Dave Ramsey and Financial Peace University: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Part 1

This church advertises “Financial Peace University.” Notice anything funny about the logo? The Bible has 2 “$” signs imposed over it. I’m guessing this is an old logo becasue I can’t find it on the daveramsey.com web site. Maybe FPU went through a TBN cheesy phase.

http://www.uccalvary.com/Financial_Peace_University/

Another annoying thing Ramsey says over and over in his seminar.

“If you follow my advice, you will be rich.”

This of course is rubbish. Not everyone is going to be rich regardless of how good they are managing their money. That kind of rhetoric may sell lots of overpriced books but it gives false hope.

“Pastor, if you spend this amount of money to hold a video financial seminar in your church, you’ll help your people, and you’ll increase your offerings.” That’s how the marketers for Ramsey came accross to me when they approached me about having the program here.

I’m all for encouraging God’s people to spend wisely, but I am weary of the “increase your church offering gimmicks.” God did not call me to increase offerings. Yet, by His grace, we have always received more income than the budget for 16 straight years. I’m also leary of telling people who are broke to come to church and pay such and such a price to revolutionize your finances.

Let’s have a “you’ll be more blessed if you learn to give (not spend) more than you receive” seminar that will will cost the teacher more than it would cost the attender and see what God might do.

I shall begin by stating that although I have not watched the video course, I have read two of Ramsey’s books (including FP) and listened to countless hours of his radio show while in the car during my work.

Dave Ramsey delivers when it comes to his primary purposes: getting people out of debt and helping them save money to prepare for their future. For those who have listened to him, it would seem they could hardly disagree. There was a very interesting article in the Atlantic a few months back that argued this point (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/lead-us-not-into-de…). At heart, Ramsey is pragmatic. He thinks that people should be out of debt, live within their means, and sock the money for a rainy day and retirement (not too much of an over simplification, I hope) and his advice is centered on helping people accomplish this and similar goals. This is where his road leads, and most of us would be much better of if this were the road we were on. I know that he is abrasive at times and rude and crude, and I wish he were not. But, most often, it seems that his map will lead to the destination he promises.

What concerns me is when churches use Ramsey alone to teach financial principles to their congregations. Now, much could be gained by the various congregations about stewardship and financial matters. But Ramsey rarely if ever explicitly deals with heart issues and motivations. He doesn’t ask the ‘why’. What motivated you to make those purchases that led you to getting into debt? What motivated you to purchase such a large home? Why do you feel the need to spend money on these items? What about your heart is directing you to make these decisions? I’m not saying that Ramsey should necessarily be doing this in his program. This isn’t his goal, but it should be the goal of the church. Whether or not the church should provide the practical tools to manage money is something that good people can disagree on, but it seems that all should agree that the church should be intimately concerned with what our use of money shows about the motivations of our heart. Are we loving God and serving others with our money, or is our use of money centered around meeting our perceived needs and greedy desires?

This is one reason why I think that Randy Alcorn’s Money, Possessions, and Eternity is an excellent counterbalance to Ramsey’s pragmatism. Alcorn is much more concerned about the heart and motivations of the individual. I think we can benefit greatly from both, but I hope that people will discern the benefit of beginning with the heart of the matter before simply applying the practical tools of wise money management.

We all have opinions on programs but I felt Mr. Farnham’s conclusions about Dave’s personality were rather harsh. I wondered if Mr. Farnham has contacted Dave Ramsey personally and spoken with him about the “good, the bad, and the ugly” of FPU? Dave say’s he is a believer in Christ and as such could possibly benefit from a concerned Christian brother who ultimately has the glory of God as his goal as well. To truly be an agent of change and not just criticism then those with concerns should contact Mr. Ramsey ….or does being a public figure make you ineligible for the Matthew 18 application?

[Susan McCurdy] To truly be an agent of change and not just criticism then those with concerns should contact Mr. Ramsey ….or does being a public figure make you ineligible for the Matthew 18 application?

I think we’ve been here before. He is a public figure with published works. Matthew 18 is “ideally” in a church situation. How would a person who isn’t associated with this person in a church setting go about applying Matthew 18 here?

I think we went through this idea a few years back and it was never ever resolved. There can only be a friendship type of conversation, sharing concerns, etc, but nothing beyond that. If you can think of a way, I’d love for someone to delineate it.

–

I have another question…who or what is “Crown”? Is that associated with Crown College and Sexton?

Also, I remember, before Dave Ramsey a man named Bob Valliencourt (I think) who did financial seminars in churches because I was in one. Seems like I heard him in AK over 20 years ago. I have no idea what he is doing these days…

Dealing with the emotional part of finances and motives/why we buy/spend is a fascinating subject. Proverbs has a lot to say about finances. This morning we read (at breakfast) about not signing on a loan for someone when you don’t have the money to pay it back! So, this kind of information has been around a while. :)

[Becky Petersen] I have another question…who or what is “Crown”? Is that associated with Crown College and Sexton?

Crown Financial Ministries is the new name (for about 11 years now) of Christian Financial Concepts, which was begun by Larry Burkett. Since he died, the radio program (“Money Matters” — which is now “MoneyLife”) has been hosted by Howard Dayton and Chuck Bentley.

Their Web site is www.crown.org.

Ramsey learned about Biblical finances from Burkett, and Crown and Ramsey promote each other: Ramsey was a guest on “MoneyLife” as recently as a few months ago, and Ramsey openly tells people to use Crown’s material on his radio program.

(As I said before, Ramsey and Clark Howard are also good friends and have appeared together.)

We all have opinions on programs but I felt Mr. Farnham’s conclusions about Dave’s personality were rather harsh. I wondered if Mr. Farnham has contacted Dave Ramsey personally and spoken with him about the “good, the bad, and the ugly” of FPU? Dave say’s he is a believer in Christ and as such could possibly benefit from a concerned Christian brother who ultimately has the glory of God as his goal as well. To truly be an agent of change and not just criticism then those with concerns should contact Mr. Ramsey ….or does being a public figure make you ineligible for the Matthew 18 application?

Susan, I wonder, did you contact Mr. Farnham personally and speak with him? If not, then I wonder if you are living by your own dictum.

To your point, DR is a public figure with public writing. Matthew 18 deals with sin in the context of personal relationships in the body of Christ. So this is not a Matthew 18 type situation.

Larry,

There is no need to be snarky. I agree that this is not an issue for a Matt. 18 confrontation.

However, it is also true that the original piece lacks a coherent purpose, and is certainly not a fair evaluation of Ramsey, as has been well-rehearsed on this thread.

There is no need to be snarky. I agree that this is not an issue for a Matt. 18 confrontation.

There is no intent to be snarky at all. I am suggesting that there is an inconsistency here that needs to be thought about, that the words used could equally be used in the other directions as well.

