by @GeerhardusB
The denouncement of public property is on the rise within Christianity. Pope Francis has declared publicly, “The universal destination of material goods has been part of Catholic Church teaching for centuries, though…it has often been a ‘forgotten truth.’” This is not simply a call by the Roman Church to equality of economic opportunity, but rather the Church is now promoting the regulated equality of economic outcome or the redistribution of private property. All of this has been noted by Catholic theologian Robert Maloney, who has provided a history and defense of collectivism throughout the history of the Church in regard to private property. [1]
This phenomenon is not a conundrum simply within the Roman Church. The evangelical world has seen a rise in such discussions as well. One of the most iconic books within the Post-Modern Era inside reformed evangelicalism dealing with Christianity and culture has been The Transforming Vision by Brian Walsh and Richard Middleton. This was a popular book upon college campuses distributed by InterVarsity Press that taught the rejection of enlightenment values especially any division between the sacred and the secular, which the writers deemed as a gnostic separation.[2] One of the so-called idols from the Enlightenment Walsh and Middleton address is capitalism and specifically the ownership of private property. Walsh and Middleton condemn capitalism for what they see as, “unequal distribution of wealth.” They concluded that, “a sensible appreciation of stewardship leads one to question the role of private property in our culture (the steward manages property but does not own it).”[3] This is antithetical to scriptural creational norms found throughout the pre-Mosaic period of scripture, the Mosaic Covenant, and later within the New Testament.
Walsh and Middleton’s idea of stewardship arises from the so-called cultural mandate delivered by God in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 1:28). In this mandate, Elohim firstly calls Adam to כָּבַשׁ or subdue the creation. Secondly, He calls Adam to רָדָה or rule over creation. Walsh and Middleton maintain that the mandate is repeated in Genesis 2. It is there, they claim that God’s call for Adam to עָבַד cultivate and שָׁמַר keep the garden points to economic and environmental stewardship (Gen. 2:15). Walsh and Middleton connect the words עָבַד and שָׁמַר solely to a type of non-self-serving tending and development.[4] A clear reading of the Hebrew text seems to place emphasis upon taking dominion and guarding the garden against uncleanliness rather than simple agrarian kindness. Adam’s job to שָׁמַר the garden points to a protective element, for the same word is used of the cherubim’s job to שָׁמַר guard the entrance of Eden from Adam (Gen. 3:24). This is all to demonstrate that one cannot form an entire theology of economics from one passage of the Bible. One could just as easily argue that this cultural mandate enforces the libertarian notion that man has been given land to exercise dominion over, or that essentially Elohim is giving Adam land that he is to possess or own. The text does not lead one to a definite economic conclusion.
The idea of land ownership is pervasive throughout the pre-Mosaic period. The typological land promise of Abraham is an obvious example (Gen. 12:1-9). One sees the concept of ownership pervading Genesis. Abraham is outraged by the unjust seizure of his well in chapter 21. There is also an economic value tied to land. Abraham makes a financial offer to Ephron in exchange for a burial ground, “If you will only please listen to me; I will give the price of the field, accept it from me that I may bury my dead there (Gen. 23:13 NASB).” The covenantal land promise is reaffirmed with the following Patriarchs and the appropriation of earthly materials is documented throughout the book (Gen. 26:1-5; 28:1-5; 35:9-15).
Material possessions are not viewed as heinous during the Exodus. The Israelites are told to plunder the Egyptians for useful economic resources (Ex. 12:36). Yahweh is fine with the accumulation of personal wealth upon the departure from Egypt. Sinai provides even more elaboration. The Mosaic Covenant brings with it certain assumptions about property rights. The Decalogue itself assumes the ability for individuals to own land and possessions. The call to avoid theft presupposes property ownership (Ex. 20:15). How can one take what belongs to another if that good is not actually in the ownership of the other party? The commandment to cease from covetousness is also as arguably convincing in this regard, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Ex 20:17). The Hebrew structure of this sentence most likely denotes ownership or belonging. The theme of land ownership is found through the rest of the Pentateuch (Ex. 23:23-33; Lev. 25:32-34; Num. 27:5-11)[5]
The New Testament recapitulates the right of individuals to own property. Jesus is fond of economic parables and analogies which imply property ownership as well as interest rates (Mt. 25:27; Lk. 12:48). The early Church seems to assume the same presuppositions. Ananias and Sapphira are confronted by Peter for lying about the sale of a property. The Apostle contends, “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:4). The Apostle is clearly presupposing the right of Ananias’ to have ownership of property. He claims that while it was in his possession it remained his own. However, the right to ownership does not mean that one can fail to render to God what is God’s. It is true that the early Church compiled resources and distributed it to those that had need (Acts 2:44). However, this was done within the confines of the local church. To proclaim that it is the civil magistrate’s role to perform such income distribution is out of order and is a misuse of the Biblical text. The context of the passage clearly demonstrates that it is the Church’s job to perform such a task.
Scripture is clear that man is given dominion and ownership over nature. Yet, such dominion should be done with commonsense as well as Biblical faithfulness. Ultimately, the World’s resources are under the dominion of Christ’s authority. However, in this temporal world, men are given the natural right to acquire and possess economic wealth and physical property. This ideal is a creational ideal rooted in Genesis, thus it extends to all the peoples of the world. It is a creational ordinance. This creational theme is codified at Sinai and recapitulated throughout the Old Testament. In the New Covenant, Jesus rightfully condemns economic idolatry, however, he does not forbid the possession of wealth. The Early Church expounding upon his teaching gathered finances for the cause of the Gospel. However, they did not forbid the right to private ownership. The right to accumulate property and finances is the right of all men including Christians.
[1] Robert Maloney, “Property and People,” America 214, no. 8 (March 2016): 15–18.
[2] Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian World View (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1984). 95-96.
[3] Ibid. 156.
[4] Ibid., 53-55.
[5] Baskaran Jeyaraj, “Land Ownership in the Pentateuch; A Thematic Study of Genesis 12 to Deuteronomy 34” (University of Sheffield, 1969).