Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 159

A Friendly Response to Trevin Wax's "Nagging Questions"

On Tuesday, Trevin Wax put forth "five nagging questions" about our book What Is the Mission of the Church? Greg and I both know and like Trevin. He is a friend. We are glad he has gently raised some concerns with our book; we'd like to gently answer and correct his concerns. We hope to provide a lengthier response to some of the critical reviews out there in the coming weeks. But for now Greg and I want to provide a brief response to each of Trevin's nagging questions. The following is from both of us.

*******

1. "Can we reduce 'making disciples' and 'teaching Christ's commands' to the delivery of information?" Trevin argues that disciple making is more than verbal teaching. It also involves modeling and mentoring. So doesn't the Great Commission implicitly include loving our neighbor and our work in the world? Of course, Trevin is right that people learn by watching and partnering, not just by listening. We fully support Christian lawyers (or artists or politicians or computer programmers) coming alongside Christian lawyers to teach, model, and mentor what it looks like to be a Christian lawyer. Some congregations may even facilitate such opportunities, and rightly so. And yet, in the Great Commission texts the disciple making work is described as teaching, testifying, or bearing witness. And in Acts we see the mission of the church described not as Christians faithfully living out their vocations but as the word being verbally proclaimed. When Jesus sent his disciples into the world it was to speak. This proclamation was never thought to be the mere "delivery of information." It was a saving, powerful message to be delivered on God's behalf with Christ's authority.

2. "If we agree that there is a zoom-lens and wide-lens view of the gospel, can we also agree that there is a zoom-lens and wide-lens view of the mission?" Trevin encourages us to view missions (as we view the gospel) as having a central focus and a wider focus. "Evangelism is central (zoom lens)," Trevin writes, "and yet evangelism is corroborated by any number of activities (wide lens) that demonstrate the reality of our gospel proclamation." We have no problem with this formulation. This sound like the section in our book "We Do Good Works to Win a Hearing for the Gospel" (227-229). We passionately believe that the church should proclaim the gospel with words and promote the gospel with good works. But this is different from suggesting the mission of the church is to rebuild communities or build the kingdom. We hear Trevin asking, "Aren't good works necessary to corroborate the message we are proclaiming?" Yes and Amen.

3. "Isn't there a sense in which worship is expressed through our life in the world, not just our corporate worship services?" We agree that worship includes all of life lived to the glory of God and teach that often in our churches. This is why we wrote, "All of life must be lived to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). And we ought to do good to all people (Gal. 6:10). No apologies necessary for caring about our cities, loving our neighbors, or working hard at our vocations. These too are 'musts'" (245).

And yet we disagree when Trevin suggests that we want "to separate worship from our deeds of justice." He worries that we have forgotten that our good works in the world are part of being obedient to God. But again, we have a section entitled "We Do Good Works to Obey God, Whom We Love." We tried as hard as we could in the book to stress that good works and loving others matter, that they are essential, they are not optional, and they glorify God. The confusion may be that Trevin hears us saying worship is the mission of the church and then wonders why we don't include all-of-life-worship in our definition. But we are careful to say mission is what we are sent into the world to accomplish. Therefore, we speak of worship as the goal of missions. Christian mission aims at making, sustaining, and establishing worshipers (247).

4. Even if we recognize that the verbs related to the kingdom are passive (receiving, bearing witness to, etc.), does this necessarily preclude us from speaking of 'work for the kingdom'?" We have no desire to prop up an "unbendable category" that "might suppress kingdom work rather than inspire it." If people say "work for the kingdom" and all they mean is that they are working "on behalf of the kingdom" (as Trevin puts it) we have no problem. What we think Christians should avoid, to be faithful to the New Testament language, is any notion that we build, bring, or establish the kingdom. The phrase "work for the kingdom" is ambiguous; we've heard it used in ways we think are misguided, but we're sure others, like Trevin, use it in positive ways.