However, it is also true that the original piece lacks a coherent purpose

I am not sure of that at all. First, I think the purpose was pretty clear: a general attempt to evaluate the program biblically and theologically, while being as charitable as possible. You may disagree that he achieved that purpose, and that is certainly fine. It is an object of evaluation.

And I think there is a subsequent article coming, so perhaps we should wait until the whole thing is posted.

and is certainly not a fair evaluation of Ramsey, as has been well-rehearsed on this thread.

Again, I am not so sure. There has been a lot of objection and back and forth. There have been many who disagreed with the article, you being among the strongest. But I am not sure that means the article wasn’t fair. I think it means there are disagreements about Ramsey.

You earlier said that some of these responses were so bad, they didn’t even deserve a response. I would suggest that for those of us who don’t know Ramsey very well, a response is most definitely needed.

For my dollar, I don’t care either way. I listen to him when he is on and enjoy it. Honestly, I would rather listen to Bob Brinker for financial advice, but it’s a different type of show. I am fairly confident on my financial approach and the people that I have leaned on for information and knowledge. But I know a lot of people listen to DR, and I found that, in the short amount I have listened to him, my thoughts resemble Mark’s in many ways. So I don’t know that much about him. I like some of his financial advice. I am not sure about the rest of it.

I think it is worthy of discussion.

Paul, I think Larry’s response is fine. Just a little “turn about is fair play” to reveal some problems with logic in a poignant way.

(It’s a bit off topic, but Matt.18 is not about public sins.)

As for whether Farnham’s review is not “a fair evaluation” of Ramsey, we have you asserting that repeatedly, and I’m open to that possibility, but I think it would be difficult to show where Mark is factually in error or to prove that the opinion parts are not well founded (he also cannot really prove that the opinion parts are well founded. This is the nature of opinion writing.) That is, it’s a case of agreeing on the facts and disagreeing on evaluation. Strongest thing we can do about that part is say “I disagree.”

I’m sure most readers respond to a negative review along the lines of “Well, I’ll have to find out for myself.”

The strongest criticism we’ve seen in the thread here is coming from folks who are philosophically opposed to making a large profit. With that grid in place, Ramsey cannot win with them no matter what he does. It makes no difference if they’ve ever seen or heard him or not. It’s a matter of record, I think, that he’s rich and getting richer. I suppose he could give it all away tomorrow and that might silence some critics. Might be interesting to talk about why that would or wouldn’t be a good move.

What might also be interesting is to talk about how phrases along the lines of “Do this and you’ll be rich” (Paul, would you agree he talks that way? I wouldn’t know one way or the other.) square with 1 Timothy 6:9-10. What does this passage mean and how would it apply in this case?

How does Ramsey square with Paul’s statement concerning those who use godliness as a means of gain (1 Timothy 6:5)? I’m not against Ramsey making a living, but I am leery of the local church being made a tool of a man’s corporation to enrich his company and himself, personally. If Ramsey wanted to, he could divide Financial Peace University off of Lampo Group and let it operate as a non-profit to minister solely to local churches. I doubt he will do that, so, in the mean time, there are plenty of non-profits who do this stuff who will take their income above expenses and invest it back into ministry to keep the cost of their program down.

The charge has been brought up time and time again on this thread by some who have watched the videos, read the books and taken the course that Ramsey does not deal sufficiently with heart issues and spiritual motivations concerning how money is spent. I’ll ask one more time, “What is being accomplished if Christians become debt free but their heart issues regarding money are never dealt with?” If the gospel is to pervade every aspect of our lives, does Ramsey bring out how the gospel impacts how/why we spend/save money? If this is missing as Joe Griffin (above) and others have pointed out, then what is being accomplished????????????????????

[Jonathan Charles] If the gospel is to pervade every aspect of our lives, does Ramsey bring out how the gospel impacts how/why we spend/save money? If this is missing as Joe Griffin (above) and others have pointed out, then what is being accomplished????????????????????

Jonathan,

This is a good and fair question. I think what is being accomplished, at the very least, is that Ramsey is helping people every day who are on the verge of bankruptcy and foreclosure (or who may think they are, but really are not). It is interesting that people who are opposed to Ramsey for reasons only they apparently understand have argued in this thread, simultaneously, both that (a) Ramsey is not Christian or Biblical enough; and (b) there is no such thing as Bibilical financial wisdom anyway — any old secular finance person can do what he does.

He is offering Biblical counsel on finances in the mainstream media — and we are sitting here griping about it. That, to me, is very sad.

If you want the exact same Biblical financial persepective from a “kinder, gentler” — and, yes, probably more Biblically-informed source — check Ron Blue (www.ronblue.com). The problem, of course, is that Blue does not have anywhere near the volume or quality of materials or programs which Ramsey makes available.

Aaron asked,

“What might also be interesting is to talk about how phrases along the lines of “Do this and you’ll be rich” (Paul, would you agree he talks that way? I wouldn’t know one way or the other.) square with 1 Timothy 6:9-10.”

I would simply say that Ramsey is on radio/TV for 20 hours per week, so this is open for anyone to check out and evaluate his teaching. If you have not listened to Ramsey, however, it is difficult to carry on a conversation about it. In the grand context, the sense I get is that when Ramsey talks about being “rich,” he is talking primarily about “retiring with dignity,” “changing your family tree” and “giving most of it away.” This is a major part of the end chapters of TTMM. For every example he gives of how he has achieved “financial peace” himself, he also gives examples of how he and his wife live very frugally.

For all the griping about how much money Ramsey makes, who is to say that he has not already stepped down and sacrificed to do his work of financial counseling and running a radio show? I am sure he is probably earning a healthy income from it, but I believe he originally became a millionaire a second time through his first career in real estate. Again, these kinds of details make it difficult to carry on a conversation on this thread with folks who are commenting while not knowing anything about Ramsey.

People are even griping about the price of his books. Do they know that he sold TTMM for $5 this Christmas?

“I think it would be difficult to show where Mark is factually in error.”

Mark already admitted one case in Post #18.

“I think it would be difficult to show where Mark is factually in error.”

Mark already admitted one case in Post #18.

Granted. Any others?

I can accept the idea that when he says “Do this and you’ll get rich” he means some a bit different by it than it may sound.

Still, what does 1 Tim 6.9ff mean when it warns that those who desire to be rich fall into a snare, etc.?

I wrestle with this because my own view of wealth is not quite what I hear from many Fundamentalists. (It’s probably a moot point in my case, though, since my plan to be rich and famous by age 22 is a bit behind schedule ;) )

It would be really interesting to see thorough study of the whole topic of wealth from a serious, conservative biblical perspective. Most evangelicals tend to approach these questions strongly tilted from the outset either toward a sort of Benedictine “poor is more spiritual than rich” view or the opposite “health and wealth gospel” perspective.

