Christian Absolute Socialism - Commanded By God?

PAVB. 2008.10.11 CHRISTIAN ABSOLUTE SOCIALISM – COMMANDED BY GOD?

PREFACE
In this article I am addressing only my friends and brothers in Christ Jesus. We accept the Christian Scriptures as authoritative and also "reason together" with Jehovah Elohim using logic, looking to Jesus Who by the Holy Spirit can open Truth to us. We extensively use the patterns of God’s handiwork as basis for discussion of Truth. I am not planning to use this article to embarrass my friends who live in what they call "Christian community", but which I am calling a Christian absolute socialist system. All quotes will be from the Authorized Version (King James Version) unless otherwise stated. This is so that Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and its dictionary may be used easily for research.
EXPLANATION OF TITLE
The title requires explanation. I did not want to refer to "Christian community" since, in my view the word "community" is commonly understood to mean a broader category of groups (such as, “village”) than the communal group. I did not think the word "communism" was appropriate since that has connotations of Karl Marx’ system which is, emphatically not the subject at hand. I would have liked to use the word "communalism" because it expresses the characteristic of shared property in a group which has come together to share its wealth and working strength for the good of all. However, "socialism" seemed a bit more accurate because it emphasizes the role of government [in this case, church government] in supervising the communal process. I think that the word "authoritarian" is appropriate only because the communal system I wish to challenge has a government which professes to have total authority over all the money, tools, working strength and time of its members.
There have been utopians that believed that a communal system should equalize all people and give equal benefits to all. This is not the kind of system that I am addressing. Rather, I am describing a system in which stewardships are restructured by the administration of the leader who is granted - by the group - total authority to restructure or re-assign the stewardships over money, tools, and time. The leader’s administrative endeavor is not to equalize stewardships, but ideally to optimize results by assigning stewardships according to ability and specialty while meeting the basic needs for survival of each and every member. Potentially (or ideally) the goal of this communal system is the optimum nurture and exercise of each and every member toward maturity as Sons of God in Christ, both individually and corporately. The expression, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" does not describe the communal society in question. This is because "need" cannot be defined except, in a limited sense, as the basic needs for survival (yet even these are not necessarily the responsibility of the society since no society can guarantee the ongoing life of another who must pay the penalty for his/her deeds). What is being advocated, I believe, by the Christian absolute socialist movement, is the optimization of stewardships toward the greatest good for God and for God’s people. In short, they advocate Christian absolute socialism as the expression of Christ’s command that we should love one another as He has loved us.
NOT A QUESTION OF SOUL SALVATION
I am not challenging whether members of this movement possess the gift of life in Jesus. That is quite another issue. I am confident that salvation exists among members of these groups.
BENEFITS TO BE GAINED
There are benefits that may be sought and gained by the authoritarian socialist churches. These are truly benefits regardless of whether or not the communal system is decreed by God. The benefits of Christian absolute socialism include: 1) the benefit of protection of the young or weak from destructive influences, 2) the facilitation of financial and social comfort in time of need, 3) the benefit of close proximity to one another, 4) the benefit of facilitated administrative control over immature members by which destructive behavior is readily detected by administrators and may be easily corrected by the administrators for the instruction of the errant member as well as the benefit of the community.
WHAT SHOULD BE OUR STANDARD OF RIGHT AND WRONG?
What is to be our standard of right and wrong conduct for today? For those of us who believe in the incarnate God Jesus, Son of the Most High God, there is only one answer. We must uphold the principles upon which "the Law (of Moses)" was hung, namely "You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength" and "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Essentially, deeds of love for someone are deeds which will cause the greatest benefit to the receiver. The Law of Moses helped to define for us what deeds will bring the greatest benefit to society. Yet, in our current environment, the definition of "love" is subtle and requires elaboration. The spirit of the Law of Moses, true and effective today even though the covenant of Sinai has been fulfilled and no longer is in effect, is hung upon the principle, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
In this current Age of Grace, the individual must subjectively judge the working out of the principle of love. God’s purpose in mercy, justice and grace is to lead us to repentance and righteousness, and, ultimately, to maturity as Sons of God.
In this Age of Grace, one must decide for himself whether he thinks that Christian totalitarian socialist structure effects the greatest growth-in righteousness for the all the members of the body of Christ.
