The South Dakota ELCA has not thrown its weight behind Initiated Measure 21, the real 36% payday lending rate cap, the way ballot measure co-sponsor Pastor Steve Hickey and I have hoped. Hickey has alleged on this blog that SD-ELCA Bishop David Zellmer and Lutheran Social Services have refrained from engaging the payday lending issue due to their connections with Pierre lawyer, payday lender lobbyist, and registered opponent of IM 21 Brett Koenecke:
Five Minnesota synods have payday resolutions. An ELCA Minnesota congregation also started a lending program to help people get out from under payday loans. ELCA has a resolution against payday lending but silence from the Bishop as far as individual involvement. I’ve met with him. Chilly.
…Also, Lutheran Social Services consumer credit counsel[]ing Betty Oldenkamp testified in the House Commerce Committee for several of my payday lending bills, including being a proponent FOR my 36% rate cap bill in 2011. She tells me now that LSS can’t support our rate cap. What changed?
Well, Bishop Zellmer is on the board – maybe Brett Koenoke as the diocese lawyer/payday lending lobbyist is in the board meetings too – we are only left to wonder [Steve Hickey, comment, Dakota Free Press, 2016.02.19].
Hickey acknowledged in that February comment that his statement was “just blog chatter and speculation” and possibly incorrect “assumptions of conflicts of interest.”
His speculation and assumptions nonetheless win an airing in that Sioux Falls paper. Bishop Zellmer tells Jonathan Ellis that he has not received direction on IM 21 from the Synod Assembly, which takes place in June. Last year’s Synod Assembly passed a resolution in support of Medicaid expansion, and Bishop Zellmer followed up with a letter to Governor Dennis Daugaard expressing that support. Hickey notes that Bishop Zellmer did not wait for a Synod Assembly resolution to ask Governor Daugaard to veto HB 1008, the paranoid potty bill. At peril of sounding like I’m running interference for Bishop Zellmer, I will merely suggest that the Bishop could take the position that HB 1008 was a sort of “moral emergency,” bubbling up from the Legislature and requiring action well before a Synod Assembly could take place. We won’t vote on the real 36% rate cap until November, so the Bishop can (and he would argue, and perhaps ELCA members would argue, should) wait until the membership has had a chance to discuss the issue and give the Bishop their direction.
LSS director Betty Oldenkamp makes a less persuasive argument for not inserting her agency, which has a direct interest in protecting its clients from abusive interest, into the debate:
Betty Oldenkamp, the president and CEO of Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota, said her board of directors is not taking a position on any of the ballot measures in this year’s election. Lutheran Social Services offers a debt counseling service, and Oldenkamp said that payday loans are a factor for some of LSS’s clients who have debt problems.
In 2011, Oldenkamp testified in favor of a bill that Hickey, then a state legislator, introduced that would have also capped interest rates at 36 percent. The bill ultimately failed, which is why supporters have taken the issue directly to the people.
Oldenkamp said there’s a difference between testifying for a bill and supporting a ballot measure.
“There’s not the opportunity on a ballot initiative to make a testimonial statement that gives more depth or perspective on what our position is,” she said [Jonathan Ellis, “SD ELCA Takes Pass on Payday Lender Fight,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2016.04.09].
Oldenkamp didn’t need an opportunity for a “testimonial statement” to lobby Rep. Scott Craig to pull his odious and ill-informed anti-refugee bill this winter. And ballot measures offer much more opportunity to give depth and perspective on one’s position than any time-limited winter committee hearing in Pierre. Initiated measures are just like bills, except the committee process is free-flowing public discourse in which any citizen or organization can participate via multiple channels over a much longer period of time. If you can testify on bills, you can speak up on ballot measures.
Lutheran Social Services also does not operate under Synod Assembly direction. I can see some sense in an ELCA bishop waiting for available guidance from the congregations he serves; LSS, however, has more freedom to offer helpful advocacy on the real 36% rate cap ballot measure.
