they better not legalize banker marriages, is all
In the comments to my previous post, wasp jerky made the most delightful and thought-provoking comment:
I never cease to be amused that so many churches are squeamish about homosexuals in their congregations, yet have no problem with bankers. The Bible condemns usury and even calls it an abomination. Where’s the “God hates bankers” movement?
This issue resonates with me for a few reasons. First of all, biblical Christian financial ethics are one area with which I have little quarrel. Jesus preached a lot about money, and his teachings sure sound good (and, of course, extremely challenging). Also, the two gentlemen who lead my bible study group (one does it more often than the other) both work for bank! Can you believe it? Though the second only joined the ranks of the sellouts recently, having grown tired of not being able to make a living at the health-care job for which he trained and having to work part-time shifts at the gas station where he’s worked since he was a teenager. Which is totally understandable and I’m thrilled for him. He is one of my favourite people ever in the world. I’ve known him since I was five, and you know how most people suck when they go through the awkward teenage years? He didn’t. He was cool and kind and fun even then. He’s that awesome. (Also, the first banker and bible study leader got him the job in the first place. See? Christian community at work! I’ve gotten jobs from church people, too, and it’s a nice effect.)
Anyway. I’m ruminating about these things in case they should come up in the context of our formal study. Inasmuch as our study is anything resembling “formal” with me cracking jokes all the time. I try to keep it to a dull roar, I swear. Wait, I don’t swear, Jesus says to make no oaths, let your yes be yes. (I pay attention sometimes.)
Because we are North American Christians, we can’t have a bible study or small group without having study guide books. The book we’ve been going through this fall was selected by the first banker: The Treasure Principle, by Randy Alcorn.
At first I was relieved by this choice. I was afraid we’d end up with some study that would stir up the controversial issues, on which my perspectives most certainly differ from the rest of the group. (By “controversial issues,” I mean the usual, you know, homos, fetus-killing, but also more esoteric things like the Nature of Salvation and whatnot.)
I’m down with Jesus’ teaching on money, and I’m sure you know that Jesus preached a lot more about money than he did about homos, or, for that matter, sex. Interesting, no?
Now, the first banker’s intentions were totally good in choosing Alcorn’s slight volume. We in our group are all young, and good financial habits are best made early. Everyone, even the heathens, agrees that giving money away is good. Hell, pathological corporations give away money because it makes them look good. That tells you something. Philanthropy and charity are as nearly universally-held as any value can be in our society.
I’d been meaning to make a separate, longer post about Alcorn’s book and maybe I still will. Actually, I can say with a good deal of certainty that I will, because there was one point early in the book where the content almost made me puke. (How’s that for a teaser?) But for now I’ll suffice it to say that I was extremely pleased to find that my dyed-in-the-wool evangelical comrades increasingly took issue with The Treasure Principle. Partly for its obnoxious style — you know, it’s the kind of study guide that has you look up eighteen different verses, with no regard for context, to answer one question to which the answer is obvious (well, to which the “right,” proscribed answer is obvious). We all grew increasingly annoyed by the book’s focus on heavenly reward, but as I said, that’s a story for another day.
Let’s go back to wasp jerky’s original comment. “Usury” isn’t a word you hear very often, so let’s get a definition on the table:
u·su·ry (yū’zhə-rē)
n., pl. -ries.1. The practice of lending money and charging the borrower interest, especially at an exorbitant or illegally high rate.
2. An excessive or illegally high rate of interest charged on borrowed money.
3. Archaic. Interest charged or paid on a loan.
It’s not like I’m going to go up to the first banker, point my finger, and say, “YOU, SIR, ARE GUILTY OF USURY! YOU ARE AN ABOMINATION BEFORE GOD!” and slap him on the cheek with a white glove or something. Under the modern definition, what banks do is not usury (those money stores, on the other hand, are a different matter). However, under the old definition, the biblical definition, any interest charged is usury. Not just the 18% credit card rate, not just the 50% money mart rate, but a measly 1%, or 0.0001%.
But the definintion has changed, as lexis continuously does, as culture continuously does.
