The Church Mouse, not unreasonably, thinks the priest who told people it was all right to go shoplifting for Christmas is a bit of a twit – to put it mildly.
One commenter on his post draws attention to a bizarre defence by Civitas of this strange advice. Civitas describes its role as offering “primary education for children failed by the school system and unable to afford the most costly private alternatives; and second, we provide teaching materials and speakers for schools.” Hmm … surely not the Fagin school of educating disadvantaged children though?
Let’s take a quick look at the biblical arguments Civitas finds to support shoplifting:
It is true that Jesus might never directly have urged the poor to steal. But he did make it clear beyond any doubt that the demands imposed by vital needs such as hunger trump even the commandment that forbids stealing.
Thus, when hungry disciples of his were criticised for having plucked the heads of grain to eat when walking through wheat-fields on the Sabbath, Jesus replied: ‘Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, and the and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abitathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?’ (Mark 23.25-26 [sic - he means Mark 2:23-27])
The main problem with this is not (as the writer goes on to suppose) that this is about the Sabbath – although that is the direct thrust of the passage – but that the Law taught that the wheat along the paths was to be left by the landowners for the use of the poor. This is the 1st century equivalent of something between social services and a soup kitchen. The disciples are not stealing it, but making use of society’s provision for the poor.
Even more oddly Conway goes on:
“And she gave birth to her first-born and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.” (Luke 2 verses 1-7) There is no suggestion here that, before taking shelter in the barn, Joseph and Mary had sought or obtained the prior permission of its owner. Since at the time, Mary was going into labour, it is highly doubtful they had even sought anyone’s permission before taking shelter in it.
Even on traditional European readings of the text, this is to imagine a whole host of circumstances about the inn , the innkeeper and permissions given or not given. However, as both modern scholarship, and traditional Palestinian readings have long since held, there is no inn, but a guest-space in a small family house which is already full. Mary and Joseph are (in Luke’s version) bunking in their relatives’ property, even if not in the normal accommodation.
In short, there may be political or philosophical arguments for arguing that in a greedy, unequal and unjust society, theft is either political rebellion or human necessity. I am not convinced that they apply very obviously in our society. But apart form Marx and Proudhon, one is more likely to justify such behaviour from Robin Hood stories than the Bible.
{ 4 comments }
Er, would it be relevant for an Antipodean to mention that the Church Commissioners might own the building the supermarket is in? Thus stealing according to the vicar’s mandate might deprive the vicar of his pension …
lol
A bit like David Jenkins, there’s nothing better than saying something outrageous to get people talking about something. The difficulty is that getting people thinking about the issue is a tad tougher. Do pulpits give us a false sense of our communication skills?
There is the fundamental question that these political philosophies ask about what is property and what is theft. I don’t know about half the nonsense spouted by Proudhon, but Marx’s famous statement is that property is theft. It’s not a call to steal, but a realisation that the property of the few is made on the backs of the many, and that’s real theft and far more prevalent that what often goes for theft.
I don’t get the link from the shoplifting sermon to Marx, and I agree with you that the justifications given by Civitas are pretty poor. But I can understand that Tim Jones feels he’s been misrepresented, and there’s more behind that sermon than meets the eye. I’d like to see this lead to greater theological study of theft and economics. The gospels have much to say about money, and it’s about time we had a clear, coherent theology to speak to our present economic climate.
I’d be very interested to see that. I think Aquinas places the duty of a poor man to feed his family when they’re starving above his duty to respect other people’s property, ad so effectively produces a lesser of two evils defence of theft – but I could be misrepresenting or misremembering him.
Comments on this entry are closed.