(Edit: some might say we’ve got that study in Burkette’s work, but I’m not really talking about an advice book w/some developing of prinicples for context. More of a theology of wealth. It’s probably been done, but I haven’t seen it)

My concern is that sometimes I think I see a serious financial weakness in Fundamentalism due in part to short-term thinking and a failure to value the role of money in ministry across generations…. as well as the role of money in sustaining a strong family tradition across generations. It’s hard to explain, but once you are “too poor” to educate a generation well, your family or ministry or “movement” or whatever begins a slow death. It’s not that simple of course, but I wonder sometimes what the better sort of Fundamentalists could accomplish if they were better financed.

Surely Paul’s point in 1 Tim. is not that it is dangerous or sinful to ask “How can I amply fund multiple generations of well educated, leaders in my family?” But it is hard to reconcile with the “this world is not my home I’m just a passin’ through” attitude. The problem there is that we do not know how many more generations must “pass through.”

@Aaron,

My argument wouldn’t be that Mark’s article contains factual errors, but rather opinionated propaganda. Propaganda isn’t necessarily error as much as it is half-truths—it’s not “fair and balanced.” I already stated my “I disagree” for the article. The unfortunate thing is that when something is published in the blog from someone with Mark’s credentials it is difficult to avoid the tacit endorsement by SI that what he says carries more weight, even having dogmatic conclusions. Perhaps that’s why Paul has been so vocal in his opposition.

I appreciate the “market place of ideas” that SI affords those with opinions. I only hope the same courtesy is afforded others with whose opinion you may disagree more strongly. ;)

I think your post #29 is the key to this whole thread.

As I read Mark’s article in light of your post, I am left to wonder:

Is Mark saying —

a) Ramsey’s teaching are in error, so take my caution and avoid them;

b) Ramsey’s teaching is correct, but his methods are so egregious that they invalidate his program; or

c) This is a vent about how I feel about Dave Ramsey.

I truly hope that part 2, “the bad,” is not just more venting. It will not affect my life, but it may negatively impact people — perhaps Christian college students — who really NEED Ramsey’s teaching, whether they get it through him or someone else.

(I can pretty much guarantee that they are not going to get it in Christian college or seminary.)

You have a lot of good points in post #64, and I wanted you to know I thought seriously about them — just don’t have all the answers (maybe any of the answers).

Unfortunately, a lot of instances which I have seen in this life qualify to help only by serving as “bad examples” :).

The only people I know with materials related to your profound thoughts in the last two paragraphs are the guys at Vision Forum (www.visionforum.com).

Your post is definitely the kind of discussion that an article on Ramsey should generate — much more edifying than arguing about how much money he makes or what his materials cost.

At the very minimum, if Christians would learn to be more self-disciplined in their financial matters, it would be a better testimony to the world, and they could sleep at night knowing that their bills are paid.

There’s a lot to be said for teaching people the basics. There are a lot of really big risk takers out there (financially speaking) and often the husband/wife team really aren’t in philosophical agreement there. We’ve seen it when we stay in people’s homes. If it takes DR, and his abrupt style (maybe crude?), then at least maybe it is getting some people’s attention. Maybe it says more about our culture than anything else.

Anyway, if he is helping the average Joe Blow in the churches to get their personal finances in order, I’m glad. But, even though I’ve had not a lot of personal contact with his stuff, I’d say that he will reach his zenith and then become less popular and someone else will get the spotlight. It’s the way of life in modern times.

In anyone’s ministry, you can find the good and the bad.

I’m not personally familiar with DR’s stuff for churches…just know it exits. I’m aware of his Fox program and read his column in the paper sometimes. But I’m curious about the whole “show his stuff in your church for $100 a head” approach. If the material is biblically based, why can’t someone build a S.S. series off his books—using perhaps his topical organization w/ examples, etc.—and simply present it to adult classes? Most likely, the series could be shorter (don’t have all the glitz of a DVD presentation), more targeted to the specific needs/problems of the church or class, and wouldn’t cost people money—just time. And if I felt some resources were particularly valuable, the church could make them available.

Am I missing something here? I do realize the value of “no need reinventing the wheel,” and it’s certainly more convenient & takes less effort to set up a DVD presentation & pop in this week’s lesson. I’ve done that with a couple of packaged series, but the “student” didn’t have to pay to attend the sessions. The church buys the DVD pkg for $100, corresponding books are made available for those who want to buy them (for maybe $15), and that’s it. I’d have a huge problem telling my congregation, “We’re doing a series on biblically based stewardship. To get the goods, you have to shell out the bucks.” Incidentally, I have no problem with DR putting the material together, selling it, and making a reasonable profit. There are scores of DVD packaged lesson materials available sold at a profit…but the students don’t have to pay to attend the sessions & get the basic lesson material.

Maybe the argument is, “It’s like going to a conference. If you went to a weekend conference you’d have to pay to learn…same thing.” But it’s not. A little thinking would come up with a bunch of huge differences.

So, just curious. For those who have attended a church-sponsored FPU event, or if your church put one on, why the fee-based approach?

DR’s major emphasis is getting people out of debt. Christians are equally as guilty as non-Christians when it comes to oppressive debt. Our country is plagued to the point of crisis by debt — currently about $14 trillion annually. As a debtor nation, America leads the world. We are becoming servants to China and Japan. As debtors, Christians are a reflection and a part of this national problem. Whatever one’s disagreements with DR’s personality, his emphasis on gaining wealth, his use of slick advertising, etc., wouldn’t it be more patriotic for all Americans to become debt free? Wouldn’t our politicians be more inclined to stop increasing the national debt if a generation of citizens who have learned to operate by sound financial principles were to demand more fiscal responsibility of its leaders? Maybe this same influence from church members, who have learned the proper use of money, might prevent churches from making unwise financial decisions. Paul makes reference in 1 Cor. 7:31 to the principle of “using the world without abusing it.” Maybe this principle might apply to making use of worldly-wise concepts of handling money as well. In Luke 16:8, our Lord says that “the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.” Again, in Luke 16:10-12, Jesus says: “He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammom, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in what is another man’s, who will give you what is your own?” Multitudes of Christians are unfaithful in the use of the resources God gives them, and this unwise use of money leads to want and poverty as well as to lost opportunities for serving God with our resources. The principles of saving and financial investing are common knowledge. Christians ignore them to their own hurt and to the hurt of the kingdom of God. Why should our Lord have to rebuke the righteous for not being as wise as the “sons of this world”? When it comes to solving other problems or to acquiring useful information, why do some Christians get so uptight about the source of their knowledge? I would agree that the motives for gaining wealth ought to be in step with Scripture and that giving to the Lord’s work should trump the selfish use of what God blesses us with. But I thnk that the original intent of this thread ignores the fact that Christians have by and large fallen into the trap of debt and need help in resolving this problem. Thousands of Christians and non-Christians have benefited from DR and Crown. The Bible says as “laborers,” they are worthy of their hire. We’ve got bigger fish to fry.

