One of the goals of the church in the twenty-first century is the same as it has always been, that is, to be like the church in the first century. The question, though, is: What does that really mean?

Some may think that we want to be a first century church. That is neither possible nor wise. The infant church had a number of qualities and circumstances that are impossible today. For us to be exactly like they were we first would need to get rid of our New Testaments, for they had none. Second, we'd need to rely on someone gifted by the Holy Spirit the same way the apostles were, in order to teach us. That's not going to happen, either. And I suppose we'd better learn to read and speak koine Greek.

If we are to copy the exact forms of the infant church, then we must ask ourselves which church should we emulate? Should it be Corinth with all their sensual problems? How about Galatia with their turn towards keeping the Law? And surely we don't know enough about either Philadelphia or Smyrna to feel confident we can be like them in every detail.

It seems clear enough, then, that to attempt to restore first century Christianity involves not merely copying forms but in following the principles behind the forms. Only in this way can the church be relevant in all times and all cultures, because the principles are relevant. The forms may change somewhat, depending on the time and culture, but the principles behind them do not.

Certainly some forms can remain the same while others might change. Unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine can continue unchanged, as can immersion. Yet at the same time we have no problem replacing the holy kiss with a hug or handshake, and have done away with foot washing altogether while maintaining the idea of service to one another. When we go somewhere we never walk but take a car or other means of modern transportation. As we look around us we can see all the modern signs in our churches, such as central heating and air conditioning, not to mention a sound system, electricity, and indoor plumbing. None of these things were known in the first century. But it should be obvious that restoring first century Christianity has nothing to do with any of those things.

Our mission, to be a twenty-first century church following first century principles, involves more than just following first century principles. It also involves finding all those principles to follow. In this sense the act of restoration is never really finished. We can never feel as if we have finally 'arrived.' We should always be searching the scriptures for more truth. This will require us to think, to wrestle with the scriptures, mining what we can when we can, as we grow spiritually. We cannot afford to just mindlessly accept the conclusions of the past, what was handed down to us by past generations. After all, they were just as prone to errors and mistakes as the rest of us are. We must, rather, make our faith our own by not only believing what we believe, but by being as certain as we can that the scriptures really teach what we believe. This means that we will modify, reverse, or even drop altogether certain positions or beliefs we might have from time to time as we learn more of the will of God. This is called spiritual growth, and we end up with a faith we can truly call our own, rather than one that is merely inherited.

This leads us to our text, Acts 4:32-37. Normally we tend to view these verses as a sort of prelude, setting the stage for the events of chapter five, but there are some interesting things happening here that bear a closer look. The first thing to notice is in verse 32, which states that none of the believers claimed that any of his possessions was his own, and that they all shared everything they had. Next, verse 34 states that as needs would arise various people would sell some of their lands or houses and bring the money to the apostles' feet for distribution. Finally, verses 36 and 37 show Barnabas doing this with a field he owned. He apparently wasn't the first one to do this, according to verse 34.

My question, one you may not have considered before, is simply this: Who bought Barnabas' field? More to the point, do you think the buyer was a church member or a non-church member?

It appears that the buyer had to have been a non-church member for the following reasons;

(1.) They already shared everything they owned, which presumably included their money, and

(2.) They apparently had financial needs that would come up from time to time that they couldn't meet. It would do them no good if one of their own bought Barnabas' field since they already had access to his money. They would need to sell to others outside of their church in order to bring in more money to add to what they already had. That is the only way they could increase their money. This also appears to be what is happening in Acts 2:44,45.

Although it is true that in some sense the people retained control over their own assets, either property or money, according to Acts 5:1-8, yet it is also true that they used them unselfishly for the good of the group, Acts 4:32. Since there would only be a finite amount of money available with which to relieve the poor, it would become necessary from time to time for some to liquidate their hard assets, converting it into more cash, in order to meet the needs of the needy among them. That is what verse 34 says happened.

