There’s No Such Thing as Private Property

As the title suggests, I am calling for the demise of “private property” as we generally define it.  But you can relax.  I haven’t joined those who are singing the praises of socialism.  Instead, I am offering a biblical definition of private property; one that is essential for a free market, capitalist economy to operate in a just and moral fashion.  But first, let’s consider some context.

Western culture is steadily evolving; or perhaps more accurately, devolving.  At the heart of this devolution is the crumbling moral foundation of institutions that have supported civilization for several millennia.  The institutions of marriage, family, and citizenship are all being redefined based on moral relativism in place of objective truth claims from the Bible.  For purposes of this article, allow me to suggest that the definition of private property has also changed.  And I contend that this change in how we view “private property” explains why many have become disgruntled and critical of capitalism.

Replacing Capitalism with Socialism

During the past decade, the call for social justice has focused attention upon the plight of the poor, the ethnic minorities, and other groups who are considered disenfranchised.  Meanwhile, there has been a growing sense that social justice cannot be complete without major changes in two aspects that form the context of the injustices. 

First, there is the perceived need to change how material wealth is distributed.  Liberal scholars and leaders call for a shift away from free market capitalism toward some form of socialism to assure that each person gets their “fair share.”  Second, there is a perceived need to change the way in which humans interact with the environment of planet Earth.  According to this view, the Earth’s limited natural resources are too overtaxed to support the growing human population.  What’s more, natural resources are being consumed disproportionately by the rich and powerful.  To remedy these perceived duel injustices, one against the disenfranchised and the other against the Earth, the social planners have a solution which is summarized by Ralph Chaplin, (1887–1961), American writer, artist and labor activist:

It seems the most logical thing in the world to believe that the natural resources of the Earth, upon which the race depends for food, clothing and shelter, should be owned collectively by the race instead of being the private property of a few social parasites.  

Chaplin speaks for many today who believe the answer to injustice toward people, animals, and the Earth is to move from individual to collective ownership of property—i.e. to “spread the wealth evenly.”  Never mind that to bring about this massive transition and then to maintain the collective in a just manner would be a difficult task, even with strong coercion and tyranny.  Furthermore, based on the history of socialism, how can we assume that those placed in charge of managing the collective would be any more just and fair toward people, animals, and the Earth than the so-called “social parasites” they now condemn?   Ben Shapiro points out that socialism has its own moral flaws:

Socialism violates at least three of the Ten Commandments: It turns government into God, it legalizes thievery and it elevates covetousness. Discussions of income inequality, after all, aren't about prosperity but about petty spite. Why should you care how much money I make, so long as you are happy?

On the other hand, capitalism offers the promise of freedom, but also a two-edged sword.  It depends upon individuals owning private property which in turn motivates a strong work ethic and entrepreneurial spirit which often paves the road to prosperity.  But there is also the temptation toward greed and unjust practices that earn some capitalists the name “social parasites.”   As Shirley Chisholm states, “When morality comes up against profit, it is seldom that profit loses.”

Although capitalism invites injustice, it is also true that greed and injustice thrive in both the private and public sectors.  It doesn’t matter whether the material resources of Earth are privately or collectively held; corruption has no favorites.  The source of trouble is not the material resources or the sector of the economy in which they are managed.  We must go deeper to find the cause.  The trouble comes from the depraved human heart.  Two writers, one a prophet of God and the other a Russian novelist and historian, expose the truth about the nature of the human heart:

The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?  -- The Prophet Jeremiah (17: 9)

…the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. -- Alexander Solzhenitzyn

Reviving Our Concept of Private Property

Because moral depravity is rooted deep within the heart of man, if free market capitalism is to be moral, I believe we must also dig deep to identify and extract the cause of injustice; and then, revive the heart with a biblical concept of private property.  In Scripture, we discover the basis for the title of this article.  According to Scripture, “There is no such thing as private property.”  Although it is possible in America and some other countries to hold legal title to property, Scripture teaches that we do not own anything.  “The Earth is the Lord’s (Psalm 24: 1) and He has given humans dominion over creation (Genesis 1: 26-28) to manage it on His behalf as His servants or stewards (Genesis 2: 15).  We are stewards but not owners of “private property.”  Therefore, biblically speaking, private property is any portion of the Earth over which an individual has responsibility to God to manage for His glory.  In this definition, “private” refers to our individual responsibility.  And although we may hold temporary legal title, the property belongs to God.