[BryanBice] But I’m curious about the whole “show his stuff in your church for $100 a head” approach. If the material is biblically based, why can’t someone build a S.S. series off his books—using perhaps his topical organization w/ examples, etc.—and simply present it to adult classes? Most likely, the series could be shorter (don’t have all the glitz of a DVD presentation), more targeted to the specific needs/problems of the church or class, and wouldn’t cost people money—just time. And if I felt some resources were particularly valuable, the church could make them available.

Bryan,

You certainly could refer to the book in teaching a class, but if you are suggesting “Build-your-own-FPU” using Ramsey’s materials, I think you would be running into some serious copyright issues.

Ramsey has explained that one reason for charging for the class as he does is that it makes it become something of value for the student — just as some church programs have charged for Biblical (nouthetic) counseling. Also, the fee includes a personal set of all the materials for the student and a lifetime membership to the course. (http://www.daveramsey.com/fpu/home/) I don’t suppose that even Ramsey has enough money to give a set of DVDs to every person in America who wants them for free :).

Even Farnham’s original article said, “the course (may be) worth many times its $100 price tag.”

I have to say that I am very puzzled by the repeated interjection in this thread to the “glitz” of Ramsey/FPU. Can someone state an example of misconduct or even something they personally dislike? Or is this just a mantra that is being picked up? How do his videos or Web site differ from something else you have seen, or how would you do it differently? Is there some fault you can point to that represents something of substance (i.e., not “I don’t like the color of his Web site”)?

jimcarwest wrote:

“But I thnk that the original intent of this thread ignores the fact that Christians have by and large fallen into the trap of debt and need help in resolving this problem. Thousands of Christians and non-Christians have benefited from DR and Crown. The Bible says as ‘laborers,’ they are worthy of their hire. We’ve got bigger fish to fry.”

Amen Jim! Preach it! Both the original article and the discussion which follow have largely ignored the substance of the issue — Christians and even CHURCHES facing foreclosure in record numbers, personal and national debt at record levels, etc., etc. We are arguing over the hairs in Ramsey’s mustache while the country is on fire!

Paul,

I agree with you that the controversy regarding what Ramsey charges for his video class seems like straining a gnat. He produces a high quality product that is delivered in an engaging manner, and, as I said in my earlier post, I think Ramsey’s product works for its intended purposes: getting people out of debt and on a secure financial footing. Why would we think that someone should give this product away? Just because certain product lines are directed at churches or religious organizations? I think not. This isn’t a burden we put on our own ministers.

But I would like to ask you about one of your statements. The relevant quote is below:

Amen Jim! Preach it! Both the original article and the discussion which follow have largely ignored the substance of the issue — Christians and even CHURCHES facing foreclosure in record numbers, personal and national debt at record levels, etc., etc. We are arguing over the hairs in Ramsey’s mustache while the country is on fire!

You seem to imply, and I may be misunderstanding you, that the country is on fire because of the debt load that churches and believers and the country are under. From a political perspective, I have no problem with this statement. The national and individual debt load has placed and is placing a burden on this country that we most likely have not felt the full weight of.

But from the perspective of a believer or that of a church, the debt load we as churches and individuals are under is indicative of a much deeper problem. The debt is merely a symptom of a much more sinister problem: envy, greed, pride, etc. We want this or that, cannot afford it, but think we deserve it to the point that we place ourselves under a load of debt we cannot support. The debt isn’t the problem, it is the motivation that led us to want something so much that we forgot biblical principles of wise stewardship. If we paid off the debt without resolving the heart issues, this would not put out the true proverbial fire.

This again is my caution with Dave Ramsey. His materials will help you get of debt and on secure financial footing, but they do not focus on the motivations of the heart. Therefore, I would urge any individual or church using his material to supplement it with teaching that causes them to analyze their motivations and heart.

I have no problem with your statement. I think we are on the same page.

(Sometimes also, however, the debt IS the problem — such as in the case of medical debt.)

Back to your analogy, personally I think Ramsey is at least good at “ringing the fire alarm” in a way that most people are going to hear it.

To stretch the analogy, if we begin with Crown or Randy Alcorn dissecting “who started the fire and why,” we may just end with a few folks sleeping right through the fire in the burning house.

Fire investigators usually do their work after the firefighters are done.

Am I wrong to put things in this order with regard to debt? :)

[Paul J. Scharf] I have to say that I am very puzzled by the repeated interjection in this thread to the “glitz” of Ramsey/FPU. Can someone state an example of misconduct or even something they personally dislike? Or is this just a mantra that is being picked up? How do his videos or Web site differ from something else you have seen, or how would you do it differently? Is there some fault you can point to that represents something of substance (i.e., not “I don’t like the color of his Web site”)?

Paul, I (and others) have repeatedly given specific examples. You have chosen to ignore them or you refuse to give them any credibility. But it is incorrect to say that no one is giving examples.

You said something earlier (post #14) to imply that I don’t know what I am talking about. When I challenged you to elaborate, you ignored it. Do you concede that you were wrong or do you want to explain to me why I am so financially ignorant?

Saying it can be dangerous to pay off debt, advocating the use of more debt against your house, advocating investing money which could be used to pay the house off and hoping to beat the bank on interest earned — these are dangerous ideas which Ramsey deals with in detail. Even people who are well short of agreeing with Ramsey on many things would disagree with you on these.

If you are seriously advocating for these ideas as opposed to the Biblical teaching on finance, you need to study and pray. I say this lovingly, because I was once that ignorant of the truth also.

At least you are being honest if those are your disagreements with Ramsey.

I have seen no specific examples from people who otherwise agree with Ramsey but just can’t promote him because he is too “glitzy,” thus I must conclude that that is a red herring. (I guess Mark is saying in the original article that Ramsey is too much of a self-promoter — so perhaps that is a specific, but it is not very clear what Mark is telling us to do about it.)

… advocating investing money which could be used to pay the house off and hoping to beat the bank on interest earned

Since this is the one I brought up, gave some numbers on, and asked for interaction on, perhaps you could take a minute and show the problems with it.

So far as I know, the only time in recent history (meaning the last half century) where one would have been hurt by doing this was the last two year or so, but in that case, everyone who owned a house that wasn’t paid off was in trouble. Perhaps you could explain your point here (or explain Dave’s point. I have heard him make it on the radio and it made no sense then, but it was a short segment so I am sure it was lacking in some regards).

In effect, it seems like the question is, if I have an extra $300 a month (or whatever number), why should I invest it at 4.75% instead of 7% or more, in addition to paying more taxes in the long run? Please correct me if the question here is wrong.

Larry,

The short answer is…because you can lose your house. The “tax savings” is a ruse foisted on the American people by bankers who can do math. (Larry Burkett used to lick his chops when he got that question. He would always say, “I have a better deal — you give me your money, and I will give you 95 percent of it back…”)

I am Bible teacher and a writer, not a financial teacher, so — no — I am going to politely refuse your invitation to go into a financial lesson. When it comes to finances, I am a student, not an expert — just one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.

If you don’t like Ramsey, I would suggest you go to www.crown.org, where you will get the same answers.

