Tax, total depravity and why I disagree with R.C. Sproul Jr.

Great piece by @rcsprouljr. A man theologically close to me; politically poles apart. Relevant for left & right alike http://t.co/Qi6DDzE7hr

— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) July 24, 2015

As you will gather from the above embedded tweet, R.C. Sproul Jr is a man with whom I have a lot in common theologically. Yes, we differ on the issue of baptism and we would see things differently regarding polity. Beyond that, we're not far apart theologically. And, as he has helpfully pointed our here, we ought to weigh the views and advice of those from different church cultures and theological backgrounds. Without throwing the baby out with the bath water, we should learn to take the good and leave the bad. In all of that, I am total agreement with him even though, of course, we will differ slightly on what constitutes the good and bad (1).

While we are (broadly) theologically on the same page, politically we are poles apart. No doubt there are areas of agreement (2) but when the man considers Barack Obama as far away from him on the political spectrum as one can get, I dread to think how he would categorise one such as me! Which leads me on to a short conversation I recently had with him on twitter.

@rcsprouljr really? Why not emphasise total depravity, inherent selfishness, and if the system takes that into account by redistribution?

— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) July 24, 2015

@steve_kneale Really and truly. Because systems don't undo depravity and selfishness.

— R.C. Sproul Jr. (@rcsprouljr) July 24, 2015

It was this I wanted to dig into.

As I have previously commented here and here, the doctrine of total depravity tells me that a society built on philanthropy, charitable giving and the economics of 'trickle down' will not work in the interests of most. The capitalist model is predicated on greed as a motivator. Unfortunately, greed being deemed good is entirely antithetical to the teachings of the Bible. Moreover, if greed is the motivating factor in creating wealth - and if greed is deemed good by society as a result - we can hardly be surprised when that greed extends to seeking to keep as much money to myself as I possibly can. A society that functions on 'trickle down' or philanthropy as a principle for helping the poor fails to account for the base desire to hoard wealth. Examples of companies and individuals using tax loopholes and avoidance schemes serve only to underline the point. The rich - who become so by being told their greed is good - merely take that view to its logical conclusion and do all they can to keep their amassed wealth and do very little for the poor.

For some on the left, more often than not the secular left - though I may often (but not always) agree with their outcomes - there is far too much confidence in the inherent good of man. Total depravity tells me their optimism is more than misplaced, speaking against the reality of what we see in the human heart and the world all around us. I do not see a world full of people who naturally help each other at great cost to themselves (3). For those on the right, more often than not the Christian right in America, they see through this optimism in the inherent good of man. However, they then presume, despite man being inherently selfish and sinful, those individuals who generate wealth will be philanthropic and generous. They motivate individuals through greed - recognising that sinful human nature can be harnessed this way - but with a ludicrous sleight of hand simultaneously argue these same sinful people will suddenly become generous and philanthropic despite having been motivated to amass their wealth through greed and monetary motivation. It makes no sense and doesn't speak to the reality of a world in which the very rich do all they can to maintain and hoard their wealth.

It would be my contention that because the human heart is sinful we cannot rely on the generosity of rich and wealthy individuals. It is precisely because I believe in the doctrine of total depravity that I cannot see how a low tax system, that relies on philanthropy and trickle-down economics, can possibly work for the good of all. Rather, it makes more sense to recognise that people are inherently sinful. That sinful nature does not suddenly disappear upon the generation of vast amounts of wealth. Therefore, to have a system that imposes redistribution on wealthy individuals seems a far more sensible approach. This allows people to amass wealth whilst simultaneously recognising they are unlikely to share their money for the benefit others.

This brings me back to my twitter conversation. My response to R.C. Sproul Jr's view of economic systems being beneficent if they let you keep your money was this: why not emphasise total depravity and selfishness and assess an economic system by its redistributive effects? His answer was illuminating: because no system can undo total depravity or selfishness entirely we shouldn't even bother trying to mitigate them.

