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

Few people today interested in personal money management have not heard the name Dave Ramsey. Ramsey has built an empire of financial counseling that includes a nationally-syndicated radio show, a slot on Fox Business channel, and a NY Times bestseller, The Total Money Makeover. His website claims that over 1,000,000 families have taken Financial Peace University (FPU), his financial class designed to help people take charge of their money. On average, the website claims, attendees pay off $5,300 in debt and save $2,700 in just 90 days. FPU is billed as “a 13-week video curriculum—taught by financial expert Dave Ramsey—that incorporates small-group discussions to encourage accountability and discipleship. Financial Peace University is highly entertaining for everyone, with a unique combination of humor, informative financial advice and biblical messages.”

With such stunning results, it’s easy to understand why so many people are turning to Ramsey for financial advice. Since FPU is marketed to churches (along with other institutions such as businesses and the military), it is worth the effort to examine the program and evaluate it biblically. While Ramsey professes to be a Christian and uses Scripture liberally (in his church version of FPU), I discovered profound problems with the program, both in its content, and in its use by churches as an evangelistic tool. What follows is not a thorough critique, but a general attempt to evaluate the program biblically and theologically, while being as charitable as possible.

The Good

FPU is a professionally-presented, entertaining course of financial management. It does not teach advanced skills such as stock market investing or business finance, but focuses on the individual’s escape from debt and saving for the future. My wife and I learned many invaluable lessons, some of which were reminders, others that were new and crucial.

First, FPU teaches the simplicity and power of saving. Using vivid examples and simple charts, Ramsey shows the power of compound interest (although he presents wildly optimistic interest rates as normal). This taught us that anyone could save a little over many years and gain considerable interest through consistent investing. Also, Ramsey emphasizes living on a written budget, something we had not done so explicitly in the past. This has proven to be one of the most difficult disciplines to master. But Ramsey is right, that if you don’t tell your money what to do, you’ll wonder where it went. Budgeting is simply naming every dollar at the beginning of the month, and assigning it a place. I’ve heard this before, but it was good reminder.

Second, FPU teaches people how to get out of debt. The most powerful testimonials in FPU are those stories of people getting out of massive amounts of debt through the principles learned in the class. I personally know of one person who worked her way out of $60,000 of debt in less than three years through FPU. This alone may make the course worth many times its $100 price tag. Ramsey also gives helpful advice regarding creditors, credit scores, collection agencies and telemarketing.

Third, FPU teaches the inside story of marketing, and how to buy things wisely, with cash, and for a bargain price. He teaches the power of negotiating, even for things you thought had a fixed price. He also teaches invaluable lessons regarding identity theft and what kinds of insurances to buy and not to buy. He gives advice about real estate (Ramsey’s area of expertise), job interviews, retirement, and college savings. Some of the advice in these areas is debatable, but generally helpful. It would be wise to get advice from other sources as well in order to get differing perspectives on these vital areas.

While taking the course, my wife and I were given access to a wide variety of helpful tools through the FPU website. Readers should be aware, however, that once the thirteen weeks are over, many of these services require a subscription fee to continue using. In fact, for many of the topics covered in FPU, Ramsey’s company offers services that require payment once the class has ended, including insurances, financial advice, and identity theft protection. One is quickly reminded that this is a business, not a ministry, even though at times, the “feel” of it is church-like.

For all its benefits regarding financial advice, however, I found several troubling problems with FPU. Before I treat what I consider to be the truly bad elements of FPU, I would like to point out its ugliness first.

The Ugly

It doesn’t take more than a few weeks of exposure to the FPU videos before Ramsey’s arrogance and self-glorification becomes obvious. Dave Ramsey is not a humble man, and I would argue strongly that what some perceive to be his self-confidence is actually a bad case of egotism. After a few weeks of the class, I could barely control my gag reflex anymore when at the beginning of EACH video, all of his accolades (see above) were mentioned AGAIN. No doubt, this bald self-promotion is applauded by the world, but in a Christian atmosphere, it was downright sickening. On the way to FPU class one week I said to my wife in disgust, “I can’t stand to see his face again, and hear him brag about his money.” But this is not the truly ugly aspect of FPU.

