But I am a christian
She was heavily pregnant, wore little make up and wore a small silver cross at her neck. We were discussing options for the recovery of a substanial amount of money which she had loaned. As I am accustomed to do, I laid out the different steps that could be taken, the costs and risks involved. But when I came to discuss bankruptcy, she said “I could never bankrupt someone because I am a Christian”. I wondered whether I was in the wrong profession.
But this was just another example of issues of financial management becoming tied up in religion for no good reason. And I see it a lot in my line of work. I could have spoken to her and pointed out that bankruptcy is actually designed as a form of restorative justice - a process which balances the rights of those that are owed money while giving the debtor a chance of a fresh start. It developed as a replacement for the system where hopelessly indebted people would enter into a spiral of prosecution which ended with their being imprisoned until their debts were paid in full. Due to the fact that they were imprisoned, they were unable to earn money to pay these debts and therefore the effective result of financial difficulties was life imprisonment. I could have explained all of this to my client, but I doubt she would have appreciated it.
We all know that religion has a messed up relationship with money in all its forms. Prosperity theology, dodgy teaching on giving, lack of accountability - we have talked about all of these on this site. This week I received an alert to an article about Christian financial counsellors - the debt slayers. We come across these people from time to time. There are the real Christian debt counsellors - the priests and ministers and church leaders who deal straight with us lawyers and counsel their “clients” to be honest and open about your abilities to pay and cooperate to arrange the resolution of the situation (in whatever way) with a minimum of evasion, costs and manipulation. But those saints never advertise or present themselves as financial counsellors. And they are not the focus of this article. Rather, this article is about the ‘other’ kind of Christian financial counsellors:
Dave Ramsey is a fast-talking, in-your-face kind of guy whose tough-love guidance—both in books and over the airwaves from Nashville—connects with a lot of Americans. Every few minutes on his three-hour weekday afternoon radio program, callers who recently paid off massive amounts of credit card obligations scream, “I’m debt-free!”
Although he is overtly Christian, Ramsey resonates with a market beyond the evangelical niche: His show is carried on 272 secular stations. In March, cbs television began filming a pilot for a reality series that will follow Ramsey around the country, helping families conquer overwhelming debt and cut the credit umbilical cord.
“I’ve cried over this stuff, too,” says Ramsey, who established a $4 million real estate portfolio by age 26 and lost it four years later. “I’ve done stupid with zeroes on the end.”
I don’t want to impugn Mr Ramsey’s ministry, but I just don’t see the difference between this and any other financial counselling service. Just what are the Christian principles in relation to debt? I would venture that we are called to be good stewards of our resources (which would mean avoiding waste, consumerism, excessive spending etc). We are called to give sacrificially to others. And we are called to deal honestly with other people (ie that there is a moral aspect to clearing debt and not leaving people in the lurch). But except where you want to justify your tips with a bible verse, I can’t see how the nuts and bolts of Christian financial counselling is any better than the more principled of secular financial counsellors.
So I don’t really think you are getting anything extra from Christian financial counselling than you are from secular financial counselling, except the warm glow that comes from being told that becoming debt free is pleasing to God (in itself a little creepy). But putting such a religious overtone on paying off credit card debt can be profoundly manipulative:
According to Mary Hunt, who says her Debt-Proof Living website attracts more than 8 million monthly hits, multitudes of Christians have curtailed church giving because of overspending.
“People can’t believe it when I tell them they need to tithe and save even if they are deeply in debt,” says Hunt. “Most of them think, I’ll do that when I pay all my bills off.“
“A whole bunch of us got all this stuff we really didn’t want with money we really didn’t have to impress people we really didn’t like,” Ramsey says.
And all of it is built around that old chestnut, that God likes us better if we are not in debt. Or, even if we are wealthy. And correspondingly, if we are in financial trouble, then we are not living as God wants us to live. But in order to find this in the Bible, you have to really want to see it:
Most Christian financial leaders acknowledge that debt isn’t called sin in the Bible, but they believe that Scripture discourages debt. They concede that debt is a reality of modern life and even drives the economy, but warn against a lifelong pattern of debt.
“We can’t make a blanket statement that all debt is wrong,” says Blue, author of Master Your Money, now in its 32nd printing. “But it doesn’t make sense to borrow your way to prosperity.”
And it should be no surprise that the ‘typical’ success stories from such counsellors follow the “I paid off my debt and God blessed me with money and success” formula:
Doug and Sherrie Spracklen of Fair Grove, Missouri, are typical beneficiaries. They believe an intensive 13-week Crown Ministries course at Peace Chapel Assembly of God strengthened their marriage and transformed their lives.
