All Things in Common

 

All Things in Common

 

Acts 2:42-47
2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

2:43 Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles.

2:44 All who believed were together and had all things in common;

2:45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.

2:46 Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts,

2:47 praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.

 

In the earliest days of the Christian church, it had begun to develop into more of an “organism” than an “organization.” Several factors probably served as catalysts for this reaction: these were people living under persecution from the Roman authorities and the prevailing religious leaders; they were mostly a group of folk from “the other side of the tracks,” as we might say today, and they had real, human needs; and there was a genuine sense of familial fellowship among them, possibly fanned into “warm heart” flames by the spreading experience from Pentecost. Their focus was on their common relationship with the Risen Lord, and the newly minted, “internally synthesized” Holy Spirit. Material possessions took on even less meaning than they already had to a generally low-income people. Survival was more necessary than “keeping up with the Joneses.” As a consequence, the early “house church” movement shared resources, selling possessions they no longer “worshipped” so the resulting funds could be pooled for the common good in their fellowship. Less understanding, critical folk might label this “Communism,” but it was almost the opposite of that. These early believers offered their goods for the collective benefit of all willingly, and the effort had nothing to do with power, governance, or territorialism. Unfortunately, this “experiment” in faith-inspired sharing was short-lived, with little evidence it persisted much beyond the first century. There could have been many reasons for this beyond the rebound of selfishness. Remember that there were cultural practices such as wedding dowries in that day, and “giving away” possessions or funds that were meant to be part of a young woman’s “hope chest” could have contributed to the demise of collectivism. Protection of familial property could have been another. And remember that the powers-that-be taxed land, like they do today, and since they had no easy way to tax bartering or land sales, they would have looked askance at these practices by Christians, offering yet another reason to ramp up persecution on them. Of course, once the “novelty” of such open sharing wore off, human nature and our tendency toward pessimism probably crept in, too. Like modern Republicans who seem always to see any form of public assistance for those trapped in poverty as a “handout,” and who want to force recipients of taxpayer-funded aid like Medicaid to “work” for it, early Christians who “had” may have begun to develop resentment for those who brought far less to the shared “pot,” and who seemed to be taking advantage of them.

 

We really don’t know what happened to end the practice of volunteer sharing like this we read about in Acts 2, but what we do know is that very soon after, the Apostle Paul was doing a lot of fundraising to support the church and his missionary travels. The need to now ask church members for money to support ministry began the church’s migration from “organism” to organization. Another element in this progression was the development of a leadership hierarchy. Other places in the Book of Acts offer accounts of Paul’s interaction with the “Jerusalem Council,” made up of Peter and some of the other apostles. And the movement from the house church into larger, designated worship and ministry facilities—what we call “churches” today—also nudged the church to a more “business-like” model of function. Obviously, our modern churches ARE run more like businesses, with larger ones even hiring professional administrators or “business managers” to oversee operations. Government oversight, while kept at a minimum in the United States, has still increased, necessitating some form of informed management. We United Methodists even ordain our Elders to word, sacrament, and ORDER, recognizing the need for learned leadership. 

 

The lectionary passage from Acts this weekend makes this period of the budding church seem so romantic and ideal. The early believers “spent their day” in the temple worshipping God and “breaking bread” around the common table with “glad and generous hearts.” The account also leads one to the conclusion that it was this “Primrose Lane” vision of the church that attracted new converts as “the Lord added to their numbers.” Is it any wonder that countless “New Testament” idealists have tried, over the centuries, to rebirth this vision of the church? Mostly to no great success, of course, especially in our day and our country, which is firmly ensconced in the capitalistic way of life. Beyond very tiny pockets of “house churches” that have succeeded, from time to time, more of these efforts than we’d like to admit descended into cultism, with adherents being “fleeced” by charismatic leaders who eventually self-destructed or wound up behind bars!

