The Early Church: Acts 4:32–37

Good morning, dear friends,

Do you actually know how many idioms used today originate from the Bible? No? Neither do I. And neither does the AI. In any case, there are hundreds, it says. Today, we’ll start with a little test. I bet no one will get this right 😊.

Which of these proverbs does NOT come from the Bible? (Slide 1). Let me give you a little hint (Slide 2). Okay, and now another question—let’s see who was just paying attention. Which idiom is found in the scripture passage suggested for this Sunday? This passage is found in Acts 4:32–37.

Exactly: to be one heart and soul. And this idiom is so common that a very well-known German TV sitcom from the 70s (the older ones among us will remember) was named after it (“Ein Herz und eine Seele”). I think back then there were only about three television channels... No, I’m not going to show you a clip now; I’ll spare everyone the sight of “Ekel Alfred” (Nasty Alfred) sitting at the kitchen table in his undershirt and suspenders. Back then, the series fit the era perfectly (the rebellion of youth against petit-bourgeois stuffiness), but today it probably wouldn’t fly at all.

Be that as it may... I will read today’s suggested scripture passage from Acts 4:32–37:

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas, a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

1. One Heart and Soul

Our text describes the absolute beginning of the early Christian congregation in Jerusalem. Pentecost, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and with it the birth of the Christian church, had just occurred. The disciples were completely transformed and “inspired” in the truest sense of the word. This enthusiasm had a radiant power that infected others.

That is always the case at the beginning of a movement. Everyone looks in the same direction toward a common goal and is ready to give everything for it. I don’t want to compare our church planting in 2014 with the founding of the early church by any stretch—that would be presumptuous. Not nearly everyone here today experienced it back then, and that is a very good thing, otherwise we wouldn’t be evolving. But those who were there might remember: the excitement, the new church, the old passing away, embarking on an exciting future with many uncertainties. We were “one heart and soul” with a great shared goal.

Meanwhile, we have become well-established. We have no major conflicts—as far as I know—thank God. But always “one heart and soul”? We certainly aren’t that. That is an absolute state of exception under very special initial conditions in any group of people. It is not the norm.

Where people gather, human nature naturally gets in the way. There are the conscientious ones, who always take everything very precisely, where every formulation must be just right. There are the steady ones, who find conflict difficult to tolerate and therefore often struggle to resolve it well. The active, initiative-seeking people need a lot of variety, lots of new things, and have ideas that they often don’t follow through to completion. The dominant ones can lead the way where good leaders are needed, but sometimes they just aren’t quite as “flexible.” I have just made a very brief reference to the so-called DISC personality profile. I think it is highly worth taking a closer look at it; it helps immensely in developing understanding for one another.

Wherever people are involved with their whole heart and commitment in long-term communities, they cannot always be one heart and soul. Different personality types always come together. You get to know each other well in such groups, and with that, you also get to know your “anti-types.” It is exactly the same in a free church. What type are you? And which other types give you a hard time?

What we need in the church is not “one heart and soul,” but rather many individual wide hearts and wide souls. This means a lot of tolerance and sibling love for different personality types and different spiritual approaches to our Lord. Not everyone has to build an equally close relationship with everyone else, either. It is allowed to be a colorful network of hearts and souls. In this mesh, some “loops” are tighter than others.

In his enthusiasm, Luke describes “one heart and soul” as the ideal state. But the very next text makes it clear that even in the early church, it didn’t last long. More on that later. Yet, it is good that he writes it this way for us. In doing so, he admonishes us to work on our own “heart expansion” so that we can maintain a good togetherness in our community. We should see brothers and sisters who tick differently as an enrichment. What can you learn from the person who seems a bit “strange” to you?

2. Community of Goods

Complete community of goods. No private property? Can something like this even work? Can we imagine this nowadays in our form of society? It can work in small communities. Even today, there are intentional communities that live with shared goods. However, I believe it is not always easy. Many communities have failed because of it. Back then, it really seemed to work, at least for a short time. People actually sold their belongings and brought the proceeds into the community.

The very early church lived with an “imminent expectation.” They anticipated the prompt return of Christ during their lifetimes and thought they wouldn’t need many of their things anymore. Their actions were completely logical, consistent, and by no means naive. It testified to their firm faith, a slice of which we could certainly take for ourselves today. But the deep desire for private property was the exact reason why things quickly went awry with the “one heart and soul” ideal in the following passage.

There, we are told that Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of land and only gave the church a portion of the proceeds. Yet they claimed it was the full amount. The fact that they kept something for themselves was not the problem; Peter makes that very clear. They could have easily kept all of it. There was no obligation to give the money away. It was their dishonesty, the lie, that became their undoing. Obviously, the temptation of private property was too great. Complete community of goods, on a long-term basis, evidently does not work very well.

But we shouldn’t lean back and dismiss the text too quickly. No, the Bible doesn’t make it that easy for us. Let’s look at why they did it this way. What was the goal?

3. No Needy Persons

That was the goal, and that is what we too should focus on. Back then, they were able to achieve this in the short term through the community of goods. But a sold field yields nothing in the long run, and soon everyone is in need again.

