Shortfalls and slothfulness

Nitpickerus: As I said Dionysius, my problem is not my millions in immobillsed assets, but the size of my overdraft. The average medical student debt on graduation is now £4273! Doesn't the Bible say we should 'owe no one anything'?[1]

Dionysius: It does, but both 01d[2] and New[3] Testaments also recognise that temporary shortfalls occur. There are times in our lives when our needs exceed our ability to pay.

Nitpickerus: Such as?

Dionysius: Obvious examples are when we're too old or too young to support ourselves. This is why God insists that we bear our responsibility to provide for dependents, at both extremes of life.[4]

Nitpickerus: Isn't this encouraging bludging?

Dionysius: Not at all. Those who can work must work.[5] Slothfulness is a sin[6] which was not encouraged or rewarded in the early church community. But equally, there will be times when others have a responsibility to provide for us, just as there will be times when we have a responsibility to reciprocate.[7] In the family it's clearly spelt out. Those who fail to provide for their families are worse than unbelievers.[8] The good man , not only serves his dependents, but leaves them an inheritance as well.[9] The prophets denounced people who accumulated property, to the extent that others suffered from deprivation[10] - 'Woe to those who add house to house and join field to field till no space is left...'

Nitpickerus: But you're talking about giving. What about lending and borrowing? Does the Bible have anything to say about that?

Lending and borrowing

Dionysius: Rather a lot. Christians should be generous and lend to those in need if they have the means to do so.[11]

Nitpickerus: But isn't lending just a form of economic exploitation. Doesn't the Bible say the borrower is the lender's slave?[12]

Dionysius: It does, but it depends how lending is done. Lending can be a form of slavery, especially when repayment of interest and pnncipal exceeds a person's capacity to pay. Exactly this sort of crisis arose in the time of Neherniah and he dealt with the perpetrators most decisively.[13]

Nitpickerus: So what's godly lending?

No-interest loans

Dionysius: In the Old Testament, God's people were commanded to lend their poor brothers everything they needed.[14] Furthermore, in loans to fellow Jews (mishpaha), travellers (ger) and immigrants (toshab) they were forbidden to take interest.[15]

Nitpickerus: That's outrageous - lending to the poor at no interest. The pattern of even 'respectable' people today is to lend to the rich (banks and businesses) at the highest rate of interest possible. Haven't Jews themselves encouraged lending at interest?

Dionysius: This is the so-called 'deuteronomic double standard' . There's a verse in Deuteronomy which allows the lending of money at interest to foreigners (nokn).[16]

Nitpickerus: Oh I see, a kind of let out clause. It's okay provided both parties consent. Sounds famillar!

Dionysius: As you might imagine it's been exploited to the full over the centuries. It still begs the question as to who a foreigner is. Jesus, whose ethics always went above and beyond the Old Testament minimum,[17] said that we should love our enemies:[18] in other words that we should treat them in the same way that we treat our friends. The Apostle Paul taught that we should do good to all men.[19]

Nitpickerus: But did Jesus ever mention lending specifically?

Dionysius: Yes. He said we should lend even to our enemies expecting nothing in return.[20] What could be clearer than that?

Excuses for interest

Nitpickerus: I thought that he implied that the man in the parable should have put his money in the bank at interest.[21]

Dionysius: Not so. If you read the verse in its context I think you'll discover that he was equating lending at interest with reaping where one has not sown.[22] The point is that he was criticising the man for doing nothing with his money, for burying it in the ground.

Nitpickerus: But isn't there a difference between 'interest' (legitimate payment for a loan) and 'usury' (excessive extortion)?

Dionysius: People make of a lot of this, but interestingly it's not a distinction the Bible mentions.

Nitpickerus: But doesn't the NIV particularly single out 'excessive' interest?[23]

Dionysius: Yes, but I wouldn't take it too seriously. The NIV makes a number of interesting amendments to Scripture. It's a sober reminder to us that Scnpture was inspired in the language in which it was originally given. We have to get the translation right. You'll find the NIV is sometimes a little more accurate in the footnotes.

Nitpickerus: But what about inflation?

Debt forgiveness

Dionysius: I don't see that mentioned as an exception. If you think the teaching on interest is radical, have you looked at that on debt forgiveness? Under Old Testament Law, all debts were forgiven, and all debt slaves were released every seven years.[24]

Nitpickerus: Who would lend under those conditions?

