The first time I noticed and took interest in this morning's Second Lesson, from the book of the Acts of the Apostles, was during a meeting of the Sunday evening high school youth group to which I belonged in Chicago, Illinois.
This particular Sunday evening occurred during the autumn of 1953. Some of you can perhaps remember back to that time. I was then 14 years old and a "PK"—that is, a "Preacher's Kid." You see, my father was the pastor of that church.
Now, from your history courses, you may recall that in January, 1953, the Republican Party regained control of both the White House and the Congress, and after that hearings were swiftly launched in the Senate by a certain man from the state of Wisconsin named Joseph McCarthy. That's right. Our Fall, 1953, Bible study came right in the midst of the so-called "McCarthy Era."
Anyway, as I said, these verses from the book of Acts were read during our youth group's Sunday evening worship service, and then, as was the custom, the seminary student acting as our group's advisor, and chaperone, undertook the unenviable task of trying to get 15 or so high-school students to discuss that night's passage.
He asked for volunteers to read again any verses that most interested us and to share a few personal reflections. I shot my hand into the air, like the obnoxious, know-it-all kind of PK I was, and I proceeded to read verses 44 and 45 from the King James Bible that the Sunday School had presented to me when I was 8 years old, and that for the first time in many years I am once again holding in my hand today. I read: "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
I next offered my few words of mischievous reflection, and then, just as I had anticipated, a firestorm broke out. A raging debate ensued. Yes, on that particular night, at least, our seminary student had no trouble keeping us teenagers interested in Bible study. Indeed, the reverberations from that evening's hot topic were to echo throughout the congregation for a number of weeks to come, much to my father's annoyance! Now, I can't remember the exact words that I spoke on that night some 52 years ago, but they went something like this: "Since those first-century Christians believed in holding everything in common they were obviously Communists!"
Well, as my father was quick to instruct me, those first Christians were not Communists. They weren't motivated by Marxist economics or hostility to religion, and they certainly weren't organized in a totalitarian fashion. Still, those first Christians were revolutionary, and they were radical in their prescriptions for society. For those very first Christians did believe that the ideal human community would be one in which all barriers of class were torn down, one in which all the available spiritual and material resources were shared in common, one in which all goods and possessions were distributed among persons on the basis of need. Yes, that ideal human community of theirs would look far, far different from our own society here in the United States, whether in 1953 or today.
You see, this text from the Acts of the Apostles espouses an economics that's quite different from capitalism, an economics that's not at all market-driven, an economics that I and others call "covenant-with-God-and-neighbor" economics—the kind spoken of in the Old Testament by Moses and the prophets, the kind of economics that believes that none of the material things we have are truly our own, the kind of economics that sees everything we have as belonging to God and as being on loan to us from God so that we can share them with our neighbors and use them not for our own self-interest but for God's purposes. It is this "covenant-with-God-and-neighbor" economics that is described for us in the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 15 (vss. 1, 7-8, 10-11). So I invite you to turn to p. 190 in the OT section of your pew Bibles and read with me:
"(1) Every seventh year you shall grant a remission of debts...." Wow! Wouldn't it be nice if credit card companies acted on that theology?
[Now, let's skip down to vs. 7.] "(7) If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. (8) You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be...." [And now let's go to vs. 10] "(10) Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. (11) Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, 'Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.'" Beautiful!
Now, the early Christian community sought to go even a step beyond the "covenant" economics of ancient Israel. In the early Christian community, the poor were not to be aided by loans (even this kind of loan, which was to be forgiven and wiped out every seventh year). Rather, the poor were to be aided by the even more radical step of selling one's property and sharing the receipts therefrom with the poor. Turn with me now to the NT section of your pew Bibles, to Acts, chapter 4, verse 32. You'll find it on p. 126:
"(32) Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. (33) With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. (34) There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. (35) They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need."
You see, "covenant-with-God-and-neighbor" economics emphasizes the mutual sharing of economic burdens and benefits. "Covenant" economics establishes for the community the principle "Enough is best; share the rest"—a principle that's far, far different from our own contemporary slogan: "More is better." You see, "covenant" economics takes as its model God's own example of generosity toward humankind—the generosity to which this morning's First Lesson offers such gracious testimony. For there, in John 10:10, Jesus proclaims to us, "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." Now, that's generosity!
And in II Corinthians 8 (vss. 1-3, 9), the apostle Paul reminds us that it is in fact Jesus's generosity to us that becomes our basis for knowing that we are to be generous toward others. Please turn to p. 192 in the NT section of your pew Bibles, and read along with me:
"(1) We want you to know, brothers and sisters, about the grace of God that has been granted to the churches of Macedonia; (2) for during a severe ordeal of affliction, their abundant joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. (3) For, as I can testify, they voluntarily gave according to their means, and even beyond their means..." [And now skip to the next column, vs. 9.] "For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich."
Which means: Jesus became poor (that is, he offered his life), so that we may become rich (that is, we may come to have everlasting life). And precisely because of Jesus's supreme generosity toward us, we know that we are called to be generous toward others.