[Paul J. Scharf] Saying it can be dangerous to pay off debt, advocating the use of more debt against your house, advocating investing money which could be used to pay the house off and hoping to beat the bank on interest earned — these are dangerous ideas which Ramsey deals with in detail. Even people who are well short of agreeing with Ramsey on many things would disagree with you on these.

If you are seriously advocating for these ideas as opposed to the Biblical teaching on finance, you need to study and pray. I say this lovingly, because I was once that ignorant of the truth also.

At least you are being honest if those are your disagreements with Ramsey.

I have seen no specific examples from people who otherwise agree with Ramsey but just can’t promote him because he is too “glitzy,” thus I must conclude that that is a red herring. (I guess Mark is saying in the original article that Ramsey is too much of a self-promoter — so perhaps that is a specific, but it is not very clear what Mark is telling us to do about it.)

Paul, you may not have the financial acumen to understand what I said. I am not going to go into enormous details to try to educate you, but what I said was true. It can be dangerous in today’s environment to pay off debt too aggressively, and there is nothing wrong with intelligently borrowing against your house.

Ramsey’s teaching is designed for financial amateurs. It is illogical to people with more acumen. For example, he teaches to pay off the lowest credit balance first regardless of the interest rate. I know why he teaches this and it is OK I suppose for undisciplined people. But for those who know more, it makes no sense.

Just be careful of who you call ignorant, especially when you admit you are a financial novice.

[Larry]

… advocating investing money which could be used to pay the house off and hoping to beat the bank on interest earned

Since this is the one I brought up, gave some numbers on, and asked for interaction on, perhaps you could take a minute and show the problems with it.

So far as I know, the only time in recent history (meaning the last half century) where one would have been hurt by doing this was the last two year or so, but in that case, everyone who owned a house that wasn’t paid off was in trouble. Perhaps you could explain your point here (or explain Dave’s point. I have heard him make it on the radio and it made no sense then, but it was a short segment so I am sure it was lacking in some regards).

In effect, it seems like the question is, if I have an extra $300 a month (or whatever number), why should I invest it at 4.75% instead of 7% or more, in addition to paying more taxes in the long run? Please correct me if the question here is wrong.

I think Larry that Ramsey is gearing his material to people who are largely undisciplined and financial novices. He knows that those people are not going to invest the extra $300/month; they are going to blow it. And for people like that, they are better off paying off their house asap.

This is why he advocates many things that make no sense to people with more experience. For example, he tells people to pay off the lowest credit balances first, not the balances with the highest interest rates. He believes that if people can see progress, they will be fired up about continuing.

I see his point, but again, this kind of advice is not for everyone. It is for people that can’t handle money and lack discipline to save/invest.

Thanks, Paul. I ask because I am not sure either.

The short answer is…because you can lose your house.

How? If I put away that money, then I have it if I need it. In other words, I am not spending that money on something else. So if I lose my job or my ability to make payments, I have that money to draw on until I get another job.

And what about this: If I make extra payments, does it put me ahead of schedule, so I don’t have to make any for a while? I don’t think it does. I think the bank wants their payment every month, no matter how much I have paid ahead. (I could be wrong. I have no mortgage so I am not sure.) So if I lose my job and can’t make my payment, and instead of investing it I have paid down my mortgage, then I have nothing in reserve to pay my mortgage with while I have no job.

Again, I could be wrong. I am not sure.

The “tax savings” is a ruse foisted on the American people by bankers who can do math. (Larry Burkett used to lick his chops when he got that question. He would always say, “I have a better deal — you give me your money, and I will give you 95 percent of it back…”)

I am not sure how this works. I would be interested in an explanation. If I get a tax deduction for mortgage, that means I get to keep more of my money than if not. I think Burkett’s deal works with playing the lottery (which has strange similarities to buying houses these days). But again, I am not sure how I benefit by paying more tax than I would otherwise have to.

Now again, if one is not investing the money, that is a different story.

If you don’t like Ramsey, I would suggest you go to www.crown.org, where you will get the same answers.

For my dollar, it is not about liking or not liking Ramsey. I don’t really care one way or the other. I listen to him when I am in the car and he is on. I wouldn’t have him in church. He rubs me a bit the wrong way sometimes, but I don’t really think that much about it. My point is about sound financial advice.

You mention Crown, so I went there and looked. [URL=http://www.crown.org/LIBRARY/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=280] Here is what they say[/URL]

Nevertheless, if a home mortgage cannot be paid off within the next five years or so by adding additional payments to the principal, the homeowner might want to consider investing any surplus funds and accumulating the funds until they can pay off the mortgage with one lump sum payment

That sounds similar to what I am saying.

I would imagine their five year rule is based on the difference in interest rates, though they don’t say. Their article seems based on the fact that if you don’t prepay the mortgage, you waste the money. My argument is based on the fact that if you don’t prepay the mortgage, you invest it. I agree that if one is not going to invest regularly, then they should prepay the mortgage.

[Paul J. Scharf] You certainly could refer to the book in teaching a class, but if you are suggesting “Build-your-own-FPU” using Ramsey’s materials, I think you would be running into some serious copyright issues.

Ramsey has explained that one reason for charging for the class as he does is that it makes it become something of value for the student — just as some church programs have charged for Biblical (nouthetic) counseling. Also, the fee includes a personal set of all the materials for the student and a lifetime membership to the course. (http://www.daveramsey.com/fpu/home/) I don’t suppose that even Ramsey has enough money to give a set of DVDs to every person in America who wants them for free :).

Even Farnham’s original article said, “the course (may be) worth many times its $100 price tag.”

I have to say that I am very puzzled by the repeated interjection in this thread to the “glitz” of Ramsey/FPU. Can someone state an example of misconduct or even something they personally dislike? Or is this just a mantra that is being picked up? How do his videos or Web site differ from something else you have seen, or how would you do it differently? Is there some fault you can point to that represents something of substance (i.e., not “I don’t like the color of his Web site”)?

jimcarwest wrote:

“But I thnk that the original intent of this thread ignores the fact that Christians have by and large fallen into the trap of debt and need help in resolving this problem. Thousands of Christians and non-Christians have benefited from DR and Crown. The Bible says as ‘laborers,’ they are worthy of their hire. We’ve got bigger fish to fry.”

Amen Jim! Preach it! Both the original article and the discussion which follow have largely ignored the substance of the issue — Christians and even CHURCHES facing foreclosure in record numbers, personal and national debt at record levels, etc., etc. We are arguing over the hairs in Ramsey’s mustache while the country is on fire!

Just to clarify, I’m not talking about copyright infringement. In an educational setting, there’s no copyright violation by taking several sources, or even 1 primary source, and using the basic content as a starting point or outline for a class. Of course, the ethical thing to do is give proper credit & let the class know what you’re doing. I’ve done this very thing with books like Bridges Respectable Sins & Disciplines of Grace. The class was given the option of buying the books as foundational, but they weren’t required to buy them in order to attend the class. And, incidentally, some of the topics in those 2 books would deal with the root issues of many of the debt problems people face.

