Certainly, the concept of stewardship is a key, though I wonder if it has become so identified with middle class, mainline Protestant, individualistic forms of capitalism that it has lost most of its original Reformation prophetic meaning at this point. Maybe we need to come up with new prophetic terminology to speak to the millions of Christian home owners who could more powerfully use their homes and home ownership as tools for the kingdom.

Lots of people have been discussing this issue at the margins of the evangelical church for some time (Tom Sine, for example, has been creatively kicking this stuff around for decades).

A few ideas culled from others and from my own experience (moving from more radical to less radical options):
—-Location, location, location: Some in this thread have already touched on this issue, but I think turning the normal real estate formulation on its head for the kingdom can be powerful. Choosing to own ‘downwardly’ by buying in low income neighborhoods in order to invest in ministry among the least rather than choosing to own upwardly in order to maximize equity (the current common sense approach, even among believers) can be a dramatic sign of the kingdom.
—-Buying or even building homes with a communal focus: Christians can buy adjacent properties, renovate their properties, or build brand new properties with a view to encouraging more communal and shared living among believers. We’ve done this and had a great experience (actually, I’m pushing 50 and right now is the first time we’ve ever lived with only our nuclear family!). You can take this approach no matter what kind of neighborhood you live in. Saves money, increases fellowship, creates wonderful flexibility with things like shared child care, etc, etc.
—-Using a home as a place of unusual generosity and hospitality: Basically, this one is all about viewing your property as a place to love others and to share your blessings with your neighbor. Certainly, part of the value of a home is as a place of restoration and retreat, but most of us could probably find creative ways to invite folks into our homes more than we do. As a quick practical example, while living in South Central LA and NW Pasadena, we used to have neighbors over all the time. We turned our front yard into a safe play area for neighborhood kids (we used to have folks knock on our door from time to time mistakenly asking if they could ‘sign their kids up’ for the ‘pre-school.’). Living that way takes some discipline and intentionality to create clear boundaries, but it has a powerful effect for the kingdom on neighbors and on your own family. We never had the slightest personal issues with gangs in our old neighborhoods (in fact, they protected us :^), and I’m convinced a lot of that was because they recognized we were trying to use our home and possessions to better the hood. But you don’t have to live in an inner city to take this approach—you can open your home anywhere.

Anyway, those are a few ideas to stoke the discussion….

Can any of us imagine the current American evangelical church coming up with a ‘motivational story’ that includes some middle class couple being killed on the spot because they lied about how big a chunk of their capital gains they gave to the local church?

How is ‘radical generosity’ different from ‘communalistic economics?’ I think that’s an important question.

Biblical teaching ‘discourages’ things like charging interest and pursuing material stuff. Can’t think of any teaching that challenges the fundamentals of current capitalism more clearly. Certainly, the customs we have related to ownership of real property is an important element in current American capitalism.

If the current church took those teachings seriously, I can’t imagine that our collective political and economic thinking wouldn’t be very different.

I mean ‘religious conservatives’ in both senses you mention.

I’m somebody who takes classical Christianity seriously but I find current American political conservatism disturbing. There are certainly a lot of people like me in many current American Christian traditions.

But I think it’s fair to say that the decisive majority of (white) American Christians who take classical Christianity seriously support current politically and economically conservative views.

I disagree with that crowd economically and politically in various ways, but my point here is that I wish they’d acknowledge that their economic views aren’t based on the New Testament. I’m glad to recognize that current versions of capitalism can find some support from various biblical principles, but I think we could say the same thing about a lot of other ideologies and lifestyles.

Lots of religious people are trying to reinterpret the New Testament to support various lifestyles and ideologies they find attractive and life giving. I just think it would be good if everybody would acknowledge that fact.

