‘Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk’. (Acts 3:6).
The most difficult thing about Peter’s words to the crippled man
is that, actually, he did have silver and gold.
Perhaps not on him at this exact moment, but he could certainly get some if he needed to. And it seems like this was exactly the sort
of situation it was there for. After
all,
‘All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.’ (Acts 2:44-45)
and,
‘There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.’ (Acts 4:34-35)
What is the church’s responsibility for social justice? Is the church only to care for fellow
believers? Or is caring for the poor and
oppressed in society what Christians are meant to do in this
world? It sounds like that’s the kind of
thing happening in Acts 2 and 4. So why does Peter tell the crippled man in Acts 3 that he has no silver and gold? Is Peter just having a senior’s moment? Or is something else going on?
As we read through Acts, we see that believers keep exercising a
great care, expressed in material support, for fellow believers who are in need. Thus, there were no needy persons among them (Acts 4:34), that is, among
the believers. The widows to whom food
is being distributed are from among the growing number of disciples (Acts 6:1). The severe famine leads the brothers in
Antioch, each according to his ability, to provide help for the brothers living
in Judea (Acts 11:29).
These things are concrete expressions of fellowship, koinonia, sharing together. They embody Jesus’ teaching that the
disciples must love each other as he has loved them, and that by their love for
one another they would be known as disciples of Jesus (John 13:34-35). They are free to share all things in common precisely because they share Christ in common.
They are obligated to each other as family because of him.
But what, then, of the church’s social justice responsibilities
to unbelievers? To those in sickness and
poverty and oppressive social institutions? Does Acts say anything about these issues?
A great deal. And what it
consistently shows is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest and most
powerful ‘tool’ of social justice and social change. The crippled beggar receives no silver or
gold but he is given the name of Jesus Christ.
And in receiving Christ he is healed, and thereby released from the
disability that had left him to beg (Acts 3:7-10). The slave girl with an evil spirit is
released from her slavery (both spiritual and physical) also in the name of
Jesus Christ (Acts 16:16-19). The
proclamation of the gospel in Ephesus brings such release to those who had been
in the consuming grip of sorcery and magic that on one occasion, 50,000 days’
wages worth of magic scrolls were publicly destroyed (Acts 19:8-20)!
Time after time, it is the powerful gospel message about Christ
that brings liberation and release.
In general, we cope far better with ‘either/or’ answers than we
do with ‘both/and’ answers. However, on
the question of whether the church’s social justice responsibilities are toward
unbelievers or believers, the Bible’s answer is much closer to ‘both/and’ than
‘either/or’.
But even ‘both/and’ doesn’t quite hit the mark. Paul says it most clearly in Gal 6:10:
‘Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.’
Not ‘either/or’. Not
‘both/and’. But ‘to these ... and especially to these ...’. This is one of the ways we live out the
gospel.