CHRISTIAN AUTHORITARIAN SOCIALISM - COMMANDED BY GOD?
I can think of two approaches to answering the question. The two approaches are: 1) to examine those biblical quotes often used to advocate the radical commitment of persons to the cause of the communalism and 2) to examine the spirit of stewardship within the panorama of the path of progress planned by God as revealed in the Bible. That would involve primarily the stewardship of the spirit within, the soul garment, and the body garment (or vehicle of expression). Secondary in the hierarchy of stewardship are vocation, time, possessions, and money. Here let us examine literal Scriptures pertaining to the stewardship of property using continually as a backdrop the Bible-based concept of the spirit of stewardship as it applies first to spirit, soul, body, vocation, property, and money. It is this concept of stewardship that forms the spirit of the law, against the theory of Christian absolute socialism.
Since many readers who have assumed that the Book of Acts, chapters 2, 3, and 4 state plainly that Christian absolute socialism is the way of love for one another which Christ commanded us to live, let me state point blank that theirs is a false assumption. The actual Scriptures often cited by Christian communitarians emphatically do not advocate the absolute socialist form of community. That matter will be dealt with shortly.
JESUS AND THE TWELVE DISCIPLES
Jesus and His twelve all had one purse. The disciples had left houses and lands in order to follow Jesus. Is this a formula for Communal Christianity? I say "No" because these disciples were specifically being called into a ministry of teaching, prayer, and miracles. Jesus pointedly did not command the disciples did to combine their assets - all of their fishing equipment or houses - into any common vocational work.
Authoritarian Socialist Christianity advocates a common purse and endeavors to use this common purse for vocational interests. Such was neither modeled nor advocated by Jesus in His ministry and in His training of the disciples for ministry.

ANSWERING THE HUTTERITE PRINCIPLES

THE HUTTERITE SOCIETY
A particularly well-known and widespread example of Christian absolute socialism is Hutterite Society. The Wikipedia says this about them:
“Hutterites are a communal branch of Anabaptists who, like the Amish and Mennonites, trace their roots to the Radical Reformation of the 16th century. Since the death of their founder Jakob Hutter in 1536, the beliefs of the Hutterites, especially living in a community of goods and absolute pacifism, has resulted in hundreds of years of odyssey through many countries. Nearly extinct by the 18th and 19th century, the Hutterites found a new home in North America. Over 125 years their population grew from 400 to around 50,000. The Hutterite community has one of the highest fertility rates.”
I will use the Hutterite system in this article as the model for discussion because the nature of Hutterite communities has been well documented in books widely available, including HOSTETLER JOHN ANDREW, HUTTERITE SOCIETY published by J HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1974.
A FORMAL TOTALITARIAN SOCIALIST SYSTEM
The basic design requires a contract or firm commitment on the part of the individual to give to a specific communal church absolutely all possessions, future income, time and working strength.
“The Hutterites reject a purely ‘spiritual’ community which does not bring property under the control of the body of Christ. Community of goods … is the will of God, who from the beginning created all things for common use.” [p.174]. “Material goods as well as capital earnings are for the welfare of the community and are clearly at its disposal. Every member ‘shall give and devote all his or her time, labor, services, earnings, and energies … [to] the community, freely, voluntarily and without compensation….’ [Reference to E. A. Fletcher, Constitution of Hutterian Brethren Church and Rules as to Community of Property (Winnipeg, Man., 1950)].
Commonality of possessions, time, and labor are accomplished by submitting these things to Administrators who are in charge of the communal church. The administrators receive all wealth, time, and strength yielded to their direction. They in turn delegate authority and stewardship or job assignments to others.
HUTTERITE SOCIETY – A SUCCESS STORY
I will not address the subject of the governance of Hutterite Society except to point out its general characteristics. In Hutterite Society, the power of leaders is tempered by several important factors. “A council … headed by the first preacher, is elected to serve as an executive body.” There is a division of stewardship among the council. “The head preacher has the highest leadership position, but his actions are constantly subject to review by the counsel. Authority is thus group-centered.” [p.162]
There are checks and balances within Hutterite Society. I would suppose it is these checks and balances – and the overall milieu of Hutterite Society – as well as the possession of faith in Jesus which have contributed to the survival and success of the movement. As interestingly healthy as the governmental structure may be, I challenge the Hutterite assumptions concerning the “communal” (read: absolute socialist) economics of the society rather than the many principles of the governmental body itself. So we will return to the question of whether God decrees a community of goods as the highest command of love.
The economic ideals for which the Hutterites strive may be described in one of their foundational books by Andreas Ehrenpreis. I think it may be appropriate to examine some of the major statements by brother Ehrenpreis and to answer them respectfully. Please see (below reproduced) pages 59 – 63 of "Brotherly Community the Highest Command of Love", by Andreas Ehrenpreis 1650. And pages 123-124 of the same book in the writing by Claus Felbinger, 1560.
"But community, perfect unity, and separation from the world are to be found only in the perfect Kingdom of Christ. We know that Christ has called out all those whom He appointed to have eternal life. With His death He sealed the New Covenant given by God in His mercy and won from His Father the promised Spirit, who shall lead all true believers into the truth. It is this Spirit who taught them the way of community, of which we read in the first five chapters of the Acts of the Apostles [Acts 2, 4, 5]: all who believed were together and had all things in common; and no one said that any of the things he possessed was his own. Those who possessed land or houses sold them and brought the proceeds and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. “–Claus Felbinger.
Brother Felbinger assumes that in Acts 2 and 4, as in Acts 5 that proceeds were always laid at the apostles’ feet and that distribution was made by the apostles.
HOW DID THE EARLY CHURCH IN JERUSALEM SHARE
In the Book of the Acts, there are two references to how the church shared possessions. These are in Acts 2 and Acts 4. We will look at these each in turn.
The earliest distribution to the poor did not even involve the Apostles as administrators. Acts 2:44-46 expressly states that it was individuals who did the selling and distribution of their own possessions. "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house …”?
In this text, the apostles are not mentioned. It is the believers who counted all “common” without having an authoritarian institution in place to govern their flow of capital. I have checked the Greek words, by means of Strong's Concordance and Dictionary. And, evidently, the King James Version correctly translates these verses. If the words in Acts 2:44-46 say what they mean, then it was the believers themselves who parted them to all as every man had need. Notice that final phrase "as every man had need." It does not say that they sold anything when there was no need. And it does not say that they distributed any proceeds to persons who had no need. It is evident that there was no formal contract concerning the yielding of all properties and vocational resources to the apostles. Furthermore, it is apparent that the believers administrated the sharing process directly to those in need.
In fact the latter verse, 46, says that they ate "from house to house." Quite probably, the houses were the personal property of believers. This helps bring to mind the important point that the "held all in common" phenomenon was most certainly not a legally organized system but was an attitude of the heart.
Hutterites and other communitarians seem to assume that this phrase, "held all things in common" was – and should be – an organized contractual arrangement similar to what occurs in communal organizations such as the Hutterian Brothers. The Scriptures themselves demonstrate that "holding all things common" was effected neither by the selling of property, nor by the surrender of authority to the apostles, but by the individual stewardship from the heart at the time of need.
Commonality of possessions is again mentioned in Acts chapter 4.
"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things common." [Acts 4:32]
Acts 4:32 states plainly that these believers had possessions. That is, they were owners of properties. By the time referred to in Acts chapter 4, an unspecified time has passed since Acts 2. There had been enough time to collectivize the property into the hands of apostles or other chief stewards. Yet, they that believed possessed houses and things while saying that these were all common.
What is the meaning of “common”? It is the Greek word koinos and it means “shared among all.” Commonality of possessions, known in Greek as koinonia was an attitude held by the early church. When understood as an attitude rather than an instituted economic system, this commonality of property was actually still lived out in the context of individual possession of property. Observe the actual wording of the Scriptures,
"And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold. And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet." [Acts 4:33-37].
By the time of Acts chapter 4, the church is seeing the apostles brought into the financial administrative process. People placed proceeds of sales “… at the apostles’ feet.” [Acts 4:35] This may have been months, or it may have been more than a year after the original Pentecost experience. This particular event required the apostles to administrate the distribution of the money to the needy ones, whereas, previous references to distribution did not specify that it was done by the apostles. This particular flow of money could have been pragmatic when the apostles were aware of needs which they could meet administratively. Isolated needs could yet be being met by "good neighbors" while a body of widows and otherwise destitute ones were on a "dole" which had become institutionalized. If the apostles were to make a special announcement that there existed a need for a contribution, this would have led a generous brother, such as Barnabas, to sell a possession which was still his possession, and bring it to the apostles rather than he himself distributing the proceeds.
Ananias and Saphira seem to have seen this very public demonstration of generosity as an opportunity for vainglorious giving. They lied to the church and the Holy Spirit. The apostle said “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?” [Acts 5:4].
Now in Acts Chapter 4 we have the introduction of the apostle’s administration of funds. Acts Chapter 4 says that those who sold possessions laid the proceeds at the apostles' feet. And that the apostles made the distribution to those in need. If we are justified in understanding this as an evolution of the sharing process into being one administrated by the apostles, we may speculate that this administration occurred because of a pragmatic need in that time and place. Perhaps the Apostles were the ones in position to know of needy persons. Yet, these Scriptures do not describe any communal contract or formal system or any totalitarian governance being instituted.
EVEN IF THEY DID IT IN THE EARLY CHURCH WOULD IT BE, THEREFORE A PRINCIPLE FOR US?
The Book of Acts records for us some of the decisions of the apostles during the history of the church. The Scripture does not say that these decisions were to become law for us. Indeed, even in their own time, these decisions may, for all we know, have been in some degree of error. The Apostles were not above being corrected and learning knew standards of conduct years after their Pentecost experience. As, for example, the Apostle Peter was inclined to be prejudiced against the Gentiles and even made a glaring error recorded in Scripture concerning prejudicial behavior
Should we implement a “commune” today? No. Even if we had apostles of the stature of Peter, James, and John, we should not misinterpret the Scriptures and misapply them out of context in order to satisfy our desire for an enforced community of sharing.
Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement), 37and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet. Acts 4:36-37
Acts 5:4. King James Version "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."
Probably, Barnabas’ sale of property was occasioned by a need that arose some number of years after Pentecost. Does it not seem obvious that believers still owned their own properties for a rather long time even after they had begun to have an attitude of considering all their possessions as common? Does this not show that “having all in common” was an attitude of heart rather than a system?

THE RICH YOUNG RULER
Jesus said unto him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me." (Matt.19: 21). Jesus asked the man to give what he possessed to the poor. Jesus did not ask that all be given to His ministry or the disciples. Jesus asked the man to follow Him, implying that he become involved in the school of the word, prayer, and miracles. Neither Jesus nor His disciples were involved in using assets to produce wealth; they did not want to become financial or business stewards over any of what the Rich Young Ruler had to give. The advocates of Christian absolute socialism quote Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler as a text to advocate their Christian absolute socialism. But that very text is in marked contrast to what the Christian absolute socialists are saying and doing. The Hutterite communities, for example, certainly do not sell all their collective possessions, distribute to the destitute, and come and be submitted solely to the direct leadership of Jesus to the individual. Rather, they collectivize these possessions, give them to themselves as a group, and submit rather absolutely to leadership that is not the equivalent of Jesus.
THE WIDOW’S GIFT (LUKE 21:1-4)
The Widow's Gift
1 And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury.
2 And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins.
3 And He said, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them;
4for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on."
This widow gave all she had to live on. Is that a joining of a “Christian Community?” She gave to the priesthood – those who were in charge of spiritual things and the care of the poor but emphatically not in charge of agricultural projects or business ventures. Many “Christian Communities” such as the Hutterites and smaller but similar groups do not exist predominantly for spiritual ministry but rather pool their capital into business and agricultural projects.

CONCERNING THE WORD “ALL” IN SCRIPTURE
Scripture says they held "all" in common. The Scriptural use of the word "all" is as a figure of speech. For instance, in Exodus 9:6 "all the cattle of Egypt died." Yet, in Exodus 9:20, the Egyptians still had cattle. "He that feared the word of the LORD among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses: 21 And he that regarded not the word of the LORD left his servants and his cattle in the field." Therefore expressions in Acts 2 and 4 which say "every one who had possessions sold them" or they had "all things common" are figures of speech.