As far as the “charge ‘em so they’ll ‘own’ and value the material” goes, sorry…I don’t buy it (no pun intended). Where does that end? I certainly have no problem with offering the “personal set of materials & lifetime membership” stuff for sale if anyone would like to buy it (no credit cards accepted though!), but you have to pay the $100 to attend? Here’s the bottom line. Besides having some philosophical issues with this approach, it would be foolish to try to use FPU in my church. Most of the people can’t afford the $100. Those who could afford it, need the information the least…and they wouldn’t spend the money on it anyway. Besides that, I’d get all kinds of grief (and rightly so) for offering a “biblical stewardship series” for a fee. I’d also probably get a little grief from some who happen to notice that the liberal Lutheran church down the road is offering FPU, too.

As far as my “glitz” reference goes, I didn’t mean anything particularly derogatory by it. I was simply referring to the fact that a DVD presentation has a lot more “glitz” to it than you’ll find in my typical weekly SS class…you know, musical lead ins…introduction of author…etc, etc. I don’t have a problem with any of that — every DVD series I’ve used has those “glitzy” features. But if a live body were simply presenting the essential, biblical material each week, it could be done in a shorter period of time.

Greg, I believe I understand perfectly what you are saying. Thanks.

Larry, if you are seriously looking for real answers, here is an introductory article to get started: http://www.daveramsey.com/article/the-truth-about-mortgages/lifeandmone…

There are many more — you can search for what you like. :)

Larry, if you are seriously looking for real answers, here is an introductory article to get started:

What else would I be doing???? Seriously …

But thanks for the link. I read it but it doesn’t seem to address the issue of paying down early vs investing at a higher rate, and that is precisely the question at hand for me. Everything it says, I agree with with the possible exception of the 15 vs. 30 (because of flexibility gained). But the article doesn’t address the issue I am asking about. I had already searched both Ramsey and Crown, which is how I was able to post the earlier article. Crown was the only one that addressed the particular issue that I could find.

Again, I totally agree that if the option is “spend money vs. pay the mortage,” then pay the mortgage. If the option is “invest money vs pay the mortgage” I don’t think that is nearly so clear cut. You stand to lose up to $75,000 in the example I gave, if those numbers are right, and so far, no one has disputed them. I think even Dave Ramsey would rather have $75,000 than not.

Most people aren’t disciplined with their money. That is why they are in debt. My comments are not directed towards them at all.

Great post RPittman.

I am disturbed too, though like you, I agree with most of what Ramsey says about money management.

But what bothers me is that poeple seem to think that you can overlook the philosophical problems because of good advice about debt and saving. Sorry, the philosophical problems are more important. I would rather my children be broke and in debt than weighted down with materialism and obsessed with money.

The philosophy of money is a real blind spot in fundamentalism. I remember teaching a class several years ago and discussing whether people should know how their money was invested. Someone in the class make a public statement that he would not choose a mutual fund based on whether it invested in gambling but he certainly choose one based on how well it performed.

There is something very wrong with that kind of pragmatism, and we see the same problem here. The management of money is apparently more important than how we view money. Ramsey may be a billionaire but he appears to to be in conflict with the Bible on how he views money.

According to on-air statements I have heard, Ramsey attends Fellowship Bible Church in Brentwood, TN, of which Michael Easley — the former president of Moody Bible Institute — is now the teaching pastor.

http://www.fellowshipnashville.org/content/AnnounceDetails.aspx?Announc…

In light of MacArthur’s quote below, I’m wondering if FPU isn’t the latest & greatest in a long line of Christian-issues fads that, if you’re church is with-it, will just have to present—or else your people will never attain the level of spiritual maturity that they should (kinda like Jabez).

Anyway, the following quote is from http://www.gty.org/Blog/B100303:

”Evangelical fad surfing. Contemporary evangelicals have therefore become very much like ‘children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about with every wind of doctrine’ (Eph. 4: 14). They follow whatever is the latest popular trend. They buy whatever is the current best seller. They line up to see any celebrity who speaks spiritual-sounding language. They watch eagerly for the next Hollywood movie with any ‘spiritual’ theme or religious imagery that they can latch on to. And evangelicals discuss these fads and fashions endlessly, as if every cultural icon that captures their attention had profound and serious spiritual significance.

Evangelical churchgoers desperately want their churches to stay on the leading edge of whatever is currently in vogue in the evangelical community. It almost seems like ancient history now, but for a while, any church that wanted to be in fashion had to sponsor seminars on how to pray the prayer of Jabez. But woe to the church that was still doing Jabez when The Purpose-Driven Life took center stage. By then, any church that wanted to retain its standing and credibility in the evangelical movement had better be doing ‘Forty Days of Purpose.’ And if your church didn’t get through the ‘Forty Days’ in time to host group studies or preach a series of sermons about The Da Vinci Code before the Hollywood movie version came out, then your church was considered badly out of touch with what really matters.”

Time will tell….

Bryan,

On the other hand, I have been going to fundamental churches for 25-plus years, and have learned almost nothing about Biblical financial wisdom in them.

A few bad examples — but not much positive teaching. Unless you consider, “Lord, you keep the preacher humble and we’ll keep him poor” to be good teaching.

I agree with MacArthur’s quote wholeheartedly. I am not interested in Ramsey because FPU is the latest fad (if it is — at least it obviously isn’t among some SI readers) but because it is addressing an area of grave concern where our churches are desperately lacking.

(I know of one fundamental church right now where the suggestion has been made to take out a six-figure loan to make roof repairs.)

What we really haven’t gotten to the bottom of here is why people are opposed to Ramsey. If it is because they already totally have a handle on their finances and think he is too liberal, then this discussion really isn’t for them in the first place.

But one thing we have learned is that at least some people are opposed because they do not buy Ramsey’s most basic premises. To me, that simply demonstrates the need. If Ramsey’s personality and methods turn them off, they need to listen to someone else with the same message.

My fear is that this whole discussion is going to turn off some soon-to-be-college graduate who is getting ready to go into the real world with $100K+ in student loans between him and his bride-to-be, and he is going to read Mark’s article and a smattering of the comments and decide that Ramsey is an opportunistic lunatic, which is so far from reality. I just find that to be very sad. :(

Greg…

About Dave’s “Snowball Method” of paying off debts…

The reason it is good is because it works for most people because it works with the emotions. No, it doesn’t make sense “on paper”, but if it works in real life, then it’s okay—maybe it’s time to work with the “dummies” and “uneducated” since most of us are uneducated in the area of finances.

(Last time I was on furlough I walked into an outlet store one day with my daughters…the sign said, “Save $30 when you buy 2 sweaters…” I told my daughters, the “BEST way to save a whole lot more is to NOT buy the sweaters at all.” ….Obviously most of Americans can be manipulated and tempted into spending.)