The “stewardship view” of private property is a key by which humans can open the door and allow intimate relationship with God.  We can see this truth throughout Scripture from Adam and Eve all the way to the Apostle John in Revelation.  For example, Abel’s offering was a pleasing aroma to God, but Cain’s wasn’t (Genesis 4: 3-5).  This distinction rested at least partly on how these two men submitted themselves and their “property” in their worship of God.  Later, Noah worshipped and obeyed God; and God gave him dominion over the living creatures resulting in their salvation from the flood by means of the ark he had built (Genesis 6-9).  Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, was a nomad.  Although he had great wealth, Abraham’s grasp upon it, even upon his beloved son Isaac, was very loose compared to his tenacious pursuit of God (Genesis 12-25). 

Remembering God Is Our Provider

Four centuries after Abraham, King David typified the same stewardship view that he learned from the patriarchs, but adds an additional principle.  King David not only understood that his kingship or dominion was a stewardship granted by God, but he also understood that even his ability to acquire material wealth was from God.  Listen as David prays before the people at the dedication of the material resources for the temple that Solomon would later build (1 Chronicles 29: 11b-14):

Yours is the dominion, O LORD,
and You exalt Yourself as head over all.
Both riches and honor come from You,
and You rule over all, and in Your hand is power and might;
and it lies in Your hand to make great and to strengthen everyone.
Now therefore, our God, we thank You, and praise Your glorious name.
But who am I and who are my people that we should be able
to offer as generously as this?
For all things come from You,
and from Your hand we have given You.

King David wanted his worship of God to be a picture of how all God’s people ought to exercise stewardship of the material resources of Earth day in and day out—managing “property” as that which comes from God’s hand and which, by God’s grace, He enables us to give back to Him or to our neighbor.  The Apostle Paul reiterates this principle in 1 Corinthians 4: 7:

For who regards you as superior?
What do you have that you did not receive?
And if you did receive it,
why do you boast as if you had not received it?

The Scriptural view of private property means we view the “property” as God’s, the “private” as our individual responsibility to work and manage it as unto Him, seasoned with an attitude of humility that recognizes all we have is ultimately a gift from God.   Elsewhere, in 1 Corinthians 7: 29-31, Paul teaches us that having a continual awareness of the eminence of Christ’s return will help us to “possess property as though we didn’t possess it” (emphasis mine):

But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;  and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess;  and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.

Notice Paul cites the relationship of husbands to wives, and the relationship of humans toward material property (ultimately the Earth) in a similar sense.  Husbands are responsible to love and nurture their wives as unto the Lord; likewise, those who buy are responsible as stewards to act as “husbandmen” to care for their property as unto the Lord.  Here, Paul teaches that God’s people are to undertake both responsibilities with a “stewardship view”—a view that aims to glorify God as Christ’s return draws near, rather than an “ownership view” that aims to multiply wealth without regard to moral and ethical responsibilities toward God and our neighbor.

Realizing Even Our Bodies Are Not Private Property

But there is a third principle that deepens the biblical meaning of private property even further.  God’s redeemed not only do not own their spouses, cars, houses, and land; they don’t even own their bodies.  The redeemed are bought by Christ’s blood from the slave block of sin.  Paul wrote,” …you are not your own?  For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6: 19b-20).  Paul summarizes the biblical responsibility of the Christian toward God in a comprehensive manner in Colossians 3: 17:

Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.

But how do we know whether we are actually “possessing as though we do not possess?”  Thankfully, God has instituted two routine tests by which we can check our attitudes and priorities when it comes to our “property”—our regular responsibility to give back to God our tithes and extra offerings; and, our weekly responsibility to set aside a day in which we celebrate God through our worship and rest from routine labor.  These observances provide a routine check on the tightness of how unselfish we are with material resources and time.

