A Thought for Christmas
Civitas, 22 December 2009
Ever since exhorting indigent parishioners to meet vital needs by shop-lifting from large chain stores rather than by resorting to mugging or prostitution, Rev. Tim Jones has really had it in the dog-collar from those accusing him of having contravened the teachings of his religion.
Representative of those so minded is Ruth Gledhill, religious affairs correspondent of the Times. In connection with what Rev Jones said in his sermon, she writes in today’s issue:
‘Jesus… commanded his followers to give to the poor. He never told the poor to steal.’
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, he 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 2.25-26)
Usually this saying of Jesus is interpreted as designed to show how the ceremonial law, forbidding work on the Sabbath, may be violated with impunity for the sake of human welfare. But there is no reason to confine the significance of the passage so narrowly.
It seems to have been common ground to Jesus and the Pharisees who had criticised the conduct of his disciples that, taking food belonging to another to meet vital needs like hunger is not unlawful, if there is no lawful alternative. Even in the eyes of the Pharisees who had criticised Jesus’ disciples, what made the latter’s act of plucking corn to eat wrong was that it was in violation of the commandment not to work on the Sabbath. It was not that it had constituted theft.
Likewise, the aspect of what David did that violated the law was to have taken consecrated bread reserved for priests. There is no suggestion that either Jesus or the Pharisees whom he addressed would have considered it unlawful for David to have stolen un-consecrated bread from bakers to meet his vital needs and those of his troops.
Even a philosopher usually considered such a stickler for absolutism as Thomas Hobbes recognised that someone faced with dire need is totally excused for breaking the law to meet their needs. Thus, he writes:
‘When a man is destitute of food, or other thing necessary for his life, and cannot preserve himself in any other way, but by some act against the law; as if in a great famine he take the food by force, or stealth, which he cannot obtain for money, nor charity; …; he is totally excused.’ (Leviathan, ch.27, para. 26.)
Now, Ms Gledhill observes of present-day circumstances in Britain:
‘Poverty is hardly at Dickensian levels and food is so cheap that few go hungry. Our health and benefits systems are the envy of millions in the developing world. It is the politics of envy that drive theft.’
While granting theft born of envy is not at all excusable and that the vast majority of theft is born of greed or envy and not hunger, Ms Gledhill does here concede some do go hungry in this country even in this day and age.
Having seen the Revd Jones interviewed on television this morning about his sermon, it is clear that those whom he was addressing, when he bid them shop-lift rather than mug or sell themselves, were those who had fallen through the welfare safety net, because a gyro had got stuck in the mail or because of the slowness with which the wheels of bureaucracy inevitably turn.
The question is whether people may break the law without moral fault by committing an act of theft or trespass to meet some vital need if there is no alternative.
When thinking about the plight of such people, and what they may or may not be morally licensed to do as a result of it, those who profess to be Christians would do well to dwell on the following verses from Luke, especially at this time of year:
‘In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled… And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. 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.
Suppose they had not done, or, worse still, that they had sought permission to take shelter in the barn but it had been refused.
Would Ms Gledhill, and other like-minded Christians who think Rev Jones spoke out of place, have preferred that, in those circumstances, Mary and Joseph had not ‘squatted’ in the barn than broken the law, even if in consequence the baby Jesus would have died at birth from exposure?
There’s a thought for Christmas.
Have a very merry one.
And may all who are in genuine need not go without at this time of year, and none more fortunately graced be led by greed or envy into temptation.