Sabrina Morey hasn’t been able to find steady work for 12 years, and what work she has found has been in the fast-food industry. She told Chicago's NPR outlet she often has to choose between paying rent and buying food for her four children. Recently, with the help of Communities United Against Foreclosure and Eviction, she moved her family into a vacant home that had been foreclosed upon. Some might consider this action theft, even as it's now part of a growing Occupy Our Homes movement.
Scripture repeatedly shows us one of the primary ways God judges a society is how they treat the most vulnerable among them. The book of Amos is written during a housing crisis and indicts the powerful for pursuing their legal options over paltry sums. God’s condemnation of Israel in Isaiah 58:7 is specifically because the poor go without housing. God doesn’t condemn families for failing to provide housing for their displaced cousins, but the entire nation for failing as a people to care for the vulnerable. This point is straightforward, but it challenges dominant views in much American Christianity.
As Dr. Kenda Creasy Dean shows in her new book "Almost Christian," the American church struggles to distinguish between American values and Christian values. American values tell us that if one does not work hard and get a good job, she will find herself struggling to provide for herself. In Proverbs Scripture agrees; it’s basic wisdom after all. But the Bible goes past that basic point to say that, when someone has made poor choices and finds themselves homeless, it is the responsibility of the entire nation to ensure they are housed. People struggled financially then for many of the same reasons they struggle financially now, yet the Scriptures do not distinguish between caring for the wise poor and the unwise poor. For those of us who pledge allegiance to the Kingdom of God before we pledge allegiance to the flag, our responsibilities are clear.
However, that is only one problem highlighted by the Occupy Our Homes movement. Should the Morey family move into a home abandoned by the owner and/or the bank? How many bank foreclosures are unjust, and how many are reasonable applications of the bank’s right to be paid? Further, it essentially creates a new conflict between the Morey family and the bank, which previously had no interaction. The problem with the Occupy Our Homes movement is that its actions intersect so many different problems it is overwhelming to try and navigate through these issues.
The Occupy movements, with all of their flaws, remind us of what is to come. By drawing attention to these broken systems (among other things), we are reminded that in the world to come, things will be right. Things will be good and just. Every tear will be wiped from our eyes, as the prophet says. This time at the end, which theologians called the Eschaton and the Bible calls the (completed) Kingdom of God, is a return to Eden, to how things are supposed to be. The Occupy movement reminds us that we are not there yet.
Christianity is an eschatological religion. That is to say, Christianity is about the two comings of Jesus. As the German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg noted, the first coming of Jesus was a sort of pre-echo of the end of the age. Jesus showed us the resurrection centuries before the Resurrection. Jesus defeated evil centuries before evil is completely defeated. Because of this, we can see in Jesus’ ministry a great deal of how the Kingdom will work.
Seeing Jesus begin the Kingdom helps us begin to know how to respond to the Occupy movement. For those of us who follow Jesus, good news to the poor is part of who we are. When Jesus issued His mission statement in Luke 4:18, this is part of what He said. This is part of a description of the Kingdom. For many of us, this is counter-cultural. Our inclination is almost always to side with the wealthy against the poor. Yet Scripture never sides with the wealthy against the poor.
In seeing our Master’s will for the world, we can see what His servants should work towards. With appropriate caution and humility, we should work to make God’s world reflect God’s will. When the decision is between a bank and a homeless family the answer is clear: we must obey God rather than men.
(Photo courtesy of iStockphoto.)
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (9)
Your thinking here is correct with respect to care for the most vulnerable, but your application is flawed. Concern for the poor does not give license to law breaking and it is a false choice you present between banks and the poor just as it is a false choice between robbing me or letting people go hungry. Rather, one ought neither rob me nor let people go hungry, just as one should neither violate the law nor drive families to homelessness.
js
When the law protects those who have much—whether people or corporations—by upholding the fiction that they have some kind of absolute "right" to acquire and hold as much property as they want, no matter how great the need of their fellow human beings might be, such a law is unjust.
When the law protects those who gouge their fellow human beings on shelter, one of the basic necessities of life, and then kick them out of shelter when they can't pay up, such a law is unjust.
