Doctrines of the housing market

Beyond its outer form, we have seen how the housing market exhibits a spiritual form and order that society has promoted to the privileged position of governing their whole reason for being. Charles Taylor would call this a “social imaginary,”26 brought to life via daily rituals and thus replacing any need for a transcendent God. Thus, all parties in this ecosystem adopt the marks of the housing deity: dominant, selfindulgent, competitive, and irrational. As Walter Wink states,

The world is, to a degree at least, the way we imagine it. When we think it to be godless and soulless, it becomes for us precisely that. And we ourselves are then made over into the image of godless and soulless selves. If we want to be made over into the image of God—to become what God created us to be—then we need to purge our souls of materialism and of other worldviews that block us from realizing the life God so eagerly wants us to have.27

Thus, before we ascertain how the church can redeem the housing market, we need to identify the worldviews that are blocking it. There are three which I believe are clogging society, the doctrines of (1) Bigger is better, (2) To get rich is glorious, and (3) Keeping up with the Joneses.

Symbolic of our culture’s housing obsession is the McMansion, an excessively big, opulent, and mass-produced mansion. In a play on words, it merges the themes of excess and low-quality associated with McDonalds fast food with the luxury of a mansion. Why this oxymoron? This is due to the doctrine of bigger is better and our obsession with big land and big property.

26 Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004), 23.

27 Walter Wink, The Powers That Be – Theology for a New Millennium, 14.

The concept of owning land and property is not foreign to Scripture. In fact, it features prominently in Israel’s history and is fundamental to the covenant God had with Abraham: “Then the LORD appeared to Abram, and said, ‘To your descendants I will give this land’” Gen. 12:7 (RSV). This plays out with Israel inhabiting the promised land and establishing land use regulations and property rights. What is important to appreciate about this story is that Israel initially had no property. Yet, it was the God who declared that “the earth is mine” Ex. 19:5 (RSV), and who promised and gave it to them. God enjoys giving. Yet as this story plays out, Israel’s sin led to landlessness due to their disobedience. One particular sin was the coveting of land, a clear breach of the tenth commandment: “You shall not covet (ḥāmaḏ) your neighbor’s house” Ex. 20:17 (RSV). We fnd illustrations of this in Isa. 5:8 (RSV): “Woe to those who join house to house, who add feld to feld,” as the prophet condemned the wealthy leaders who were wresting property from the poor. Similarly, in Mic. 2:2 (RSV), the prophet decries, “They covet felds, and seize them; and houses, and take them away; they oppress a man and his house, a man and his inheritance.” In both situations, we witness the powerful aristocrats coveting the assets of the weak for their own gain, thus breaching the tenth commandment. Note, coveting itself is not a sin. For example, Isa. 53:2 refers to coveting (ḥāmaḏ) the Messiah, or in Ps. 19:10 we are told to covet (ḥāmaḏ) the law of the Lord more than gold or honey. Rather, what God repulses is the coveting from others. Thus, in this context Walter Brueggemann suggests it corresponds directly to the sin of idolatry: “You shall have no other gods before me,” since the coveter desires the

“dignity and worth of neighbor.”

28 In sum, it is a monopolizing of self at the expense of others, as per Augustine’s expression, incurvatas in se, “a heart curved in on itself.”

The Old Testament examples of covetousness pursued by the economically powerful, are comparable to contemporary circumstances. In fact, it has gotten smarter, disguising itself in the doctrine of bigger is better! Today, one of the signifcant factors driving up housing values are hedge fund managers and real estate investment trusts (REIT’s) chasing bigger investment yields to meet the better returns expected by their wealthy clientele. Joe Burns, a US real estate consultant interviewed by the Wall Street Journal states, “You now have permanent capital competing with a young couple trying to buy a house, that’s going to make US housing permanently more expensive.”29 In other words, the powerful frms are coveting the assets of the weak for their own gain. On a smaller scale, we see this being played out with mum and dad investors, who are using their greater borrowing power and existing equity in their housing portfolios to price out frst-time home buyers, or, worst still, people in low-socioeconomic areas. The barrier to entry for home ownership is so high that it is pricing out a generation. Why are mum and dad investors purchasing more property? Quite simply, a bigger property investment portfolio is better, a bigger return is better, a bigger retirement is better. However, both these examples demonstrate that improper coveting always has a negative efect on society at-large and is not simply a privatized matter. As Douglas Smart states, “People able to curtail their wishing, so that it is limited to things they should

28 Walter Brueggemann, The Land, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 143–144.

29 Joe Burns quoted in Ryan Dezember, “If You Sell a House These Days, the Buyer Might Be a Pension Fund” in The Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2021. https://www. wsj.com/articles/if-you-sell-a-house-these-days-the-buyer-might-be-a-pensionfund-11617544801 desire, are people who contribute good to a society; those who want what they cannot properly have undermine a society’s moral fber.”30 Thus, proponents of this doctrine must subscribe to a self-centered utilitarian ideal that is willing to see their own material beneft come at the expense of others, even if it may not be apparent.

