Can Christians Charge Interest?

Deuteronomy 23:19-20 says, "You shall not charge interest on loans to another Israelite, interest on money, interest on provisions, interest on anything that is lent. On loans to a foreigner you may charge interest, but on loans to another Israelite you may not charge interest, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you are about to enter and possess."

For the Christians this could be understood as something which could be practised outside, but not inside, if not for what Jesus says in Luke 6:34-35, " If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return."

Since the OT permits Jews to charge interest from the foreigners, non-Jews, this explains why Jews were moneylenders in older times. Early Christians, however, following the teaching of Jesus generally did not endorse charging interest. Things changed centuries later as many Christians came to understand that charging interest was okay as long as exploitative interest rates would not be charged. But how much interest rate is exploitative? In Senapati district, 48% per annum is charged from loan given by Society; and 60% from those given by individuals. In emergency situation, it goes up to 120% to 180%  per annuam. I believe such interest rates are just too high, and they are exploitative in nature. I am not sure if charging interest rate is right or not, but even if it is right it should not go beyond 2.5% per month or 30% per annum, the rate set for the micro-finance companies in the country.

Can We Have Woman as a Deacon?

In the last chapter of the letter to the Romans, Paul sent his greetings to various people in Rome. As he was finishing his letter, he commended Phoebe who traveling to Rome and was probably carrying the letter to the Romans. Paul described Phoebe as a deaconess (Gk. diokonos) in Cenchreae, a port city of Corinth, and a person who has been a 'helper' (Gk. Prostatis; patron ) of many people. As a patron she would own the home in which the church met and hold position of honour too.

Paul also lists two fellow-apostles, Andronicus and Junia. And this Junia was a woman as her name indicates. Earliest commentator like John Chrysostom in 4^th century understood this person to be a woman. And tradition says that she was one of those 70 sent out Jesus Christ as found in Luke 10.

Paul also underlines two women, Euodia and Synthyche, in Phil 4:2-3 as true yokefellow. These women have loboured side by side with Paul like his male labourer Clement. Since Macedonia was historically more progressive in allowing women to take prominent religious roles, it would have been relatively easier for Paul's women colleagues to take such prominent role.

If women were allowed such prominent roles in the early church as recorded in the Bible, there is no reason why we should be closed to women's participation in the leadership role in our 21^st churches. Like those earlier days we should be willing to work side by side in His vineyard.

The Myth About 'Evil-Eye'

“Hraomai” as it is called in my Poumai Naga dialect can best be translated as 'evil-eye'. It is a common belief that if a person from such a family of 'evil-eye' casts a spell in the form of a compliment or something of that sort, the person upon whom the cast is spelled will fall sick. And in certain cases the so called victim (let me put it that way) would even die. One of my older brothers was considered to have been 'attacked' when he was 2 by a person with such 'accursed power' that he remained physically and mentally challenged even when he died at the age of 32. So if there is such a thing as 'evil-eye' I have strong reason to be angry with such people for bringing such hardship and suffering in the life of my parents and their children specially my brother who was the 'victim'.

I learnt that there is a slight variation between different communities about how 'evil-eye' works and how it is transmitted across generations. In the community I come from, it is believed that the 'power/curse' is transmitted from parents to children. And suppose a 'clean' person marries such 'unclean' people, then both of them eventually become 'unclean', and their children will also become 'unclean'. The implication of such belief is that 'clean' people avoid marrying such 'unclean' people. And eventually a kind of caste system prevails in the community. One group is considered clean and the other as unclean!

I have now come to believe that this story that some people possess power to cast spell on others is a myth. If a word or a speech can cast a spell that could make another person sick, how could that power be transmitted from the DNA of parents to the children's? But if it is transmitted from parents to children like sickle-cell anaemia or haemophilia is transmitted then how could it possibly give power to a person to cast a spell on another person? It does not make sense scientifically. Here someone would counter saying that it is the power of the evil spirit that make things possible. For the sake of argument let us grant that this is possible. But if it is the evil spirit that works then how could it possibly be transmitted from parents to children? The power of the evil spirit cannot be transmitted from parents' DNA to children's DNA. And if it is the power of the evil spirit, then how could the 'curse/power' infects those who confess and believe Jesus Christ as Lord and God? So the whole argument does not make sense. But if anyone invites the evil spirit and asks power from the evil one, then of course the issue is different! But as far as I know there is no one in the community who does that.

