Your Loan Officer Lied to You (And You Let It Happen)
Note: If you are unhappy with your current interest rate on your mortgage and/or are curious if you qualify for something lower and want me to take a free look at your situation, email me directly at Wbarnwell1@gmail.com. Also email me if you plan on making a home purchase in the near future or have any other needs involving mortgages.
A good rule of thumb in life is, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.” This is especially true in the world of lending and home mortgages. Basically any promotion for a “great” home mortgage program you see on the internet or on TV is something you should be wary of. You would think this is common sense, but apparently it isn’t, since mortgage companies continue to rely on these types of ads and consumers continue to fall for them.
Whenever you see any type of ad on the web that promises something like “A 300,000 dollar home mortgage for only $600 a month!!!” your baloney meters should be going off of the charts. No, this isn’t a well-hidden great deal that you just happened to stumble upon. At worst it’s a scam and at best it’s a legitimate but unwise loan product that is bad news for the vast majority of consumers.
Such loans typically fall under the umbrella the Adjustable Rate Mortgage. All home loans are basically categorized as Fixed Rate Mortgages (FRM’s) or Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARM’s). With a FRM, the interest stays the same during the life of the loan, unless one opts to refinance at some point with the hope of obtaining a lower interest rate. With an ARM, the interest rate, which is tied to an index, will periodically adjust. It’s the latter group that most the neat and gimmicky loans fall under (balloons, interest-only, options, etc). This does not mean that an ARM is never a good idea. Often times they can be. It depends upon one or a combination of these various factors: (1) A borrower’s individual situation (2) If the borrower only plans on staying in the residence for several years, and (3) If they are knowledgeable risk-takers who have taken into consideration all of the risks involved. Also, ARM’s can be refinanced just like FRM’s.
The problem with various ARM’s is that they are often sold to uneducated borrowers who haven’t read the fine print regarding their “great deal.” For example, just about every mortgage company will post rates on their websites or on rate sheets that they distribute. You might see something like, “We offer rates as low as 1%!!!” Then if you look next to the 1% you’ll probably see an asterisk. Whenever you see an asterisk, again, the warning bells should be ringing loudly in your head.
Follow that asterisk to the bottom of the page and you’ll probably see something in miniscule print that explains something to the effect of, “A payment based on 1% does not constitute a full payment of principal and interest. Full payment is based on a fully indexed rate of 6.17%. Making minimum monthly payments may result in negative amortization.”
If the asterisk set off alarm bells, the words “negative amortization” should send you running for cover. What is negative amortization? Basically, when a payment doesn’t even cover the full amount of interest owed per month the remaining interest is then added onto the principal value of the loan. Thus, with these types of payment habits you wind up owning more, not less. Keep this up over time and you’ll owe a lot more.
Of course with any kind of debt, nobody is forcing you to make minimum monthly payments. But human nature is such that people would rather pay later, not now. Many people hate going to the dentist. They don’t like practicing good oral hygiene. They know these aren’t good habits, but they just figure they’ll deal with it later, rather than invest the time and money now. Only when they finally go visit their dentist three years later their teeth are filled with cavities. All that waiting and putting responsibility off catches up with people at some point.
Creditors know that when faced with the option of making minimum payments, or going above and beyond, plenty will only do the absolute minimum of what is required. Your credit card companies know this well. This is why it’s insane for credit card holders to regularly make minimum payments on their high-interest revolving credit cards.
The home mortgage industry knows that people like “choice” so in recent years the popularity of “Option-ARM’s” has increased. These are Adjustable Rate Mortgages that give you the option of what you want your payment to be each month. Typically you have the option of making an interest only payment, a fully amortized 15 or 30 year payment, or some other lower payment that will not fully cover interest and principal.
These can work well for responsible people who might have fluctuating income (such as small business owners) and understand the nuances of Option loans. Unfortunately, the crowd normally signing up for such loans is not typically the most responsible lot. They are suckers for the TV commercials from the big name mortgage companies that make it sound like there are no consequences for regularly making half of their full payments. “What a great deal!” they say to themselves as they proceed to call up the “mortgage expert” who promised the option of paying $650 a month for a $200,000 loan.
You see, it’s not that Option-ARM’s are always an unwise product. They can be good products for strategic and wise people. It’s just that it’s usually unwise people who flock to such programs without first getting all of the facts.
