Dr Greg Bahnsen - Economic Ethics: Private Property (Part 1)

This morning we're going to be looking at economic ethics, the fundamental question of private property. This is the second installment in this series on economic ethics. I hope that you'll recall that last week we asked the more general question what the standard for Christian ethics should be. In a sense, what I told you is that we have the better than gold standard. A lot of people talk about the gold standard, and I'm not really against the gold standard, but when it comes to ethics in general, we have a better than gold standard, as the psalmist tells us in the 19th Psalm, that the law of God is more valuable even than gold, and that law is the foundation of our economic ethical outlook. We're going to be looking at the law of God this morning as it's found in Exodus, the 20th chapter, verse 15. So please turn in your Bibles with me to the Old Testament law of Moses at chapter 20 in the book of Exodus. Exodus 20:15 is our text, our entire text for this morning's consideration. Hear now the word of God. Thou shalt not steal. And thus far, the reading of God's word. That may seem a little strange. That was only one verse in the Hebrew, only three words, don't steal. Oh, but you see, it contains the germ. It contains, if you will, the atom that explodes through the whole system. It contains, in a microcosm, the entirety of Christian ethics. I realize that it will be a little strained for you to see a direct relationship between everything I'm going to say in this series and this one verse. But today we're going to begin with the fundamental axiom of Christian economics. And that is displayed in this. It's. It is presupposed in this when God, through Moses, commands his people, you shall not steal. Parents, how often have you heard something like this? Mommy, Billy's taken my fire truck. Yes, but Shelly took my Jedi Warrior and wouldn't give it back. And so the dispute over ownership goes. You would probably like me to talk to you about how parents should resolve those difficulties in raising their children and restore peace to the house. But this morning I'm not going to criticize that attitude. I'm going to commend it. For you see, as bad as the attitude may be, when a child gets upset that somebody has taken his or her to, the fact of the matter is that reflects a very important ethical concept. It's the concept of private property. Something belongs to me, and therefore, since it belongs to me, I have. I'm sure no child would put it this way, but we might as parents Analyze it as sovereignty over that toy. I'll decide when it will be used, how it will be used, by whom it will be used, because it's mine. There's something fundamentally wrong with the idea of ownership that doesn't involve sovereignty. In order to make a point about the way we use words and then empty them of content. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once used this as an illustration. He said, imagine that I gave you a tree. I say, that is your tree. It now belongs to you. However, you may not climb in it, nor may you take the fruit from it. You may not chop it down. And it is not yours to give away to anybody else. Now, if I can't use the tree in the way that I wish, if I don't have sovereignty over that tree, then the whole idea of ownership makes no sense whatsoever. It's this notion of ownership that is fundamental to Christian economic ethics. I want to read just for a moment here from an article by Gary North. In his book An Introduction to Christian Economics. He says, there is no more fundamental question in the field of political economy than that of the ownership of property. Marx, no less than Adam Smith, saw this clearly. The significance of those two names, of course, is that it is more or less the ideological father of communism, one social and economic system. And Adam Smith is one of the leading proponents of capitalism. And what Gary north has said is that Marx, no less than Adam Smith, they both saw that ownership was the key question when it comes to economics. Invariably the question of ownership must raise the question of sovereignty. The roots of Western civilization extend back to the Hebrews. The message of the law and the prophets of the Old Testament returned again and again to the issue of ultimate sovereignty. The message was clear. God is sovereign, man is not. God is Lord of all, not any human institution. All earthly human sovereignty is therefore derivative and limited. The concept of sovereignty was a fundamental theological inheritance of Christianity. And it was precisely this doctrine that brought the early Church into a direct, extended and ultimately triumphant confrontation with the Roman Empire in its doctrine of the genius of the emperor, a muted assertion of divinity which later became open deification. If full sovereignty belongs to God exclusively, then the ultimate ownership of the earth's resources must belong to God. Let me just stop for a moment. You notice that we sang in our opening hymn this morning, this Is My Father's World. If the ultimate economic question is a question of ownership and sovereignty, then the fundamental premise of Christian economics is that God, as the sovereign creator of all, is the owner of everything. That's fundamental. This was basic to the Hebrew structure of political economy, the Christians were informed that all good gifts came straight from God's merciful hand. To affirm this, however, is not by definition to solve the related question of derivative sovereignty and ownership. The difficulties of pinpointing the loci of earthly limited sovereignties have beset Christian social theorists from the start. Yes, God owns everything, but. But you see, that premise can be taken two different directions. The socialist says, God owns everything, and therefore you have no right to keep from another person the use of this or that good or service. You see, God owns everything, and