Without biblical ethics governing the nations constituents, private property will no longer be safe, free enterprise will collapse, and our republic will be destroyed.

9

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

Respect for Property and Nature

The fifth natural relationship man has with his fellow man is linked to private ownership. Respect for the property rights of others is another facet of moral training. The Bible speaks of private ownership from its onset. Both Cain and Abel brought the fruit of their labors (i.e. private property) as offerings to God (Genesis 4:3-4). Throughout the Old Testament are laws protecting mans right of ownership, starting with the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15). Jesus encouraged the proper use of this law and often used money and possessions as objects of teaching.

With advancements in communication and transportation technologies, the global neighborhood grows. This change has spurred new debate over the right of any individual to own private property, literally claiming a piece of the earth. Some activists, many in the name of religion, are calling for a global redistribution of wealth and the elimination of private property.

Egalitarian theorists insist on global economic equality. If all people were financially equal, all would be content. If all were content, peace would reign, famine would be nonexistent, and people would only study wars in history books. Although Communism has failed world wide, theoretical Marxism is still alive in many American universities. Marxism has never worked and never will work because the theory overlooks the most obvious consideration -- mans heart.

Having recently visited the Commonwealth of Independent States and many former Soviet bloc countries, I am freshly reminded of what happens when the government controls private property for the "common good." Controlling private property in hopes of maintaining social equality only creates a new caste system. Nothing changes except the faces at the banquet tables of leadership. Instead of the czars satisfying their bellies with wild pig, the politburo satisfies its palates with black caviar while the majority of people go without. Nothing changes. We will always have both the rich and poor, because shifts in social and economic policy cannot change the greed or selfishness of mans heart--only God can.

We assume that the reader is in agreement with the lawfulness of private property. For that reason, we will limit our discussion to the moral requirements of respecting the property of others. What are the ethical demands governing this fifth natural relationship?

THE PROPERTY COMMAND

The eighth commandment states, "Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15). This Biblical dictum implies the following: First, you are not to steal another mans money or possessions. Second, you are not to steal from him by defrauding or preventing him from receiving what is due. The basis for this commandment implies private ownership, since you cannot take from a man that which he does not own.

Some voices within religious circles argue that man owns nothing, God owns everything. Without qualification, that statement is entirely too simple. Gods sovereign rule over creation and mans ownership of private property are not incompatible doctrines. Of course, God owns all the cattle on all the hills--and He owns the hills as well (Psalm 50:10). That statement speaks of His universal Lordship over all creation. But the cows and the hills belong to someone on earth. They are private property, derived from labor and exchanged as value.

Mans property rights do not in any way take away from Gods universal title. On the contrary, our rights are a result of His benevolent sovereignty toward man. Private property is for mans sake. It is the reward of labor and is to be enjoyed (Ecclesiastes 5:18-19).

Respect for Property is a Societal Need

Free enterprise cannot exist without Biblical ethics, which has built-in safeguards to protect private ownership. Without Biblical ethics governing the nations constituents, private property will no longer be safe, free enterprise will collapse, and our republic will be destroyed.

Teaching respect for property begins at home and should be considered part of a social contract. When our children were very young, we took seriously the task of training them to respect the property of others. We staffed in our living room. When they became increasingly mobile, we set boundaries both for their welfare and for our peace of mind. Certain household items were off-limits to their little hands (television knobs, stereo buttons, knickknacks, and other things). We did not worry about bruising their psyche or stifling their creativity. To us, moral correctness was more important than a presumed psychological correctness.

When visiting friends we did not rearrange their living room claiming that the items were too much temptation for our children. Our children did not explore bedrooms or open cabinets, refrigerator, or dresser drawers. They did not climb on anyones furniture or carry their cat, slinging it from its neck. They did not do those things because we had trained them not to. Our training was motivated by our ethical responsibility to respect the property of others. We didnt baby proof our house, we house proofed our children.

This type of training was not a quirk of the Ezzo family. It was a generational response--a socially understood, accepted, and expected standard of training. Respect for property was a visible virtue of the American culture. Because young children are not morally mature, parents in the past would restrict any behavior that would be morally offensive. The rights of others not to have their property inappropriately touched by untrained children was more important than allowing a childs impulsive desire to touch to be satisfied. Their desire would be satisfied at the right time under the appropriate conditions, but not at a neighbors house.

Today, things are different. Moral intrusion has replaced moral duty. Parents are more concerned with what is psychologically healthy or sick than what is morally right or wrong. In many circles, the right of a child to be offensive is greater than the obligation of parents to prevent it. The more that attitude prevails, the more insensitive we grow to our fellow man and his property and our entire Christian witness.

Value the Person or the Property?

The duty of every parent is to instill a high degree of respect for the property rights of others. That process begins by respecting the person. The object of ownership is not the basis of respect--the owner is. The object is merely the target of respect. Viewing the owner as the object of respect eliminates independent value judgments that lead to conditional respect. For example, the condition of your front lawn, whether it is beautifully groomed or terribly overgrown, has no bearing on my obligation to respect it. I should not toss my gum wrapper on your property regardless of its condition, though it may go unnoticed in its overgrown state. What evokes my respect is you, not what you own.

Many wrongly assess the value of an item based on its use. Take a store shopping cart for example. In your estimation, how much value does a shopping cart have? That should not be the question. Rather, the question should be, How much value does the shopping cart have to the store owner? How should I respond to him, his ownership, and the rights of others to use it?

When you are finished taking your groceries to the car, do you return your shopping cart to the appropriate place? If not, why? Men and women who live by Biblical ethics should not leave their shopping cart squeezed between two cars. Rather, they should joyously take it back to the front of the store. Joyously? Yes. You have exhibited public integrity and lived up to a higher standard. You did what was morally right even though no one else was doing it.

Imagine returning to your car only to find two carts pushed against it. How would you feel knowing they were left by people who are lazy and inconsiderate of others? Would you feel violated? Would you become frustrated if you discovered the only parking space available had three carts huddled together, preventing you from pulling in?

You create these feelings in others each time you abandon your shopping cart. The context makes the act immoral. The rest of the world is not your servant. Returning your cart to its place is as righteous a deed as giving a cold glass of water to a thirsty stranger. Returning the cart is not the principle but the vehicle delivering the principle of respect for anothers property.

Property and Dominion

The question that remains is: As a person wanting to do right according to the ethical mandates of Scripture, how should I treat the property and dominion of others? To answer that question, allow me to define the terms property and dominion. Property is that which is tangible, physical, and within ones ownership. Property may be owned privately, jointly, or in common. For example, privately I own my tie, as a congregation we jointly own our church building, and all of us own in common the roadways.

Dominion refers to those things for which I am responsible, both in the physical and nonphysical realms, including property, time, space, rights, and privileges. Dominion relates to stewardship responsibilities. Dominion is the positive side of ownership, while selfishness is the negative side.

Every human being is sensitive to dominion violations. Each of us has a small sensor that warns us whenever there is an encroachment on our dominion. That sensor has all the characteristics of a natural, spontaneous reflex, as illustrated by the following example. Ryan is walking toward you carrying a bag of candy. You get down to his eye level and ask gently, "Ryan, will you share some with me, please?" Normally, Ryan will graciously offer you his treats. But if you had approached him with the intent to forcefully take away his candy, his natural response would be to pull away and protect it.

Why the different responses? Is it because Ryan is selfish by nature? Well, that is true, but that is not the reason for his response.

In the first example nothing threatened Ryans property. Because of that, he was more willing to share. In the second example, Ryan and his property were threatened. As a result, his dominion sensor sent a message of warning, and he intuitively pulled back to protect his property.

There is something within man that desires to guard his property, space, and rights. Do not assume that such attentiveness is always a result of greed and selfishness. It is not! All of us have experienced threats to our dominions. When that happens, we feel violated. How many times have you waited in line to return a purchase and observed people attempting to by-pass the line, hoping to maneuver their way to quicker service? You chose to abide by the rules of fair play, and now someone is attempting to skirt these rules at your expense. You sense a potential violation. Someone is trying to take an unethical shortcut.

Threats to your dominion are as real as the feelings associated with those threats. Those feelings are not selfish sensations but dominion violations. God made man sensitive to his dominion so that he can better serve his fellow man. That conclusion is consistent with the otherness of Biblical ethics. The dominion sensor is not so much a reminder of our possessions as it is the possessions of others. Pass that truth onto your children.