If one of the disciples was buying up what they sold to give to the poor, such a greedy / unloving element would have been pointed out in the text as a deterrent to their good work. That would almost be a form of extortion, with someone saying he would meet the needs of the church if Barnabas would give him his field. But it is unlikely this happened since verse 32 says that they shared everything they had. If someone had the money to be able to do such a dastardly deed, then Barnabas would not have needed to sell his field in the first place, for the person could have just donated his money to the church, which is what verse 32 implies they all did. So any sales of hard assets must have been due to a lack of and need for cash.

There is a principle here, it appears, of providing goods or services to those outside of the church for the express purpose of raising church funds to be used as the church sees fit. That seems to be exactly what Barnabas did, with apparent apostolic approval. That is about as close as you can get to having a biblical example for church rummage sales, bake sales, car washes, and other fundraisers.

There are four main objections that might be raised:

(1.) There is the fact that Barnabas sold the property rather than the church selling the property. This essentially asks the question, "Are church rummage sales biblical?"

One way you can tell if a particular detail is part of the principle or not is by removing or changing the detail. If the principle remains the same then the detail is not a part of the principle but is merely part of an example demonstrating it, but not necessarily the only possible example.

The principle here is not affected by whether Barnabas sells his field directly or donates it to the church for a group sale, and so is merely a first century cultural detail of little importance beyond demonstrating a timeless principle.

This principle might have been fulfilled in countless ways by countless cultures over the last two thousand years, with perhaps very few actually sharing very many of the particular details found in Acts 4:32-37. So the question isn't, Is there a biblical example of rummage sales? The question is, Do activities like rummage sales fulfill the principle that is in Acts 4:32-37? The answer is a resounding "Yes."

And so to object to church rummage sales on the basis of Barnabas selling his field instead of donating it to the church for group sale is to confuse being a twenty-first century church following first century principles with trying to be a first century church which, as we have said, is neither possible nor wise. It substitutes the form for the principle behind it. You don't even have to know what the principle is as long as you can mindlessly copy any form you see and reject any you don't see.

Actually, the form of reasoning for this objection is the same one used by those who would condemn the use of multiple cups and Sunday School, perhaps with even stronger biblical force. So we can find ourselves arguing either with or against this form of reasoning depending on the issue. Multiple cups? Not a big deal. Sunday School? Same thing. Replacing the holy kiss with a modern handshake? No big deal. Doing away with footwashing altogether even though it has both a command and an example by Jesus Himself? No problem. But Barnabas selling his field instead of donating it for group sale? Suddenly it is a big deal. This is inconsistent, and it entirely misses the principle.

It is likely that the real difference is the fact that Barnabas made an actual sacrifice, selling a field which probably had some value, while we tend to sell only things we no longer need or want.

The next three objections have more to do with reasoning, some with the text and others with our modern culture.

(2.) One objection could be the fact that Jesus got upset by the moneychangers in the Temple in John 2:13ff. In verse 16 Jesus says, "How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" So reads the NIV. The KJV has "house of merchandise!" And so a theology developed that said that rummage sales and car washes on the church premises are wrong because we make the Lord's House a house of merchandise. But that seriously misses what was really happening at the Temple.

There was actual dishonesty going on there. These moneychangers were in the court of the Gentiles, the only part of the Temple the Gentiles were allowed to enter so they could worship, and were overcharging them for the items they needed for sacrifices, actually robbing them. That's why in Luke 19:46 Jesus said, "...but you have made it a den of robbers." This was a great hindrance to their efforts to worship God.

This has nothing to do with rummage sales. First of all, no one has ever gone to a church rummage and confused it with a worship service. Second, one would be hard pressed to even find a church rummage on a Sunday, except for the Seventh Day Adventists, who do not have rummage sales on the Sabbath. And third, no one is ever robbed or cheated at a rummage sale. You either get the deal you want or you walk away with all your money. So the point still stands, that churches who participate in these kinds of fundraisers never give any occasion where one might confuse it with the actual worship service of that church. Jesus became angry because the exact opposite happened at the Temple.

(3.) Others might object to these kinds of fundraisers because "the denominations have them, and we don't want to be like them." Guilt by association, one might say.

Was that Jesus' attitude? He constantly ate and drank with sinners. Did that mean He condoned their sins? Certainly not. So if we object to these kinds of fundraisers simply because the denominations have them then we are not thinking in a Christ-like manner. Deciding what to do or not do, based solely on what others with whom you disagree do, is merely reactionary. This is shallow thinking.

