The Oberlin Evangelist

July 31, 1839

Lecture XIII.

BEING IN DEBT

by the Rev. Charles G. Finney

Modernized by Cliff Collins

“Owe no man anything.” (Romans 13:8)

In discussing this subject, I plan to show:

I. What our passage today means.

II. That to be in debt is sin.

III. What is the duty of those who are in debt?

I. What is the meaning of our passage?

We can learn the meaning of our scripture, like most others, from a careful examination of the verses that are connected with it. The Apostle begins the chapter by enforcing our duty to obey civil magistrates.

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.” (Roman 13:1-6)

Civil magistrates are the servants of God, employed for your benefit. Therefore, you must pay them tribute. In other words, you give them the support that their circumstances require.

In the light of this and various other passages of scripture, I have often wondered how it was possible that any person could call into question our obligation to obey civil magistrates. How can they call into question the right and duty of magistrates to inflict civil penalties, and even capital punishment, where the nature of the situation demands it? Certainly, this passage recognizes their right and their duty “to execute wrath” on transgressors as the servants and executioners of God’s vengeance.

“Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, ‘you shall not commit adultery’, ‘you shall not murder’, ‘you shall not steal’, ‘you shall not bear false witness’, ‘you shall not covet’, and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself’. Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13:7-10)

From this passage in context, it is clear that the Apostle wanted to teach, that whenever we owe somebody money or goods, we should immediately pay him. We should not allow any debt or obligation to rest on us undischarged.

"Owe no one anything, except to love one another”. Here the Apostle Paul recognizes the truth that love is a perpetual obligation. He recognizes that this obligation can never be so canceled or discharged that it is no longer binding. He recognizes no other obligation except love with its natural fruits as having a perpetual obligation.

Concerning our obligation to love one another, all that we can do is to fulfill our obligation to live every moment without the possibility of ever fulfilling it to the point where we can set aside our continued obligation to love.

But we are to owe no one anything else but love. We are to “render to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs is due, and honor to whom honor is due”.

I understand that this passage simply means that you should let no obligation rest on you undischarged, except for love with its natural fruits that, from its very nature, is a perpetual obligation.

I am aware that some modern critics maintain that this passage should have been interpreted indicatively. But such men as Doddridge and Henry, Barnes and Prof. Stuart, are of the opinion that its imperative interpretation is correct. However, all agree that the doctrine of this text, as it stands, is clearly a doctrine of the Bible.

Here the question arises; what does it mean to owe a man in the sense of this passage? I answer,

1. If you employ a laborer, and you do not stipulate the time and terms of payment, it is taken for granted that he is to be paid when his work is done. If you hire him for a day, and nothing is said otherwise, he cannot demand his pay until his day’s work is done. Until then, you owe him nothing. The same is true if you hire him for a week, a month, or a year. When the length of time that he supposed to work is stipulated, and nothing is said about the time and terms of his payment, you owe him nothing, that is, nothing is due until his time has expired. Then you owe him, and then you must pay him, and pay him the money that is due to him. However, if the time was not specified which he was to labor, he may quit at any time, and demand pay for what he has done. Or, if the time of payment was expressed or understood, whenever it arrives, you then owe him, and are required to pay him agreeably to the understanding.

2. The same is true if you hire a horse, or any other piece of property. If you hire it for a specified time, and nothing is said about the conditions of payment, the understanding is that you are to pay when the time for which the property was hired has expired. It then becomes a debt. Then you must pay the money. If there is any other understanding, fixing the time and terms of payment, you don’t owe the man until you have complied with the specified conditions.

3. The same is true if you purchase any piece of property. If nothing is stipulated to the contrary, the understanding is that you are to pay the cash at the time you receive the property. At that time, and neither before nor after, you are expected to pay the purchase money.

We do not properly owe an individual until we are under an obligation to pay him. Whenever he has a right to demand the pay, we have no right to withhold it.

There may be such a thing as contracting a prospective debt, or negotiating a loan, stating that your obligation to pay will become due at a certain time. Then, you do not properly owe, because you are under no obligation to pay until that payment becomes due. But, whenever it becomes due you are immediately required to pay it.

