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.
