But I am a christian
She was heavily pregnant, wore little make up and wore a small silver cross at her neck. We were discussing options for the recovery of a substanial amount of money which she had loaned. As I am accustomed to do, I laid out the different steps that could be taken, the costs and risks involved. But when I came to discuss bankruptcy, she said “I could never bankrupt someone because I am a Christian”. I wondered whether I was in the wrong profession.
But this was just another example of issues of financial management becoming tied up in religion for no good reason. And I see it a lot in my line of work. I could have spoken to her and pointed out that bankruptcy is actually designed as a form of restorative justice - a process which balances the rights of those that are owed money while giving the debtor a chance of a fresh start. It developed as a replacement for the system where hopelessly indebted people would enter into a spiral of prosecution which ended with their being imprisoned until their debts were paid in full. Due to the fact that they were imprisoned, they were unable to earn money to pay these debts and therefore the effective result of financial difficulties was life imprisonment. I could have explained all of this to my client, but I doubt she would have appreciated it.
We all know that religion has a messed up relationship with money in all its forms. Prosperity theology, dodgy teaching on giving, lack of accountability - we have talked about all of these on this site. This week I received an alert to an article about Christian financial counsellors - the debt slayers. We come across these people from time to time. There are the real Christian debt counsellors - the priests and ministers and church leaders who deal straight with us lawyers and counsel their “clients” to be honest and open about your abilities to pay and cooperate to arrange the resolution of the situation (in whatever way) with a minimum of evasion, costs and manipulation. But those saints never advertise or present themselves as financial counsellors. And they are not the focus of this article. Rather, this article is about the ‘other’ kind of Christian financial counsellors:
Dave Ramsey is a fast-talking, in-your-face kind of guy whose tough-love guidance—both in books and over the airwaves from Nashville—connects with a lot of Americans. Every few minutes on his three-hour weekday afternoon radio program, callers who recently paid off massive amounts of credit card obligations scream, “I’m debt-free!”
Although he is overtly Christian, Ramsey resonates with a market beyond the evangelical niche: His show is carried on 272 secular stations. In March, cbs television began filming a pilot for a reality series that will follow Ramsey around the country, helping families conquer overwhelming debt and cut the credit umbilical cord.
“I’ve cried over this stuff, too,” says Ramsey, who established a $4 million real estate portfolio by age 26 and lost it four years later. “I’ve done stupid with zeroes on the end.”
I don’t want to impugn Mr Ramsey’s ministry, but I just don’t see the difference between this and any other financial counselling service. Just what are the Christian principles in relation to debt? I would venture that we are called to be good stewards of our resources (which would mean avoiding waste, consumerism, excessive spending etc). We are called to give sacrificially to others. And we are called to deal honestly with other people (ie that there is a moral aspect to clearing debt and not leaving people in the lurch). But except where you want to justify your tips with a bible verse, I can’t see how the nuts and bolts of Christian financial counselling is any better than the more principled of secular financial counsellors.
So I don’t really think you are getting anything extra from Christian financial counselling than you are from secular financial counselling, except the warm glow that comes from being told that becoming debt free is pleasing to God (in itself a little creepy). But putting such a religious overtone on paying off credit card debt can be profoundly manipulative:
According to Mary Hunt, who says her Debt-Proof Living website attracts more than 8 million monthly hits, multitudes of Christians have curtailed church giving because of overspending.
“People can’t believe it when I tell them they need to tithe and save even if they are deeply in debt,” says Hunt. “Most of them think, I’ll do that when I pay all my bills off.“
“A whole bunch of us got all this stuff we really didn’t want with money we really didn’t have to impress people we really didn’t like,” Ramsey says.
And all of it is built around that old chestnut, that God likes us better if we are not in debt. Or, even if we are wealthy. And correspondingly, if we are in financial trouble, then we are not living as God wants us to live. But in order to find this in the Bible, you have to really want to see it:
Most Christian financial leaders acknowledge that debt isn’t called sin in the Bible, but they believe that Scripture discourages debt. They concede that debt is a reality of modern life and even drives the economy, but warn against a lifelong pattern of debt.
“We can’t make a blanket statement that all debt is wrong,” says Blue, author of Master Your Money, now in its 32nd printing. “But it doesn’t make sense to borrow your way to prosperity.”
And it should be no surprise that the ‘typical’ success stories from such counsellors follow the “I paid off my debt and God blessed me with money and success” formula:
Doug and Sherrie Spracklen of Fair Grove, Missouri, are typical beneficiaries. They believe an intensive 13-week Crown Ministries course at Peace Chapel Assembly of God strengthened their marriage and transformed their lives.