II. It is a sin to be in debt.

1. It is a sin to be in debt because it is a direct violation of the command of God. This passage is just as binding as any command of the Ten Commandments. Violating this command sets aside the command of Jehovah, as much as adultery or murder sets aside His command. Don’t think that this is merely a piece of advice given by the Apostle, but this is a direct, positive, and authoritative command of God.

2. It is unjust to be in debt. If your creditor has a right to demand payment, you certainly have no right to withhold it. If your payment is due, you can’t say that it is not wrong if you don’t pay. If you say that you owe someone, and at the same time, you say that you’re not guilty of any injustice by refusing or neglecting to pay him, you are contradicting yourself. It is just as wrong as stealing, and it involves the same principle. The sin of stealing consists in appropriating to our selves, that which properly belongs to someone else. Therefore, whenever you withhold from anyone his or her due, you are just as guilty as if you stole his or her property.

3. Being in debt is sin because it is a falsehood. I have already shown that you do not properly owe someone until what you owe becomes due. What you owe becomes due when and because there is a promise on your part expressed or implied, that you will pay it at a certain time. Now you cannot violate this promise without being guilty of falsehood.

4. If what I have just said is true, it follows that people should meet their contracts, as they would avoid the grossest sin. They must avoid being in debt, to meet and fulfill their engagements, as much as they must avoid blasphemy, idolatry, murder, or any other sin. And a person who does not pay his debts isn’t any more honest than a person who is guilty of any other heinous crime.

5. If a professing Christian is in debt, he is a moral delinquent, and he should be considered and treated as a subject of Church discipline.

There is a common objection. You might respond by saying, “I can’t avoid being in debt”.

Well, if you can’t pay, you should have avoided going into that debt in the first place, and you were required to do so.

Do you reply, “I really needed the thing that I purchased”?

I ask, are your needs so great that you believe that you can justify lying or stealing to supply them? If not, why have you resorted to fraud? The same authority that prohibits lying or stealing; prohibits you from owing anybody. Why, then, do you violate this commandment of God, any more than any other commandment? Is it because a corrupt public opinion has made violating this commandment less disgraceful than violating these other commands of God? Why didn’t you resort to begging instead of running into debt? You would be better off begging than to running into debt. Begging is not prohibited by any command of God, but being in debt is prohibited. True, it is disgraceful to beg. But a God-dishonoring public opinion has made it far less disgraceful to be in debt than to beg. And, doesn’t this account for your shameless violation of this command of God?

Perhaps you respond by saying, “I was disappointed. I expected to have the money. I made the contract in good faith, and expected to meet it at the time. But other people owe me and don’t pay me; therefore, I am unable to pay my debts. To this I reply,

You should have made your contract with that expressed condition. You should have made your circumstances known, and mentioned that you would only be able to pay at the appointed time if your debtors paid you. In that situation, if your creditor were willing to run the risk of you being disappointed, then, it wouldn’t be your fault, since you’ve practiced no injustice or deception. But, if your contract was without any condition, you have taken the risk of disappointment on yourself, and you are guilty.

But here someone may respond, “practically the whole Church is in debt, and if this is subject to discipline, who will cast the first stone?” I reply,

(1) If it is true that the Church is so extensively in debt, it is no wonder that the curse of God is on her.

(2) It may be true that a Church may be so generally involved in a particular sin that it makes that sin a difficult subject to discuss, because each person knows that he or she is guilty, and must in his or her turn submit to the same discipline. But when this is true of any Church, it is a shameless abomination for the members of that Church to attempt to hide themselves under the admitted fact that nearly the whole Church is involved in the guilt of it.

Now rest assured that when any sin becomes so prevalent that it cannot, and isn’t made a subject of discipline in that church, God Himself will eventually take up the rod, and find the means to effectively discipline such a Church.

III. What is the duty of those who are in debt?

1. They must make any sacrifice of property or time, and indeed any sacrifice that is possible for them to make, to pay their debts.

Here you may ask, “Does the law of love permit my creditor to demand a sacrifice from me? If he loves me as he loves himself, why should he require or even allow me to make a sacrifice of property to pay what I owe him?” I reply:

(1) If any one is to make a sacrifice or suffer loss, it is the debtor and not the creditor. There will almost certainly be some damage to the creditor to be disappointed by not receiving his due. It may so disarrange his affairs, and mess up his calculations so much that it causes him great damage. Of this, he is to be the judge.

