Righteous indignation, moral outrage, threats to social order, unethical and unmoral … Jim West, Scott Bailey and others are horrified at the suggestion from the Rev. Tim Jones, Anglican priest at St Lawrence and St Hilda in York, UK, that the poor and destitute should help themselves to a tiny bit of the vast wealth of shopping chains. Here’s a snippet from his sermon, which was dealing with the poverty evident in the story of Joseph and Mary:
My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift. I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither. I would ask that they do not steal from small family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices. I would ask them not to take any more than they need. I offer the advice with a heavy heart. Let my words not be misrepresented as a simplistic call for people to shoplift. The observation that shoplifting is the best option that some people are left with is a grim indictment of who we are. Rather, this is a call for our society no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt. When people are released from prison, or find themselves suddenly without work or family support, then to leave them for weeks with inadequate or clumsy social support is monumental, catastrophic folly. We create a situation which leaves some people little option but crime.The strong temptation is to burgle or rob people – family, friends, neighbours, strangers. Others are tempted towards prostitution, a nightmare world of degradation and abuse for all concerned. Others are tempted towards suicide. Instead, I would rather that they shoplift. The life of the poor in modern Britain is a constant struggle, a minefield of competing opportunities, competing responsibilities, obligations and requirements, a constant effort to achieve the impossible. For many at the bottom of our social ladder, lawful, honest life can sometimes seem to be an apparent impossibility.
Scott reckons he was on grog when he wrote the sermon, while Jim opines that it is a sign of total depravity, the beginning of the slippery slope etc. A sin is a sin is a sin.
But, as Tony Buglass points out in the discussion, the righteous condemnation misses the desperate situation of in increasingly larger number of poor in the UK. And Jones was suggesting that instead of robbing your poor neighbour or the local shop, or engaging in prostitution, a little ‘proletarian shopping’ is a far better option.
However, let’s take this a step further. Not only is there a tradition of clergy making such worthwhile suggestions, but the fact that the archdeacon of York was not taken with the idea and that the local Tory MP was outraged suggests Rev. Jones is onto something. Given that the laws of the land are made by the ruling elite, that ethics is the universalised morals of the propertied class (as Aristotle shows so well), that the gospels tell stories of Jesus and his bunch of ratbags explicitly breaking such laws and going against such ethics, Tim Jones may well be expressing a deeper unethical and unmoral practice that runs through the Bible. And I take unethical and unmoral in a political sense, namely undermining the dominant ethos and mores, which are none other than the ruling ideas of the ruling class (to gloss Marx).
23 December, 2009 at 2:36 pm
All this lot have missed the central point of it all. From the sermon
This idea that there are no absolute property rights, especially when the poor are starving, runs back through the tradition strongly – see Aquinas for example.
23 December, 2009 at 2:56 pm
As Tony Buglass points out:
question 66, article 7, response to objection 2: “It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another’s property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need.”
I’m not necessarily a fan of Aquinas, but will grant him that point.
28 December, 2009 at 1:08 am
Neither am I, but indeed, one has to grant this. In the name not only of Christianity, but basic human decency and the most simplistic forms of rationality.
23 December, 2009 at 4:13 pm
From the stuff you linked, one thing that always annoys me is when people speak in platitudes and generalizations about other people’s situations. I’d bet dimes to dollars that none of those people have ever had a conversation with somebody for whom it would be alright to shoplift.
23 December, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Absolutely. As Brecht once said, ‘what is the crime of robbing a bank compared to the crime of founding one’.
24 December, 2009 at 12:13 am
you would be wrong dave. dead wrong. i happen to live in one of the poorest counties in the state. poverty, drug abuse, alcoholism, those are the full time jobs of the majority of people in the area.
encouraging them to steal is like pouring gas on a fire. it doesn’t better their lives- it only worsens them.
in fact, i bet i am more acquainted with poverty than either you or roland.
finally, i’ve responded here-
http://jwest.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/no-im-not-wrong-im-right/
24 December, 2009 at 4:43 am
Fair enough, Jim. For the record I was alluding to your commenters rather than you, but I should have made that more clear/commented there. Also, my jab was not regarding who among us has the most knowledge or statistics about poverty, but whether those who speak in general about ‘the poor’ have ever talked to a ‘poor’ person.
