"Presbyterians brought the Mutual Society to its knees"
"When it comes to money, the general public will conclude that Presbyterians are just as greedy, insecure, opportunistic, selfish and me-first as anybody in the community." That's the message of the Presbyterian Mutual Society's crisis, according to a Presbyterian minister writing in the current edition of the denomination's magazine.
Dr Alan Russell says, "This issue is more than financial: it's moral and spiritual. Let's remember that the Mutual Society was formed by Presbyterians, run by Presbyterians, invested in and borrowed from by Presbyterians -- and brought to its knees by Presbyterians."
Dr Russell, minister of Ballywalter Presbyterian Church, is particularly scathing about those individuals who removed funds from the Mutual Society when they became concerned that their money was not protected by government guarantees: "[they] ... obviously didn't care about the consequences of their actions for others, including the possibility that they might cause hardship and hurt. No thought of bearing one another's burdens here."
Read his article in full below the fold.
Credit Crunches Again, by Alan Russell
It seemed like a very good idea at the time, back in 1982. Why not form a society restricted to members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland where people could save their spare cash and other church members could take out loans. After all, it's the kind of thing that you would expect a Christian community to do for each other, bearing one another's burdens, the strong supporting the weak, church members in community helping each other out.
It was all for the benefit of Presbyterian Church members and no-one else was involved. So why has the Presbyterian Mutual project ended in tears for many people
who can't access the money that they need? It is just another financial
casualty of the credit crisis, a victim of the impersonal forces of economics that are beyond our control.
This issue is more than financial  it's moral and spiritual. Let's remember, that the Mutual Society was formed by Presbyterians, run by Presbyterians, invested in and borrowed from by Presbyterians and brought to its knees by Presbyterians. There was no-one else involved. So what happened? People got nervous and withdrew their money because they were told that the Mutual Society has not been covered by the government financial guarantee.
Historically, I imagine this will be seen as corporate Presbyterian financial stupidity. In financial terms, the society was as near to a closed system as you can get. There was no link to the stock market and an absolute undertaking not to speculate with the money. In other words a significant number of people came to the conclusion that it was better to trust the government than their fellow Presbyterians. Those individuals (and, please God, not congregations) who thought they would move in quickly to withdraw their money, just to be on the safe side, obviously didn't care about the consequences of their actions for others including the possibility that they might cause hardship and hurt. No thought of bearing one another's burdens here.
I'm sure that the majority of those who invested with the Presbyterian Mutual Society did so because they liked the idea of their money being available for other Presbyterians to finance their businesses, repair and extend their church property or even change the car  as well as the good return they were getting for their savings. However, that's not the message we have sent out to surrounding society. When it comes to money the
general public will conclude that Presbyterians are just as greedy, insecure, opportunistic, selfish and me-first as anybody in the community.
Those outside the church certainly won't take us seriously when we quote what the Bible has to say about money. We'll wince with embarrassment as the world dismisses us as hypocrites who secretly sneer along with the Pharisees about the financial naivety of Jesus. Critics of Christianity will take it for granted that Presbyterians treat Christ's teaching as irrelevant in the real world where only the shrewd and ruthless prosper.
Indeed, could it be true that too many of us think that Mammon is entitled to his little shrine on the mantelpiece of our home or even in a corner of the church office?
Will our grandchildren look back with regret at how much our witness for Christ lost credibility because Presbyterians blew the chance of showing the world how Christians could show trust and solidarity in hard financial times? Or will they give thanks for a Christian community that learned hard lessons about money and turned, in repentance, to take the message of their Lord seriously? It's up to us as to what the answers will be.
This article by Rev Dr Alan Russell, who is minister of Ballywalter Presbyterian Church, first appeared in the (December 2008/January 2009 edition). Reprinted with permission.
Comment number 1.
At 16th Dec 2008, sharrieg wrote:Well said. Too many people saw the Society as an investment opportunity rather than an opportunity to support others, and when the going got tough, they bailed out quickly.
Others who were less financially savvy thought their money was safe and now have no access to their life savings.
Of course the society itself bears much of the responsibility for what happened - why didn't they take action more quickly to prevent large sums being withdrawn? But ultimately, people were greedy, and that brought the society to its knees.
I hope the Presbyterian Church can now acknowledge that mistakes have been made, take steps to help those who are in real need, and learn the lessons from this.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 16th Dec 2008, John Wright wrote:It WAS an investment opportunity. Unless you agree with those who say it's wrong to invest in anything, then the PMS was an investment opportunity that had the added benefit of supporting the people for the causes the investors believed in most.
Moreover, Alan Russell is living in a fictional world to believe that people will not act in the interests of their own money; that, if they feel their assets may be at risk, they won't act to take them out. That's a plain fact, and nobody predicted that by doing so it would drain the society of assets.
The blame game continues, I guess.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 16th Dec 2008, Heliopolitan wrote:"Christians Human - It's Official".
In other news:
"I'm Actually Catholic, reveals Pope."
"Dolly Parton sleeps on her back".
-H
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 16th Dec 2008, John Wright wrote:Helio-
Thank you.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 16th Dec 2008, portwyne wrote:Regarding the Second Secret of Heliopolitan, maybe William could reproduce a facsimile of Benedict's baptismal lines - just so we can be sure...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 16th Dec 2008, Peter wrote:People got nervous and withdrew their money because they were told that the Mutual Society has not been covered by the government financial guarantee.
That part of the article is indeed correct and what precepitated the crisis in the first place.
The rest is just a load of b****. If I were someone who could lose their life saviings in this fiasco I'd be very angry indeed at the Presbyterian hierchy (and this article). The morals of this situation are irrelevent. The savers who withdrew their cash acted correctly. It's the trustees of the society who are at fault here, not the savers.
Personally, if I'd been affected by this i'd be resigning my membership of the church. Again, the article seems to indicate a very flippant/couldn't care less attitude by the church, something that came over in the recent spotlight programme.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 16th Dec 2008, Peter wrote:I agree with you John one hundred %
Don't the Muslims have some strict guidlines about where they can and can't invest their money (am i correct in thinking they don't accept interest or something ?)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 17th Dec 2008, Heliopolitan wrote:Peter, some of my relatives had money in the PMS, and I agree 100% with what you say. They were foolish for one thing, but it is the *church* that is morally culpable here; they were being very strongly urged to put money into the PMS - from the PULPIT at times - and told in no uncertain terms that this was *the* ethical thing for a Presbyterian to do. For the church to wash its hands of the affair, or to put the blame on the investors, is ridiculous. Perhaps these people never read the parable of the three servants with the talents...
[Incidentally, the muslim investment thingies do apply "interest" - they just give it a different name, and call it a "sharia-friendly hosting credit" or some such]
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 19th Dec 2008, The Christian Hippy wrote:It’s a shame that the Rev Russell, didn't direct his sermonic rant in the direction of the administrators of the PMS, because they are as much to blame, if not more so, as the greedy Presbyterians who abused their fellow Presbyterians by doing a moonlight flit, leaving those savers who were caught napping, and left in the lurch, its seems that the administrators could not balance their scales properly, and apply the conditions of the PMS. Shall I acquit the man with wicked scales and with a bag of deceitful weights? What happened to the 21 day rule for withdrawals? And because this rule was not strictly applied they missed seeing the writing on the wall. This is the interpretation of the matter: MENE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; TEKEL, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; PERES, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians." And Rev Russell, don’t forget that the PCI did a Pontius Pilate.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 19th Dec 2008, Heliopolitan wrote:And a Herod. And a Sennacherib.
Get a grip; yeah, some silly people have lost some money, but nobody's dead.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)