Farewell, MCUSA

[Neto]

Surveys point that [being a consumer and not a contributor] is quite common for those who haven't returned to their local church. They can 'do church' as a consumer with far more options to pick from over the TV and Internet. Many people came to realize during this pandemic when they couldn't go to church that they were a consumer and not a contributor.

My guess is that there will be those who leave the MCUSA because they were consumers only and likely will not go looking for another place to be a consumer with the access we have today to stay at home and be consumers only.

Consumers soon become the consumed - consumed with self. (Just my opinion.) I cannot do w/o Sunday School, or some sort of interaction, learning from discussion and fellowship with others. We DID avoid attending in person for a large part of the lock-down period, mainly due to the fact that our son was going through treatment for Leukemia at the same time, but it was rough to do w/o the in-person fellowship, and I was never tempted to continue just staying at home.

[Ken]

I appreciate your honesty and openness, but there is much here I disagree with, yet it is way off topic so I will leave it with that.

How is this off topic? This thread is exactly about the policy of MCUSA towards LGBT members which is exactly what I am talking about in this post.

I’m not attending a MCUSA church anymore so I don’t know exactly what they are doing. And I expect each church is different. But if they are pride weeks and celebrating sexuality in church I think that is over the top and not the role of church. But neither do I think being gay is a reason to be excluded or excommunicated.

We can quibble over terminology but 'being gay' is not the same thing as engaging in gay sex. I can't speak for the CA's here but my congregation would have no problem including in membership and communicating with (in the theological sense) gay folk that are celibate. Indeed, that's been the posture of MCUSA for its entire existence as far as I can tell. What's been pushed by Pink Menno, Young Anabaptist Radicals and others like SZD's friends is that there is nothing wrong with gay monogamous, romantic, sexual relationships. That's what we in the conservative camp see as a normalization and celebration of sin. Inasmuch as we haven't been the one pushing this envelope, rather the drive for change has come from Pink Menno and others, its intellectually dishonest to suggest that Jesus is saddened by us 'splitting the Church' over such a 'non-issue'.

Yea, I’m not part of Pink Menno or Young Anabaptist Radicals or whatever. I’m just giving my opinion. I tend not to want to hear about your sexuality or sexual practices whether you are gay or straight. But I think you are also not being honest with the “it’s not being gay, it’s the gay sex” stance. Would your church do a gay marriage or accommodate a married couple that was two middle aged women who said they were gay but celibate? I doubt it. But that’s actually been happening forever. I had two elderly unmarried aunts who have since passed and who lived alone or shared their homes with other single women. Were they gay? I have no idea but probably. Back then no one asked and it just wasn’t talked about. And what they did or didn’t do in the bedroom is not my business any more than it is for any straight person or straight couple. In the grand scheme of human interactions and categories of sin it isn’t something that rises to the the top of my list or even into the top half. Or even if it is sin. The Bible has over 3/4 of a million words. A very very tiny fraction are devoted to this topic and mostly in the context of men (straight or gay) buggering boys for sport as was apparently a common Roman and ancient practice. And none at all in the context of gay couples living faithful lives with each other. I think Jesus was much more concerned about how we treat each other frankly.

[temporal1]

HK:
.. it’s intellectually dishonest to suggest that Jesus is saddened by us 'splitting the Church' over such a 'non-issue'.

intellectually dishonest, and possibly grossly ignorant.
Jesus’ church won’t be split, no matter what carrying-on happens on earth.

Matthew 24:43
https://biblehub.com/matthew/24-40.htm

39And they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away.
So will it be at the coming of the Son of Man.

40 Two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left.
41Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left.…

42Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day on which your Lord will come.

43But understand this:
If the homeowner had known in which watch of the night the thief was coming,

he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into.…

[HondurasKeiser]

How is this off topic? This thread is exactly about the policy of MCUSA towards LGBT members which is exactly what I am talking about in this post.

I’m not attending a MCUSA church anymore so I don’t know exactly what they are doing. And I expect each church is different. But if they are pride weeks and celebrating sexuality in church I think that is over the top and not the role of church. But neither do I think being gay is a reason to be excluded or excommunicated.