Renewed Hope for the “Free Market?”

I have provided a brief sketch of a biblical definition of private property. Now, if free market capitalists were to adopt this definition of private property, do you think they would still be considered “social parasites” by many who are disgruntled with capitalism?   The second question is, does this “stewardship view” of private property address the accusation by many that capitalism and its biblical roots are to blame for our insensitivity to disenfranchised people and to the deterioration of planet Earth?  I believe the answer to both questions is “yes” based on the account of the early church in Acts 4: 31-35 (emphasis mine):

And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness.   And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.   And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.  For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.

Although some who advocate social justice and socialism interpret the sharing of property in common by the early church as an advocacy of socialism by Christianity, the passage does not support that notion.  Instead, notice first that these folks were born-again believers on the basis of having trusted in Christ’s redemption from their sins through His death and resurrection.  As “new creatures” in Christ, they submitted their wills in obedience to His Word under the power of the Holy Spirit.  The resultant unity of Spirit enabled them to view their material possessions as “common property to them.”  From their perspective of “possessing as though not possessing,” they were able to see with eyes of compassion the physical needs among their number and therefore to voluntarily share generously.   Many acted upon their concerns by selling their “private property” and making the moneys available to the leadership to distribute funds to those in need.

At the time of the events recorded in Acts, persecution and ostracism often severely impoverished Christian converts and their families.  Therefore, the outpouring of generous sharing among these people of faith was nothing less than an essential, voluntary expression of the compassion of the Risen Christ toward those in need.  The expression of charity (agape love) by the 1^st century church has been reproduced in countless congregations throughout the world, often going unnoticed except by the recipients.  Note also that this “voluntary sharing” distinguishes this biblical economy from a socialist model.

Yet, the Christian church is not immune from selfishness and greed as we have noted previously in “Greed, Charity, and Capitalism.”  Therefore, one of the challenges of today’s evangelical church is to provide the setting in which God’s Word is taught under the direction of His Holy Spirit to believers who are Spirit-filled and receptive to Christ’s example as One Who had “nowhere to lay His head” (Luke 9: 58).   Christ lived as an example of “possessing as though He did not possess” and cautioned against attitudes that would oppose this “stewardship view” of private property.  For example, he warned against the love of money (e.g. Matthew 19: 16-25) and contrasted those who give out of their surplus with the poor widow who freely gave all she had (Mark 12: 38-44). 

Revival by Church and Civic Institutions

The evangelical church must function as a counterculture in which individuals and families learn to implement biblical stewardship of private property.   Local schools and the local community have historically contributed to this lifestyle as I have explained in “Environmental Stewards Are ‘Grown’ within a Moral Community.” Historian Thomas Woods comments on the importance of individual responsibility and other virtues in a free market economy:

One of the market's virtues, and the reason it enables so much peaceful interaction and cooperation among such a great variety of peoples, is that it demands of its participants only that they observe a relatively few basic principles, among them honesty, the sanctity of contracts, and respect for private property. 

Arthur Brooks noted, “what America needs is not less capitalism but better capitalists.”  In my view, better capitalists are those that adopt a “stewardship view” of material possessions, one that is taught in the context of family, church, and community.  But as explained in “Dominion 101 - Spheres of Responsibility” government has the important role of maintaining the rule of law.  Rep. Paul Ryan makes this point well:

We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.

Our Founding Fathers understood the depravity of mankind and the danger of power in the hands of one or a few.  Therefore, the U.S. Constitution calls for a system of checks and balances, and includes a justice system to maintain accountability and rule of law.  Today, greed and corruption are common at every level of both public and private sectors.   Many are asking, “Is capitalism moral”?   Arthur Brooks answers, “Of course not. Only people can be moral.  We're not asking the right questions."  Instead, we should ask, “What economic system will most likely encourage moral behavior in us?”  For me, that system is capitalism in which individuals have a “stewardship view” that sees private property as a temporary trust to which God holds title.   As temporary title-holder, the “owner” is responsible to use it for the glory of God and for the benefit of his or her neighbor.  A free market economy in the hands of such responsible stewards will address both of the concerns of social justice advocates—provision of assistance to the poor and disenfranchised that respects the dignity of human beings, and good stewardship of the environment of planet Earth.

