The Church as a Caring Community
Acts 2:45-46
Acts 4:32 – 5:11
(Third in the series “The Core Characteristics of the Church)
I have just read the most riveting story in the Book of Acts. The traumatic and sudden death of Ananias and Sapphira has caused both the casual reader of the Bible and the in-depth scholar reason to pause. What good does this story do for us?
For our Lenten season we are looking at the core characteristics of the church—the DNA, if you will. What are those essential elements of the church’s nature that define it as the Body of Christ? We are working at this from the summary statement in Acts 2:42-47.
So far we noticed that
The Church is a devoted Community, and
The Church is a filled Community.
Today, from verses 45-46, we consider
The Church as a caring community.
In Acts 2, Luke mentions that the believers willingly sold their possessions and goods, and distributed to those who had need. I think a key word here is “together.” They met together daily in the temple area, that ate together regularly in one another’s homes. The evidence that they were truly a “together” community is seen in the practical way they cared for each other’s needs.
You might say that the early church was a community truly in community with each other.
Now before I go on to unpack this for us today, I need to spend some time clearing up a few of the misunderstandings that surround this concept and passage. And that is why I read Acts 4:32 to 5:11.
CLEARING UP THE MISUNDERSTANDINGS.
Does Acts 2:45-46 and Acts 4:32-37 make you uncomfortable? It does me. Why? Well as a Christian living in an affluent and materialistic world, I have accumulated a lot of stuff—possessions—while many other brothers and sisters in the church, at least worldwide, have very little. What am I supposed to do?
Does this passage require us to sell all that we have until complete equity is experienced in the church?
Let’s consider what these passages actually say.
First, remember the context.
On the day of Pentecost tens of thousands of Jewish people from around the Roman Empire flocked to Jerusalem for the festive celebrations. On this particular Pentecost, many heard about the death and resurrection of Jesus, and 3000 believed.
Some of those 3000 were from outside of Jerusalem. Some were Hellenistic Jews, as we learn from Acts 6, representing a significantly different cultural orientation from that of the Hebraic Jerusalem Jews. Some of these Hellenistic Jews from outside Palestine who believed in Jesus decided to remain in Jerusalem with the other believers for teaching and edification. There was no Christian community to go back to. They had come with very little; after staying awhile they needed support.
Second, consider what the Bible actually says.
The selling of one’s possessions was entirely voluntary. It was never required. We know this from two particular statements:
Acts 4:34
“There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales.”
The words “time to time” suggest an action that was done on occasion and as need arose, not one that was a prescribed entry requirement for joining the church.
An example of this attitude is given in the person of Barnabas (4:36-37), who would later accompany Paul on his first missionary journey.
And, we see that selling your possessions was voluntary from the example in Acts 5.
Ananias and Sapphira were property owners. No doubt impacted by the example of Barnabas, they too sold a portion of their possessions. In this case, it was a piece of property. They sold it with the intention of giving a portion of the proceeds to the apostles for the support of the church. Their sin lay in the fact that they claimed to have given all the money to the church, while having kept back a portion. Their sin was not that they kept back part of the money, but that they pretended to give it all.
It is very important to listen carefully to what Peter says to Ananias in 5:3-4.
Peter says to Ananias,
“how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”
Several phrases here are very important:
“Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold?” shows us that Ananias was the rightful owner of the property and that the decision to sell it was within his power.
“And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?” shows us that after the property was sold, the money raised was entirely at his disposal. He did not have to give any of it, could have given it all, or, as he did, gave a portion of the money.
Ananias and Sapphira’s decision to sell the property, keep back part for themselves, and give part to the church, is never in question in the passage. Their ownership of the property and their right to dispose of it at their will is fully affirmed.
What is in question here is their integrity. The message of the story shows us the seriousness of lying to God.
Now you may say, why dwell on this. For several reasons:
This passage has been used to support social ideologies that deny people the right of individual ownership. An example of this would be a socialist or communist state. However, even in the church, there have been times when individual ownership and free enterprise have been questioned. We have one such movement in our history, the remains of which are right down the street—The Ephrata Cloister.
I want to be very clear this morning. The Bible supports the right of individual ownership, and this passage strongly attests to it.
You have the right to accumulate stuff in your life. No one should take that right away from you, especially the church.