A couple years ago, back when I was divorced from Jesus, a good friend came out of the closet, in a move that surprised no one (well, it did surprise some people, but most of the people he knows are Christians and generally Christians can’t recognize gay if you paint their house with it). I asked him if he were still a Christian. He said he was. I said, how? (I was pro-homo at that point, see, but I figured my pro-homo-ness and Christianity were incompatible.) He said, well, when biblical writers used the word “homosexuality,” they probably didn’t really relate it to the concept of two people in a committed, loving, mutually-beneficial, ethical relationship creating a home together.
I relate the “sin” of homosexuality to the “sin” of usury here to ask, if we can change the definition of the latter word, why can’t we change the definition of the former?
Just a question.
(Some of my favourite people are bankers.)
January 13th, 2006 at 9:05 am
You’re just trying to inflate my ego, aren’t you?
This reminds me of an episode of Morgan Spurlock’s TV show 30 Days, in which a really conservative Christian guy who was in the military had to spend 30 days living with a gay roommate. The conservative Christian guy had a few meetings with a gay pastor. During one of those meetings the gay pastor made an interesting point, saying that the Christian guy had found a way to reconcile killing people with his Christianity, that he had found a way to justify it and make it OK. She then asked him how that was any different from her being a gay pastor. He didn’t really have an answer.
January 13th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
You’re just trying to inflate my ego, aren’t you?
Yes.
:D
saying that the Christian guy had found a way to reconcile killing people with his Christianity, that he had found a way to justify it and make it OK.
That reminds me of Gail Ramshaw’s argument for freedom of choice regarding that other hot button, fetus-killing. She says that for millennia, men have decided what is necessary killing (war, capital punishment). In the case of pregnancy, she believes that women should have the same right to decide what life should be taken and when.
January 14th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Hi, Jenny. I liked your comment on Demerging. Since you seem to have a critical-thinking, much-lauded brain, I feel comfortable jumping in here as such:
It seems to me that Jesus never preached about money, per se. He used money as an illustration lots of times, and money was the topic handed to him a few times, by others…
But it seems to me that Jesus always preached about 1) His Father, 2) the Kingdom, or 3) things people have to get past to get closer to 1 & 2.
Let’s see… do I have a point?
Money was probably a very useful tool for reaching his listeners, for lots of obvious reasons. On the other hand, in their culture, Sex was something that didn’t need mentioning. Generally, he agreed with them all about the basics, and the ones who were doing wrong already knew it.
Also generally, homosexual activity becomes more common in wealthy urban societies. (Ancient Sparta may or may not be a unique exception.) Galilee and Judea were tratidional and rural. Jerusalem was urban, but very poor, and very religious. It’s very likely Jesus never encountered anyone who was actively engaged in a gay-sex lifestyle.
If he had, I’d imagine he would have responded with as much kindness, grace and mercy as he did the woman caught in adultery. He was sweet to her, did not condemn her, and simply said, “Go on now, and don’t do that again.”
By the way… I’m really not making any arguments for what others need to decide here. My opinion is probably clear, but I don’t think for a second I’m going to stop anyone from their own clever justifications. Gay-sex is much icker to me, but probably no more icky to God than wrongful usury, as you rightly point out. I don’t condone it, and I’m not going to argue or try to police against it.
What we justify in our lives is something we each have to face God about. I have NO opinions over how someone should do that, either. What’s between you and God is between YOU and God.
Hmmmm… I hope this is worthwhile, saying all this. (?) You are a critical-thinker type, right? Grist for the mill, then. I hope you appreciate it.
Please don’t read any strong pathos into any of my comments, except the parts about Him and His ‘Kingdom’.
This is the first time I’ve touched the ‘gay’ topic, by the way. I usually avoid it like the plague. (I don’t like to focus on behavior.) But Demerging people are usually pretty cool, and you’ve got the whole critical analysis thing going, which I like. So I’m interested to see how you respond here. Ta.
January 14th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
I skimmed some posts below, too. I think you might really enjoy reading this book.