Doug, 35, says in his younger years he bought things like a car stereo system and golf clubs, but didn’t have the money to pay for them. His credit card balance further escalated when he started his own insurance business and bought office furnishings and business suits.
Four years into their marriage, the Spracklens had amassed $20,000 in unsecured debt. They had two vehicle payments, an older house that needed repairs, and no equity. They made minimum payments on their credit cards and rolled debt over whenever a zero percent credit offer came along, but those introductory benefits soon expired. The Crown classes helped them devise a plan to get out of debt in two years, just before the birth of the first of their two sons.
Although he always had tithed, the Crown course taught Doug Spracklen to view giving as something more joyful than a mere obligation. Since becoming debt-free, the Spracklens have increased giving to missions, benevolence needs, and savings. He hired three agents, and his business income quadrupled in six years. The Spracklens have purchased 30 acres, but are in no hurry to go into debt by borrowing to build a home.
Want a real Christian attitude to debt and stewardship? Then you are better off going to this guy:
On the other end of the spectrum is the Sarasota, Florida–based Gary Moore, who provides “counsel to spiritual and ethical investors.” He advises the Templeton Foundation and is a board treasurer of Opportunity International, an organization that sees loans as a means of empowerment for the poor. “Small loans,” its website proclaims, “sometimes as little as $50, in the hands of a poor entrepreneur, can transform the lives of individuals, families, and entire communities.” Not surprisingly, then, Moore paints a much different picture than Dayton, Ramsey, Blue, and Hunt.
He argues that Americans are in the top 1 percent of all wage earners in history and that less than 2 percent of Americans have serious credit card debt. Federal Reserve reports indicate that of the households that carry a credit card balance (45 percent of all households), the median amount owed is $1,900. “As the average American lives on $40,000 a year, that’s hardly an economic earthquake,” Moore comments. Only 29 percent of households owe $1,000 or more on their cards, 4 percent owe $10,500 or more, and 1 percent owe $21,400 or more. Moore contends that debt can be empowering rather than enslaving, and that credit is compatible with Christian values.
Or better still, how about we listen to this guy:
Then he said to the crowd, “Don’t be greedy! Owning a lot of things won’t make your life safe.”
16So Jesus told them this story:
A rich man’s farm produced a big crop, 17and he said to himself, “What can I do? I don’t have a place large enough to store everything.”
18Later, he said, “Now I know what I’ll do. I’ll tear down my barns and build bigger ones, where I can store all my grain and other goods. 19Then I’ll say to myself, `You have stored up enough good things to last for years to come. Live it up! Eat, drink, and enjoy yourself.’ ”
20But God said to him, “You fool! Tonight you will die. Then who will get what you have stored up?”
21″This is what happens to people who store up everything for themselves, but are poor in the sight of God.”
Who here really thinks that Jesus would be mad if I borrowed money to give it to the poor?
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Thanks for that. I look forward to hearing what a real man is - or how to be one. Do you have to have a penis? (I suppose so).
Reminds me of a song lyric “But now and then we wonder who the real men are”
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:29 pm
- and the worst part of being a bridge is that you get stepped on from both sides… quote “a new kind of christian” (McLaren)
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:35 pm
If you are not For me, then you must be Against me.
A letter to the opposition:
Celibacy…..hummm. That’s just not compatible for me, sorry.
God created most of us to be sexual beings. I have attractions and sexual desires, and plan to explore and enjoy them within the boundaries of monogamy.
I am created in God’s image (character) - - the Bible says so. I am also the workmanship (Poiema) of God - - the Bible says so.
I’m not going to call bad or evil what God has created me to be (based upon the half-wit, bigoted, hateful, and oppressive Biblical interpretations of others).
Yes, we homosexuals are different……fuckin’ deal with it.
People with Down Syndrome are different…..deal with it.
Dwarf or Little People are different……get the hell over it.
If you are unwilling to try to understand and accept someone that is different from you (respecting and appreciating all people as God’s creations), then you are no better than Hitler, baby. His way to deal with it was to commit genocide. Is that your answer too? “Let’s just wipe gays off the face of the earth.”
What? You think that’s a ridiculous statement and nothing like that would ever happen?! Don’t be fooled…..
Since 911, Racial-Profiling has multiplied by 1000% in the U.S. If you’re of Muslim or Middle Eastern descent and there is even the slightest hint that you may have connections to people who know people who have family members who “may” be connected to terrorism, you can be detained by the Dept. of Homeland Security indefinitely. People have gone missing in the middle of the night, disappeared for weeks or months, only to turn back up, having been held and questioned by the government for potential terroristic connections - - highly on the basis of Racial Profiling. Racial Profiling continues to be a daily occurrence in airports, train stations, government buildings and anywhere else of importance these days. For Christ’s sake, this is 2006…..and the U.S. continues to creep closer and closer to that same cultural mindset and behavior of 1943, with the internment of Japanese-Americans in Concentration Camps.
So…….prejudice, bigotry, and oppression are definitely alive and well, my friends. And the roots of this evil, this evil that seeks to divide and conquer, turning man against man, race against race, this evil which dishonors all of God’s creations by attempting to esteem one over the other…….their roots are found in Fear & Pride.
I have no tolerance for prejudice or bigotry, especially when expressed toward me or other homosexuals or other minorities that are commonly discriminated against. And when the oppression sets in…..well, then it will be time to find a new country to live in.
I am a homosexual. I am a creation of God. For the moment, I am free to be everything that God created and designed me to be. God is not random in His actions. He created me with purpose.
I don’t care if others think I’m a sinner. I don’t care if others choose to believe that I am on a path to hell. They can continue to believe what ever the hell they want. BUT…..! They had better not try to impose their belief system on me.
I have great peace with my understanding of God and my understanding of how He views me and how He values me. Please refrain from trying to devalue something that God considers precious, the apple of His eye, the workmanship of His hands, His poem.
How would you like Your words, Your poems, the works of Your hands, Your inventions, Your artwork, Your creations torn down, criticized and devalued?! Well God doesn’t appreciate it either.
So why do you think God sent Jesus?????? Maybe to redeem what was precious to Him? Just maybe? So that He could be reconciled with the workmanship of His hands? Just maybe??
ahhhhh, but in your perpetual blindness you continue to believe that “Terms and Conditions” continue to apply - - that Jesus’ blood wasn’t completely sufficient for ALL sin for ALL time…….. what a warped way to perceive the world, but worse, what a warped way to perceive God.
The book of Isaiah is my favorite. Sometimes I wish it was the only book in the Bible. Therein, you pretty much get the whole package of the rise, the fall, the reconciliation. Isaiah is a beautiful account of what was and what is and what is to come……..so many wonderful promises. Perhaps you should give it a read sometime.
“I will give you a name better than sons and daughters.”
“For My house shall be called a house of prayer for ALL nations.”
Ron
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:40 pm
You are fearfully and wonderfully made, Ron.
June 3rd, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Hmm,
God tells us there are clear boundaries about who can have sex. It is for the husband and wife ONLY.
A half-Jewish bloke called Jesus spoke against sexual immorality ( adultery and fornication or sex outside of marriage). It was quite a common problem when he was walking in Palestine.
We are ALL created in God’s image even Hitler or Stalin imagine that.
God didn’t really say anything about Downs syndrome or Dwarfs.
He did about active homosexuals and guess what it is like any other sin. It can be overcome just like we read in Corinth.
Jesus did die for the sins of us all but not all recognise they are sinning and thus reject it.
The bloke at Corinth didn’t care about what God thought either .
There is also the implication that god has created him. He is a homosexual, He is God’s creation ipso facto then it is okay.
Can the thief say this, the liar, the adulterer, the murderer, the covetous, the idolaters, the violent, the backbiters etal?
June 3rd, 2006 at 5:03 pm
the difference, as i see it, between homosexuality and lying, adultery, murder, etc. is that the latter are activities that diminish and damage other people or the world. homosexuality doesn’t.
there are situations i face every day that the bible doesn’t tell me how to deal with. there are sins i commit that the bible never thought of. i have to create some criteria in order to know how to live, and the thing that comes through to me all the way through the bible is that God is on the side of life. So sin is that which isn’t.
There are plenty of sins that are listed in the bible that people earnestly told us are of God - usury, for example - which we moderate for our lives today. There’s something unique about homosexuality, that makes people highly reactive. i wonder why that is…
June 3rd, 2006 at 6:31 pm
I actually don’t think that I sin all that often - but quite frankly so what! What “righteousness” can I offer God! It is like filthy rags to Him. God doesn’t want my righteousness nearly as much as He wants me to love.
I would rather live an immoral life, but come to a deep understanding of love and grace, than live a moral upstanding life and never fathom the true depths of love and grace.
June 4th, 2006 at 4:59 am
I wonder if you guys are aware of the Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability http://www.ecfa.org/ContentEngine.aspx?PageType=Control&PageName=HomePage
I must smile at the prominence of the “Giving” link. That aside, obviously this is a longstanding endeavour to promote transparency and accountabilty. How effective?
June 4th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
God tells us there are clear boundaries about who can have sex. It is for the husband and wife ONLY.
That’s your interpretation….WRONG.
We are ALL created in God’s image even Hitler or Stalin imagine that.