Value Derived from Labor

In order to truly respect the property of another, a person must understand the relationship between labor and value. Labor defines value. Receiving an item without working for it limits a complete appreciation of any purchase. The child that labors to earn money to purchase a bike will have a greater appreciation for its value than the child that receives it as a gift. Predictably, the first childs sense of stewardship will be greater since the value of the bike is closely related to labor.

We recommend appropriate labor be part of child training. Labor can be divided into two general categories: duty labor and purchasing labor. Laboring out of duty relates to an individuals responsibility to the family such as doing household chores--feeding the dog, bringing in firewood, setting the table, and doing the dishes. Duty labor is not done for money, but to help the team. Everyone does something in support of the family.

Purchasing labor is work done for financial compensation. This occurs when a child seeks extra work with the goal of purchasing something. That type of labor gives real value to money. One year our children desperately wanted a popular board game that cost $25. They were willing to work for it and asked if we had any jobs around the house. We offered to pay them $1 for every bucket of rocks they would pick out of the garden area and dump on the rock pile 30 yards away.

They agreed to the entire project. At first, it seemed an easy way to earn money. By the time they filled the twenty-fifth bucket (two weeks later), they had a full appreciation of the value of $25. That experience, and others, prepared our children to be wise money managers. More importantly, it taught them to be wise stewards of their property, because money now had meaning and relevance. Our children could equate it to labor. When they wanted a $20 pair of jeans, they knew that equated to 20 rugged trips to the rock pile. Their understanding of the value of a dollar (or $100) as a result of their labors forced a greater appreciation for their own toys, personal possessions, and the property of others.

Teaching respect for property begins many years before a child is old enough to work for hire. Start with the basics. Do not let your children trample over someone elses flowers or on your own. We have heard parents say, "Oh, it doesnt matter. They're only flowers; we can plant more." If it really doesnt matter, dont plant any. At least that way you will not be an example of a poor steward. Be sensitive to their play environment and teach them to do likewise. You should not allow them to throw another childs toy, play behind your neighbors curtains, jump on the furniture, or in any other way disrespect anothers property.

Respecting anothers property and dominion requires that the training begin first with the parent. The next time there is a violation of your property, remember why God gave you a dominion sensor, so you will not do the same to others.

RESPECT FOR NATURE

The sixth relationship all people share is with nature. A few qualifying statements are necessary before we consider a Biblical perspective of man and the environment.

Christians should be careful not to quickly line up behind secular environmentalists. Their viewpoints on nature and the environment have, at their core, an anti-Christian bias both in the cause of the problem and in their solution. Humanists blame the doctrine of mans supremacy over the earth as the root of all global evil.

Some leading advocates suggest we find our ecological solution in the direction of pantheism. In pantheism, all of nature and every thing in nature are of the same essence. Man is no greater than a blade of grass, and the value of human life is equal to that of a cockroach. The more we view pantheism as the answer to ecological problems, the more Eastern we become in our thinking. Pantheism robs man of his dignity. When we strip away human dignity, obvious answers to mans social problems are no longer options.

India is a perfect example of a belief in pantheism. Indias people complicate their economic dilemma by their pantheistic religions, which allow the rats and cows to eat the food that people need. These animals cannot be destroyed because their essence is the same as mans. They are believed to be potential human beings in the reincarnation process. Under their religious system, they lower the value of man instead of raising it. This is an excellent illustration of man and anthropology being reduced to the level of animals and zoology. Pantheism is not the answer to environmental concerns.

The Bible and Nature

Orthodox Christianity is not the root of our ecological problem-- mans heart is. Mans heart is at the root of all of our social problems. It destroys the earth as well as souls. Christians, of all people, should not be destroyers. We should treat nature with an overwhelming respect. Man and the otter are not of the same essence. The otter has no rights, but it has a place in nature. Mans duty is to protect that place.

There are three reasons to respect nature and become active Biblical environmentalists with our children.

1. We should respect nature because it was created by God.

God created both the flower and man, but He created the flower for man. The fact that God created man in His image and likeness is the central theme of mans identity. That fact separates him from the animals as much as from the plants. The objects of nature do not possess the same essence as man. But nature, like man, has inherent value as a result of the creation process.

