Volunteerism/Community of Goods

There’s a secret to successfully starting down the path toward God’s ideal. Peeter Hoover investigates the “secret” to the Anabaptist way at length in his book The Secret of the Strength: What Would the Anabaptists Tell This Generation? He suggests it was a true love for the teachings and model Jesus gave and “yieldedness” to the Spirit of God. He writes concerning community of goods and “voluntary organization.” Hoover says that,

The words of Paul in Philippians 3:10 stated distinctly the goal of the Anabaptists: “I want to know Christ, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.” The Greek word koinonia, translated “fellowship” in this verse, was always translated into the German word Gemeinschaft. To the Anabaptists, this beautiful word meant both spiritual communion and community of goods. It was the word used in Acts 2:44 and 4:32 for “all things common” (alle Dinge gemein ...es war ihnen alles gemein). It was the word they found in 1 John 1:7: “If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have Gemeinschaft one with another and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.” It was the word they used instead of “church.”

Hoover’s conclusion is that the idea of sharing out of love was very common amongst the Anabaptists, who saw it as the truest test of genuine conversion. Especially amazing in their preference for the word “gemeinschaft”—a very specific and descriptive word—to that of “church,” which has become shallow. This divorce of understanding in our modern churches of what fellowship is, might be a root cause for our neglect of answering the question, “What would Jesus do?”

Hoover himself seems to expect a community of goods demonstrated in a radical way, agreeing with Jakob Hutter, which is a conclusion far different from other Mennonites and Amish who don’t take gemeinschaft so radically. To demonstrate a slightly less radical understanding, we’ll quote extensively from the page titled “Community of Goods” available on the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online (gameo.org):

The history of this idea through the ages cannot be told here. Its practice occurred mainly on the fringe of the general church development…Anabaptists who followed the idea of discipleship and of restitution of the primitive church also developed some ideas regarding the economic side of life. Their principle of nonconformity lent itself very naturally to a nonmaterialistic, puritanical concept of life in which man is but a steward of his worldly possessions which he must be ready to share at any time with others. The emphasis upon discipleship likewise brought forth the idea of caring for others and of sharing wherever a brother is in need (liebeskommunismus). Only with the Hutterites did it also lead to a complete and nearly monastic establishment of community of goods, unique indeed within the entire history of the Christian churches on that point.

Certainly there were differences among the various Anabaptist groups throughout Europe in their understanding of “community”; yet, the ubiquitous sense of gemeinschaft flows entirely from the fount of charity and volunteerism, not coercion. No matter the expression, “community of goods” was practiced on a volunteer basis—after all, brother Paul wrote “God loveth a cheerful giver.” The Anabaptists were derided and maligned for this by their enemies who clearly worked from the top down and amassed great riches and property through their conquests.

It’s curious as to why Christoyannopolous didn’t detail more about the medieval groups in his section “Examples, Past and Present” (groups like the Hutterites, or the more recent Bruderhof). Steenwyk does a good job presenting some of the groups in some detail, giving the reader more to research for themselves. But the examples of Anabaptist groups are certainly welcome in this conversation, and more effort should be made to include their history. Again, we quote from the gameo:

Very different from the interpretation of Christian community of things temporal as expressed in the first section of this article is the position of the Hutterite brotherhoods who have been practicing full community of goods most successfully for more than 400 years (established in 1528)…

The Hutterites have a 400 year example for many who may be curious about what alternatives there might be in a world full of tyranny and inequality. Perhaps to the dismay of Evangelical Conservative voters, or Liberal Democrat activists, or even secular Anarchists, there’s another way—a truly Christ-like alternative—if you have eyes to see and ears to hear it.

Community of Goods/ Private Property

There’s still the issue of taking things to extremes. One extreme would be the “Forsake All” principle, which is the idea that when called to follow Jesus, one must abandon everything, which could mean total poverty. The other extreme, of course, is over-indulgence. It seems most Anabaptist groups of the Middle Ages understood there could be a balance, and they were taught this by Jesus. Here is what the New Testament has to say, as a whole, on private property:

Jesus called His disciples, who followed him from their boats into Capernaum. They went with Jesus to the synagogue, but then they went to the house of Simon Peter where He healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14-15). POINT: Peter retained his property and family ties, even when he answered the Messiah’s call to follow him.
Jesus called Levi, the tax collector, and then went to Levi’s house for a meal (Luke 5:27-29). POINT: Levi retained his property.
Jesus often visited Mary, Martha and Lazarus in their house (Luke 10:37-38; John 11:20). POINT: Mary, Martha, and Lazarus remained in contact with each other and retained property.
The early Jerusalem believers were “...continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house.” POINT: They kept their homes, their family relationships, and their jobs (Acts 2:46). They were, however, zealous about meeting together for fellowship. Their new friendships replaced their old, worldly ones.
Paul wrote to the Corinthians the following: “The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Prisca greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house” (1 Corinthians 16:19). See also, Acts 8:3; 16:40; 21:8; Romans 16:6-5; Colossians 4:15, 1 Timothy 5:14; 2 Timothy 1:16, Philemon 1:2; 1 Corinthians 11:34. POINT: Aquila and Prisca were deemed faithful disciples while also owning property. The emphasis wasn’t on a special “church building.” It was placed on the people...a church or assembly of believers who just-so-happened to meet in a house. The house was “common” amongst them.
Paul is our example: “For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us; for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought, but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). POINT: Paul had a job—he was occupied in work besides Gospel preaching and ministry. Paul taught that men in churches should work to sustain their families. Paul did not see the ministry as a career to retire from. He seems to value self-reliance as much as community.
Paul’s blueprint for “mutual aide”: “Let him who steals steal no longer, but rather let him labor, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need” (Ephesians 4:28). POINT: Men need to labor with their own hands with the goal of being able to help others.

In essence, the truth is that we’re to live a balanced life. Whatever we think we possess is a gift from God to be used for service in furthering his Kingdom. Our homes and business spaces should be readily available for evangelists who’re passing through, or a family who finds themselves down-and-out. Our food should be prepared in such a way that company or the needy can be nourished. Literally everything we have should be viewed in this way: a means of loving God and loving our neighbor. This requires no State approval. You simply do it out of love for your God and neighbor.

The newly called disciples Levi, Peter, Mary/ Martha/ Lazarus, and the couple Aquila and Prisca, were great examples of hospitable, giving, unselfish Kingdom-focused believers who knew that what they were blessed with in this life is intended to be used as a way to bless others and serve the Lord.

Private property it seems, in a Christo-Anarchist sense is merely a tool. Anabaptists would say, therefore, that the “community of goods” is a principle and position of humility we assume in our hearts that prepares us for action in almost any-given circumstance. How connected are we to the material possessions we’ve been given? Are we willing to depart from everything if we had to, or would we turn back like Lot’s wife, longing after the materials we left behind? These are questions the Anabaptists saw unanswered by their Protestant contemporaries.

About the Author

Nathan Moon is a house-painter because he “has a useless English degree”. More importantly, he’s a student of Jesus, which is the theme of his blog.

He hopes to one day have a small photography/movie-production company. He lives in Wisconsin with his wife and four daughters.

You can learn more about him and see his work at his website is www.anabaptistapologist.com.