Now, this was surprising. One could argue, using the same logic, that because no system will ever undo total depravity or murder then we shouldn't bother assessing any system based on its efficacy of limiting and preventing murder. He and I share a view on abortion. We would both support a system that limited the proliferation of abortion on demand. But, by his logic, the system shouldn't interfere because it won't undo total depravity or the desires of some to abort children. Unless we can wipeout total depravity and the sin that underlies each and every outworking of it, we must ignore it and allow it to continue. As we can't undo total depravity, and the sins of greed and selfishness, we shouldn't bother to mitigate them and, in fact, should press on with a system that not only allows them but  actively encourages them to thrive. This is madness. As Martin Luther-King said: "morality may not be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless". To paraphrase another comment by the man: it may be true that the law cannot make a person generous, but it can keep him from the sinful outcome of his selfishness and greed, and I think that's pretty important.

One may seek to argue that it's not the same. One may argue that in allowing selfishness we are allowing state theft with a system that steals from its citizens (4). But this strikes me as a weak argument. Jesus and Paul are both clear enough that taxes do not equate to theft (see Mk 12:17 and Rm 13:6f). They are a legitimate part of governance and cannot be equated with sin - unless of course Jesus and Paul were trying to encourage us into sinful behaviour by telling us to pay them! The selfishness and greed inherent in the capitalist system cannot be deemed anything other than sinful; taxes inherent in almost every system are evidently not forms of state sin.

For me, it is my view of total depravity and sinful human nature that tells me we require a system that does something for the poor and needy. Left to our own devices, there would be no measures in place for them at all. In fact, God himself seemed to recognise this tendency and put such measures into the civil law of Israel. Without such laws, human nature was unlikely to ever come up with any sort of solution (or, dare I say, truly care about it). When the Early Church in Acts 2 were living as they ought under the gospel, we don't see amassed wealth and no giving. We see something much closer to an uneforced version of Socialism. But we must recognise that those who aren't under the gospel, who aren't regenerate and don't have the Spirit of God dwelling in their hearts and changing their desires, aren't going to act like this voluntarily. Hoping that they will is simply pie in the sky. It is for that reason I believe the state is duty-bound to redistribute wealth through a fair system of taxation.

None of this is to turn anyone away from R.C. Sproul Jr - I really do hope this doesn't come across that way. I honestly did mean what I said at the beginning. R.C. Sproul Jr. is a man with whom I agree on so much. I find his blog helpful in many ways. On lots of theological and church issues I think he often gives good counsel. I, frankly, wouldn't engage with him at all were that not the case. I see this as an example of the very principles he outlines here. Only, now, we're not talking specifically about theological and ecclesiastical issues, but political ones. Nonetheless, I suspect if we ever were to meet and become friends, he and I would agree not to "get [our] eschatology from [our] dispensational friends" but I would certainly be the friend from whom he wouldn't get his political or economic insights.

Notes

1. For example, I favour congregational polity, independency and credo-baptism. But on the doctrines of grace, the ordo salutis, soteriology and any number of other theological areas there would almost certainly be a great deal of agreement. I read his blog and often find it very helpful.
2. He and I share a definite and clear view on the issue of abortion, for example. 
3. Whilst there are individuals like this, they are often notable because of their scarcity
4. This is an argument R.C. Sproul Jr. has made before (see here)

British values, EDOs and whether we'll keep our church buildings

Now they are free of their Liberal Democrat shackle, the Conservative government will press ahead with plans to scrap the human rights act and introduce Extremism Disruptions Orders (EDOs) based upon "British Values" (whatever those are supposed to be). I previously commented on EDOs here. However, there are a few new features that warrant comment.

David Cameron states:

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.

This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values. (Source: Guardian)

It is, therefore, apt for Politics Home to state 'David Cameron is promising to introduce a bill in his first Queen’s Speech that will give authorities stronger powers to clamp down on radical groups and individuals – even if they have not broken the law.'