Want a tease? Okay: the anti-women stuff in the Bible was the english translators fault. Turns out, Jesus and the NT writers had a very high view of women, extremely radical for their day!
It’s a good book, and I really think you might happen to like it. Hope I’m right!
January 14th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Hey, Bill, good to meet you, thanks for dropping by!
I wasn’t planning on jumping into the gay topics so soon, either, but I just felt… led, as they say.
I think it’s important for people on different sides of this debate to accept that we’re not going to change each others’ minds — of course, I’m never going to turn down a healthy rhetorical exchange, so I’m fine with your comments.
(Though I should note, minds can be changed about this issue, mine was one of them.)
(And I will poke a tiny little hole in your argument as such:
Gay-sex is much icker to me, but probably no more icky to God than wrongful usury, as you rightly point out.
The fact that you put ‘wrongful’ in front of the word ‘usury’ underscores my point that the definition of the word has changed.)
January 15th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
In what sense did I make an “argument”? [/grin]
(Are you a Monty Python fan?): “I paid you for an argument. An ‘argument’ is any rational statement supported by syllogisms. You’re simply making a contradiction!” - “No I’m not.” - “Yes you are.” - “No I’m not.” - (Etc…)
Hmmm. Maybe I did make an ‘argument’.
Anyway…
Call it “usury” or “wrongful usury” (I was using your terms). I’m betting there’s something about whatever they were talking about back then that is still “sin” in God’s eyes. To me, these things aren’t a matter of (the letter of) the Hebrew Law. Each born-again believer has to manage their own conscience before the Lord, about their behavior, especially if any particular activity becomes their god.
Of course, I happen to be one of many people who believe sexual immorality is just plain wrong, period. But neither condoning nor condemning nor any type of behavior itself… is my God.
By the way…
I think the pro-gay movement was brilliant to shift their rhetoric away from behavior with words like “lifestyle” and “identity”. “God made me this way” and “this is just who I am” are not just powerful statements - they’re statements that are non-contradictable, except by faith or dogma. Which is not only brilliant, but also very convienient for them. (Isn’t that fair to say?)
I think the title of the show “Will & Grace” suggests a position on a theological debate: am I ‘gay’ because I choose to be (will), or was I born this way (grace)? (The “&” gives their answer: “both”.)
Even the words “be” and “am” are powerful. How can anyone deny someone the right to “be” what they “are”? But focus the discussion graphicly on what they “do”, and even Saturday Night Live pointed out how far the popular approval rating drops! [/grin]
“Will and Grace” is also a summary of the show’s basic theme: hedonism and acceptance. “I’m going to do whatever makes me feel good (will), and my friends will tell me it’s all okay (grace).” When I’ve seen the show, every bit of it specifically supports that theme, “it’s all good,” and “do what you want to.” Since these ideas are very popular with lots of people, I think it’s easy to see why the ‘gay movement’ is gaining ground.
Clever, clever people…
Personally, if someone asked me whether or not God might have ‘blessed’ homosexual activity for the postmodern era, I might tell them: “If he did, he didn’t tell me about it! You go ask him! And if you hear a ‘yes’ I’ll probably leave that between you and him, but don’t ask me to believe it, or to condone it. Is that fair?”
What do you think? Is that fair?
I’m trying to learn here. I know what I believe, but I don’t know how to talk about it with people. How’m I doing?
I wouldn’t go on about this, but it’s probably good practice for both of us - if you still agree? Or I can drop it if you want me to. No big. Either way, feel free to address my new ‘arguments’!
Thanks again.
January 16th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
I have seen that Python sketch. My definition of argument is that everything is an argument of one kind or another.
I think the pro-gay movement was brilliant to shift their rhetoric away from behavior with words like “lifestyle” and “identity”. “God made me this way” and “this is just who I am” are not just powerful statements - they’re statements that are non-contradictable, except by faith or dogma. Which is not only brilliant, but also very convienient for them. (Isn’t that fair to say?)