 

So, what are we left with? Today, the Christian church is more like a department store, with various “competitors” (Walmart, Target, Macys—Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics…). And the “product” they offer is just as diverse, and designed to bring in new “customers.” Some of the mega-warehouse churches almost mirror the bulk stores like Costco or Sam’s Club! This is not all bad news. Our contemporary culture understands this model and deals with it every day in their secular living. That their chosen church mirrors the system they are used to makes it comfortable for them, providing little discord. Also, that the “quality” of the church and the effectiveness of its ministry is proportionally “rewarded” by its members as reflected in their giving, fits our Western cultural model. We may decry this, but it “works.” Even as our worship styles have evolved over the centuries to find an audience in each generation, so the model of church administration and financing has, as well. The worst of the “news” about the church’s lot today is that, as many of them have fallen behind this cultural “taste” of younger people, they have abandoned it, leaving many of our small, community churches less “marketable,” and struggling to survive. Independent ones just close when they lose critical mass, while denominational “branch” churches may be buoyed and sustained by the denomination. 

 

As a pastor who, during my long career, tried to keep my churches viable and growing—meaning I and my fellow staff persons had to be constantly studying and applying lessons about what people were looking for in a “home church”—I would share several observations I hope you find helpful:

 

·      No matter what style of governance, worship, or sitz im leben a church may employ or find itself in, if it is centered on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and focused on prayer and biblical, spiritual disciplines, it CAN be empowered and led by the Holy Spirit. No one has a “corner” on this. Some will argue that the Holy Spirit only “shows up” for the most hip, up to date models of church, while others advocate that only those who have stayed with the Apostle’s Creed or maintained “traditional” doctrines have a corner on the “genuine” Holy Spirit. Both are wrong, or right, as the case may be. 

 

·      There is no going back to the “New Testament church.” The only way to reclaim the “movement” aspect of that day is to go FORWARD, not backward. While the Good News of Jesus Christ doesn’t change, the ways we communicate it must, as also must the sociology and psychology we employ to relate it to the lives of people in our time, especially the skeptical, younger ones. 

 

·      A given church must study its setting and community context. What are the needs of the people around you? What is necessary in order to meet them? Can your church afford to do ministry as a “station,” or would it do well to band together with other local churches to meet the scope of need you see? There is no magic “system” a church may “buy into” and implement that will instantly turn it into a vital congregation, and no pastor gifted or “charismatic” enough to rescue a struggling church in a receding community. 

 

·      Churches in thriving, suburban settings would do well to mirror the benevolence of the early church by “partnering” with smaller or older urban churches, either of which may be struggling to survive on their own. The “healthy” church may infuse new life into the ailing congregation, while the heritage and setting of the urban or “neighborhood” congregation may offer opportunities for more diverse or ethnic ministry, something usually “missing” in predominantly white, suburban churches.

 

·      There are times when the most “Christian” response smaller, struggling churches can make is to hold a funeral, put their church to rest, and join with another congregation that offers more “bang for their buck” in terms of ministry (as opposed to every dollar they give just trying to keep their outdated building from falling down). Selling their building may raise important dollars for ministry in the adopted setting, or may be used by the denomination to plant a new congregation where one may thrive.

 

·      Churches, like people, need to find a “niche.” Most modern churches are surrounded by OTHER churches, some much larger and others smaller, some that have feeding programs for the needy, while others have exploding youth programs. Examine this reality, and see if there is an area of needed ministry that is not being addressed. Maybe the Holy Spirit is leading YOUR church to embark on such a ministry? Don’t just duplicate what others are already doing well. Also, if yours is a denominational church, your judicatory office may have local demographics for your zip codes (our Western PA Conference of the UMC does). You should look these over, as they may offer strong clues as to what the local needs may be.

 

Let me say a word about endowments and trusts. There are those who resist forming endowment funds or designated trusts for churches, but in our time, these are almost essential, especially for ministries that own buildings and property. First of all, I have seen a serious sea change in the motivation for church giving over the past twenty years or so. My generation—the “Baby Boomers”—may be the end of the “bricks and mortar” givers. Our generation and those older LOVED to give to church building programs, new additions, and remodeling projects. Our giving to support church staffs, evangelism efforts, Christian education, and worship ministries was secondary to the “bricks and mortar” needs. The only exception to this rule was that, if we were raised in a mission-minded church, we maintained an interest in giving to missions, especially “overseas” ministries. However, the younger generations have done almost a 180 degree shift in giving priorities, making supporting current ministries, youth programs, and social justice outreach their highest priority. They actually DON’T like to give to bricks and mortar needs, any more than they absolutely HAVE to. Case in point: St. Paul’s UMC, the last church I served, has an INCREDIBLY ambitious agenda of community ministry, youth and children’s ministries, and outreach, which are well-supported by its largely younger congregation. However, driving into the parking lot of its “campus”-sized facility is like entering a minefield. The potholes rival anything on the post-Winter Pennsylvania roads! If we were an OLDER congregation, fund-raising for repaving the parking lot would have been job one. Since it is NOT populated mostly by Boomers and older, that is not the highest priority for its financial resources.

