´óÏó´«Ã½

The Church doesn't understand PR very well, and found themselves blindsided by the collapse of the PMS at first so much that they mishandled their entire response to the affair and made some mistakes.

But a mishandling of an unfortunate event does not an unfortunate event create.

What created the unfortunate event? It seems to me that the Assembly was right to focus on the government, who essentially intervened in the financial markets with respect to some savings but not all, causing this mess in the first place. With regard to the Church's ridiculous initial response, what happened happened, and perhaps it's best - and most appropriate - that the Church 'debate' (I agree with Will's use of the apostrophe here) centers on how to respond going forward rather than their mistakes of the past.

One more thing. I like McKelvey, but his implication that the Church is somehow wrong to be involved in "capitalism" (dirty word) amounts to the claim that it's somehow wrong for people to earn money, invest it and try to make a decent return on it, and I don't have enough time right now to unpack everything that's misguided, foolish and economically ignorant about that remark. As for prophesying the fall of global capitalism, I hope these geniuses have discovered The Great Superior Economic Alternative, for, if they have, it is the world's best-kept secret.

Do you have a reference for Derek's comment about capitalism? Not that I'd be surprised if he did condemn it, it's just the article ascribes it to 'A minister'.

So:- the alternative to capitalism? Apparently the Bible's position, which explicitly bans God's people from lending money with interest to one another.
Exod 22:25; Lev 25:35-37; Deut 23:19-20; Ezek 18:8,13,17; 22:12

Not to mention that, contrary to popular opinion, the land of Israel did NOT belong to the children of Israel, but always to God, and, while they could 'sell' the land, it came back each 50 years to the original tenants.

Then we have a picture of the church not long after it began (Acts 2:44-45):-
All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

It's hard to find capitalism spoken well of in the Bible. And the extreme form of capitalism we have today would be barely recognisable to Adam Smith, let alone to the apostles or the Ancient Hebrews, so if the version back then was at best frowned on, what price today's?

From the Pentateuch and Major Prophets, to the minor prophets and Jesus' teachings (rich young ruler, sheep and goats) to Luke and Paul, the image presented is almost always much closer to socialism than capitalism. Socialism, let alone Marxism, will of course not work as a world system, given the nature of fallen humanity. Christians are called to a different approach, however - we are to aspire to perfection, despite knowing we can't achieve it here, and likewise our dealings with money should be revolutionary, and different from the way the world does things.

So maybe it is misguided, foolish and economically ignorant, but it's also the position the Bible appears to suggest for Christians.

Edwin, it would be a mistake to even look for capitalism in the Bible. Anachronism, etc. But the church has read those passages about usury in a different way since the middle ages. Thanks goodness they did, too. Christians now accept that interest may be charged on loans, as long as the interest is fair. Muslims continue to ban usury.

Augustine, there are a lot of things you won't find explicitly in the Bible. Other things not explicitly in the Bible are printed books, movies, DVDs, chocolate, tennis, the 24-hour time system, Income Tax, the European Union, the Presbyterian Church, the duck-billed platypus, plastic surgery, C-Sections, S&M, M&S...

What you will find are principles. If modern capitalism violates those principles - about usury, greed, worshipping Mammon etc etc etc, then we can comment on its rightness or wrongness.

The church has read a lot of passages in a different way since the middle ages, it doesn't mean they're right to do so. Reagan - and his many church supporters - would claim Trickle Down Economics was part of his Christian faith. Plenty of American (and other) Christians think that Rugged Individualism is the way of the Bible. Many theologians have abandoned miracles, the resurrection, Christ's divinity, scripture's divine authorship. These may be good changes, but if they are, it is certainly not simply because Christians have decided to abandon them.

I have clients who, against my advice, 'invested' in the PMS. They wanted to do so for two reasons - (1) they had the prospect of a greater return than that available from a bank/building society account and (2) they felt it was the right thing to do to help their church.