therefore we all own everything together. The capitalist says, no, God owns everything, and therefore when he delegates sovereignty over some piece of property to a person, that sovereignty, derivative though it may be, must be honored by all people. And when people violate the derivative sovereignty over a piece of property, they are in the end violating the dignity and sovereignty of God. And so we may say that our fundamental premise is that God owns everything. But questions remain. Now that we agree that God owns everything, how has God determined that that everything he owns and is sovereign over should be utilized? When we come to a question like that, I believe that many Christians are troubled by the continued existence of poverty and deprivation in the world. The fact of inequality when it comes to the world's resources and wealth has bothered many Christians. In many cases, it should bother us as well. However, the answer to that inequality, it seems to me, is not to be found in the direction that is so often suggested by socially sensitive theologians. I have one in mind here. Bruce Morgan in 1963 wrote a book entitled Christians, the Church and Property, and in that book he had this to say. The direction of justice then emerges wherever adjustments and changes take place in favor of the relatively powerless, by a change in the distribution or dispersion of the social power of property, a change in the distribution of the control of property. What this particular theologian is suggesting, then, is that justice is always served by when we redistribute ownership, when we redistribute sovereignty over the use of property, when we redistribute property and wealth in favor of adjustments toward the relatively powerless in our society. Well, that's really quite sophisticated, maybe highfalutin language for just saying when the poor get more of the money of the rich, then justice is being served. Many Christians are tempted in that direction because we are to have a legitimate concern for the poor. And so we tend to think any time in which the poor are enriched, even if it's at the expense of the wealthy in our society or the relatively more wealthy than the poor, that justice, God's mercy and love are being demonstrated. That doesn't follow at all. At a consortium of Christian colleges meeting, 200 delegates recently came to this opinion concerning private property, and I read verbatim. We believe that Christian justice and love demand at least that every person, group and nation ought to be assured of an equal chance to maintain life, develop talents and resources, and fulfill obligations to God neighbors. Sounds innocent enough. We believe everybody should have an equal opportunity, if you will. The difficulty, of course, is that no mention is made in these kind of statements, which tend to be rather sloganizing. No mention is made concerning what agency is empowered with the awesome power to provide the desired assurance of equality. The presupposition in most appeals like this one is that it's the civil government that must empower this redistribution and this equal opportunity. I think before concerned Christians go too far in urging that the civil authority be empowered to assume that coercive role, it would be prudent on our part to note that even God himself, with all of his omniscience, with all of his wisdom, with all of his omnipotence, even God himself did not choose to dictate to men in such a way. You'll find no provision in the Scriptures for that kind of redistribution, for that kind of equality, if you will. Nowhere in the Bible do we find the sovereign owner of all the universe exerting his unquestioned authority to assure equality to all men. In fact, the commandment thou shalt not steal, as well as the commandment thou shalt not covet, along with countless other biblical examples, clearly indicate an unequal distribution of both opportunity and wealth. Of course, there is one point where the Bible does present what might be called an egalitarian view that is concerning the principle of self responsibility before God. We Read in Ezekiel 18 Behold, all souls are mine. As the soul of the Father, so also the soul of the Son is mine. The soul that sinneth it shall die. In Luke 12 we read, for unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required. And in Romans 14 so then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. We all stand equal before God to give an account of those resources and talents, those abilities which are our own. But we do not stand equal before God with respect to what we're able to do. How much we inherit in this world, how much we labor and earn in this world, what kind of gifts are given us. Equality is not assured by the sovereign Lord of the universe. He does assure us that we will equally be judged for the use of what we have today. There are two contrasting philosophies of property existing in the world. One is the Marxian concept of property, which can be called, for purposes of simplicity, socialism, that it is the society usually vested in the hands of the state, that owns all property and the means of production. And then there is what's called capitalism, the the view that capital is in the hands of private individuals and corporations. On the Marxian concept, the state is practically the owner and controller of all wealth, and individuals find themselves answerable to the state for what they do or don't do with their wealth. This, in effect, is the unspoken philosophy of so much Christian economics today as well, that the individual is not responsible before God for the use of his property and wealth, but rather it is the society, in particular the state, that is responsible. And it's through the state that we must give an answer. The other philosophy which is alive and well today is the philosophy called capitalism. I cannot in all respects endorse what comes under the title of capitalism, but if you want to get down to the