Translation: Hitler and Stalin were “cool” dudes. I aspire to their greatness.
God didn’t really say anything about Downs syndrome or Dwarfs.
He did about active homosexuals…
No He Didn’t. You’re misrepresenting scripture, again as usual. The word Homosexual does not appear in the original text of either the Old or New Testament.
Jesus did die for the sins of us all…
No He Didn’t (according to scripture). He died for the sins of “many.”
The bloke at Corinth didn’t care about what God thought either.
I care about what God thinks…..I just don’t care about what YOU think, EP.
Homer (a.k.a. EP), Jesus commissioned You to take the gospel (good news) of grace to the world, making disciples…..but you have failed Him. You’re too busy contending for “your interpretation” of the faith, pointing out what you believe to be sin, attempting to act as the judge who decides who is worthy of heaven and who is going to hell. You are such a waste of my time and everyone else’s on Signposts. You’re just a great big distraction with a little bitty dick. No one here esteems you and your wisdom and godliness (because you have none). No one here appreciates your sentiments or respects your posts. Nothing you say brings any of us closer to unity, enlightenment, revelation or understanding. Do you have a mental disease or something? Are you mildly retarded? I’m just trying to understand what makes you such a dick….I mean what makes you tick.
June 4th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Taby, I hear you. A request:
No one here esteems you and your wisdom and godliness (because you have none). No one here appreciates your sentiments or respects your posts. Nothing you say brings any of us closer to unity, enlightenment, revelation or understanding.
Best to say “I” rather than speaking for everyone. Please don’t insult someone in my name.
*hugs*
June 4th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Wayne… i don’t want to be moralistic. i just know that my actions diminish the lives of others - if i buy clothes that are made in sweatshops, if i drive my car instead of walking, if i choose high interest rate investments instead of ethical investments, if i sleep around with no regards for the value of mine and another’s sexuality, if i vote for the government that will bring me tax relief rather than increase funding to hospitals, etc. etc. I don’t try to do those things to earn God’s favour (that’s not in question), or to try to be righteous, i do them in response to being loved.
June 4th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Cheryl,
you should look a bit more at usury.
Whom could the Israelites/Jews not charge interest to and for what?
you philosophy on sin and how it affects people unfortunately has biblical foundation.
some sins are worse than others perhaps!
Its funny but the people in sweatshops don’t mind working there.
Japan used to have sweatshops. so did South Korea and Taiwan.
As economic growth persists a country moves out of labour intensive industries into other ones.
Its funny but I have never met an ex-dwarf nor an ex- downs syndrome person but I have met ex-homosexuals!
yes he did die for all people but most will reject him because they do not believe their actions are wrong and deserve punishment.
I will leave until tomorrow to deal with taby’s theory which is very very very similar to what Daniel Helminiak has said until tomorrow.
Wayne,
‘I would rather live an immoral life, but come to a deep understanding of love and grace, than live a moral upstanding life and never fathom the true depths of love and grace.’
you are confusing two issues here.
Grace and what has previously been talked about unrepentance.
do you think the person who was expelled from the church in Corinth had grace?
It is good to know Taby is further re-writing the bible.
Perhaps when he is finished there won’t be any sins.
The bible talks about the actions of homosexuals in both the o/t in n/t.
June 4th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
God didn’t really say anything about Downs syndrome or Dwarfs.
Such people mustn’t exist then Homer.
June 4th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Its funny but the people in sweatshops don’t mind working there.
hmm. the one’s i’ve spoken with definitely say otherwise.
June 4th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
homer, i’m not quite sure what you’re asking about usury… the bible is specific at times, saying that money should not be lent at interest to a “brother” (sic). at other times it doesn’t specify any group - Psalm 15, for example. tell me more what you mean…
i listed those sins because they are examples of how i am tempted to sin every days, not because they are the only sins.
the God i believe in is obsessed with love, not sin. that’s the only belief that makes any sense of Jesus’ life. i often wonder whether we have our faith in different God’s, Homer… trouble is, we both get our beliefs from scripture, and we both hold passionately to our faith. i know not where to go with that.
June 4th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
i share an office with one of the fairwear campaign workers. From her website: “Homeworkers are mostly women who make clothes at home in Australia for as little as $2 to $3 an hour. They often work up to 18 hours a day, 7 days a week. Homeworkers make clothes for our major retailers, designers and even suppliers of school uniforms. It is estimated that there are 300,000 outworkers in Australia today.”
besides which, i’m not sure that Japan, South Korea or Taiwan are economic and social cultures that we wish to emulate…
June 5th, 2006 at 5:13 am
Priests tempted by full coffers
One study of church wealth recently estimated that the financial market for US church projects - including new buildings, renovations and other program - is worth $37.5 billion. Yet both lenders and churches are suddenly finding that accounting controls on the flow of money are hopelessly amateurish compared with standard corporate practice.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19362411-29677,00.html
June 5th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Its funny but I have never met an ex-dwarf nor an ex- downs syndrome person but I have met ex-homosexuals!