Dionysius: God anticipated just that sort of reaction. He says, 'Be careful not to harbour this wicked thought: 'The seventh year, the year for cancelling debts, is near', . . you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously.. . I command you to be open-handed. . . '[25] In fact, when you think about it, a no interest loan is not a bad investment. It's a far better investment even in worldly terms than material goods which depreciate faster than inflation.

Nitpickerus: So why is it that while nearly all Western Christians would take a firm line on, for example, sexual sin or foul language; many never forgive debts and always lend money at interest?

Dionysius: I don't know. Did you also know that the Old Testament forbids taking security on debts that would damage a person's well-being or livelihood?[26] What's more, debt slaves who couldn't pay had to be provided with a job, so that they could.[27] It makes sense. God is gracious and forgiving with us.[28] We should do the same for each other.[29]

Nitpickerus: This sounds great for me. I would stand to benefit considerably from this sort of thinking. Bye bye overdraft.

Borrower's responsibilities

Dionysius: It's not all one-sided Nitpickerus. There were obligations for borrowers too. First they were obliged to repay their debts and make restitution for losses.[30] Second they had to provide a refundable pledge as secunty for the loan on request.[31] This was a kind of security, although not one which took their means of livelihood away. Third, they had a duty to work for their livelihood in situations of poverty.[32]

Nitpickerus: I suppose that's fair. We can't encourage a mentality of something for nothing. Someone else is paying.

Dionysius: That's right. In your own situation someone is paying. Those who are already earning, that is tax-payers, are paying out far in excess of your accumulated debt to train you. Your education is substantially subsidised. Be thankful you're not paying the full cost of it, and can earn from the moment you start working. There are medical students in other countries who don't have these privileges. Remember also that in a few short years you'll be earning far in excess even of the average income here.

Nitpickerus: Let's not minimise the trauma of present debts!

Dionysius: Let's also do what we can to keep them at a minimum.

Nitpickerus: How?

Controlling debt

Dionysius: Debt accumulates when expenditure outweighs income. You can limit debt by limiting your spending or increasing your income. The huge range of debt among medical students is testimony to the fact that parental income and city of study aren't the only variables.

Nitpickerus: So how can you limit expenditure?

Dionysius: First, if possible, by applying to a medical school in your own city. Many overseas students have no choice about this, but of course it may be too late for you now. Second, by choosing a lifestyle of restraint,[33] both in place and standard of living and in transport. You cannot afford to do now what you'll be able to do later. Third, by sharing cost, getting together with others in a similar position.[34] Fourth by taking the opportunity now to learn how to budget effectively.[35] Keep an accurate record of where your money goes. You may be surprised.

Nitpickerus: How can I increase income?

Dionysius: First, by finding paid employment in your vacation, or perhaps even at other times.[36] Second by not neglecting your responsibilities to provide for the needs of others, even given your limited means.[37] Remember who is really in control. Third by seeking the best means of help possible. Someone close (a parent, friend or even a spouse!) may be able to help you out.[38] Fourth, by doing your best to live frugally. People are far more likely to help you financially if they see you being faithful and godly with what little you have.[39] The size of your debt at graduation is something much more within your control than you might imagine.

Nitpickerus: You've avoided one crucial question Dionysius. Should I tithe my grant?

Dionysius: If the Levites under the Old Covenant still tithed what they were given,[40] should you do any less?[41]

Nitpickerus: What about my loan?

Dionysius: How can you tithe money that doesn't belong to you?

Nitpickerus: Isn't there a danger of being too legalistic and pharisaical about all this?

Dionysius: There is.[42] God is as concerned about our attitudes[43] as our actions.[44] He's ultimately more interested in what we keep than what we give.[45] If we are motivated by gratitude to God for what he's already done for us, we'll get it right.[46]

Nitpickerus: It's all too complicated. Can't we simpilfy it?

Dionysius: If you insist. Ask yourself: would you like others to lend you money at no interest, forgive your debts and pay back their loans?

Nitpickerus: Of course!

Dionysius: Well, do the same for them. This sums up the law and the prophets,[47] it's what Christian morality is all about.

Nitpickerus: I'm getting tired of the eighth commandment. What can we talk about now?

Dionysius: All this talk of debt must lead us to consider covetousness. Let's start on the tenth commandment[48] in the next issue of Nucleus.