Doug Wilson on the Eighth Commandment

Any regular reader of Doug Wilson’s Blog and Mablog may have been surprised, yea, dismayed to read my recent post “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” not unreasonably (given some interactions with Wilson on the previous incarnation of this blog)  imagining it to be a direct attack on Wilson’s post earlier this month, “Football Players or Pirates.”  As it turns out, I just stumbled upon that post today, and can thus assure you that Wilson was in no way the target of my post, despite the remarkable parallels in what was discussed.  I have always thought that attacking someone publicly without naming them was rather worse than doing it openly, so that is certainly not what I was up to.  However, since some may have already noticed it, since the contradiction between our conclusions is quite striking, and since it affords me a good opportunity for reiterating the significant and relevant parts of my earlier post, I might as well interact explicitly with his post now.

Wilson starts off by insisting that this is all quite simple and straightforward: “I don’t believe in complicating economic discussion more than is necessary,” and then turns right to the eighth commandment as his prooftext: “The Bible requires some form of capitalist society in the basic commandment, ‘Thou shalt not steal.'” This command, he asserts, is enough to show that private property is divinely mandated: “This command presupposes the institution of private ownership — private property as a divine institution — and sets up a fundamental protection against assaults on the right to own property.”  And then, remarkably enough, he goes on to fortify the case by drawing on the same analogy I did–the seventh commandment: “It does this in just the same way that the prohibition of adultery presupposes the institution of marriage. If marriage is just a “social construct” that our laws can redefine or abolish, then the same goes for adultery.” 

Now, Wilson is not undertaking a detailed exegesis here, so perhaps it would be unfair to criticize him for being simplistic, but as he starts out by suggesting that it really is just that simple, it is worth reiterating why I just don’t think it is.  First, a “private property” regime and “a capitalist society” are simply not the same thing.  Believe it or not, most people who rail against capitalism till they’re blue in the face are not, on the whole, opposed to private property.  In fact, those who could justly claim to be the most adamant anti-capitalists–the distributists–rail against it on the very basis that it is too hostile to private property.  All kinds of private property arrangements have existed long before what we know as capitalism emerged, and the conception of private property that capitalism advocates is far from the only possible conception.  Second, it still seems clear to me, that all that the eighth commandment, taken on its own, could prove is that it is wrong to violate the prevailing property rules, not that these must be private property rules.  Third (as a corollary of the second point), while certainly appearing to permit and safeguard a private property arrangement, it does not seem at all evident that this commandment mandates one, as a “divine institution”–a phrase that is rather too rashly thrown around in political theology and ethics.  Fourth, even if it did mandate a private property system, I am convinced by Jeremy Waldron’s argument that there are a variety of possible conceptions of that system.  This being the case, it does not follow that the eighth commandment “sets up a fundamental protection against assaults on the right to own property”–since by this Wilson means, I take it, not an individual’s taking it upon himself to take another’s property, but a society’s attempt to place certain constraints on property rights in general.  In fact, as I never tire of pointing out, subsequent chapters in Exodus go on to make what our society would consider fairly radical “assaults on the right to own property.”  

The comparison to marriage, rather than strengthening the point, actually raises a further set of problems.  First, it highlights why we can’t equate property as a “divine institution” with marriage as a “divine institution,” for the seventh commandment rests on an explicit divine act of institution that has no parallel in the case of the eighth.  Genesis 2:21-24 provides about as clear-cut a “divine institution” as one could ask for, giving us a pretty straightforward answer to anyone who would claim that marriage was only a “social construct.”  But if the first discussion of the subject we had was the seventh commandment, then I don’t know that we could be sure it wasn’t just a social construct.  Perhaps in that case, all that the adultery commandment would mean was that, given that you live in a society that observes marriage boundaries, you shouldn’t trespass willy-nilly on those boundaries.  And this is where we are left with the eighth commandment.  There simply is no Genesis passage that says,

“And God saw that it was not good for man to be propertyless.  So he took Adam to a plot of land, and mixed his labor with the soil, and presented the plot to Adam.  And Adam said, ‘Sweat of my brow and labor of my hands!  You shall be called “Adamsland” for you came out of Adam’s labor.’  Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and seek his fortune in the world, and it shall be his private property.”  

Second, the example of marriage actually proves the role of social construction.  For, as I mentioned in my previous post, the particularly understanding of what marriage involved, and the accompanying rights and boundaries, were dramatically different in Moses’ Israel than they are for us today.  Presumably, even assuming that some kind of property regime, even private property regime, were a “divine institution,” we could expect equally dramatic variation in its particular form.  Third, the analogy with marriage might well be taken as evidence of the optional-ness of private property.  After all, the logical corollary of “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is not “Thou shalt get married.”  Singleness is a perfectly appropriate option.  So is propertylessness.  Based on Wilson’s analogy, it would seem that at the very least, a Christian society should have as much room for mendicants as it has for celibates.  Of course, it is perhaps then no coincidence that in American evangelicalism, the one ideal is mocked and marginalized almost as much as the other.  

Perhaps all this may come across as “complicating economic discussion more than necessary,” but unfortunately in this case, such complication seems the only way to handle the text with integrity.

4 thoughts on “Doug Wilson on the Eighth Commandment

  1. Donny

    A couple comments. First, this comment:

    Second, it still seems clear to me, that all that the eighth commandment, taken on its own, could prove is that it is wrong to violate the prevailing property rules, not that these must be private property rules.