In the past few years, their loan officers were able to approve them for these types of loans, but the borrowers were not psychologically or financially prepared to make their higher payments once their rates began adjusting upwards and once (or if) they realized that their principal was getting larger and not smaller. Given that they were willing to look for the easy way out when it came to borrowing such a large sum of money and making their payments, they typically were the type that looked to cut corners in general in life. Add it all up and it doesn’t equate to a very responsible borrower. And it’s these types of folks who are foreclosing at record rates throughout the country.
The moral of the story? If you aren’t prepared to at least usually make the full payments with these types of loan products, you have no business “buying” a house.
Every loan officer is required by law to provide their clients with a “Good Faith Estimate” about the cost of closing their loan. They are also required to tell you the details about the nature of the loan you are signing and answer any of your questions to the best of their ability. But many of them hope you don’t ask a lot of questions. They hope you don’t really read the Good Faith Estimate too closely. Many will tell you just enough to get you to closing, sign the documents they need signed, so you will go on your way and they will get their commission check. It’s only later that you or a loved one realized that you’d been suckered.
Maybe you’re reading this and saying, “Yeah! They sure did take me for a ride! I should have had more information disclosed to me! They shouldn’t be allowed to put out those misleading rate sheets with all that tiny fine print! They should have told me more upfront before closing!” And yes, they should have. But maybe your anger is directed ultimately at the wrong place.
In the end result, the problem is not “predatory lending,” it’s an uneducated consumer. There would be no “predatory lending” if there were not consumers who would take the bait. If you or your loved one had done your homework ahead of time, you could have saved yourself a headache. So yeah, while your loan officer and 90% of the mortgage ads you see online or on television are not giving you the full story, we also have an obligation to ourselves to know what we are getting into.
If you’re unhappy with your fixed or adjustable loan product, you have certain options. It may or may not be in your best interest to refinance your loan. If refinancing wasn’t the best option you could begin making a larger than required monthly payment. You could employ more responsible spending habits in general, paying down other high interest debts and focusing on building up some personal savings. Others think it’s better to invest in the stock market or gold rather than paying off their mortgage early.
Whatever path you take, you need to develop a plan. It’s also time for consumers to educate themselves about such financial matters instead of blaming everybody else for their situation. Mortgage and other financial professionals might mislead you, but ultimately you are the one signing the dotted line.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
A Victory in the Abortion Battles
The same week of the terrible and horrific shootings at Virginia Tech there was another story that deserves our attention. By a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court affirmed a bill banning a particular form of late term abortion, known as the “D & X”— or dilation and extraction method. To critics, this procedure has rightly been labeled “partial birth abortion” and even “infanticide.”
Certain groups are denouncing the Court’s ruling as chipping away at women’s rights and previous legal constitutional precedent. However, the original Roe v. Wade ruling was built on shaky legal foundations and further abortion rulings left the door open for further debate. And if we want to make precedent the key point of this debate let’s not forget that the Supreme Court once also upheld laws legalizing slavery and eugenics (the eugenic movement was a late 19th and early 20th century movement designed to clean out the gene pool of undesirable elements of society by forcing compulsorily sterilization). So, sometimes the Court gets it wrong. Did they in this recent ruling as well?
It’s interesting to note that the vast majority of Americans oppose partial birth abortions—including many people who are normally “pro-choice” in earlier term abortions. And they oppose the procedure for good reason. Here is a technical description from Wikipedia:
“Preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vaccum aspirated using a suction curette.”
While it’s important to point out that pro-life groups sometimes exaggerate the instances of these procedures—partial birth abortions are only responsible for 1.4% of all abortions each year—the fact still remains that 2,000-3,000 of these abortions were occurring each year. Each year late-term abortions were killing just under the number of people who died during the 9/11 attacks.
Debates on life and death issues should not be spun and politicized, and many who politicize these issues are heavily inconsistent themselves. In political debates, those who usually are most likely to talk about defending the rights of the poor and downtrodden are typically the most enthusiastic about abortion rights. Inversely, those who make the biggest deal about defending the right to life are usually the loudest and quickest to want to bomb this or that country, or increase the frequency of the death penalty.
Nevertheless, the issue here does not and should not center on women’s rights vs. an oppressive society. Many doctors contend that there is never a valid reason to receive a late-term abortion and contrary to other medical groups argue that risks to the mother’s life have been minimized if not eliminated. Also, just because the fetus is dependant upon the mother does not mean that it is nothing more than a “parasite,” as some pro-abortion individuals allege. If that was the case, then many of our most vulnerable citizens today who are dependant upon others are nothing more than “parasites” as well and can also be eliminated for society’s convenience.