5. "Is our representation of Christ not part of the mission?" This final question aptly summarizes the biggest criticism we've seen to our book (we"ll say more about this concern tomorrow). Trevin probably speaks for others when he says, "DeYoung and Gilbert believe we must represent Christ, but it seems like they connect this representation so tightly to verbal proclamation of the gospel that little room is left for representing Christ through love and good deeds." Later he concludes, "Christ-likeness is a part of the mission, and we cannot and should not separate proclamation of Christ from the representation of Christ we offer through our acts of service." Let us reiterate: we believe with all our hearts and preach it from our pulpits with passion that Christians must live lives of love and good deeds. Holiness (in all its public and private expressions) is irrefutably, indispensably, and irreducibly part of being a follower of Jesus Christ. It's one of the reasons God chose us and saved us (Eph. 1:4).

But what does it mean to say our good deed "represent" Christ? We aren't sure if Trevin is saying: we demonstrate what it means to have Christ in us, or that we re-present Christ in the world, or both. We agree with the first option, but don't see in the New Testament that we are supposed to be incarnations of Christ's presence in the world (again, we aren't sure that's what Trevin is suggesting). More to the point, we wonder what it means that "Christ-likeness is a part of the [church's] mission." If this means our good works adorn the gospel and win a hearing for the gospel then we totally agree. But we do not think Jesus sends the church as church into the world to adopt schools, remedy unemployment, make a contribution to the arts, or plant trees (which is not what Trevin says here, but what we have heard others say and are arguing against in our book). We have many good things to do as Christians and many good things we could do, but everything good does not equal the mission of the church.

Storytelling and Preaching: Not the Same

More about The Book of the Dun Cow later, but today I wanted to highlight Walter Wangerin's words about what a good novel is and isn't:

What The Book of the Dun Cow is not–nor was ever intended to be–is an allegory. Allegories ask an intellectual analysis: "This means that," "That detail in the story is equivalent to that fact, that doctrine, that idea outside the story." The Book of the Dun Cow invites experience. Allegories are reductive of meanings; they bear a riddling quality; they demand the questions, "What does this mean?"

But a good novel is first of all an event; as distinguished from the continuous rush of many sensations and the messy overlapping experiences of daily lives, it is a composed experience in which all the sensations are tightly related, for which there is a beginning and an ending, within which the reader's perceivings and interpretations are shaped for awhile by the internal integrity of all the elements of the narrative. Meaning devolves from (and must follow) the reader's experience. Meaning, therefore, springs from the relationship between the reader and the writing. Should I, the author, ever state in uncertain terms what my book means, it would cease to be a living thing: it would cease to be the novel it might have been, and would rather become an illustration of some defining, delimiting concept. Sermons do that well and right properly. Novels in which themes demand an intellectual attention can only be novels in spite of these didactic interruptions. (245-46)

I'm not sure I fully agree with the sentiment that an author of fiction must never state in uncertain terms what his book means, but I certainly agree with the general thrust of Wangerin's argument. He is making a crucial observation that storytellers and preachers both need to hear. A story is meant, first of all, to be experienced. The story is the point, even before it "means" something. Movies and novels that try hard to be explicitly didactic, usually make for poor stories and so-so lessons. The fiction is supposed to be felt and discussed, often with multiple layers of meaning or deliberately debatable meaning.

Preaching, on the other hand (as Wangerin rightly notes) is different. Sermons ought to define and delimit. They are deliberately didactic. When preachers try to make art preach, they ruin art. When artists try to make preaching a work of art, they ruin preaching. Let the novel revel in nuance, subtlety, and ambiguity. Let the sermon sound forth with clarity and authority.

Is It Wrong to Charge Interest on a Loan?

Last week I posted some lines related to economics from the Westminster Larger Catechism. In one place, where the catechism was forbidding "usury," I added the gloss "e.g., loan-sharks." This prompted a stern chiding in the comment thread:

Kevin,

You know perfectly well that usury in the Bible and in the 17th Century WCF was not defined as "loan sharking". It was defined as charging a rate of interest greater than zero.