Well following on from your logic…I’ve met ex Sydney Anglicans, therefore being a Sydney Anglican is something to be repented of and turned away from. What do you say Homer? Search your heart, you really do want ot to leave the dark side don;t you?
June 5th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Cheryl,
Usury is directed to the Israelites when dealing with their brothers.
you do not charge interest when helping out someone!
I will cut and past part of an article by Derrick Ollif and Dewy Hodges which deals with the toevah issue.
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13
These passages clearly specify that homosexual acts merited the death penalty under the Mosaic law. In looking at Helminiak’s explanation of these passages, we shall respond to the two main conclusions that he attempts to draw. He first attempts to conclude that an act which merited the death penalty is not necessarily grievous or immoral. In trying to mitigate the seriousness of the death penalty, he first tells us that while the death penalty is severe, ” … Leviticus prescribes the same penalty for cursing one’s parents. Other sexual sins also merit the death penalty: adultery, incest and bestiality” (p. 44). Apparently, the fact that cursing one’s parents also merited the death penalty constitutes a reductio ad absurdum in Helminiak’s mind. Between the lines, he appears to be saying that we know that such a punishment today for this type of unimportant offense would be barbaric, so perhaps the fact that homosexual acts merited the death penalty does not really mean that they were serious offenses. This, however, would only have force if one considered actions which undermine the family structure to be a “light” matter. Since Christians should not hold such a position, his attempted reductio is not effective.
Along this same line, he next attempts to explain why adultery required the death penalty. He states that,
In ancient Israel, adultery was an offense only against the husband; it was an unlawful use of his property his woman, his wife. More than a personal offense, it involved a financial loss: the man had paid his wife’s father a bridal price for her, and she was important to the expansion of his family, the increase of his property … . Similarly, if a man’s new bride was not a virgin, how sure could he be that a child born through her was his own? A “used” woman was of no value to anyone. Having sex with someone else’s woman could cause serious financial and social problems. The “theft” involved was major. In ancient Israel, that offense was serious enough to be punished by death (pp. 44 - 45).
Again, we see an attempt to mitigate the death penalty as a punishment. This attempt, however, suffers from a number of problems. To begin with, Helminiak tells us that adultery is no different from theft. He tells us that adultery was a serious problem just because it was theft of major proportions. If this were true, it would reduce the Seventh Commandment to a subsection of the Eighth Commandment. The Bible, however, clearly presents them as distinct. Additionally, with respect to the topic at hand (punishment), there is no connection between adultery and theft. In direct contradiction to Helminiak’s equation of adultery and theft, adultery merited the death of both participants (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22 - 24) while theft required the restoration of property (Exodus 22:1, 4 - 14; Leviticus 6:1 - 5). Thus, in trying to explain punishment by combining the two offenses, Helminiak has given us an explanation that is incoherent in light of the Bible’s own prescription of punishment.
Moreover, his explanation is at odds with the RCC’s position on adultery and marriage. Although the Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes many Old and New Testament passages to support its views of marriage, sexual relations, and various infidelities, not once does it mention Helminiak’s view, much less claim that it was the normal operating procedure in biblical times. The Catechism assumes that in biblical times as well as in modern times, marriage is a covenant based on the Genesis account of creation. When discussing adultery, it says nothing remotely similar to Helminiak’s account, and it even mentions that several Old Testament prophets at least indirectly likened adultery to idolatry [10]. If the RCC harbors beliefs even remotely similar to Helminiak’s position, one would not know it from their Catechism. It therefore looks like this is another instance where Helminiak has abandoned his church’s teaching in favor of his own theories. It is also apparent that his attempt to downplay the death penalty as a punishment for homosexual acts, as commanded by God, has not been successful.
Helminiak’s second and more important conclusion is that
(F1) The prohibition of homosexual acts in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was a purity law enacted to separate Israel from her neighbors, whose homosexual acts were “associated with pagan activities, with idolatry, with Gentile identity.” (pp. 46 - 47).
(F2) Since it was not an ethical prohibition, it does not apply today.