I believe the traditional story has been passed on from one generation to another. And even today the same story continues about those people about whom the story has been told. And because we typecast such people, we find allege incidents of such people having cast spell on someone. And in a close knit societies like ours where interaction between members of the community is extremely frequent such 'unclean' people interacting with other members is bound to happen, and when some sickness occurs we just attribute it to such 'unclean' people. And so this story continues in the neibourhood.

The story is passed on among the 'clean' people. But because telling the 'unclean' people in person that you are unclean will make the society unlivable, the story remains an open secret. There are stories: an 'unclean' people felt that strong urge to cast a spell on someone yet because he remained indoor the whole day he avoided harming anyone... but because the urge was so strong and he had to wrestle with the urge, the house was as if a tornado had just passed through; such 'unclean' people are able to see through the intestine and other organs of a person; such people, however, cannot cast spell on their enemy and they 'attack' only whom they don't hate, etc. Since these are all stories that cannot be verified because the 'unwritten law' prohibits one to openly discuss name or talk about such people, even if I consider them as myth I cannot prove such stories as unathentic nor could anyone prove the stories to be true. So if there is anyone out there who is a member of such family whom others consider them to be 'unclean', please write to me and provide comment about such stories. I shall not disclose names, but I wish to continue to write and discredit such stories as myths. My id is jeremiahduomai(at)gmail.com.

And those who are consider themselves clean, why do you believe that anyone could have such power to cast a spell? Comments from other communities would also be appreciated.

Does the Bible Endorse Homosexual Practice?

In the biblical narrative, after male and female were created, one of the things God told them was to multiply and increase in number. And so in the Bible, one of the purposes of marriage is procreation. Since two men or two women coming together in marriage will not necessarily result in procreation, homosexual partners coming together in marriage cannot remain true to what the Bible teaches. So there is one reason against homosexual practice for those people who consider Bible to be the final authority for their faith and conduct.

But how about just two homosexual partners coming together for mutual pleasure if homosexual marriage is against biblical teaching? Would the Bible be against such act? The Bible in the book of Romans consider sexual relations between males or between females to be unnatural. So what is natural sexual relation is one man and one woman within the context of marriage. The Bible did not say whether it was against  male/female prostitute practicing such sexual act or whether it was against casual homosexual conduct between two willing partners. It considers homosexual practice in general to be unnatural, and therefore goes against God's design. So again we have here another reason against homosexual practice. 

I don't believe that our conduct is driven by our gene. I don't believe that gay gene is there at all. But even if it is there, I don't believe that our behavior is determined by our gene, and the person is not responsible for his or her conduct. I do think that homosexual relationship is primarily a matter of choice. Humans just don't dance to the tune of DNA/gene, but it's the choice we make that is finally reflected in our conduct. As a Christian believer, therefore, I believe homosexual behavior is some conduct we cannot accept within the church. 

This does not mean I should hate them. Just as much as God loves all people, followers of Jesus must love all people.

Defect in Immanuel Kant's idea of Rights

There is a tendency to attribute so much of importance to Kant's contribution to the idea of universal human right. No doubt Kant did contribute to the idea of human right, but I do think there is an history that goes beyond Kant why the concept of universal human right so emerged. I shall, however, not delve into that part for now. Kant believes that every human person is worthy of respect. His idea of worth of a person is derived from the fact that we human are rational beings. 

Jeremy Bentham argued that pleasure and pain are our sovereign masters. And so in Bentham's moral philosophy, what ought to be done is governed by this preference for pleasure and our dislike for pain. Bentham thus considered the idea of natural right as 'nonsense upon stilts'. Kant disagreed. Kant argued that we like pleasure and dislike pain, yet we are also governed by reason.And this capacity to reason gives an individual that worth, and so the right. Kant's ground for right thus is grounded on individual's capacity to reason.