The Guardian claims the measures are intended to give the police 'power to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual'. Harmful is defined as a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress. The measures will allow for bans on broadcasting and requirements to submit to the police in advance any proposed speech and any web, social media, or print publications. Extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places are also in view. The bill will also contain new powers to close premises "where extremists seek to influence others".

All of this is done in the name of promoting the heretofore undefined concept of "British values". When pressed on this idea, we are told British values incorporate such novelties as freedom of speech and tolerance of others. This either means we have our British values mixed-up or such measures are not really in the name of British values. For, it seems strange to defend free speech and tolerance by denying free speech and tolerance to all views but state prescribed orthodoxies. If free speech and tolerance are truly British values, that should surely extend to speech we find hateful and unpleasant. Indeed, what room is there for the exercise of tolerance if we are never faced with opposing views we must tolerate? Throwing people in prison for expressing unorthodox views - whatever they may be - is a strange approach to tolerance and free speech. Dare I say, it isn't really tolerant at all.

The major problem with these limits on free speech is that they are the slippery slope to repression and authoritarianism. Though judgment may begin at the house of radicalised Islamist terrorists and sympathisers, it very quickly narrows in to those who hold a whole raft of views outside of mainstream thought. Theresa May has already alighted upon those who oppose gay equality legislation as "extremist". Whatever your views on that particular issue, it is surely not right to criminalise those who disagree (unless they have violent thoughts towards those who don't share their views and plan to act upon them). It has political ramifications too. Judgment will begin with those archetypal extremists in the BNP but will soon narrow to take in UKIP, the hard-right of the conservative party any number of "extremist" left-wing parties and the hard-left of the Labour party. 

The rhetoric being employed in favour of this legislation is precisely the same as that used to try and suppress those movements most people today see as vital moments in history. At one time, the Chartists, the Suffragettes, the Labour movement, the Civil Rights movements of America and Northern Ireland, those fighting apartheid in South Africa, those asking for Home Rule for Ireland, just about any independence movement and any number of other significant historical movements have been labelled "extremist" or some similar epithet. 

I am not suggesting those being radicalised by Islamists sit within this same company. However, two things should be said. First, it is the unstated consequences of this legislation that will inevitably impact the newer movements that could potentially sit amongst such historic company. Secondly, some of these historical movements - often church-based dissenting movements - sought to enshrine the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech in British law. For several hundred years those rights have been broadly recognised. It is, therefore, immense folly to claim to uphold British values - especially the values of freedom of speech and religion that were won primarily by dissenting churchmen - whilst simultaneously eroding the freedom of those very people to exercise those rights. Threatening prosecution and the removal of buildings for stating views that do not accord with state orthodoxy is a return to medieval rule whereby the governing religion is not Protestant or Catholic but a secularism that isn't fully realised and still hides behind a veneer of the more palatable facets and labels of Christendom.

The way in which the limits on free speech have been applied over recent years is well documented. Street preachers have been the ones who faced the brunt of these pernicious laws and the militancy of those who are desperate to find offence in the things of faith being presented in the public square. Unfortunately, street preaching has fallen out of favour in many Christian circles. I don't know whether it is out of fear of man, embarrassment of the mode, a lack of belief in the power of the gospel and the folly of preaching or something else altogether. Whatever the reason, it sometimes felt as though many unwilling to engage in such public proclamation sat idly by whilst those brave enough to do it faced the ire of the law. It was as though many viewed police involvement as the comeuppance of those foolish enough to engage in such outmoded practices.

