In response to comments on part 1.

When trying to deal responsibly with our money and seeking a standard for how to handle debt, it takes more (or less?) than a set of new rules: we have to completely revolutionize our perspective.

Before I reply to the very challenging questions brought up I need to back up and get some perspective; I’m incorrigibly big-picture.

First I must say that these thoughts are in no way meant to be representative of the teachings of Neil Atkinson. I only used his quote as an introduction to my thoughts.

My motivation for bringing up the topic is to underline the freedom that is found within the relationship that we have in Christ. Just as all sin, greed is a bondage. And the motives which I addressed (i.e. cultural, materialistic assumptions that we have a right to have what we want and to have it now) are a product of a society of greed. In Christ there is freedom from this bondage as we have been united with him and abide in his love. The principle of love is one of the freedom to give of oneself without limit. In sin this is not possible; for one, sin is itself a bondage, and Romans 1 Paul explains that God has given society up to exactly what it desires: greed and all kinds of selfish depravity. They are in bondage to it. Secondly, the law, when it tells us what we should be doing instead, only highlights the deprave bondage and increases its hold on us. Thus, not following the culture of debt-fueled materialism only comes in recognizing the freedom from sin that was bought at the cross, and the freedom from the law that comes in being united in Christ who is its fulfilment.

Considering this, setting forth another law concerning debt, and thus pointing out our oft inability to keep it, is the last thing I will do. Rather, remaining consistent with the teachings of the freedom of Christ’s love we may explore how best to use his resources.

This love gives rise to an attitude that is “the state of generosity whose capital is contentment.” First, it must be stated (and here I get really redundant) that all gifts are given to nurture this relationship of self giving. They are gifts after all. Not only are they given once, but they are given so that they might sustain a life of giving, not taking. Our first approach to money is to see how best it may be used to nurture our relationships with those God has placed in our lives, for this is a fulfilment of man’s original call to reflect God’s image–his image being, of course, the rule and authority which is the pouring out of ones very life for that which one rules.

This immediately gives rise to the question posed by Teresa:

Will you expect your family to live on a shoestring while you take a few years getting financially able to provide “well”, or are you planning to wait until you have a decent amount set aside?

Again, if the question of money comes in the way of our relationships with others, then it’s at the wrong spot on the priority list. Money is nothing but a tool for service to others as are all gifts. In the event that I do not have enough money to provide for my family’s basic needs I would not hesitate to go into debt! That is the practical application of the Christian freedom to love. There are no hard and fast rules. To make a point, I would say that we are free to waste our money and accrue unreasonable debt. But of course this would be to put ourselves back into a bondage that Christ has already freed us from.

As for school debt, I appreciate Sarah’s observation that some are providentially blessed more that others. Should we automatically make the assumption that God has thus put them into a situation where debt is the only option? Surely not. If I were to find myself in that situation, could I not rather conclude that God is asking me to learn patience and be open to what he might teach me through a period of complete relience on him as I work to save enough money to go to school? Could I take it as an indication that I should perhaps consider a less expensive school, or that my vocation is in a profession that does not necessarily require a college education? I think the answer to each of the above is “yes, it could be.” But I am certainly not the judge of when it is or is not acceptable to take out a school loan; i’m not recreating law. On the other hand, I can make the observation on a cultural level that most students are going to school for purely self-serving purposes, so the debt is also such. It is up to the individual Christian to seek how best to use their Christian freedom of service in the context of their lives. For my own part it was very liberating to resign to forgoing graduation a few years in order to serve in other contexts as I save money to finish my degree.

I am certainly not the one to give advise concerning home loans. It does seem to be a reasonable and responsible use of God’s resources to invest in a home that will appreciate in value rather than other options that would place one’s family in deeper financial trouble in the long run. Of this, though, I am convinced: there is an acceptance in our culture for young couples to amasse an astounding amount of debt in order to buy a house of such a size and opulence that they may never use. Being in construction I see it every day. It is often purely a matter of status. I think we all experience similar temptation to some extent. Our endeavor should not be to come up with better rules for how we spend money, but rather to seek to adopt the perspective on money that will enable us to be free from the bondage it brings. Then we may betruly be free to act as little christs.