sweeping statement, “The events were voluntary --> therefore Acts is anti-Marxist” Lindsley needed to answer these questions separately before drawing a conclusion: 1) “Were these Christians practicing any sort of socialism?” 2) “Does the overall sweep of the bible (e.g. Israel’s narrative history) give a basis for communal sharing that resembles socialism?” and then finally, 3) “Does Acts encourage the Christian community to favor socialistic tendencies? Further, and perhaps more important, the author also needed to provide a much needed distinction between command, encourage, and describe when it comes to the question of socialistic giving in Acts.
Lindsley’s article concludes: “The fact that some Christians ‘shared all things’ does not constitute a command that all Christians should follow their example, because it is not clearly taught in passages of Scripture elsewhere.”Again, this conclusion is dependent on the assumptions that 1) lack of perfect verbs equates partial communal sharing, and 2) voluntary giving disqualifies (pre)socialistic practices. Yet, there is more to this statement than it may initially seem. I wonder how this argument might interact with relevant thematic elements of Israel’s ongoing narrative where communal giving is customary (e.g. the year of Jubilee; Deut. 23:19; Lev. 25:35-37); not to mention the many NT passages where not only the “love of money” is warned against, but personal wealth is itself explicitly condemned (Matt. 5, 6:24; Lk. 12:15; 1 Tim. 6:6-10, James 5:1; 1 Jn. 3:17).
It seems that Lindsley’s article has initiated what all good scholarship wishes to generate—a need for more research. In these past two posts, we have sought to challenge assumptions and ask questions which are begging to be explored. My personal contention in this post is not critique for the sake of any particular political ideology; but rather to humbly suggest that when it comes to (disproving)socialism/redistribution in the Acts, there is more work to be done.
Interested in reading more?
Check out Nathan Smith’s Post: Jesus Feeding 5000 = Socialism?
Hey Michael--cool blog. I hope you keep writing while you're at seminary.
ReplyDeleteI had a couple thoughts:
1. I don't think Lindsley's argument is faulty or that it's from silence. To me, the logic is,
imperfect verbs --> sharing continuously as needs arise
aorist verbs --> sharing everything once and for all
We know that Luke had these two grammatical options in telling the story of the early church, so it seems important for us to draw at least some conclusions based on why he chose one way (imperfect verbs) over another (aorist verbs). I think it's a valid form of grammatical argument--so long as it can be proven with a broader sweep of how Luke uses aorist and imperfect verbs (which I'm not sure that it can.)
2. I found it interesting that Schnabel (the only commentary I had time to pick up) arrives at similar conclusions as Lindsley, but for different reasons. He argues that it "we should think here not of 'love communisim,' where private property has been abolished and everything is owned by everybody, but of private ownership of possessions (what the individual believers "have") linked with communal use of possessions," and this based on the similar practices of the Qumran community. So his argument is based on NT backgrounds and history rather than grammar. He also argues that the "love communism" view is hard to pare with 5:4 where the issue seems to be not that they kept money for themselves (which was rightfully their own), but that they lied about it. Also see other references to believers owning their own homes, e.g., 12:12-13. These references are problematic if one thinks that the believers sold all they had and shared everything as in a commune.
3. I'm unclear about your definition of socialism. My understanding of it was government control of major industries, not forced sharing. If that's true, it might be anachronistic to read socialism into scripture because the category isn't there. Do you mean to be talking about communism instead?
4. The central issue seems to be hermeneutics: is Acts 2-5 prescriptive or descriptive? Or is it more complicated than that dichotomy. What do you think?
Hey Will! Thanks for reading and taking the time to share all of this, I really appreciate the interaction! I'll try to touch on each of your four points, but in short, I'm really digging what you're saying here!
ReplyDelete1. I My main contention about the verbs is not the logic you laid out, but rather saying, "imperfect verbs = proof of partial giving." In my opinion, the fallacy comes in when the author says that Luke's use of imperfect verbs "disproves" full communal giving. From my understanding, the text actually doesn't say it was partial, rather it just uses verbs that one would expect for partial giving. Like you said, we might be able to "draw some conclusions" based on verb usage...however we have to be careful to lay a foundation built on speculation of what may have been a more typical word choice for Luke. Admittingly, I am currently far from fluent in Greek, so I could be misunderstanding some of this too.
2. The argument from a historical background, I think is much more interesting than the grammatical one. (I actually took a class last semester on the Qumran community and the Dead Sea Scrolls and love it...and so I'm a bit biased toward anything that connects the Qumran to the NT!) To be clear, I don't necessarily want to argue that Acts 2-5 depicts a full commune, just that Lindsley's piece was a bit incomplete the way it was published. One thing I can say is that I am in support of NOT reading any sort of (later developed) political systems into the text. Though the events certainly had political implications, I don't see the Apostles trying to establish a political system.
3. I used the term socialism because that is what Lindsley (the Gospel Coalition author) was working with and I wanted to say in tune with his post and with Josiah's post (Part 1 of my piece). I fully agree that socialism as a category is not there in the text! I think the better question is: does Acts depict redistribution, fully communal practices, and other "socialistic tendencies." My piece was trying to say, that it is difficult to show that these elements (which have been argued to be pre-socialistic or gave influence to socialism) are not present in the text.
4. I 100% agree with you here. I think it may be more complicated than the binary prescriptive/descriptive dichotomy, which makes choosing your hermeneutical method very difficult. This is exactly why I said in the post that the author needed to provide a much needed distinction between "command", "encourage", and "describe" in regards to the giving in Acts. There is a huge difference between Luke "Commanding socialism" (the question of Lindsley) and Luke "describing socialistic practices--as we understand that term now."
Hopefully that helps clarify where I'm coming from, and thank again for the interaction. Keep it coming--it will help keep me on my toes! Also if you haven't read it, you should check out Josiah's post--part 1 of this series. It might help add context to my post. Let me know if I can clarify anything else!
Peace.