They say the “best diet” is the one that you will stick with. Wouldn’t it make sense to say that the best “debt repayment program” (for you) is the one that you will stay with. Obviously a “snowball” method, even if you do not pay the highest percentage first is better than getting discouraged and doing nothing at all.

I think that it is imperative to deal with the psychology of money as well as just the brute facts. Feeling like you are winning the battle against debt could be over half the battle. Since almost none of us really “need anything”, spending is mostly an emotional matter. Win the emotional battle and you can win the war, or at least so it seems.

Many of these people are seeing success and learning how to handle their money. Their motives may be for greed or security, but they are getting out of the black hole of debt.

I’m curious about part 2 of the review.

I do think it is a fad, though. Paul…you said you were never taught anything about money in your church. I take it your church didn’t ever get into Larry Burkett’s stuff. Maybe it was too emotional (he predicted a great crash many years ago, if I remember right…something about the Coming Economic disaster, or something like that), but it has been around a while. But in a way, it’s a shame that more parents don’t teach their kids common sense money skills.

I think when/if America gets out of the current “penny pinching” mood, that you will see it leave the churches as well.

On the practical side, let’s not miss a major point here in this discussion. DR and others are seeking to help people become debt free because freedom gives one many more options in life and in ministry than enslavement does. God warns us about debt, saying that the debtor is servant (slave) to the lender. Besides, debt wastes money in the interest that is paid and simply transfers wealth from the laborer to the lender. Who would deny that a nation of debt-free citizens would not be better than a nation of people who are under the burden of credit cards, mortgage loans, and car payments? Charitable giving and church offerings would increase. This discussion has gotten bogged down in debating the personal qualities, philosophy, and strategy of Dave Ramsey. What we should remember is the statement of Deuteronomy to the nation of Israel: “Ye shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow.” Because of debt our nation has become a “servant” to China and to Japan to the sum of near $2 trillion dollars. This has led to an increase in the value of our currency. The dollar is nearing collapse on the world market. Our national credit rating is threatened with being devalued, which will have the effect of making the interest we pay on our loans higher, further weakening our economy. Whatever the negatives of DR and Crown are, the overall effect of saving instead of spending on credit has a positive effect on families, on churches, and on world evangelization. It is time for churches and Christians as individuals to come back to a biblical philosophy regarding the use of “mammon.” IMHO this is the conclusion we should come to from this thread. Unless your church is teaching people in the biblical use of money, it should not be criticizing those who are seeking to do so. I like the way they are doing it better than the way some are not doing it.

jimcarwest wrote:

“Whatever the negatives of DR and Crown are, the overall effect of saving instead of spending on credit has a positive effect on families, on churches, and on world evangelization…Unless your church is teaching people in the biblical use of money, it should not be criticizing those who are seeking to do so. I like the way they are doing it better than the way some are not doing it.”

Amen, Jim! My sentiments exactly.

You have hit the bull’s eye. The rest is just window dressing.

Paul, my friend, IF (and notice I said “if”) others are accurate in their concerns about the fact that DR fails to address heart issues in money management, then that is not “just window dressing.” Nothing else could be more important…not even teaching people to become debt-free.

[Greg Long] Paul, my friend, IF (and notice I said “if”) others are accurate in their concerns about the fact that DR fails to address heart issues in money management, then that is not “just window dressing.” Nothing else could be more important…not even teaching people to become debt-free.

That is for sure. I am bewildered by Paul’s attitude. It is like a paid off credit card is the most important goal a Christian should have.

[GregH]

[Greg Long] Paul, my friend, IF (and notice I said “if”) others are accurate in their concerns about the fact that DR fails to address heart issues in money management, then that is not “just window dressing.” Nothing else could be more important…not even teaching people to become debt-free.

That is for sure. I am bewildered by Paul’s attitude. It is like a paid off credit card is the most important goal a Christian should have.

Maybe it is because, often like an alcoholic—If they actually have already quit being an alcoholic before they come to Christ, they have a clear mind and know what they are doing—trying to win a drunk person to Christ (while drunk) isn’t really effective because he can’t think.

Maybe if people are debt free, they can actually then rid themselves of the “emotional” side of the money issue and then deal with heart issues.

I do think there is value, even if the value isn’t really “christian” in being out of debt.

Maybe men handle the pressure of all the debt better than women, but women tend to be worriers about things like this. Action—getting rid of he debt, even if for the wrong reason—can then lead to relief and the ability to “think clearly” about money.

I’m saddened that so many Christians buy into the rampant materialism of our day—having to have everything that is marketed to us as if it is necessity, even when we can’t afford it—or if we can afford it, but it adds nothing to our lives.

(I struggle more when I come back to the states than I do while here because there are fewer things that I like over here. I made a comment to my husband years ago that it was a good thing we weren’t in Germany because Germany has so many more nice things to buy than we have—not sure I’ve won any battles against materialism. As someone mentioned on some blog somewhere —was that on SI?— you’ll know when you’ve won the battle against materialism when you can walk into a mall and not WANT anything. :))

[GregH]

[Greg Long] Paul, my friend, IF (and notice I said “if”) others are accurate in their concerns about the fact that DR fails to address heart issues in money management, then that is not “just window dressing.” Nothing else could be more important…not even teaching people to become debt-free.

That is for sure. I am bewildered by Paul’s attitude. It is like a paid off credit card is the most important goal a Christian should have.

Hi Greg Long!!

I do not accept the premise that Ramsey does not deal with heart issues. I was reading “Financial Peace” this morning, where he was dealing with that very point.

But also, I think you misunderstood me in the quote above. I was saying that everything in this discussion was window dressing outside of the point Jim was making. I find the purpose of the original article to be difficult to discern, and believe it made Ramsey himself the focus, which carried over into the thread, where people have thrown out all kinds of information (and misinformation) about Ramsey instead of dealing with the issue he represents or critiquing/discussing his message.

I believe that some people are genuinely saying that they would agree with lots of Ramsey’s information, but find his methods/presentation to be distasteful and therefore do not use his materials. That is fine.

I believe that others are sharing various negative opinions about Ramsey (true and untrue) which are actually diversionary in nature — this conveniently allows them to avoid dealing with the issue Ramsey personifies (Biblical view of finances/getting out of debt). That is disingenuous.

I believe that a third group is hearing these (largely false) charges against Ramsey and forming opinions against him based on what they are hearing second- and third-hand. That is unfortunate.

As I said before, Ramsey is on radio/TV 20 hours per week, so none of this is secret information. Anyone can listen and see what he teaches and whether or not they agree and/or care for his style.

Should a person be a Berean and listen with discernment? Of course!

I have some concerns about the way he presents himself and about his program myself, and have written about them. On balance, however, I know of no better material available, and would recommend that it be used anywhere and everywhere. Once a group has gone through it once or is mature enough to move on, it would be great to balance it out with something else like Randy Alcorn (http://www.epm.org/home_mainPage.php).