As I have argued throughout my posts on free speech, what was being done to evangelists on the street was soon to come home to roost in church buildings. And such is coming to pass. EDOs are specifically designed to root out "extremism in all its forms" and grants powers to close down buildings and venues in which "hate speech" (as yet to be properly defined) is propagated. This was a potential Martin Niemöller moment, and I'll leave it to you to decide how we fared on that front. The offence being taken on the street is now going to be taken in the church. In fact, offence needn't even be taken in the church. Sermons and studies placed online, or even "extremist" views being taught in principle could spell the end of our church buildings and venues and/or the vetting of our sermons and studies.

One can only hope the government sees sense and changes course. If not, this may be an issue on which the church will have to suffer if it is to remain faithful to the word of God. We can nevertheless rest assured that the church of Jesus Christ was not built on the back of state sponsorship and nice church buildings. The early church did quite well without well disposed primary schools offering them a nice venue on a Sunday. What we need, as much now as then, is a work of the Holy Spirit and deep belief in sufficiency of the scriptures. It takes God's word and a work of his Spirit to bring revival. Perhaps we need to lose some of our buildings before we fully realise that.

John Stevens - 'Eliminating the Poverty of Nations': A Response

John Stevens has written a piece titled 'Eliminating The Poverty Of Nations: Development Through Free Markets, The Right To Private Property, Democracy & The Rule of Law Are The Only Long-Term Solution'.

I was rather troubled by his ability to speak of Socialism without nuance whilst managing to be more subtle when it came to describing forms of Capitalism. Socialism and Marxism were used interchangeably whilst his own view, a self-stated branch of Capitalism, was tempered and distinguished from other types. Indeed, gainsaying Socialism with reference to Animal Farm - a book written by an avowed Democratic Socialist - is rather like rejecting Christianity based on a critique of the Baptist Union by an adherent of the FIEC. It is simply incorrect to suggest all forms of Socialism are the same. Like it or not, whatever one feels about Michael Foot, he was not advocating the politics of Stalinist Russia!

Stevens comments: 'The central question concerns the way in which prosperity, and hence economic security and well-being, is to be sought by the state for its people. Should this be through socialism or through a responsibly regulated market?'. However, these things are not in dialectical opposition - most Socialists would argue for "a responsibly regulated market" (as would most Capitalists). The issue is not whether we have Socialism or a regulated market (both sides want the latter), it is where and what we regulate that is in view. This is simply a false dichotomy. Nor is it fair to phrase the question as 'are “enterprise,” “competition”, “private” and “profit” dirty words, or the engine of economic growth and efficiency?' as many Socialists are not against those things in principle either. Rather, the question revolves around when and where those things are appropriate and what we do to help those for whom "enterprise" and "profit" do not come so easily.

Stevens' argues:

If history is anything to go by the reality seems to be that socialism consistently fails to deliver the economic utopia it promises. To me it seems that in a sinful fallen and flawed world Marxist socialism tends to deliver equal poverty for all (with the exception of the privileged party elite who run the system – cf George Orwell’s Animal Farm), whereas a responsibly regulated free market tends to deliver marginally unequal prosperity for the vast majority (with the exception that it tends to create a tiny super-rich elite). Countries that have attempted to implement a fully socialist vision through a state controlled command economy (eg USSR, Eastern Europe, Moaist China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, many post-colonial African Countries) have impoverished and oppressed their people. On a global level western style liberal property-owning democracy is spreading and delivering greater prosperity for many.

Here, we see Communist regimes used to denote Socialism at large. We may argue Marxist Socialism, or Communism, is not a means to economic growth (though China would dare to be an exception). However, this is not the sum total of Socialism. With the possible exception of Venezuela, whom most observers would recognise is not so similar to the others, all these are examples of Communist regimes, rather than varied forms of Socialism. At best, this suggests Communism is a flawed system rather than showing Socialism is altogether a failure. Of course, this is not a claim with which many Socialists would disagree (cf. George Orwell's Animal Farm) for not all Socialists are Communists. The 1945-51 Attlee Ministry was avowedly Socialist, yet pursued a series of policies that couldn't conceivably be compared to any of the regimes Stevens lists. Similarly, several post-war French governments have pursued a Socialist agenda and yet could not be deemed similar to any of the above. Equally, as mentioned, Michael Foot cannot seriously be compared to Maoist China or Stalinist Russia.