I welcome your comments.  The following questions may stimulate your thinking further:

1.   How would the “Rich Young Ruler” in Matthew 19: 16-25 define private property? 
2.   Does Jesus’ condemnation of the “Barn Builder” in Luke 12: 16-21 suggest that it is immoral to be rich?
3.   What does the following quote from Lewis Black tell you about Christianity versus socialism? 
Socialism appeals to me.  It's like imposed Christianity. You've got to share.
4.   In what sense do advocates of socialism express a different view of humankind than advocates of capitalism?
5.   Is a free market economy really a better system to address the needs of the poor and disenfranchised than socialism?   Which one better addresses environmental problems?
6.   How would you grade your attitude toward your “property” based on your material giving and your observance of “Sabbath rest?”

Greed, Charity, and Capitalism

The calendar of 2011 has unfolded with many Earth-shaking events.  Literally speaking, an earthshaking earthquake and tsunami traumatized Japan; another earthquake shook the Atlantic coastal states.  Meanwhile, socioeconomic tremors were registered in the European community while the Mediterranean region was embroiled in the “Arab Spring.”  Within evangelical churches, increased attention to social justice has coincided with the struggling economy and greater political and media attention to the apparent injustices of Wall Street financiers and corporate executives. 

Recently, the ire of many who are concerned about the growing gap between the rich and the poor was stoked by a comment from the golden microphone of conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh: 

Rush Limbaugh

“What has fed more people? ‘Freedom’ is not an option. This is a multiple choice question with two possibilities, greed or charity. That’s right.  Greed has fed more mouths than charity ever could.”

Limbaugh’s emphasis on greed expresses a way of thinking that makes capitalism an easy target for those who believe it is morally unacceptable.  After all, how can an economic system be moral if it is ultimately driven by the sin of greed?   But wait.  Does morality ultimately reside at the institutional level?

In a debate at Messiah College with Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, asked, "Is capitalism moral?”  Brooks answered his own question: “Of course not. Only people can be moral.  We're not asking the right questions."  Instead, we should ask what economic system is the most likely to produce moral behavior in us? 

Brooks is correct.  Greed is a flaw in the character of individuals, not in an economic system per se.  On the other hand, Jim Wallis views the American economy as “unfair, unstable and making people unhappy." He agrees with the Occupy Wall Street movement (What are they advocating?) and seems ready to throw in the towel on capitalism while turning to an even greater emphasis on wealth redistribution to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. 

But will wealth redistribution bring happiness?  Not according to Brooks who cited data from studies of lottery winners and welfare recipients, and concluded. "If you don't earn it, it won't bring you happiness. True happiness comes from earned success.”  Instead of rejecting capitalism, Brooks challenged his listeners to reexamine the moral basis of the American political system as understood and applied by our Founding Fathers.  They believed that all humans are created in God's image.  Human rights come from God; namely, the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as stated in our Declaration of Independence. 

Government’s role is not to insure “equal justice”, equal wealth, or happiness for all.  According to Jay Richards, author of Money, Greed, and God, history is littered with the corpses of millions that have died needlessly under the tyranny of those such as Lenin and Stalin who had promised social equality.  Instead, a government’s role, according to Richards, is to establish and maintain the rule of law, limit the intrusion of government into the economy, and secure free and just participation in the production and exchange of goods and services.  In a free society with a free market system, each person has the opportunity to define and pursue happiness in a moral sense according to his or her perceived goals and purposes. 

Although I believe our free market economy is threatened by a government that has misunderstood its role and has overestimated its ability to deliver “happiness”, it seems to me that capitalism is also being threatened by two other elements—(a) those who consider themselves poor and/or disenfranchised, represented by “Wall Street Occupiers”  and (b) the financially successful who have forgotten their responsibilities, represented by “Wall Street.”  Both of these elements have a moral and legitimate place in a free society.  Nothing wrong with a public assembly and protest within the bounds of the law; and, it is not wrong to become financially successful if wealth is gotten ethically. But both rich and poor may possess virtues that can be perverted.

