Enough Already
An essay on the internecine warfare in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
I am prepared to grant, for the sake of the argument though not as an exegetical certainty, that Scripture condemns homosexual behaviors. For many, if not most, who oppose the action affirming homosexuals taken at the ELCA Churchwide Assembly last August, that apparently settles the hash. Whatever Scripture disallows, the church must disallow: consistently, continuously, eternally. I cannot take them seriously.
To cite just one example that raises a question in my mind about this approach to social issues, Scripture disallows charging and paying interest on loans among members of the community of faith (see Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36; Deuteronomy 23:19f.). The New Testament is silent on the matter. So, apparently, was the church for nearly 300 years. But in the 4th century, the church began openly and formally to forbid usury among the faithful – first among clergy and then among all the faithful. This policy lasted until the modern era. Then, as the western economy changed and the need for capital increased, the church began to rethink its opposition to the practice. In the 16th century, for instance, Luther continued to condemn usury though Calvin did not. Calvin’s view ultimately prevailed. Capitalism as we know it might never have developed if the views of the church had not changed. Scripture did not change; the church’s attitude toward the practice changed. I will leave it to wiser heads to determine whether capitalism is a really good idea or not.
I suspect that those who most vociferously oppose the ELCA’s recent change in policy toward homosexuality readily accept capitalism and thereby also the practice of usury needed to sustain it. What I expect from these folks, if I am to take them seriously, is that – now alerted to the fundamental shift that took place in the church’s view of usury – they lead the charge against the change. I expect them to hold in derision those who say that their consciences permit them to accept it. I expect them to hurl anathemas and charges of heresy against the innovators. I expect them to leave congregations that will not condemn the change or to press their congregations to withhold monetary support or withdraw from a national church body that will not repent of its errant acceptance of the change. I expect them to become energetic, angry, noisy public opponents of the practice of lending institutions owned largely by Christian shareholders charging interest to their Christian customers. And Christian customers should not float interest-charging loans unless they have done due diligence to determine that the money of Christians is not being borrowed. Harassing into conformity those who go astray could be construed as doing them a favor, to say nothing of doing God a favor.
Need I say it? If these things were to occur, the western economies would collapse and with them the global economy. That collapse would make our most recent recession seem paltry by comparison. However, this may be an acceptable price to pay for remaining scriptural and faithful to at least a segment of the historic church’s wisdom and tradition. So if the opponents of change with respect to homosexuality will initiate bold action on this central economic matter, I will drop my criticism of what I currently regard as their selective and disingenuous use of the Bible in relation to social issues. Until that happens, enough already. Do your homework; it is overdue. And walk humbly clothed in the righteousness of Christ rather than parading proudly cloaked in self-righteousness.
I am prepared to grant, for the sake of the argument though not as an exegetical certainty, that Scripture condemns homosexual behaviors. For many, if not most, who oppose the action affirming homosexuals taken at the ELCA Churchwide Assembly last August, that apparently settles the hash. Whatever Scripture disallows, the church must disallow: consistently, continuously, eternally. I cannot take them seriously.
To cite just one example that raises a question in my mind about this approach to social issues, Scripture disallows charging and paying interest on loans among members of the community of faith (see Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36; Deuteronomy 23:19f.). The New Testament is silent on the matter. So, apparently, was the church for nearly 300 years. But in the 4th century, the church began openly and formally to forbid usury among the faithful – first among clergy and then among all the faithful. This policy lasted until the modern era. Then, as the western economy changed and the need for capital increased, the church began to rethink its opposition to the practice. In the 16th century, for instance, Luther continued to condemn usury though Calvin did not. Calvin’s view ultimately prevailed. Capitalism as we know it might never have developed if the views of the church had not changed. Scripture did not change; the church’s attitude toward the practice changed. I will leave it to wiser heads to determine whether capitalism is a really good idea or not.