The ugliest facet of FPU is actually something internal to me. I can’t really blame Dave Ramsey for this, but FPU does bear some responsibility. I found growing in my heart, after the first few weeks, a subtle materialism and greed I had never experienced before. So much of the advice given in FPU is designed to help people earn the kind of wealth that would free them from ever having to worry about money again. This is a rather explicit message throughout FPU and is reinforced by the oft-repeated mantra, “Live like no one else now, so you can live like no one else later.” The first half of this motto is helpful. It encourages frugality, saving and financial planning, but the second half promotes a lavish lifestyle and self-sufficiency. Audiences are wowed by compound-interest tables showing what it takes to retire with two, five and even eleven million dollars. Ramsey tells story after story of his wealth and what he has been able to purchase in cash, the financial freedom his millions have earned him, and how you too can live this way, thank you very much.

Now, I don’t blame Ramsey entirely for the greed I found being nurtured in my heart. He was simply telling the truth about the amazing power of compound interest. I found myself fantasizing about how comfortably we could live if we could just sock away the recommended amount for the recommended number of years. For a couple weeks my head was in the stars, and all thoughts of sacrificial service and daily bread were gone. I eventually came to recognize my greed and confess it as such. I had tried never to live for money in the past, so why were promises of millions suddenly turning my head at age 43?

There is a clear message throughout FPU—if you are not getting richer, you are a loser. In fact, in one of the videos, Ramsey says as much when he quips that if you are making the same amount of money you did twenty years ago, you are a loser. This is the ugly side of FPU. It knows nothing of sacrifice, of losing one’s life, of taking up one’s cross. It is a theology of glory and power and wealth, not of suffering and humiliation. Money seems to attain godlike status at times in FPU, as if it were the solution to everything. At one point Ramsey claims that having more money means less money fights in a marriage. Really? Are we to believe that wealth by itself has this kind of power?

Another ugly facet of FPU is the wildly optimistic picture Ramsey paints in his descriptions of saving and investing. By taking 12% as the average return on investments, he implies that extreme wealth is a normal result of saving just a little. For example, one table shows that a person would accumulate over $20,000,000 if he invested the cost of his lunch instead of going out to eat. This rather unreal scenario, however, is based on never going out to eat for lunch over a 60-year span (between ages 16 and 76) and earning 12% interest for those 60 years. Ramsey fails to take into consideration the cost of making one’s own lunch, which while minimal in comparison to the $8 a day he allots in the illustration, would still cut into his profit considerably. In another example he compares buying a new car with buying a clunker, but doesn’t consider the added expense of repairs a used car would necessitate.

One last charge of ugliness. FPU is nothing more than brilliant marketing, with a dazzling set, cool graphics and carefully designed elements to make the viewer feel good. Almost none of Ramsey’s material is original; it is merely a collection of financial wisdom packaged for a 21st century video-trained audience. I was flipping through an old Reader’s Digest magazine from April 1998 and found an article entitled “How to Plan for Your Financial Future” by Richard Miniter. Everything of value I learned in thirteen weeks of attending FPU I found in this article. As I said, there is not much original in FPU, just the glitz and glamour.


Mark Farnham is Assistant Professor of Theology and New Testament at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA). He and his wife, Adrienne, grew up in Connecticut and were married after graduating from Maranatha Baptist Bible College (Watertown, WI). They have two daughters and a son, all teenagers. Mark served as director of youth ministries at Positive Action for Christ (Rocky Mount, NC) right out of seminary and pastored for seven years in New London, Connecticut. He holds an MDiv from Calvary and a ThM in New Testament from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (South Hamilton, MA). He has also studied ancient manuscripts at Harvard Divinity School and philosophy at Villanova University. He is presently a doctoral student at Westminster Theological Seminary (Glenside, PA) in the field of Apologetics. These views do not necessarily reflect those of Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary or its faculty and administration.

Discussion

… 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.

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

[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.

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.

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. :(

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

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.

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry