Resurrecting Community

Acts 4:32-35

Rev. Monte Marshall

Last Sunday in this place, we proclaimed the Easter good news:  Christ is risen!  Christ is risen, indeed!  Alleluia!  This morning we ask the question:  So what?  Was last Sunday just another opportunity to swallow a feel-good dose of Easter medicine and then get right back to life as usual?  Or did the risen Christ come alive in us enough to at least get us thinking about how our lives might be lived differently and more fully in response to this amazing God who acts to bring life out of death?

Well, if we’re looking for something more than a feel-good dose of Easter medicine—if we’re looking to move beyond the stifling status quo—if we’re looking for resurrection and transformation—then Luke invites us to take a look at how we live together in community.

Luke’s invitation comes in the form a story from the book Acts about First Church, Jerusalem.  By way of reminder, the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were written by the same author and were intended “to be read together as a single work in two volumes.”[1]

According to Luke, First Church, Jerusalem formed in the aftermath of two life-altering experiences:  the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost.  The impact of these two events generated a new kind of community marked by a spiritual unity in which “[t]he community of believers” was “of one mind and one heart.”

According to Luke, this spiritual unity was given tangible expression in the economic life of the community.  He writes:  “None of them claimed anything as their own; rather, everything was held in common.”  As commentator Charles Talbert notes, this was a fulfilment of “Greco-Roman ideals about friendship.”  It was the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who said:  “’Among friends everything is common…for friendship consists in sharing.’”[2]

Luke also notes that there was not a needy person among them.  Why?  Well, Luke brings to fruition a theme emphasized at several points in his gospel story about Jesus:  “for those who owned property or houses would sell them and give the money to the apostles.  It was then distributed to any members who might be in need.”

Consider what Luke is saying.  The followers of Jesus, enlivened by the Spirit of the risen Christ, freely abandoned their claims to private property in order to help those in need.  In other words, the people of First Church, Jerusalem didn’t say, “This is mine and you can’t have it.”  They said instead, “I recognize that in your need, you have a claim upon the resources that I possess.  Therefore, in response to the Spirit of the risen Christ, I will freely share with you so that your need might be met.”   Now it seems to me that in the divine scheme of things, this is what he Bible calls justice, and this is what love requires.

But let me be clear.  Luke is not saying that everyone immediately sold all their possessions and put the money into the common pot for the apostles to distribute.  And Luke is not saying that private property was prohibited.  Commentator Ronald Sider says it well:  “The text [from Acts]…suggests that over a period of time, whenever there was need, believers regularly sold lands and houses to aid the needy.” [3]  

Now when Luke notes that there was not a needy person among them at First Church, Jerusalem, he’s echoing both Jewish and Greco-Roman ideals.  Deuteronomy 15:4 says this:  “When YHWH God blesses you in your land, there will be no needy person among you.”  This alleviation of need in Deuteronomy is accomplished when God’s people share their possessions with one another.  Likewise, the Stoic philosopher Seneca, envisioned a time “when ‘you could not find a single pauper.”[4]    

So according to Luke, the realization of these cultural values is accomplished when the Spirit of the risen Christ comes alive within a “community of believers.”  Luke is breaking down barriers here, and reaching out to both Jews and Gentiles with the good news of the risen Christ. 

And the people responded!  The “manifestations of resurrection power” that people witnessed in the kind of community formed by First Church, Jerusalem, and in the testimony of the apostles, caused people to give “great respect” to the church.

So now I wonder:  What’s our response?  Let me speak for myself.  I’m 62 years old.  I’ve been in The United Methodist Church all of my life.  I’ve been involved in nine United Methodist congregations and I must say, I’ve never participated in a congregation that paid much attention to this text from Acts.  We’ve paid it lip service, but we haven’t taken it seriously.  We’ve dismissed it as being irrelevant to life in 21^st century America—with one caveat:  While we haven’t come anywhere close to acknowledging the claim that those in need have to what we possess, we do contribute to a common pot each and every Sunday when we take up the offering.  And we depend on the leadership of the church to distribute these offerings.  But it’s also true that our contributions to the common pot are no longer distributed as direct assistance to the needy among us.  We now have other priorities like buildings and salaries and programs.   