(2) Your sacrifice may be necessary not only to prevent his loss, but also to enable him to meet his contracts, and thus prevent his sin. His confidence in your sincerity may have led him to contract prospective debts, and by not paying him, you not only sin yourself, but you cause him to sin.

(3) The refusal of one to make a sacrifice to pay his debts, may involve many others in both loss and sin. A. owes B., B. owes C., and C. owes D., and so on in a long chain of mutual dependencies. Now if there is a failure in the first or any other link of this chain, all below it are involved in loss and sin. Now where shall this chain of evil be broken?

Suppose you hold the place of C. A. refuses to make a sacrifice to pay B. and because of this, B can’t pay you. Shall you sin because they sin and involve your creditor in loss and sin? No! Whatever others may do, you are required pay your debts. And unless your creditor voluntarily consents to defer the time of payment, you are bound to pay him at any sacrifice.

2. Persons that are in debt should not contract new debts to pay old ones. It is the practice of some when they get involved in debt, to keep up their credit, by borrowing from one to pay another. Their meeting and canceling the last debt, depends altogether on the presumption, that they shall be able to borrow the money from somebody else. When they have borrowed from one creditor, they will keep from paying him as long as possible without losing their credit. Then, instead of making a sufficient sacrifice of property to discharge the obligation, they borrow from B to pay A. Then they borrow from C to pay B. Perhaps, they may disappoint and disoblige a dozen men by not paying them exactly at the time agreed, instead of immediately stopping short, and parting with what they have, at any cost, to pay the debt.

I am not saying that, under any situation, a person shouldn’t borrow from one creditor to pay another. But, generally, such practices are highly reprehensible. Still, if a debt becomes due, and you don’t have the money at hand, but you are certain that you will have it in a certain time, I don’t suppose it is wrong for you to borrow and pay this debt with the understanding that you will pay this borrowed money at the time specified. But to borrow money with no other prospect of an ultimate payment than the fact that you can borrow again, and thus keep up your credit from one day to the next, is wicked.

3. Those who are in debt have no right to give away the money that they owe. If you are in debt, the money in your hands belongs to your creditor, and not to you. You have no right, therefore, “to be generous until you are just”. You have no more right to give that money away than you have to steal money to give away.

Please understand what is and what is not considered giving money away. For example, it is not giving away your money to pay the current expenses of your church congregation. You have, impliedly or expressly committed a portion of your current expenses to your congregation or Church. You can’t withhold it any more than you can withhold the payment of any other debt.

The same may be said about the support of ministers and foreign missionaries, and all for whose support the faith of the Church is pledged. It seems to be a common, but erroneous understanding of professing Christians, that what they generally call their secular debts or obligations are binding, and should be paid, of course. But that their obligations, expressed or implied, to religious institutions are not so absolutely binding; and of course, they don’t have to give anything, as they claim, to the church or the missionaries they support until their debts are paid. Now, beloved, you should know that you are pledged to support religious institutions. Your profession of faith pledges you, both virtually and actually. These are your most sacred debts, and therefore you should consider your debt to the work of God and fulfill your obligation to them. I beg you not to consider, meeting and canceling church and congregational demands as a gift, as if you were giving God a present instead of discharging a solemn debt. I have been astonished to find that the financial embarrassments of the past few years have crippled movements of the great benevolent societies for lack of funds. Many missionaries, for whose support, the faith and honor of the Church were pledged, have been cut short of their necessary supplies, under the pretense that the Church must pay her secular debts before she can discharge her high and sacred obligations to them, and the work that they are engaged in.

4. A person who is in debt has no right to purchase for himself or his family things that aren’t absolutely essential for their survival. Things that might be all right to purchase and use under other circumstances become unlawful when you are in debt.

A creditor has no right to deprive you of necessary food and clothing, or your freedom. To do so would make it impossible for you to pay. But, you have no right to indulge in anything more than the necessities of life, while your debts are unpaid. To do so is as unlawful as it would be to steal to purchase unnecessary articles.

REMARKS

1. From what I have said, it is clear that the entire credit system, if not totally sinful, is nevertheless so highly dangerous that no Christian should get involved with it.