bare nub of what capitalism represents, I think as Christians we must endorse what is called capitalism. The philosophy of capitalism is the Christian or biblical view, recognizing God owns everything on the earth, but simultaneously it supports man's right to act freely and without coercion as a trustee of God for whatever property has come into his possession. And while that biblical view recognizes that there is a need that others have and that we have an obligation to fulfill, we need to regard that need as fulfilled and brotherly, not under the coercive power of the state sword. The principle of property, I think, is beautifully stated in the Lord's parable that we find In Matthew, the 20th chapter, in which I'd like you to turn to now and we'll read Matthew 20. It's the parable of the vineyard, and we see what God's sovereignty means, and then by derivation in the illustration of the parable, what man's sovereignty means over property. Matthew 20, beginning at verse 1. For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that was a householder who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the labourers for a shilling a day, he sent them into his vineyard, and he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing in the marketplace idle. And to them he said, go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right, I will give you. And they went their way again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the 11th hour he went out and found others standing. And he saith unto them, why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, go ye also into the vineyard. And when evening was come, the Lord of the vineyard saith to his steward, call the labourers and pay them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the 11th hour, they received every man a shilling. And when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more. And they likewise received every man a shilling. And when they received it, they murmured against the householder, saying, these last have spent but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat. But he answered and said to one of them, friend, I do thee no wrong. Didst not thou agree with me for a shilling? Take up that which is thine and go thy way. It is my will to give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Or is thine evil eye? Excuse me, is thine eye evil because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last? This is a fascinating story, because I think so many of us who read it tend to have the same feeling as the laborers who are out there all day long, who work the full 12 hours through the scorching heat of the day and get paid the same amount of money as the people who came at 5 o' clock in the evening and worked until 6, and they got paid the same as the others. It seems so unfair. Here's the heart of so much of mistaken ethical reasoning. We judge things based on what seems or feels fair to us. What is foundational to this parable is the right of ownership to do what the owner wishes with his own. The owner, you see, could have gone out at five minutes of six in the evening before the time for pay, and he could have called people just to the pay counter. He could have said, it's my desire just to give away this money. You didn't have to work at all for it. Or he could desire that they work one hour or three or six or nine or twelve, as the verse says here, verse 15. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Since this wealth belongs to me, I may spend it as I see fit. And if I wish to grace certain individuals with the same pay, that you've gotten for a full day's work. It is my prerogative to do so. Now let's stop and think what the implication will be if we dispute that outlook. You see, Jesus is not, strictly speaking, teaching economics in this parable. He does indirectly teach economics because it wouldn't make any sense for him to make a spiritual point about. About a sinful illustration. Jesus wouldn't say, now this is the way God is. He acts like this sinful owner of the land. No, I mean, you don't draw an analogy for a proper and righteous truth from an unrighteous or sinful illustration. So Jesus indirectly teaches economics, but what is the direct teaching of the parable? The direct teaching of the parable is God's right to save whomever he wishes to save. The Pharisees may think they've labored in God's kingdom the whole day long and through the scorching sun, and they've kept the law and they've done all these wonderful and great things. And then God at the last minute lets the publicans and sinners and prostitutes into his kingdom. And when he does that, you see, there is that pride within the human heart that cries out, unfair. I've worked hard for this salvation. In Jesus teaching, you didn't earn the salvation in the first place. It's not yours to lay claim to. God gives it by right of sovereignty through grace to whomever he will. Now, let's come back to our economic lesson. If we dispute the right of ownership, the right of sovereignty over that which is possessed by somebody, then by implication we must say, God does not have the right to elect or predestine or to give by his grace salvation to whomever he wills. God can only give salvation to those who work the hardest. But you see, when it comes to that point, we're all elect or predestined to give by his grace salvation to whomever he wills. God can only give salvation to those who work the hardest. But you see, when it comes to that point, we're all, I hope, taken back and find that abhorrent. We'd say there's no way that we want salvation to be meted out on those terms. There's no way we want to challenge the sovereignty of God. We don't want to take away from his right to do with his own what he wishes. Now, the first premise of Christian economics. Let's go back and review, students. The first premise is that God owns everything. He's sovereign over all, and he delegates property to people as trustees of his own. If God's sovereignty means he can do with his own what he wishes, what does the subordinate sovereignty of his trustee mean? If not we may do with our property which has been given to us by God as a gift, that we may do with our property what we wish to do as well. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Now, in this world today, socialism says no, it's not lawful for you to do that. It's not lawful because in the end you are not really the owner of that property. Socialism at base denies private ownership of property. And because it denies private ownership, it believes that it can go on to make application and use of your property and and services. As a matter of fact, in whatever way is best fitting for the society. That's why it's called socialism. Whatever suits the society, the social group roundabout you is what dictates the use of your property. I have a fascinating article, actually a portion of a book here written recently by Michael Novak, in which he has these telling words to say about socialism in our own day. He says, for more than 100 years, beginning about 1820, socialism existed chiefly as an idea in books. There was no instance of it among the world's political economies. Since 1917, and especially since 1945, all this has changed. A majority of the world's political economies are described by their own elites as socialist. Thus, during the past 35 years, socialism in the Marxist Leninist and other variants has acquired an empirical record, if you will, a track record. We can see how well it works now. Socialism is no longer merely an idea in books. It has been put to the test of reality. Symbolically, socialism is supposed to stand for democracy, equality, justice, fraternity and prosperity. Its strong suit has been its moral claims. It is supposed to produce greater brotherhood, equality and cooperation than democratic capitalism. Does it actually do so? The record lies open for inspection. Until recently, us intellectuals who think of themselves as liberal or progressive have tended to embrace in a non ideological way the methods and visions of social democracy or democratic socialism. To lapse into shorthand for a moment, those of us nourished in the Democratic Party during the past generation have been for the most part concerned with the strengthening of the political system, often at the expense of the economic system. We thought the goose which had laid the golden eggs was invulnerable. We may not have been out and out socialists, but we certainly saved our most bitter jibes for the fat cats and multinational corporations, industrial giants, conglomerates and just plain business. We championed people over profits. We seldom had an affirmative word for economic activist. We preferred to be political activists than we favored our kind. We did all this by a kind of rote. We had been educated to think of business as an alienated, reactionary and possibly fascist force. We may have been too pragmatic to be ideological socialists, but our hearts were on the left. The evidence of their senses, however, has led a significant new band of intellectuals to question their own socialist past. This questioning has proceeded in three stages. The first stage consisted in trying to rescue the ideal of socialism from the dreadful record of Soviet style scientific socialism. This attempt to broaden the ideal of socialism drew attention to the mixed record of socialist countries like Great Britain and Sweden. It began to seem that every existing democracy had large components of capitalism. Private property, enterprise, markets, incentives. And that democratic socialism, no more than communism, alleviated the alleged ills of the modern world. Alienation, the dissatisfaction of the working class, and so on. The third stage arose from the conclusion that capitalism and socialism were obsolete categories and that the decisive distinction lay not in economics but in politics. The key ideal is democratic as opposed to non democratic. Slowly, then, the socialist ideal, put to multiple tests of reality, has evaporated. For some, it remains a piety. The more it fails in practice, the more fiercely it is idolized. The record is plain. Socialist practice, in its many manifestations, has never yet lived up to socialist theory. There is not a single example of a socialist state that has abandoned totalitarian claims in order to become democratic. Purely socialist economies stagnate in mammoth inefficiencies and vivid inequalities. Nonetheless, the failure of democratic capitalism to develop its own moral theory allows socialism to boast superior moral claims. Despite its failures in practice, idealists still tend to believe that socialism, even if it hasn't worked so far, offers a more attractive moral ideal than democratic capitalism. He goes on here to speak of the great misery that has been brought about in the socialist countries by the following of its fundamental economic doctrine that everybody owns everything. But, he says, the problem we face today is that capitalism has lost its moral backbone and Novak's right. It's very hard to stand up and to be against socialists today because they have the moral rhetoric on their side. Capitalism has been secularized over the last 100 years, in particular, to such a degree that at this point it can effectively be pointed to as nothing more but the economy of selfishness. What might become the moral backbone of capitalism? What can we give? What can we set up? What can be established as the alternative to the moral claims of socialism? I want to suggest to you today that what we have found in the scriptures is the only foundation for the economics of capitalism. That if we are, for instance, evolutionary in our view of the world, there's no reason for us to be capitalist. I mean, what is a human being but slime that is oozed from the slime? If you believe in evolution, we're nothing more but animals who have gotten ahead. You might