Religion and Debt #1 – Preaching Personal Austerity ?

  By Richard from Canada | July 27, 2012 - 05:46 | ,

 

The religious right is the USA has taken on the debt battle to get the people debt free. Everyone should pay cash ! This is a force in the USA which is still growing ! It is an extreme reaction which appears on the surface as great for the average person in heavy debt but not your average US economy.   So does the recession continue into a death spiral?  Trying to fix bad consumer debt behavior during an economic depression is likely not as good an idea as is being preached here.  Where were they during the good times ?  I guess that people did not want to listen about taking on too much debt when the economy was booming  !?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/15/women-religious-leaders_n_924807.html#s327382&title=Rev_Joyce_Meyer

Rev Joyce Meyer is one of many who has taken on the debt challenge.  She is no light weight as you can see from her bio above.  It is worth the listen to appreciate the delivery of her messages.  One liners like ”Everyone want’s to keep up with the Jones’, but they are broke !”

So why are they preaching austerity when they should be preaching for a Debt Jubilee ?!

 

Written by: Richard from Canada on July 27, 2012.
Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Flig_in_Detroit

    I am an atheist but I was raised Catholic and I have read a bit on Christianity. It always intrigued me that the Lord’s Prayer-arguably the most important prayer to all Christians, differs in two ways between various groups when it is translated into English. The first big difference is that Catholics do not have the ending “for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory now and forever”-I am not sure who has the Kingdom, the power and the glory. But anyway, the most intriguing difference-and the most hotly debated invloves the tranlation of “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” vs. “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” Think about what profound difference this entails in your approach to relationship with others and “God”. Which is the correct translation-I am not a scholar but based upon what Steve Keen has told us, I would tend to believe that early Christians were aware of the problems associated with unpayable debt and debt forgiveness was probably at the forefront of their thinking. From what I can tell, the American Christian Right likes the “trespass” translation a little better-its meaning is a bit more open to interpretation. If there are any religious scholars out there, I would like to learn more about this debate.

    • lgrinaker

      Interesting nugget to bring up, Flig.

      Hmmmm. At first glance, I would say that “forgive us our debts…” allows for the 2nd meaning as part of its interpretative potential, as well as the first, more literal meaning; whereas, with the 2nd, “forgive us our trespasses…” foregoes the first literal meaning associated with debt forgiveness.

      My guess is that “debt” was closer to the original. For “debt jubilee,” is part of Jewish tradition – perhaps even a part of early Jewish law? (And it may be a part of other traditions as well.) And, at least for many early Christians, or those who were also Jewish by ancestry, the notion of literal debt forgiveness would be deeply familiar to them.

      Linda

    • axionication1

      Very good point Flig.

      So much revolves around the use & interpretation of individual words. All creatively used… bent & twisted to suit what ever agenda is being pushed (Modern day thaumaturgy?).

      • axionication1

        Just watched dome of the rev Joyce’s sermon. Got as far as the 2min 30:” there will be a period of sacrifice that will be soooooooo worth it”.
        Blech! could not listen any further.

        • axionication1

          As to the why question. I guess it would have something to do with religious guilt meme ( & most importantly, This Shit Sells).

    • http://www.alda-architects.co.uk/ Alan

      I don’t think it has anything to do with money but more to do with sins. Not so much forgive us our debts but that which is due, obligations or atonement. We are looking at it from a modern view point where we should be trying to consider the context 2000 years ago and how society was then structured.

  • lgrinaker

    I haven’t had a chance to fully listen to the video, and I have to head off.

    But I know one important problem is that at least in the U.S., people look at both kinds of debt – national debt and then, debt at all other levels – as being exactly the same… like household debt, or debt that requires repayment in full (plus interest).

    I understand that it’s very easy to lump those two together as being the same, but they simply are not.

    Linda

  • CSArichardo

    I think the Bible Belt teaches personal responsibility. Yes you should keep yourself out of debt. So that brings up the personal responsibility of the rich and those representing the institutions of the rich. Do they have a personal responsibility to greater society and should they encorage a Debt Jubilee ?
    Yes I agree with Linda on the fact that debt in our society today is considered the same debt no matter who has it (individual, household, state or federal government or corporation) and this is an incorrect or better unethical approach to looking at debt.

  • Emmazedbend

    There must be something in the ether: two articles came out this week dealing with historical religious attitudes to debt (usury).
    From Nicole Foss
    http://theautomaticearth.com/Finance/our-debts-must-be-redeemed.html

    From John Michael Greer
    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/the-upside-of-default.html

    • axionication1

      Greer was spot on. As per usual.

  • http://www.alda-architects.co.uk/ Alan

    I find such preaching hard going. No context, no over view. It is all your fault sort it out. Don’t ask too many questions like why are you in debt, why are you not earning enough to live on. No; accept your lot, sort yourself out, keep your nose to the grind stone.

    Yes sure there are people who can’t stop spending, but in a general sense that sermon makes as much sense as telling people dying in a famine not to eat more than they have.