Throughout the history of the church there have been movements which have sought to restore the purity of early Christian practices. In our day we hear much of a call to a simple lifestyle that will release more resources for the work of the church. This is based on an understanding of the Bible that emphasizes our role as God’s stewards. There is another stream of economic understanding running through church history which holds that the biblical way to live as Christians is through joint ownership of goods. The most common example is the communal life of the church in Jerusalem after Pentecost (Acts 2:44–45; 4:34–35). Saxby has provided a study of not only the biblical base for communal living, but also a brief historical survey of the major experiments in putting this system into practice.
In surveying the biblical material, Saxby finds the case for communal living in the OT by reference to the provision of manna in the wilderness and the Jubilee. But these are really hints, the main argument being from the example of Jesus and the disciples. The principles of the common life and the common purse are seen as foundational. ‘All alike must obey and renounce all things, following the example of the Lord who owned nothing but lived out of a common purse, relying on the promise of a faithful God to bestow on his people (corporately) all that he knows they need’ (p. 49).
As Saxby further explores the biblical material he confesses that ‘while community of goods is indeed difficult to trace textually, it is nevertheless apparent spiritually and theologically’ (p. 52). This seems to be no solution since it is difficult to see how something as central as this is not mentioned textually. Saxby finds a Pauline principle of liberality in stewardship the dominant theme of the epistles. Here there is no common purse but rather private ownership that recognizes the need to share with others. The reason Saxby gives for this theological deviation is the real threat of persecution which made communal living impossible.
In the historical survey, the Constantian solution is seen as a disaster for true religion. Saxby then chronicles the dissenters who sought to follow the Lord in wholehearted obedience. Naturally the monastic movement features prominently up to the Reformation. This reviewer found the descriptions of the communal groups very interesting, but sad because in every case the initial impulse faded after time and the purpose turned from the initial aims. Saxby is to be commended for his honest portrayal of the problems these groups faced.
He concludes his book with a section that this reviewer found to be the most useful part: an analysis of why so many communal settlements failed to survive and how communities need to be organized to avoid the pitfalls that doomed others. This section will be useful to those planning a communal experience, but it is also a useful tool for researchers who would study these social experiments.
While the exegetical base that would find this the pattern for all Christian living is decidedly lacking, nevertheless, the communal experience has been a positive force in both the history of the church and in the lives of many who participated in it. Like many other facets of church history, the problem arises when the form continues but the impetus (often a strong leader) and power have disappeared.
Avila’s book arises out of his experiences with the poor peasants in the Philippines. His arguments revolve around the evolution of large estates owned by one family and worked by tenant farmers. Avila identifies this problem arising in the Roman Empire. By using a historical example, he defuses the resistance that might be felt when one discusses current situations. It also provides him with the opportunity to cite extensive patristic quotations dealing with the subject. Respected theologians like Chrysostom and Augustine are used to condemn the abuses of wealth and privilege.
The texts (which are reproduced in the original Greek or Latin in a 35-page Appendix) are very powerful and well worth studying for the church today. The texts reproduced and commented on by Avila are mainly sermons and one wonders how these words would be received today. In terms of the distinction discussed above between community of goods and liberal stewardship of possessions, the latter is mostly evident. However, the witness of communal life is not missing, being very strongly attested in the works of Basil the Great, Augustine and Chrysostom.
The overall impression is that Avila has proved his point that the church fathers quoted indeed call for sharing and even restitution of wealth to the poor. Avila then goes on to make a case for the need for sweeping social reforms which would restore not only land but all means of production to the ownership of all. While it is clear that he has proved the first half of his thesis, that Christians have a duty to share the blessings they receive from God, it is not quite so clear that all society can be equated with the people of God and that the reforms he seeks, while good and indeed in many cases necessary, are the fulfilment of the gospel.
A comparison of these two books demonstrates the different conclusions that can be derived from essentially the same body of evidence. Saxby specifically warns against trying to reform the whole world. This he sees as a reason for the failure of some of the communal societies. On the other hand Avila specifically extends the patristic formulations to cover all societies. Those interested in the question of the Christian and property would do well to read both these books.