Since I last preached this sermon, this last remark has been censured as a rash one. A rash remark! Let the present history and experience of the Church say whether the credit system is not so highly dangerous that the man who will venture to embark in it is guilty of rashness and presumption. When has religion for centuries been so generally disgraced, as by the bankruptcy of its professing Christians within the last few years? How many millions of dollars are now due from Church members to ungodly men that will never be paid? Rash! Why, this is the very plea of the Church, that they can do nothing to support the gospel because they are so much in debt! Is anyone who tries to trade using borrowed capital not in danger of going into debt? Indeed, it is highly dangerous! Millions know that is dangerous by their own personal experience.

Why do Christians need to embark on so dangerous an enterprise, and one that so highly jeopardizes the honor of religion? Is it because that’s the only way one can obtain the necessities of life? Is it because the institutions of religion demand it? Religion sustains a greater loss through the debts and bankruptcies of Christians, than it ever gains by their prosperity.

But the credit system, as it now prevails and has prevailed in this country, is useless, and worse than useless. For example, suppose the consumers of merchandize, instead of anticipating their yearly crops and yearly income and running in debt with the expectation of paying from their harvests, were to make a little effort to reverse the order of things and, at the beginning of the year, pay for everything they purchase, and have enough income at the beginning of each year so they won’t go into debt. In this case, the country merchants, instead of having to giving the farmers credit, would receive their money immediately, and would be able to pay for their goods from the wholesale dealer. The wholesale dealer would be able pay the importer; the importer would pay the manufacturer; and the manufacturer would pay the producer.

Now anyone can see that, in this way, billions of dollars a year would be saved in this country. The manufacturer could afford an article cheaper for cash, and so could the importer and the wholesale dealer; and each one in his turn, right down to the consumer. Everyone could sell cheaper for cash, because there would be no risk, and business could be done with much greater convenience and safety. Thus, complete rejection of the credit system in its present form, and adopting the system of ready pay would provide goods to the consumer so much cheaper that it would save billions of dollars every year. And I don’t see that there would be any serious difficulty in reversing the whole order of business.

Some other time, I may examine the credit system in its foundation and various ramifications, and the nature and tendencies of the prevailing system of doing business on borrowed capital. But for now, I can only say that, waiving the question whether it is absolutely sinful in itself, it is too highly dangerous to be embarked in by those who feel a tender concern for the honor and cause of Christ.

2. If, in any situation, the present payment of your debt is impossible, your duty is to regard your indebtedness as a sin against God and your neighbor. Your duty is to repent, and set yourself with all practical self-denial, to pay as fast as you can. And, unless you are dedicated to paying your debts, don’t imagine that you repent either of your indebtedness or of any other sin. For you are impenitent, and a shameless hypocrite rather than a Christian, if you allow yourself to be in debt, and are not making all practical efforts to do justice to your creditors.

3. If payment is possible, by any sacrifice of property on your part, sin is on you, until you do pay. There is a wicked custom among people, and this is common in the Church, of putting property out of the hands of creditors, to avoid the sacrifice of paying their debts.

As an example, take the eIder I mentioned in an earlier lecture, who confessed to me that he was avoiding the sacrifice of his property, in paying his debts, by skillfully manipulating the law.

4. The lax notions and practices of the world, and the Church on this subject, are truly abominable. It has happened, that a person may not only be considered a respectable citizen, but also a respectable member of the Church, who allows himself to be in debt. He has judgments and executions against him. And, he resorts, not only to manipulating the law to avoid the payment of his debts, but he practices the most palpable frauds against both God and man by putting his property out of his hands to avoid meeting his just responsibilities.

Oh, shame on the Church, and shame on these professing Christians. Some of them will even go to an unconverted lawyer for advice in this wicked business, and lay open before his unconverted heart, their shameless iniquity. Alas, how many lawyers are thus led to call into question the whole truth of the Christian religion; and over these dishonest professing Christians, they stumble into hell. And until the Church will rise up and wash her hands, and cleanse her garments from this iniquity by banishing such people from her communion, the cause of Christ will not cease to bleed at every pore.