When the law protects and legalizes the massive banks cheating ordinary people out of their homes and causing a financial meltdown that hurts everyone except the individuals who caused it (who have, in fact, profited immensely from the financial crisis), while leaving their defenseless victims to fend for themselves, such a law is unjust.
You're right, though, in that the choice isn't between the interests of the big banks and the interests of the poor. It's really between the interests of the big banks and the interests of humanity as a whole.
God made it clear in the Old Testament that all property and debt were temporary and contingent; in the year of Jubilee, twice per century, all debts were to be forgiven and all lands (the means of wealth) redistributed among each tribe.
Given the massive trouble being caused by the inequitable distribution of the nation's resources and by the rapacious bankers' profits from the people's indebtedness, don't you think it's time the Church start calling for a Jubilee—or perhaps, as these Occupiers are doing, start putting Jubilee into practice?
My point is that there are many excellent ways to provide housing for persons such as Ms. Morey that do not require the false choice between breaking the law and homelessness. There is little or no justification for breaking the law in this case; it is not needed to ensure justice, it is simply expedient and cathartic.
Note that Ms. Morey is squatting by living in a house that is now vacant after being foreclosed upon. She was not forced out of her home, she was unable to pay rent in another location and sought a lower-cost solution; in this case by living without cost in a bank-owned home that was sitting vacant. She was not gouged by the bank that owned the home and, as Stephen notes, it's not clear that anyone was in this particular case.
This is a very different case than, for example, an elderly woman deceived through misrepresentation into taking out a home equity loan with a ballon payment who now finds herself unable to pay. In this case, she might well be justified in remaining in her home after foreclosure as an act of protest.
But note that most banks are not in the business of owning homes, they only find themselves in such circumstances when the loans they extended are no longer repaid and their capital is depleted. In this case, they act on those terms of the contract they have with the homeowner who no longer pays. Often they forgive part of the debt, as in a short sale, or modify the terms and total debt, as in a renegotiated mortgage.
Thus, banks would no doubt be quite willing to negotiate other more favorable terms to better deal with the liability the unoccupied home presents. For example, they might well accept below-market rent to ease cash flow in return for security of the property.
In this case Ms. Morey would have a home to live in at a price she could afford, the banks would have improved cash flow, and no laws would be broken. (In Florida, for example, banks seldom evict after foreclosure until after they have sold the house, for much the same reason.)
Given the better alternatives, I believe that this is not a matter that merits civil disobedience in the mode of Dr. King. Ms. Morey is having economic difficulties paying rent, she is not being systematically discriminated against or oppressed by an unjust political order. It's not at all clear that her difficulty in finding housing has anything at all to do with the mortgage crisis. And clearly it has nothing to do with people holding "as much property as they want, no matter how great the need of their fellow human beings might be" since the housing crisis has vastly lowered mortgage costs not raised them through some supply effect caused by hoarding of property.
Besides, your distaste for "big banks" (essentially investment banks trading in CDOs and ABS, I assume) and desire to take back from them what you term ill-gotten gain does not legitimize treating all foreclosed properties as subject to this kind of social reordering. Not all mortgages are held by such banks and foreclosure has long been the universal consequence of ongoing inability to pay one's mortgage.
Ms. Morey's basic problem is a lack of the income needed to support a reasonable standard of living. The reasons for this are complex and multiple institutions in society are responsible to work to address this problem. However, ad hoc decisions to take what one needs do not seem to be the best approach nor the one likely to address the long-term systematic causes of the problem.
With respect to institution of jubilee, I'd suggest that one should be very careful about selectively imposing Old Testament commands intended for the Israelites on modern society. It's quite difficult to be theologically consistent about that. The principle imbedded in jubilee seems to be that we ought not create a caste system that locks people in perpetual debt or servitude. To my mind that means ensuring economic mobility and opportunity by addressing the core causes of inequality.
js
about how the city of Cleveland is tearing down vacated homes because the banks are not able to care for their (too many) foreclosed properties.
What have we BECOME?
- that families are forced to leave homes they can no longer afford because of a financial crisis caused by the banks
- yet the banks have too many properties to manage that these homes are neglected to the point that they become a blight and danger in a formally stable community
- that the city uses taxpayers' money to have the homes destroyed?!