Doug, 35, says in his younger years he bought things like a car stereo system and golf clubs, but didn’t have the money to pay for them. His credit card balance further escalated when he started his own insurance business and bought office furnishings and business suits.
Four years into their marriage, the Spracklens had amassed $20,000 in unsecured debt. They had two vehicle payments, an older house that needed repairs, and no equity. They made minimum payments on their credit cards and rolled debt over whenever a zero percent credit offer came along, but those introductory benefits soon expired. The Crown classes helped them devise a plan to get out of debt in two years, just before the birth of the first of their two sons.
Although he always had tithed, the Crown course taught Doug Spracklen to view giving as something more joyful than a mere obligation. Since becoming debt-free, the Spracklens have increased giving to missions, benevolence needs, and savings. He hired three agents, and his business income quadrupled in six years. The Spracklens have purchased 30 acres, but are in no hurry to go into debt by borrowing to build a home.
Want a real Christian attitude to debt and stewardship? Then you are better off going to this guy:
On the other end of the spectrum is the Sarasota, Florida–based Gary Moore, who provides “counsel to spiritual and ethical investors.” He advises the Templeton Foundation and is a board treasurer of Opportunity International, an organization that sees loans as a means of empowerment for the poor. “Small loans,” its website proclaims, “sometimes as little as $50, in the hands of a poor entrepreneur, can transform the lives of individuals, families, and entire communities.” Not surprisingly, then, Moore paints a much different picture than Dayton, Ramsey, Blue, and Hunt.
He argues that Americans are in the top 1 percent of all wage earners in history and that less than 2 percent of Americans have serious credit card debt. Federal Reserve reports indicate that of the households that carry a credit card balance (45 percent of all households), the median amount owed is $1,900. “As the average American lives on $40,000 a year, that’s hardly an economic earthquake,” Moore comments. Only 29 percent of households owe $1,000 or more on their cards, 4 percent owe $10,500 or more, and 1 percent owe $21,400 or more. Moore contends that debt can be empowering rather than enslaving, and that credit is compatible with Christian values.
Or better still, how about we listen to this guy:
Then he said to the crowd, “Don’t be greedy! Owning a lot of things won’t make your life safe.”
16So Jesus told them this story:
A rich man’s farm produced a big crop, 17and he said to himself, “What can I do? I don’t have a place large enough to store everything.”
18Later, he said, “Now I know what I’ll do. I’ll tear down my barns and build bigger ones, where I can store all my grain and other goods. 19Then I’ll say to myself, `You have stored up enough good things to last for years to come. Live it up! Eat, drink, and enjoy yourself.’ ”
20But God said to him, “You fool! Tonight you will die. Then who will get what you have stored up?”
21″This is what happens to people who store up everything for themselves, but are poor in the sight of God.”
Who here really thinks that Jesus would be mad if I borrowed money to give it to the poor?
May 30th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
I’ve no problem with Dan and Phil at all, it is their site. I can tolerate the language, but sometimes the personal attacks are incredulous. I just choose not to participate. I doubt I would be missed.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
You mean Homer regularly calling me and other people heretical? Seriously, I can deal with the swearing, but nothing - I repeat NOTHING - angers me more than Christians that dismiss others by suggesting they are not “real” Christians.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Nobody gets banned for bad language. Apologies for personal attacks happening. We don’t approve, but we aren’t around as much as we would like to monitor discussions and make sure that everyone plays nice. FAQs coming soon.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
So we have a comments policy that isn’t a policy.
no-one knows what is allowed or not allowed.
Bec, when people stray into heresy I point out why they are.
I must say it is a strange philosophy.
bad language is okay but don’t you dare point out where people are straying.
very post-modern indeed very signpostish
May 30th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
So it’s ok to point out that people are, in your opinion, heretics, but to point out when other people are, in my opinion, dickheads, is not….?
May 30th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Homer says:
So we have a comments policy that isn’t a policy.
no-one knows what is allowed or not allowed.
So here for Homer is an abridged copy of the policy as found here http://www.signposts.org.au/comments-policy/
3. We reserve the right to delete or edit comments at our complete discretion. However, typically we will use this power sparingly. … Please note that we consider people commenting here to be big boys and girls and there may be some heated discussions. If it is not an extreme situation, we prefer to leave comments on the site so they can be responded to and discussed - if you feel that people are being pummelled, feel free to stick up for them.
4. One thing that annoys us more than other things is if we feel that someone’s beliefs are being disrespected (eg if you believe that then you obviously don’t believe in God/are a satanist/are a heretic/are spiritually immature). We are capricious like that. “But he said bad words” is not a sufficient defence.
6. We prefer not to ban anyone from this site … We hope not to ever ban anyone who is participating in discussion, even if that person is being anti-social and rude. We do reserve the right to ban people.
