Church Lending Money?

[TheAnimus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23433955

So the Church has said that it is going to try and squeeze Wonga out of business, by undercutting them.

Once again the Church proves that its principles are a bit arse about face, and completely misses the point.

The only people going to Wonga, are people who are financially irresponsible and behaving frankly like children.

If you're on the dole, their are better options available, if you are working then not only should you have savings, but it would be a much better bet to pawn something / loan-buy-back it at your local pawn shop. The fact that Wonga have an iPhone app frankly says it all to me.

The people who are using them need advice and a damn good clip round the ear. You are in debt, why are you buying fags and booze? Why the hell did you buy an expensive phone when you don't have cash savings. No one 'needs' such a thing. It doesn't 'save' money. Same with things such as Sky. People get in to debt / contracts without thinking them through.

They would be much better not murkying the waters of their faith (fairly sure the Bible had a lot more to say about not lending / changing money, than it did against gays and marriage) and instead provide advice and teaching of budgetary skills.

The rank hypocrisy doesn't surprise me, it is after all a church, but the way they are going after a symptom not a cause is frankly disappointing.

[Phage]

Heard this on R4 on the way to work. I must admit it caused a wry smile and some muttering about the Money Changers in the temple.
There is a need for micro-credit for the high-risk groups, and Wonga (et al) is usurious, but the Church ? I seriously doubt that the clients of such sites are regular members of the congregation. Setting up a CAB-type thing non-religous thingy would be the way to go.

[TheAnimus]

For me it's just the mechanics of it. It isn't money they need, everyone has access to enough money in the UK (everyone being people Wonga would lend too, so not really everyone.) but they don't have financial responsibility.

They need to learn to budget and say no.

[Agent]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23433955

So the Church has said that it is going to try and squeeze Wonga out of business, by undercutting them.

“If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him.

So free then, presumably?

[kalniel]

They would be much better not murkying the waters of their faith (fairly sure the Bible had a lot more to say about not lending / changing money, than it did against gays and marriage) and instead provide advice and teaching of budgetary skills.

The rank hypocrisy doesn't surprise me, it is after all a church, but the way they are going after a symptom not a cause is frankly disappointing.

Do check the facts before leaping to accusations. The Church already allows its buildings to be used to provide advice and teaching of budgetary skills. That will not suddenly stop now that they've launched their own (not for profit) credit union for their own clergy and church staff, or that they're now going to provide advice and help to non-profit lenders so that those lenders can compete better with pay-day loan companies.

Should the state be doing this rather than a charitable organisation? Yes, probably. We eagerly await any sign that in these austerity times they would be willing to help subsidise and even take the losses that such credit unions would incur in the same market.

[TheAnimus]

Do check the facts before leaping to accusations. The Church already allows its buildings to be used to provide advice and teaching of budgetary skills. That will not suddenly stop now that they've launched their own (not for profit) credit union for their own clergy and church staff, or that they're now going to provide advice and help to non-profit lenders so that those lenders can compete better with pay-day loan companies.

Should the state be doing this rather than a charitable organisation? Yes, probably. We eagerly await any sign that in these austerity times they would be willing to help subsidise and even take the losses that such credit unions would incur in the same market.

So the not for profit credit union, how is that going to work? They will have to charge some interest to cover administration costs and defaults, not to mention simple inflation.

That of course is forbidden.

However, the fact it is happening in church premises is also forbidden. Money changing anyone?

It's stupid pointless posturing which has done nothing but give Wonga more media attention.

[kalniel]

So the not for profit credit union, how is that going to work? They will have to charge some interest to cover administration costs and defaults, not to mention simple inflation.

That of course is forbidden.

However, the fact it is happening in church premises is also forbidden. Money changing anyone?

It's stupid pointless posturing which has done nothing but give Wonga more media attention.

Are you confusing a church with a Jewish temple? Or an invited credit union with someone who would disrupt and hassle people on their way to worship? The cleansing of the temple is what happened when the temple authorities were using the building to make profit off people. That isn't the same as giving advice to a non-profit credit union.

Why is it forbidden to charge administration costs? Churches already do this for weddings, concerts etc.

[DanceswithUnix]

"Archbishop admits he hasn't read bit in Bible about moneylenders"

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-2013072576913

[Phage]

@kalniel

I'm broadly in agreement that the Church should be providing the advice. It's sorely needed. I don't see this group going to a church for that sort of service.

If this is a competitive strategy, the church will have to create a site/app that is incredibly easy to use and offer real financial services. It's this that I have a squirm about. Should the church be acting like a financial institution ?