Where is the SENSE in this????
Wouldn't it be so much better to keep the families IN their homes? Not only would it be more merciful, it would contribute to the health and future of our nations' families and communities. From a purely sociological point of view, has anyone thought about the long-term effects on families that are displaced and communities trying to meet the increased needs caused by homelessness such as providing homeless shelters for families, dealing with the emotional/physical/eduational pitfalls of children being moved around, the emotional/physical stress and longterm effects on family relationships, families being split up, etc.? Wouldn't it be cheaper to financially support a family in order to stay in their home than to provide additional services that will be needed when a family is displaced?
Instead of displacing families and uprooting them from their neighbors, schools, churches, stores, support systems....destroying everything that keeps a community and family healthy....these families would be doing us a favor to stay in their homes!
Wouldn't it be cheaper for a city - and the BANKS - to pay the utility bills to keep these families in their homes?
To put a moratorium on mortgage payments and property taxes?
Won't these now homeless families cost their cities much more than what they would have paid in property taxes?
Wouldn't it benefit the banks - and cities - in the long run to keep these homes in livable condition?
I am THRILLED to hear that there is a movement to OCCUPY OUR HOMES! It's a just way to maintain communities and to support families in financial distress.
This goes MUCH farther than saving a house....it saves a family AND a community. Keeping a family together, feeling safe in their own home, children being able to stay in a school and focus on learning instead of living with fear and stress of where they will sleep that night or what they will eat that day. These things are PRICELESS.
The banks caused this problem. They were "rescued" with tax payers' money. They continue to benefit through immoral means. They continue to cause more harm.
When is enough...enough?
PS - How many of us sent money to Haiti to build homes for families that were displaced? How many of us would be willing to pay what it takes to keep a family from our own neighborhood to stay in their home?
I see a number of flaws in the argument for occupying "our" homes (and in the case cited here, it wasn't even a person who had previously owned -- or paid the mortgage on -- a house), not least of which being the class divide between "big bad banks" and "poor downtrodden but virtuous" people. You're stereotyping banks and their shareholders as being greedy and mean-spirited, but if your grandmother's pension fund has invested in that bank or the bank supports a number of social service agencies, wouldn't you want the bank to be vigilant about its assets? You're also creating a convenient scapegoat -- like the mythical "1%" the Occupy movement rails against -- and that has some very dangerous historical precedents (including early-church Christians, who were brutally persecuted under Nero). This approach is based in fear, hatred and self-righteousness -- none of which is blessed by God.
Remember, too, that when Peter made his remark about obeying God rather than men, he still took his lumps in prison and from beatings. Jesus didn't break laws or take things that weren't His, so we can't point to Him for justification for law-breaking "for a good cause", either.
Underlying all of this is "Occupyist" thinking, which is flawed in that it demands that someone else take responsibility for fixing something. This is based in a false sense of helplessness, which in turn creates a victim mentality. However, the Bible tells us over and over again that God rewards *overcomers* -- not victims.
"Scripture never sides with the wealthy against the poor," you assert. That's as may be, but in fact, God, being no respecter of persons, only "sides" with those who side with Him -- and that has nothing to do with income or economic stratum. If you're not walking in love towards others, can you really say you're on God's side? A poor person who holds in hatred and bitterness in his heart towards the wealthy is in worse shape than the rich person who reaches out in love to the poor.
The sensible thing, as well as the compassionate thing, would be to recognize that we are all in an interlocked jam, and the banks might as well let people stay in their homes, negotiate to get what they can get for now in the way of payment, keep the net principal owed on the books, extend terms, whatever it takes.
The ultimate weapon of foreclosure can then be reserved for those who really aren't going to pay anything ever, aren't taking very good care of the property anyway, etc.
One obstacle, of course, is that the loans have been packaged, repackaged, sold, and resold, so there is nobody with clear authority and knowledge to make reasonable discretionary judgements. A good reform would be to require the original local lender to retain responsibility to administer the mortgage and collect payments.
But, given how badly things have broken down, Thomas Aquinas said something once about how need makes certain classes of theft morally acceptable. I would say this is one such case, at least for now.