Feel free to think that the Bible is outdated and wrong about this. But please have the guts to come out and say that you think the Bible is wrong. Don't redefine Biblical words to mean something they don't mean just so you can claim you agree with the Bible when the fact is that you don't.

Those are strong words. This gentleman claims that the Westminster divines opposed charging interest of any kind under any circumstance and maintains that I think they were wrong and the Bible is wrong.

I took out the gloss because I could see how the point I was trying to make with a parenthetical note should not be thrown in matter-of-factly as the correct reading. My point demanded a more substantive explanation. And that's what I want to offer now.

What's At Stake

Before we examine the charge that interest is unbiblical, let's understand all that is at stake in this discussion. We may like to think that making money off of interest is uniquely the occupation of bankers, Wall Street types, and other (seemingly) super-rich "bad guys." But charging interest on a loan is what your credit card company does. It's what the big box store does when you buy a refrigerator. It's what the car company does when they let you walk off the lot with a new vehicle and almost no money down. It's what your mortgage company does in order to make home ownership possible. It's what the government does in issuing student loans. And essentially it's what you do if you put money in a bank or buy government bonds; you are letting someone else use your money because they promise to keep it safe and give it back to you with interest.

None of this proves for a second that charging interesting is acceptable, but it does mean that those who oppose interest on biblical grounds should be prepared to oppose (and abstain from) almost everything about modern economies.

A Short History of Usury

For much of church history Christians have been opposed to charging interest on most loans. This makes sense given the biblical injunctions. According to Leviticus 25:37, "You shall not lend [your brother] your money at interest." Exodus 22:25 stipulates" "If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him." Deuteronomy 23:20 says much the same thing about loans within the Israelite community, but with the important caveat that "you may charge a foreigner interest." We can see why charging interest has often been frowned upon.

But it would be a mistake to think the church has been opposed to charging interest on every kind of loan. Usury has always been considered a sin. But not every sort of interest-bearing loan has been considered usury. There is a long history of defining usury as a loan of subsistence as opposed to a loan of capital. Loans in the Old Testament were given to those who were destitute and poor. This is the explicit context in the passages above from Exodus and Leviticus. When someone in the covenant community has hit rock bottom, the best thing to do is to give them what they need. The next best thing is a loan. And the one thing you must not do is give them a loan with interest. The situation calls for charity. It is not an opportunity for making money at the expense of someone else's misfortune.

But a loan as a business venture or investment risk has historically been considered a different kind of loan. Samuel Gregg, in his Banking, Justice, and the Common Good, observes about the history of usury and the church: "it does not appear that there were any serious objections to people lending others capital. There is even considerable evidence that the clergy provided a type of banking service for their confreres" (30). To be sure, throughout much of Christendom, the church prohibited Christians from charging interest. This is why banking became a heavily Jewish enterprise. They were allowed to charge interest on loans (Deut. 23:20). As result, the Jews were often reviled for being "moneylenders," their unique role in the financial industry being a contributing factor to centuries of antisemitism.

Over time, however, Christians grew more careful in defining usury. The Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17) defined usury as "nothing else than gain or profit drawn from the use of a thing that is by its nature sterile, a profit acquired without labor, costs, or risk." This meant that if the lender lent money with labor, cost, or risk to himself he could charge interest without being guilty of usury. Likewise, Calvin talked about acceptable and unacceptable kinds of usury. Making money off the poor is one thing, but "if we have to do with the rich, that usury is freely permitted." Surely, he argues, "usury ought to be paid to the creditor in addition to the principal, to compensate his loss." In short, "reason does not suffer us to admit that all usury is to be condemned without exception" (Commentary on Exodus).

Similarly, Ursinus, in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism observes that "All just contracts, the contracts of paying rent, a just compensation for any loss, partnership, buying, etc., are exempted from usury." In other words, not every kind of interest is usury. Some are, and some aren't. It depends on whether the loan will help the borrower or most likely hurt them. "There are many questions respecting usury," Ursinus writes, "concerning which we may judge according the rule which Christ has laid down: Whatever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."