Stevens continues by asserting:

Marxism and socialism fail because they do not reflect the aspirations of most people. Human beings everywhere aspire to own their own property, to have some measure of control over their lives, and to be able to better themselves and their families by enjoying the fruits of their labour, initiative and enterprise. They do not ultimately want to find their identity as part of a class collective, except when this is a necessary intermediate stage necessary for the overthrow of a ruling feudal elite who monopolise wealth and opportunity for themselves... 

As Christians it should not surprise us that the model which seems to deliver most prosperity for most people, albeit imperfectly, is liberal free market democracy, because this most closely reflects the pattern established by the creator God and enshrined in his laws for his people in Israel. This is also reflected in the prophetic hope for their future (cfMicah 4v4). These laws embed the fundamental principles of private property ownership, the rule of law and fair justice, the elimination of corruption, regularly renewed opportunity for all (jubilees, debt cancellation and land redistribution), and a measure of ongoing redistribution (both compulsory and voluntary) to care for the genuinely poor and needy. They also reflect the centrality of the family, as opposed to the state, as the basic unit of society. These principles that ought to have led to prosperity, but sadly they were never properly implemented and obeyed.

Whilst Marxist Socialism (as opposed to other forms of Socialism) may not reflect the aspirations of people, why should aspiration form the basis of political policy? The idea that aspiration and "personal betterment" are somehow inherently good doesn't strike me as Biblical at all. Many aspirations are down right sinful and most Christians would not advocate building a society on such things. Consumerism, materialism and greed are the driving forces of Capitalism and most Christians agree such things are not good Biblical values. As I recently commented here, my conclusion supported by right-wing blogger Archbiship Cranmer (except for the Margaret Thatcher bit), home ownership (a common aspiration) is not a basis for economic improvement nor should it be the ultimate goal for most people. We may argue that people "do not ultimately want to find their identity as part of a class collective" but, whilst not class-based, doesn't the gospel call us to exactly this sort of collectivism? Are we not called to be a body of believers, based on the gospel, giving to those who have need and taking from those who have means? Such a rejection of collectivism in favour of individualism - the very notion at the heart of Capitalism - seems fundamentally unbiblical and antithetical to the gospel itself.

Interestingly, Stevens concedes that the Biblical model he puts forward - which he states most closely apes liberal free-market democracy - was never implemented properly. Surely, if we are to assess Socialism (more accurately, the Communism being addressed) with reference to the "fallen world", as opposed to the ideal world, then we must do the same with the model Stevens puts forward. As with Communism, the issue he faces on his model is that it was never implemented properly. Those in power created the system and made it work in their own interests rather than for the benefit of all people. So, his model hardly escapes the same charge as the Communist system. In both cases - on both Communism and Capitalism - the issue is the same, individuals look after me and mine rather than the collective good. On a Communist system, this works itself out by making leading elites prosperous at the expense of the general population. On a Capitalist system, this works out by making those with pre-existing privilege and money more powerful and those without such things increasingly worse off.

Stevens is right to say the irony of the recent Daily Mail hoo-ha, which prompted his post, is that "no serious political party in the UK is really advocating socialism, or indeed untrammelled free market capitalism". Since Labour dropped Clause IV under the leadership of Tony Blair, the British Labour Party have not advocated wholesale collective ownership and indeed continued the privatisation plans enacted under Margaret Thatcher. Similarly, the Conservatives do no advocate a totally unregulated free-market. None of the major British parties advocate the extremes of either position. As Stevens rightly notes "only small marginal differences in overall state spending, and minor changes to the tax and benefit system, are at issue".

