Dave Ramsey and Financial Peace University: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Part 2

Read Part 1.

Author’s note: This critique has been specifically focused on the appropriateness of Financial Peace University as a financial counseling program in a local church. It does not evaluate Ramsey’s TV show, radio program or books, none of which I have ever seen, heard or read.

For all the benefits of Dave Ramsy’s Financial Peace University (FPU), I found several troubling problems with it. I addressed the good and the ugly in Part 1 of this essay. Now let’s look at the bad.

The Bad

When I mentioned to a friend recently that I was writing a review of FPU, he responded with enthusiasm that Dave Ramsey had changed his life. He explained that through FPU he had gotten out of debt, was saving for retirement and living a much more frugal life. When I indicated that my review was not likely to be favorable, he was surprised and a little defensive. Because he is theologically astute, I asked him about what I perceived to be the major flaw of FPU—the distortion of the gospel. He responded as I think many Christians would if asked that question: what distortion? I think it very likely that many Christians could attend FPU and not notice anything wrong with its message. The reason this is true is because most Christians do not have a firm conviction that the gospel ought to be central in any discussion regarding an issue of the Christian life. The gospel for many is about evangelism, not money, or sex, or parenting, or leisure.

A truly Christian viewpoint, however, sees everything through the lens of the gospel. This flies in the face of so many Christian attitudes toward everyday life, whether it be money, music, the arts, technology, or any host of cultural issues. The typical Christian response is to find some scattered verses and weave together a loose tapestry of references organized by his preconceived notions. To be truly Christian is to approach the issue from the standpoint of the gospel, and here is where I find FPU to be downright lacking.

First, when it comes to explicit references to the gospel, FPU is a disaster. In one video Ramsey tells the sad story of a young father who was diagnosed with cancer. By following Ramsey’s advice, this man had been able to provide for his family, so that when he died, his wife would not have to work, and his young children would be cared for. Ramsey proceeds to tell his audience that the man did eventually die, but it was “OK because he loved Jesus” and therefore we know where he is. This is the only reference to the gospel I could remember in the entire thirteen-week curriculum (although admittedly, I never attended the last session). My point is that this kind of reference to the gospel is weak at best and misleading at worst. If a church uses FPU as an evangelistic tool, it needs to be fully aware that the gospel will not be given in any recognizable fashion in the program.

Remember that FPU is marketed to other segments of society also, such as businesses and the military; and in these versions, all reference to Scripture and God are removed. If the only difference between a version of the course that is acceptable in secular settings and one that is designed for churches is a few Bible verses and off-hand references to God, how explicitly Christian is this view of money, really? But it gets worse.

In another video Ramsey actually directly contradicts the gospel when he mentions the various steps for getting out of debt. One of his necessary steps is to pray. Knowing that his audience is probably a mix of believers and unbelievers, he encourages them to pray nonetheless. He then tells his audience in effect, “Some of you don’t want to talk to God because you think, for whatever reason, that God is angry at you. God is not angry at you!” Now, if this video were specifically designed for an explicitly Christian audience, I would perhaps understand why he makes this statement. But after stating this, Ramsey in no way qualifies his statement. He simply proceeds to inform the audience that God wants to help them out of debt and that He loves them.

Some might object that FPU is a financial program and not a gospel presentation. While I acknowledge this fact, any time a Christian speaks about God or the gospel, his comments should be clear, complete and biblical. Defending FPU based on its purpose as a financial program is akin to defending The Shack’s heresies because it is “just a novel.” I would rather Ramsey left out all reference to God and Scripture than for him to obscure the gospel and place Scripture alongside other ancient wisdom as if the two are equal.

Second, and more significantly, Ramsey’s whole approach to money is counter to the gospel’s approach. For Ramsey, up is up and you save your life by saving your life. In the gospel, the way up is down and you save your life by losing it. Ramsey’s goal is never to have to worry about money again. The gospel way is to be willing to have your needs met day by day. Ramsey’s way is to be self-sufficient, relying only on your financial foresight, savvy and accumulated wealth. The gospel way, regardless of how much money one possesses, is to be utterly dependent upon God for everything. Ramsey’s way is one of increasing wealth which is a way to escape suffering and need. The gospel way is to expect suffering in this life and to be increasingly needy and dependent. Ramsey cannot conceive of failing to tear down one’s barns and building greater. The gospel cannot conceive of even taking a staff on the journey, but to trust that God will provide whatever is needed.