(4.) Others might object that if these kinds of fundraisers are allowed, where will it lead? Can Bingo be far behind? Once Pandora's Box is opened it can never be closed again, the argument might say.

This displays a basic mistrust of our general level of spirituality. Are we really willing to prohibit certain freedoms just because they might possibly be abused? Can we not trust our own Christian judgment in moral matters?

Summing up, we see a crucial difference between the first objection and the last three. That difference is the fact that the first objection requires a biblical precedent while the last three objections require the use of Christian judgment. And so if one can accept that the idea of rummage sales, in principle, being biblical, one might still decide that it isn't practical. This gets into an important point that Romans 14 makes, and that is that one might decide either way and still be upheld. That is what verses 3-8 mean. So the fear that if this concept is found to be biblical then one would have to participate is unfounded. This appears to be an option one can exercise if one chooses, but he is under no obligation or compulsion to do so, especially if it violates his conscience. If he chooses to be involved he will be upheld, and if he chooses not to be involved, for any number of reasons he thinks are valid, he will also be upheld. But to choose not to be involved because one thinks the idea is unbiblical ignores Acts 2:45 and 4:32-37. And some churches have chosen to participate while others have not. This should cause no breach of fellowship at all.

We will grant you that this is a small thing. But it is amazing how sometimes the smallest things can be blown all out of proportion, with major battle lines drawn. All that's needed here is a little common sense. We do not necessarily think one needs to have an example for all we do. It seems clear that Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8 and other passages sanction the use of our own Christian judgment in many unspecified areas. In fact, Paul said in Colossians 3:17, "And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." Paul is trusting them to use their own Christian judgment.

But to those who would claim that church rummage sales and car washes are unbiblical, and therefore unauthorized, we would say take another look at our passage, Acts 4:32-37, as well as Acts 2:45. As a twenty-first century church trying to follow first century principles, it appears that these kinds of fundraisers are biblical. We are allowed to do this, if we so choose. It's not required, but neither is it prohibited, and we have an example of the principle behind it happening with apostolic approval. So we have this freedom.

Finally, there are a number of benefits that can be gained from these kinds of fundraisers that has very little to do with raising funds.

(1.) More of the congregation can become involved in the actual work of the church, by not only donating items for sale but also by actually running it. Teens, when involved in a car wash, may for the first time feel that they are actually contributing something, and they are. And when you contribute something, even if it is only your time, you automatically care more about it.

(2.) Those who cannot give financially as they would like can give in this way, even sacrificially, like Barnabas did, making a difference in the ability the church has in accomplishing its goals. Probably all of us are weighed down by our possessions, to one extent or another, more than we would like to admit, and would benefit from unloading some of this baggage. Do you have a boat you no longer use? Or a car, or house, or any other 'big ticket' item just lying around unused? Maybe the reason you haven't gotten rid of it yet is because God is waiting for you to exhibit a spirit like Barnabas'. What an example to follow that would be!

(3.) Another benefit could be the strengthening and even the creation of ties of friendship within our ranks among members who may not know each other but end up working together on a fundraiser.

(4.) Last but not least, another benefit is that this will make the local church more visible in a friendly, non-threatening way. There are churches in our area that have huge rummage sales every summer, and lots of people look forward to them every year. They are always crowded. Familiarity can eventually breed receptivity when people see that we are just ordinary folks like they are, trying to please God the best way we know how. This would help a lot in shedding that aloof image many of our local churches have. This may even be a way of following Paul's example of being "all things to all men," 1 Corinthians 9:22.

And so while we can certainly agree that the work of the church ought to be primarily financed by the church, yet it doesn't exclusively have to be that way. If the church wants to hold a rummage sale to raise money for missions, or any other use they deem proper, they may. If the youth group wants to hold a car wash to raise money for their activities, they may. The church is free to raise money in a number of ways and use their own Christian judgment in deciding how to use it. We have the biblical freedom to make these choices and decisions, exercising our own Christian judgment. May we do so wisely.