justify capitalism on an evolutionary basis as the survival of the fittest. The people who are most ruthless, who can grab the most and keep the poor down, are the people who will be rich. That hardly provides the moral backbone that we need to fight socialism. That, I think, is precisely what people are reacting against and jumping back into the waiting arms of the socialist. And so you can't defend capitalism on an evolutionary basis, but nor can you defend socialism. Because, you see, if you have an evolutionary base, there are no moral standards. What is, is right. Whatever has happened has happened. And there's no ideals, there's no ethical standard that goes beyond that. The physical world is all there is, and it's evolving the way that it is, and it doesn't do any good to fight it. And so you see, it's only on a Christian foundation. It's only in terms of the law of God that we can defend the rights of private ownership and capitalism. Neither a socialist nor a capitalist. I'm a Christian. As though Christianity and its standard, the word of God, would not have anything to say about the fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism. And what is that fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism? It's just this. Who owns property? Socialism takes as its indispensable distinctive economic tenant the communal ownership of goods and property as an involuntary social duty. The communal ownership of property, involuntary communal ownership of property is crucial to socialism. Just to make that very clear to you, because there's so much confusion today. Socialism is supposed to stand for loving the poor quality or for democracy or any number of things. Just to make very clear to you that that is the essence of socialism, I have brought together a few remarks and definitions from various references and sources this morning, if you will. Webster 7th New Collegiate Dictionary is a good place to begin. Just how is the word socialism to be used? It defines it as any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Or Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics says the quintessence of modern socialism is government ownership of productive property and the centralized management and direction of economic life. Or if you want a dictionary of politics, socialism A political and economic theory according to which the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned and controlled by the people. A DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY the general features of socialist society are conceived as following economic collective ownership of the means of production such as factories, industrial equipment, the land and of the basic apparatus of distribution and exchange. Or if you will, the final document of the first convention of Christians for socialism. Since they advocated, I suppose they can be taken as authoritative spokesman for this and they say, and I quote, socialism presents itself as as the only acceptable option for getting beyond a class based society. The fact is that social classes are a reflection of the economic base which in a capitalist society sets up an antagonistic division between the possessors of capital and those who are paid for their labor. Only by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production do we create objective conditions that will allow for the elimination of of class antagonism. When the sermon and review comes out this week, you know that this is going to be a question what is the fundamental, what is the essential point of socialist economics? And the answer is the social ownership of property, the means of production, if you will, the communal ownership of matters, or if you will, the government was what it amounts to in the end, practically the government ownership, the means of production. Does the Bible support socialism or capitalism? Remembering our slogan, I'm not a capitalist, I'm not a socialist, I'm a Christian. Well, the Bible must either agree that the means of production, the ownership of properties in the hands of the community or the state, if you will, or it must disagree with that premise or it must have nothing to say at all. Let's start with the last option. Perhaps the Bible has nothing to say on that question. Maybe the Bible is completely a economic strange word. What that means is without any economic leanings one way or another. That would hardly be possible though, since one of the fundamental theological premises of the Bible is that God, God is the sovereign owner of everything and he expects his trustees to treat his property in a particular way. And so I have to reject the idea that we can give up on the question of socialism or capitalism because we're Christians and after all we're above all that God's not above all that God's word says something about that. And so what I want to ask this morning is what does God say about ownership? Does he say that it belongs to the community or it belongs to the individual and the family in which he is found? And now we come back to that very short verse that is our text for this morning. Thou shalt not steal what is presupposed by the commandment thou shalt not steal. Is it possible to steal something that belongs to you? No, it's not stealing, it's just using what is my own. And so if, let's say the local factory belongs to me and it belongs to you, of course, but it belongs to all of us. But if the local factory belongs to all of us, then for me to go in there and to take a piece of machinery out to my own home, well, to our own home. If I were to take a piece of machinery from the factory to the house in which my family lives, I couldn't be accused of stealing it, now could I? Because it's mine. Oh, and by the way, if you were to, when I got home, a piece of machinery, if you happen to have moved in to that house, I could hardly accuse you of stealing the house because it belongs to you too. I mean, everything belongs to everybody