The Acts way. When and Why did the principal change?

JimiTime

Simple enough really. When did the whole 'pooling' wealth etc become obsolete? And why did it?

Piano man

I'm not entirely sure about the historical facts surrounding this, but here's what I am guessing happened.
The apostles started off living in a small community, sharing all their possessions. But then they set off for missions to foreign countries, establishing communities there. Sharing wealth over such vast distances was obviously unfeasible, so these new communities would have had their own pool of possessions. As Christianity multiplied, there would have been countless communities making up the One Church, and as communications got better, these communities would pool resources to help less well off communities, and so wherever the Pope was would become the central administration body.
Also interesting to note is in religious communities even today, vows of poverty are taken, which entails (in the more strict cases) not having any personal possessions, rather sharing everything with the community.

God bless:)

PDN

It evidently happened somewhere between the day of Pentecost and the writing of Paul's epistles (which assume a very different kind of Christian community than in Acts). So somewhere in a period of 20 years between 30AD and 50AD.

I would hazard a guess that the scattering of the Church out of Jerusalem (Acts 8:1) would have been the key event. Up to that point you had a community all living in one location (Jerusalem) and all having their Jewishness in common. Afterwards you had a mobile church with people moving from place to place and a mix of Jews and Gentiles.

Btw, I would not necessarily see this as a bad move at all. I don't see that Jesus said that Christianity should be a commune in Jerusalem - but He did command His followers to go into all the nations.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

It evidently happened somewhere between the day of Pentecost and the writing of Paul's epistles (which assume a very different kind of Christian community than in Acts). So somewhere in a period of 20 years between 30AD and 50AD.

I would hazard a guess that the scattering of the Church out of Jerusalem (Acts 8:1) would have been the key event. Up to that point you had a community all living in one location (Jerusalem) and all having their Jewishness in common. Afterwards you had a mobile church with people moving from place to place and a mix of Jews and Gentiles.

Btw, I would not necessarily see this as a bad move at all. I don't see that Jesus said that Christianity should be a commune in Jerusalem - but He did command His followers to go into all the nations.

So the Acts Church is not an example to follow? In your opinion, the whole 'pooling the wealth' thing was a principal for that first base in Jeruselem?

ISAW

JimiTime wrote: »

So the Acts Church is not an example to follow? In your opinion, the whole 'pooling the wealth' thing was a principal for that first base in Jeruselem?

not necessarily. In early Christianity there were hermits. They lived in isolation. But Anchorites, or hermits, who, after long successful training in a monastery, coping single-handedly, with only God for their help are mentioed in the Rule of St Benedict. So being in a order could also mean travelling on ones own. the order was the family and resources were pooled in this way. Many Bishoprics may have existed but with the collapse of Western european Civilization orders in particular through monastic life became social centres and some became very wealthy. Because monsk didnt marry and passed their wealth on to the order orders became richer and richer rivaling any monarch or Papacy. By the time of Henry VIII they were so steeped in largess he liquidated them in his Protestant Reformation for cash to pay of nobles and armies etc. Even the Pope and Catholic Hierarchy couldn't cope with some orders and disbanded then e.g Jesuits or Templars. The Templars were disbanded because of wealth. A French king owed them money for bankrollong him in war against England. He welsched on the debt and forced the Pope to disband them. Their wealth was transferred to the Knights of Malta who still exist Today band indeed their Hospitallier Order is responsible for many things you might not be aware of for example
http://www.lucenaclinic.ie/index.htm doesnt look to have any religious history until you look here:
http://www.lucenaclinic.ie/about-us.htm

Likewise
http://www.ncirl.ie/ doesn't look to have an religion in the background till you notice:
http://www.ncirl.ie/About_NCI

Even then you won't know that National College of Industrial Relations was actually set up by Jesuits and the House donated by them.

None of the Jesuits or Brothers of St John got any fat pension or personal gain out of the above.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

So the Acts Church is not an example to follow? In your opinion, the whole 'pooling the wealth' thing was a principal for that first base in Jeruselem?

It seems to me there's a parallel going on between the birthing of the church and the birthing of a new Christian.

There was that intense outpouring of the Spirit then that saw the new church respond exuberantly and without restraint - a little bit like the exhuberance seen in brand new Christians thrilled as they are with what they've just discovered. An intoxication of sorts, not on wine, but in the Spirit.

Not long after this we see the church and the individual settle down into the serious business of sanctification and embattlement - something that tends to dampen down that initial carefreedness.

Not that this need be a worrying thing - it's just a natural part of sinners being sanctified.

santing

JimiTime wrote: »

So the Acts Church is not an example to follow? In your opinion, the whole 'pooling the wealth' thing was a principal for that first base in Jeruselem?

Acts is not a doctrinal book, but an historic book (cf Acts 1:1). It tells us what the early Christians did, which may not necessarily have been the right thing!
There are a lot o things in favour of the actions of the early Christan Church in Jerusalem:

• The first Christians consisted mostly of Pelgrims in Jerusalem - their money would have run out soon but through the "pooling of wealth" they could continue to stay on.
• The first Christians needed an "incubation" time where "they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. (Act 2:42)"
• After the initial incubation the early Christians were persecuted and most of their goods confiscated by their families (Heb 10:34). A good thing they had used it already for the Church!

PDN

santing wrote: »

The first Christians consisted mostly of Pilgrims in Jerusalem - their money would have run out soon but through the "pooling of wealth" they could continue to stay on.

Great point! I hadn't considered that before.