I just don’t think that Randy Alcorn is going to get people’s attention the way Dave Ramsey is.

The (sad) truth is that most fundamental churches are not teaching — or living by the principles of — either Ramsey or Alcorn. So I think there is a pretty small sliver of ground from which to criticize Ramsey…

GregH — I am not sure what is bewildering. I did not say that paying off a credit card “is the most important goal a Christian should have.” I think it is a Scriptural goal for a Christian to have. But you, by your earlier posts, did not commit to the basics of such thinking. So what is it that you want to discuss? I am confused.

To those who want an introduction to Ramsey’s teaching on “The Total Money Makeover,” there is a nationwide live simulcast this Saturday, March 13 — http://www.daveramsey.com/live/simulcast/ictid/lm2/ — from noon to 5 p.m., central time.

The cost is minimal ($10 per family, including a workbook and snack, at a church near me which is hosting it).

Attending this would answer lots of questions which many people have.

I’m torn about whether to post or let the thread peacefully fizzle out.

First, want to point out that a few haver referred to “charges” and “propaganda” in reference to Farnham’s article. Folks, if that’s the case then all book reviews that express opinion are “charges” and “propaganda.” It’s just a review. And we’re not going to stop allowing opinion writing here (there would not be much left :) )

So, by all means disagree w/his assertions and say why, but there’s no call to argue that he is out of line for expressing them (nor is anyone out of line for agreeing w/Farnham)

As for heart issues: I agree that nothing is more important. But surely not everybody’s work has to be about the most important things? I mean, we still need plumbers! And we still need financial advisors—especially ones w/a healthy dose of biblical wisdom in the mix. Why can’t Ramsey just be a financial advisor? Why does he have to be an evangelist or disciple maker? …just askin’.

[GregH]

[Paul J. Scharf] Saying it can be dangerous to pay off debt, advocating the use of more debt against your house, advocating investing money which could be used to pay the house off and hoping to beat the bank on interest earned — these are dangerous ideas which Ramsey deals with in detail. Even people who are well short of agreeing with Ramsey on many things would disagree with you on these.

If you are seriously advocating for these ideas as opposed to the Biblical teaching on finance, you need to study and pray. I say this lovingly, because I was once that ignorant of the truth also.

At least you are being honest if those are your disagreements with Ramsey.

I have seen no specific examples from people who otherwise agree with Ramsey but just can’t promote him because he is too “glitzy,” thus I must conclude that that is a red herring. (I guess Mark is saying in the original article that Ramsey is too much of a self-promoter — so perhaps that is a specific, but it is not very clear what Mark is telling us to do about it.)

Paul, you may not have the financial acumen to understand what I said. I am not going to go into enormous details to try to educate you, but what I said was true. It can be dangerous in today’s environment to pay off debt too aggressively, and there is nothing wrong with intelligently borrowing against your house.

Ramsey’s teaching is designed for financial amateurs. It is illogical to people with more acumen. For example, he teaches to pay off the lowest credit balance first regardless of the interest rate. I know why he teaches this and it is OK I suppose for undisciplined people. But for those who know more, it makes no sense.

Just be careful of who you call ignorant, especially when you admit you are a financial novice.

Is it your opinion that all the people filing bankruptcy and losing their homes are doing so due to “math errors”? What I find interesting is a debate on the use of debt to invest…on a Biblical forum. I am admittedly not strong in quoting scripture, so could you please point out the scripture which promotes the concept of maintaining a large debt on your home in order to invest that money at a better interest rate?

You, along with a great deal of folks, have placed your own intelligence above that of God. The Bible is as clear as can be regarding debt. Your ignorance is not dictated by anybody on this forum, but by the Bible. I’m extremely versed in finances, but gave up the the same argument you hold right now once I was introduced to Dave Ramsey. I immediately sold some assets in order to pay off my house, and will never incur mortgage or any other type of debt again. Period. I may not make the best return, but the freedom I have due to this move, and the knowledge that I am following the path laid by the Bible is all the confirmation I need. The odds of my house being foreclosed upon are practically zero. And, even with a job loss, the income needed to maintain a household with absolutely zero debt is negligible. Our family could live just fine on the wages paid to a minimum wage employee.

None of this is really debatable. You’re arguing math, when you should drop the math and understand the principle behind being a slave to the lender as quoted in the Bible. The thought process you maintain is exactly why finances and debt are addressed in the Bible. You’re fooling yourself that YOU won’t ever be placed in a position that your debt will hurt you…and maybe it won’t. But, that isn’t something you can control. I felt invincible at one time, and then suffered an embezzlement in my company that cost me almost $140,000. It drained every penny from my account, but with a paid off home and no debt, it was a setback not a devastation. THAT is the peace and secruity that comes from being debt free, and it can’t be replaced with better returns in exchange for the debt. The Bible is right and so is Dave Ramsey.

“Debt is dumb, cash is King and the paid off home is the new status symbol of choice.”

DennisB,

Glad you have figured it all out to the point where it is “not debatable.” And I am glad that you are so gracious when you speak about it.

You do your thing and I will do mine. But I am through arguing with DaveRamseyites.

[Aaron Blumer] I’m torn about whether to post or let the thread peacefully fizzle out.

First, want to point out that a few haver referred to “charges” and “propaganda” in reference to Farnham’s article. Folks, if that’s the case then all book reviews that express opinion are “charges” and “propaganda.” It’s just a review. And we’re not going to stop allowing opinion writing here (there would not be much left :) )

So, by all means disagree w/his assertions and say why, but there’s no call to argue that he is out of line for expressing them (nor is anyone out of line for agreeing w/Farnham)

As for heart issues: I agree that nothing is more important. But surely not everybody’s work has to be about the most important things? I mean, we still need plumbers! And we still need financial advisors—especially ones w/a healthy dose of biblical wisdom in the mix. Why can’t Ramsey just be a financial advisor? Why does he have to be an evangelist or disciple maker? …just askin’.

That’s not the question, though, Aaron. The question is whether it is wise to use Ramsey’s materials in your church to teach a biblical perspective on personal finances. No one’s saying that DR can’t be a financial counselor who is a Christian and not be an evangelist.

[Mark Farnham] Paul has pointed out a legitimate gaffe on my part. What I perceived to be a Dave Ramsey owned company (Zander) may merely be a paid advertiser of the Dave Ramsey show (I can’t seem to confirm if Ramsey has any financial investment in the company). Thanks, Paul, for that correction. I still have concern, however, over Ramsey’s promotion of a specific provider for these services as he is perhaps recieiving commission from Zander for promoting their product on his show. He could merely recommend certain kinds of products wthout endorsing one specific company. Otherwise I don’t know whether the product is truly the best product.

You should not have bought it if you were not first convinced that it was the best product choice. I have done some comparison shopping and will be buying that coverage from Zander because it is the best option.