We can quibble over terminology but 'being gay' is not the same thing as engaging in gay sex. I can't speak for the CA's here but my congregation would have no problem including in membership and communicating with (in the theological sense) gay folk that are celibate. Indeed, that's been the posture of MCUSA for its entire existence as far as I can tell. What's been pushed by Pink Menno, Young Anabaptist Radicals and others like SZD's friends is that there is nothing wrong with gay monogamous, romantic, sexual relationships. That's what we in the conservative camp see as a normalization and celebration of sin. Inasmuch as we haven't been the one pushing this envelope, rather the drive for change has come from Pink Menno and others, its intellectually dishonest to suggest that Jesus is saddened by us 'splitting the Church' over such a 'non-issue'.

Yea, I’m not part of Pink Menno or Young Anabaptist Radicals or whatever. I’m just giving my opinion. I tend not to want to hear about your sexuality or sexual practices whether you are gay or straight. But I think you are also not being honest with the “it’s not being gay, it’s the gay sex” stance. Would your church do a gay marriage or accommodate a married couple that was two middle aged women who said they were gay but celibate? I doubt it. But that’s actually been happening forever. I had two elderly unmarried aunts who have since passed and who lived alone or shared their homes with other single women. Were they gay? I have no idea but probably. Back then no one asked and it just wasn’t talked about. And what they did or didn’t do in the bedroom is not my business any more than it is for any straight person or straight couple. In the grand scheme of human interactions and categories of sin it isn’t something that rises to the the top of my list or even into the top half. Or even if it is sin. The Bible has over 3/4 of a million words. A very very tiny fraction are devoted to this topic and mostly in the context of men (straight or gay) buggering boys for sport as was apparently a common Roman and ancient practice. And none at all in the context of gay couples living faithful lives with each other. I think Jesus was much more concerned about how we treat each other frankly.

Ken it seems that from across the ether that you're not approaching this conversation with honesty (incidentally, I believe that I am). You know perfectly well that:
1. Marriage implies a union of souls and bodies and thus there is ipso facto a sexual relationship in the marriage relationship. That for orthodox Christianity, a.) marriage is not just the only appropriate place for sex but also b.) a marriage without a sexual relationship is disordered and unconsummated.
2. Your Aunts and their close friends may or may not have been lesbians and even in that, may or may not have engaged in sexual relationships. If they did, that's between them and God. THE reason no one asked and no one talked about it, much less peered into their bedrooms; is because your Aunts, bless them, never asked the Church to change its historic teaching, call sin good and marry them. Can you see the difference?
4. Why this intense focus on the 'how many times the Bible mentions, Jesus mentions, something mentions....X"? How many times does Jesus mention arson or spousal abuse or organ trafficking or slavery? It's not necessary for Jesus to give an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts because he's not overturning the Law/Prophets - He IS the Law and the Truth and that which the prophets prophesied about. It's enough that gay sex is listed as an abomination in the OT just once, or that a positive vision for marriage as the union between a man and a woman is elucidated just once for it to be normative in our lives and carry with it the weight and authority of Jesus our Lord.
3. It's interesting, your selected use of Jesus there at the end, in your effort to baptize your 'live and let live approach' to what the Bible calls an abomination. How did Jesus 'treat' the money-changers at the Temple? How did Jesus treat the leaders of synagogues? How does Jesus talk about sin? How does he talk about the Law? Jesus is not a bobble-head that just nods along and affirms our desires. He calls us to repent of sin, all sin, and to follow Him. We do not do it perfectly but within the Church our role is to help each other to strive towards just that. Turning a blind eye to sin, or celebrating sin, or hemming and hawing about 'maybe it's fine here but not there because who am I to judge and after all aren't some people greedy too?' is not loving or 'treating people like Jesus did' - It's indifference.

[Ken]

We can quibble over terminology but 'being gay' is not the same thing as engaging in gay sex. I can't speak for the CA's here but my congregation would have no problem including in membership and communicating with (in the theological sense) gay folk that are celibate. Indeed, that's been the posture of MCUSA for its entire existence as far as I can tell. What's been pushed by Pink Menno, Young Anabaptist Radicals and others like SZD's friends is that there is nothing wrong with gay monogamous, romantic, sexual relationships. That's what we in the conservative camp see as a normalization and celebration of sin. Inasmuch as we haven't been the one pushing this envelope, rather the drive for change has come from Pink Menno and others, its intellectually dishonest to suggest that Jesus is saddened by us 'splitting the Church' over such a 'non-issue'.