Now, did the early Church ever in fact achieve its ideal of "covenant" economics—its ideal of sharing all things in common? Well, Justin Martyr, a leader of the mid-2nd century church, claimed that they did. It was he who said (Apology 14:2-3): "We who once coveted most greedily the wealth and fortune of others, now place in common the goods we possess, dividing them with all the needy."
But the truth of the matter is that most communities in the early church did not fully actualize the radical economics they idealized.
Still, those early Christians did record this radical ideal of theirs in Scripture, and they did seek to live toward that goal, even if they did not fully attain it. So even if early Christians did not in fact share all things in common, they nonetheless proved to be very generous at sharing their wealth with one another and very good at turning their money over to be used for advancing the purposes of God and the well-being of the wider human community.
Let's look at the example of living out "covenant" economics that's given to us in Acts, chapter 11, where money is raised for foreign famine relief. You'll find the passage on p. 136, and I read at verse 28:
"(28) One of [those prophets who had come to Antioch] named Agabus stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine over all the world; and this took place during the reign of Claudius. (29) The disciples determined that according to their ability, each would send relief to the [brothers and sisters] in Judea; (30) this they did, sending it to the elders by Barnabas and Saul." "Covenant" economics!
As for the principle, "Enough is best; share the rest," listen now to the only saying of Jesus that's given to us outside of the four gospels. It's the apostle Paul who's here spoken of as quoting Jesus, and you'll find this passage in Acts, chapter 20. That's on p. 147, and I read at verse 34. Paul says:
"(34) You know for yourselves that I worked with my own hands to support myself and my companions. (35) In all this I have given you an example that by such work we must support the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, for he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
So all of these biblical texts lead me this morning to place before our community of faith here at the Rutgers Church a challenge—the challenge to work toward adopting in our own lives a "covenant-with-God-and-neighbor" economics, toward adopting in our own lives the principle: "Enough is best; share the rest."
But that of course raises the question, "What is 'enough'?" Well, you all need to answer that for yourselves. But herewith, some thoughts.
As a congregation, we're currently at what might be called "a 78% solution." That is, we've said that we can live on just 78% of our church income and that we'll give the rest of it to people beyond our walls. And we're heading eventually toward a 69% solution, for we've said that by the year 2010 we can live on just 69% of our church income and that we'll give the rest of it for outreach.
That's the church's situation. But what about each of us individually? How do we make our personal decisions about how much is "enough" for our own needs and how much is available to each of us to give away to others? Well, to start off our discussion, let me suggest the concept of "a 90% solution." Let me suggest that unless we're unemployed or living on quite a small fixed stipend, each of us probably only needs 90% of our income, that each of us can probably learn to live on just 90% of what we get. And in saying this, I'm simply putting into somewhat different words the quite biblical principle called "the tithe"—the principle that says: live on 90%, and give away 10% for others.
So this morning, I am challenging us to begin putting ourselves on the path toward achieving the early church's ideal of "covenant" economics by committing ourselves to sharing a full 10% of our gross income with others. And I am therefore challenging us to begin today to make the kind of lifestyle changes that can help us to live more simply and to share more liberally.
Now, most of us have just filled in and filed our 2004 tax forms. I know I got mine into the mail only last Tuesday night, and I bet at least a few of you were making the trip to the post office as recently as Friday evening! Anyway, those of us who itemize our deductions probably have pretty freshly in our minds a rather exact figure for the "Gifts to Charity" (Schedule A) that we made last year.
So let me ask you, "Was your figure for 'Gifts to Charity' (Schedule A, line 18) a full 10% of your 'total income' (Form 1040, line 22), or was it at least 10% of your 'adjusted gross income' (Form 1040, line 36)?" And if your gifts did not total 10%, let me invite you in 2005 to move farther along the biblical path toward the tithe, toward "a 90% solution." And if your gifts did total 10% or more, then let me say, "Don't stop there! Strive next to achieve 'an 85% solution,' as you continue to grow into the understanding that: 'Enough is best; share the rest.'"
You see, everything that we have is on loan from God and is to be used for God's purposes. In response to God's call to live more simply and to share more liberally, the early Christians idealized the principle, "All things in common." Only a few of those early Christians actually achieved this radical, life-transforming ideal. Still, many other early Christians, as they strove toward that ideal, did at least follow the principle "Enough is best; share the rest." Indeed, I believe that most early Christians took with utmost seriousness the biblical concept "live on 90%; give away 10%." And I believe that many early Christians attained in their lives the goal of a double tithe, "an 80% solution," or even a triple tithe, "a 70% solution."
So, in response to God's generosity to us in Christ, let's start out with the goal of a 90% solution. And then we'll move on from there. Since this isn't even Stewardship Sunday—for that comes in November—you can probably anticipate that I'll have a few more thoughts on this subject then!
Let us pray:
O Christ, Your generosity knew no bounds, for You gave for us even Your life . May we be inspired by Your example. Give us the grace ever more fully to commit both ourselves and our resources to Your purpose, so that the whole of humankind will have well-being. Amen.