But is Kant's idea well grounded for human right? I don't think so. If an individual's worth is based on her rational faculty then those individual's whose minds are blank have to be considered as devoid of any worth. This would leave out children who are not yet able to think rationally think or those aged human persons whose mind is now vegetable or even those who are in coma. Kant did give so much of respect for a human person. He went to the extent of arguing that we are to treat human person as end in themselves, and never as a mean to some end. However, had he provided a more sturdy grounding for the worth of a human person that can include all human beings, his overall argument about the idea of right would have gained more coherency. 

Junia or Junias?

(This is a post that I have lifted from Scot McKnight's previous blog. Scot's present blog -- Jesus Creed-- is listed in my blog list)

If you’ve got a Bible close at hand, open it up to Romans 16:7. Herein lies a tale I want to tell you. And I begin by quoting the NIV, then the NASB and then the NLT:

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with
me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ
before I was.
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who
are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Then there are Andronicus and Junia, my relatives, who were in prison with me. They are respected among the apostles and
became Christians before I did. Please give them my greetings.

There’s a little trickiness in Greek here, but you’ll have to take my word for it that the best scholarship — and nearly all of it — thinks Junias (male name) was originally Junia (female name), and the earliest Greek-reading commentator here was John Chrysostom and it was clear as a bell for him: Junia was a woman, and a woman who was called an apostle.But there was a persistent (and at times pernicious) logic sometimes at work that went like this: women can’t be apostles so, therefore, Junia (woman) was really Junias (man). This logic impacted what was printed in Greek New Testaments.

Here’s the story you need to know: the Greek New Testaments — the ones your pastor may well have studied in seminary and then studied from in his/her office — of the 20th Century began with Junia and then shifted to Junias and have only of late recovered the original text as speaking of a woman. What I also want you to know is that most readers of the Greek New Testament rely on the decisions of the textual critics who determine what goes in the text (Junias or Junia?) and what goes in the footnotes (Junia or Junias?). It makes a difference. Correct that: It can make a huge difference. Here’s what happened.

Early in the 20th Century some churches started ordaining women, and they had support in Romans 16:7 because it read “Junia” (female). The standard Greek NTs used then were the German-produced Nestle text (editions 1 through 12) and the English-produced British and Foreign Bible Society (from 1904-1958).

But, in 1927 Nestle’s 13th edition changed from Junia (woman) to Junias (man). In Nestle 13 the footnote said some other Greek NTs had “Junia.” So “Junias” was in the text and our female friend Junia in the footnote until 1979 when Junia disappeared even from the footnotes. That meant that pastors were trained from then on with a Greek text that didn’t even let the reader decide if the reading was “Junias” or “Junia.”

In 1958 the British and Foreign Bible Society Greek NT changed “Junia” to “Junias,” following in line with Nestle. They put the woman in a footnote and most simply trusted the critics who said that apostle was a man, not a woman. 

Now a third Greek NT becomes well-known, the United Bible Societies’ text and from UBS 1 to UBS 3d edition Romans 16:7 read “Junias.” Oddly enough, and blatantly wrong-headed, the UBS text rated “Junias” (a man) as a “certain reading.” Only in 1993 did UBS admit that “Junia” might be a reading.

In 1998 Nestle’s 27th edition lifted poor “Junia” from the footnotes into the text itself; in 1998 the UBS 4th edition did the same. Now the Nestle-Aland 27th edition doesn’t even mention “Junias” in the footnotes.

This once gifted woman, Junia, because she was a woman — and because women can’t be apostles by definition (so it was assumed) — was removed from the text and hidden in a footnote and then she disappeared altogether. But, thanks to folks like Eldon Epp and others, Junia has returned to the fold, Junias has returned to his own non-existence, and we’ve got once again a woman whom Paul considered an apostle.

This story is best studied in Eldon Epp’s technical book Junias but if you’d like a short story, one on which I relied for this day, you can read two quick pages in R.R. Schulz, “Twentieth-Century Corruption of Scripture,” in a journal called The Expository Times 119 (2008) 270-271 (the whole article is 270-274). Yes, there is some dispute; there were no accents in the original texts, but there is now a consensus that “Iounian” was a woman.