The gospel should change the way we view everything, including money. While many good principles are taught in FPU, churches and their leaders need to be aware of the problems with it as well.

Conclusion

Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University is probably most helpful for people in debt, people who have a good-paying job, and for people who expect that they will be upwardly mobile throughout their working years. It is probably least helpful for older people whose earning years are mostly behind them, for people who have significant uncontrolled expenses such as large medical bills, and for people who have committed themselves to full-time vocational ministry and don’t expect ever to make more than enough to survive.

Because I fall into these last two categories, I felt depressed at times during the course over my failure to make money more of a consideration in my career and job choices. Sometimes after an FPU class I felt like a fool for taking positions since graduation from seminary based on the question of whether my family could survive financially, because I felt God leading me. I have since fully recovered from this slight depression by returning to a gospel focus, and realizing that even if I have to work my whole life and die a pauper, if I lived for God, it will have been worth it.

Some might question why such an extensive critique needs to be written on something that I found so much value in (you do remember my early positive comments, don’t you?). I believe this kind of critique is necessary, because I believe we all need to be called back to a gospel-centered mindset. Recently a critique that Dave Powlison wrote of Gary Chapman’s The Five Love Languages (5LL) was reposted on the Internet, and it drew some criticism from commenters who wondered why Powlison had to critique 5LL according to the gospel. Why, they wondered, could he not just acknowledge the positive things in 5LL and forget the criticism? Powlison explains why in the critique: “When the analysis of what is wrong does not lead directly to our need for the person and work of the Messiah, then that analysis is shallow. The solution necessarily becomes some version of ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.”

While there are many helpful ideas and helps in FPU, I’m afraid that in the end it presents a view of money, God, and the purpose of life that stands in conflict with the gospel. If a church is going to use FPU with its members, I would recommend a complementary study of a biblical theology of stewardship and suffering to buttress the weaknesses of FPU. If a church is going to use FPU as an evangelistic tool, I would recommend carefully screening the videos and excluding the controversial parts mentioned in this review. I would also recommend a supplementary clear presentation of the gospel to correct and offset the weak attempts made in the series. While sound teaching is a critical need in the church today, faithfulness to the gospel ought to be the standard by which we judge the value of that teaching.


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

If we desire material extra’s so much we are willing to charge them when we don’t have the money for them, we are most likely not going to be able to wisely handle wealth.
I agree- but if DR’s materials address this habit of charging things we can’t afford, then by the time one becomes wealthy, there is a distinct possibility that one will be able to handle it. It isn’t as if his program enables big spenders to accumulate and spend more. The first lessons are about saving, giving to God, and frugality, and these behaviors can lead one to the place where they would be considered ‘wealthy’. And I think ‘wealth’ is too relative a term. Income for someone living well in a suburb in Ohio wouldn’t buy you 50 sq ft. in NYC.

[Greg Long] “The new stautus symbol of wealth is the paid of home, not the BMW”. How can anyone disagree with this clarity?What do you mean here, Dennis? Is this a quote from Dave Ramsey? Are you presenting this statement in a positive light? I sure hope not! Is the goal of Christians to have a paid-off home so they can show off their “status symbol of wealth”? Perhaps I misunderstand.
“Welcome to The Dave Ramsey Show, where debt is dumb, cash is king, and the paid-off home mortgage has replaced the BMW as the status symbol of choice. I am Dave Ramsey, giving you the same financial advice as your grandmother would have given you, only we keep our teeth in.” :)

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

[Greg Long]
[DennisB] 4. Dave treats the addiction to debt in the same manner AA treats alcoholism.
That, to me, is a huge problem.