COMMON PURSE NOT ALWAYS GOOD
Proverbs says "My son, if sinners entice you, do not consent. If they say, come, let us lie in wait for blood, we will find precious spoil, we shall all have one purse. My son, do not walk in the way with them…." By this example we see that "having all in common" or having all in one purse is not necessarily a good thing. And, even if it were, in one instance, a relatively good thing, it may not be the best thing. There may be a benefit, for certain situations, when a group has “one purse.” If the spirit of the group is good, and if the leadership of the group is good, and if the deeds of the group are good, then a benefit may result from having one purse. But would it not be for a greater good if these people were to maintain separate purses and separate property to the extent that these individuals are given wisdom from above as to the use of their properties. Scripture states that we are “stewards of the manifold grace of God.”
“As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.”
- 1 Peter 4:10
The various stewards are to manage each his own gift by the grace of God. This pattern, when carried into all things, proves that ownership of personal property is as holy as any other stewardship granted by God to his individual children.

THE KINGDOM OF "BABYLON" AND THE KINGDOM OF MESSIAH GOD
If Christian communalism is not the way decreed by God, then what is? Are we not commanded to “come out of Babylon”?
Jesus ("Messiah God") established the kingdom of God in the hearts of those who became lifted up and inspired by holy spirit and were surgically, by the holy spirit, implanted in their hearts with the flesh-seed of Jesus. The kingdom of "Babylon" is essentially the same Roman world system into which Jesus was born, which He marvelously overcame, and which is being overcome by any and all of us who follow Jesus. The king of "Babylon" is his majesty Lucifer. I do not say this in jest or disrespect. When I use the words "his majesty" I am referring to the great intelligence and important status of Lucifer who is the mightiest of the rebellious children of God. Moreover, these are the two great kings: Jesus and Lucifer. We humans must choose which king we will serve here and now, today. Every new moment that God grants breathe to you or to me is another great opportunity for you or me to choose Jesus or Lucifer for one moment.
We are called to be “in the world but not of the world.”
“I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” [John 17:14-17]
The kingdom of Messiah God is being founded in the hearts of any and all that turn toward Him as a response to His voice. His voice operates upon the hearts of mankind through circumstances, through the Holy Scriptures, and through the observable created systems of God which exemplify His words to us. The kingdom of Messiah God is growing from within those individuals who are being transformed by the spirit & flesh & blood of Jesus and by the working (in the individual hearts) of the Holy Spirit messenger sent by Jesus. All the humanly observable major centers of power today are essentially the Roman system. (See writings of Prophet Daniel in which Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue is described.) The centers of power and influence in this age are emphatically not being turned, at this time, into the kingdom of Messiah God. The centers of power and influence include the "religious, political, and financial" systems known today. Some of these centers of power are certainly more influenced by good than are others, but all owe allegiance to Lucifer. The system in the United States of America, for instance, is not, and has never been a truly Christian system, but is a Roman/Babylonish system with some Christian influence. When, in the future, the system requires us to take the literal “mark of the Beast” then we will be called to literally come out of the financial system which will be established at that time. [Revelation 13:17]. And, while in the meantime there are spiritual and partial ways in which followers of Jesus are coming out of Babylon, yet to come into a communistic group is not a step out of Babylon.
At this time, we owe submission, not only to Jesus but to the powers that be (with this stipulation, that IF the powers that be command us to do something against what the Holy Spirit expressly commands us at this hour then we are to disobey the powers that be.) However, we are not to attempt to "come out of Babylon" by removing ourselves from the national legal boundaries of the existing nations, or the existing religions, or the existing financial systems.
“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God.” [Romans 13:1]
We are to progressively come out of Babylon by responding to the Holy Spirit as it imparts to our hearts the flesh and blood of Messiah God and as He joins with us in reordering our inner thoughts (mind and heart.) The High Priest of Jesus’ day spoke, prophetically, to another Priest "You are benefiting nothing. Lo! The world came away after him." Indeed, the whole inner world of the individual overcomer of this world is transformed progressively if and when the individual daily renounces self-centered life and follows the Holy Spirit as it progressively transforms the governments of the human mind, heart, and body in the likeness and image of Jesus-Messiah-God.
The process of living “in the world but not of the world” is best accomplished outside of communal organizations. It is best accomplished with a degree of personal property within the boundaries of the current Babylonish systems. This is redundantly taught to us in the Scriptures.