The reaction of PMS 'investors' is a classic example of modern society's thinking. What I call the "Something has gone wrong but it couldn't possibly be my fault for being foolish so who can I find to blame" syndrome. Several Pontius Pilate handwashings later (the Presbyterian's Church's nothing to do with us/it's an attack by Satan, the Secretary of State telling that it's a matter for the Assembly to which Arlene Foster replies that it isn't) we are no further forward.

Meanwhile, back In London, the City regulator, The Financial Services Authority(FSA), has stated "The FSA's normal practice is neither to confirm nor deny that we are investigating a particular firm or individual. However, in the light of the information already in the public domain about the FSA's involvement and the public interest in this case, the FSA can confirm that it has investigated the activities of Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS), now in administration, to consider if it was conducting regulated activities without the necessary authorisation or exemption.

We have concluded our investigation and have decided that it was conducting regulated activities without the necessary authorisation or exemption. However, on the basis of the information currently available to us, and applying the criteria in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, we have decided that it would not be right for us to take a case against any of those involved in running the PMS. However, we remain in touch with the administrator and, if further information comes to light relating to the issues we have investigated, we will look into it."

Two utter disgraces here, in my view : (1) that the PMS was getting involved in activities it wasn't allowed to and (2) that the FSA isn't prepared to act on a clear breach. If I, or my firm was to breach FSA regulations I'd be likely to be fined/struck off - quite right too.

All that said, whilst I have sympathy for those caught up in the demise of the PMS (many by investing far too heavily in the one institution, which is never wise) I am truly furious that they are trying to get the government (i.e. we taxpayers) to bail them out by comparing an investment in the PMS with investing in a bank or building society - they are completely different - PMS investments up to £20,000 bought shares in the PMS and amounts in excess of that were loans, which can go bad you know!

Augustine

Edwin is right in what he says about the church. I've tried to make this point too on and off over many months, but Edwin, unlike me, does it without cynicism.

It's not really about what we as Christians are technically permitted to do or not to do, it's about the idea of a new community, and like Edwin says, our dealings with money, and all sorts of other things, ought to be revolutionary. It's not about asking what am I permitted to do, it's about magnanimity and grace in our dealing with others, be they fellow believers or not.

This is were I think the PMS got it fundamentally wrong, and I can completely understand lairdostevo's frustration. The church tried to be a financial institution (which it isn't) and got burned. In order to help other churches we didn't need a PMS, just generosity. For a good financial return, we had banks or the stock market if we wanted, and even then it would be wise to take advice, or failing that put the money in a tin box under the bed like my Gran when she was alive, funny, that was never advised, but she never lost any either.

I have every sympathy for investors in the PMS, but it's not looking like the wider church is going to get round to raising money to help its brothers and sisters, except perhaps 1st Dromara and their 50 000 (ref Tuesday 2nd), not much perhaps but it seems like the only money on the table. Doesn't look like Gordon Brown is going to help either so it looks like we're on our own, unfortunately, we're not looking particularly revolutionary.

How many investors face something like poverty as a result of the PMS crash? How does the crash affect the vulnerable?

First of all, I don't read the bible for economic advice. It's a collection of books dealing with the theological ideas in the holy land thousands of years ago. Why should I expect it to read like a well-argued political philosophy?


"So:- the alternative to capitalism? Apparently the Bible's position, which explicitly bans God's people from lending money with interest to one another."

That isn't an alternative, it's a prohibition. So what's the alternative?


"And the extreme form of capitalism we have today would be barely recognisable to Adam Smith,"

I don't know what you think is so extreme about our form of capitalism; Adam Smith's was a more pure form than we have today with our mixture of markets and government controls. He would have hated it.


Edwin, do you believe that Christians should not invest money? Do you have a bank account or own a house? If you earn interest on any investments, do you give it back?

