Blog Post, Yes; Email, No.
"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding" (Proverbs 17:28).
Recently, I received an email from someone I had never heard of before. She did not tell me what article she had read, or what book of mine she had read. She said this:
Wow, that article you had on usury and the Bible was incredible. I can not see your logic on any level, but again when you proclaim such ideas, along with Capitalism and the Bible, well, your Calvinsim is evident. Thinking that Jesus endorsed interest based loans based on the parable of the 10 talents completely misses the point of using ones gifts on earth and not burying them. The spiritual laws governing the prohibition of interest are based on the fact that humans are to make their livings with their deeds, their efforts. When humans loose this as they do in interest based schemes, the community aspect of the economy is lost. Economy is brotherhood, and is where the spirit is present. Excluding brotherhood is dangerous and why the usury suggestions were put in place. The temptations of Christ involve three human trials of power, illusion and materialism. Christ overcame each one of those temptations as a lesson to us as to what we are capable of doing. You are free to act and believe what you wish, but please do not use Jesus and his mission to justify interest payments. It is not a rational argument by any stretch of the imagination, not logical at all. You do yourself a great disservice, and are distorting the Gospel for your purposes.
My initial response was to conclude that she was a member in good standing in one of the largest organizations on earth, Jerks for Jesus.
I sent back a very brief note: "Please direct me to the section on your website that exegetes all of the Bible's passages on interest." I did not hear back.
I looked her up on the Web. It turns out, she is not a jerk for Jesus. She is a jerk for Steiner. She has a website devoted to the organic gardening techniques of Rudolf Steiner. Steiner was an Austrian mystic who got himself in a lot of trouble with Adolf Hitler as early as 1921. Steiner recognized early that Hitler was a potential tyrant, and he said so publicly. He had to leave Germany after Hitler came to power.
I knew a man decades ago who had adopted Steiner's techniques for organic farming. It was a very successful small farm. I never did a study on the Steiner's theory of the relationship between his mysticism and his organic gardening techniques. My guess is that the techniques are productive. I know there are disciples of Steiner who run successful organic gardening operations. But they have this in common: they do not have websites devoted to economic theory.
I have no idea what this lady had read of mine, although she was correct in her understanding of my position. It is clear in Matthew 25 -- Jesus' parable of the talents -- that He did accept the legitimacy of interest payments for commercial loans. To argue otherwise is to adopt the principle of biblical interpretation that says that whatever the text specifically says must be ignored. In fact, the opposite position must be maintained. Jesus said that the owner of the capital asset, a coin, had done the wrong thing when he buried the coin. He should have turned the coin over to moneylenders, so that the owner of the coin would have a positive rate of return.
This means that Jesus accepted the legitimacy of interest, because if He didn't, the parable makes no sense. There is another example of my approach to explaining the Bible. Paul argued that the Mosaic law forbade the muzzling of an ox (Deut. 25:4), and therefore on the basis of this passage, he said that it is legitimate for pastors to be paid (I Tim. 5:18). What if he came back to say that Paul was not talking about an ox in the field, but rather that he was talking about paying ministers? That would be incorrect. He was talking about both: oxen and ministers.
Then the person ups the ante. He says that Paul in fact reversed the argument regarding the Old Testament law, invoking the law, but not accepting the legitimacy of this law. We are asked to believe that Paul in fact recommended muzzling oxen in the field. But he also taught that ministers should be paid. This would be nuts. The argument makes sense only if we assume that Paul accepted the legitimacy of the law governing oxen in the field. That was his authority for saying that ministers should be paid.
Jesus' argument regarding the sin of burying your talents, meaning the sin of not trying to make a positive return on the investment that God gave you, rested on the legitimacy of money-lending. If money-lending is illegitimate, then the parable makes no sense.
I realize that an email from some lady who is in way over her head intellectually is neither here nor there. But her attitude is important. If you are going to criticize the position that somebody else holds, and you have no training in the details of this position, and you in fact hold to a completely opposite world and life view, it is not a good idea to spend time writing an email and sending it to the person. You inform the person that he does not understand his position at all. In fact, he has taught the opposite of what you know to be the truth.
If you have spent a few years studying the matter, your opinion may count. But if your comment is off the cuff, let alone off the wall, and you hold neither the worldview of the person you're criticizing nor possess any specialized understanding of the topic, then there are better ways to spend your time.
Some people have a commitment to building up their own egos by means of the tactic of criticizing others. Criticism of others is a legitimate tactic, as long as you have done your homework. If you know for certain that the person holds a position contrary to what is identifiably the truth, then you may want to spend your time criticizing the person. But it is best to criticize the person on your website, and then send that person a link to your website. This way, he knows that you are serious. You are not just a run-of-the-mill jerk.
If your comment is just a quick note, without links to supporting documentation, then he will assume that you are a mental lightweight. Frankly, his assumption is probably correct.
If you have something important to say, post it. Let search engines share your wisdom with others.