Yea, I’m not part of Pink Menno or Young Anabaptist Radicals or whatever. I’m just giving my opinion. I tend not to want to hear about your sexuality or sexual practices whether you are gay or straight. But I think you are also not being honest with the “it’s not being gay, it’s the gay sex” stance. Would your church do a gay marriage or accommodate a married couple that was two middle aged women who said they were gay but celibate? I doubt it. But that’s actually been happening forever. I had two elderly unmarried aunts who have since passed and who lived alone or shared their homes with other single women. Were they gay? I have no idea but probably. Back then no one asked and it just wasn’t talked about. And what they did or didn’t do in the bedroom is not my business any more than it is for any straight person or straight couple. In the grand scheme of human interactions and categories of sin it isn’t something that rises to the the top of my list or even into the top half. Or even if it is sin. The Bible has over 3/4 of a million words. A very very tiny fraction are devoted to this topic and mostly in the context of men (straight or gay) buggering boys for sport as was apparently a common Roman and ancient practice. And none at all in the context of gay couples living faithful lives with each other. I think Jesus was much more concerned about how we treat each other frankly.

Ken it seems that from across the ether that you're not approaching this conversation with honesty (incidentally, I believe that I am). You know perfectly well that:
1. Marriage implies a union of souls and bodies and thus there is ipso facto a sexual relationship in the marriage relationship. That for orthodox Christianity, a.) marriage is not just the only appropriate place for sex but also b.) a marriage without a sexual relationship is disordered and unconsummated.
2. Your Aunts and their close friends may or may not have been lesbians and even in that, may or may not have engaged in sexual relationships. If they did, that's between them and God. THE reason no one asked and no one talked about it, much less peered into their bedrooms; is because your Aunts, bless them, never asked the Church to change its historic teaching, call sin good and marry them. Can you see the difference?
4. Why this intense focus on the 'how many times the Bible mentions, Jesus mentions, something mentions....X"? How many times does Jesus mention arson or spousal abuse or organ trafficking or slavery? It's not necessary for Jesus to give an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts because he's not overturning the Law/Prophets - He IS the Law and the Truth and that which the prophets prophesied about. It's enough that gay sex is listed as an abomination in the OT just once, or that a positive vision for marriage as the between a man and a woman is listed elucidated just once for it to be normative in our lives and carry with it the weight and authority of Jesus our Lord.
3. It's interesting, your selected use of Jesus there at the end, in your effort to baptize your 'live and let live approach' to what the Bible calls an abomination. How did Jesus 'treat' the money-changers at the Temple? How did Jesus treat the leaders of synagogues? How does Jesus talk about sin? How does he talk about the Law? Jesus is not a bobble-head that just nods along and affirms our desires. He calls us to repent of sin, all sin, and to follow Him. We do not do it perfectly but within the Church our role is to help each other to strive towards just that. Turning a blind eye to sin, or celebrating sin, or hemming and hawing about 'maybe it's fine here but not there because who am I to judge and after all aren't some people greedy too?' is not loving or 'treating people like Jesus did' - It's indifference.

Let me just give one final summary and then we can agree to disagree.

I think some gay sex and gay relationships are sinful and some are not. Likewise I think some straight sex and straight relationships are sinful and some are not. I got married relatively late in life (my late 30s) and I have plenty of unmarried friends and acquaintances gay and straight. As a married person I’m not willing to lecture them about living like a Carthusian monk or cloistered nun because they are unmarried. I think Christianity is more about how we treat each others rather than about depriving ourselves of normal human experiences whether they be intimacy or any other human experience such as music (another thread here) or anything else. So I’m not particularly concerned with adults being intimate with each other whether they are gay or straight. As long as they are treating each other well and with love in the broad sense of the word, and not being abusive or manipulative or obsessive/addictive. I draw an absolute bright line when it comes to adults messing around with kids (gay or straight) and kids being intimate with each other gay or straight.

When it comes to church I think we should be holding both gay and straight kids to the same standards of behavior. Both gay and straight single adults to the same standards of behavior. And both gay and straight married couples to the same standards of behavior. I don’t think we come remotely close to doing that. But I also don’t think all this business of “affirming” sexuality is really the business of church either. So I don’t have all the answers. But I doubt anyone else does either.

[Bootstrap]

Delegates repeal Membership Guidelines, pass LGBTQ-affirming resolution
‘Repentance and Transformation’ passes with 55.7% support

This is unsurprising and terribly sad for me.

