The Commons - Introduction of a Christian Theme

Thinking about the Commons

Part One:

“There’s nothing here? Let’s move on!”

Written by Dan McDonald

 

{“And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their provisions and goods and distributed them to all as any had need.”  – Acts 2:44-45

 “ There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands and homes sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made as any had need.” – Acts 4:34-35}

            These descriptions of the early church in Jerusalem pooling together their resources into common property resulting in no needy person in their midst seem idyllic. In my Evangelical background these verses are seldom contemplated. It can be typical for them to be explained away, not with Biblical arguments, but with American experience. The story is told how the Pilgrims after landing on Plymouth Rock tried to hold everything in common. The experiment failed. They then divided their common property into privately held properties and this resulted in abundance and an American Gospel. These verses describing the early church in Jerusalem found their place in marginalized foot notes.

            This is mostly a Protestant (but not all Protestants) response to these verses. We Protestants could dismiss an entire history of how Christians applied these passages in ancient and medieval times. We seldom considered the writings or practices of Christians in eras before the Protestant Reformation taught us to see truth as beginning with an acceptance of Sola Scriptura.

            It seems that we need to regain an appreciation for how ancient and medieval Christians applied these verses describing the Church of Jerusalem’s pooling together of resources. They did not seek to simply copy a method of practice. Instead they sought to apply the principle of pooling property in common in a way that made sense to how they lived within their own European settings.

            The closest thing to copying of the practice shown in these verses, was done in connection to a monastic call. Monasteries were generally joined voluntarily by adults willing to forego marriage and the necessities called forth in ordinary family living. But the idea of having a common life and common properties became embedded in the societal institutions of the Christianized ancient and medieval world.

            The early and medieval Christians began recognizing “common properties” alongside personally held private property. In English history some of these considerations could be seen clashing with King John's desire to expand the powers of his monarchy. When King John was forced to agree at Runnymede that the king was not above the law, he was agreeing that the law was something "common" over all. He also agreed at the time that the poor had a right to forage for necessities in the "common lands" that were owned in common by the peoples of the realm. Our perceptions of the Robin Hood legends are incomplete without a realization that there was a clash between the ideas of a divine right king with absolute powers and the rights of a people with access to the commons. The commons were intended to protect the poor from being separated from their ability to obtain the necessities of life.

A modern forager in the UK. See accompanying article.

 

            Our own understanding of what is known as the British House of Commons probably needs transformed by a greater awareness of “commons” thinking. It wasn’t just that the House of Commons came to represent the common or “everyday” folk. Rather the House of Commons became the body that gave consent to the royal government’s request for taxation which resulted in the creation of monies for the king's use of "the common purse.” The medieval European was aware of the distinction between private and common properties. It became especially an English principle of government that those who were taxed to provide funding for the common purse would be represented by representatives in giving assent to the creation and distribution of the common purse.

            I would recommend watching this video where Nathan Schneider and Elizabeth Bruenig (Elizabeth Stoker at the time of the conversation) discuss a number of varying topics within Christian thinking. It was through this conversation that I began to think about the importance of the “commons” after a lifetime in which I had never given so much as a passing thought to the commons.

            In days ahead I hope to present some blogs on this theme from some different points of perspective, drawn from Scriptural themes. In order for you to gather your own thoughts in preparation for these articles I will describe a few things to be considered in these blogs. We will consider how the doctrine of the Trinity with its emphasis on God as one unity and three persons suggests that for man created in his image there would be both individualized and corporate dimensions of activity. We will consider how God retained ownership of the land in the times of Israel even after the dividing of the land into family holdings. Within Israel each landholder was expected to set aside a portion of his property for use by the poor and needy. We will also consider the implications of the Lord's Supper wherein we come as once baptized members within the body of Christ to partake of Christ as an entire body. It is my hope that by considering these perspectives we will see that the viewpoint that these Jerusalem "common property" verses far from being texts with nothing here so let's move on, are actually descriptions of principles being applied which are essential to the life of the Christian faith.