I don’t dispute that those are problems, but I think that treating them individually and in isolation is short-sighted. Poverty is a systemic issue (not to mention a hierarchical necessity of capitalism). The problem I have with generalities is that they want to treat everything the same, and cannot take into account nuances. There’s no doubt in my mind that there are drug addicts who do abuse help, but there’s also no doubt in my mind that there are people sleeping on the streets at night because they’ve fallen into a string of bad luck and are stuck, or else were born into a bad situation.
The reason I can say that is because I’ve met people and talked to them. I don’t mean to pretend that I’m some encyclopedia of knowledge, but I’ve had at least a limited exposure to actual people in actual situations.
The biggest problem I have with statements like ‘the poor should just get jobs, even at McDonald’s, rather than steal’ is that it appeals to the pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps logic that is, again, short-sighted, and, further, anti-biblical. Even bracketing biblical arguments or exegesis, the bootstraps argument is stupid.
24 December, 2009 at 5:07 am
Some people won’t see outside their social sub group and set of ideological righteousness. I think the Anglican priest was courageous – albeit naive to think that people would have the compassion to understand him – and made a very important social statement. The sermon is very very sad because it illuminates the awful situation some people are in and highlights the need for people to be far fairer and more constructive about doing more. We hope that in the UK this will happen and as Tony Buglass demonstrates, there are people who understand and care. And as a priest Reverend Tim never said stealing was right. He said it was wrong. Jim is wrong.
24 December, 2009 at 5:14 am
and sadly, associating the story of the SC priest winning in a church poker game, with Rev Tim’s sermon, demonstrates that he has completely missed the point of Rev Tim’s sermon.
24 December, 2009 at 7:08 am
[...] ook scotteriology, Stalinsmoustache. Er is daar ook een interessante discussie over dit onderwerp [...]
24 December, 2009 at 8:44 am
I keep thinking of all those times in the Gospels, no matter how legendary, where some homeless dude with his gang keep on breaking the laws.
24 December, 2009 at 8:47 am
no Roland – he wasn’t a law breaker. He never transgressed the Torah – but he did accept charity and he did believe in helping the homeless.
24 December, 2009 at 8:48 am
Now you are being sarcastic.
24 December, 2009 at 9:16 am
No honestly I’m not. See James’ work on Mark and also the law, “The Date of Mark’ pp 123-24 (the conclusion) and his book that has just been released on NT and the law. Also of course Maurice’s forthcoming book ‘Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Perspective of his life and teachings’ which containis a complete demonstration of Jesus as always remaining within the law.
24 December, 2009 at 9:11 am
Jim challenges us to find one account of theft in the Bible. I do believe the Israelites were commanded to help themselves to items from their Egyptian master upon fleeing that fair land.
24 December, 2009 at 9:38 am
Steph, but that begs the question of which law. Jewish law or Roman law or indeed the remnants of Hellenistic law, not to mention customary law?
24 December, 2009 at 9:57 am
Jewish Law. It’s all about correct interpretation.
24 December, 2009 at 10:03 am
however, as Jesus would have known that God had instructed the Israelites concerning the items of their masters, he would have welcomed the idea of Rev Tim’s sermon I’m sure.
It’s a bugger but I saw a blog responding to Jim on Mark Goodacre’s feeder earlier today. Now it’s dropped away I can’t remember it and it didn’t add a link on any of Jim’s posts. But the blogger criticised Jim and had OT examples of legitimate stealing and I can’t remember where they were!!
24 December, 2009 at 10:12 am
Hmmm … that begs the question of Roman law at least.