When Luke’s text has come up in Bible studies or Sunday school classes, I’ve heard the objections.  Some have said, “This sounds like communism.”  Well, as Dr. John Holbert notes, Karl Marx did write that “the only economic system that can function for the betterment of all is one that attends to the needs of all.  Hence, he stated,  ‘From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need.’  Such a claim is rooted squarely in this text from Acts,” says Dr. Holbert.[5] 

Beyond this connection, however, I don’t believe that Luke is recommending “communism” as we’ve come to know it in the modern age.  Luke’s story speaks of an economic sharing that is voluntary and not coerced—and it’s sharing in response to the Spirit and the needs of people, and not in response to some economic or political theory.

I’ve also heard people dismiss Luke’s story as a utopian daydream that is beyond the reach of those of us who live in “the real world.”  Now I must admit that Luke does paint an idealized picture, but he also acknowledges the difficulties of living out this vision.  In Acts 5, for example, he tells the story of Ananias and Sapphira, a couple who sold their possessions, but instead of giving the money to the apostles for distribution to the poor, they kept the proceeds of sale for themselves, and then lied about it.  The lying got them into trouble.

But it’s also true, that throughout the history of the church, people have responded to this idealized vision by living into the dream, and moving beyond the status quo.  It was true in the monastic communities that formed in the early history of the church, and it continues to be true to this day with the creation of what are called intentional Christian communities that include the Koinonia Community in Georgia, the Simple Way community in Philadelphia, and the Reba House community in Evanston, IL, to name but a few.   In the past 2 ½ years that I’ve been your pastor, I’ve told you many stories about several of these communities.  

It seems to me that Luke is not trying to impose a strict law upon the followers of Jesus, as some might fear—a law that some might think is impossible to fulfill, but that must be obeyed in order to stay within the community.  Instead, what Luke is trying to do is establish an ethos for the community that gives guidance and direction to the followers of Jesus in living out their discipleship. 

To my mind, it’s a lot like our approach to the tithe—giving 10% of our income to the church.  In every congregation I’ve been a part of, the tithe is held up as the goal—even the minimum goal—of Christian giving.  But at the same time, I’ve never participated in a congregation that actually kicked people out if they didn’t tithe.  In fact, the congregations I’ve been involved with have tried to help people “step-up” to the tithe incrementally.  This says to me that the tithe is not a congregational requirement or law, but it is part of the ethos of the community that gives guidance and direction to our discipleship.  It seems to me that Luke’s story of First Church, Jerusalem, can serve a similar purpose.

So where are we going with all of this?  Well, speaking personally, I’m interested in resurrecting community.  I’ve been praying for a long time now that God will roll back the stone so that this story that we have consigned to the tomb through our own neglect, will once again come alive in the church—even in this church. 

It seems to me that we need this story to call us beyond the status quo of our culture and our church.  We need this story to remind us that there is more to life in the Spirit of the risen Christ than we have yet experienced—and that there is more to Christian community than we have yet experienced!  We need this story to keep us from getting stuck!  We need this story to keep us moving forward into the reign of God and all of its fullness.    

My dream for us is that the day will come when Luke’s story of First Church, Jerusalem becomes part of the ethos of Travis Park United Methodist Church.   My dream for us is that the day will come when our church offers not only Sunday School classes, and Bible studies, and small groups for learning and fellowship, but also opportunities for people to come together to wrestle with Luke’s story in an attitude of openness, and with a readiness to act when God brings forth from the tomb some new form of community that does indeed move us beyond the status quo.

So here’s my challenge:  If you’re ready for something more than a feel-good dose of Easter medicine that changes nothing, then I invite you to pray with me and to be open to the Spirit of the living Christ coming alive in us to resurrect new forms of community in our midst!  After all, Christ is risen!  Christ is risen, indeed!  Alleluia!  So why hold back?  Why resist?  May God’s will be done!  Amen.