However, even though this passage supports our right to own things, it radically challenges us in regard to how much stuff we really need, and causes us to evaluate our attitude toward the stuff of our lives.
(Have you noticed that stuff is one of my favorite words!)
LAYING DOWN SOME PRINCIPLES REGARDING MATERIAL THINGS
There are several kingdom principles exemplified here.
First, this text suggests that even though we are allowed to accumulate stuff—houses, lands, possessions—we hold this stuff in trust for more than the providing of a comfortable living for ourselves. The things God allows us to acquire are really his, and he expects us to use these things in a manner that honors him.
Now, let’s affirm that we are expected to care for our family. The Bible says, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Timothy 5:8)
However, heaping up treasures only for ourselves is strongly warned against in the Bible.
Jesus said,
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also”. (Matthew 6:19-21)
And he told a piercing parable about the dangers of “tearing down our barns and building bigger ones” (Luke 12:16-19). The point of this parable is summed up in Jesus’ statement
“Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions”. (Luke 12:15)
The principle illustrated here in Acts 2 and 4 is one of stewardship. It speaks to our attitude. We all hold ownership to something. How do we hold it? Do we consider it ours, or do we acknowledge that we hold these things as a trust from God, and that ultimately he is the owner?
The DNA of the early church included a strand of genuine caring; a strand that enabled persons to hold their possessions with an open hand.
Ananias and Sapphria were materialists. They loved their stuff. And they lied in order to keep it, paying with their lives.
Second, this text calls me to consider my (actually our) responsibility to the poor of our community.
Some persons have mistakenly assumed that this passage (and others like it) teaches that there should be no rich people in the church. Actually, the exact opposite is the truth.
This passage assumes there will be rich people in the church. I’m defining rich here as people with more resources than necessary to take care of their needs and that of their loved ones.
What this passage does teach is that there should be no poor people in the church. By poor, I mean those who are living without the basic necessities of life.
This passage does not teach that there should be economic equality in the church. Nowhere does it suggest that the goal was to have everyone share equally in all the stuff of life.
What the passage says is that “there were no needy people among them”. The word “needy” suggests being “destitute” (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon).
Even after some people sold property and the needy (that is the destitute) were taken care of, there were still some who were much wealthier than others. But there were no poor!
This is important because the answer to poverty in the world is not simply handouts. Along with help that we give to each other, there must also be responsibility. Those who can work, must do all they can to meet their needs. However, those of us who have, must hold our possession with an open hand, being ready to share with those in need.
The third thing this passage speaks to is priority.
These believers knew that priority one for their lives was the kingdom of God. Personal possessions came further down the list.
Jesus said,
"Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you." (Matthew 6:33).
They lived this verse.
What do I prioritize?
If as a Christian I prioritize the accumulation of stuff for my own benefit, then like Ananias and Sapphira, I’m living a lie.
If I’m reluctant to share with the needy, even if it means living without something myself, then I need to consider my priorities. Again, let me reiterate, the Bible does not call us to put our family at risk. But, how much is enough?
The early church was a caring community. They took care of their own.
I believe the church has been a caring community in many ways. On the one hand, in our modern age, taking care of our own takes the form of church sponsored retirement communities, local food banks and assistance programs, deacons’ benevolence funds, love offerings, etc.
But these things may never take the place of individual responsibility to care for the persons God brings into our lives, either through blood family or through the family of God, bought with the blood of Jesus.
Having said all of this, I want to say one more thing: if you come to the church with an attitude of getting from it—that is, if you put your needs ahead of the needs of others with a “woe is me” attitude--then you will never see the church as a caring community, because you will never have enough.
On the other hand, if you come to the church to give—that is, asking God how you can be used to reach out, laying aside your own needs by putting the needs of other first—then you will experience the church as a wonderful caring community and you will always have enough.
The DNA of the church contains a strand of caring. Wherever the church exists in its true form, this stand is apparent.
I’m grateful for the many ways I see our congregation caring for others: through our deacons, the Hospitality House, various class projects, mission trips, and individuals who give countless hours and resources to their friends and neighbors in need.
But lets go deeper. Let’s examine our priorities. Let’s ask, what is enough? And then let’s be generous with the kingdom of God, especially with the poor.
When we seek first the kingdom, all the other stuff just falls in line.