Sad for me too. The article doesn't point to the resolution itself, here it is:

https://www.mennoniteusa.org/wp-content ... ev-2.0.pdf

It seems to say anyone who believes the traditional interpretation of the Bible and wants to obey it is sinful and at odds with Jesus and needs to repent. That people like me are rejecting the Good News of "grace, joy, and peace".

This goes beyond what I have seen in other denominations that changed their beliefs. It seems to stomp on those who disagree with them. It seems to say that people like me are the real sinners.

[GaryK]

Yea, I’m not part of Pink Menno or Young Anabaptist Radicals or whatever. I’m just giving my opinion. I tend not to want to hear about your sexuality or sexual practices whether you are gay or straight. But I think you are also not being honest with the “it’s not being gay, it’s the gay sex” stance. Would your church do a gay marriage or accommodate a married couple that was two middle aged women who said they were gay but celibate? I doubt it. But that’s actually been happening forever. I had two elderly unmarried aunts who have since passed and who lived alone or shared their homes with other single women. Were they gay? I have no idea but probably. Back then no one asked and it just wasn’t talked about. And what they did or didn’t do in the bedroom is not my business any more than it is for any straight person or straight couple. In the grand scheme of human interactions and categories of sin it isn’t something that rises to the the top of my list or even into the top half. Or even if it is sin. The Bible has over 3/4 of a million words. A very very tiny fraction are devoted to this topic and mostly in the context of men (straight or gay) buggering boys for sport as was apparently a common Roman and ancient practice. And none at all in the context of gay couples living faithful lives with each other. I think Jesus was much more concerned about how we treat each other frankly.

Ken it seems that from across the ether that you're not approaching this conversation with honesty (incidentally, I believe that I am). You know perfectly well that:
1. Marriage implies a union of souls and bodies and thus there is ipso facto a sexual relationship in the marriage relationship. That for orthodox Christianity, a.) marriage is not just the only appropriate place for sex but also b.) a marriage without a sexual relationship is disordered and unconsummated.
2. Your Aunts and their close friends may or may not have been lesbians and even in that, may or may not have engaged in sexual relationships. If they did, that's between them and God. THE reason no one asked and no one talked about it, much less peered into their bedrooms; is because your Aunts, bless them, never asked the Church to change its historic teaching, call sin good and marry them. Can you see the difference?
4. Why this intense focus on the 'how many times the Bible mentions, Jesus mentions, something mentions....X"? How many times does Jesus mention arson or spousal abuse or organ trafficking or slavery? It's not necessary for Jesus to give an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts because he's not overturning the Law/Prophets - He IS the Law and the Truth and that which the prophets prophesied about. It's enough that gay sex is listed as an abomination in the OT just once, or that a positive vision for marriage as the between a man and a woman is listed elucidated just once for it to be normative in our lives and carry with it the weight and authority of Jesus our Lord.
3. It's interesting, your selected use of Jesus there at the end, in your effort to baptize your 'live and let live approach' to what the Bible calls an abomination. How did Jesus 'treat' the money-changers at the Temple? How did Jesus treat the leaders of synagogues? How does Jesus talk about sin? How does he talk about the Law? Jesus is not a bobble-head that just nods along and affirms our desires. He calls us to repent of sin, all sin, and to follow Him. We do not do it perfectly but within the Church our role is to help each other to strive towards just that. Turning a blind eye to sin, or celebrating sin, or hemming and hawing about 'maybe it's fine here but not there because who am I to judge and after all aren't some people greedy too?' is not loving or 'treating people like Jesus did' - It's indifference.

Let me just give one final summary and then we can agree to disagree.

I think some gay sex and gay relationships are sinful and some are not. Likewise I think some straight sex and straight relationships are sinful and some are not. I got married relatively late in life (my late 30s) and I have plenty of unmarried friends and acquaintances gay and straight. As a married person I’m not willing to lecture them about living like a Carthusian monk or cloistered nun because they are unmarried. I think Christianity is more about how we treat each others rather than about depriving ourselves of normal human experiences whether they be intimacy or any other human experience such as music (another thread here) or anything else. So I’m not particularly concerned with adults being intimate with each other whether they are gay or straight. As long as they are treating each other well and with love in the broad sense of the word, and not being abusive or manipulative or obsessive/addictive. I draw an absolute bright line when it comes to adults messing around with kids (gay or straight) and kids being intimate with each other gay or straight.