Given this history in the Christian church and in the Reformed church in particular, it's incredibly unlikely that the Westminster Divines intended to condemn every kind of interest-bearing loan. The problem has been–and continues to be–predatory lending. No doubt, some in the financial industry have sinned in their lending practices. Just because we can't say every loan is usury, doesn't mean nothing is usury. For example, in many poorer neighborhoods you will find institutions which charge astronomically high interest rates to give people cash advances. Are these higher rates justified because of their risks involved? Or is this precisely the sort of usury–making a buck off the poor to their ruin–that Christians have always condemned? In The Ascent of Money Niall Ferguson maintains that the earliest days of banking were populated by "loan sharks" like these, which is why I used the phrase I did in my parenthetical gloss last week.

Conclusion

Charging interest on a loan has been suspect during much of human history. Jay Richards explains:

By modern standards, almost everyone was dirt-poor. Only the rich, a tiny minority, had any money to lend. Any money lending, then, would involve rich people lending to their poor neighbors, probably their kin, for a basic need like food. . . .People hid extra money. So while a person might be entitled to have his money returned to him, it seemed uncharitable to charge a poor person for temporarily using money that would otherwise just be collecting dust. . . .And charging huge interest rates that couldn't be repaid would add insult to injury, since it would exploit a person's bad fortune and ignorance. Thus, given the historical context and the belief that money was sterile, the ban on usury made a lot of sense. (Money, Greed, and God, 140).

So did the church change its mind about usury? No, but it did become more precise with its definition. "Usury isn't charging interest on a loan to offset the risk of the loan and the cost of forgoing other uses for the money; it's unjustly charging someone for a loan by exploiting them when they're in dire straits" (144). This seems to be a fair distinction given the context of the Old Testament provisions.

I do not believe the Bible or the Westminster Standards prohibit the charging of any interest in every circumstance. This has not been the universal position of the church. "Rather, it taught that it is wrong to charge interest on a loan by virtue of the very making of the loan, rather than by virtue of some factor related to the loan that provided a basis for fair compensation" (Banking, 35). There are still bad banks, bad lenders, and bad loans. But neither the Bible nor the tradition of the church requires us to think that banks, lenders, and loans are bad just because they are banks, lenders, and loans.

Monday Morning Humor

You may have seen this already. It's been making its way around the internet. Even if you have, it's worth another look (and laugh). This really gets to the heart of gospel-centered parenting.

The Quest for Comfort

Last year William Boekestein published a children's book on the Belgic Confession titled Faithfulness Under Fire: The Story of Guido de Bres.  Now he is publishing a similar book on the Heidleberg Catechism titled The Quest for Comfort: The Story of the Heidelberg Catechism. Both books are edifying and well illustrated. You'll like them and your kids will too.

What Not to Say to Single Women in Your Church

After reading yesterday's post I received an email from a woman with some suggestions on what not to say to single women in your church. I thought her comments rang true and were well written. She gave me permission to post them here.

"I keep praying for someone to come along for you." Thanks for your prayers. I hope someone comes along too. Instead of praying for that, why don't you pray that I would be growing in Christlikeness so that if Mr. Wonderful walks into my life, I would be better suited to be a helpmate for him.

"I don't know why no young man hasn't scooped you up and carried you off yet." I know this is supposed to be a compliment and that the intention of the kind woman is to tell me that she thinks I'm worth marrying. I appreciate that you think so highly of me. Unfortunately when you say this I immediately try to answer the question of why no one has carried me off. Am I too much of one thing and not enough of another? Do I not look right? Am I too soft spoken or too loud? What do I need to change about myself since obviously something is wrong with me if I haven't been taken off the market? Maybe I should go read Proverbs 31 again to figure it out.