THE INDIVIDUAL
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness. They shall be filled." It is good to have "the righteousness through faith in Jesus" which saves a person from doing time in the prison of the Grave as well as the fire of the Trash-heap. Fear not man who can kill the body, but afterward can do nothing. Rather, FEAR HIM who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna (the burning trash-heap.)
We must begin with salvation in Jesus. Yet we do not stop at the door of entrance into life in Messiah. God our Father calls us to hunger for more of the process and product of obeying His voice. We are called to be stewards. We are called to serve the younger. We are called to administrate justice and mercy to anyone under our care in family, workplace, and government (including church.) Maybe you do not think that you are an administrator. However, whenever you speak you administrate to the hearer truth or falsehood, kindness or unkindness, justice or injustice. We will be judged for every word we speak. That is, we must account to a higher authority for all of our stewardships, even the stewardship over words. Cain said, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" Yet, we should say to Cain that he is called by God to protect, and preserve his brother. We are called to sanctify ourselves for others. Primarily our stewardship is over that which is INSIDE us: Our thoughts, words, and emotions.
Secondarily, we may, at times, have money, vocational talents, property, and spiritually imparted gifts that may be used to help others.
STEWARDSHIPS WITHIN THE FAMILY OF GOD
How to administrate society? Appointed leaders who re-allocate resources are, as Scripture and historical experience tell us, ordained in every age by God. Yet, the question is not whether leaders/administrators are ordained by God, but whether these leaders should be at the head of an absolute socialist structure. The question can be broken down in the following fashion: (1) should this re-allocation of resources be (a) a leveling of all resources [even distribution] (b) allocation to each according to his need, or (c) allocation to each according to his ability as steward? And furthermore, (2) to what degree is this re-allocation to be done? (a) the existing administrators capable of most effectively administrating and delegating authority in kingly fashion, or (b) in the fashion of a republic or (c) something else? [Whether the administrative reallocation of stewardships is ordained of God for any leader or for specific leaders having specific credentials.]
AUTHORITARIAN EXTREMES

Moses was a judge, not a King.
It has been rightly said by some Christian communal teachers, with reference to their authority structure, that "the kingdom of God is not a democracy." True as this may be, yet it understates the problem. For while we readily admit that the Bible, as a constitution of a people, does not advocate a democracy, yet the Bible certainly does not advocate a totalitarian authoritarian regime in the hands of mortal men. The Law given at Mount Sinai commanded the election of judges who would rule in matters which were publically disputed. The Lord told them not to appoint a king... for they had one king, Yahweh. There have been leaders (not Hutterites) who interpret Matthew 23:1-3 to say that the members of church should obey the pastor in all matters concerning even finance, time, labor, and so forth. "Matthew 23:1-3 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." Have they ever thought about what Moses did on the judgment seat referenced by the Lord? Moses judged disputed cases of ethics and morals. Moses did not make himself king and he did not make himself or any delegated judge lord of all finance and labor of all the people. (Exodus 18:16-13, 25-26).
MISLEADING MOVEMENTS
While we disagree, based upon Scriptures, with the communal Christian movements, yet we leave them be. We encourage them to continue growing in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Messiah. We do not seek to “pull up the tares.”

What are the tares? Jesus said that “tares” [weeds] would be sown among the wheat. “But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.” Matthew 13:24-26 . Some versions of the Bible refer to them as the tares. It is a certain kind of weed which looks a lot like wheat until it is mature. We look expectantly for the harvest (at this end of this age). At the harvest, the Lord said, the tares will be separated from the wheat so that the wheat can be gathered into the Lord's barn.
The Lord said for His disciples to allow the tares to grow up among the wheat until the harvest. Thus, it is not for us to campaign hard to eradicate errors from the midst of Christian movements. It is our task to try to sort out for ourselves what is right [Luke 12:57 "Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?"]

A man who sows some false teachings would be, by analogy, a sower of tare seeds. Jesus said that false prophets would arise. (Matthew 24:11). A false prophet, in this age, is not necessarily a non-Christian. We may have many Christian teachers who teach some false teaching along with the true teaching. This makes them relatively false prophets when compared to Jesus.