 

The role of endowments and trusts, going forward, will be to provide investment funds to fix, repair, and sustain property, while the younger church members predominantly give to ministry and programs. Churches that don’t have such invested funds will struggle with the declining “health” of their property. There is great good news though, for churches just starting out to build an endowment—most of the funds that will be used to build them will come from bequests. With such an emphasis on “saving for retirement” and wealth-building during working careers coming at us from almost every angle, and none any stronger than what we hear from organizations like Forbes, Money Magazine, or the AARP, more of our people will have residual funds and wills. The church should have an on-going campaign to remind its members to put their church in their estate plan. As a pastor, I heard many church members make “excuses” as to why they couldn’t meet the biblical idea of “tithing” (giving 10% of income). I made it my practice to suggest that they at least put the church in for 10% of their estate, an idea that many later adopted. If your church has gone through the necessary steps to create an endowment committee and a formal endowment fund or funds, members may be assured that the “system” is in place that will protect their estate gift, and even assure that it will perpetually be available as part of a protected principal or core fund. Another “pitch” I used to make to church members when doing their estate plan was to take stock of how much they gave their church, annually, and then put a large enough gift for the church in their estate plan, that when invested, would give an annual return equal to what they GAVE when alive. This, too, was a kind of “Ah-HA” idea for a number of church members. On the sad side, I was often disappointed when a member who was a perpetual, generous giver, who obviously had considerable financial means, passed into eternity and the church received nothing from the dissolution of their estate. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t because they waned in generosity from life to death, but it happened because no one ever pitched the idea to them of putting their church in their estate plan. 

 

After 36 years of church ministry, I continue to be VERY passionate about the local church and its place in building the Kingdom of God through Christian evangelism, mission and ministry, and interfaith involvement. The “system” we have evolved for ministry requires funding, and creative funding, at that. My attempt in this message was to make the “leap of faith” from the “house churches” of Acts 2 to the organization of the contemporary church, without losing the passion of the Gospel and the possibility for Holy Spirit empowerment. Again, to be more like the early church disciples, we must look FORWARD, not backward, and this means redefining what it means to “have all things in common.” We have in common our living Lord Jesus Christ, the indwelling of God’s Spirit, a “home church” where we can nurture our own families and our spiritual life, and a passion for ministry that can change the world. We have in common a desire to be more diverse, as congregations, to attract and serve younger church members, and to keep our facilities in good order so they are assets to ministry and not liabilities. We have in common the responsibility of providing for the temporal, fiscal needs of our home church. And we have in common the reality that we will all pass from this life someday, and I’m guessing we all want to “leave a mark,” too. Planned giving may be one way we can do this. 

 

My wife and I are having our wills updated even as I write this message. We are certainly not wealthy people, hoping to instead have saved enough and provided enough to sustain us through our “old age” so our two children don’t have to worry about us. However, it is very possible we will have residual funds after we pass into eternity, between savings and life insurance. And since our children have done well for themselves, we are going to leave any residual funds to our church, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (for the two degrees I got there that totally resourced my ministry), and the United Methodist college both of our children attended, and that gave them so much. Even if these estate gives wind up being more symbolic than substantial, we want to be a positive example to other generous Christian people. 

 

This message has sought also to address the kind of “where the rubber meets the road” issues that the church often struggles to address, unless it finds itself in crisis. The early Christians of Acts had in common the priority of carving out a life that glorified and served the Risen Lord Jesus Christ. May we hold in common the same aim, Dear Ones. Amen!