 The Early Church Was Not Communist
We are told in the book of Acts that the early church had "all things in common" and that they sold lands and possessions in order to fund the continuing ministry of the church for the common good. When hard times struck, they suffered during famine and the other apostles such as Paul took collections or "tithes" of all willing churches to take to Jerusalem and effectively keep the Jerusalem church alive.
Instead of punishing an exercise in socialism with that famine, was God encouraging them to spread further abroad?
In any case, the claim that the early church suffered for an "exercise in communism" is one thing, but it is actually without basis in fact. The model of the early church was made in the very image of God (the octal). It should not surprise any that we are later told quite separately from the New Testament that "if one doesn't work, neither should they eat."
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
(KJV)
Then as my argument I present the following octal as a model for the governance of the early church. Notice that there is no room for the scrounger or the lazy! Rather than as used in the book, I here use the octal formed from rows of the mapping table, rather than the K4 subgroups implicitly defined as [a,b,c],[ a,d,e], [a,f,g], [b,d,f], [b,e,g], [c,e,f], [c,d,g].
I also give those possible disjunctions formed as I had previously done, from the mapping table of chapter 4 within the book.
I present a simple K4 group formed of a disjunction with the virtue "mission is positive":
"Has money to offer" vs. "mission is positive" & "has no money to offer" => "Does charitable work."
Inverting is also valid:
"Does charitable work." vs. "mission is positive" & "Does no charitable work" => "Has money to offer"
Now, I could split the K4 group into both action and inaction to produce:
p) Virtue: mission is positive.
r) Willing to spend money; or. (u-1) not willing/able to spend money (is disabled)
s) Willing to volunteer to work vs. (v-1) not willing/able to volunteer to work (as to wait on tables, person is an apostle instead).
Note the apostles are not hired to wait tables by God. Theirs is the apostolic office, and not to be confused with those that can not work for God in that office, as disabled or tithers working instead "in the world".
A brief check is made to ascertain whether the middle(s) private virtue in p.
p=>r&s) "Money to offer" & "does charity work" privates virtue? It is too much to expect of most already doing one or the other, putting their already good works to shame as if in comparison to one who has money and also does such work, though as a conjunction it is yet positive. (Should they merely keep working in the world instead, as a success for earning tithes?) It is positive for them to quit their worldly work and just work charitably as Christ had stated to the young man.
Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
(KJV)
Clearly, "no money to offer" & "does not work charitably" would private virtue were one not an apostle or instead disabled!
p=>(u&v)-1) "Is disabled" & "Is an apostle" - privates virtue. A disabled apostle should not be expected to bear such a burden, putting the virtue of able bodied others (i.e. the whole church) to shame! (Paul instead remained “not chargeable” to his elect/fellowships rather than simply as one poor or near-blind of which it could be said “does nothing, should neither eat!”). The "disabled apostle" would do the near impossible whilst those able bodied others should be rightly put to shame. In the church's outreach, where would they be in the eyes of the rest of the world? If they have a light to shine, it would appear to be flickering if the disabled is the best they have.
Again, "Not disabled" & "not an apostle" would private virtue (that mission is axiomatically positive) were they not contributing tithes or working charitably.
Now, examining the disjunctions formed in the octal:
r vs. p&r-1=>s
Tithes or does charity work. (Simple, given one is not disabled or an apostle.)
u-1 vs. p&u=>v-1
Is disabled or is an apostle. (Only the able-bodied not tithing or waiting on tables are apostles) vs. (only the non-apostles not tithing or waiting on tables are disabled).
Note: Both sets are qualified by action/inaction within the simple disjunction of:
"Has money to offer" vs. "mission is positive" & "has no money to offer" => "Does charitable work."
Continuing on:
(r&s)-1 vs. u&v
There is no positive requirement to both "tithe money and work charitably" vs. not being one "disabled or also an apostle".
NEGATED:
Note that both sides when negated become axiomatically negative! (They are no longer positive properties!)
If you "give money and work charitably" you must not be "disabled or an apostle".
If you are a "disabled apostle", you can’t fulfil the task of "giving money or waiting on tables".
Note: the use of Demorgans laws, (A vs. B)-1 <=.> A-1 & B-1 (yet both sides are become negative, not positive. The only necessarily positive statement remaining is (A & B)-1 instead.)
Furthermore:
u&v vs r&v?
(given someone is not an apostle)
No positive reason for the disabled to give money N¬(r&u)
u&v vs s&u?
(given someone is not disabled)
No positive reason for any apostle to work charitably! N¬(s&v)
And also:
(r&s)-1 vs. r&u
(Given someone willing to spend money)
No positive reason to give money and do charity work vs. not being disabled.
NEGATED : (Both sides negative)
To give money AND do charity work => you are not disabled (given one also tithes).
(r&s)-1 vs. s&v
(Given someone willing to do charity work)
No positive reason to give money and do charity work vs. Not being an apostle
NEGATED : (Both sides negative)
To give money AND do charity work => you are not an apostle. (Given you wait on tables.)
Do these draw together in the sense that the following are resolved?
A TOUGHIE:
(Given someone willing to spend money)
No positive reason to give money and do charity work vs. not being disabled.
Q)How could someone willing to spend money be disabled?
A) not being disabled wont stop you giving money:
and being disabled means there is also no requirement to both give money and do charity work
yet the merely poor should do charity work! (if you don’t work, neither should you eat.)
So, replace any thought of “poor” with “disabled” only!
The early church was not communist!
TOUGHIE 2
(Given someone willing to do charity work)
No positive reason to give money and do charity work vs. Not being an apostle
NEGATED :
Giving money AND doing charity work => you are not an apostle.
If you are an apostle => No positive reason to give money and do charity work
(I.e. Given the apostle does charity work.) Also, not being an apostle will not stop you tithing or doing charity work.
In order for the system to be open as well as "fair", no one truly unable to work was expected to, and no one both tithing and doing charity work was blessed in their charity. They, as the rich were letting "their left and right hands know what each other were doing". They were putting the already admirable efforts of those tithing and doing works "to shame" simply because they had the station in life to do so. God is no respector of persons, they were doing too much for the good of others to find any further blessing in it.
So, as this system is instead modelled on the octal of God and all virtue: where is the dialectic synthesis in the scriptures for the early church to have modelled itself on?
I know God's kingdom is not flesh and blood: Neither is it to be found as kept under the purse strings; yet virtue is found in fairness and openness, not in leaving the poor and/or disabled to the mercy of the laws of nature.
Continue To Next Page
Return To Section Start |
