The Beauty of Property Rights

Or...Toward a Christian view of, “Yours, Mine, and Ours”

As I talk with my Christian brothers and sisters lately regarding charitable giving and government policy and what approach we should advocate when it comes to providing for the poor it seems that many in the church are torn between supporting “state re-distribution of wealth” and individual liberty.

I want to at least begin a discussion of this matter by looking at the origins of property rights.
Karl Marx and Max Engels in “The Communist Manifesto” state that

“…, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in
the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

I don’t for a moment think that all who hold to Marxist ideals are Marxists themselves, however Christians are easily confused because they equate the covenant body-life described in the book of Acts which is rightly seen as a Christian ideal social structure with Karl Marx’ view of state-imposed elimination of personal property.

The first is voluntary on an individual basis. The second is accomplished by force on a collective basis.

Even though that infamous couple in the fifth chapter of Acts had joined themselves voluntarily to the Church, their giving was still a matter of individual conscience before God even to the separating of husband and wife.

The difference between Christian charity and Marxism is not a subtle one but the difference between giving and taking.

by Dan B.

Human Rights IV

If I had read my own "human rights" stuff without knowing who wrote it I would have a big question for me. It would go something like this; okay Dan, so you claim to be a Christian but all that I see you quoting are philosophers and The Declaration of Independence.

You made the assertion that God gave human rights to individuals and not to groups and then offered evidence that does nothing to back up that assertion.




You say that human rights are life, liberty, and property but you must know that as good as the Declaration is, Christians must give their allegiance to Jesus Christ as He is commended to us in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Besides, Jefferson was no Christian.



Where in the Bible do you see those three human rights spelled out? Huh? Where?

Okay. I've got me.



First of all a right presupposes authority. A right must be conferred on a lesser by the greater authority. God alone possesses all rights as He is the Author of all.

God has the right to life by His very nature.

In the creation account God breaths the breath of life into the first man and he becomes a living soul. Male and female he made them, able to reproduce after their kind. In this way God grants to man the right to life.

We know that this right is granted to individuals because of Gods reaction to the first murder. Cain did not murder mankind but a specific man. It was Ables' blood that cried out from the ground.

I dont think that I need to show how God alone has liberty

By placing man in the garden and prescribing limits God gave man liberty to obey or not. Though man had liberty to disobey he had no authority to do so. Mans liberty is bounded by Gods.

The rights to liberty and property go hand in hand. The first couple had liberty to use their property; ears to listen to the serpents words, minds to consider them and weigh them against the words of their Creator, eyes to look at the fruit, and hands to take it as well as put it to their mouths. property in this sense makes liberty something. otherwise it is nothing.
Property outside of mans body is an extension of his bodily property. When man mixes this bodily property with Gods providence he attains property rights.

Man is accountable to God only for uses of his property that do not violate the life, liberty, and property of other men.

A Quiz For You...

Who penned each of the following, and under what circumstances?  What is your reaction to each statement without knowing the authors and the situations? What are the similarities and differences of the statements out of context, but knowing the context and the authors, is your reaction to each statement the same?

Statement 1

“Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need.”

Statement 2

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Answers for Mary Sue

Thank you for the thoughtful questions. I will try to answer them in the order they were asked.

The pros of government involvement for Christians;

• Pleasing Christ- He said go, teach, do good works, pray, and give that Gods kingdom may come and His will be done.



• Blessing men- Men are made in Gods image therefore they have dignity. Our good works are to be done to men, especially to fellow Christians. We should be strong advocates for justice, especially for the weak since they are often victims of injustice.

The cons of government involvement for Christians;

• The power of the sword is always dangerous so our involvement should be well thought out, realizing that our efforts will be joined with those who will attempt to use us for evil.


• We will attract new enemies.


• If we adhere to only protecting individual liberty we will be viewed as doing nothing by those who want to use the sword in order to make people good or to gain market share.

I would rather say that power tempts men to give free reign to their sinful natures. Some are stronger than others and even a strong Christian can have a weak moment. God will choose His champions and we are not all called to the same level of involvement. We are a body.

Human Rights III

In my second post on human rights I referred to a quotation from Thomas Paine regarding the connection between "society" and "government".

It should be obvious that the church of Jesus is part of society. Because the church is voluntary using its commission to teach and baptise in order to persuade men, in and outside of government, toward love and good works it acts positively.

The government is entirely different; utilizing overwhelming force it acts negatively to punish evil-doers after they have rejected the doctrine of the church and violated their neighbors life, liberty or property.

I think that many Christians are confused between these two very different structures.

Gospel obedience should be and is enforced on those who by free profession have joined themselves to the church, but not on those outside the faith.

Christians should advocate for the sword to punish murderers, menstealers, and thieves. In doing this they will join together with atheists, agnostics, and others in recognition of basic human rights.

Christians should not advocate for the sword in re-distributing individual wealth or favoring some citizens over others.

Human Rights II

In my first post on human rights I ended with a quote from Ayn Rand who was no friend of the Christian church.

That quote is found in a collection of articles gathered under the title, Textbook of Americanism.

Rand of course didn't come up with this. These ideas may be traced to Thomas Jefferson to John Locke and others. We can find them stated succinctly in our Declaration of Independence.

I will attempt to head off criticisms of these principles from my Christian brothers and sisters by referring to Thomas Paine.

In his pamphlet, Common Sense after his introduction he begins with these words," some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher."

I would add that society is obviously first. It is brought about because man was created a social creature.

Though man was created upright he of course fell so that sin mars any society and must be dealt with. From this arises the need for Government.

Human Rights, Got any?

When it comes to men governing men Christians understand that God is the source of human rights but just how does He bestow them?

I think that the answer to this "how" question will determine how we go about redeeming government.

I will tell you my aim in beginning this discussion. I hope to persuade my fellow Christians that God grants human rights only to individual human beings NOT to groups or institutions.

The importance of this distinction will become clearer as it is fleshed out.

I offer this quote as a beginning,

" Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.

Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

These two principles are the roots of two opposite social systems. The basic issue of the world today is between these two systems."