He supports this conclusion with two arguments. He first argues in support of (F1) with the claim that the specific passages under consideration are embedded within a set of purity laws (”The Holiness Code”) teaching the Israelites to be separate from the surrounding Gentiles. Therefore, the actions spoken of (including homosexual acts) are not wrong in themselves; but they were to be avoided in that culture, because such acts were associated with unbelieving neighbors. These laws are simply purity laws, not ethical laws; thus, (F2). This argument, however, suffers from a number of fatal defects. First, it should be noted that this argument suffers from the logical fallacy known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc which, loosely translated, means that just because two things happen together, it does not necessarily mean that one caused the other. Just because God said “According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do … ” (Leviticus 18:3), it does not therefore follow that the laws were only made to separate the Israelites from the Gentiles. We could equally conclude that God did not want the Israelites to imitate the surrounding Gentiles because the acts of the Gentiles were immoral. In fact, we are even given confirmation of this alternative interpretation when we read,
Do not defile yourselves with any of these things [including homosexual acts]; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants … . Do not think in your heart, after the Lord your God has cast them out before you, saying, “Because of my righteousness the Lord has brought me in to possess this land;” but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out from before you (Leviticus 18:24 - 25; Deuteronomy 9:4).
Thus, God tells us that because the former tenants did certain things, they were wicked and were punished for their iniquity. God did not tell the Israelites to avoid these actions simply because the Gentiles did them. He told the Israelites to avoid the iniquitous actions for which the Gentiles were being punished. Hence, we see that Helminiak’s suggestion is not only fallacious, it goes against the context of the passage.
If we look further at the context of the proscriptions, we see additional evidence that Helminiak is mistaken. The actions forbidden in Leviticus 18 - 20 include incest, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, idolatry, theft, withholding a worker’s wages, showing partiality, hating one’s brother, vigilantism, prostitution, using false scales and inflationary currency, and practicing divination. Are we supposed to believe that all of these actions were forbidden simply because the Gentiles did them? To be sure, there are laws in this section that are not applicable today such as those that speak of sacrificial offerings (see Hebrews 7 - 10), but they constitute a minority of the laws mentioned. It should be readily apparent, then, that Leviticus 18 - 20 contains a number of laws that are, in fact, moral laws which prohibit sinful actions, and that Helminiak’s attempt to dismiss the entire section meets with absurdity.
Yet another problem arises for Helminiak when we note that his attempt to inextricably link homosexual acts with pagan worship does not hold up. As Bahnsen has noted,
The historical fact is that in Canaanite culture homosexuality was practiced as both a religious rite and a personal sexual perversion in general; it was popular in the temple and the town, performed both religiously and hedonistically. Israel’s pagan neighbors knew both secular and sacred homosexuality, which would make two different biblical prohibitions all the more necessary for God’s will to be clearly revealed to His people. The Bible condemns the sex life of the heathen town as well as the sexual idolatry of the heathen temple [11].
Homosexuality was not simply relegated to religious worship. Israel’s neighbors engaged in such acts for worship as well as for personal pleasure. As shown above, the Bible draws detailed distinctions when they are necessary. Since the laws in Leviticus make no distinction concerning homosexual acts, we should conclude that there are no distinctions. The Biblical passages are unqualified. Homosexual acts are sinful, regardless of why they are performed.
Helminiak’s second argument in support of (F1) involves the word ‘abomination’ found in both 18:22 and 20:13. He claims that the word simply means “dirty” or “impure” and that this therefore supports his position.
“Abomination” is a translation of the word toevah. This term could also be translated “uncleanness” or “impurity” or “dirtiness.” “Taboo,” what is culturally or ritually forbidden, would be another accurate translation. The significance of the term toevah becomes clear when you realize that another Hebrew term, zimah, could have been used if that was what the authors intended. Zimah means, not what is objectionable for religious or cultural reasons, but what is wrong in itself. It means an injustice, a sin. Clearly, then, Leviticus does not say that for man to lie with man is wrong or a sin. Leviticus says it is a ritual violation, an uncleanness; it is something “dirty” (p. 52).
What are we to make of this? First, it is interesting to note that Helminiak only provides one passage to support the claim that ‘abomination’ means “unclean” or “taboo,” and as it turns out, the passage he quoted does not contain the word toevah. On page 48, he quoted Leviticus 20:25 - 26 to conclude that, “Evidently, ‘abominable’ is just another word for ‘unclean.’” The word translated ‘abomination’ in this passage, however, is not toevah but shaqats [12]. A word study that only includes one example is problematic in and of itself, but if that example does not even address the word in question, we are left with a completely irrelevant word study.