Peter Morrow, I'm sure you know by now that I disagree with you (though I respect your position immensely). I think it displays a counterproductive approach to economics. It's counterproductive because you will generate more money for 'the poor' (eg.) if the method by which you get it includes a kickback, a reward, for the people giving it. People in business know this, and in Wall Street, and in many secular charities. Why do you think the raffle works so well? Because people are playing with the dual purposes of helping a charity while hoping to win whatever is being raffled.

A local charity for the poor in the city I live in runs a 'Harley Dinner'. They sell 100 tickets to the dinner for $275 each. They buy a Harley Davidson motorcycle at a charity discount of about $7500. Then they draw losing tickets all through the dinner until there is only the winner left at the end of the night, who rides home on the Harley. They make a little less than $20,000 for a single night's work. How long do you think it would take them to raise that amount by rattling a can or accepting a 'freewill offering'? They understand that the most productive charity derives from programs which offer an incentive.

Lairdostevo above says that many of his/her clients invested in the PMS for the dual reasons of wanting to help the church while standing to earn interest, a better return than the bank, for the money. I say that is - in principle - the RIGHT way to give, that is being a GOOD steward of your money.

You may say that it's a shame people can't just give to give, that they need an incentive based upon greed is a real pity. I couldn't disagree more. What you know as 'greed' I know as a very beneficial self interest. Let's not forget: the more people who are sufficiently self interested to motivate themselves to provide for themselves and their families, the less charity is needed in the first place. Bill Gates gives more than me, because he created more wealth for himself than I did. That's a damned important lesson for those who care about poverty.

Christians should be thanking God for their minds, maximizing the ability he's given them to create wealth for themselves and have enough to give away in the first place.

John,

My view might well display a counterproductive approach to economics, but I'm talking about the church, not Wall Street. And as quaint as it might be, indeed ludicrous though it might seem, I still have time for the thought of 'other kingdoms', for 'strangers and aliens' and a 'new heaven and a new earth'; and before someone tells me my head is in the clouds the very practical outworking of those thoughts is that we get to live like that now... act justly, love mercy, walk humbly with God.

Maybe it is all make believe, but as Puddleglum said to the Green Witch, "Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those thingstrees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow."

BTW 'your' in the quote doesn't mean you, but I guess you're smart enough to know that.

Peter, I know that.... but I'm a little confused as to how that relates to the topic. We're talking about not running a PMS-style mutual fund... maybe you can check the boxes below so's I know what exactly you're saying:

A- People should be generous with their money to alleviate poverty,
B- People should seek to do that more than they seek to make money,
C- The PMS is an example of people doing the opposite of B,
D- The PMS was making too much money for the people involved in it,
E- People should not seek to make a return on their money at all,
F- It is evil for people to make investments.

I guess I'm asking,... the PMS existed (before its collapse) at the expense of... what? Justice, love, mercy, humility? How so? Given what I said in #8, isn't at least the idea of the PMS actually embodying in practice some of those goals?

John

I'm not suggesting any of this is easy, for one thing it's not always clear how the OT Israel laws, of which usury was one, apply to the church, secondly the biblical concept of how were should handle money isn't particularly comfortable for any of us in the West.

With that in mind let's try and negotiate what it might mean for one christian (or group of christians) to relate to another with regard to money.

First of all, most the references I know of in the biblical record where one church sought to help another related simply to giving gifts. This meant no payback at all, never mind payback with interest. It wasn't all gifts or course, there are references to churches paying their apostles for work done, rather than some kind of ministry gift or donation, so from what I can see the churches either paid wages for jobs done or gave to others if they could. But however it worked, the principle as far as I can see is generosity and grace, give without expecting return, give to those who misuse you, give to your enemy, (I know, it's appealing stuff!) but at the same time, and this is important, recognise the value of work because while we are encouraged to be generous, we shouldn't be sponging off people. (I suppose this, work, is what you described as self interest, I'm just suggesting a different emphasis) and I do say that it's a shame that people can't just give, especially when it is what the church calls them to and what the whole concept of Christianity is based on.

