Davies on Hammurabi, Moses, and Usury

Posted on 10/1/2011 by Dabitur

Found this passage interesting in The Codes of Hammurabi and Moses, W. W. Davies, 1905. From the Code of Hammurabi:

49. If a man have taken money from a merchant, and have given [as security] the merchant an arable field, to be planted in grain or sesame, and have said to him, Plant grain or sesame in the fiels and take the crop; if the cultivator produce grain or sesame in the field, then at harvest the grain or sesame that the field has produced shall be the property of the owner of the field, and he shall pay grain for the money he received from the merchant, and for the interest and for the support of the renter.

Davies adds this commentary:

We know, from other inscriptions, that interest, amounting to what would now be regarded as usury, was charged in ancient Babylonia. The rate, as a rule, was 11 2/3 or 13 1/3 per cent, though same tablets record interest at 20 per cent. Interest was often paid in money, but quite commonly in grain, fruit, or vegetables. The contracting of debt was regarded by the Hebrew law as a misfortune; consequently those having anything to lend were exhorted to be generous. We read:

If thou lend money to any of my people with thee that is poor, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him usury. (Ex. 22:25)

It must be noticed, however, that the Hebrews made a distinction between a native Israelite and a foreigner, in money-lending matters; for we further read:

Thou shalt not lend on usury to thy brother, usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent on usury; unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon usury, but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend on usury. (Deut. 23:19, 20.)

The reader must bear in mind that the work usury is employed here, as everywhere in the Old Testament, as the exact synonym of interest, and therefore should never be regarded as an excessive rate of interest. Driver observes, very justly, that Hebrew legislation, in condemning interest on anything lent, agrees perfectly with the thinkers of Greece and Rome, as well as those of the early Christian Church. The fact, however, is, that it was very uncommon in ancient times to borrow money simply for the sake of speculation, or mere investment in some business project. A clear-cut distinction should be made between the ancient charitable loan and the modern commercial loan. Our Savior, though acquainted with purely commercial loans, did not speak in unmeasured terms of condemnation. (See Matt. 25:27ff.) Nor must we think that it was ever a general practice among the Jews to receive no interest, accept no pledges, or demand no security. Indeed, we know that debtors were sold (for a limited period) as slaves. (See 2 Kings 4:1; Neh. 5:5; Isa. 50:1.) The seventh year, the so-called year of release, is known to us all. (See Deut. 15:1-6; and Ex. 21:2.)

Davies correctly observes that the words usury and interest are employed as synomyms in the Old Testament, rather than usury being “excessive interest” . It is also interesting to consider Davies’ remark, written in 1905, that the Bablyonian rates of interest (anywhere from 11 to 20 per cent) “would now be regarded as usury.” Today those rates are common – we sometimes hear complaints about interest rates being “too high”, but almost never regarded as usurious, except perhaps from someone using the term in the pejorative sense for rhetorical affect.

However, even after noting that the “Hebrew legislation” condemns interest on anything lent, Davies makes a couple arguments in favor of the legitimacy of usury today, by asserting that (1) God’s law only had charitable loans in view, not commercial lending, and furthermore that (2) Jesus addressed commercial lending without “unmeasured” condemnation.

In support of assertion (1), Davies states that “it was very uncommon in ancient times to borrow money simply for the sake of speculation, or mere investment in some business project. A clear-cut distinction should be made between the ancient charitable loan and the modern commercial loan.” While perhaps not as common as today, loans for speculation and investment were not unknown, and by no means “very uncommon” – at least among pagan peoples dating back to the code of Hammurabi and during the time period of the Exodus when God gave his law to Israel through Moses. In fact, the code of Hammurabi (circa 1700 B.C.) addresses such loans, even in the passage being commented upon. Loans from “merchants” by definition are properly classified as “commercial lending” and not “charitable loans”.

Furthermore while there is nothing improper about making a distinction between commercial lending and a charitable loan, that distinction must be proper. The Old Testament law was given to Moses at a time when commercial lending had been practiced in societies for at least several hundred years. Yet that law condemned all interest without exception as to the type of loan, the only exception being that of lending to foreigners. Not only that, but after the Israelites spent time in captivity in Babylon, where such commercial lending was commonplace, and brought usurious practices back with them, God addressed them clearly and forcefully through his prophets, not making any exceptions. The only distinction that can be derived from God’s law between commercial lending upon usury and charitable loans without usury is that the former are condemned and the latter are required.

Davies argues that it was not ever “a general practice among the Jews to receive no interest, accept no pledges, or demand no security.” But while the Scriptures indeed provide for pledges and security, Davies can offer no support that they ever received interest – excepting those times when they were rebuked for disobeying God! His grouping of interest with pledges and security is unsupported and misleading.

In support of assertion (2), Davies states that “Our Savior, though acquainted with purely commercial loans, did not speak in unmeasured terms of condemnation. (See Matt. 25:27ff.)” This is patently false, and we actually find in the gospels that not only did Jesus emphatically affirm the abiding validity of God’s law as given in the Old Testament, he also specifically and categorically condemned the practice of receiving interest upon bank deposits, one of the most commonly accepted forms of usury practiced in modern times. The reader is encouraged to peruse the discussion of this passage at the following link: A Warped View of Christ.

Davies’ incorrect view of usury is very similar to the view which would be later argued by Gary North. Some discussion between North and S. C. Mooney can be found here. Additionally, we recommend Mooney’s brief primer on the topic which can be purchased here.

Share
Posted in Investments, Usury | Leave a comment

Disowning Walther (And Luther, and the Council of Nicea, for that matter)

Posted on 10/30/2007 by Dabitur

C.F.W. Walther was the first President of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (LC-MS). I was very interested to learn that Walther was strongly opposed to usury, and that his definition of usury included the taking of any interest. (Also of interest is that the LC-MS also used to be opposed to life insurance, and one of the reasons was that the insurance industry was built on usurious practices).

Dr. Mark Braun gives this analysis of the change (emphasis mine):

Missouri’s chief founder and leading pastor C.F.W. Walther sharply condemned the practice of taking interest. In an 1864 essay “Die Wucherfrage,” Walther put the taking of interest in the same category as theft, robbery, adultery, and idolatry. “God Himself here denies eternal salvation to him who practices usury.” Following that logic, Walther also concluded that it would be wrong for a Christian to be a stockholder in a bank, since “the banks are nothing but institutions of usury.” (He did allow that ordinary bank transactions conducted by average citizens “seem to have nothing dubious about them.”) Walther was thinking not only of usury but of any taking of interest. His view was ratified by Missouri’s 1869 convention.

By 1927, however, after a series of tactical omissions and subtle alterations, Carl Manthey-Zorn concluded, “Nowhere in His revealed Word has God prohibited the charging of interest as such.” In a letter to the faculty of Concordia Seminary, Zorn asked whether it would be appropriate for Synod to state that its position had changed, but was told by two faculty members that they considered such a revocation unnecessary.28

So, if we could be honest for a second, we have to say that those Lutherans that participate in usury, either directly by making loans and taking interest, or indirectly by owning shares in institutions that do, would in the eyes of our not-too-distant forebears such as Walther, be seen as non-Christians in dire need of repentance.

Amazing how things change!

Here is an explanation by a modern-day LC-MS Pastor (emphasis mine):

… Somewhat recent study suggests passages such as Leviticus 25:35-54 and Deuteronomy 23:19-20 do not forbid any and all interest from one Israelite to another. Rather, in part from a comparison with codes of the surrounding countries, the claim is made that the type of interest prohibited is that interest that came when the loan was due and might involve the slavery of the borrower, in addition to the initial interest taken off the disbursement of the loan.

…As for Lutherans in America, I wasn’t around in the early days of the Missouri Synod, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there were some who prohibited lending at any rate, as they used to prohibit such things as dancing and any and all life insurance. As I write this I can’t locate my copy of the relatively early Missouri Synod book The Borderland Between Right and Wrong, but I would expect there could be some discussion of usury in it. The only reference to usury that I find in John Fritz’s 1932 Pastoral Theology: A Handbook of Scriptural Principles comes in the discussion of communicants not to be admitted to the Sacrament: “Any one engaged in an unlawful or ungodly occupation, as that of actors, sorcerers, spiritualists, fortune-tellers, keepers of brothels, bootleggers, dispensers of forbidden drugs, abortionists, usurers, etc., must be suspended from the Sacrament until he forsakes such occupation” (p.152).

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could ask a question about what the Bible says, and get an answer about what the Bible says. The Bible says:

Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it. (Deuteronomy 23:19-20 KJV)

But the Pastor says, “recent study suggests passages such as Leviticus 25:35-54 and Deuteronomy 23:19-20 do not forbid any and all interest from one Israelite to another. Rather, in part from a comparison with codes of the surrounding countries, the claim is made that the type of interest prohibited is that interest that came when the loan was due and might involve the slavery of the borrower, in addition to the initial interest taken off the disbursement of the loan.”

Well, the Sodomites say that God didn’t forbid all homosexual relationships, only abusive ones, and the Usurers say that God didn’t forbid all lending upon usury to your brother, only abusive usury. The arguments are really the same. It all hinges on the authority of scripture versus the authority of modern scholars.

But the question I have is if someone thinks that Walther and the early LC-MS leaders were such dolts, then why do they join the LC-MS? It seems quite dishonest to join a denomination knowing that it stood for things that you would have been excommunicated for.

Interestingly, the 17th Canon of the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) specified that any clergy found to be putting out their money at interest should be defrocked and expelled:

Since many enrolled have been induced by greed and avarice to forget the sacred text, “who does not put out his money at interest”, and to charge one per cent on loans, this holy and great synod judges that if any are found after this decision to receive interest by contract or to transact the business in any other way or to charge fifty per cent or in general to devise any other contrivance for the sake of dishonourable gain, they shall be deposed from the clergy and their names struck from the roll.

Were these guys ignorant of the sacred texts also? Seems kind of ironic, really that you can become a Pastor of a church that confesses the Nicene creed while committing sins (and teaching the congregation to do the same) that they would have defrocked you for.

Share
Posted in General, Money and Business, Usury | 100 Comments

An Overview Of Usury

Posted on 6/12/2006 by Dabitur

In this article I will make a brief explanation of what usury is and why it is wrong. I won’t, at least in this article, be able to offer a detailed rebuttal of every possible attempt to justify usury. Such arguments fall into two broad categories – economic arguments and theological arguments.

Economic arguments in favor of usury generally assert that usury is either beneficial or inescapable. While I believe that both of these assertions are plainly foolish, I argue from the position that the scriptures are both true and authoritative, so purely economic argumentation over usury is a waste of time since no economic argument could ever justify what God has condemned. This would be as pointless as giving sodomites the opportunity to make psychological, aesthetic, or other extra-biblical arguments in favor of their chosen depravity. Since God’s Law condemns sodomy, we have no standing to make any other case in favor of it. Likewise, since God’s Law condemns usury, it is pointless and blasphemous to purposely give a hearing to sinful man’s attempt to justify it. As Scott Mooney wrote:

I simply assume that economic reasoning is possible without usury because the Scriptures 1) require economic reasoning and 2) condemn usury. We must not wait to find out experimentally whether economic reasoning is possible without usury before we dare to condemn usury. We gain confidence to condemn usury because that is the Word of our God, which gives us confidence for all things. If that posture makes certain kinds of economic thinking impossible (e.g. the elimination of “interest theory” would make Austrian School economics impossible) then all that tells us is that Austrian School economics is unbiblical. Whatever economic theory that cannot accommodate the standard of God’s law must be shunned by Christians who expect to hold their faith seriously. We cannot afford the procedure of setting up an unbiblical economic theory as the standard of all truth and then whining about how usury must be legitimate because without it our pet school of economic thought could not work.

~Scott Mooney, Usury: Destroyer of Nations

Theological arguments in favor of usury, on the other hand, must be addressed. If God’s Law did not condemn usury, then neither could we condemn it. There are a number of typical theological arguments in favor of usury that have been advanced over the years, and I will briefly mention some of them and explain why they are wrong. I do not have the time to address each one throroughly in this one article, but if you would like a more detailed explanation of any of these arguments, the reader is welcome to email their questions to me or post them in the comments section below, and I will attempt to address them in a future post. It is probable that there will arise some arguments that I haven’t heard before, and as those are brought to my attention, I will gladly devote more posts to them as necessary.

Now, some might be wondering if the discussion of usury is a purely intellectual exercise. Is the sin of usury a trivial point of contention? Let me explain why I think it is not.

First, it is important that we not be hypocrites, which we certainly are if we pick and choose which sins to condemn. Take a look at this article, “The Bible Condemned Usurers, Too” by John Corvino, The Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review, Fall 1996. While relativists are blind to their predicament, the enemies of the church can see the Achilles Heel of the position that attempts to honor parts of God’s law while ignoring other parts. Corvino writes:

Is it possible to affirm the truth of the Bible yet deny the anti-gay conclusions the Church has drawn from it for centuries? To answer that question, I want to explore another case where the Church has re-interpreted Scripture: usury. For centuries the Church used the Bible to condemn the lending of money for interest — for any interest, not just excessive interest. Today it has more money in the bank than many major corporations. And its explanation for this shift — that cultural changes render the Biblical prohibitions inapplicable — works just as well for homosexuality as for interest banking.

If usury is indeed a sin, then we ought to repent of our wickedness and bring forth fruits in keeping with it. The scriptures tell us that:

He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination. (Proverbs 28:9 KJV)

Second, nearly every professing Christian in America, and most institutional churches, are participating in usury-based economics – whether through their investments so-called, their business practices, their retirement accounts, the savings bonds they purchase for the kiddies, their conditioning of their children to tolerate and even seek usury, or the theological defense of those that perpetrate the same. This is a sin problem of epidemic proportions.

Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? (Romans 2:21 KJV)

Thirdly, it can hardly be argued that usury is not ravaging people and families. When interest bearing investments are made, who pays the costs? One of the arguments in favor of usury on commercial loans is that the business pays the usury through profits, and that this is inherently different than a loan to a private individual. But do businesses ever really absorb costs – or are those costs passed on to the consumer through higher prices which make it possible for the business to pay the price of usury? In the end, it is the individual that pays the usury, and generally by those individuals that can least afford to pay. Thus unless we repent of usury, then any pretense of concern a man voices for his family, his kin, or his people is purely a façade of feigned compassion, for our support of usury continues to oppress them every hour of every day, even on the Lord’s Day.

For Christ said to his Disciples, Love one another, as I have loved you. But it may be said if the Usurer, See how he hatheth his brethern, and hear how he loveth them: for he loveth them in words, and hateth them in deeds. He sayeth that he loveth them, and that he lendeth for compassion, but it is for compassion of himself, that he may gain by his lending. The Usurer loveth the borrower, as the Ivy loveth the Oak: The Ivy loveth the Oak to grow up by it, so the Usurer loveth the borrower to grow rich by him. The Ivy claspeth the Oak like a lover, but it claspeth out all the juice and sap, that the Oak cannot thrive after: So the Usurer lendeth like a friend, but he covenanteth like an enemy, for he claspeth the borrower with such bands, that ever after he diminisheth, as fast as the other increaseth.

~ Henry Smith, 16th century English Puritan preacher

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. (Ephesians 4:28 KJV)

Now to the question at hand. What is usury?

Usury is really quite easy to define. When someone makes a loan to another person, and requires something extra when the loan is repaid, that something extra is usury. You might think of it as a fee for making a loan, and in our modern enlightened economy it is called interest, or consideration, or an origination fee, or some other such term to sound very professional and legitimate.

They will not call it Usurie, lest the word should be offensive, or make the thing less odious. But it shall be termed Use or Usance in exchange, which are smooth words as oyle, never a biting letter in them. Or it shall be called Interest, or Consideration, which are civill and mannerly terms, though by them they meane indeed nothing else but plaine Usurie.

~ Roger Fenton A Treatise of Usurie, 1611

And don’t get hung up on assuming that usury is only interest upon loans of money. Usury can be exacted upon a loan of anything. If you loan me 10 bushels of seed corn, and require me to repay you 11 bushels (or the monetary equivalent of 11 bushels), then you have attempted to extort me through usury. As God said:

Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it. (Deuteronomy 23:19-20 KJV)

Bishop John Jewel sums up the definition of usury very well:

“Usury is a kind of lending of money, or corn, or oil, or wine, or of any other thing, wherein, upon covenant and bargain, we receive again the whole principal which we delivered, and somewhat more for the use and occupying of the same; as, if I lend one hundred pounds, and for it covenant to receive one hundred and five pounds, or any other sum greater than was the sum which I did lend. This is that that we call usury; such a kind of bargaining as all men that ever feared God’s judgement have always abhorred and condemned. It is filthy gains, and a work of darkness; it is a monster in nature; the overthrow of mighty kingdoms; the destruction of flourishing states; the decay of wealthy cities; the plagues of the world, and the misery of the people; It is theft; it is the murdering of our brethren; it is the curse of God, and the curse of the people.”

~ Bishop John Jewel, 1522-1572, Bishop of Salisbury

Now some say that usury is not the charging of interest, but the charging of really high rates of interest. Did this definition come from the scriptures, or is it simply a redefinition of the sin which provides justification for our system of modern capitalism? Defining usury as a high rate of interest is like defining gluttony as really gluttonous gluttony – it becomes meaningless and something you can’t objectively apply to any one or any situation in particular. Usury and interest are two words for the same sin. This sin has become almost universally accepted among modern Christians, but this was not always the case.

There is no distinction made in the scriptures between interest and usury. Easton’s Bible Dictionary tells us that usury is a “sum paid for the use of money, hence interest; not, as in the modern sense, exorbitant interest.” Likewise Smith’s Bible Dictionary explains that:

“the word usury has come in modern English to mean excessive interest upon money loaned, either formally illegal or at least oppressive. In the Scriptures, however, the word did not bear this sense, but meant simply, interest of any kind upon money. The Jews were forbidden by the law of Moses to take interest from their brethren, but were permitted to take it from foreigners. The prohibition grew out of the agricultural status of the people, in which ordinary business loans were not needed. And loans as were required should be made only as to friends and brothers in need. — Editor). The practice of mortgaging land, sometimes at exorbitant interest, grew up among the Jews during the captivity, in direct violation of the law. Lev_25:36-37; Eze_18:8; Eze_18:13; Eze_18:17.”

In Nehemiah chapter 5 we find the prophet castigating the nobles for exacting usury from their brethren – at the rate of 1%. Thus even if usury was merely exorbitant interest, the scriptures plainly call 1% interest exorbitant and usurious.

Others assert that usury only refers to interest taken from poor people, as a couple of the passages in God’s Word that condemn usury mention specific protections for the poor, such as this verse in Exodus:

If thou shalt lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as a usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. (Exodus 22:25, Webster Bible)

Puritan preacher Roger Fenton made the obvious point: “Immediately before this law of usurie in Exod. 22.22 is there a law for widowes and fatherless children: Thou shalt not trouble any widow, or fatherless child. Doth it therefore follow that thou maist trouble a married woman, or a childe that hath a father?” Of course not.

One other objection that is sometimes made to the plain and straightforward definition of usury is by those who make an arbitrary distinction between personal and commercial loans. They believe that its perfectly alright for businesses to charge interest on commercial loans. But would that logic apply to any other commandment? Are businesses allowed to worship other gods too? I can’t find anywhere where God says that businesses can’t do that, can you? Maybe he was just talking about personal, not commercial worship. There is no personal/commercial distinction made in the scriptures which would justify usury on business loans. Usury is a sin whether it is taken from me by Jim the individual or Jim the business owner.

Now let us briefly answer the question of why usury is wrong. First and foremost it is wrong because God’s Law forbids it.

If thou shalt lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as a usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. (Exodus 22:25 Webster)

And if thy brother shall have become poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he may be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. Take thou no interest of him, or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor lend him thy victuals for increase. (Leviticus 25:35-37 Webster)

Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it. (Deuteronomy 23:19-20 KJV)

For most of its history, the Church had little difficulty in understanding that usury was a sin. The fact that usury was condemned by God was:

“without any exaggeration the universal opinion of all teachers of morals, theologians, doctors, Popes, and Councils of the Christian Church for the first fifteen hundred years. All interest exacted upon loans of money was looked upon as usury, and its reception was esteemed a form of theft and dishonesty. Those who wish to read the history of the matter in all its details are referred to Bossuet’s work on the subject, Traite de l’Usure, where they will find the old, traditional view of the Christian religion defended by one thoroughly acquainted with all that could be said on the other side.

The glory of inventing the new moral code on the subject, by which that which before was looked upon as mortal sin has been transfigured into innocence, if not virtue, belongs to John Calvin! He made the modern distinction between “interest” and “usury,” and was the first to write in defence of this then new-fangled refinement of casuistry.

…Although the conditions of the mercantile community in the East and the West differed materially in some respects, the fathers of the two churches are equally explicit and systematic in their condemnation of the practice of usury. Among those belonging to the Greek church we find Athanasius (Expos. in Ps. xiv); Basil the Great (Hom. in Ps. xiv). Gregory of Nazianzum (Orat. xiv. in Patrem tacentem). Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. cont. Usurarios); Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. iv. c. 37), Epiphanius (adv. Haeres. Epilog. c. 24), Chrysostom (Hom. xli. in Genes), and Theodoret (Interpr. in Ps. xiv. 5, and liv. 11). Among those belonging to the Latin church, Hilary of Poitiers (in Ps. xiv); Ambrose (de Tobia liber unus). Jerome (in Ezech. vi. 18); Augustine de Baptismo contr. Donatistas, iv. 19); Leo the Great (Epist. iii. 4), and Cassiodorus (in Ps. xiv. 10).”

~ The Early Church Fathers; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume XIV. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, editors.

In fact, the 17th Canon of the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) specified that any clergy found to be putting out their money at interest should be defrocked and expelled:

Since many enrolled have been induced by greed and avarice to forget the sacred text, “who does not put out his money at interest”, and to charge one per cent on loans, this holy and great synod judges that if any are found after this decision to receive interest by contract or to transact the business in any other way or to charge fifty per cent or in general to devise any other contrivance for the sake of dishonourable gain, they shall be deposed from the clergy and their names struck from the roll.

What happens when we disobey God’s laws on usury?

Whoever despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded. The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death. Good understanding giveth favor: but the way of transgressors is hard. (Proverbs 13:13-15 Webster)

This is illustrated for us in the book of Nehemiah.

And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews. For there were that said, We, our sons, and our daughters, are many: therefore we take up corn for them, that we may eat, and live.

Some also there were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn, because of the dearth. There were also that said, We have borrowed money for the king’s tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards. Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards.

And I was very angry when I heard their cry and these words. Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them. And I said unto them, We after our ability have redeemed our brethren the Jews, which were sold unto the heathen; and will ye even sell your brethren? or shall they be sold unto us? Then held they their peace, and found nothing to answer.

Also I said, It is not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies? I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn:

I pray you, let us leave off this usury. Restore, I pray you, to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their oliveyards, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them. Then said they, We will restore them, and will require nothing of them; so will we do as thou sayest. Then I called the priests, and took an oath of them, that they should do according to this promise. Also I shook my lap, and said, So God shake out every man from his house, and from his labour, that performeth not this promise, even thus be he shaken out, and emptied.

And all the congregation said, Amen, and praised the LORD. And the people did according to this promise. ~(Nehemiah 5:1-13 KJV)

As we mentioned earlier, this account involves an interest rate of 1%, and notice that there was no effort at all made to distinguish “non-oppressive” usury from “oppressive” usury, nor between commercial and personal loans. Most Christians would consider a 1% loan to needy people for food and land to be nigh unto charitable – but according to the prophet Nehemiah it was a damnable form of oppression.

How do we repent of our sinful usury?

Usury is theft. The Heidleberg Catechism puts it this way:

Question 110. What does God forbid in the eighth commandment?

Answer. God forbids not only outright theft and robbery[1] but also such wicked schemes and devices as false weights and measures, deceptive merchandising, counterfeit money, and usury;[2] we must not defraud our neighbour in any way, whether by force or by show of right.[3] In addition God forbids all greed[4] and all abuse or squandering of His gifts.[5]

[1] Ex. 22:1; I Cor. 5:9, 10; 6:9, 10. [2] Deut. 25:13-16; Ps. 15:5; Prov. 11:1; 12:22; Ezek. 45:9-12; Luke 6:35. [3] Mic. 6:9-11; Luke 3:14; James 5:1-6. [4] Luke 12:15; Eph. 5:5. [5] Prov. 21:20; 23:20, 21; Luke 16:10-13.

Similarly, the Westminster Larger Catechism says:

Question 141: What are the duties required in the eighth commandment?

Answer: The duties required in the eighth commandment are, truth, faithfulness, and justice in contracts and commerce between man and man; rendering to everyone his due; restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof; giving and lending freely, according to our abilities, and the necessities of others; moderation of our judgments, wills, and affections concerning worldly goods; a provident care and study to get, keep, use, and dispose these things which are necessary and convenient for the sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our condition; a lawful calling, and diligence in it; frugality; avoiding unnecessary lawsuits and suretyship, or other like engagements; and an endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own.

Question 142: What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment?

Answer: The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing land marks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust enclosures and depopulations; engrossing commodities to enhance the price; unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor: What belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves; covetousness; inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the prosperity of others; as likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming; and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God has given us.

In those catechism answers is a wealth of wisdom. I think the main points that the scriptures teach with regards to repentance from the crime of theft is to:

—Quit stealing;
—Make restitution; and
—Practice charity and proper debt forgiveness

Finally, I think that we need to recognize the aspects of warfare inherent in our economic choices. Do we really want to be waging war upon our own people? Usury is prohibted among kindred, but to be exacted from the alien. But look around and you will find Christians not only being ravaged by aliens through usury, but also cannibalizing each other through participation in economic methods that exact usury from other Christians. Somehow, getting a slice of the pie blinds us to economic morals. At present, we are a people that borrow and pay usury, that build houses and don’t live in them, that beget children only to see them become slaves (whether it be of the government, of debt, or worldliness), that are the tail and not the head. An honest comparison of Deuteronomy 28 with our national balance sheet tells us that we are a people under judgement. Instead of repenting and crying out to God to free us, we have pretty much just accepted judgment as a way of life. Instead of Biblical economics, we teach our children to “use credit wisely” and how to “manage their debt.” In other words, we prepare our children to be slaves rather than conquerors.

My hope is that we would do as the congregation did in Nehemiah Chapter 5 when Nehemiah rebuked them for their sin – confess our sins in this area and repent of them.

Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. (Proverbs 29:18 KJV)

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. (Hosea 4:6 KJV)

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV)

Share
Posted in General, Money and Business, Usury | 87 Comments

What Saith Agabus Today?

Posted on 5/16/2006 by Dabitur


And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.
(Acts 11:27-30 KJV)

.

Here we see demonstrated a few important things.

First, we see the proper response to imminent financial crisis, as modeled by the disciples. Though the famine was to affect all of Judea, they did not feel an obligation to feed every Judean. God led them to focus their relief efforts on their brethren in Judea. And they helped in a personal way, sending their own money via their elders. They did not refer the brethren to the soup kitchen or the welfare office.

Second, we see from the brethren in Judea that Christians do not have immunity from suffering when God judges a nation for its disobedience. Some people glibly dismiss the obvious indicators of serious financial meltdown, thinking they don’t need to worry about it since they are believers. I wonder what these people would have said if they had been on board the Titanic and someone told them the ship was going to sink? Would they have dismissed the messenger as an “alarmist” and gone merrily about their business? Would they have told him that they had nothing to worry about, because God would take care of them? Would they admonish the messenger for being so concerned with worldly material concerns? Sometimes God sends a message to us that says, “Its time to get in the lifeboat!” We shouldn’t ignore the signs of the looming collapse of our usurious, debt-based economy. If we do indeed suffer privation, let it be through the sovereign choice of God and not our own foolish denial that the ship is sinking.

The other side of the coin is that sometimes God chooses Christians to endure hardship through no fault of their own. In such cases, the rest of us must look to the model of the disciples and determine to aid them. We shouldn’t look down our noses at our suffering brethren and say, “I told you to invest in gold!” Biblical charity includes admonishment for sin – sluggards for example are to be exhorted to repent first, and given aid only when they do. Likewise the rod is for the fool’s back, and those that suffer for their foolishness must learn to depart their folly. But those that are willing to work for their bread should not be treated as undeserving of aid just because they made financial decisions which turned out to be not so good in hindsight. If we are to give water to our enemy when he thirsts, how much more to our brethren who suffer.

Third, we see the value of fraternal relations between different churches. The association of these congregations was the avenue by which the warning of famine was given, and through which the aid was distributed. Commonly recognized elders facilitate this. While every congregation should seek to meet the needs within its own local body, sometimes individual needs are more than a local body can bear. But the problem for other churches is that they may not know the recipients of their aid personally, and so would not be able to know whether the person was truly in need, or if they were a sluggard or a fool. But when churches are networked together and share a common confession of faith, then we can have reasonable assurance that we are bearing one another’s burdens rather than subsidising foolishness.

Fourth, we see that disasters present opportunities for Christians to show their faith by their love. This should be our primary motivation for financial preparedness. What would be our response to Agabus today? With our mortgaged houses, car payments, credit card bills, insurance costs, retirement account contributions, etc. – would we even be able to offer any meaningful aid?

Neither denial, nor smugness, nor complacency are biblical responses to our impending financial crisis. You’ve read my thoughts – what are yours?

Share
Posted in Community, General, Money and Business | 1 Comment

Paging Judge Roberts: Your Bishops Are Calling

Posted on 8/5/2005 by Dabitur

I haven’t been terribly interested in the current nominee for the Supreme Court of the (Forcibly) United States (SCOTUS), John G. Roberts, Jr. So far he seems to have met my low expectations with gusto.

But what I really want to draw your attention to today is a document written by The Catholic Bishops of the United States, called In Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics. This document has some very good principles for the duties and responsibilities of judges with regards to their faith. Take a look at the following excerpts:

In a special way, we call on U.S. Catholics, especially those in positions of leadership — whether cultural, economic or political — to recover their identity as followers of Jesus Christ and to be leaders in the renewal of American respect for the sanctity of life. “Citizenship” in the work of the Gospel is also a sure guarantee of responsible citizenship in American civic affairs. Every Catholic, without exception, should remember that he or she is called by our Lord to proclaim His message. Some proclaim it by word, some by action and all by example. But every believer shares responsibility for the Gospel. Every Catholic is a missionary of the Good News of human dignity redeemed through the cross. While our personal vocation may determine the form and style of our witness, Jesus calls each of us to be a leaven in society, and we will be judged by our actions. No one, least of all someone who exercises leadership in society, can rightfully claim to share fully and practically the Catholic faith and yet act publicly in a way contrary to that faith.

The Second Vatican Council, in its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), praises those women and men who have a vocation to public office. It encourages active citizenship. It also reminds us that, “The political community . . . exists for the common good: This is its full justification and meaning, and the source of its specific and basic right to exist. The common good embraces all those conditions of social life which enable individuals, families and organizations to achieve complete and efficacious fulfillment” (74). In pursuing the common good, citizens should “cultivate a generous and loyal spirit of patriotism, but without narrow-mindedness . . . [they must also] be conscious of their specific and proper role in the political community: They should be a shining example by their sense of responsibility and their dedication to the common good . . .” (75).

As to the role of the Church in this process: “. . . The political community and the Church are autonomous and independent of each other in their own fields. Nevertheless, both are devoted to the personal vocation of man, though under different titles . . . [yet] at all times and in all places, the Church should have the true freedom to teach the faith, to proclaim its teaching about society, to carry out its task among men without hindrance, and to pass moral judgment even in matters relating to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it” (76; emphasis added).

Pope John Paul II elaborates on this responsibility in his 1988 apostolic exhortation, The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World (Christifideles Laici): “The inviolability of the person, which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination . . . The human being is entitled to such rights in every phase of development, from conception until natural death, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor . . . [Moreover, if,] indeed, everyone has the mission and responsibility of acknowledging the personal dignity of every human being and of defending the right to life, some lay faithful are given particular title to this task: such as parents, teachers, healthworkers and the many who hold economic and political power” (38).

Since the entry of Catholics into the U.S. political mainstream, believers have struggled to balance their faith with the perceived demands of democratic pluralism. As a result, some Catholic elected officials have adopted the argument that, while they personally oppose evils like abortion, they cannot force their religious views onto the wider society. This is seriously mistaken on several key counts.

Catholics who are privileged to serve in public leadership positions have an obligation to place their faith at the heart of their public service, particularly on issues regarding the sanctity and dignity of human life. Thomas More, the former chancellor of England who preferred to give his life rather than betray his Catholic convictions, went to his execution with the words, “I die the king’s good servant, but God’s first.” In the United States in the late 1990s, elected officials safely keep their heads. But some will face a political penalty for living their public office in accord with their pro-life convictions. To those who choose this path, we assure them that their course is just, they save lives through their witness, and God and history will not forget them. Moreover, the risk of witness should not be exaggerated, and the power of witness should not be underestimated. In an age of artifice, many voters are hungry for substance. They admire and support political figures who speak out sincerely for their moral convictions. For our part we commend Catholic and other public officials who, with courage and determination, use their positions of leadership to promote respect for all human life.

We urge those Catholic officials who choose to depart from Church teaching on the inviolability of human life in their public life to consider the consequences for their own spiritual well being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading others into serious sin. We call on them to reflect on the grave contradiction of assuming public roles and presenting themselves as credible Catholics when their actions on fundamental issues of human life are not in agreement with Church teaching. No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life. Certainly there are times when it may be impossible to overturn or prevent passage of a law which allows or promotes a moral evil — such as a law allowing the destruction of nascent human life. In such cases, an elected official, whose position in favor of life is known, could seek legitimately to limit the harm done by the law. However, no appeal to policy, procedure, majority will or pluralism ever excuses a public official from defending life to the greatest extent possible. As is true of leaders in all walks of life, no political leader can evade accountability for his or her exercise of power (Evangelium Vitae, 73-4). Those who justify their inaction on the grounds that abortion is the law of the land need to recognize that there is a higher law, the law of God. No human law can validly contradict the Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.”

I believe the statement by the Catholic Bishops has shortcomings, to be sure, yet their insistence on integrity and showing our faith by our works is refreshing in today’s pusillanimous political climate. All this seems to make the following statements by Roberts (not to mentione his volunteer work for homosexual activists) seem pretty hollow:

“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. – It’s a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey.”

Even more significant though, is that each one of us should be taking the gospel into every area of life and living it out publicly, not being hypocrites. As Paul asked:

Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? (Romans 2:21-23 KJV)

Share
Posted in General | 1 Comment

What To Do In Light Of The Housing Bubble

Posted on 8/4/2005 by Dabitur


MALIBU, Calif. — So wonderfully Californian, Marsha Weidman’s home has it all–along the beach, far from noisy traffic, with a Jacuzzi used to watch sunsets over the Pacific.

For this, she and her husband recently paid $1.05 million.

For that, they got a trailer, built in 1971, without any land.

Plus, the family must pay “space rent,” which at two Malibu parks dotted with seven-figure trailers ranges from $800 to $2,500 monthly.

The nation’s frenzied housing boom has come to this: Even trailer parks, long the butt of jokes about tornado targets and redneck living, are enjoying fat greenback prices. ~Source

When considering the housing bubble, it might be easy to think that the unpleasant shocks of reality will only affect the people that shell out a million dollars for a ’71 Fleetwood. Easy, and comforting as well.

I compare the real estate market to a casino. There are high-rollers that win big and lose big. There are the shrewd blackjack players that learn every detail of the game, count cards, and can often win money. There are the retirees that bring their stash of cash and play nickel slots all day long, who don’t really get wrapped up in how much they spend because they enjoy the place. There are guys sweating bullets, and guys that aren’t worried in the least. Then there are the people in the industry – they have jobs because others are gambling. In the housing market, sometimes we look at the high rollers and feel relatively safe.

But the important distinction between the casino and the housing market is that the situation in the latter is far more dire for all involved because 95% of the players are using borrowed money to gamble with. The little old lady that borrowed $200 in nickels to play the slot machines can’t leave until she breaks even and pays back the house – and in the housing market that won’t happen until someone else decides to buy her spot at the machines. Lately, people have been able to sell their spot for a profit, and so it seems relatively safe to go into debt and count on someone else buying your house later so you can pay it off. But this is a dangerous game of musical chairs.

Talk about the housing bubble makes people uncomfortable. It makes others go into denial. I’m not interested in arguing with those in denial, I just want to help those that have questions about what they should do in light of the danger that the housing bubble presents to us all.

A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished. By humility and the fear of the LORD are riches, and honour, and life. (Proverbs 22:3-4 KJV)

“Should I sell my house?” “Should I buy a house?” “Should I move?” Those are good questions that I’ve heard recently.

Since about 95% of all home-owners have a mortgage, I have to assume that most of the people reading this are in the same situation. Those with interest-only mortgages should start paying on the principal. Those with traditional mortgages should pay a little extra on the principal (although there are some things that should come BEFORE this).

For anyone that is wondering whether they should sell their house, I recommend asking yourself two questions – can I afford this house, and is this where I want to be geographically? A negative answer to either of those questions might be a good indicator that you should consider putting your house up for sale. Otherwise, you’re essentially a speculator, betting either that you’ll get a raise or a financial windfall, and/or that someone will come along in the future to relieve you of your debt and allow you to make money and buy a different house. If you can’t afford it, get it ready for sale and list it as soon as possible – this is what I’m doing right now. You may not be able to sell it later – so don’t gamble with borrowed money. (Gambling isn’t smart to begin with, but its REALLY DUMB with borrowed money.)

And please – don’t even entertain the idea that perhaps the banking system will crash and you’ll be able to enjoy all of your mortgaged possessions without having to pay for them.

For the 5% that own their home outright, and for renters, there are different things to consider. You have far less at risk, and much more flexibility that allows you to take advantages of any opportunities that God brings your way. Obviously, if you own your own home, now is NOT a good time (even assuming there ever is a good time) to take out a home equity loan. If you are where you want to be geographically, there’s probably nothing better to do than to stay put. As I said the other day, I don’t recommend trying to time the market like Mr. Whitney is. We have a lot better things to do with our time than to waste it on real-estate speculation.

If you aren’t sure about where you want to be geographically, don’t be anxious about it. Just keep your eyes open and doing the things you know you have to do right now, like getting out of debt and doing whatever work and ministry God has given you to do right where you are. While you’re doing that, try to make friends and contacts that can give you leads and ideas, both nearby and in other parts of the country. Any anxiety that you feel because of your current situation, try to turn it into an encouragement for continuing to do those things you can do right now.

It is a good idea to pay off debt as soon as you can. This can be discouraging for some that just don’t see how they can do it, and especially not anytime soon. Even though I can’t recommend everything they teach, both Dave Ramsey and Crown Ministries have some helpful and encouraging resources to help those that are caught deep in the debt trap. Dave Ramsey has plenty of encouraging stories from families that were really bad off, but were able to dig out of debt rather quickly by being willing to make the tough but rewarding decisions. You’ll find his radio program to be encouraging and stimulating.

For some families that are deep in debt, it may take a few years to get out. But we should not forget that debt is always dangerous, and its entirely possible that we could make a plan to get out of debt in two or five years, but then face disastrous consequences if any of the many economic factors outside of our control go awry. I think the sooner the better is a good principle, but at the same time I don’t think that we should necessarily be putting ALL our available money towards debt reduction. Its a tricky question that has inherent risk, but we have to make our best estimation of whether it seems more dangerous to have an unpaid mortgage, or to go several years without investing in our livelihood which will hopefully enable us to both pay off our current debt and avoid it in the future.

John Thompson said something in his article on debt that I thought was very good, and I wish he would have perhaps expanded on the point a little: “Though debt is always linked with sin, it may not be due to one’s personal sin but may be the result of oppression, fraud, war, disease or natural disaster. Still, in one way or another, debt is the product of sin, even if only the sin of Adam (the cause of natural disasters).”

I think we should distinguish between the condition of being in debt and the act of borrowing. I don’t think its sinful to be in debt, but personally, I will readily admit that most of my debt was acquired because of bad, sinful decisions. I wanted things that I couldn’t afford, and instead of waiting on God to provide my needs, I went into bondage to acquire my wants. But here I am, and there are two issues to confront – one being to not make those same decisions any more, and the other being to understand the consequences of my sin and seek God’s help to get free again. I have to make godly decisions from here forward and work hard to get out of the debt that I’ve gotten into.

There’s also the danger of having nothing of real value in savings to use as a medium of exchange, in case of emergencies or dire conditions. Its good to have a sum for unforeseen expenses, for dry times, for savings, and to be using some of our income to invest in business(es), and to have some real money, but how much of each is going to be different for everyone. While everyone isn’t in the position of having a lot of funds available to set aside in gold and silver, it seems like a good idea for everyone to at least get in the practice of setting aside even small amounts of real money as a way of building for the future, and to some day begin even using real money as a medium of exchange.

One of the real benefits of gold and silver is that they offer a way to store wealth in a medium that can facilitate economic transactions. In times of hardship, such things as water, cigarettes, whiskey, medicines, firearms, plywood, and food have served a similar function – being as it were, “as good as gold.” The thing about all these things is that while they can enable you to acquire other things in a pinch, they will eventually run out unless you have way to produce other things of value, or to provide services of value. Thus while gold, silver, and items of value are good to have, an even better investment for a household would be acquiring the ability to produce as much of its own needs as possible.

For example – as a city-dweller I might expend my entire stash of gold just to buy enough food to survive for a couple of months, but someone with a good garden, a beehive, a root cellar, a milk cow, some chickens, etc. that could produce most of his own food would be much better off, and he could even be acquiring the gold and silver of others with his surplus produce. Precious metals and savings offer only temporary protection, while returning to a sane way of life provides more safety for a family than even a large stash of gold and silver. Don’t take that to mean that I don’t think its important to have real money – I do. I just think that most people would find greater benefits in planting gardens, raising a milk cow, and in general getting away from the typical pattern of working all our hours away from the home as a specialist for a wage with which we purchase all of our goods form others.

Now let’s revisit a quote from the other day:

Over the past four years, consumer spending and residential construction have together accounted for 90% of the total growth in GDP. And over two-fifths of all private sector jobs created since 2001 have been in housing-related sectors, such as construction, real estate and mortgage broking. ~The Economist

I think its prudent for anyone that is working in a housing-related sector, which is 40% of all non-government jobs created since 2001, to start thinking about what a severe slowdown in housing might mean for their prospects of employment. The rest of us probably should to. This relates to what I wrote before:

Get out of debt and save money (some real money would be good) for a rainy day (Not in a retirement account, either.) Anybody doing a job that could be done cheaper by the Mexicans or the Chinese ought to be considering how they will provide for their family when their employer figures this out. Invest your time and money in educating your children and starting family enterprises that they can participate in. DON’T get caught with a huge mortgage when the credit contraction hits and housing prices fall.

Its generally better to be self-employed than employed by another. However, for most people their debt load pretty much ties their hands and prevents them from leaving their regular paycheck. But even for those people it is a good idea to be looking for opportunities to do things on a part-time basis. Be creative and willing to think outside of your current field. I am a CPA, but I don’t necessarily think of ways to earn money only in the accounting and finance fields. I have earned money doing window-cleaning, landscaping, mowing, etc.

Even if you think you may move to a different area in the future, I still think its good to start some type of business where you are right now. It may be the help you need to get your debt paid off and escape the trap. And even if it fails or languishes, you will have gotten some practice and experience that you can take with you. When I did window cleaning, almost all of the children were able to work with me. I had my oldest son scrub the windows ahead of me, and the little ones wiped sills and drips after me.

That’s another benefit of self-employment. Whatever you try, find a way to involve the whole family in some way, even if it is only small tasks like filing and mail. My oldest son surprised me by actually getting some accounts for us, as he isn’t bothered at all by hitting someone up for business. You can discover abilities in your family that you didn’t know were there. It would be really nice to get a business started that was somewhat portable, so it could follow you wherever God might lead you in the future. Even if your business fails, you will have had to opportunity to work with your family (which honors God) and learn what to do or not to do in your next business.

One final thought is the importance of knowing our neighbors and having a good relationship with them. In a severe economic downturn, its entirely possible that many of us will literally be depending on our neighbors in order to get through. That’s one reason I am concerned with the current practices of commuting to churches in communities far away from our own. Such a church would literally cease to function without the continued existence of affordable gas and telecommunications. But a church made up of members that actually live in the same community, would not only be better equipped to survive, but have a great head start in the work of Christian reconstruction.

Isolated individuals would have to meet their neighbors, learn to work with them if possible, and be literally alone, cut off from their fellow covenant people. Of course I believe that God could bless such a person’s evangelistic efforts and produce a vibrant community where none previously existed, but why would the neighbors put much stock in this person’s new-found zeal to convert them? They might think, “He never bothered to tell us this before,” or “His God hasn’t helped him much, he’s in the same boat we are.” In contrast, a covenanted church that has been living near one another in a community, learning to love another in real life, and walking out their faith together in their community under the watchful eyes of their neighbors, would be far more likely to be a godly influence in their community during hard times.

I know that the preceding thoughts are far from comprehensive, and I’ve probably missed some important things. But hopefully they will encourage and challenge you, so that I can learn from your thoughts as well.

Share
Posted in General, Money and Business, The Housing Bubble | 11 Comments

Biblical Agrarianism – The Answer To The Debt Bubble

Posted on 8/3/2005 by Dabitur

[This post was written by Reverend Thomas C. McConnell. You can send your gracious comments, questions, and feedback directly to him using the contact information at the end of the article, or you can leave your comments here in the normal manner.]

Chad, once again your article is right on point and right on time. Should every American Christian be required to read it, however, I am afraid that it would fall largely upon willfully deaf ears. There have been so many predictions of economic collapse in the last 30 years, especially with Christian Armageddon mongering and Y2K, that the boy who genuinely cries wolf in our economically confident and arrogant society is not only flippantly dismissed as being grossly misinformed, but dangerous wolves, especially the subspecies lupus economus, are quickly rejected as legends of the past, having long been exterminated by the global economic technocrats that came to power with the Federal Reserve. I can hear the talking heads of CNBC now, “Other than a few sharp bumps in the road, we have nothing to worry about with the housing boom. Thanks to the Fed, lasting economic security and growing prosperity has been secured for everyone through perpetual, ever-expanding debt . . . oops, I mean an ever expanding GNP.”

Given my understanding of debt-based economics from both a biblical perspective and history, which vindicates God’s Word, without exception, I believe that we have already entered a time of devastating national decline, though how fast and to what extent only our sovereign, righteous God knows. Am I claiming the end of the world is at hand? Well, no and yes. No, I do not believe the physical world is about the end in total conflagration and destruction, nor do I believe the devil rules the world. Yes, I most definitely believe the American world of debt induced comfort and ease, abundant cheap food and goods, usurious financial security, and so-called economic expansion is coming to an end, a very hard end. I know, I’ve been repeatedly told by well meaning friends that these dire predictions were supposed to have happened many years ago and the decades of “economic growth” since then has long proven them false. Nevertheless, should not bible believing Christians be asking this question, “Are a few decades of temporal ‘prosperity’ the litmus test for truth or a basis to live?”

Man shall not live by bread alone [especially the virtual bread of fiat currency and debt-based economics] but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. In fact, history has repeatedly shown us that mankind dies culturally every time it attempts to live in defiance of God’s Word, so as to eat its own bread. Because they had not executed My judgments, but had despised My statutes, profaned My Sabbaths, and their eyes were fixed on their fathers’ idols. Therefore I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and judgments by which they could not live (Ezekiel 20:24-25). Man cannot serve God and Mammon at the same time, though the personal comfort and abundant goods produced through his usury laden borrowing have convinced him otherwise. Looks are always deceiving and pagans believe as they are . . . deceived (Titus 3:1), but what’s it going to take to convince God’s people that virtual wealth is strong delusion? As a partridge that broods but does not hatch, So is he who gets riches, but not by right; It will leave him in the midst of his days, And at his end he will be a fool (Jeremiah 17:11).

Thanks be to God, Who being merciful and just, will not suffer His people to bear false witness to the truth of the Gospel by denying it through habitual disobedience to His commandments, no matter what so-called peace and prosperity comes of it. The Scriptures make it very clear that we are not to be unequally yoked with the unregenerate (2Cor 6:14-18). We are not to give our sons and daughters to them nor to seek their peace or prosperity, that we may be strong and eat the good of the land, and leave it as an inheritance to your children forever (Ezra 9:12). The answer is a total reformation at a cultural level, a return to governing the nation according to God’s law-word. This is biblical agrarianism.

Not knowing anything else but debt-based economics, many Christians wrongly believe that should we go to a biblical agrarian society that it would be the end of all progress and good, as though this would be a destructive, reactive measure that reverses all the wonderful gains made in the last century. Though the wicked elements of our society would shrivel up and die, and rightly so, obedience to God’s law is not reactive, whatsoever. It is absolutely proactive and, thus, a future-oriented process that builds godly cultures, and, might I add, with God’s blessing and not His cursing, which is what ours is clearly under now. The blessing of the Lord makes one rich, And He adds no sorrow with it (Proverbs 10:22). It has been my observation that most believers have a false understanding of the word agrarianism and, thus, a negative bias against it. Though it does have to do with the land, it does not mean, as so many have been misled to believe, a primitive farm culture where everyone is a subsistence farmer hacking out a dismal existence with no future or security under exhausting conditions of despair and drudgery. They would be surprised to realize that even our “advanced” technological society is an agrarian society. How so? We must look at the word agrarian to see why.

Agrarian – adj. 1618, borrowed through Middle French in the phrase loy agrarienne agrarian law, from Latin agrarious of the land, from ager (genitive agri) field. (Chambers Dictionary of Etymology)

Agrarian simply means “of the land or field,” buts its application involves absolutely everything we do on earth, even those things which appear to be totally unrelated to field (agri) culture. The Middle French phrase loy agrarienne (law of the land) speaks to the heart of this application. Just what are our laws agrarian, that is, the laws of the land by which it is to be governed? First, in directly addressing the farm fields (agri) of our nation, there is no denying that our farmlands are governed by the wicked laws of pagan debt-based, global industrialism. Our precious farmlands are being worked to death by huge “agribusiness” corporations and debt-laden, subsidized farmers who must squeeze out the greatest profits from every acre to compete in world markets while killing the land with ever increasing chemical fertilizers in the process, thus making it unsustainable for future generations. Contrary to popular belief, our abundant food supply is seriously jeopardized. Worse yet, the loy agrarienne of modern economics has destroyed the small family farm, and, in turn, the small community and with it the local economy, which was the backbone of our (once) free republic in its early days.

As vitally important as our farmlands are, however, agriculture is but one part of agrarianism. Agrarianism also involves manufacturing, education, government, economics, science, and everything else that has to do with culture, since all of these elements have a direct affect upon the land we live on depending upon the laws that develop and govern these elements. This is why the techno investor on the ninetieth floor of a modern high rise building in the heart of a cement city is NO LESS an agrarian than the small dirt farmer in Missouri, because everything he does, though it appears to be removed far from it, has to do with the land he lives and works on. Every single human and human agency is, thus, agrarian and answerable to God for the laws they live or operate by in using HIS LAND. If we, whether individually or corporately, defile it in disobedience to God’s commandments, God judges us and the land. This has certainly been the case in the nine decades since the Federal Reserve took the land over in 1913 . . . so much for pagan agrarianism.

Biblical agrarianism, on the other hand, is where the land we actually LIVE on (as unto the Lord in its fullest biblical sense) is governed by the laws of God, implemented by believers through God’s grace and generous wisdom. Technology is developed and implemented based upon God’s morality, not man’s immorality, as well as manufacturing, economics, government, etc. It is not a reversion back to a primitive society as so many fear, but a move forward to a free, godly society where we steward the Lord’s earth to His glory, where the Gospel is lived out daily in every nook and cranny of culture. We have bought a lie that to build a culture upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Law-word (the Scriptures) is to go back in time to a diminished, harsh existence. We are always moving forward, forward into blessing or cursing depending upon our obedience to God and His law-word. Biblical agrarianism is the answer to the debt bubble and all of our national woes.

Reverend Thomas C. McConnell pastors a church in Rayville, Missouri. You contact him at tom(AT)missouriwoods(DOT)com.

Share
Posted in Agrarianism, General, Money and Business, The Housing Bubble | 5 Comments

Judge Parker’s Dissenting Opinion

Posted on 8/2/2005 by Dabitur

For anyone interested, here is the full text of Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker’s dissenting opinion in the recent case concerning child-custody issues.

A friend of mine pointed out that “if you count the votes (easier to do with all the opinions before you), you will see that a total of five justices (out of nine) have gone on record agreeing that parents possess the ‘God-given right and responsibility to rear their children … unfettered by state interference.’” I also see from looking over Justice Parker’s opinion that he did go into the issues of family versus state sovereignty.

Here’s a few quotes from Justice Parker’s opinion:

First, on the importance of sphere sovereignty:

Courts must recognize that the state is but one of several spheres of government, each with its distinct jurisdiction and limited authority granted by God.

Next, on why and when the state may enter family matters:

If a parent exceeds the jurisdictional boundaries of family government — for example, by sexually abusing a child — state government may sanction the parent for child abuse in a temporal court of justice and, if the parent is a member of a local church, the government of that church may sanction the parent in a spiritual court. These mutually corrective jurisdictions may be understood as “checks and balances” among the governments, which doctrine, like that of the “separation of powers,” is of divine creation rather than human invention.

Some interesting comments on church authority and taxation:

Our legal traditions have long recognized these distinct government spheres, their interrelations, and their separate jurisdictions, although not always using such terms. Thus, what we call “individual rights” may also be understood as the right of individuals to govern themselves. Likewise, what we call “parental rights” are the rights of parents to govern their children, which from ancient times were symbolized by the authority of the rod of corporal punishment. (See, e.g., Proverbs 13:24 (“He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.”).) Similarly, the courts’ recognition of “religious rights” includes deference to the decisions of ecclesiastical authorities (see historical overview in Yates v. El Bethel Primitive Baptist Church, 847 So. 2d 331 (Ala. 2002) (Moore, C.J., dissenting)). This sphere of church government has been symbolized by the keys of the kingdom. (See Matthew 16:19 (“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever
you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”).) State government also has its distinct sphere of authority or governing rights and ancient symbol, the sword of justice. (See Romans 13:4 (“[The ruler] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain….”).)

… Federal tax laws also reflect the state’s recognition that the church is a distinct and independent sphere of government, accountable for its affairs to God rather than to the state. Thus, by statute churches are automatically “nontaxable.” They are not required to incorporate, to seek official recognition by the Internal Revenue Service (“the IRS”) to avoid paying federal taxes, or to file annually. (See 26 U.S.C. § 6033(a)(2)(A) and 26 U.S.C. § 508(c).) This is in contrast to every other kind of nonprofit organization, which must incorporate, must obtain IRS approval under a specific provision of the Internal Revenue Code (e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)) before qualifying as “tax-exempt,” and must file annually to preserve that state-granted exemption.

I’ll provide some comments later, after I’ve had a chance to read it more fully. Feel free to post yours as well.

Share
Posted in General | Leave a comment

Learn Not The Economic Ways Of The Heathen

Posted on 8/2/2005 by Dabitur

Mike Whitney of Dissident Voices tells about his conclusions regarding the housing bubble:

I sold my home three weeks ago anticipating what I believe will be “Economic Armageddon” in the United States. It wasn’t an easy thing to do. My wife and I have lived in the same home for 25 years, raised both of our children there, and owned the property outright without any loans or mortgage. The house was paid for in “sweat-equity”, that is, by wielding a shovel day in and day out in my one-man landscape business. I don’t say that for sympathy, but to illustrate that we played by the rules, worked hard, paid our taxes, and took advantage of the American dream of home ownership.

All that has changed.

I sold my home for one reason: George W. Bush. He and his protege at the Federal Reserve have submerged the country into a morass of unsustainable debt, disrupted the nation’s economic equilibrium and thrust us towards fiscal disaster. They’ve also generated a humongous housing bubble through their irresponsible and self-serving manipulation of interest rates.

The facts are astonishing.

The current housing bubble is “larger than the global stock market bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America’s stock market bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.” (The Economist, June 16, 2005)

Pay special attention to this fact:

Over the past four years, consumer spending and residential construction have together accounted for 90% of the total growth in GDP. And over two-fifths of all private sector jobs created since 2001 have been in housing-related sectors, such as construction, real estate and mortgage broking. ~The Economist

The question I’ve heard most often over the past few weeks is “How will a crash in the housing market affect me?”, and that’s hard question to answer. For one, our economy is extremely complex; and two, I have no idea what wickedness or stupidity the powers that be will pursue. Perhaps we will have German-style hyperinflation, or perhaps we will have a massive contraction of the money supply that will leave many destitute and allow the bankers to foreclose on vast amounts of property as they did in the 1930′s. (Pretty Boy Floyd, we need you now.) Perhaps the dollar will be jettisoned altogether for a NEW and improved currency. Perhaps the government will outlaw the private ownership of gold again, as they did from 1933-1972.

We just don’t know these things, and the fact is that it we shouldn’t fret about what the powers that be MAY, or MAY NOT, do. Even worse than fretting about it would be to stake our wealth or our future on speculation the potential course of action that the powers that be may take. Kevin Duffy said it very well in his article Alan, We Have A Problem:

The honest answer is that recognizing folly is much easier than knowing its natural limits. As Sir Isaac Newton lamented in 1721 after losing his shirt in the South Sea bubble, “I can calculate the motions of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.”

What we do know for sure, however, is that GOD IS NOT MOCKED. Whatsoever a man, or a group of men, shall sow, that shall they reap. We cannot borrow ourselves into prosperity. A pyramid scheme eventually runs out of suckers. The borrower is servant to the lender. They that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

Thus while we can’t know for certain what particular fate awaits the American economy, we can know for certain that all men ought to seek God for wisdom, and not to provide surety for a stranger, nor follow a multitude to do evil. We ought not be the economic companions of fools, nor learn the economic ways of the heathen.

When the real estate bubble pops, property values in general will drop dramatically. A homeowner that owes $200,000 on his home may suddenly find that there are suddenly very few available buyers for his property. The few that do exist will be shrewd bargain-hunters that saved cash for a good opportunity – they’ll be circling the market like vultures, snapping up properties from desperate sellers that over-extended themselves by trying to use debt to leverage their speculative purchases. Instead of a $200K house getting offers at or above the asking price, the few offers that trickle in might be more in the neighborhood of $50K, if that. But don’t think you’ll catch a break on your property taxes. The tax assessor will not be likely to lower the assessed value of your home, so you’ll still be be paying the mortgage and taxes on a $200K home that is only worth $50K in real money. In such a case, people will generally be stuck wherever they are for awhile, so getting to know your neighbors is a great idea, unless you plan on hitting the road like the Okies did when their farms were foreclosed upon.

Its not hard to imagine that the effects of an unwelcome slowdown in the housing sector will reach far beyond just the value of our homes. If the debt-powered binge on home-buying has produced 40% of all private-sector jobs since 2001, there are going to be a few folks out of work. When those folks lose their jobs, they’ll be purchasing less goods and services from the rest of us, and make it a lot harder for the government to fund the War On Iraq. (Of course, perhaps GWB will just start the draft and kill two birds with one stone by providing “jobs” and fresh cannon fodder at the same time.)

Whitney explains another reason that the risks of a crash on the housing market threaten the entire economy:

Mortgage loans are acquired by investment banks and chopped up into various securities where they are sold in mutual funds, hedge funds and pension funds, etc. To some extent, this takes the lenders off the hook, but it also means that the shock to the system will be much more widespread when the day of reckoning finally arrives. If we encounter a major glitch in the economy the shock waves will be felt throughout the world. “Investors now hold $4.6 trillion in mortgage backed securities. That’s more than the outstanding value of the US Treasuries.” (NY Times) Think about it.

Shaky lending, interest-only loans, no down payments, a US government that is $8 trillion in debt due to Washington’s profligate spending, and a “ticking-time bomb” of adjustable-rate mortgages that will reset within three years — the table is set for a disaster of Biblical proportions. If we hit a bump in the economic road ahead (rising gas prices? recession?) the “Land of the Free” will be knee deep in bankruptcies and foreclosures. We’ll all be fighting for a soft spot under the freeway onramp.

Tomorrow we’ll talk about WHAT TO DO…

Share
Posted in General, Money and Business, The Housing Bubble | 7 Comments

Alabama Supreme Court Cites Bible In Stripping Away Parental Rights

Posted on 8/1/2005 by Dabitur

Last Friday an interesting decision was handed down by the Alabama Supreme Court concerning a child custody dispute, which greatly expanded the ability of the state to declare parents unfit and award custody to other parties. Interestingly, the Bible was cited by both a concurring and a dissenting justice. The nine justices actually had seven different opinions, but the only correct one came from lone dissenter Justice Tom Parker, who quoted Romans 13 and explained that all authority comes from God, and that God gave the rights and responsibilities for raising children to parents – NOT the state.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) A divided Alabama Supreme Court decided a child custody dispute Friday with a history-making decision citing legal precedent, the Bible, and parents’ relationship with God.

A majority of the justices agreed the child should be raised by the maternal grandparents, but to reach that conclusion, the nine justices issued seven opinions in the case. That allowed each justice to offer an explanation of why the case ended like it did.

Justice Tom Parker, who wrote a dissenting opinion, noted that in the more than 7,100 cases in the Supreme Court’s database, “this is the first case in which Justices of the Court have issued seven separate opinions.”

Their opinions totaled 100 pages, which is unusually long for the state’s highest court. The other decisions released by the Supreme Court Friday averaged 30 pages.

The case involved a child born out of wedlock in April 1999 to a couple that met while attending Narcotics Anonymous. No names were used in the case to protect the child’s identity, but the Supreme Court noted that it was from Madison County.

The child lived primarily with its maternal grandparents although the mother and father, who never lived together, shared custody until the mother overdosed on heroin in October 2002. Then the father and maternal grandparents shared legal custody.

In February 2003, while the child was living with the maternal grandparents, the father sought full custody. Instead, a judge gave full custody to the maternal grandparents and declared the father an unfit parent. The judge cited many factors, including the father having so little contact with the child that he didn’t know the child’s clothes size.

Five justices concurred with the lower court’s decision, with Justice Lyn Stewart noting that the father “had never spent 24 hours alone with his son.”

Citing Psalms 127:3-5, she wrote that children are a gift from God, but they come with responsibilities.

“Rights must be claimed and responsibilities assumed or they may be forfeited,” she wrote.

In a lone dissent, Parker quoted from Romans 13:1-2, which says “there is no authority except from God.” Parker wrote that God, not the state, has given parents the rights and responsibilities to raise their children.

He said “courts should interfere as little as possible with parental decision-making, instead deferring to parental authority whenever it has not been fundamentally compromised by substantial neglect, wrongdoing or criminal act.”

Three justices – Harold See, Champ Lyons and Bernard Harwood – agreed with the maternal grandparents having custody, but disagreed with the lower court ruling finding the father unfit. See said the father should not have been declared unfit because the maternal grandparents never raised that issue in court.

Lyons wrote the lower court didn’t give sufficient emphasis to recent changes in the father’s life, including getting a steady job and staying off drugs.

“If this parent is unfit on the grounds here cited, in disregard of the undisputed evidence of rehabilitation from his past mistake of drug abuse, then the authority of the courts to declare parents unfit has been dramatically expanded,” Lyons wrote. ~Source

So it seems that while things were bad enough already, now the state need not even make a show of hearing the evidence concerning the fitness of the parents.

This goes hand-in-hand with something I read from attorney Edgar Steele last week:

For example, if CPS (Child Protective Services) employees show up at your front door, demanding to be let in and to speak with your child, refuse to let them in without a search warrant. Have them stand on the porch and then bring your child to the front window to show that he or she is well and healthy, then ask them to leave. That night, gather everything you can into your car(s), especially your children, and leave the state forever. Move far away. Get a new job and a new house. Have a real estate agent sell your house for you. Have a moving company go in and pack up everything you left behind and ship it to you. Quit your job by phone the next morning from far, far away. That’s how you protect your children from the organized child theft/molestation racket that CPS in America has become. That is how you stay out of the Family Court legal system, simply because no court filings yet have been made prior to their first invasion of your home and you are not going to give them anything about which to file. That is attaining smallness by distance.

If you didn’t follow my advice in the paragraph directly above and now are dealing with a lawyer or with court personnel in attempting to stave off CPS’ attempts to take your children, then you have no choice but to cooperate and do whatever it takes to legally exit the system at the next opportunity. Do not attempt this without the aid of a lawyer, good or bad.

Is Mr. Steele a little paranoid? I’m sure there are some parents that regret not taking this action. Some parents have been successful by staying put and resisting. Others have paid a steep price. Back in June, Texas authorities issued an Amber Alert and took a daughter from her parents because they sought a second opinion before subjecting her to radiation therapy. Not only that, but they also took the parents’ other children from them and placed them in foster homes. Last week in the Chicago Tribune I saw a headline that read “No seatbelts = Child abuse”. How long before we see a headline that reads “No Vaccinations = Child Abuse”, or something else along those lines?

Another option to consider is sending your family to another state while staying behind to face the magistrate yourself. This is what men did in Nebraska when state authorities told them that they could not teach their own children. The men went to jail, but their families were safely out of reach in another state. Because they were willing to stand for their beliefs, those men helped homeschooling become a legal option for others.

There is a time to flee the jurisdiction of a tyrannical authority in order to protect your family. Joseph and Mary did this to protect their son from Herod. King Joram’s daughter smuggled out and hid the future king, Joash, so that he would not be killed by Athaliah. Whether we are led to flee with our families, or secret them away while we stay to face the magistrate, we ought to have the same regard for our seed royal as did the Israelites of old.

Share
Posted in General | 6 Comments