We are entering the Asian Century, driven by the extraordinary ascension of China, from a lowly state to an economic superpower. In 1978, its GDP was the size of Italy, while today it is on the brink of becoming the world’s largest economy.31 How did this occur? Commentators attribute a major part of this to Deng Xiaoping, the former leader, who initiated its economic reform during the 1980s, fueled by the infamous Chinese slogan, “to get rich is glorious!” Still channeling the force of this phrase, China has dominated the modern housing market.

The Hebrew word for wealth is ōšer and conveys an aspect of general abundance. Throughout the Old Testament the term is used positively to denote God giving wealth to certain people in various forms. For instance, “Every man also to whom God has given wealth (ōšer) and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and fnd enjoyment in his toil - this is the gift of God” Ecc. 5:19 (RSV). Is this compatible with Deng’s slogan, “to get rich is glorious”? It could if one approaches it with a naïve eisegesis, imparting our current bastardized concept of wealth into the text. Therefore, to understand Ecclesiastes we need to appreciate its context. Recall, it was written by Solomon who possessed incomparable ōšer after God had granted it to him without prompting, following Solomon’s request for an understanding and obedient heart so he could discern between good and evil (1 Ki. 3:9-13). It infers that wealth that is regulated by this understanding of wisdom and orientated toward goodness was appropriated in God’s economy. Secondly, specifc to Ecc. 5:19, we cannot ignore the verse preceding it: “Behold, what I have seen to be good and to be ftting is to eat and drink and fnd enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life which God has given him, for this is his lot.” The key force of this verse is captured in Solomon’s revelation, “Behold, what I have seen.” What did he see? Up to this point in the book, Solomon had been attempting to place a framework around his understanding of life and the world. Yet he had come to no conclusion, only recognizing that humanity is fallen, limited, and full of problems. But God had gifted him the lens by which he should view all of this: the fear of God. As James

30 Douglas Smart, Exodus: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scriptures. (Nashville: Holman Reference, 2006), Ch. 6.I.

31 Tony Walker, “‘To Get Rich is Glorious’: How Deng Xiaoping Set China on a Path to Rule the World” in The Conversation, July 9, 2021. https://theconversation. com/to-get-rich-is-glorious-how-deng-xiaoping-set-china-on-a-path-to-rulethe-world-156836.

Bollhagen

states,

The fear of God is this: Once a person is overwhelmed by life’s difculties and by his own total depravity and incapability, he is dashed to the ground, completely helpless and hopeless. Then and only then can he turn to the one last alternative: the triune God, the Maker of heaven and earth, who would also send his Son to redeem sinful humanity and his Spirit to sanctify and lead his redeemed people.32

Only by recognizing humanity’s limitations and placing our entire reliance on God can we then appreciate Ecc. 5:19. It is not a text about getting wealthy. Instead, it is a text about glorifying God in what has been given to us with humble hearts that fear Him. In contrast, “to get rich is glorious,” is a hedonistic goal that is unattainable, since to get rich is subjective. According to a 2019 Credit Suisse report, “China was home to more members of the global top 10% than the US for the frst time in history,”33 with property being one of the top three sectors that the ultra-wealthy participated in. However, for the same period China ranks low on the UN Happiness Index, even below war-torn Libya.34 If even quantitative economic measures on happiness do not justify riches, why do so many continue to subscribe to the doctrine of “to get rich is glorious”?