7. Despite everything above, this is our site which we pay for and maintain. …If you are pissing us off so that we no longer enjoy this site as much, we will ban or restrict you, even if you do not breach any other rules. … But ultimately, if we are not enjoying this, then it stops.
Ummm…I think the comments policy is fairly clear Homer and is being lived up to by Phil and Dan
May 30th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Here is a simple test to determine if you are cool enough to be posting on signposts :
can I post at signposts?
May 30th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Homer, there are different ways of pointing out that people are “wrong” or that you disagree with them.
Some are gentle, wise, pastoral, intelligent, and considered.
Some are brutish, blunt, rude, and judgmental.
I hope you are capable of the former, for I know you have a wife and I think you said you had children (??). On Signposts, however, you are the latter far more than the former.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Offensiveness is all in the ear of the be-hearer. If you, Homer, are offended by words that rhyme with “front” and “trucking” (as well you might be, and fair enough), then you should point that out. That’s fine.
But your manner of speaking to people can sometimes be equally or even more offensive than using swearwords. And you need to understand that that’s where a lot of people come from about this issue.
Lastly, I think that Dan and Phil are pretty clear on what the comments polciy is, and I think they’re being pretty consistent in applying it. This site isn;t compulsory - you choose to be here, and choose to be under that policy, so you really can’t complain too much.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Urgh… East Timor is on fire, an aboriginal township is cowering under mob rule, there is bloodshed in virtually every corner of the globe and you are arguing about whether Phil and Dan have the right to expel somebody from their blog…. what the? Is this what our spirtuality has come too? Is this the depth of it. Oh boy, thank God I am not a Christian…. and now I bet you are going to be up in arms about my last statement. Golly gee, must be of earth shattering impact to divert your attention from the real issues…. unless of course what people do and believe is the real issue for you.
Oh God… this is sooooo depressing it’s beyond belief.
May 30th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
There’s that door opening up and letting the light back in - fuck we are a bunch of dickheads.
BTW thanks for making us feel bad Geoff - LOL in case the sentiment doesn;t come across in type
May 30th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Geoff, check out my blog: http://disasters-and-development.blogspot.com
Only new, but you might find it satisfying.
May 30th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
oh - I will not hesitate to delete comments I don’t like. It’s my blog, I can do what I like with it. So THERE!
May 30th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
“Oh boy, thank God I am not a Christian”
I see ‘being a Christian’ and being a ‘follower of Jesus’ as two completely different things, so I at least know exactly what you mean.
Or it’s just the bi-polar talking.
May 30th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Lance, not sure if it was “bi” or his mate “polar”.. perhaps they were singing a duet!!
May 30th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
bec, you know stuff! i learnt a lot while reading your blog…
May 30th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
LOL. Well, it was what I was doing before I decided to give my law degree a burl…I started up that blog during the Solomons riots, it’s supposed to motivate me to stay on top of things.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
thanks Greg you have proved my point.
In each case of almost any blog that bans someone the policy is a joke.
brutish, blunt, rude, and judgmental is when someone dares to tell Bec she is walking down the wrong path.
on the other hand gentle, wise, pastoral, intelligent, and considered judgements are when people agree with her.
I do like Luke’s comment the best that swearing at someone can be alright and other forms of language can be more offensive.
Obviously asking for biblical evidence is a no-no here.
And Geoff well he can’t apparently chew gum and walk at the same time.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Homer, you just don’t get it, do you?
It isn’t what is said, the views that are expressed, but how they are expressed.
I have repeatedly pointed out to you that I don’t like how some people sometimes write here and I have said that.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but I am appalled by the way you engage with people. The Rev and I strongly disagree on terminology that should be used to refer to God, and you saw that debate - but he still gave me a hug the next time he saw me and we had a good laugh. You know why? Because we like and respect each other, and we engage with each other in a respectful way on this blog (and that’s where we met).
I’m a practising lawyer, and before that I worked in universities. I am well and truly used to having people disagree with me, and I don’t mind it - in fact my bosses have often had a good laugh at the way I enjoy the rough and tumble of a good debate. BUT there are different ways of engaging in that debate. As far as I’m concerned, your method of debating is about as skilful as a footy player going up and punching a guy in the face and then walking off with the ball…he might have the ball, but did he exercise any skill?
I’m tired of you slagging people off here, I really am. You and I had one decent discussion going (although your posts didn’t have half as much effort and thought put into them as mine), but you were too busy “playing” on the other posts, talking about how everyone but you couldn’t handle debate, was a sinner, etc etc etc…Homer, what is WRONG with you?