The thing is this, we didn't need a PMS for one church to help another, in fact, if one church had been helping another then individuals wouldn't have lost the money it seems they need. Part of my problem with the thing is that people were encouraged to act as individuals and are now suffering as individuals. Not only that but the truth of the matter seems to be that the PMS thought it could make money in a financial world in which ya win some and ya loose some and it got burned. Investment usually means that there are winners and there are looses, this time the PMS lost and it's causing people a lot of grief and if we'd stuck with the principles of generosity it wouldn't have happened.

With regard to your A-F boxes, I'm not sure I can check them all because I'm not sure I agree with the underlying premise of them all. But Ill try,

A - Yes

B - Yes, but obviously we need to have money first, see fair day work for a fair days pay above, but remember that most of the biblical world, and most of the present day world are living day to day in terms of money and basics and that you and I are rich in comparison.

C- The PMS, to my knowledge isn't an example of Christians helping to alleviate poverty!

D - Well it seems that some people made out of the PMS, probably those who borrowed from it rather than invested in it.

E and F - Depends what we mean by make a return or investment. Starting a business is investment, obviously you want to make money, but betting on the futures market, I'm a whole lot less convinced by that. And remember the church that created the PMS, is, on a moral basis, against gambling, sometimes it's a very fine line.

In the end, the guiding principal for the church is, do a fair days work, pay a fair days wage, be content, 'consider the lilies' and be generous, even to your enemies, on those points, I'm sticking with the words of Jesus and that's where all the talk of another kingdom comes in. And we haven't even got to the fact that most of the world is poor and that most Christians are poor too, you see, the bottom line is this (and I'm not going all 'end times' on you), for a sweat shop worker stitching sequins on t-shirts for a pittance, Revelation 18 is a freedom cry. (and it has nothing to do with Marxism either!)

First of all, I don't read the bible for economic advice

However, in the parrable of the talents doesen't Christ say that the servent who buried his money in the ground (in today's terms the equivelent of putting it under the bed) should have left it with the bankers so that he could have collected the interest ? OK, so this story is about spiritual gifts and evangelism etc. and not money per say, but all through this parrable are parralels about looking after your money and investments. In order to receive a higher return from your investments one must take some risk, which again comes out in the story.

I strongly disagree with Woodward though. The depositers with the PMS would not have seen themselves as "investors". It wasn't the same as putting money into shares for example. The term "mutual society" conjures up something akin to a pre privatised building society. Indeed, the Progressive Building Society still talks about itself as being a "mutual society". Depositors would have seen their savings as being safe and even covered by the governments garuntees to the banks. The fact that it didn't obviously caught many on the hop.

The question that also has to be asked is how much more intrest was the PMS paying out compared to a bank or building society ? If it wasn't that much more then again, depositors could hardly be called "investors". They were only being "prudent" with their savings, a term so often coined by Gordon Brown. So why should Brown penalize them by not extending the garuntee to the society.

Peter (Jhenderson)

The parables are a risky place to build theology.

You're right that the parable of the talents isn't about money - as the other teachings of Jesus speak of storing up riches in heaven, selling all you have and giving to the poor, not worrying about where your next meal is coming from and so on, it is highly unlikely that this parable should be consulted for financial advice.

Also, even if it were, it doesn't say that they INVESTED the money, but that they put the money to work. Did they buy wood, make furniture and sell it? Buy seeds, plant and harvest them, then sell the crops? Whatever they did, there's certainly no evidence they indulged in usury WITH OTHER BELIEVERS, which is what is forbidden by the law.

However, we're not under law, but under grace. Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Christians won't lose their salvation if they ignore the principles, we sin every day in all sorts of ways, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to work out what those principles are, and certainly the leadership of a church should try to encourage the correct principles.