As for whether “security, dignity, and independence” are biblical values, I suppose it depends on how one defines them. If by security we mean merely protecting our lives at all costs from any threat, well, then I don’t think that jives with Jesus’ words. If we mean that home ownership brings about a security in which peace and stability is becoming the norm in our neighborhoods, then yes, I do think it is biblical. The Hebrew word shalom contains within it a sense of stability in terms of security from violence, economic security, etc. A security directed towards others is a Christian security, I would argue. Dignity is certainly a biblical value, but again it depends on how we define it. If dignity means I can feel good about myself because I own stuff, then we’re putting our faith in the wrong things. A biblical notion of dignity is one that respects the concept that not only are all humans made in God’s image, but that God loves us so much that he sent his Son to die for us. Dignity also plays itself out in the Torah as people being able to work and sustain themselves—I believe many of the property regulations are meant to protect people from slavery and indentured servanthood on the one hand and hording and monopolizing on the other hand. Independence is perhaps the most biblically tricky term, but again, I think there is good evidence to find a biblical view of it. The Bible is more about interdependence than radical independence, but I think the independence of the Bible can be linked to the discussion of dignity above. To be under the thumb of a foreign power is always a bad thing in the biblical view. On the smaller-scale, the Bible, specifically in Nehemiah, condemns usury, a system of lending that actually hinders and economically enslaves a person to their lender.

I’m not sure what you mean that my reflections are deductive. Is that just because many of them come after the fact of purchasing a house? My point in these posts has not been to really ask, “Can Christians own homes?” If that was my quest, then yeah, I could see how this is a deductive matter, because I would have started with the hypothesis that it is okay for Christ-followers to own homes and then sought evidence for and against it. My point in these posts has been broader, asking, how should Christians think about home ownership? Certainly, the questions of can and should will come up, but they are not the most pressing, in my opinion. I’ve already tipped my hand that I think it is okay for Christians to own homes in both the fact that I do own a home and through these posts in which I think I showed that home ownership occurs throughout the Bible (e.g., many of the NT churches met in peoples’ homes) and it is the rare case where people are called to give all possessions up in toto. Rather, I think it is more important in these posts and their discussions that we discuss what following Christ in owning a home would look like.

I’ve been reading your posts and one of the things that I’d note is what you already know: Reflecting on homeownership in a western, capitalistic system through a Biblical lens can make things somewhat tricky.

You agree with the President that homeownership brings stability, security, dignity and independence. I think the bigger question (for Christians) would be which of those are Biblical values and how are they Biblical values. In other words, it is not necessarily true that homeownership in Ancient Israel brought forth those things—at least in the way we think about them.

Are all those values Biblical? Sure, but not the way that most people would think of them as being biblical. For example, the pursuit of security is to lose life not gain life.

As a homeowner, I am grateful. But in the past 4 years, I have been leaning more toward viewing homeownership as a stewardship (Luke 16 stuff) issue. The values of the president things that are supposed to mark homeownership don’t really come to mind when I think of myself as a homeowner. The questions I am constantly asking myself are: “How can I steward the appreciation toward the glory of God? How can I use my home for ministry and to bless others? What is my level of discernment and sensitivity to God’s spirit now that I own a home? (For some reason, people who own homes tend to hear that they should settle more often than those who rent)”

And the last thing I will say is to reiterate what I’ve said in a previous comment. Homeownership in America is really about securing loans and have money for a down-payment. With the meltdown of the sub-prime industry, most people who were victims of the predatory lending industry will tell you that nothing about homeownership has brought stability or security to them.

Micah, I appreciate your filling out John Locke. Initially I was ready to rail against him for being “a heartless apologist of laissez-faire capitalism” given what I had read that others said about him. But once reading some of his stuff—although admittedly very little—he’s much more nuanced. (Shocking that someone’s positions are actually more complex than how others present him.) Everything I had read about Locke said he was a deist, but I’m comfortable that may not be so. Hmm… will I have to change this post? Perhaps.

Tom, thanks for the comment. I’ve heard the name Hernando de Soto, but haven’t interacted with much of his thought. He seems like an interesting character. I would agree that Jesus and the apostles’ ministry was a life of itinerancy and that should challenge us in how we view home. (“Foxes have holes…”) I also agree that the Jerusalem church had a radically challenging view of property and community. I don’t think, however, that people were struck down for insisting on private ownership. The issue seems to me to be that Ananias and Sapphira lied about their generosity. Earlier in Acts 4 Barnabas sells a field he owns and gives the money to the church. It doesn’t say if he owns other property and it is not out of bounds to assume that he would.