In a fallen world, it strikes me that free-market Capitalism simply cannot address the needs of the nation. It better serves those with entrenched privilege than those without and appeals to the more base aspirational values of materialism and greed. Any casual observation of the recent recession will show that greed is not fundamentally good and an unsupervised market has significant knock-on effects in global economies. In a system that encourages greed (usually dressed up as "aspiration"), how will the poor and vulnerable be helped? Indeed, how can we subscribe to the doctrine of Original Sin whilst simultaneously suggesting that those with lots of money will naturally be charitable and seek to look after those reliant on their support? The history of business, since the industrial revolution, has broadly not been one of caring support for workers and increased benefit to communities at large. The notable exceptions to this are usually Christian philanthropists, specifically motivated by the gospel which teaches something radically different to the values enshrined in Capitalism. Businesses, as a general rule, are very good at making money and particularly good at keeping it. It is notable that the world's most profitable companies seem to be amongst those paying the least percentage of tax - this is Capitalism at work!

Capitalism has knock-on effects for the individual. It plunges people into debt because it creates a culture of the "must-have" - again, fundamentally based on aspiration - and encourages people to own what they can't afford and seek what they needn't have. Home ownership is the worst culprit but countless examples of debt for goods can be cited. It is a sad product of the system that debt has become a business of it's own. Payday lending companies use this culture of consumerism to prey on the very poorest who who are least able to handle the debt into which they are plunged. Free-market capitalism creates such a culture - it allows businesses of this sort to thrive (free-market) and encourages the very poorest to utilise these companies because of the greed-led, aspirational, consumerist culture it promotes.

Would Socialism fare any better? Certainly not the Marxist Communism being addressed by John Stevens. However, a system that seeks to redistribute wealth - from those with means to those with need - strikes me as fundamentally biblical. A system that does not rely on good will and philanthropy to trickle down to the most vulnerable seems to be a good response to the issues presented in Genesis 3. A system that publicly owns certain enterprises - determined by fundamental need - and runs them for community benefit hardly strikes me as a bad thing. At heart, Socialism is concerned with collective benefit whereas Capitalism is concerned with the individual. Even when Scripture deals with the individual e.g. personal salvation, it is usually with an eye on the wider community (cf. 1 Jn 1:3,7). 

For my part, I am not so sure free-market capitalism is seen all that clearly in the pages of Scripture. It strikes me when the gospel is preached and people come to know the Lord for themselves the results are rather closer to Socialism than Capitalism (cf. Acts 2:41-47). That is not to say Socialism is necessarily the best system for secular governance nor to suggest Socialism should be implemented uncritically. However, when people are living as they ought, under the gospel, it appears they are closer to a Socialist mindset than a Capitalist one.

Home ownership is not the summum bonum

I am far from often in agreement with the Archbishop Cranmer blog. I do not share his unerring veneration of Margaret Thatcher, I am not perturbed by state intervention in principle and I am not slavishly tied to supporting "the market" come what may. However, despite the hagiographic title, his most recent post touches on a fundamental issue and, in the main, handles it well. The post - 'Margaret Thatcher "gave the Conservative Party intelligence and committed leadership"' - deals with home ownership and the current government's flawed attempts to boost the economy through a specific focus on the housing market.

I first touched upon the issue of home ownership back in March 2010. Here, I sought to explore pertinent issues related to whether Christians could, or should, justifiably own property. To be clear, I am not against Christian home ownership per se. However, I do think many Christians have failed to think clearly about the issues surrounding home ownership and a particularly worldly approach to property has infiltrated the church on some level. Again, that is not to say owning property is wrong per se. Nevertheless, our attitude toward home ownership may have been unduly influenced by our culture.

Cranmer's central argument concerns the government's current Help to Buy scheme. He states:

The Bishop of Manchester-designate, David Walker, said: “Help to Buy is like tackling a food shortage by issuing food vouchers rather than getting more crops planted”. And he is quite right. If any shift were needed, it is either in increasing the building of social housing or in dispelling the shame associated with renting. The Royal Family rents; the Archbishop of Canterbury rents. What is this Tory fixation with owning that which the market determines you cannot yet afford?