We can now look at the word toevah to determine whether we have been given the whole story. What we find is that toevah can and very often does denote something that is immoral and detestable in God’s sight. It is used at various times to denote: idols and idol worship (Deuteronomy 7:25 - 26; Jeremiah 16:18), serving other gods and human sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31; 20:18; II Kings 16:3 - 4), human sacrifice, witchcraft, and sorcery (Deuteronomy 18:9 - 12), having false scales (Deuteronomy 25:16; Proverbs 11:1; 20:10), lying lips (Proverbs 12:22), the ways of the wicked (Proverbs 15:9), and the proud in heart (Proverbs 16:5). Everything on this list is intrinsically immoral, not just “taboo.” II Kings 21:1 - 12 gives a list of egregious sins including idol worship, the worship of other gods, building altars to other gods in the Lord’s house, human sacrifice, and witchcraft. In this passage we find that
… he [Manasseh] did evil in the sight of the Lord, according to the abominations [toevah] of the nations whom the Lord had cast out … . And the Lord spoke by His servants the prophets, saying, “Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations [toevah] (he has acted more wickedly than all the Amorites who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols), therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘Behold, I am bringing such calamity upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears will tingle’” (2 Kings 21:2, 10 - 12).
The toevah mentioned were “evil” and “wicked,” and the judgment due for those sins would make your ears tingle! This is about as far away from “taboo” as one could get.
Proverbs contains a list of such things: “These six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination [toevah] to Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:16 - 19). The poetic structure of the passage makes it clear that what God hates and that which is abominable to Him are synonymous. One should take note here that lying, wicked plans, murder, and sowing discord cannot be relegated to mere cultural taboos.
Additionally, one should note that toevah is used four times in Leviticus 18:26 - 30 to denote incest, adultery, human sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality. Verses 26 - 28 tell us that “You [Israel] … shall not commit any of these abominations … lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you.” Again, we see that “taboo” does not come close to fitting the context. Israel was to avoid the actions that brought serious punishment to the Gentiles, lest they be punished also. It should, therefore, be obvious that Helminiak’s explanation of toevah is seriously mistaken and that not only is toevah often used to describe evil actions, it is used to describe evil actions with respect to homosexual acts in the passage under consideration.
Thus, we see that toevah is used a number of times to denote immorality. For Helminiak to assume that, because it is sometimes used to denote nonethical situations (notwithstanding Helminiak’s irrelevant word study, toevah is sometimes used in nonethical terms), its use with respect to homosexual acts must be nonethical, is simply to beg the question.
But what about Helminiak’s argument with respect to the word zimah? Is he right to claim that the author would have used zimah to denote sinful activity? Just as with the English language, the Hebrew language has several words that can refer to sinful activity. Indeed, we could use ‘evil,’ ’sin,’ ‘abomination,’ ‘wrong,’ ‘unlawful,’ ‘immoral,’ ‘lewd,’ ‘licentious,’ ‘profligate,’ or ‘bad’ to refer to basically the same thing. It is true that these words are more or less applicable to certain specific situations, but if one is not trying to draw narrow technical distinctions, any of these words could be used to convey the same meaning. In addition, several of the words listed can convey ethical connotations, but need not do so exclusively. With this in mind, then, we should see that when Helminiak argues that the author should have used zimah to convey ethical connotations, he is giving us an argument from silence. It is simply fallacious to claim that because a specific word was not used, the concept related to that word was not in view. We have already seen that in many different instances, toevah carries negative ethical connotations. Therefore, the argument from silence does not even make sense. Things get more interesting however, when we note that the word zimah occurs four times in Leviticus 18 - 20. It is applied to incest at 18:17, prostitution at 19:29, and marriage, simultaneously, to a woman and her daughter at 20:14. We previously saw how Helminiak first argued in support of (F1) by claiming that the section under consideration belongs to the “Holiness Code,” and that its point was to separate Israel from its neighbors, not to identify intrinsically immoral acts. Helminiak’s word study of zimah, however, contradicts this argument. The word is applied to several actions within the section that he says carry no ethical connotations. Helminiak’s word substitution argument thus proves nothing except, perhaps, that he should be more careful with his argumentation.