I suspect that those who most vociferously oppose the ELCA’s recent change in policy toward homosexuality readily accept capitalism and thereby also the practice of usury needed to sustain it. What I expect from these folks, if I am to take them seriously, is that – now alerted to the fundamental shift that took place in the church’s view of usury – they lead the charge against the change. I expect them to hold in derision those who say that their consciences permit them to accept it. I expect them to hurl anathemas and charges of heresy against the innovators. I expect them to leave congregations that will not condemn the change or to press their congregations to withhold monetary support or withdraw from a national church body that will not repent of its errant acceptance of the change. I expect them to become energetic, angry, noisy public opponents of the practice of lending institutions owned largely by Christian shareholders charging interest to their Christian customers. And Christian customers should not float interest-charging loans unless they have done due diligence to determine that the money of Christians is not being borrowed. Harassing into conformity those who go astray could be construed as doing them a favor, to say nothing of doing God a favor.
Need I say it? If these things were to occur, the western economies would collapse and with them the global economy. That collapse would make our most recent recession seem paltry by comparison. However, this may be an acceptable price to pay for remaining scriptural and faithful to at least a segment of the historic church’s wisdom and tradition. So if the opponents of change with respect to homosexuality will initiate bold action on this central economic matter, I will drop my criticism of what I currently regard as their selective and disingenuous use of the Bible in relation to social issues. Until that happens, enough already. Do your homework; it is overdue. And walk humbly clothed in the righteousness of Christ rather than parading proudly cloaked in self-righteousness.
1 Comments:
You state: “Scripture disallows charging and paying interest on loans among members of the community of faith (see Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36; Deuteronomy 23:19f.). The New Testament is silent on the matter.” I believe that a more careful examination of these texts will show that, in general, charging interest is not disallowed in such a way that capitalism could never have developed by following God’s commands. Let me explain:
In the Deuteronomy passage explicitly states: “To a foreigner you may lend upon interest.”
In both the Exodus and the Leviticus passages the emphasis is clearly on the poor among your “brothers”. In other words, they were able to charge interest, just not to a poor person among their people who came to them for help. They should lend them money to help them in their time of need, and not charge them interest for doing it. The text does not disallow most interest.
In the New Testament, which you say is silent on the matter, Jesus Himself said in the parable of the Talents, to the wicked servant, “Why then did you not put my money into the bank, and at my coming I should have collected it with interest?” Luke 19:23 (RSV) It seems very clear that Jesus was condemning him for NOT at least collecting interest.
You state regarding those in the ELCA who opposed the acceptance of homosexuality and who believe that “Whatever Scripture disallows, the church must disallow: consistently, continuously, eternally”: “I cannot take them seriously.” I suggest that you are making a serious mistake with that. You should take them seriously, because they are, it seems to me, taking God’s Holy Word seriously on this matter.
I cannot conceive of what sort of exegetical gymnastics you would have to come up with to make the following mean anything except the condemnation of sodomy:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22 (RSV)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. Leviticus 20:13 (RSV)
And we have Paul confirming this condemnation in the New Testament as well:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (by perversion), nor homosexuals, … shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9+ (NASB)
He goes on to say that since we are all sinners, when we repent and are converted, and turn to Christ we can be delivered and changed from our old ways, to serve Him in newness of life: And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:11 (RSV)
Again, in I Timothy Paul tells us the Law was laid down for the ungodly and sinners, for “immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”
1 Timothy 1:10-11 (RSV)
You finished with this statement: “So if the opponents of change with respect to homosexuality will initiate bold action on this central economic matter, I will drop my criticism of what I currently regard as their selective and disingenuous use of the Bible in relation to social issues.” Tom, as we have seen, to obey the Scriptural injunctions not to charge interest to another believer who is in desperate need and comes to us for help, is not going to affect the economy in a negative way. Indeed, it may actually help the economy by helping the brother get back on his feet and again become a productive member of society. So I am hopeful that you will drop your criticism of those opposing what the Bible clearly and consistently opposes, for their understanding of Scripture is clearly and obviously correct and consistent.
Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. 2 Timothy 2:7
Bud Wesche
Post a Comment
<< Home