Property and Living in Common

A survey of nations tells the tale: to the degree that we have and respect private property, we have prosperity. As Christians we struggle with this, often times assuming we must give up private property in order to live in common. And, of course, when we do, we repeat history. We have brothers and sisters who have tried this before.

I believe the early Christians modeled lifestyle after the middle eastern family. Land was capital; the family leader was responsible for keeping the property together. The entire extended family lived and worked this land. The ownership of the land meant responsibility to others. The rich man didn't sell all he had, not just because of himself, but for what it would mean for his people.

So, how can we deal with property in a way that works while living in common?
The Middle Eastern family model is tough to implement, because we haven't achieved that level of success yet, their way of thinking is foreign to us, and our incentives are different. But I think I have found a way of thinking about property that will permit us to move forward.

Let me compare two ways of dealing with property, in the modern era. The first we all know. The socialist model. That's where something is declared public property and anything pertaining to that property is decided by a committee. Suddenly everyone owns it, and no one does. No one can decide the costs or the benefits, and since it is mythologized as “public,” mysterious codes of behavior are developed around it. The rights of the people who use this property are clearly restricted, the decisions about it are in a group that often has no interaction with the property, and even basic functions like maintenance and repair become a struggle. As you may guess, I'd prefer us not to use this model. It's not just wrong, it's downright pagan.

The second way of dealing with property comes from museums. It works like this: A donor chooses to donate art. The museum accepts the art and it's responsibilities are to maintain, repair, and show the work to the public. If the curator wishes to do anything else with the art, he must get the donor's consent. I remember being told in college that someone has gone to jail for failing to get the donor's consent when he sold something. According to the law, he committed theft, even though the money went to the museum.

Notice what happens here. Through ownership, we keep the costs and benefits clear. The owners of the museum and the owner of the art both seek a mutual benefit: showing the work to the public. In order to achieve their desired benefit they both choose to bear costs. Here also, we reach a benefit that is an intangible. The benefit of showing art to the public cannot be quantified, but we know it is a benefit for all involved.

It will work for buying a vineyard, starting a company, building a city. It will work for education, for feeding the poor, healing the sick, and whatever else we may want to do to build the kingdom. Imagine the day when you are in the marketplace, and the buyers, sellers, and passersby shout out to you, “Take us with you!” In order to do that the people must see, we must be the light to the world. Light is measurable, concrete. So let us do with our physical things what we do so well with our intangible things.