"You should move somewhere where there are more young men, or maybe go to a church with more single people." There is some merit to having a community that you can feel comfortable with, but comments like this aren't helpful for several reasons. First, it makes it seem like the goal of going to church or moving somewhere is to find a spouse. That's not why you go to church. Second, it feeds the controlling nature of most women to want to put their matrimonial future into their own hands instead of trusting God. It's a slippery slope that is all too easy to find yourself on. What woman wouldn't want to go to a church filled with thousands of single men just waiting to find a wife? You could just ask them all to fill out applications and have a screening process. It could be the church version of The Dating Game. Third, some women don't have the option of moving, so pointing out to them that there might be "greener pastures" on the other side of the fence doesn't help them be content in their current situation. It can be a daily struggle for some women to be ok with where they are at in life, and indirectly telling them that their life would be better somewhere else doesn't help.

"Have you ever thought about online dating?" Many, many wonderful Christian people have met and married through online dating. It's the wave of the future without a doubt. But it is still something that brings embarrassment to the person. It can sometimes feel like the question is really saying "I see that you've completely failed at attracting anyone in your physical world so have you tried to do it in an online world?" It reminds me of being kicked off the varsity team and ending up on the bench for the JV.

"Don't you want to get married and have children?" This is usually in response to a statement about being content in my current state. Being content is not the same as having no desire for something. Yes, I do want to get married and have children, but there's not a whole lot that I can do about it. I don't have a lot of control over who I come across and whether they would like to ask me out. And although I would like these things, my life is not somehow a failure if I do not achieve them. I would love to be able to have the blessings that come with marriage and children, but it should not be more than my desire to have the blessings of a relationship with Christ.

Single people have a responsibility as well to not be overly sensitive. Singleness can be a deep trial, but making little things into big deals because someone unintentional prodded that hurt isn't the way to go. Single people need to extend grace, knowing that the intentions of people are good and out of their love for them.

These are wise words. I especially appreciate this woman's attitude: understanding that these things are said by people who mean well and acknowledging that over-sensitivity can be a problem too. But it's certainly worthwhile to think about how you and your church could be welcoming and supportive in the best way possible. The letter above will help.

Dude, Where's Your Bride?

As I speak at different venues across the country, one of the recurring questions I get comes from women, young women in particular. Their question usually goes something like this: "What is up with men?"

These aren't angry women. Their question is more plaintive than petulant. I'm not quite sure why they ask me. Maybe because they've read Just Do Something and figure I'll be a sympathetic ear. Or maybe they think I can help. They often follow up their initial question by exhorting me, "Please speak to the men in our generation and tell them to be men."

They're talking about marriage. I have met scores of godly young women nearby and far away who wonder "Where have all the marriageable men gone?" More and more commentators–Christian or otherwise–are noticing a trend in young men; namely, that they don't seem to be growing up. Recently, William Bennett's CNN article "Why Men Are in Trouble" has garnered widespread attention. The point of the post is summarized in the final line: "It's time for men to man up." Sounds almost biblical (1 Corinthians 16:13).

Virtually every single single person I know wants to be married. And yet, it is taking couples longer and longer to get around to marriage. Education patterns have something to do with it. A bad economy doesn't help either. But there is something even more befuddling going on. Go to almost any church and you'll meet mature, intelligent, attractive Christian women who want to get married and virtually no men to pursue them. These women are often in graduate programs and may have started a career already. But they aren't feminists. They are eager to embrace the roles of wife and mother. Most of the women I've met don't object to the being a helpmate. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of mates to go around.

What's going on here? Why are there so many unmarried, college graduated, serious-about-Christ, committed-to-the-church, put-together young women who haven't found a groom, and don't see any possibilities on the horizon?

Maybe women have impossible standards. That is a distinct possibility in some circumstances. I'm sure there are guys reading this thinking to themselves, "I've pursued these young women, Kevin! And they pushed me over the edge of the horizon." Some women may be expecting too much from Mr. Right. But in my experience this is not the main problem. Impossible standards? Not usually. Some standards? Absolutely.

On the other end of the spectrum, some women may be so over-eager to be married they make guys nervous about showing any signs of interest. There is a fine line between anticipation and desperation. Men don't want to spot the girl they like inside David's Bridal after their first date. The guy will panic–and be a little creeped out.

This path of prolonged singleness is a two way street. But I think the problem largely resides with men. Or at least as a guy I can identify the problems of men more quickly. I see two issues.