The arguments for partial birth abortion pale in comparison to the arguments against. This time the Supreme Court got it right, and those who cared about this issue should be thankful for this victory.
The same week of the terrible and horrific shootings at Virginia Tech there was another story that deserves our attention. By a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court affirmed a bill banning a particular form of late term abortion, known as the “D & X”— or dilation and extraction method. To critics, this procedure has rightly been labeled “partial birth abortion” and even “infanticide.”
Certain groups are denouncing the Court’s ruling as chipping away at women’s rights and previous legal constitutional precedent. However, the original Roe v. Wade ruling was built on shaky legal foundations and further abortion rulings left the door open for further debate. And if we want to make precedent the key point of this debate let’s not forget that the Supreme Court once also upheld laws legalizing slavery and eugenics (the eugenic movement was a late 19th and early 20th century movement designed to clean out the gene pool of undesirable elements of society by forcing compulsorily sterilization). So, sometimes the Court gets it wrong. Did they in this recent ruling as well?
It’s interesting to note that the vast majority of Americans oppose partial birth abortions—including many people who are normally “pro-choice” in earlier term abortions. And they oppose the procedure for good reason. Here is a technical description from Wikipedia:
“Preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vaccum aspirated using a suction curette.”
While it’s important to point out that pro-life groups sometimes exaggerate the instances of these procedures—partial birth abortions are only responsible for 1.4% of all abortions each year—the fact still remains that 2,000-3,000 of these abortions were occurring each year. Each year late-term abortions were killing just under the number of people who died during the 9/11 attacks.
Debates on life and death issues should not be spun and politicized, and many who politicize these issues are heavily inconsistent themselves. In political debates, those who usually are most likely to talk about defending the rights of the poor and downtrodden are typically the most enthusiastic about abortion rights. Inversely, those who make the biggest deal about defending the right to life are usually the loudest and quickest to want to bomb this or that country, or increase the frequency of the death penalty.
Nevertheless, the issue here does not and should not center on women’s rights vs. an oppressive society. Many doctors contend that there is never a valid reason to receive a late-term abortion and contrary to other medical groups argue that risks to the mother’s life have been minimized if not eliminated. Also, just because the fetus is dependant upon the mother does not mean that it is nothing more than a “parasite,” as some pro-abortion individuals allege. If that was the case, then many of our most vulnerable citizens today who are dependant upon others are nothing more than “parasites” as well and can also be eliminated for society’s convenience.
The arguments for partial birth abortion pale in comparison to the arguments against. This time the Supreme Court got it right, and those who cared about this issue should be thankful for this victory.
Friday, April 20, 2007
It's Unbiblical to Correct False Teaching
Several weeks later and I'm still getting a fairly steady flow of emails denouncing me for daring to take issue with John Hagee, his dispensational theology, and his desired foreign policy for the Middle East. Well-intentioned readers are writing me warning against speaking out against "the Lord's anointed" and pleading in the name of Christian unity to not publicly speak out against Hagee. There's all sorts of problems with this. First of all, if a well known Christian teacher was spreading inaccurate doctrine about the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Resurrection, etc, nobody would have a problem with other Christians publicly taking issue with it and trying to set the record straight. Such would be expected for the sake of other believes who would be misled. But if you apply the same standards to correcting bad eschatological teaching, suddenly now you are arrogant, mean-spirited, and are causing division in the body of Christ. Sorry, but that just doesn't work. If the theology of Hagee, Lindsey, LaHaye, etc, is indeed inaccurate, then other Christians have an obligation to speak out. We don't just stay silent in the name of "unity" while others in the church try to monopolize theological discourse on debatable secondary issues that don't even have a firm grounding in the Scriptures.
One person asked, "If you are so concerned about false teaching, why not pick on the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses instead of a man of God like Hagee who has done so much good?" First of all, as deceptive as Mormon and JW theology is, they at the very least are not pushing for bloodshed in the Middle East, nor are they trying to influence American foreign policy. So while there is a bigger threat to historical orthodox Christian doctrine from these groups, the dispensationalism of Hagee is a bigger threat to those inside the church. And let's not forget that many Evangelicals aren't even aware that there is another option other than dispensationalism. The teachings from the pulpit are influencing escapist, pseudo-gnostic, and militaristic thought amongst the masses in the pews.
