How Not to Acquire Social Capital: Reflections on Acts 5:1-11, Pt. 2 of 3

(For Part 1 of this series click here.)

A difficult story

I offer the following as some key summary take-away points for understanding Acts 5:1-11, along with some suggestions for recognizing the behaviour of A&S in our own lives and contexts. What we ought to do about such behaviour is something I’m still prayerfully considering. (But I think I’m in good company in exploring the ramifications of this passage, with many Christian leaders currently speaking out about all manner of corruption, and abuse of power and privilege these days [e.g., racism, etc.]).

Why so violent?

To start, this passage is not an easy one for a couple of reasons. First, people instantly dropped down dead for their actions and it freaked everyone out (and it gives us chills today). This seemingly over-the-top response by the Holy Spirit to sin seems difficult to square with Jesus’ loving message and actions. But I’m going to leave aside the troublesome issue of divine violence in this post so that I can zero in on the nature of A&S’s sin. Whatever the sin was, I think it’s pretty obvious that God views it far more seriously than our consciences might make us feel about it (and frankly God’s conscience matters more than ours).

What did they do?

The second difficulty is this. A&S’s sin is perhaps not immediately clear to us on first reading. It was likely far more evident for the first century hearers of the story, but for some reason not for us. We do know that whatever they did was pretty bad. But what the heck was it? And how do we not repeat it? And what do we do about those who do seem intent on repeating it today?

Deciphering the story

Let me summarize some points that have helped me decipher this story, and hopefully identify some reasons why I think it’s important for the church to pay attention to it today (especially for us Pentecostals, since it’s only three chapters after Acts 2!).

1) The problem in the story was not about money, but how money was being (mis)used.

This story involved, but isn’t really about, money. So, it is not a story to be used to “encourage” people to give away all their money, or even a lot of money, to the church. Peter makes it clear to A&S, giving to the church was voluntary. The problem was what they tried to do with their money. A&S were using their money to portray themselves as generous and whole-hearted devotees to the community, but they were were being duplicitous, lying to the church and God.

Why try to portray yourself as something you’re not, and spend a lot of money in the process? A&S believed their money could be used to purchase something more valuable. What exactly was it?

2) Ananias and Sapphira were not acting in ignorance.

Before answering the above question, we need to note that both A&S consciously conspired to misrepresent themselves, and lied when confronted about it. So, this is more serious, it seems to me, than someone misrepresenting themselves out of fear (e.g., Peter’s fear-motivated denial of Jesus). This was premeditated deception with a clear agenda in mind.

This does not mean, however, that A&S fully understood the ramifications of their deceit. At risk of getting ahead of ourselves, they were acting in a manner that might have been considered acceptable in a culture where status and its privilege was something considered worth acquiring. Nevertheless, they were not ignorant, and they knew they were doing wrong, evidenced by the fact that they tried to conceal their actions using deception.

It’s noteworthy here that many times (but not always) when actions are kept from public light it is an indication that those involved know that what’s being hidden is unethical (= immoral); otherwise, why keep it hidden?

3) Ananias and Sapphira schemed to illegitimately acquire disproportionate “social capital”

Here we come to the heart of A&S’s motivation. The couple had previously witnessed Barnabas being honoured for his generosity and they wanted some of that notoriety (Acts 4:32-37). As a number of commentators note, A&S were likely seeking to gain acclaim within the young church (“What generous folks these are!”). But brief acclamation alone is likely insufficient motivation for this type of duplicity. Mikayla’s label of “social capital” helps expand what comes with the acclaim A&S sought. For them the deceitfully leveraging of resources would gain them abundant community status and privilege(s), along with increased influence (ability to get their way) within the community.

This type of social capital isn’t free, of course. But A&S had ample money at their disposal, and in most communities money usually comes with a measure of influence. All they had to do, they thought, was use some of their money to buy some social capital. But how much? Spending all of it seemed too high a price. Acclaim and privilege is one thing, but they couldn’t gamble it all. They needed some future currency for a rainy day. So, they figured that about half their money would be about right. A steep price to be sure, but acquiring privilege doesn’t come cheap.

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit…”

Acts 5:3

Peter rightly identifies this attempt to manipulate and exploit the community of Jesus as satanic. The devil was trying to get a foothold in the door of the church (Acts 5:3).

4) Community manipulation is considered “testing” (presuming upon) God

⁹ Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord?….”

Acts 5:9

A&S perhaps believed that God probably wouldn’t notice or care, or that he’d overlook their duplicity and manipulation. After all, they were bringing much needed money to a community in its infancy. It may even be the case that they thought their actions would be of ultimate benefit to the church (while simultaneously being personally beneficial). In that case the deception and money-leveraging was somehow pragmatically justified (if something brings about an immediate good end, we can probably overlook some indiscretions in the method). And after all, isn’t that just how things operate in the world everywhere anyway? If I find myself with resources that others don’t, such as abundant monetary or social capital, doesn’t this permit me the privilege of leveraging (manipulating) my capital to get more privilege(s)?

This was, as Peter says, putting God to the test (Acts 5:9). Was he truly a God of justice and holiness, treating everyone without regard for social status or wealth? Or would he look sideways as this type of community deception and manipulation tried to slither its way into the church?

As it turns out, A&S discovered that God really is no respecter of persons.

5) God upheld justice, while also protecting the fledgling church from power-politics.

Because the fledgling church was at high risk of being permanently damaged at such a fragile stage in its development, God intervened in a radical way. God’s reaction was not simply tied to his aversion to injustice and lying. The deaths of A&S served not only as their judgement, but also as an act to protect the community and the gospel they carried (as well as a timeless object lesson). What was at risk here was nothing less than a potential sabotage of the newly formed church (Acts 5:11 is the first time Luke uses the word “church” [ecclesia] to describe this community).

A&S had shown they were not truly co-servants of the community, but instead were intent on using the community to serve their own interests and so demonstrating themselves disloyal (thanks to Stephen Barkley for helping me see this better). This is difficult for those of us in hyper-individualistic cultures to see at first. But God’s big goal is not simply the conversion of individuals, but the formation of a community of witnesses, though whom the message of Jesus as true king would be proclaimed and exhibited. This community would proclaim not only with words, but would bear witness by living out a distinct set of values.

The values of the community of Jesus would be contrary to what was commonly accepted in a pagan culture, in which people strove to “lord over” others. Sometimes this goal could be achieved by leveraging physical force, status, or money. Jesus had spoken against this very value system in Luke’s first volume, 22:24-27.

²⁴ A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. ²⁵ Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. ²⁶ But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. ²⁷ For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

Luke 22:24-27

To have permitted A&S to attain status as communal “benefactors,” while turning a blind eye to their deceitful and essentially pagan method for attaining social capital, would threaten to malform the impressionable young church from within. The very DNA, so to speak, of the church was in danger of being mutated into something monstrous. At risk was what it meant for the church to bear witness to Jesus, since they proclaimed a king that was unlike the kings of the world. Also at risk was community cohesion, since duplicity undermines trust. We cannot trust when we suspect that people are not as they seem.

So, this for me helps explain the radical reaction of the Spirit. He was protecting the church, and protecting the message of the gospel. But what does this mean for the church today? We’ll pick up this question in part 3.