5. Some people take the ground, that to not meet their contracts and pay their debts when they become due is not sinful because of the general understanding of businesspersons on such subjects. To this I answer,

(1) There is no understanding among businesspersons that debts should not be paid when they become due. Among businesspersons, the nonpayment of a debt always involves a disgrace and a wrong, even in their own eyes.

(2) Let the public sentiment be what it may among businesspersons, still we can’t change the law of God, and by God’s unchanging law, it is a sin to be in debt. And since sin is shameful to anyone, it is both a sin and a shame to be in debt.

6. The rule laid down in today’s passage applies not only to individuals, but also to corporations, nations, and all groups of people that assume monetary responsibilities.

7. It is dishonest and dishonorable, to hire or purchase an article and say nothing about paying until afterwards.

8. Violating this law, is working immense mischief in the Church, and in the world. It is truly shocking to see the extent that the Church is involved in debt, and the number of Church members who are engaged in collecting debts from each other, by going to court. The heartaches, and the bitterness that exists among Church members because debts are not paid to each other, are awful and alarming.

Besides all this, how does this make the Church appear before the world? Do they look like a bunch of moneymakers, speculators, and bankrupts; shuffling and managing through legal loopholes to avoid the payment of their debts?

I could relate many facts that I personally know about that would cause the cheek of piety to blush. Alas, for the rage, and madness of a speculating, moneymaking, fraudulent Church!

9. There is good reason to believe that many young men, in the course of their education, involve themselves in debts that virtually eats up their piety and makes them practically useless for the rest of their lives. I would rather spend twenty-five years getting my education, and paying my way, than involve myself in debt to the Education Society or in any other way.

There are many young men, who are in debt to the Education Society, and who are dealing very loosely with their consciences on the subject of payment because the Education Society does not demand payment of their student loans right away. Students let the matter rest from time to time. They increase their expenditures as their income may increase, instead of practicing self-denial, and honestly discharging their obligations to the Society.

10. I cannot have confidence in the piety of anyone, who is not conscientious in the payment of his or her debts. I know some people who are in debt, and who spend their time and their property, in a way that is completely inconsistent with their circumstances; and they still pretend to be pious. They are active in prayer meetings. They take a conspicuous place at the communion table. They even hold a responsible office in the Church of Christ; and yet they seem to have no conscience about paying their debts.

I believe it is right, and the duty of all churches and ministers to exclude such people from the communion of the Church. And if this was generally done, it would go far to wipe away the stains that have been brought by such people on the religion of Jesus Christ. I don’t see why they should be allowed to come to the communion table, any more than whoremongers, murderers, drunkards, Sabbath breakers, or slaveholders.

11. There must be a great reformation in the Church on this subject, before the business class of ungodly men will have much confidence in Religion. This reformation should begin immediately, and begin where it should begin, among the leading members of the Church of Christ. Ministers, elders, and deacons should speak out on the subject. They should cry aloud and spare not, but lift up their voice like a trumpet and show Israel his transgressions and the house of Jacob their sins.

And now beloved, are any of you in debt? Then sin is upon you. Rise up, and show yourselves clean in this matter, I beg you. Make every effort to meet and discharge your responsibilities. And beware that in attempting to pay your debts, you don’t resort to means that are just as bad as being in debt.

12. Let no one complain, and say that instead of preaching the gospel I am discussing mere business transactions. The truth is, the gospel should regulate the business transactions of the world. Religion is a practical thing. It does not consist in austerities, prayers, masses, and monkish superstitions, as Papists vainly dream. If religion does not take hold of a person’s business operations; if it does not reform his daily life and habits, what good is it? Until, in these respects, your practice is right, you cannot expect to enjoy the influences of the Holy Spirit. You cannot grow in holiness any further than you reform your practice.

Therefore, the instructive part of the gospel must be spread out in all its detail before you. And when you find it convicts you of sin, I beg you not to turn around, and say that this is preaching about business, and not about religion. What is business but a part of religion? A man that does not consider it true in practice has no religion at all.

Now, dearly beloved, instead of allowing your heart to rise up and resist what I have said, won’t you, as I have often requested, go down on your knees, and spread this whole subject out before the Lord? Will you not inquire where you have erred, and sinned, and make haste to repent, and reform your lives?