Inherently, I suppose, I'm not all sure about any Church being in 'Business'. Advice, certainly. Charity, certainly. Credit....I'm not so sure.

[jim]

The people who are using them need advice and a damn good clip round the ear. You are in debt, why are you buying fags and booze? Why the hell did you buy an expensive phone when you don't have cash savings. No one 'needs' such a thing. It doesn't 'save' money. Same with things such as Sky. People get in to debt / contracts without thinking them through.

That would be an incredibly pointless measure, and everybody would rightly laugh at the Church if that was their intention. People get angry enough at them for telling them what to do, especially when non-Christians are dictated to.

I don't think this specifically is a good idea, but at least it's doing something practical. Churches are sometimes all about the saying, and nothing about the doing, and more action is a good thing.

[pp05]

I think it is an interesting idea and hopefully they add in some education on budgeting for those who may need it. Hopefully they run as interest free or on very low interest rates on small sums.

At the moment the likes of Wonga are just exchanging money between other companies like Wonga who then pay Wonga back when it is their turn. That is not a healthy position. Usury should be illegal. Why the govt hasn't capped max interest rate these lenders/ CC companies can charge is beyond me.

[kalniel]

If this is a competitive strategy, the church will have to create a site/app that is incredibly easy to use and offer real financial services. It's this that I have a squirm about. Should the church be acting like a financial institution ?

No, it shouldn't in general. But people are reading too much into Welby's 'competing' words, not helped by the likes of the BBC implying that it's the Church that's doing the competing. It's not - the Church wants to encourage credit unions to do the competing - not the Church. This has probably been muddled with the news that the Church is launching its own credit union for its own staff. Every organisation I've worked in has had its own credit union for staff, so I don't really view that in the same like as offering financial services, though I guess in a way it is. The Church still has to do all the usual financial stuff like payroll too

Inherently, I suppose, I'm not all sure about any Church being in 'Business'. Advice, certainly. Charity, certainly. Credit....I'm not so sure.

Business, maybe not. Personal finance.. certainly - religions have a lot to say about money. Advise for the secular society though.. interesting ground, and I think not actually being done with the religious hat, but instead it's part of Welby's drive to promote local communities and the Church's role in helping that. Civic duty rather than religious duty if you will. And rather than just talk about it, he's saying: Act.

[Phage]

Aha ! Much more sensible.

So, I agree the Church can and should act to sponsor credit unions. (if I was the Church, I'd be auditing their arses every 20 mins to prevent damage to the Church's name though.) There's a huge risk there.
Yep I've been in CUs myself and only swapped when my little CU from Aus got me stranded in Singapore. A CU for the church 'staff' is no problem.

Yes, Civic hat indeed. Good to see, actually. Risk is a little scary, and would have to be managed very carefully.

[Mama Sumae]

The people who are using them need advice and a damn good clip round the ear. You are in debt, why are you buying fags and booze? Why the hell did you buy an expensive phone when you don't have cash savings. No one 'needs' such a thing. It doesn't 'save' money. Same with things such as Sky. People get in to debt / contracts without thinking them through.

I have always seen them as heroes personally, endlessly fighting to keep the economy growing.

Not the ones we need but the ones we deserve.

[TheAnimus]

Are you confusing a church with a Jewish temple? Or an invited credit union with someone who would disrupt and hassle people on their way to worship? The cleansing of the temple is what happened when the temple authorities were using the building to make profit off people. That isn't the same as giving advice to a non-profit credit union.

I was taught it was ment as a template of what is allowable and what isn't.

It's such a surprising interpretation to not have it any other way? I guess this is one of those bits people don't pay attention to, shame they can't do that to the whole book and realise they don't own the concept of marriage!

Why is it forbidden to charge administration costs? Churches already do this for weddings, concerts etc.

Because they aren't poor people in need of a loan...

[TheAnimus]

That would be an incredibly pointless measure, and everybody would rightly laugh at the Church if that was their intention. People get angry enough at them for telling them what to do, especially when non-Christians are dictated to.

I don't think this specifically is a good idea, but at least it's doing something practical. Churches are sometimes all about the saying, and nothing about the doing, and more action is a good thing.

Forced requirement for a zero rate loan lasting two weeks, which requires an 'audit' and that person to stick to their plan for any further instalments. They could even make them forcefully collateralised (ie we own your TV whilst you have this loan).

Sometimes just showing people a tabular format of their expenses, then pivoted on to groups such as Alcohol/Tabacoo/JunkFood can really help people realise. My 'Coffee Habbit' cost me about £800 one year.