williamtsoi.net

Maybe… maybe…

I promised a conclusion to this, so I shall provide one (even though it has taken a while).

A search for the world “interest” in Leviticus and Deuteronomy brought up two passages. They are Leviticus 25:35-37 and Deuteronomy 23:19-20. The first passage concerns with lending (no pun intended ) aid to those in need, and so I understand the requirement of not charging interest to promote the social agenda. The second passage however, makes a clear distinction that one should not charge his “brother” (ie. a fellow Israelite) interest, but is free to charge interest to foreigners. Deut 23:21 also sheds light on the issue of the “risk premium” (which I find really amazing, because God has already provided for this even though it was a primitive society). A risk premium is not needed because if the borrower is slow to pay, it will be declared as sin under the eyes of God (supplementary question: what does this mean for the lender? What protection does he/she have?).

An important lesson to learn from all this is that when one reads the Bible (especially the Old Testament), one has to read it in context. In this case, we have to understand that at the time of writing, Israel was mostly an agricultural society, and so most modern forms of investment did not exist.

Given that, I’m still pondering the relevance of that passage to us today…

Had a program with guest speakers at Habakkuk talking about dating from a Christian perspective. Seriously, I’ve heard it all already, and I’m getting slightly sick of it. Why? Because in my opinion none of it works.

Basically it sets out a set of rules/guidelines that Christians ought to follow in order for them to date “successfully” (the definition of that word is also debatable, I might discuss this later). What is so silly about what is taught is that while they openly admit that there is never a right and wrong answer for any situation (ie. they agreed with the statement that “Love is blind”), they still offer rules and guidelines. In my world, rules and guidelines are used to spell out what is right and wrong (think about the Romans argument of why the Law exists – to let people know what sin is). However, if there is no right and wrong, why are there rules? People may say,
“So it might help us understand what is the better thing to do…”
The problem is,”better” suggests “right”, which totally contradicts the earlier premise that there is no right or wrong.

On the surface, the talk/theory sounds very convincing, because Christians are always trying to find the “Christian perspective” to everything, ranging from politics, work situations, and the one that we most care about, love and sex. People see the talk/theory that comes up, and they say to themselves,
“oh that sounds all good and nice. I’m sure God would approve if I live by these rules.”
I sure as hell thought that way once.

I now remember telling Habakkuk fellowship members a number of months ago that I was sick of questions like,
“Can Christians do this?”
or,
“Is it wrong for a Christian to do that?”
Why was I sick of it? I was sick of it because I believe that asking a question like that undermines the work that Jesus has done on the cross. Jesus has made us free from the law, and we live freely under the Holy Spirit, rather than a number of rules and regulations.

Anyway, I digress. I value the people who are doing this work (offering workshops to help Christians understand the issues behind dating), but at best they can only give an indication of what to do, rather than declare that they have the solutions.

How did I come up with these thoughts? I’ve thought about these “rules” for a while now, and I used to say to myself,
“I’m not sorry for what I’ve done because I’ve stuck by the rules and God will be proud of what I’ve done. I’ve done the right thing.”
However, under my observation, eventually I’ve come to realise that in practical terms, these rules are as good as junk. I know plenty of couples who break the “rules” when they start dating, but yet are having a happy and fulfilling relationship now (some have been together for so long that they’re planning to get married). I used to think that they are the exceptions to the rule, but eventually with time I see so many exceptions that I’m eventually forced to reject the null hypothesis, even though I was very much unwilling to do so.

If, in an idealistic sense, these rules are made to ensure that couples are conducting in a manner pleasing to God (and to prevent those couples conducting “incorrectly” from ever starting out), then I say that these rules are pointless, because of my earlier observation about couples operating “incorrectly” when they start out, yet with God’s guidance, are corrected in their ways.

Too much for one night, I’d like to see any comments about this.

Our model, which art in nowhere.
Guessing be thy name.
Thy assumptions come,
Thy will be done in future as it was in the past.
Give us this day our premium rates,
and forgive us our lousy estimates,
as we forgive those who supply us with crappy data.
Lead us not into insolvencies,
and deliver us from auditors.
For thine is the #NAME?, #DIV/0!, and #VALUE!,
forever and ever. Amen.

I remember reading somewhere in Leviticus that it’s wrong to charge someone interest for a loan and I remembered this point as I started a debate with a number of fellow Christians around the dinner table. I offered the proposition that it is totally outdated and not applicable nowadays because of the advancement of the economic and financial system over the years. With all the years of actuarial education on my side, I began to recall the role interest plays in society. To this date I’m able to remember 3 reasons justifying the concept of interest (let’s assume that person A is lending $1 to person B):

1. Liquidity preference – It is obviously better A to have cash now to do whatever he likes with it, rather than forego that right by lending money to B. The loss of that right must be paid for from B to A, in the form of interest.
2. Time value of money – A dollar now is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. Person A can take his $1 and invest it to get a profit in a year’s time. If person B borrows $1 from person A and just repays A the same amount, then person A stands to lose the potential profit gained from investing that $1. Also, if person B borrows $1 from person A and invests it for a year himself, what will happen at the end of the year is that B will give $1 back, and B can pocket the profit made. This is not fair against person A, so A must charge interest to bring borrowing back at equilibrium (if B can borrow $1 and invest at 0 interest, what’s stopping him from getting $2? $3? there is no equilibrium here).
3. Credit risk – For any loan, there is a probability that person B cannot (or will not) pay person A back, and A stands to lose the borrowed amount if B defaults on the loan and runs away. Person A must charge interest as a risk premium (similar to insurance).

And so with these weapons in hand, I was potentially able to declare Biblical Law as obselete.

That’s until I actually found the passage in Leviticus where it talks about interest… (to be continued)