on this ideal of socialism. And when everything belongs to everybody, it is impossible to steal. And yet God says, and it's fundamental, it's in the foundational summary of the ethic of scripture, don't steal. The presupposition of the commandment thou shalt not steal is that we may own property as our own, that private property is a God given right which when violated is a transgression of his holy law and will be met with his terrible judgment. Now we can't say, I'm neither socialist nor capitalist, I'm a Christian. We have to say, for all of the abuses of the capitalist that you may know or have heard about, the fact of the matter is on the fundamental difference between the two economic systems. The Bible is clearly capitalistic and in favor of a free market. It is not a socialist document and cannot be twisted to that end. And now we're all thinking, but wait a minute, isn't there a story in the New Testament that supports socialism? We turn to the beginning of the Book of Acts, the chapters four and five. We find out that the Christians in that day held all things in common. And since they held all things in common, weren't they socialists or communists, if you will, they believed in the communal ownership of goods. Well, remember we said that the fundamental premise of socialism is the communal ownership of goods as an involuntary duty. An involuntary duty. Now, in my family, if I may use an example, in my family there are certain things that we own in common. Does that make us communist? No, it just means that hopefully because we love one another, we're willing to share a willingness to share is not condemned by the commandment thou shalt not steal. What is condemned is taking from those who are unwilling to share what you want anyway. And what we don't find in the early chapters of Acts is the Church saying, since you are such a selfish wretch and will not share your goods with us, will just expropriate them, or will say that you are excommunicated, or will send you to hell because you will not share with them. You don't find any condemnation, any coercion, any if you will, pressure laid upon people to share. The sharing is voluntary. Moreover, it's in special circumstances. It must be remembered. It's after so many people have come and on the day of Pentecost and been converted and have stayed in the Jerusalem Church that there's this pressing need and Christians are willing to participate in it. Beyond that, Jesus had warned Christians that in the very near future Jerusalem was going to fall and that they should leave. And so if they made use of what productive wealth they had left for the helping of others, it certainly was their prerogative. But again, doesn't show anything of socialism or communism. It only shows a heart of charity. Moreover, you will not find anywhere in the New Testament the universalization of that program. You notice that when the Jerusalem Church is having financial problems even after their sharing of their goods, that Paul later appeals to the churches roundabout Asia Minor to support the Christians in Jerusalem because of the famine. Paul doesn't say that money is the theirs and we're just going to redistribute it. He appeals for free will offerings that he will pick up and carry to Jerusalem. And so again, all of the crucial features of socialism are lacking. It is not involuntary, it is not universal. When Anais and Sapphira did not give all of the profit from the sale of their land through the early church, they, as you know, were struck dead. Some people, shallow in their reading of the New Testament, have said, see, there you have it. God punished people who would not give everything to the church for community ownership. But you see, Peter makes very clear in the story of Anais and Sapphira that they were not struck dead because they didn't give everything to the church. They were struck dead for lying through the Holy Spirit. They were struck dead for saying they were giving everything when in fact they were holding back a portion of the price for themselves. And that kind of deceit and fraud is another matter altogether. Peter explicitly says, before Ananias is struck dead, he says, while you owned this, wasn't it in your hand to do with as you wished, plus your property, you could do what you wanted with it. But when you say you're doing one thing and you do another, and you say that to the apostle, you're lying to the Holy Spirit. And for that they were finally condemned. And so the New Testament does not support the idea of socialism. For the New Testament continues to reaffirm the law of God of the Old Testament that says, thou shalt not steal. And the presupposition of that commandment is private property. The ownership of private property. Historically, the Protestant Church has unequivocally condemned the communal ownership of goods. It has condemned the denial of private property as immoral and clearly contrary to the word of God. Let me give you some examples. This is so consistent, so persistent in its witness, that it's a shame today that modern Christians are being lured into the possibility of a Christian socialism. The French Confession of faith in 1559. This is not private opinion, my friends. This is the decree of the Protestant churches, 1559. Therefore we detest all those who would like to reject authority to establish community and confusion of property, overthrow the order of justice, or the belgic confession of 1561. Wherefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all who introduce a community of goods and confound that decency and good order which God hath established among men. The 39 articles of the Church of England, 1571. The riches and goods of Christians are not common common as touching the right title and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast, or the formula of Concord, 1576. Lest such heresies and sects should tacitly be attributed to us, it has seemed good simply to recite this document