Humanistic moralists struggle with inherent values. The man or woman who believes that nature exists by cosmic chance cannot assign value to nature, since the source of value, random chance, is valueless. There is no inherent value in chance. The elements of nature are not, in and of themselves, autonomous with respect to their value. In other words, the existence of a flower does not give it value, but the source of its existence does. God is the source of all existence and value.

We believe that God has a covenant with creation (Romans 8:19-22), and that He interacts with His creative order. He interacts according to creative function as demonstrated by the fact that He deals with a plant as a plant, with an animal as an animal, and with a man as a man. Never does he violate His order of creation. God treats His creation with integrity and each element to its creative class according to the way He made it for its greater purpose.

If God treats His creation with integrity, so should man. We find the value of creation in the source of creation--in God Himself. That is the first reason we train our children to respect nature.

2. We should respect nature because of the dominion factor

God granted man dominion rights over creation from the beginning. The problem is not mans rights but the integrity with which he manages those rights. It is mans duty to be a steward of creation, and that implies protecting and nurturing it. When God made man, He endowed him with a sensitivity to beauty. He instructed Adam to take care of the garden and to take dominion over it (Genesis 1:28).

Functioning as a gardener, his task was to maintain ecological harmony. To allow him to accomplish that task, God invested Adam with an eye for order and harmony. His senses had to be in tune with natures harmony. God would not give Adam a command without giving him a capacity to fulfill it.

Man, in spite of the Fall, is still responsible to take care of the garden. The earth is now everyones garden. We are to take from it what we need, but at the same time nurture and give back to it so it will become fruitful again--for now and for generations to follow.

Taking dominion of creation does not mean destroying nature. It means preserving it. Christianity is absolutely not to blame for our ecological failures. On the contrary, the only hope the earth has is rooted in right Biblical theology and in understanding the parameters of our stewardship responsibilities. The problem is not that Christianity does not have the answer, but that the world has not acted upon it.

3. We should respect nature because of the preciousness of others.

Our stewardship responsibility over creation starts with our vertical relationship with God but is worked out for the horizontal benefit of man. Any act of respecting nature must include an awareness of others. If consideration for others is not part of the formula, then we can legitimately justify throwing garbage from our cars as permissible, as long as that garbage is biodegradable. As it sits by the roadside, it will decay and put nutrients back into the soil.

Without an appreciation for those who come behind us, the above statement would be valid. But there is more to respecting nature than the use of biodegradable products. Respecting nature must include consideration for those coming behind us, those standing by our side, or going before us. The choice not to litter the roadside should be based on the right of others to enjoy the beauty of the roadside without the stain of your garbage. Aesthetic appreciation for natural beauty is the moral consideration.

Americas highway system has no lack of posted signs warning against littering, and there is a sad reason for that. The more our country moves away from intrinsic motivation, the more dependent social order becomes on extrinsic incentives. Highway signs warn against littering to restrain the selfish and lazy side of mans nature. They are for those who are not motivated intrinsically by moral principle.

The slogan Keep America Beautiful is a wonderful reminder of our collective responsibility. Add threats, fines, and imprisonment to it, and it becomes Keep America Beautiful or Else. In this manner, doing right out of the fear of consequences replaces doing right for the love of virtue. The reason our family does not throw garbage out the window is because it is wrong. Littering violates the earth and the rights of all those coming behind.

To respect nature is to respect others. It is troubling to see children destroy the things of nature without just cause. They trample flower beds without a sense of what they are doing. They strip branches of their leaves for a momentary mindless sensation. They go to the woods and the forest to destroy, but not to appreciate. Where are their parents?

SUMMARY

Moral children know how to respect the property of others and the gift of nature. They understand the parameters of authority, devotion to parents, honoring of age, and the love of peers. Moral children are a joy to be around because they are complete children, equipped with moral reason. They are not the product of chance or genetics but of parental training. They reflect in their actions humility of heart, which is what character training is all about. Christ became the ethical model for us. Although we cannot copy His perfection, miracles, redemptive work, or deity, we can copy His humility and His behavior motivated by the preciousness of others.