Was the early Christian church communist?

Few Christians, including Christian critics of capitalism, would now endorse communism. But what about the early church? Wasn't it communist? Here's how the book of Acts describes the first church in Jerusalem, which formed after the Holy Spirit descended upon the first Christians at Pentecost:

Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common… There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

Many who have read this passage have wondered if the Christian ideal isn't communism. After all, this was the first church in Jerusalem. They were "filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly" (Acts 4:31). If they didn't get it right, who did?

On the surface, this looks like communism. But it's not. First of all, unlike modern communism, there's no talk of class warfare here, nor is there any hint that private property is immoral. These Christians are selling their possessions and sharing freely and spontaneously. Second, the state is nowhere in sight. No government is confiscating property and collectivizing industry. No one is being coerced. The church in Jerusalem was just that--the church, not the state. The church doesn't act like the modern communist state. No one in Acts gets their stuff confiscated. As
Ron Sider notes, "Sharing was voluntary, not compulsory." Third, when Peter later condemns Ananias and Sapphira for keeping back some of the money they get from selling their land, he condemns them not for keeping part of the proceeds of the sale, but for lying about it:

Ananias. . . why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the lands? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God! (Acts 5:3-4)

Peter takes for granted that the property was rightfully theirs, after it was sold.

Fourth, the communal life of die early church in Jerusalem is made the norm for all Christians everywhere. In fact, it's not even described as the norm for the Jerusalem church. What Acts is describing is an unusual moment in the life of the early church, when the church was still relatively small. Also, many of the new Christians probably had come from a long distance to worship in Jerusalem at Pentecost. These new Christians would have had to return home soon after their conversion had it not been for the extreme measures taken by the newborn church to allow these Christians to stay and be properly trained in discipleship.

Compared with modern nation-states, the Jerusalem church was a small community banding together against an otherwise hostile culture. The circumstances were peculiar. For all we know, this communal stage lasted six months before the church got too large. Paul elsewhere told the Thessalonian Christians to “earn their own living” and sternly warned that “anyone unwilling to work should not eat” (2 Thess. 3:10, 12). So it‘s no surprise that the early communal life in Jerusalem was never held as a model for how the entire church should order its life, let alone used to justify the state confiscating private property.

Source: Money, Greed, and God. Why Capitalism is the Solution and not the Problem (2009) by Jay W. Richards.