When it comes to church I think we should be holding both gay and straight kids to the same standards of behavior. Both gay and straight single adults to the same standards of behavior. And both gay and straight married couples to the same standards of behavior. I don’t think we come remotely close to doing that. But I also don’t think all this business of “affirming” sexuality is really the business of church either. So I don’t have all the answers. But I doubt anyone else does either.

I'm genuinely curious what standard you use to determine what gay sex is sinful and which gay relationships are sinful?

[Ken]

Ken it seems that from across the ether that you're not approaching this conversation with honesty (incidentally, I believe that I am). You know perfectly well that:
1. Marriage implies a union of souls and bodies and thus there is ipso facto a sexual relationship in the marriage relationship. That for orthodox Christianity, a.) marriage is not just the only appropriate place for sex but also b.) a marriage without a sexual relationship is disordered and unconsummated.
2. Your Aunts and their close friends may or may not have been lesbians and even in that, may or may not have engaged in sexual relationships. If they did, that's between them and God. THE reason no one asked and no one talked about it, much less peered into their bedrooms; is because your Aunts, bless them, never asked the Church to change its historic teaching, call sin good and marry them. Can you see the difference?
4. Why this intense focus on the 'how many times the Bible mentions, Jesus mentions, something mentions....X"? How many times does Jesus mention arson or spousal abuse or organ trafficking or slavery? It's not necessary for Jesus to give an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts because he's not overturning the Law/Prophets - He IS the Law and the Truth and that which the prophets prophesied about. It's enough that gay sex is listed as an abomination in the OT just once, or that a positive vision for marriage as the between a man and a woman is listed elucidated just once for it to be normative in our lives and carry with it the weight and authority of Jesus our Lord.
3. It's interesting, your selected use of Jesus there at the end, in your effort to baptize your 'live and let live approach' to what the Bible calls an abomination. How did Jesus 'treat' the money-changers at the Temple? How did Jesus treat the leaders of synagogues? How does Jesus talk about sin? How does he talk about the Law? Jesus is not a bobble-head that just nods along and affirms our desires. He calls us to repent of sin, all sin, and to follow Him. We do not do it perfectly but within the Church our role is to help each other to strive towards just that. Turning a blind eye to sin, or celebrating sin, or hemming and hawing about 'maybe it's fine here but not there because who am I to judge and after all aren't some people greedy too?' is not loving or 'treating people like Jesus did' - It's indifference.

Let me just give one final summary and then we can agree to disagree.

I think some gay sex and gay relationships are sinful and some are not. Likewise I think some straight sex and straight relationships are sinful and some are not. I got married relatively late in life (my late 30s) and I have plenty of unmarried friends and acquaintances gay and straight. As a married person I’m not willing to lecture them about living like a Carthusian monk or cloistered nun because they are unmarried. I think Christianity is more about how we treat each others rather than about depriving ourselves of normal human experiences whether they be intimacy or any other human experience such as music (another thread here) or anything else. So I’m not particularly concerned with adults being intimate with each other whether they are gay or straight. As long as they are treating each other well and with love in the broad sense of the word, and not being abusive or manipulative or obsessive/addictive. I draw an absolute bright line when it comes to adults messing around with kids (gay or straight) and kids being intimate with each other gay or straight.

When it comes to church I think we should be holding both gay and straight kids to the same standards of behavior. Both gay and straight single adults to the same standards of behavior. And both gay and straight married couples to the same standards of behavior. I don’t think we come remotely close to doing that. But I also don’t think all this business of “affirming” sexuality is really the business of church either. So I don’t have all the answers. But I doubt anyone else does either.

I'm genuinely curious what standard you use to determine what gay sex is sinful and which gay relationships are sinful?

I would use the same exact standards as for straight sex and straight relationships. If they are abusive, obsessive/addictive, casual, unfaithful, strictly physical, or between or with minors I would call them sinful. If they are between mature, committed, faithful and loving people I’m unwilling to say they are sinful. Whether or not they have an actual marriage license from the state. It is like anything else in life. Like the upstream discussion about greed. Life is not black and white, we live in shades of gray and context is important. More important is how we treat each other.

I realize that is a minority view here and so be it. I think God wants me to focus on my own weaknesses rather than obsessing about the sins or possible sins of others.

[GaryK]

Let me just give one final summary and then we can agree to disagree.