With this assertion, I wholeheartedly agree. Cranmer's view of this policy is ultimately correct when he argues:

It is difficult to conceive of a more peccable policy than one which lures you into a state of maximum indebtedness at a punitive rate of interest, especially when debts of such gargantuan proportions built on the shifting sand of inflated property prices were largely responsible for the global credit crunch and the state we’re in. This time, instead of financial institutions selling on the risk of sub-prime mortgages to an ever-cascading carousel of private banks, the taxpayer will act as guarantor of last resort. 

As with the bank bailouts, the shareholder (homeowner) takes the profit in times of plenty, but the poor taxpayer takes the hit in the lean years. It is even more invidious when you consider that those who take out these 95% loans will be subject to a higher rate of interest than those who are deemed to present less of a risk: the repayments will be arduous and the emotional costs very high. This is simply piling Pelion upon Ossa. At these thresholds, the ‘dream of home ownership’ can rapidly become a nightmare trap of negative equity and unsalability: the Englishman’s castle becomes his dungeon. House prices are not guaranteed to go on rising in perpetuity: the easier-credit bubble will surely burst, just as it has always done.

On all this, I agree with Cranmer.

However, it is difficult to support his view that Margaret Thatcher understood this issue well given that he ignores the fact she was centrally responsible for creating this very shame culture. For Thatcher, as with most Conservatives, home ownership represents the highest good whilst renting is for failures, identifiable principally by their lack of earnings and/or savings. Just as Thatcher responded with the words "what a luxury" having asked a student studying Ancient Norse Literature what she was reading at university, the Conservative mindset on home ownership is to justify all things in terms of money. That is, things are only of value if they can be quantified monetarily. Thus, if you do not have enough money to own property you must be of no value, a failure, because achievement is measured in monetary terms both in education (the earning power of your degree is its sole value) and in terms of income (you are of no value if you fail to earn). Indeed, Cranmer argues well that the central shift needed is "in increasing the building of social housing". However, he says this without irony having stated "Margaret Thatcher heralded a revolution in the property-owning democracy with the sale of council homes to tenants".

Underlying this whole argument is the understanding that all people need to live somewhere. The rental market is awash with private landlords covering the cost of second mortgages through the rents of those who cannot afford to buy their first home. Property prices have risen well beyond the rate of rising salaries and the average age of the first-time buyer is steadily increasing. The government's answer to this problem is to loan people a deposit, which must be returned, on a 95% mortgage with unfavourable terms in order to allow property prices to rise even further. A far more simple solution would seem to be the building of more houses, flooding the market with property which would naturally drive prices down. Sadly, successive Tory and Labour governments have singularly failed to build enough housing (social or private). Prices remain high because demand exceeds availability and the government answer, not by increasing house building projects but, by plunging would-be home-owners into ever increasing levels of debt in order to achieve the only thing assumed to be of any value - owning a home. Certainly the Bible has much to say about where we plough our money, the storing up of treasures and the placing of people into debt. 

In truth, we need to move away from the view that property ownership is the ultimate good. We do need to increase social housing - a problem exacerbated by the sale of council housing - but we also need to increase the number of private homes being built too. Moreover, we need to move away from any concept of shame in renting and value inherent in home ownership. Why should housing not be treated in the same way as any other good? Why is a house about the only piece of property to increase in value in perpetuity when almost every other depreciates? This culture - seen almost nowhere else in Europe - causes people to take themselves into untold debt in order to own property they cannot afford whilst simultaneously reducing their living standard and impeding their ability to move freely. At heart, the question we are left with is 'are mere bricks and mortar really worth it'?

Treasures on earth?