So, while I'd love to have a private discussion with Hagee on these issues, his ideas are flooding mainstream Evangelicalism and even secular society in a very public way. It is a sham to then insist that individuals like myself just cede the debate and keep to ourselves. Also, I don't hate John Hagee, Hal Lindsey or anyone else. In fact, I've written some positive things towards Hagee in the past. I also was inspired by Hagee's preaching as a teenager and early young adult and it helped me recognize my need for a Savior in Jesus. But this does not mean he or any of the rest of us are infallible. Yes, John Hagee has done some great things for the cause of Christ, but I believe his ministry is being blessed in spite of, not because of his very public and loud dispensationalism and warmongering. And on this very important issue where there is so much at stake and so many implications based on ones view, the Church as a whole needs to dig into the Scriptures and see what they really are telling us in regards to the Lord's return. Thankfully, I believe the tide is beginning to turn and individual dispensational minded Christians are slowly beginning to rethink their prior assumptions.
Several weeks later and I'm still getting a fairly steady flow of emails denouncing me for daring to take issue with John Hagee, his dispensational theology, and his desired foreign policy for the Middle East. Well-intentioned readers are writing me warning against speaking out against "the Lord's anointed" and pleading in the name of Christian unity to not publicly speak out against Hagee. There's all sorts of problems with this. First of all, if a well known Christian teacher was spreading inaccurate doctrine about the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Resurrection, etc, nobody would have a problem with other Christians publicly taking issue with it and trying to set the record straight. Such would be expected for the sake of other believes who would be misled. But if you apply the same standards to correcting bad eschatological teaching, suddenly now you are arrogant, mean-spirited, and are causing division in the body of Christ. Sorry, but that just doesn't work. If the theology of Hagee, Lindsey, LaHaye, etc, is indeed inaccurate, then other Christians have an obligation to speak out. We don't just stay silent in the name of "unity" while others in the church try to monopolize theological discourse on debatable secondary issues that don't even have a firm grounding in the Scriptures.
One person asked, "If you are so concerned about false teaching, why not pick on the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses instead of a man of God like Hagee who has done so much good?" First of all, as deceptive as Mormon and JW theology is, they at the very least are not pushing for bloodshed in the Middle East, nor are they trying to influence American foreign policy. So while there is a bigger threat to historical orthodox Christian doctrine from these groups, the dispensationalism of Hagee is a bigger threat to those inside the church. And let's not forget that many Evangelicals aren't even aware that there is another option other than dispensationalism. The teachings from the pulpit are influencing escapist, pseudo-gnostic, and militaristic thought amongst the masses in the pews.
So, while I'd love to have a private discussion with Hagee on these issues, his ideas are flooding mainstream Evangelicalism and even secular society in a very public way. It is a sham to then insist that individuals like myself just cede the debate and keep to ourselves. Also, I don't hate John Hagee, Hal Lindsey or anyone else. In fact, I've written some positive things towards Hagee in the past. I also was inspired by Hagee's preaching as a teenager and early young adult and it helped me recognize my need for a Savior in Jesus. But this does not mean he or any of the rest of us are infallible. Yes, John Hagee has done some great things for the cause of Christ, but I believe his ministry is being blessed in spite of, not because of his very public and loud dispensationalism and warmongering. And on this very important issue where there is so much at stake and so many implications based on ones view, the Church as a whole needs to dig into the Scriptures and see what they really are telling us in regards to the Lord's return. Thankfully, I believe the tide is beginning to turn and individual dispensational minded Christians are slowly beginning to rethink their prior assumptions.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Need an Honest and Competent Loan Originator for Your Mortgage? I Can Help.
Edit: If you are unhappy with your current interest rate on your mortgage and/or are curious if you qualify for something lower and want me to take a free look at your situation, email me directly at Wbarnwell1@gmail.com. Also email me if you plan on making a home purchase in the near future or have any other needs involving mortgages.
*************
As you maybe have guessed from some earlier posts, I have been laying the foundations to do some extra work in addition my regular ministry and teaching responsibilities. I am now working a side job as a loan originator with a mortgage brokerage by the name of Encore Mortgage. A mortgage broker is someone who can shop around for potential borrowers to a number of different direct lenders. For example, if you went straight to your local bank and talked to their loan officer, you'd only be dealing with their products and offers. However, if you go and see a competent mortgage broker, they are signed up to do business with a number of different direct lenders and can shop around to find borrowers the most competitive rates for which they qualify. Encore is signed up with all the big name direct lenders and dozens of smaller lenders who sometimes offer even better rates than the big shots. Competition works for the consumer.
I see this as an exciting and interesting new way to help people. You perhaps have read about how the Real Estate and mortgage industries are in such turmoil right now. They are now receiving their just desserts. Several years ago when the Real Estate market was hot, a number of individuals flooded those professions hoping to make a quick and easy buck. And they did, for awhile. But all has changed now, and some states like mine are now facing massive foreclosures. Why did all this happen? In short, it was a combination of factors. First, lenders were getting too eager to sell loans and were qualifying people who did not have the long-term capacity to pay their bills. Second, many consumers, egged on by their Realtors and loan officers, bought more house than they could realistically afford, and financed their purchases with unwise loan products that had a variety of bad features. When their loan teaser rates ended, many couldn't afford the full payments. Often their small monthly payment habits would lead to negative amortization--where the remaining interest they did not pay was added to their principal balance. Therefore, their overall debt was getting larger, not smaller, with each payment. However, we also cannot forget the Federal Reserve, whose easy credit policies led to the whole housing bubble to begin with.
So why jump in now when the market is bad? Because when all the dishonest and incompetent lenders and brokers close up shop, the sensible and responsible will still be standing. Plus there will always be those who are in the market to make a purchase, refinance their existing loans, and so on. Also, I see this as an important way to help people and also do something else I enjoy and find interesting. So, if you yourself are in the market or know somebody else who is, I would obviously like to help. There are a couple clear reasons why it is in my best interest to impress you or your referral. One, I want you to continue reading my columns. And two, I obviously would prefer the business would come my way instead of somebody elses. If you are in the Mid-Michigan area, you're certainly welcome to meet with me at our office, but if you live anywhere else in the country, all you need is a phone and access to a fax machine and we could just as easily help you or your referrals out.
Regardless of what type of residential property you are looking to purchase or refinance, we can help. If you are looking to get out of your Adjustable Rate Mortgage into a fixed rate, or even refinance your present high interest fixed rate mortgage, we can help. If you are curious about refinancing and want to know if it really would save you money, I can gather your data and let you know. You won't get ripped off and your service will be prompt. Also, why not work through someone you know or are familiar with rather than with someone you've never heard of? And if you don't qualify for what you are looking for, we'll give you free credit advice with periodic updates to support you along the way so that down the road you get what you need. If you have any questions or are interested in just taking a curious look at your situation, email me directly at Wbarnwell1@gmail.com
Regardless of whether or not this applies to you, I will continue to offer up posts and original articles on issues pertaining to Christianity, current affairs, cultural matters, and economics. I will not be cutting down in my pastoral ministry efforts or journalistic contribuations. So stay tuned and keep reading!
Edit: If you are unhappy with your current interest rate on your mortgage and/or are curious if you qualify for something lower and want me to take a free look at your situation, email me directly at Wbarnwell1@gmail.com. Also email me if you plan on making a home purchase in the near future or have any other needs involving mortgages.
*************
As you maybe have guessed from some earlier posts, I have been laying the foundations to do some extra work in addition my regular ministry and teaching responsibilities. I am now working a side job as a loan originator with a mortgage brokerage by the name of Encore Mortgage. A mortgage broker is someone who can shop around for potential borrowers to a number of different direct lenders. For example, if you went straight to your local bank and talked to their loan officer, you'd only be dealing with their products and offers. However, if you go and see a competent mortgage broker, they are signed up to do business with a number of different direct lenders and can shop around to find borrowers the most competitive rates for which they qualify. Encore is signed up with all the big name direct lenders and dozens of smaller lenders who sometimes offer even better rates than the big shots. Competition works for the consumer.
I see this as an exciting and interesting new way to help people. You perhaps have read about how the Real Estate and mortgage industries are in such turmoil right now. They are now receiving their just desserts. Several years ago when the Real Estate market was hot, a number of individuals flooded those professions hoping to make a quick and easy buck. And they did, for awhile. But all has changed now, and some states like mine are now facing massive foreclosures. Why did all this happen? In short, it was a combination of factors. First, lenders were getting too eager to sell loans and were qualifying people who did not have the long-term capacity to pay their bills. Second, many consumers, egged on by their Realtors and loan officers, bought more house than they could realistically afford, and financed their purchases with unwise loan products that had a variety of bad features. When their loan teaser rates ended, many couldn't afford the full payments. Often their small monthly payment habits would lead to negative amortization--where the remaining interest they did not pay was added to their principal balance. Therefore, their overall debt was getting larger, not smaller, with each payment. However, we also cannot forget the Federal Reserve, whose easy credit policies led to the whole housing bubble to begin with.
So why jump in now when the market is bad? Because when all the dishonest and incompetent lenders and brokers close up shop, the sensible and responsible will still be standing. Plus there will always be those who are in the market to make a purchase, refinance their existing loans, and so on. Also, I see this as an important way to help people and also do something else I enjoy and find interesting. So, if you yourself are in the market or know somebody else who is, I would obviously like to help. There are a couple clear reasons why it is in my best interest to impress you or your referral. One, I want you to continue reading my columns. And two, I obviously would prefer the business would come my way instead of somebody elses. If you are in the Mid-Michigan area, you're certainly welcome to meet with me at our office, but if you live anywhere else in the country, all you need is a phone and access to a fax machine and we could just as easily help you or your referrals out.
Regardless of what type of residential property you are looking to purchase or refinance, we can help. If you are looking to get out of your Adjustable Rate Mortgage into a fixed rate, or even refinance your present high interest fixed rate mortgage, we can help. If you are curious about refinancing and want to know if it really would save you money, I can gather your data and let you know. You won't get ripped off and your service will be prompt. Also, why not work through someone you know or are familiar with rather than with someone you've never heard of? And if you don't qualify for what you are looking for, we'll give you free credit advice with periodic updates to support you along the way so that down the road you get what you need. If you have any questions or are interested in just taking a curious look at your situation, email me directly at Wbarnwell1@gmail.com
Regardless of whether or not this applies to you, I will continue to offer up posts and original articles on issues pertaining to Christianity, current affairs, cultural matters, and economics. I will not be cutting down in my pastoral ministry efforts or journalistic contribuations. So stay tuned and keep reading!
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Biblical Literalism and the Role of Women and Slaves
I was flipping through a book I found sitting around in my church yesterday titled Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call To Restore Biblical Church Leadership. The book basically argues for a structure of church government that is more Presbyterian in nature, rather than congregational; ruled by a plurality of elders rather than just one top-down leader who answers to a general church board. While there's much to be said about that, I was curious to see what the author's views were regarding women in ministry. Not surprisingly, the author rejected it out of hand, and basically claimed that if we took the Bible seriously, there's no way we would even want to debate the issue. The author, like many other anti-women in ministry folks, is a particular kind of Unbalanced Biblical literalist. Unbalanced Biblical Literalists typically approach issues like this one by quoting a few Scriptures about the husband being the "head" of the wife, women being "silent" in church, etc, and claim this settles the debate once and for all. How the Scriptures applied to Christians in first century Palestine regarding social structures in society and church are the same ways they apply to everyone everywhere in 2007. Anything less is wishy-washy liberalism.
Yet, on their own terms, they are wishy-washy liberals in the way which they approach passages dealing with slavery. Even though the Bible elevates the position of slaves and calls for humane treatment, it nevertheless allows the practice. In fact, in the same sections that these Unbalanced Biblical Literalists cite regarding the subjection of women, there are passages talking about the subjection of slaves. Most of these passages directed at women are part of larger sections in the so called Greco-Roman "household codes." In the same passages where Paul is telling wives to submit to husbands he also says:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, just as you would obey Christ" (Eph. 6:5).
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything..." (Col. 3:22).
Right before Peter tells wives to submit to their husbands, he says, "Slaves submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh" (I Peter 2:18).
We could go on, but my point is this: why be such pressing literalists on the women issue, but not the slave issue? People complain and object about me pointing this out, but it's a very reasonable question, one in which their own strict literalism allows no valid answer. You can't argue for the exact same applicational features for the passages on women in the name of Biblical literalism, but then fudge the issue a few verse earlier when it comes to slaves. If we are talking original meaning and author's original intent, Paul and Peter were not talking about "employer/employee" relationships. They were talking about slavery. No, perhaps it generally wasn't as cruel as the type of slavery that Americans are accustomed to learning about in their history classes, but it was slavery nonetheless, and something almost all of us today would be uncomfortable with and rightly so. The "employer/employee" application is just that, a good application, but it takes us away from the very literal, "words-on-the-page" meaning of these passages.