What’sthe difference and why should it be treated differently? If an alcoholic is slave to alcohol, isn’t the debtor enslaved to the lender in the same position? Both unable to control their enslavement?
[DennisB] From what I have read here, the basic disagreement with Dave seems to be centered on his personality, choice of words, or arrogance.
Some have focused on these things, but I think the basic disagreement is actually the lack of a focus on the Gospel and heart issues.

Again, Dave Ramsey does not profess to be a Christian Financial Counselor, he’s a Financial Counselor who is a Christian. His message is valid to believers and non-believers alike. Although he does not hide his Christianity, he focuses on finances and let’s others focus on the Gospel and heart issues. He provides a plan to get out of debt, not a plan for Salvation. Hopefully the fact the he openly displays his faith will lead some down that path, but that path is for God to make, not Dave Ramsey.
[DennisB] “The new stautus symbol of wealth is the paid of home, not the BMW”. How can anyone disagree with this clarity?
What do you mean here, Dennis? Is this a quote from Dave Ramsey? Are you presenting this statement in a positive light? I sure hope not! Is the goal of Christians to have a paid-off home so they can show off their “status symbol of wealth”? Perhaps I misunderstand.
Dave Ramsey takes modern day “truisms” and turns them on their head. The term “status symbol” is used to describe an object folks place in front of others to display their “status”. Most people have a home, so the home itself would be the status symbol if one were to make a display of wealth. The status symbol of a paid off home would be something that people couldn’t “see”…unless a sign were placed in the front yard. The irony of the statement is that for most people their home is a symbol of poverty…not wealth. I think you are taking these statement far too literally for the sake of conversation.

The statement about the paid off home vs. the BMW being the new “status symbol”, is nothing more than taking the focus off shiny objects, and placing the focus on paying off debt. In other words, paying off your home takes priority over “things”. You’ll still have the home, but the debt would be gone. What a biblical and noble pursuit, don’t you think?



…or does Mark Farnham’s picture resemble Dave Ramsey a bit.

I am not sure the Mosaic Covenants “obey and prosper” is the samething. Did the ordinary Israelite believe prosper ment to be rich or simply to have there needs sufficiently cared for? I honestly haven’t considered it enough to know. The Mosaic Covenant also had much to say about freely giving it away to all who had need, which had to play a role in what the Israelite viewed as the ultimate point of their prosparity.
Sounds like a really good project to add to my list. I don’t have references handy, but there are many promises in the Covenant and in the Prophets that describe great abundance. I don’t know that the Israelite’s would have thought of as “wealth,” per se, but they would have understood it to be a description of great abundance of the things they valued most, and a far easier life than subsistence farming.

As for giving it all away… I’m not sure about that one, but I do know there are several passages that detailed the tithing expected of them (for the purposes of funding the priesthood and helping the needy) so, yes, generosity was a principle.

Now, I’m not talking health & wealth gospel here, because I don’t believe God has promised riches to anybody (even in the Mosaic Covenant context, one could argue there was room for individual exceptions… surely Jeremiah was faithful but being in the midst of an unfaithful people, did not enjoy a prosperous life!) because we are not offered that sort of covenant relationship. But it does speak to weather the desire for abundance and the pursuit of it is the same thing as “greed and materialism.”

Of course, there is still 2 Tim 6 warning against the desire to be rich leading to all sorts of disaster, and Jesus saying don’t worry about tomorrow (Matt. 6 I believe). I think a really good study that brings all of these passages together and “harmonizes” them would be very valuable, given the kind of society we live in and the opportunities—as well as temptations—it holds.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Just wondering about this business of “heart issues.”

This certainly is an important concept when it comes to the Christian life and our own relationship with God.

But, wonder if — I had cancer, and had the choice of two world-renowned cancer doctors, and one of them was a Christian.

Would I rather go to the Christian doctor if he is known to use Biblical wisdom with his patients along with his vast medical knowledge? Or would I rather not even be associated with him if I do not find him “gospel-centered” or dealing with my “heart issues” about the cancer? Should I rather just strictly work with the worldly doctor and be done with it?

Or, might I be best off to find a Christian nurse practicioner who knows a lot less about the cancer but is doing the work with much more “gospel-centeredness” and with a handle on “the heart” of things?