    I really don't think that's a good road to go down. I realize in your last post that you admitted it was a stretch, but opening the door, even a crack, isn't a good idea. Remember, this is a divine law given by God to Israel. This law establishes what the prevailing rules will be; it doesn't shift to accommodate for them. The only type of accommodation I can think of is what Christ says about their hardness of hearts. But I doubt you want to claim that one of the ten commandments is a "hardness of hearts" commandment.Next, that scripture you made up:

    And God saw that it was not good for man to be propertyless. So he took Adam to a plot of land, and mixed his labor with the soil, and presented the plot to Adam. And Adam said, 'Sweat of my brow and labor of my hands! You shall be called "Adamsland" for you came out of Adam's labor.' Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and seek his fortune in the world, and it shall be his private property.

    I realize this isn't from Genesis, but it actually made sense to me. The analogy to the creation of woman and of children is striking. Children come from the labor of woman, and they are their glory, their achievements in some way. Think of God and creation, specifically man. God labors to make the world, and the world is , in some sense, God's glory. It's the 1 Corinthians 11 head covering thing. According to Paul's argument, things that proceed out of something else give that thing it's glory. In other words, the source of a thing gets its glory from the thing. Think of Proverbs and children dishonoring their parents – it's such a shame because children are supposed to be a glory to their parents, not a shame. They labored to bring them up, and it produced nothing.This connects to authority as well. The source of a thing is also its authority. God->Christ->Man->Woman->Children. This also works for the product of labor. A man works his field, he does a project, and the finished product is his glory. Think of a winemaker and his wine or a craftsman and his craft. I feel that way when I finish a website, when I edit an article, or when a student actually learns something from a class. You probably feel that way when you write and research.So, yes, actually, I do think there is a divide mandate of sorts for ownership over someone's work, a private property of sorts. But, if this is the reason, it's not an absolute authority (something Doug Wilson would agree with). Remember, the authority goes like this: God->Christ->Man. Man's authority is always under Christ and God. That's why God can institute gleaning laws and things like that. It's his stuff, in the end.You could probably also bring it around to gifts, too. When we labor to produce something, it's typically for the sake of other people. Our children become gifts to the world, winemakers produce wine for others to drink, etc. If that's true, then gift is inherent in private property, which would certainly change how we looked at the market and economics. Sure, we should get payed for it, but it seems almost accidental to the process.Other than that, your point about more precisely defining terms and things like that is a good one. Oh, and this was interesting:

    Based on Wilson's analogy, it would seem that at the very least, a Christian society should have as much room for mendicants as it has for celibates. Of course, it is perhaps then no coincidence that in American evangelicalism, the one ideal is mocked and marginalized almost as much as the other.

    Like

  2. Brad Littlejohn

    Thanks again for the input, Donny. On the first point, I think you have misunderstood me. My point was a definitional one, not a historically relativising one. I was not saying, "'Thou shalt not steal' implies private property, but it needn't mean anything more than that that was Israel's system, which should be respected, but not necessarily made binding on all times and places." Rather, I was saying "'Thou shalt not steal' does not necessarily imply private property in the first place, but merely a settled system of property arrangements, which should be respected." Matt Petersen and I elaborated on this point in the comments section. The point is not, "The commandment is specific in what it means, specific indeed to its time and place, so that it could be transcended," but rather, "The commandment is quite general in what it means, so that it may have a range of particular applications." I am not saying "God commands private property in the eighth commandment as an accomodation to Israel's current practice"; I'm saying "It's not clear that God commands private property in the eighth commandment at all." There, I've tried to make the point three different ways, and hopefully that helped. Your larger point, of course (and one that I went on to make in the original post), is that presumably God would provide more specificity in his law for His people. In the original post, I freely grant that and go on to say that in fact that further specificity is clearly not that of a modern private property arrangement, not by a long shot. Your second point contains all kinds of fruitful threads to pursue. What you are sketching here will be the subject of future posts in the series, as I move beyond asking, "What does Scripture specifically say or command on the subject of property?" to asking "What understandings of the basis and function of private property make sense within a larger theological framework informed by Scripture. And in that, I will try to incorporate some of the suggestions you make here. The labor theory of ownership is Locke's, of course, and it doesn't work as he tries to use it, but there are many possible variations on it, and the variations you have given may be more promising. One short caveat–a woman's laboring for her children doesn't give her "ownership" over them. Parents clearly have some kind of authority over their children that clearly doesn't amount to "ownership"–so, if we were to build on your analogy, it wouldn't lead, it seems, straight to "private ownership" in any recognizably modern sense; though clearly some kind of private direction would be involved. In other words, I think it might end up looking kinda Thomist. But I'm getting ahead of myself now. 🙂

    Like

  3. Donny

    Yeah, I misunderstood you on the first point. Thanks for the clarification.On the second, yes, the analogy isn't absolute, but I there would technically still be room for ownership. Remember, in the analogy, man is over woman, and parents are over children. Parents have a more extreme form of authority over children than a husband has over his wife, but they still follow a similar line of reasoning. But yeah, that's jumping ahead, so I'll leave you alone for now.Oh, and ever heard of a book called Redeeming Economics by John Mueller. I'm starting into it now, and it looks interesting; he's trying to restore the basics of Thomistic economic thought, which seemed interesting in the brief sketches I've read in the intro.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s