About 99.9 percent of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, accept this fact today. They do not apply the passages regarding slavery in a strict literal manner. But there was a time, not that long ago in our history when the church was seriously divided on this issue. Many a preacher and laymen harped about how the church would fall apart if we ignored the "plain meaning" of the Bible and abolished slavery. After all, they reasoned, slavery was a social reality in the Bible, and the Bible never plainly directed people to abolish it. Most of us today, however, recognize that abolishing slavery outright is actually more Christ-like and that we are simply building off of the foundations of the redemptive themes found in the Scriptures and that we are taking these teachings in Scripture to their logical conclusions. Thus, we face these verses of slavery head-on in their original meaning and first century context and then we apply them to our culture. The Unbalanced Biblical Literalist has no problem when you do this with I Peter 2:18. But if you apply the same standards, which they themselves use for that verse, just a few verses later for 3:1 regarding wives, suddenly you are a flaming liberal who doesn't take the Bible seriously.
So, either fundamentalists apply the same standards of interpretation, evaluation and application to the first century household codes for women that we do with slaves, or they should just admit that they are biased on this issue. Either we go back to the glory days of slavery, or we at least attempt a "fair and balanced" application of both I Peter 2:18 and I Peter 3:1. Many are scared of doing this because they think it does an injustice to the Bible. Again, if that's the case, they are already doing such an injustice by failing to take the slavery passages in their most literal application for today. But in reality we are not doing such a thing. It's not a matter of accepting what we like in the Bible and tossing out the parts we don't like. In the case of these issues it's grasping what the text originally meant and how we best carry out those redemptive themes in the 21st century. If there's NO change in the nuance of application then it's time to round up the slaves and the head coverings back on women. Also, those of us in the West should start greeting each other with holy kisses during our congregational greeting times. No, a simple handshake won't work. If we want to be strictly literal, then it's a kiss that's needed, nothing else.
The big scare tactic here by the unbalanced literalists is the issue of homosexuality. The reasoning goes something like this, "Well if we allow women in ministry, gays will be running our nursery next! Before you know it, all of the church will be accepting homosexuality!" As I've said elsewhere, the household code passages are not even addressing homosexuality. I'm arguing for a consistent application of a unit of passages, none of which have anything to do with homosexuality. In fact, almost all Evangelical Egalitarians who support women in ministry believe homosexuality to be a sinful behavior and are not looking to open the floodgates for gay liberation in the church. But that's simply another discussion and does not carry weight in this debate, but it is a convenient scare tactic: "They don't take passages about men and women seriously, they must not take passages about homosexuality seriously either!" I suppose I could turn that around and say, "They don't take the passages about slavery seriously, so they must not take the passages about homosexuality seriously either!"
My larger point here is that to best appropriate what the Bible meant in its original context and how it applies today, quoting a few Scriptures and acting like the debate is settled is usually inadequate. Only synthesizing a well thought out Biblical theology following a logical and rigorous approach to application will best yield the Bible's guidance for today. Of course that takes more work and more thought, and it's much easier to just listen to Dobson cite a few prooftexts, but it's actually treating the Scriptures with the honor and integrity that they deserve.
I was flipping through a book I found sitting around in my church yesterday titled Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call To Restore Biblical Church Leadership. The book basically argues for a structure of church government that is more Presbyterian in nature, rather than congregational; ruled by a plurality of elders rather than just one top-down leader who answers to a general church board. While there's much to be said about that, I was curious to see what the author's views were regarding women in ministry. Not surprisingly, the author rejected it out of hand, and basically claimed that if we took the Bible seriously, there's no way we would even want to debate the issue. The author, like many other anti-women in ministry folks, is a particular kind of Unbalanced Biblical literalist. Unbalanced Biblical Literalists typically approach issues like this one by quoting a few Scriptures about the husband being the "head" of the wife, women being "silent" in church, etc, and claim this settles the debate once and for all. How the Scriptures applied to Christians in first century Palestine regarding social structures in society and church are the same ways they apply to everyone everywhere in 2007. Anything less is wishy-washy liberalism.