I would argue that most of us are doing quite well financially, if not very well. But do we know if there is financial need right here in our congregation? I don’t know. Would anyone even dare to say so, so that we could help, or is a situation of need too heavily associated with shame in our affluent society? “You don’t talk about money, you just have it,” says a—in my opinion—rather foolish German proverb. At least the first part is true for many, but unfortunately, the second part isn’t always. The church in Jerusalem seemed to have no problem “talking about it.”

If there are needs today, you don’t have to publish them in our Signal chat group. Instead, you could, for example, contact the leadership team, who can launch an anonymous call for help. I don’t know if by saying this about material need, I am simply preaching to the choir. That would, of course, be my hope.

But perhaps we shouldn’t limit this “and no one was in need” purely to material things. Perhaps other needs among us are greater. Let’s look at this from two perspectives:

The “I need help” perspective: Would you want to, and would you dare to, reveal your need or your requirement for support? Could you formulate concretely what would help you? Sometimes it might be very small, one-time things. Support would be very helpful, but you’d rather not ask because you don’t want to burden anyone. As the saying goes: “People who speak up can be helped.” Usually, that’s true.

Yes, it can also happen that the help cannot be fully provided, depending on the situation. It may be that brothers and sisters reach their limits, time-wise or otherwise, especially when it comes to long-term help that cannot be permanently promised. In those cases, an open conversation without a guilty conscience is necessary. Perhaps alternative, collective solutions can be found together? But if we don’t know about the need in the first place, it is inherently impossible to offer support.

The “I might be able to help” perspective: Do I have an eye for who might need support? I believe this depends heavily on your personality type and your own background. One person might have no radar for it at all and genuinely needs to be asked directly. Another person always sees the need but cannot always help, which quickly plagues them with a guilty conscience—which isn’t helpful either. Which personality type are you? In which direction should you perhaps move? Is there perhaps a healthy middle ground between these two extremes for you?

I’ll return to the community of goods, which I dismissed very quickly above with “that doesn’t work today.” Actually, in one specific area, we do practice it. We live it out as a free church. This is a very good thing, and hopefully, it will continue to work.

Our entire church is funded together on a voluntary basis, so to speak, in a community of goods. One person gives more, another gives less, depending on what is possible. And no one has to leave the service before the sermon because they only paid for the first half. Everyone is allowed to stay until after the blessing. No one is denied coffee afterward because their church contribution was already used up by financing the service. At most, it would be because nobody made the coffee beforehand 😉...

So, at this point, please bear with me as the assistant treasurer inserts a little commercial break. No, I do not want to counteract Michael’s last sermon on the topic “Never enough? Actually, it is enough!” Perhaps you remember? Yes, it is enough. We are getting by well and have always closed the year with a small surplus because the “community of goods” works here without anyone having to sell their “field” yet. Hopefully, this will continue to be possible in the future. That’s why my commercial break here isn’t: “Please everyone give more now, or we’ll go broke.” No. But take the following thought with you for the future (I had formulated this so beautifully, but my domestic sermon inspection team said: “Nobody will understand that, say it clearly!”). Alright, then:

The church’s expenses are rising slowly but steadily due to inflation and standard salary increases. But our private income is also rising through collective agreements or pension adjustments. Therefore, it would be wonderful if, in the medium term, donations to the church could also increase to keep the balance between income and expenses stable.

4. Charity

The early church practiced generosity first within their own community. With that, their capacities were probably exhausted. After all, possessions already had to be sold.

Today, we live in an affluent society. The spirit of the times is partly characterized by looking out more and more for oneself—self-optimization in various aspects. The internet and social media flood us with advertisements for more and more things we supposedly need. I always like to claim: about 90% of all the junk on the market is completely useless to anyone... alright, I’ll let you bargain me down to 85% if you absolutely must, but no further.

On the other hand, our society is still functioning halfway because there are an immense number of social initiatives, projects, and charitable organizations—even supported by the state. There are campaigns like “Germany Helps” and—what I think is the most brilliant idea ever—the “WDR Christmas Miracle” charity campaign. These projects exist because there are people who are generous and fund them. Generosity, where possible, not only makes the recipient happy but also the giver—much more than the flood of products on the internet. That is scientifically proven.

No, I don’t want to end up as a desert hermit either; I still want to treat myself to things and activities that bring me genuine joy. But today, I want to take a leaf out of the early church’s book on generosity once again and think carefully about what I really need.

Christmas always comes so suddenly... As a church, should we participate in the WDR Christmas Miracle this year with a cool campaign? What do you think? For example: for every “Amen” said here during Sunday service, everyone who wants to and is able to participate puts 2 Euros into the charity pot—starting in the second half of the year, in July? That would certainly give us a good chance of getting on the radio! Or maybe another clever idea? Should we start brainstorming now and maybe get creative in our small groups? I’d be happy to collect ideas and drive the campaign forward if it resonates with the congregation. So, think about it.

I wish us wide hearts and wide souls for our brothers and sisters in the church, as well as for those outside who tick differently than we do. I wish all of us the courage to ask for help when it is needed, and the ability to give it when we are asked. And I wish you and me the ability to place generosity and a willingness to give above less meaningful material things, even outside the church.

Amen