at the end of their Articles of Belief, wherein the heretics of our time dissent from the truth and teach, contrary to our sound confession and doctrine. Anabaptist articles which can be tolerated in daily life. 1. That a godly man cannot with safe conscience hold or possess any property, but that whatever means he may possess, he is bound to bestow them all as common good. That's called heresy. By the formula of Concord. The Irish Articles of religion of 1615. The riches and goods of Christians are not common as touching the right title and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists falsely affirm. And then finally, if you will, our own Church's confession of faith, the Westminster Confession of 1647, says at chapter 26, section 3, nor doth their communion one with another as saints, take away or infringe the title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions. In 1 Kings the 21st chapter we find in closing a biblical story that I think speaks very firmly to the possibility, to the proposal that the state, the community, has a right to take from individuals that which is their own and use it for the states perceived good. First Kings 21 is the story of Naboth's vineyard, and it reads as follows. It came to pass after these things that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard which was in Jezreel hard by the palace of Ahab, king of Samaria. Hard by meaning immediately adjacent to the property of Ahab. And Ahab the king spake unto Naboth, saying, give me thy vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, and because it is near unto my house, and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it or if it seem good to thee, I will give thee the worth of it in money. And Naboth said to Ahab, jehovah forbidden me that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee. And Ahab came into his house heavy and displeased because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him. For he had said, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers. And he laid him down upon his bed and turned away his face and would eat no bread. He sulked, he went home, and he said, I can't get the property I want. And he was really bothered, and he turned his face to the wall. But he had a wicked wife, Jezebel. Jezebel his wife came to him and said unto him, why is thy spirit so sad that thou eatest no bread? And he said unto her, because I spake unto Naboth the Jezreelite. And he said unto and said unto him, give me thy vineyard for money, or else if it please thee, I will give thee for it. And he answered, I will not give thee my vineyard. And Jezebel his wife, said unto him, dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? Arise and eat bread, and let thy heart be merry. I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite. So she wrote letters in Ahab's name and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in the city and that dwelt with Naboth. And she wrote in the letters saying, proclaim a fast and set Naboth on high among the people, and set two men, base fellows, before him, and let them bear witness against him, saying, thou didst curse God and the king, and then carry him out and stone him to death. And the men of the city, even the elders and the nobles who dwelt in his city, did as Jezebel had sent unto them, according as it was written in the letters which she had sent unto them. They proclaimed a fast and set Naboth on high among the people. And the two men, the base fellows came in and sat before him, and the base fellows bare witness against him, even against Naboth in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did curse God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city and stoned him to death with stones. Then they sent to Jezebel saying, naboth is stoned and is dead. And it came to pass when Jezebel heard that Naboth was stoned and was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give thee for money, for Naboth is not alive but dead. And it came to pass when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, that Ahab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite to take possession of it. Now I need to say parenthetically something that you will not know about ancient history. Ahab was a well known king in the ancient world. Assyrian documents speak of Ahab the king of Samaria. They speak of his mighty power in battle, in the many battles that he won, he is praised as a king. The amazing thing to Bible scholars is none of that prowess of Ahab is recounted to us in the Bible. The Assyrian documents tell us of Ahab's greatness as a king. The Bible tells us that he stole a poor man's vineyard. And now let's continue. The word of Jehovah came to Elijah the Tishbite saying, arise, go down to meet Ahab, king of Israel, who dwelleth in Samaria. And behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, whither he has gone down to take possession of it. And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, thus saith Jehovah, hast thou killed and also taken possession? And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, thus saith Jehovah, in the place where the dogs lick the blood of Naboth, shall dogs lick thy blood. Even thine or Elijah's appalled that God would send him to the King to say such a thing. But that's God's response to those who believe the state can expropriate property over against the private ownership of individuals. And in the place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth, according to the word of Jehovah, Ahab's blood was spilled and the dogs licked it up. The Bible says a very, very simple thing to us this morning. Thou shalt not steal. And the foundation of that economic theory is private property. That's a God given right. The next time your children run to you and say Billy took my fire truck and complain about that, sympathize with their complaints, at least to this point, that they recognize a God given right of private ownership.