First, the Christian men that are "good guys" could use a little–what's the word I'm looking for–ambition. Every pastor has railed on video games at some point. But the problem is not really video games, it's what gaming can (but doesn't always) represent. It's the picture of a 20something or 30something guy who doesn't seem to want anything out of life. He may or may not have a job. He may or may not live with his parents. Those things are sometimes out of our control. There's a difference between a down-on-his-luck fella charging hard to make something out of himself and a guy who seems content to watch movies, make enough to eat frozen pizzas in a one room apartment, play Madden, watch football 12 hours on Saturday, show up at church for an hour on Sunday and then go home to watch more football.

I don't think young women are expecting Mr. Right to be a corporate executive with two houses, three cars, and a personality like Dale Carnegie. They just want a guy with some substance. A guy with plans. A guy with some intellectual depth. A guy who can winsomely take initiative and lead a conversation. A guy with consistency. A guy who no longer works at his play and plays with his faith. A guy with a little desire to succeed in life. A guy they can imagine providing for a family, praying with the kids at bedtime, mowing the lawn on Saturday, and being eager to take everyone to church on Sunday. Where are the dudes that will grow into men?

The second issue is that we may simply not have enough men in the church. Maybe the biggest problem isn't with nice Christian guys who lack ambition, maturity, and commitment. Maybe we have lots of these men in the church, but they're all married and there aren't enough of their brethren to go around. I don't know which is the bigger problem, the lack of good men or the lack of men in general. It's probably a combination of both. The church needs to train up the guys it has. And by "training" I don't mean "clean 'em up, plug 'em in the singles ministry and start matching them up with a spouse." I don't believe most unmarried Christians are looking for a church community full of Yentas. But a church full of godly, involved, respectable, respected, grown up men? That's a project worth undertaking.

So, what can be done about the growing tribe of unmarried women? Four things come to mind.

Everyone, pray. Pray for a joyful accepting of God's providential care, believing that godliness with contentment is great gain.  If you are single, pray more for the sort of spouse you should be than for the sort of spouse you want. Pray also for the married couples and families in your church. If you are married, pray for the single people in your church, for those never married and those divorced or widowed. All people everywhere, pray for ways to start serving the Lord now, no matter what stage of life you are in or wish you were in.

Women, don't settle and don't ever compromise on requiring solid Christian commitment in a husband, but make sure your list of non-negotiables doesn't effectively exclude everyone outside of Mr. Darcy.

Churches, don't make church one giant man cave or machismo, but think about whether your church has been unnecessarily emasculated. Do you challenge and exhort? Do you sing songs to Jesus that men can sing with a straight face? Does "fellowship" at your church always focus on activities men don't typically excel at, like sitting around and talking about how you feel? Does your church specifically target the discipling of men–particularly young men in high school and college? Grab them young and get them growing up in their teens instead of their twenties.

Men, you don't have to be rich and you don't have to climb corporate ladders. You don't have to fix cars and grow a beard. But it's time to take a little initiative–in the church, with your career, and with women. Stop circling around and start going somewhere. It's probably a good idea to be more like your grandpa and less like Captain Jack Sparrow. Even less like Peter Pan. Show some godly ambition. Take some risks. Stop looking for play dates and–unless God is calling you to greater service through singleness–start looking for a wife.

Happy Palindrome Day

11/1/11 was cool. 11/11/11 will be another fine event. But today may be the best palindrome day of the month.

Happy November 2, 2011 (11/02/2011) everybody.

Or as the cool kids say: 11022011.

Today is one of only 12 eight-digit palindrome dates this century. It's also the product of 1001 x 11 x 1001, another palindrome. Pretty sweet. 11/1/11 and 11/11/11 won't appear for another century. But 11022011 won't appear for another 20,000 years, not until January 10, 22011. So make sure today is an extra special day for you and yours.

What Hath Westminster to Do With Wall Street (And Its Occupiers)?

[image error]The Westminster Larger Catechism was composed three and a half centuries ago. And yet it continues to speak the truth on economic matters to those who have ears to hear it.

