Bicknell on Article XXXVIII: Of Christian men's Goods, which are not common

§ 5. At the time of the Reformation certain Anabaptists advo- cated communism as an essential part of Christianity. They based their claim on a literal imitation of the life of the earliest Christian community as described in the opening chapters of Acts. There Christians are described as having ‘all things in common’ (see esp. 2“ and 4°). Such a claim, however, fails to take account of all the facts. It is quite clear that such communism was the spontaneous product of the new spirit of brotherhood. It was based not on any formal legislation but the sharing of a common temper and outlook. It was neither compulsory nor universal. St. Peter clearly asserts that Ananias had the right, if he so wished, to retain either his property or the money for which he sold it (54). Mary the mother of St. Mark clearly possessed her own house, though she put it at the disposal of the community (Acts 121%). It is a certain inference from the facts of St. Paul’s life that he was able at times of crisis to draw upon considerable resources. Both our Lord and the teaching of the New Testament generally inculcate the duty of almsgiving, which presupposes the retention of at least some private property (Mt. 6’ff., etc., Rom. 121%, 1 Cor. 16?, 2 Cor. 97, Heb. 1316, 1 Jn. 317, etc.). Outside Jerusalem no trace of communism is found. Before many years had passed the Church of Jerusalem was in urgent need of financial assis-

tance (Rom. 1575-28, etc.). How far this was due to the conduct described above is an interesting question. . To-day a very similar demand is often made that the Church should definitely commit herself to that economic theory known as ‘socialism.’* Our Lord is claimed as a socialist. This demand rests upon unsound arguments. Our Lord laid down general principles. He did not formulate any system. He left it to His disciples to work out those principles to meet the needs of successive ages. If we believe that socialism is economically sound and will minister to the highest welfare of mankind, then we are bound to propagate it. But we must allow that our views are not an essential part of the Christian faith. Socialism has no place in the revelation of God. Christians must be pre- pared to differ on such a subject. All that loyalty to Christ demands is that whatever views they hold, they adopt them from Christian motives as the result of prayer, thought and study, not simply because they will fill their own pockets and keep them full. Our Lord’s teaching about wealth may be summed up in two leading thoughts. First, it is a great responsibility, to be used for the good not only of its owner but of others. Secondly, it is a great temptation, leading its possessor to rely on self rather than God. This teaching, we must note, applies not only to money but to all conspicuous gifts whether of mind or body. The Church is not tied down to any one economic theory, but it is bound to assert Christian principles. That is where the Church has failed. It has made little or no protest against the exploitation of the poor and weak.t Men have been allowed to suppose that Christian morality applies only to private life and not to business relationships. Prominent members of the Church have been known to be getting money by means that involved the suffering and loss of their fellow men and women and the Church has never rebuked them. Men have salved their conscience by gifts to the Church taken from money gained at the cost of the lives of their employees. The Christian * It is much to be wished that the term ‘ socialism ’ would only be employed in its proper sense. As so used it signifies the view that the community as a whole should own all the means of production. ‘It is too often employed in a

vague sense a8 meaning little more than ‘social reform.’ Socialism is not the same aS communism, since it leaves room for a limited possession of private

property. + See the excellent statement, W. Temple, Church and Nation, p. 80 fi.

conscience has acquiesced in the existence of slums and the employment of sweated labour. In all attempts at reform the Church has too often taken the side of wealth rather than righteousness. These ugly facts underlie the demand that the Church should adopt socialism. The Church is bound to face the evils for which socialism attempts to supply a remedy, in the light of the Gospel. But she is not bound to accept the remedy offered by socialism without investigation. She must always insist that external conditions by themselves cannot secure righteousness, though they may do much to hinder it. The real root of all social problems lies in the perverted will and heart of man, in other words, in human sin. No economic reconstruction apart from love can bring true and lasting satisfaction.

On social questions special mention may be made of the writings of Dr. Westcott (e.g. The Incarnation and Common Life); Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question ; and the publications of the 0.S.U.