In Matthew 24:5 Jesus says, "Many will come in My name saying, I am Christ'" Readers of that passage have usually taken it to say that the false prophet will claim to be the Christ. Yet, taking the original words in a slightly different nuance, we hear our Lord warning that there are some prophets who, according to Jesus, will acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ.
Look at His words carefully. "Many will come in My name saying, I am Christ." You see, the “many” are not coming in their own name but are coming in Jesus’ name. They are not claiming themselves to be the Christ but are acknowledging that Jesus is Christ. Otherwise, Jesus would have worded it this way: “Many will come in their own name claiming that they themselves are the Christ.”
Since the punctuation does not occur in the Greek, it has been the interpretation of the translators which has assumed that the false ones referred to in verse 5 claim to be the Christ. Yet, without the added punctuation, the Greek passage may just as well be rendered, "Many will come in My name, saying [that] I [Jesus] am Christ, and [yet] shall be deceiving many." This rendering is what I consider most likely.
Be that as it may, there are many Christian teachers who have mixed some untruths with the truth. They do come in His name and they do say that He is Christ, yet they add false teachings to the Christian teachings. Moreover, Jesus wanted to warn us that serious deceptions would come from those who are Christians (in His name). If these deceptions were not coming from Christian ministers how would it be almost possible to deceive even the very elect? (Matt. 24:24). The “very elect” of Christ would most certainly never be deceived by one who came in another name than Jesus Christ.
So, in avoiding the deception of so-called Christian Community, we are avoiding a tare seed which would hinder those who would go on with Christ and be of the very elect who run the race for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
JEREMIAH VERSUS HANANIAH
False Jewish prophets of the pre-Messianic era were participating in the religion of the covenant of that day else they would not have received a hearing. The prophet Hananiah was a Jew who came to the people in the name of Jehovah their God. Hananiah did not deny the Holy Scriptures or the basic reverence for Jehovah God. Yet, Hananiah prophesied falsely that the bondage in Babylon would be ended within two years of his prophecy (Jeremiah 28). Hananiah said it would be two years but Jeremiah said it would be seventy years!
We mortal humans tend to look for quick and easy solutions. Hananiah’s quick and easy “two years” are typical of this. In contrast, Jesus emphasized endurance and maturation for His saints. Jesus said, "He who endures to the end shall be saved." The "70" and the endurance to the end are parallel symbols of the inner maturity to which Jesus wants to lead each of us by the Holy Spirit before we can be delivered from Babylon. We are to be “in the system but not of the system.”
The maturation process includes the cutting out of a stone without hands. [Daniel 2:43-45] That stone is the kingdom of God. The hand of mortal man is not to be involved in the sanctification of that “stone” which will crush the current world system. In keeping with that pattern, there is no simple joining of a "Community" which is going to transfer anyone out of Babylon into the Kingdom of God. Those teachers who have taught that Christians were progressing out of Babylon by joining "Christian Community" were false to the degree that they taught this false idea. And, it has been a teaching which, if it were possible, would deceive the very elect. It is a teaching which hinders the maturation of those who will become the very elect Bride (symbolized by the "70 years" in Babylon) of Jesus Christ.
At a more basic level, these teachers of "Community" have partaken of those characteristics of false teachers described by Apostle Paul in II Timothy 2:26 in that they "lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts." Whether knowingly or inadvertently, they convince Christians to join Christian Community by offering an attempt at freedom from the Christians' confused guilt feelings concerning covetousness, selfishness, and rebelliousness-against-authority. People are tempted to join a commune because it has the appearance of a radical change away from these vices of the heart. Yet, the move into “community” fails to bring deliverance from the Babylonish systems of this age. The kingdom of God does not come by outward appearances but arrives in the heart. The kingdom is a progressive changing in the heart. The love of God and of ones neighbor is expressed best by good stewardship over talents that one delights to use for God and for others. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the best ones at directing the individual follower of Jesus in how to use his/her talents.

In Revelation 18, the call to come out of Babylon does not go out until approximately the very end. Jeremiah 29:4-6 etc., describe how the Lord would have us dwell within the system of Babylon today until the Holy Spirit calls us to come out of Babylon physically. Do not be deceived by those who falsely prophecy that Christian Community is your step out of Babylon.