To those those engaged in business, to those with wealth, to those who deal with commerce and trade, to Wall Street "fat cats," Westminster has this to say:

God call you "by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own." (WLC 141). You must look out for more than just yourself.
You must abstain from: "theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury [e.g., loan-sharks], bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust enclosures and depredation; 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" (WLC 142). Cheating others is always wrong, even when it may be legal.
You ought never to be engaged in defrauding the weak, but instead should be "comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent" (WLC 135). Look at the aged, the ignorant, and the disadvantaged as objects of special pity not as opportunities for special profits.

In short, the Westminster Divines would have you be honest and just in all your dealings and look out work for the well being of others, not just your own.

And to those engaged in protest, to those angry with the "haves" in our society, to the disaffected Americans occupying Wall Street and the young people occupying cities everywhere in the world, Westminster has this to say:

God call us "by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own" (WLC 141). It is no sin to further one's wealth by just and lawful means.
You must abstain from: "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 hath given us" (WLC 142). Laziness, envy, and licentiousness are sins just as much as greed and oppression.
God also prohibits "speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, talebearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God" (WLC 145). Make sure your words are accurate, fair, and do not assume the worst about those you dislike. Bankers are made in the image of God too.

Praise God for the Ten Commandments and the church's catechisms which expound them. It's amazing how the truth always manages to be relevant.

One More Reason the Reformation Still Isn't Over

[image error]Forty-eight rubies, seventy-two sapphires, forty-five emeralds, sixty-six large pearls–according to reports, this was the papal crown that Pope Boniface the VIII wore on his head.  It was the start of the 14th century and the (earthly) power of the church and the pope were at its height.  In 1300, Boniface proclaimed a Holy Year, a Jubilee.  The Pope offered a plenary indulgence–a full pardon for sins–for all who made the pilgrimage to the churches of St. Peter or St. Paul in Rome.  The Jubilee was a huge commercial success.

But all was not well in the Empire.  King Edward I of England and Philip IV of France were at odds with one another over a land dispute.  To finance their war efforts, both kings considered taxing the clergy within their kingdoms.  In the pope's mind, however, only the church could tax the clergy.  Philip persisted that he had the authority to tax Boniface's church.  The pope replied, in 1302, by issuing the papal bull Unam Sanctam.  The word "bull" comes from the Latin word bulla which referred to the boiled seal that would be placed on official papal documents.  Papal bull's are always titled by the first words of the document.  This one was called Unam Sanctam ("The One Holy") as in "the only holy catholic church."  Unam Sanctam represented the farthest reaching power the Pope has ever claimed for the church.

Although Catholic historians and theologians debate the continuing significance of certain portions of the bull (especially the part about the church wielding the physical sword and temporal authority being subject to spiritual authority), there is no doubt that Unam Sanctam sowed the seeds for a Reformation revolt two centuries later. Anyone wanting to protect the final authority of the Bible and wary of entrusting absolute authority in any human office or human institution will want to protest the claim made in Unam Sanctam:

For this [spiritual] authority, although given to a man and exercised by a man, is not human, but rather divine, given at God's mouth to Peter and established on a rock for him and his successors in Him whom he confessed. . . .Whoever therefore resists this power thus ordained of God, resists the ordinance of God. . . .Furthermore, we declare, state, and define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.

Our baptismal liturgy in the RCA has the minister baptize "in the name of Jesus Christ, the only King and Head of his Church." I love that line, not least of all because it rightly professes that there is only one head of Christ's Church. There are many shepherds, but only one papa (the Latin word from which pope is derived). The church's authority is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and her servants wield apostolic authority only in so far as they remain true to the apostolic deposit. God rules by his word and where that word is compromised or denied, obedience is not only not required, it must not be given.

While we can affirm many things about each other and enjoy warm relationships with those on the other side of the Protestant-Catholic divide, the deepest cleavage still remains. The Reformation happened, and continues to this day, because millions of Christians like me believe sola scriptura not Unam Sanctam.