I think some gay sex and gay relationships are sinful and some are not. Likewise I think some straight sex and straight relationships are sinful and some are not. I got married relatively late in life (my late 30s) and I have plenty of unmarried friends and acquaintances gay and straight. As a married person I’m not willing to lecture them about living like a Carthusian monk or cloistered nun because they are unmarried. I think Christianity is more about how we treat each others rather than about depriving ourselves of normal human experiences whether they be intimacy or any other human experience such as music (another thread here) or anything else. So I’m not particularly concerned with adults being intimate with each other whether they are gay or straight. As long as they are treating each other well and with love in the broad sense of the word, and not being abusive or manipulative or obsessive/addictive. I draw an absolute bright line when it comes to adults messing around with kids (gay or straight) and kids being intimate with each other gay or straight.

When it comes to church I think we should be holding both gay and straight kids to the same standards of behavior. Both gay and straight single adults to the same standards of behavior. And both gay and straight married couples to the same standards of behavior. I don’t think we come remotely close to doing that. But I also don’t think all this business of “affirming” sexuality is really the business of church either. So I don’t have all the answers. But I doubt anyone else does either.

I'm genuinely curious what standard you use to determine what gay sex is sinful and which gay relationships are sinful?

I would use the same exact standards as for straight sex and straight relationships. If they are abusive, obsessive/addictive, casual, unfaithful, strictly physical, or between or with minors I would call them sinful. If they are between mature, committed, faithful and loving people I’m unwilling to say they are sinful. Whether or not they have an actual marriage license from the state. It is like anything else in life. Like the upstream discussion about greed. Life is not black and white, we live in shades of gray and context is important. More important is how we treat each other.

I realize that is a minority view here and so be it. I think God wants me to focus on my own weaknesses rather than obsessing about the sins or possible sins of others.

But who or what determines that the types of things you describe are sinful? Is the Bible your basis for concluding that such behavior is sinful?

[Ken]

I'm genuinely curious what standard you use to determine what gay sex is sinful and which gay relationships are sinful?

I would use the same exact standards as for straight sex and straight relationships. If they are abusive, obsessive/addictive, casual, unfaithful, strictly physical, or between or with minors I would call them sinful. If they are between mature, committed, faithful and loving people I’m unwilling to say they are sinful. Whether or not they have an actual marriage license from the state. It is like anything else in life. Like the upstream discussion about greed. Life is not black and white, we live in shades of gray and context is important. More important is how we treat each other.

I realize that is a minority view here and so be it. I think God wants me to focus on my own weaknesses rather than obsessing about the sins or possible sins of others.

But who or what determines that the types of things you describe are sinful? Is the Bible your basis for concluding that such behavior is sinful?

I think the Bible is a guide. Not a prescriptive list of regulations. It is up to us to figure out what is meant. Set aside gays for the moment because it is so emotional and take some other topic that the Bible identifies as a sin. I’ll pick one at random that has come up before. Usury.

There is a strict prohibition against Usury in the Bible that Muslims and some conservative Christians follow to the letter. But I would actually step back and ask what is the real purpose behind this prohibition and why did it exist. From my point of view, the Biblical prohibition on usury was really a prohibition on exploiting or taking advantage of the poor. There is not anything inherently evil about interest per se. It is just like any other payment one might make like rent, taxes, etc. What is evil is taking advantage of the misfortune of others by charging them interest, especially high interest when they desperately need to borrow money to feed their families, plant their crops, buy their freedom, or whatever else Biblical people did with the money that they borrowed.

In a modern context I would ask myself if a program that provides low interest loans to lower income people so they can afford to buy a house or start a business is something inherently evil. And I would say no it is not. Likewise, modest income people who are saving for the future and put their money into interest-bearing savings accounts in which the interest largely just balances out inflation? Not evil. Those are all things that assist the poor rather than exploit them. But a business that preys on the misfortune of others such as payday lenders and pawn shops that charge high rates of interest and suck people into cycles of debt? That seems evil and a sin. Again, the distinction is not whether interest is being charged, but whether or not people are being taken advantage of.

So in the modern world, is usury (interest) a black and white sin? I think not. It might be or it might be depending on context. I would not label bankers as sinners just because they work for a business that is based on charging and paying interest. The context is important and the Bible doesn’t give us a cut and dried or black and white set of rules. We actually have to use our brains and consider the context in everything we do.

I see gay and straight relationships the same way. As well as most other sins like greed, envy, pride, strife, etc. Context and intent matters. As well as how we affect and treat others.