One thing churches need to be aware of today is the rather bizarre situation their congregations are likely to be in. Many, perhaps the majority, are likely to be in debt. We are familiar with mortgages; indeed many people don't think about them as debt. But in recent years it has been much easier to take out loans particularly through credit cards. The sale of debt to people who can't afford it and sometimes don't even want it has become a major problem.
The paradox is that those church members who seem wealthy may in fact be in greater poverty than those who seem poorer. The wealthy are those who live within their means, so a person who has refused easy credit may have a less opulent lifestyle compared with someone who is living almost solely on credit.
Loans are an effective way of getting things done. Investment in a business can make a great deal of difference. The problem with the current credit crunch is that banks are no longer able to make them. The reasons for this are something of a mystery to me. Why are interest rates so low? Surely banks are more likely to make loans when there are high interest rates?
In the past there have been many instances of boom and bust. These bubbles have been caused by speculation in railways or even tulip bulbs. This time it was cheap credit. How was it that no-one predicted that selling credit to those who can't afford it would cause problems? At one time thrift was seen as a virtue, presumably the churches no longer think so.
In general though loans are a better approach to investment than gifts or grants. They certainly don't encourage dependency, except when sold to people who can't afford them. The principle is that there is a relationship between the creditor and the debtor. The more personal that relationship is perhaps the better - it is in the interest of the creditor that the business does well, or there is a possibility the loan will not be repaid.
Some creditors are more helpful than others and there will be the possibility of rescheduling a loan. Others are less helpful, loan sharks being a popular example of this type. The problem though is that the creditor does not have any real interest in how the loan is spent. So long as it is repaid with interest.
I suspect it was Calvin who helped the churches lose their concern about usury. It is interesting to ask ourselves why the churches have so little problem with interest these days but probably not a cause that would engage many people.
I see a parallel with the type of conversation Kahane calls dialogue. Here both sides have a relationship and are prepared to listen as a prelude to putting across their pre-determined point of view. There is no real commitment to each other. Similarly a loan is a relationship which has no commitment beyond the loan itself. It has utility but no real capacity for transformation.
Comments