Regardless, your point still stands. The radical generosity of the Jerusalem church and Jesus’ lifestyle does seem extremely foreign in the US economy. For what it’s worth, while itinerant prophets and philosophers were common in the ancient world, the radical generosity of the Early Church (not just the Jerusalem church) was foreign back then. There are several accounts in the Bible and elsewhere that the surrounding culture didn’t know what to make of Christians’ and their generosity. Some joined the Church because of it, some respected the Church, others were confused, and still others accused Christians of horrible acts and instigated persecutions, believing that no one could really be that good without some serious problems or without posing a serious threat to the social order.

Finally, Tom, I’m not sure I grasp your last comment. Could you fill it out more? What do you mean by “religious conservatives”? How are they conservative—in their politics as they relate to the current US system or in their religious views as they relate to classical Christianity? I wrote a post on this topic last year. You can check it out here if you’d like.

Thanks again, guys. Keep the discussion going.

As a current home owner and ex-slum lord who once owned an inner city rental property I’m good to go with the benefits of ownership.

I agree with Hernando de Soto that creating a wider ownership society in the ‘developing world’ would contribute in a big way to alleviating poverty. His take looks to the west for models of economic development but at this point I can’t think of a better approach. I’m working practically to encourage that kind of thing in Servant Partners.

Still, current Christian folks have got to grapple with the fact that Jesus and the apostles lived like migrant beggars. The early church was a communalistic society where people were struck down by God for insisting on private ownership of what we would now consider to be pocket change.

Once again, I’m not sure what the actual economic model of Jesus and the early church have to do with post-modern Christian capitalism.

Seems like current ‘liberal Christians’ are willing to re-interpret certain sexual teachings of the New Testament.

But current ‘conservative Christians’ seem just as willing to discard the straightforward communalistic economic teachings of the early church.

Are there any real religious conservatives :^)? Or are we all just debating about different progressive alternatives?

Sorry. I really enjoyed your post and I’m glad you are resuming the series. I’m also glad to read someone availing themselves of Locke and doing so in a rather sympathetic manner. Too often in my line of work Locke is taken to be a heartless apologist of laissez-faire capitalism when, as you point out, he has clear limits to the accumulation and use of wealth. Also, unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that even in the state of nature we are subject to God’s Law of Nature and that we have an equality based on being “God’s worksmanship” and being “about His business.”

I have one comment and a quibble. The comment strengthens your point about Locke’s view on property by broadening it. Too often we read Locke on the “life, liberty, and property” as if property just refers to material possessions. It includes much more than this, as seen in section 123 at the beginning of Chapter 9 of the 2nd Treatise. Here Locke writes of why a person might join civil society:

“And ‘tis not without reason, that he seeks out and is willing to joyn in Society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties, and Estates, which I call by the general Name, Property.”

My quibble is that I don’t think Locke can be called a Deist. He is constantly invoking not only the truths of Reason (which he says come from God), but Revelation. Toward the end of his life he wrote a small treatise defending miracles, and he said he believed in the Virgin Birth. In his Reasonableness of Christianity, he begins by positioning himself between two errors: those who say that man is so sinful some have no chance at redemption (the Calvinists of his upbringing), and those who say man is not in need of a savior (the Socinians who really were deists). He argues that Jesus was sent by God for our salvation. Though not a Trinitarian so far as I can tell, he does believe that God is active in the world. The scholars who say otherwise have to ignore many of this works or argue that he is being dishonest.

I realize I’m commenting on a supplmental aspect of your post, but perhaps it’s helpful in that Locke is even closer to the biblical position than we might realize (and as an aside one of the best things I’ve read on biblical interpretation was Locke introduction to his Notes and Paraphrase of St. Paul’s Epistles where he deals with the challenges of time, language, and hermeneutics). But I ramble. One of my favorite passages of Locke’s on revelation is from the Reasonableness:

“He that travels the road now, applauds his own strength and legs that have carried him so far in such a scantling of time, and ascribes all to his own vigour; little considering how much he owes to their pains, who cleared the woods, drained the bogs, built the bridges, and made the ways passable; without which he might have toiled much with little progress.

A great many things which we have been bred up in the belief of, from our cradles, (and are notions grown familiar, and, as it were, natural to us, under the Gospel) we take for unquestionable obvious truths, and easily demonstrable; without considering how long we might have been in doubt or ignorance of them, had revelation been silent. And many are beholden to revelation, who do not acknowledge it.”