24 December, 2009 at 10:47 am
He didn’t break Roman Law. But the chief priests pressed some sort of charge, possibly some sort of treason, (we don’t really know) against Jesus being the leader of a popular movement, crowd stirring and all, but Jesus didn’t actually break any Jewish law (main points in James’ and Maurice’s books)… and he didn’t break any Roman law, he didn’t even stop people paying tribute.
But Jesus believed in social justice!!! However trying to apply his ideas to a 21st century context is bananas. Take his prohibition of divorce – it served it’s purpose in 1st century to protect women from desititution but now it’s plain inappropriate.
24 December, 2009 at 10:15 am
And a second bugger to that the loss of that feed.
24 December, 2009 at 11:40 am
There’s always that sticky issue of the crucifixion …
24 December, 2009 at 11:42 am
And the corn in the field, and the money changers in the temple, and washing before eating, and not honouring your father and your mother …
24 December, 2009 at 12:28 pm
You could at a pinch argue that Jesus broke Jewish law according to the misinterpretation of the Pharisees (who were the ones running round telling everybody what to do), eg Mark 2.23-8. However the Pharisees held council with the Herodians rather than taking him to court, probably because they knew they couldn’t gain a conviction in an open court.
He was crucified by the Romans on a false charge of what was probably treason because of representations by the chief priests.
None of your examples have Jesus breaking Jewish law – see James published work especially on Mark 7 and even more especially Maurice’s forthcoming book on these passages.
It is typical of past historical critical scholarship to misinterpret these passages.
24 December, 2009 at 12:38 pm
OK, I’ll have to check James’s and Maurice’s books to make a fair argument, but isn’t the ‘false charge’ argument one that is quite traditional theologically, since Jesus is supposed to be innocent. I also take a more dim view of the law, as is obvious. It’s not some objective code to which everyone is subject. As the politician says in ‘Rocking the Boat’: the advantage of being the government is that if you don’t like something, you make up a law against it, and if you don’t like a law, you simply change it.
24 December, 2009 at 12:39 pm
… which means that ‘misinterpretation’ is just the interpretation of those in power. As far as they are concerned, it’s a perfectly valid interpretation.
24 December, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Jesus obeyed the written Law. That’s why the Pharisees knew he couldn’t be convicted in a Jewish court.
On handwashing and Mark 7, there is no biblical law about handwashing. The audience would have been Jewish so the food would have been kosher anyway. And it was the ‘traditions of the elders’ he not following, it wasn’t the law he wasn’t following. But James has a whole chapter on Mark 7 in ‘the date of mark’ and also in the new book on nt and jewish law with the pretty cover.
On crucifixion … Jesus had serious opposition from scribes, Pharisees, Herod Antipas, Herodians, chief priests and scribes and ordinary Jews (for splitting families). Jesus accused opponents of replacing the commandments of God with their own traditions. They had endured Jesus’ mission in Galilee, his prophetic preaching in the Temple on previous visits, and the final straw for them was the Cleansing of the Temple on his final visit. This precipitated the final and fatal opposition to him from the chief priests who controlled it. They were able to use aspects of his life and teaching to claim before the Roman governor that Jesus was guilty of sedition.
24 December, 2009 at 3:18 pm
OK, now we’re beginning to agree: ‘written law’ is but one part of the law; ‘traditions of the elders’ may count as either customary law and/or oral law so the claim to follow God’s law is a clever trick; and the crucifixion is a punishment for political rebels etc. It’s an open question whether he was genuinely guilty or not, mainly because the documents are highly problematic.
24 December, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I hope you get to read James’ stuff and especially Maurice’s forthcoming book although you’ll have to wait til September to read that…
anyway the law sucks.
25 December, 2009 at 1:58 am
on his blog, Jim said:
“I’m right firstly because there is NO biblical justification for theft. None. Not a passage nor a theologically undergirded interpretation of any passage permits theft.”