Yet, on their own terms, they are wishy-washy liberals in the way which they approach passages dealing with slavery. Even though the Bible elevates the position of slaves and calls for humane treatment, it nevertheless allows the practice. In fact, in the same sections that these Unbalanced Biblical Literalists cite regarding the subjection of women, there are passages talking about the subjection of slaves. Most of these passages directed at women are part of larger sections in the so called Greco-Roman "household codes." In the same passages where Paul is telling wives to submit to husbands he also says:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, just as you would obey Christ" (Eph. 6:5).
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything..." (Col. 3:22).
Right before Peter tells wives to submit to their husbands, he says, "Slaves submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh" (I Peter 2:18).
We could go on, but my point is this: why be such pressing literalists on the women issue, but not the slave issue? People complain and object about me pointing this out, but it's a very reasonable question, one in which their own strict literalism allows no valid answer. You can't argue for the exact same applicational features for the passages on women in the name of Biblical literalism, but then fudge the issue a few verse earlier when it comes to slaves. If we are talking original meaning and author's original intent, Paul and Peter were not talking about "employer/employee" relationships. They were talking about slavery. No, perhaps it generally wasn't as cruel as the type of slavery that Americans are accustomed to learning about in their history classes, but it was slavery nonetheless, and something almost all of us today would be uncomfortable with and rightly so. The "employer/employee" application is just that, a good application, but it takes us away from the very literal, "words-on-the-page" meaning of these passages.
About 99.9 percent of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, accept this fact today. They do not apply the passages regarding slavery in a strict literal manner. But there was a time, not that long ago in our history when the church was seriously divided on this issue. Many a preacher and laymen harped about how the church would fall apart if we ignored the "plain meaning" of the Bible and abolished slavery. After all, they reasoned, slavery was a social reality in the Bible, and the Bible never plainly directed people to abolish it. Most of us today, however, recognize that abolishing slavery outright is actually more Christ-like and that we are simply building off of the foundations of the redemptive themes found in the Scriptures and that we are taking these teachings in Scripture to their logical conclusions. Thus, we face these verses of slavery head-on in their original meaning and first century context and then we apply them to our culture. The Unbalanced Biblical Literalist has no problem when you do this with I Peter 2:18. But if you apply the same standards, which they themselves use for that verse, just a few verses later for 3:1 regarding wives, suddenly you are a flaming liberal who doesn't take the Bible seriously.
So, either fundamentalists apply the same standards of interpretation, evaluation and application to the first century household codes for women that we do with slaves, or they should just admit that they are biased on this issue. Either we go back to the glory days of slavery, or we at least attempt a "fair and balanced" application of both I Peter 2:18 and I Peter 3:1. Many are scared of doing this because they think it does an injustice to the Bible. Again, if that's the case, they are already doing such an injustice by failing to take the slavery passages in their most literal application for today. But in reality we are not doing such a thing. It's not a matter of accepting what we like in the Bible and tossing out the parts we don't like. In the case of these issues it's grasping what the text originally meant and how we best carry out those redemptive themes in the 21st century. If there's NO change in the nuance of application then it's time to round up the slaves and the head coverings back on women. Also, those of us in the West should start greeting each other with holy kisses during our congregational greeting times. No, a simple handshake won't work. If we want to be strictly literal, then it's a kiss that's needed, nothing else.
The big scare tactic here by the unbalanced literalists is the issue of homosexuality. The reasoning goes something like this, "Well if we allow women in ministry, gays will be running our nursery next! Before you know it, all of the church will be accepting homosexuality!" As I've said elsewhere, the household code passages are not even addressing homosexuality. I'm arguing for a consistent application of a unit of passages, none of which have anything to do with homosexuality. In fact, almost all Evangelical Egalitarians who support women in ministry believe homosexuality to be a sinful behavior and are not looking to open the floodgates for gay liberation in the church. But that's simply another discussion and does not carry weight in this debate, but it is a convenient scare tactic: "They don't take passages about men and women seriously, they must not take passages about homosexuality seriously either!" I suppose I could turn that around and say, "They don't take the passages about slavery seriously, so they must not take the passages about homosexuality seriously either!"
My larger point here is that to best appropriate what the Bible meant in its original context and how it applies today, quoting a few Scriptures and acting like the debate is settled is usually inadequate. Only synthesizing a well thought out Biblical theology following a logical and rigorous approach to application will best yield the Bible's guidance for today. Of course that takes more work and more thought, and it's much easier to just listen to Dobson cite a few prooftexts, but it's actually treating the Scriptures with the honor and integrity that they deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