32 James Bollhagen, Ecclesiastes (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2011), 209.

When I was an executive leading a $300 billion home lending division for a bank, we segmented our customers into four groups: (1) First-time home buyers, (2) refnancers, (3) upgraders, and (4) downsizers. Out of these segments, upgraders were the most proftable, and double the volume of frst-time home buyers. What are upgraders? They are property owners that have a house yet desire a bigger and better home, due to practical reasons (e.g., a growing family), or for materialistic reasons, which the maxim “keeping up with the Joneses” conveys. This phrase can be defned as the social pressure one experiences to have a home that keeps up with their peers. If my peers buy a better home, I need one too. This creates a never-ending cycle of comparison to maintain social credibility. Recently, the pandemic has stimulated this segment, as upgraders desire a better house after having time to stare

33 Taylor Rogers, “For the First Time Ever, There Are More Ultra-Wealthy People in China Than the US” in Business Insider, October 22, 2019. https:// www.businessinsider.com/more-rich-people-in-china-than-america-wealthgap-2019-10

34 Chaguan, “Why so Glum, China?” in The Economist, February 16, 2019. https:// www.economist.com/china/2019/02/16/why-so-glum-china at their own during lockdown and comparing it to their peers. This doctrine is not limited to home buyers either. It manifests among corporations, governments and even churches. This doctrine transcends all nations and cultures.

In contrast, Paul instructs us not to seek social credibility from others but credibility from God: “Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ” Gal 1:10 (RSV). At the root of comparison is a misguided sense of afrmation required from others, driven by our own insecurities and fear of being out of touch. On the opposite side of the comparison to “keep up with the Joneses,” is the sense of boastfulness from those who are the Joneses. This group sources their identity from their own feeting position until they are ultimately overtaken. French Reformer Wolfgang Musculus states, “What should be concluded about those who hypocritically pretend to have certain things to ingratiate themselves in the estimation of others?”35 Ultimately this doctrine can never be achieved. It provides a false sense of security, wrongly believing that you can purchase your way to gratifcation, not realizing that true gratifcation is only in God.

In a bid to address the US housing dilemma, recently Congress passed a $170 billion plan to inject into the nation’s housing needs as part of the Biden administration’s Build Back

35 Wolfgang Musculus quoted in Reformation Commentary on Scripture. New Testament IXa – 1 Corinthians, Scott M. Manetsch ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 75.

Better agenda.36 Its goal is to facilitate economic fourishing via mechanistic tools and impersonal policies. While I acknowledge their eforts, they are merely cosmetic, “lipstick on a pig,” that addresses the outer form of the housing market rather than its inner forms.

As I have proposed, we are dealing with a spiritual force, the deifcation of the housing market. At all levels within this ecosystem, institutions have adopted religious roles that have entrenched this deity, possessed by forces that are counterto the Christian claim. Further, the housing deity’s doctrines, whilst guised in alluring phrases, are centered on covetousness, wealth and comparison. In sum, it is self-centered hedonistic utilitarianism. As Miroslav Volf warns,

When we place pleasure at the center of the good life, when we decouple it from the love of God, the ultimate source of meaning, and when we sever if from love of neighbor and hope for a common future, we are left . . . ‘with no way of organization desire into a structure of meaning.’37

Admittedly, the church has been apathetic on this issue, However, it is essential that it recognize its call to engage this public issue, to reorient the housing market from selffourishing to human fourishing manifesting Matt. 22:37–38 (RSV): “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind . . . love your neighbor as yourself.” I propose three contributions from the church; (1) harness the saints in the housing market, (2) establish counter-

36 House Committee on the Budget, “The Build Back Better Act: Transformative Investments in America’s Families & Economy” in House Committee on the Budget, November 5, 2021. https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/build-backbetter-act-transformative-investments-america-s-families-economy cultural liturgical rhythms, (3) and embody holiness in the housing ecosystem.

37 Miroslav Volf, A Public Faith (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 62.

Firstly, our study has demonstrated that the housing market is deifed, with institutions adopting religious forms that are given life by liturgical rhythms. Essentially, these institutions are organized collectives of people—a basic unit of society, orientated around a shared goal—to grow the market for hedonistic utilitarian purposes. Thus, while governments attempt to change institutions as entities, the church can afect institutional change via the saints within it.

How does the church do this? Like housing market institutions, the church too is an organized collective of people, orientated around a collective goal—to seek human fourishing through the love of God. Yet today, much of the church does not harness the potential of those who gather, and thus does not empower them to scatter. Further, I would contend that the local church is a refection of their local context. Thus in an urban setting it is likely that the gathered would be informed in the housing market. Therefore, why does the church not harness the saints in these public realms to engage this issue from within? Greg Okesson states, “Witness is always to persons and their public, through the habitus of the entire local congregation and for the fourishing of all things under the reign of Christ.”38 Thus, the church can reorient the housing market through the saints whom God has already positioned in this ecosystem.