And, in case anyone still thinks I'm an apologist for anything, this is not what Church House has done in the case of the PMS. Having websites and leaflets encouraging people to invest in their church (implying the PMS IS our church) and then denying they did so, speculating in risky markets in clear violation of the terms they stated to investors, lending more to property developers than to congregations, and all the other allegations which seem to be true, are a serious challenge for the Presby leadership, and they need to stand up and answer it honestly and stop acting like politicians with half answers, evasions and even outright lies.

Btw - sorry about the caps, it's emphasis not shouting - can you do formatting?

testing

Sorry Peter, I expect to be able to find some time to reply later today. Meantime thanks for putting some thought into a response. Back shortly.

Seems to me there is something about the love of money being the root of all evil, avarice being one of the seven deadly sins, and it being harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Now that they are poor, they have a fighting chance again to get into heaven...if they are not so utterly blinded by their still evident greed for money. In the aftermath of the Tsunami, many Moslems felt their misfortune was punishment from god for their behaviour in life. Funny how after the mere loss of money, Christians don't seem to feel the same way. What grubby detestable people these are and what hypicrites. Could hardly have happened to a more deserving bunch.

As for Gordon Brown, I think he has more pressing issues on his mind at the moment than bailing out the Presbyterian PMS...like whether or not he will still be the Prime Minister of the UK this time tomorrow.

And, in case anyone still thinks I'm an apologist for anything, this is not what Church House has done in the case of the PMS. Having websites and leaflets encouraging people to invest in their church (implying the PMS IS our church) and then denying they did so

Quite correct Edwin. This is the way the church behaved. However, we are told throughout the bible that we should be good stewards with our money. These weren't people making risky investments on the stock exchange. These were ordinary people, depositing there money (and in some cases life savings) in what they thought was a safe place, in the same way that all of us probably have savings in banks and building societies. The PMS was in effect, acting almost like a bank.

Seems to me there is something about the love of money being the root of all evil

This has nothing whasoever to do with "the love of money" Marcus. How many on this forum have bank deposits, have huge sums of money tied up in property etc. etc. I'd say that everyone who posts here has a savings account with one of the main building societies or banks. I will repeat, these were ordinary folk no different from you or I. Why single them out when they really have done nothing wrong ?????? Some of the "investors" were also charities. In other cases, many of the Presbyterian congregations themselve stand to lose huge sums of money. In these cases the returns from any interest would have been put back into the charity or the church. I know of at least several congrations (i.e. the churches, not the worshipers) who are in dire straits because of this.

peter henderson;

"One speaker was not prepared to accept that this was simply about the global recession and the government's intervention. He questioned the loan policy of the Presbyterian Mutual Society: if this Society was really about Presbyterians helping one another and their church, why had the Society lent £85m to property developers and only £12m to churches? When you speculate on the property market, you can make make a lot of money, but you can also lose a lot of money"

"A global financial crisis had struck; the UK government's guarantee scheme had protected banks and other financial institutions, but it had left the Mutual Society exposed. This explains the run on the Society. But then came the denomination's initial response. The church released a statement which made it clear that the two organisations were separate legal entities; that the church didn't have sufficient central funds to guarantee the funds of the Society; and that the church was pastorally concerned for PMS savers."

A legally seperate entity which was not the Church itself was gambling with depositors money. Why were they taking such risks? Because they wanted big rewards. Why did the depositors put their money there instead of in a bank? Probably because it promised higher return and they felt they were doing some good for the church. But this wasn't the church. Greed on the part of the managers of the money, greed on the part of the depositors, and stupidity to put all their eggs in one basket. Don't look to me for sympathy.

"Presbyterians cry out to Gordon Brown"

If they were true believers, they'd be praying to god. Serves them right for being untrue to their faith. Do you think god answers prayers related to acquisition of material wealth for personal benefit? Or does he condemn those who do as souls not to be saved?

M2
I think William was being ironic. I know there are shortages in the US with the collapse of the Bush Administration, so try to keep up.

GV