The last part of his argument which addresses the word ‘abomination’ can be seen in the following quote. “In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word toevah in Leviticus 18:22 is translated with the Greek word bdelygma. Fully consistent with the Hebrew, the Greek bdelygma means a ritual impurity, an uncleanness. Once again, there were other Greek words available, like anomia, meaning a violation of law or a wrong or a sin” (p. 52). Here again, Helminiak is mistaken. The word bdelygma is translated “abomination” in the New Testament to refer to the “abomination of desolation” spoken of in Daniel (see Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14), and probably fulfilled in 168 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes set up a pagan altar in the Most Holy Place, violating the first commandment in the temple. The word is also used to refer to evils that men esteem such as the love of money (Luke 16:15), lying unbelievers (Titus 1:16), the harlot of Babylon (Revelation 17:4 - 5), those who will burn in hell (Revelation 21:8), and those who will not enter the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:27). It is used once as a verb to refer to idols (Romans 2:22). All of these references clearly apply to immoral actions and individuals. Therefore, Helminiak’s attempt to classify this word in strictly nonethical terms meets with failure. Once again, Helminiak assumes that words only have one meaning and that the context is irrelevant when considering that meaning. That this is patently false we have already seen. In addition, his suggestion with respect to anomia is as invalid as his suggestion with respect to zimah. Numerous words could have been used, and a number of them can be used, for both ethical and nonethical connotations. Helminiak’s argument from silence is fallacious, and his attempt to stamp words with only one definition is linguistically incorrect. In the final analysis, then, Helminiak’s arguments with respect to Leviticus 18 - 20 are all completely unsound; and, contrary to his position, we have seen that homosexual acts were forbidden because they were intrinsically immoral. We will give a more detailed treatment of Helminiak’s hermeneutical errors in the next section.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Oh geesh Greg!! I go to an Anglican church in Sydney but most emphatically am not a Sydney Anglican (can’t be, I’m a female who preaches and [in private] speaks in tongues.) so does that make me guilty of cohabitation?
June 5th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
You are in danger of your immortal soil/soul blestpickle…flee the roth (that’s David Lee) to come!
June 5th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
But I’m not having sex with them, really truly (I can say that with certainty, my husband still thinks of himself as a Pressie). I mean, i just hang around and do a little laying on of hands .. (though, since confession is good for the soul — and maybe even the soil — i must admit i may have slept with them through some particularly bad sermons)
June 5th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
BP as my 5 year old says…I’m just cracking up laughing!
June 5th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Homer says
Usury is directed to the Israelites when dealing with their brothers.
you do not charge interest when helping out someone!
And the new testament redefines who our brother / sister is.
June 5th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Exactly Cheryl,
so notice the difference between assisting a person in need and a person who goes to a financial institution to get a loan to buy a home or something else.
June 5th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Homer, I feel that I (and perhaps many others) are at a stalemate with you. It seems that I read the Bible through the lens of seeking the loving response to any situation, and you read the Bible through the lens of determining what is right and wrong. While we read the Bible from these different perspectives, I don’t think that we will ever agree.
What are your thoughts?
June 6th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
No Wayne,
you are merely confusing issues.
It isn’t loving to continue to have someone within Church who is clearly and defiantly doing something against God’s laws.
That is why God gave such instructions firstly from Jesus and then from Paul.
This is vastly different from people wishing to be of the church.
As Romans 1&2 reminds us no-one enters the church without a sinful past.
Everyone needs Jesus because the Law cannot save, it never could, it never will.
Christians are not opposed to the keeping of the law which is essentially antinomianism.
It tells us how sinful we are and how much we need Jesus.
What is being debated is whether what the law has defined as sin and which the N/T gives further support to, continues to be sin and the repercussions to the church.
given your silence I am assuming you would have ignored Paul’s direction to the church in Corinth
June 6th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
“given your silence I am assuming you would have ignored Paul’s direction to the church in Corinth”
Homer, not knowing all the specifics of the situation in Corinth (other than what is written in the text), I’m not sure how I would have dealt with the situation. I may well have dealt with it in a similar manner to Paul. Just like if someone was flaunting promiscuity within a church today, I would recommend that they be confronted, and depending on the situation, possibly removed from the church as well.
I believe the case in Corinth was written as to what they did in that situation, not a normative case to base a rule upon. I know that you see homosexuality as a sin, and someone who engages in it claiming that it is not a sin is in an unrepentant state and needs to be treated the same as in 1 Cor 5. Would divorce and remarriage be a similar case? In this case, according to Jesus, the couple are committing adultery.
There are many sins that many of us do that we don’t repent of. Should we too be cast out of the church? Where do you draw the line?
I believe that these type of things should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Having journeyed with many gay men, cried with them, prayed with them, got angry with them and loved them, I cannot bring myself to put them into some “unrepentant sinner” category. That doesn’t mean that I automatically say that homosexuality is OK, it just means that it is not the highest thing on my priority list.
June 7th, 2006 at 8:38 am
Wayne,
I am sorry but your Hermeneutics is quite troubling.
You are ambiguous in whether you would have obeyed Jesus’s apostle or not. you say it isn’t a normative case yet Paul directly references Deuteronomy on this case.
you seemed to have missed most of the focus of the O/T. Why did God allow the Babylonians to sack Jerusalem?
Why is Paul so upfront on Church discipline? How can the church be made up of a holy royal priesthood when it isn’t different from society.
June 7th, 2006 at 10:28 am