Now while i think i see what Jim is trying to say, i question the simple equivocation of ‘theft’ as it may/may not appear in the bible with the particular acts of shoplifting for subsistence in consumer capitalist society.
In my mind, it would be interesting to look closely at the series of mental steps that are drawn through time/space/modes of production so that it would seem like ‘common sense’ that the bible, written in vastly different circumstances, is opposed to shoplifting in such contemporary circumstances. A converse example would be interest/usury: there is no apparent justification for it from the bible, but most priests, theologians and pastors would happily profit from interest gained on investments (or superannuation). Again, it would be interesting to see the ‘common sense’ justifications for this, then compare the two different logics.
25 December, 2009 at 2:23 am
Jim also said: “any interpretation even of economic realities must, for me, be theologically grounded”
By contrast to Jim’s theological grounding however, these stirring words from Fr Camillo Torres equivocates ‘expropriation’ (which would be considered “stealing” esp. for the north-american-owned corporations with interests in Latin America) with the command to love one’s neighbour. What this demonstrates at minimum is the plasticity of “biblical” or “theological” concepts in relation to their uses as “justification” for economic purposes:
“I feel that the revolutionary struggle is a Christian and priestly struggle. Only through this, given the concrete circumstances of our country, can we fulfill the love that men should have for their neighbors…
‘He who loves fulfills the law,’ says St. Paul. ‘Love and do what you will,’ says St. Augustine. The surest sign of predestination is love of neighbor. St. John tells us: ‘If someone says he loves God, whom he does not see, and does not love his neighbor whom he does see, he is a liar.’
However, this love for our neighbor must be effective. We will not be judged only by our good intentions, but mainly by our actions in favor of Christ represented in each one of our neighbors. ‘I was hungry and you did not give me to eat, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink.’
Under the present circumstances in Latin America we see that we cannot feed, or clothe, or house the majorities. Those who hold power constitute an economic minority which dominates political, cultural, and military power, and, unfortunately, also ecclesiastical power in the countries in which the Church has temporal goods. This minority will not make decisions opposed to its own interests… The power must be taken for the majorities’ part so that structural, economic, social, and political reforms benefiting these majorities may be realized. This is called revolution, and if it is necessary in order to fulfill love for one’s neighbor, then it is necessary for a Christian to be revolutionary.”
25 December, 2009 at 3:44 am
that is profoundly clever and creative. Usuaries is a perfect example too…
25 December, 2009 at 3:45 am
and that was incredibly moving – I’m very much in favour of that revolution.
25 December, 2009 at 9:35 am
Add to all of that the fact that in the Hebrew Bible it’s a real push to argue for private property in the first place, since it was invented by the Romans in the 3rd century BCE.
28 December, 2009 at 1:25 am
Yup. This whole question comes down to property and the rights to it as I pointed out above. Check out working paper nine at the following location – http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cssgj/WorkingPapers/CSSGJ_workingpapers.php on the history of Christianity and the concept of property. As you point out somewhere in Marxism and Theology, Augustine was a middle grounder in comparison to the radical nature of the church fathers and the absolutely non-absolute right to property. He does have that great ancedote from Cicero about the pirate and the emperor – “Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are called an emperor”. As someone said above, the systematic injustice of capital compared to the act of one starving man does not bear thinking about.
It is interesting that Jim runs back to the Bible with little understanding that many people who take the Bible extremely seriously and are, you know, church fathers, are in full agreement with the statement of the priest.
26 December, 2009 at 2:02 am
Eh, as Bloch would say, everything would be easier if we did not have stomachs or as Diogenes commented when he was scorned for masturbating in public ‘if only I could satisfy my hunger by rubbing my stomach’.
27 December, 2009 at 10:12 pm
[...] Reverend Tim Jones’s recent sermon justifying shoplifting in cases of extreme necessity (via). What’s odd about this post is that it doesn’t just disagree with Jones, but presents [...]