I think it is time for the synod assembly to give our bishop some direction on this issue.
I appreciate you posting on this, Cory. It seems tempered but understandable considering you railing in usual form on the bishop would put your wife in an awkward position. I bring that up because sometimes politics does get personal. Welcome to leadership, Bishop – tough positions to take, strained friendships. So many in leadership vote according to whoever butters their bread or according to the path of least resistance.
It’s not just me accusing the bishop of something. People who work for him have told us Brett K was the big hurdle for us. And another name. We have had a number of ELCA pastors complain to us about it. We have long been aware of the political and personal issue this is for the bishop and in the Argus article he’s not being honest, neither is our LSS friend Betty O in her quote, about why they are quiet. Yes, the bishop got all pious last month on transgender bathrooms. But he has to wait until June to render an opinion on this issue? It’s not true. The ELCA already has a position paper on this issue. And he told Hilde and I last year this time they’d take this up in June. Well, June came and went. And there is more to the story than the Argus printed. Cory, it WAS time sensitive last year as we were kicking off a signature drive. Official ELCA church involvement like we got from the FHA evangelical group was needed.
I’ve been banned from commenting over at Dakota War College because I’ve accused Pat of being a tool of the crony capitalists. The blog is worse off without people like me commenting there- that’s not arrogance. People he respects have emailed me to say just that. It’s called addition. Pat’s game is subtraction. I don’t go there much anymore, especially on DWC Press Release Posting Day, but did yesterday because a friend emailed me that PP put up another industry defense. He has written that I’m impugning motives. He does that every day on that blog with people he disagrees with. Lots of his posts are because-I-say-so. Zzzzzz.
Steve many lutherans agree with you predatory lending should be even capped lower, Just because the bishop doesn’t agree doesn’t mean we agree .Wehad a forum on this oin our church and even a lady who had one of these loans so we are in your corner.Least like your starting to talk like a lutheran maybe you need a white collar.
Steve, your comments and calls for moral action in the public sphere by your fellow clergy remain welcome. You understand my tempered tone correctly… and in this case it serves us well. Yes, the crony connection between Bishop Zellmer and payday-lender tool Koenecke is worth noting. Conversations within the synod (for which I do not speak in any capacity) are worth having. I would be happy to see the congregants of the pastors mentioned in Ellis’s story and congregants of the pastors who have shared their concerns with you (and folks from Moses’s congregation!) bring forward a resolution in June. I agree: if the ELCA can advocate for Medicaid expansion, the ELCA can likely find even more common ground among its members on banning usury.
But it is also worth noting the democratic nature of the ELCA. We don’t have a pope. The Synod is the people. The bishop follows the people’s lead. On this issue, while we can discuss whether the ELCA should have thrown its support behind the petition drive, we have an opportunity for Lutherans of good conscience to deliberate, come to Synod Assembly, and decide whether, as a group, they want to take a public stand on this issue. The ELCA’s democracy may be slower than a top-down hierarchy, but it still has time to act.
Just as DWC is weaker for the absence of intelligent voices like yours, Steve, the blogosphere is weaker for the absence of any intelligent, non-flacking content on DWC. At least Michael Clark is providing some original content about his own approach to the candidate surveys. Michael Clark and Troy Jones should write more… or better yet, open their own blog so we don’t have to scroll through all the lazy paid content to get to the real articles where we can actually converse with the authors.
Where the hell are the Catholics on this? (Oh yes, they’re too busy in court with all their pedophile lawsuits.)
CH,
So you are writing tempered because it would put your wife in a difficult position. Hilarious. If she can handle your atheism, I’m pretty sure she can handle anything else you say.
But I regress. I think what everyone should appreciate is Bishops have a high mission which is to preach the Gospel and message of Salvation. This requires them to sometimes restrain themselves from be distracted from the temporal, for like everything of this world, it will disappear. I am sure it is hard to discern when to interject themselves/use their office and when not to. Since they are fallible, none get it right all the time.
C.H. evidently Zellmer doesnt want to make a statement.I will cap it at 38 or lower.
What if this Bishop Zellmer fellow announces to all the ministers in his group that they need to preach against taking away from poor people the option of being able to get a quick loan to feed their kids or pay for that tooth extraction or fix their broken car?
If Bishop Zellmer orders all Lutheran pastors to tell their audiences to vote against the caps to drive the loan sharks out of business it will be interesting indeed.
Troy, you are correct that I already put my wife in a remarkably awkward position. I nonetheless should not take that fact as license to go wild.
Bishop Zellmer and I face similar challenges in maintaining a distinction between our professional responsibilities and our public political statements. Pastor Hickey isn’t asking Bishop Zellmer to take off his alb and write a blog post on payday lending; he’s asking Bishop Zellmer to make an official statement from his official position. He’s asking the entire ELCA-SD to advocate for IM 21. I think the ELCA could advocate for IM 21 in complete consistency with its principles. I understand Hickey’s suspicion and criticism of Zellmer’s hesitance to take the lead in the conversation that would lead the ELCA to take an official position on IM 21. However, I can understand an organizational argument that would excuse Zellmer’s waiting for Synod Assembly… and argument that holds more water than Oldenkamp’s excuse.
IM 21 may or may not be in “complete consistency” with its principles. Complete is a rather absolute term. And assessing “complete” from a Lutheran theological perspective probably is above your (and my) pay grade. And, even then, how does it compare against other issues? Speak out on everything and before long you are heard on nothing.
BTW: Since I’m not Lutheran, this isn’t my issue. The synod and Bishop’s decision either way will not heavily weigh on me. Rightly so, such statements are first and foremost statements to their flock.
Troy, even though I’m not a Lutheran pastor and I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn last night, I think the Lutheran theological perspective is pretty straightforward here. You don’t sit idly by and allow the poor to be exploited. Usury is not to be favored. Christ threw the money changers out of the temple. Mark 11:15-19
I, the Lord, command you to do what is just and right. Protect the person who is being cheated from the one who is cheating him. (Jeremiah 22:3) Learn to do right. See that justice is done — help those who are oppressed, give orphans their rights, and defend widows. (Isaiah 1:17) Don’t take advantage of the poor just because you can; (Proverbs 22:22-23)
I also think that in the event that there is a stand taken on IM21 by either Bishop Zellmer or the synod assembly or both, Mr. Koenecke should seriously consider himself conflicted out of representing either party. You can’t represent the Devil and God at the same time. It is the biggest conflict of interest in history.
“Speak out on everything and before long you are heard on nothing.” Oops—I guess publishing 12,274 blog posts since August 2005 wasn’t a good marketing strategy. ;-)
Cory, I’m wondering if I’ve ever consciously and intentionally done anything 12,000 times.
No one has answered my question on the SD Catholic Dioceses stance on this measure. Why have they not been supporting this? Pastor Hickey, I would phone both East and West River Catholic Bishops and ask for their support on this. They should be vocally supporting Hickey and Hildebrand on this and if they aren’t it’s pretty pathetic.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/catholic-church/
Cory, hope you don’t mind but I want to point out what good broadcast journalism is(in addition to you of course!)
The last three years MPR has done an exceptional job in investigating the Catholic Church Sex Scandal here in MN. Hundreds of priests were hidden from the public for decades. A whistleblower came forward in 2013. The St Paul Archdiocese has filed for bankruptcy,
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/catholic-church/
I often dream of SDPR being able to do this kind of investigating of its state corruption problem.
I meant investigative journalism (not broadcast journalism).
As my good friend Lar might say, the Catholic Dioceses have more money than God and it is invested in a diverse portfolio.
If you want to see a crazy bunch of people try the Lutheran Missouri Synod
Darin,
First, if it matters were so easy as staying in a Holiday Inn Express, Cory’s wife’s need to get a degree was a waste of time. :)
Second, this is a matter which at its root is related to the principle of theodicy and then discerning the proper remedy/response as humans when presented with evil and/or injustice.
Assertion #1: Pay day lending is an abject evil (I don’t think this is your assertion). This means that both the borrower and lender are participating in something so evil they are both held morally responsible for its occurrence and their mutual cooperation in the evil. While wholly confident the perpetrators will be brought to account upon judgement, the church often speaks clearly for such evil to also meet temporal judgement.
Assertion #2: Pay day lending is an injustice/evil in all cases against the poor in general and in each specific case. This means that the lender is ALWAYS doing something evil and the borrower is a victim (even if he thinks he is doing so freely and without coercion). If this is your position, an expectation for a church declaration is not as clear cut as you think. For instance, most Christian denominations consider adultery to such an evil but they don’t call out for its criminalization or prohibition in law while condemning it from the pulpit.
Sidenote: Pay day lending isn’t an evil in all cases as some borrowers know the terms, accept them as fair, and can handle the terms. Think of the scenario of being in the desert and a guy selling you a bottle of water for $20. The real “evil” would be you dying of thirst.
Assertion #3: While the cost of the loan MAY be justified and the some borrowers willingly accepts the terms (thus not an absolute evil), the cost to society is so great its prohibition is warranted. If this is your position, an expectation of a church declaration isn’t unreasonable. This is the thought behind church support of anti-Prostitution laws. While the john and hooker both understand the nature of their transaction and enter into it freely, the broader consequences to society (disease, adultery, crime, drug abuse, etc.) are so great it is considered a societal sin and thus criminalized. However, again a declaration isn’t so clear-cut as this was also the rationale behind the Temperance Movement and Prohibition. Many churches reversed themselves on Prohibition (even if calling for total alcohol abstinence from the pulpit) as they saw the cure was worse then the disease.
Assertion #4 (similar to #3): While the costs are justified because of the high defaults and many borrowers freely enter into the agreements, the damage to the few (or their families) who can’t handle the terms are so great the benefits to the many are transcended. It goes to those sins which cry to Heaven. It may be why some are so passionate on this issue. Based on your Scripture verses, this might be where you are coming from. Unfortunately with regard to a theological argument here, it is a very high bar to pass (if it weren’t, a case can be made all sins fit this category). With the reality we no longer have debtor prisons, easy bankruptcy for small personal debts, the safety net, etc., many churches are finding economic sins almost never passing this test.
This takes us back to theodicy (evil in the world, God’s allowing it to happen, and our proper response. My Church calls it living in the tension and discerning the prudent response (right action, at the right time, in the right circumstance, for the right reasons). I don’t pretend to know how this concept is considered by Lutherans much less where they put certain societal sins in their hierarchy of evils for which they call for criminalization/prohibition vs. admonition from the pulpit. I don’t understand fully how my church struggles with these matters.
But I do know this: My Church doesn’t fight every fight and make statements on every issue. I suspect the Lutherans are the same. At some point and on many issues, they go back to theodicy (trusting in the goodness of God and His providence for all of His Creation) which is also the calling of the laity. This reminds me of Pope John XXIII’s ending to his evening prayer “God, my day is ended, it is your Church, I’m going to bed.”
The facts as stated in the headline of this blog, lead me to remember the situation when John Morrell was cutting the pay of the workers at John Morrell, by about 40%, back in the 1980s.
When reminded of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Noverum at the end of the 19th century, “On Capital and Labor”, Eastern South Dakota Bishop Paul Dudley in speaking to the congregants of St Therese Little Flower, mainly working people with a large share of them working for John Morrell, when asked why did he keep Jeremiah Murphy as the attorney for the diocese when Mr Murphy also was John Morrell’s lead attorney. The bishop said well he works for the diocese for free.