The most revealing line in Acts 16 is not the dramatic one. It comes just after Paul has spoken, in the name of Jesus Christ, to the spirit troubling a slave girl in Philippi, and she is set free. Luke tells us what happened next, with a bluntness that still stings: when her owners realised that their hope of making money was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them before the authorities (Acts 16:19).
Not “when they saw she was well.” Not “when they heard she was free.” When they saw their income was gone. Her suffering had been their business model. Her freedom was, to them, a financial loss.
It is an old story from a city far away, but anyone who has spent time around housing will recognise the shape of it.
The quiet economics of desperation
A roof is not a luxury. People will pay almost anything for somewhere to sleep, especially people with children, people who have just arrived in a city, people with poor credit or no references, people leaving a bad situation in a hurry. That makes housing one of the easiest places to profit from someone else’s lack of choices.
Most of the time it is not dramatic. It looks like a single room divided with plywood into three, each rented separately. A tenant who asks for the leaking roof to be fixed and finds the rent going up instead. A young man from the country charged a deposit he will never see again. A family told, in effect, that if they complain there are ten people waiting for their unit. An elderly tenant who has paid on time for twenty years and is moved on so the place can be let to visitors at a higher rate.
None of those owners would describe themselves as exploiting anyone. They would say they have bills too, that the market sets the price, that nobody forced the tenant to sign. And some of that is true. But the question Acts 16 raises is not whether someone agreed. The slave girl’s owners had a legal right to her earnings under the rules of their time. The question is what happens in your heart when a person’s freedom or wellbeing costs you money.
Earning is not the problem
It would be easy to turn this into a sermon against landlords. That would be unfair, and also wrong. Renting out property is honest work. It provides homes people need, and plenty of landlords are small owners, pensioners, a family renting the downstairs to help with a mortgage, or someone abroad keeping the family house occupied. Scripture has no quarrel with a fair return. “The worker deserves his wages” (Luke 10:7, NIV) applies to the one who maintains a house as much as to the one who builds it.
The line is not between earning and not earning. It is between earning from providing something good, and earning from someone’s inability to leave. One landlord’s income depends on keeping the house sound, safe and pleasant enough that good tenants stay. Another’s depends on tenants being too poor, too frightened or too trapped to go elsewhere. The first can be a blessing to everyone involved. The second is the Philippian business model in a new form.
A few honest questions
If you rent out property, or plan to, some questions are worth asking yourself on a quiet evening:
- Would I be comfortable living in this unit, as it is, with my own children?
- If my tenant’s situation improved and they moved out, would I be glad for them, or mostly annoyed about the lost rent?
- Does my income depend on repairs not being done, or deposits not being returned?
- Am I charging more to this tenant because I know they have fewer options?
- If the arrangement were written up in the church newsletter, would I be proud or embarrassed?
These are not legal tests. They are conscience tests, and they are the kind the owners in Philippi never seem to have asked.
The gospel is bad for some kinds of business
What happened in Philippi is a reminder that the good news of Jesus is not neutral about how we make money. When the girl was set free, it upset an arrangement that worked well for the people on top. Paul and Silas ended up beaten and in prison because of it. The gospel was, quite literally, bad for business.
That still happens. A landlord who comes to faith may find that some of the ways he used to run his buildings no longer sit right. A property investor may realise that a scheme that looked clever on paper depends on people having nowhere else to go. Following Christ may mean accepting a slightly lower return in exchange for a clearer conscience: fixing the roof before raising the rent, giving back the deposit properly, letting a struggling family stay a month longer while they sort themselves out.
It may also mean speaking up. Church members who own property, sit on housing committees or manage buildings for others are in a position to notice when the people under a roof are being treated as income rather than as neighbours.
Seeing people, not units
The deepest change Acts 16 points to is a change of sight. The owners saw a girl and saw money. Paul, eventually, saw a person in bondage. Later in the same chapter, a jailer who had locked Paul up ends up washing his wounds and setting a meal before him in his own house (Acts 16:33-34). The whole chapter is about people learning to look at each other differently.
For anyone involved in housing, that is the real challenge. A tenancy is a legal arrangement, a line on a spreadsheet and a source of income. It is also somebody’s home, where their children do homework and their grandmother sleeps. Hold both in view, and profit and kindness can live under the same roof. Lose sight of the second, and it becomes all too easy to be the kind of owner who is angry when someone else is set free.
Follow Jamaica Homes on Youtube @jamaicahomes and Instagram @jamaica_homes and on Facebook @jamaicahomesnews Send us a message or email us at onlinefeedback@jamaica-homes.com or editor@jamaica-homes.com