Talking about the “pro-gay” movement is just as sensible as talking about the “Christian” movement. Neither is monolithic! There are countless variations of Christian belief, and there are varying perspectives within the gay community/gay supporters/allies. In fact, it’s always been interesting that the left wing of the gay spectrum aligns with the right wing of the Christian in the assertion that gayness is a choice, a lifestyle, a behaviour. The conservative gay community, on the other hand, aligns with the liberal Christian community that supports the assertion that sexual orientation is something beyond conscious personal control.
Your comments seem to revolve around the concept of the “gay agenda,” a concept to which the fundamentalists cling. Yes, there are gay activists who fight for the interests and rights of people whose orientation is other than purely heterosexual. But for every out and proud rainbow flag-waver, there are countless others who struggle in silence because their communities tell them they’re gross, freaks, unnatural, disgusting, icky, whatever.
If you’re going to cite Will and Grace some sort of treatise on homosexuality then I’m going to cite Friends as a treatise on heterosexuality. My analysis of the show is that “every bit of it specifically supports the theme that ‘it’s all good,’ and ‘do what you want to.’” Whether that’s indulging in one-night stands with ex-boyfriends which result in pregnancy or extreme casual sex (remember that plotline where Joey went home with a woman and became increasingly suspicious that he had slept with her before, and forgotten? It turned out he had slept with her roommate, that’s why he recognized her apartment).
With shows like that it’s easy to see why heterosexuality is gaining ground.
Or, if you prefer to argue that Friends promotes not heterosexuality but immoral heterosexuality, then let’s say that Everybody Loves Raymond as a treatise of classic sex-within-marriage values. Take your pick.
Personally, if someone asked me whether or not God might have ‘blessed’ homosexual activity for the postmodern era, I might tell them: “If he did, he didn’t tell me about it! You go ask him! And if you hear a ‘yes’ I’ll probably leave that between you and him, but don’t ask me to believe it, or to condone it. Is that fair?”
I don’t think you can ask anyone to believe anything, but you can extend to them the same rights and priveleges you extend to yourself. You are allowed to marry one person of your own choosing in a mutually-consenting relationship provided that person is over the age of majority, you should extend that right to others as well.
I wouldn’t go on about this, but it’s probably good practice for both of us - if you still agree? Or I can drop it if you want me to. No big. Either way, feel free to address my new ‘arguments’!
I’m not bored of it yet.
January 16th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
I think I used a couple of terms (for lack of knowing what other words to use) that obviously had other connotations for you. Like I said, I don’t know how to talk about this issue. Also, it’s certainly fair to say I was generalizing. (I knew I was, and I thought you’d take it as such.)
To clarify… (?)
The show’s title was just meant as an illustration of (my perception of) the ideas that seem to gain ground in popular media. I didn’t mean to generalize over any groups or subgroups. It should be obvious I’m no expert here!
Mainly, I only meant to point out some common rhetoric in order to say that it seems dogmatic. And to tell how I feel like it’s impossible to respond to. In other words… how could I “argue” even if I wanted to, with those terms?
I don’t think I was trying to prove anything. Like I said - as if I could.
Maybe I should have said, “It’s easy to see why acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle seems to be increasing.” Of course, acceptance of lots of things has been increasing. Yes, Friends promotes the same agenda: acceptance of amoral hedonism, or at least, loose morality.
Again, my only point is, I have no way to respond to that, except to ignore it or to point out what it is - which I avoid, because I don’t like to discuss behavior and morality. But it seems unavoidable sometimes, and that’s where I’m asking for help. Do you have some better advice?
Am I at least more clear now? I hope so.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
I don’t like to discuss behavior and morality.
Agreed. This is the trap I think Christian discussion falls into way, way too often. Not that we shouldn’t ever talk about this stuff, but just that… it’s not really the point, is it? Or, it shouldn’t be, of the Christian faith.
My own positions on sexuality are born out of personal experience and not theory. Actually, that’s not true — it’s more like, I’ve embraced theory that matches up with personal experience.
Sometimes I just wish every evangelical Christian were required by law to have at least two gay friends or one gay family member.