In our modern culture there seems to be an expectation that people should seek to buy property. There is a sense in which one should buy a house, wait for its value to increase and then sell it in order to move into a bigger property. It is on this basis that the recent credit crunch was portrayed as an utter disaster. Mortgage lenders restricted lending and the value of property dropped. Many are now struggling to get a foot on the property ladder, those who already own houses are concerned that their property value has severely decreased and ultimately that they have lost money.


This culture seems to have found its way into the Church. There is an expectation, even amongst Christians, that one would naturally seek to get a foot on the property ladder and even move into bigger property as the value increases. Many show their bias towards this thinking by referring to renting as 'dead money' but buying as 'an investment.' Some even seek to spiritualise the decision by claiming that buying a house is 'good stewardship.' However, how far can we say that this is really true?


Of course, if we are offered the choice between owning or renting a house, both houses having minimal differences and the cost being identitical, it is perfectly reasonable for us to buy. However, how often is this the case? In reality, to buy a home we must firstly save up a sizeable deposit, then take out a mortgage often 4 or 5 times our yearly salary and then pay interest on top of the value borrowed for 25-35 years. When one factors in the costs of maintenance and building insurance on top of this the price of buying a property is mammoth. Can we justify this amount of money as Christians?


The first point to consider is that the money spent on our property benefits only ourselves. When we tie up considerable sums in owning property we tie up money that could otherwise be directed to Christian work. If we rented, instead of bought, how much more money would we have available to give to the church, missions and evangelistic outreach?


We must also consider our motives for buying a house. Some cite the need to own property in order to provide for their old age. Jesus told us, however, not to worry about tomorrow (Mat 6:25-34) and not to store up treasures on earth (Mat 6:19). If we are concerned about the future and are sinking vast sums into our homes as a result we are failing to heed Jesus' command. Some buy into the culture of getting larger and larger properties. This, however, runs contrary to the parable of the rich fool (Lk 12:16-22). Indeed, how much more would we have to give to the Lord's work if we did not tie our money up in our homes? Moreover, is it right for us to put our money into our home in the hope that it will increase in value so that we can get a larger one? It seems that the teaching of the Bible is clear on these points.


It is also possible to argue that taking out a mortgage is a form of gambling. Many people find themselves in dire financial straits because they have calculated the affordability of a mortgage based on current rates of interest but, when interest rates change, they are unable to maintain payments. People gamble that the rate of inflation will stay low enough for them to afford mortgage repyaments. Not only is there risk involved in taking out a mortgage but the stakes with which we are playing could not be higher. Ultimately, this could run into the tens of thousands.


We must also consider how much more difficult it is to answer God's call when we are tied into property. To be called to overseas mission or into the pastorate in another part of the country is all the harder to follow when we first have to concern ourselves with selling our house. In fact, it is quite conceiveable that many would consider themselves unable to answer the call if they could not first find a buyer for their home. How skewed our logic becomes! The call of God becomes second to the sale of our property.


This skewed logic runs deeper. Some in the Church argue that going into debt is wrong. Nevertheless, where their mortgage is concerned they have a blindspot. They encourage people to take out sizeable mortgages on the one hand whilst sneering at the use of a small overdraft facility or loan on the other. Such a view is hugely inconsistent! It is almost as if a mortgage is, by some token, not considered debt despite the mammoth sums involved. If we do not believe mortgages are wrong then we cannot suggest that these other types of loan are wrong. If we insist that loans are wrong then we must equally insist mortgages are wrong. We cannot have it both ways and yet because of the property culture we seek to make it so.


So, can we as Christians really justify buying houses? It may be possible, in certain circumstances, to say that it is justifiable. Nevertheless, we must conclude that a worldly culture has infiltrated the church. Instead of relying on God we rely on our investment for the future. Instead of giving from the first of what we have, when our salary initially comes in, we give from what is left over, when we've made our mortgage payments. Is this the culture we should have adopted in the church or should we seriously reconsider whether it is right for us to buy our own home?