May 30th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Homer, I don’t chew gum, but I do bleed. I have no idea why you chose to be so offensive. I don’t think you understand the weight of your words and the depth that they can reach inside a wounded soul. Nothing more to say to you, I so hope that one day you find true compassion to soften that angry mind of yours. Don’t bother replying unless it is to apologise.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Man, this is like group therapy!!
May 30th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
I commented on this site a couple of months ago when I noticed this was the centre of all things anti-Hillsong and all other mega-churches.
I return now and again with interest to hear the latest goings-on, although it’s pretty much of a muchness. So much is allowed on this site it beggars belief.
The last 24 hours or so on this particular thread has proved to me just what this site is really all about…thank you for enlightening me.
Bye bye Signposts.
May 31st, 2006 at 8:01 am
see the thing is cuss words aren’t offensive to me. I do think people step over the line on this blog many times, but using a naughty word doesn’t bother me at all. I would much rather be called a dickhead than a heretic. And I would definately rather be called an a-hole than an idiot, or a liar. I can say much worse things with no cuss words.
The thing is DD seemed to be here only to stir. Though I haven’t been here in a while, so I might be wrong, his legitimate comments seemed few and far between. On my blog he says insulting things, with no substance and then just says more with the reactions. Now, I have a lot of patience with people that are generally out for discussion, and I can take a lot of abuse from them, though I might get angry, I have no desire for them to go away. But when someone is using the sincere beliefs of others just for a way of making sport of them, and has no interest in inteligent converstaion, then I have no time for them.
Even Homer tries to actually be part of a conversation even though we are all too stupid and have no reading ability, which prevent us from seeing the obvious truth of everything he says.
the rev
May 31st, 2006 at 12:09 pm
EP, just voicing my support of your comments - last couple of days posts confirm my suspicions: only post-modern philosophers welcome here. I find DD much more tolerable - at least he knows he’s lost. Sorry to leave you again …
May 31st, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Well sorry as we are to see you go…please James, stay and help us find our way…we are so lost and alone and frightened…the big bad post-modern-humanists have taken us captive with teir beguilling words and twisted theology…don;t leave us alone with them…
May 31st, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Geoff,
you are bleeding because people can talk on more than one issue.
you find that expression offensive? HOW?
Geoff drop by Lance sometime if you want offensive.
DD may have wanted merely to stir but from the few times I read him he didn’t abuse anyone and if he was having a uncivil dig at Phil & Dan it was certainly hidden.
I see rev is somewhat confused there are some swear words that are offensive but there are some that aren’t. There are a lot of people on this blog who have called other writers stupid but I am not one of them!!
Swearing is accompanied by quite violent language ( it is usually an adjective accompanying a noun at a minimum) which has been quite common of late.
That is THE big difference between bad language and having one’s views called heresy or moving to heresy.
Unfortunately sincere beliefs can be contrary to scripture.
Again unfortunately this is not rare at this blog.
It appears no matter how one tells people they are straying this is just not acceptable. No matter how many parts of the bible you say contradicts their position.
May 31st, 2006 at 1:27 pm
To Homer’s credit I would like to compliment him on one thing, he does stick to the issue at hand, dosen’t fall in with personally rude attacks & cautions anyone else who does regardless of whether they come down on his side of theology or not.
The only thing that infuriates people about Homer is his refusal to budge from literalist scripture, I guess if i had to choose betwen him & an undisciplined, foul-mouthed, feral homoophobe, i would go with Homer because at least it’s an impersonal experience (sometimes frustratingly so).
And that, Homer, believe it or not,….. is a type of compliment.
May 31st, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Homer says…
There are a lot of people on this blog who have called other writers stupid but I am not one of them!!
then he says… http://www.signposts.org.au/2005/10/13/god-and-homosexuality/#comment-139937
Phil, don’t be completely stupid.
May 31st, 2006 at 1:36 pm
I think at some point a wise person has to quit remonstrating someone’s shortcomings & take a shot at complimenting them on something they’re successful at.
Good for the soul i think. Lifts the fog so to speak.
;o)
May 31st, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Reve,
you are very mistaken about Homer. Homer has called people blind, he has said numerous times that people are lacking in education, can’t read, don’t speak English, or says things like, if you can’t understand simple points like this then I can’t help you. His refusal to bend may be frustrating, but it is his constant refusal to look at his own offensive behaviour that drives me crazy. I speak with many fundies that are unmovealbe in their position, without ever being told I am just not conversant enough in the English language to understand simple points.
At one point I posted word for word one of Homers quotes, then posted the dictionary definitions of the words he used, and rather than admit he had misspoke, he just left the forum for a few weeks. He has never once admitted he was wrong, or mistaken, or even rude.
Lance is often very rude, but he acknowledges it, and is doing it to prove a point.
the rev