First, those who are poor and disenfranchised are prone to envy and covetousness which can lead to anger and a life of crime.  The Scriptures teach the importance of assisting the poor (Matthew 5:42; Luke 6:34-38), but assistance that is not aimed properly can be demoralizing.   In his debate with Jim Wallis, ArthurBrooks listed four kinds of assistance to the poor:  “immediate relief, reward for work, education, and an improved culture where people can talk honestly about moral issues like children born outside marriage.”  Notice the progression designed to rescue, encourage, and equip human beings so that they regain hope and aspiration to use their gifts and abilities.  History is filled with many accounts of men and women whose generous giving and mentoring have transformed poor, hopeless people into highly successful workers and leaders.   According to Ephesians 4:28, He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need.

Second, the financially successful also have proneness toward habits that threaten capitalism. For the successful Wall Street financier or CEO, what may have begun with a well disciplined self-interest can become perverted to a life ruled by greed.  The Bible condemns greed as sin-- a rebellion against God’s righteousness.  The tenth commandment states, You shall not covet… (Exodus 20: 17).   Jesus warns in Luke 12:15, Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions.  This is a warning to us all.  One preventive measure is to heed Philippians 2: 3-4: 

 

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

Notice that the passage does not condemn “self-interest.”  In fact, self-interest is an essential quality for anyone to observe the Great Commandment stated by Jesus Christ in Matthew 22: 37-39 as You shall love the Lord your God…and …love your neighbor as yourself.    Without “self-love” which Jeff Gates, my colleague at Cedarville University defines as “the proper attitude and behavior toward self in the Christian life,” it is impossible to properly love God or my neighbor.  Therefore, a person transformed by Christ’s sacrificial and unconditional (agape) love is free and empowered to love God and others.  He or she enters into a stewardship of the love of God by recognizing that love originates from God and is given freely as a trust to share for His glory.  “Stewardship of love” expresses itself in a reciprocal love toward God, a healthy love of one’s self, and a love for our neighbor.  This love, or “charity” can overcome selfishness and greed which are contrary to the interests of our neighbor.  

As Arthur Brooks noted, “what America needs is not less capitalism but better capitalists.”  The problem is not in the immorality of capitalism, but the immorality in the individual capitalists.  Perhaps Brooks would agree that people who are stewards of the love of God are “better capitalists.”  Such love overcomes the greed and selfishness to which all of us, rich and poor, are prone.  It helps us all to recognize that, at the very outset, it is God who is giving you power to make wealth… (Deuteronomy 8:18).

If you can understand and agree with my line of reasoning, you will agree that Rush Limbaugh’s claim that “greed has fed more mouths than charity ever could”, while well intended, is an inaccurate and unbiblical comparison.  Perhaps it is better stated, “greed that is overcome by God’s love which overflows in charity toward our neighbor has fed more mouths than…”[you name it] ever could.  Such an economy, an oikonomia, is invigorated by the stewardship (oikonomia) of love—it overcomes the envy and helplessness of the poor with aspiration to push forward, especially with loving neighbors and “hands up” assistance; and it overcomes the proneness to greed of those who have been blessed with wealth and power.   Perhaps you know of CEO’s who understand their stewardship responsibility to their company and employees, a perspective that can lead to real job creation and fulfilled employees.

Thank you God for pursuing and rescuing me as a lost sheep, for bringing me into your fold as your child, and enlisting me in a stewardship of your love, abilities, time, and opportunities.   Thanks for giving me a biological family; and a spiritual family, the body of Christ, your church.  Thank you for giving me the ability to work for the betterment of my neighbor and your creation; and to support a family. Thank you for resources to support the ministry of a local church as well as worthy organizations aiming to provide emergency assistance as well as long-term assistance in education, community development, and ecological restoration.  In all of this, thank you for a nation and freedoms that allow individual hopes and aspirations to be achieved.  Grant wisdom to our church and community leaders, teachers, and government officials at all levels that they may apply principles of your Word as a guide to proper enforcement of the laws of the land so that our freedoms and justice for all may be protected and enhanced.   Amen.