See, I am not sure that “heart issues” are the only issues in a given situation.

In fact, it sounds like St. Paul thought that he was not justified in his actions with regard to eternal reward simply because he did them with a pure heart to the best of his knowledge (1 Cor. 4:4, 5). At the Judgment Seat, Christ will objectively evaluate all of our actions and all of our heart attitudes.

Thus, to transfer into the realm of finances…is it better to be:

A) In debt with an impure heart.

B) In debt with a pure heart.

C) Debt-free with an impure heart.

D) Debt-free with a pure heart.

Of course, D is best. But is C or B second-best? Temporally, C is better. Eternally, is B better? In light of 1 Cor. 4:4, 5, I would be hard-pressed to say that it is.

If it is, it still does not justify the misuse of resources from a stewardship perspective. That will also be evaluated at the Bema.

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

I have read Dave Ramsay and use his envelopes to teach my son some financial structure. I have found much of DR’s concepts to be helpful and have shared some with others (ie. debt-snowball). However, I am thankful that as a missionary, I have been forced to think outside of my national and cultural blinders. It seems to me like we are guilty of imposing our cultural standards (which happens to be very materialist, IMO) onto the Scriptures to “find our wisdom” in many areas (investments, retirement, purchasing…). I am thankful that God has allowed me to develop relationships with people who pray “give us this day our daily bread (or tortillas) and who always welcome guests to share what they have, even if it seems so little. There is a cool saying here that translates, “Come by anytime. We’ll just add more water to the beans”. Our Mexican brothers also care for their family members to an extreme not regularly seen in the US. I tend to think that they understand some of these issues from a Biblical perspective more than most of us! I am constantly challenged to re-evaluate and think with freshness. Thanks for provoking thought, Mark.

[DennisB] 4. Dave treats the addiction to debt in the same manner AA treats alcoholism.
[Greg Long] That, to me, is a huge problem.
[DennisB] What’sthe difference and why should it be treated differently? If an alcoholic is slave to alcohol, isn’t the debtor enslaved to the lender in the same position? Both unable to control their enslavement?
I wouldn’t use the AA program in my church…would you?
[DennisB] The statement about the paid off home vs. the BMW being the new “status symbol”, is nothing more than taking the focus off shiny objects, and placing the focus on paying off debt. In other words, paying off your home takes priority over “things”. You’ll still have the home, but the debt would be gone. What a biblical and noble pursuit, don’t you think?
No, it’s not a biblical and noble pursuit to view your house as a status symbol.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[Barry L.]…or does Mark Farnham’s picture resemble Dave Ramsey a bit.
It’s actually Dave Ramsey in the pic. ;)

[Greg Long] No, it’s not a biblical and noble pursuit to view your house as a status symbol.
Greg,

I think you are missing the point.

It’s kind of a joke — the anti-status symbol — not the kind of a car you drive, but living in a house (big or small) that is paid off, which to most people is going to mean you are nuts and dumb enough to miss out on a great tax deduction (wink, wink).

He is not talking about having some kind of a gigantic house as a status symbol — quite the opposite.

Ramsey is constantly telling people to move down in house or car — and, oh yeah — SELL THE STUPID MOTORCYCLE!! :)

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

[Paul J. Scharf]
[Greg Long] No, it’s not a biblical and noble pursuit to view your house as a status symbol.
Greg,

I think you are missing the point.

It’s kind of a joke — the anti-status symbol — not the kind of a car you drive, but living in a house (big or small) that is paid off, which to most people is going to mean you are nuts and dumb enough to miss out on a great tax deduction (wink, wink).

He is not talking about having some kind of a gigantic house as a status symbol — quite the opposite.

Ramsey is constantly telling people to move down in house or car — and, oh yeah — SELL THE STUPID MOTORCYCLE!! :)
Thanks for the clarification, Paul.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[Mark Farnham]

When I indicated that my review was not likely to be favorable, he was surprised and a little defensive. Because he is theologically astute, I asked him about what I perceived to be the major flaw of FPU—the distortion of the gospel. He responded as I think many Christians would if asked that question: what distortion? I think it very likely that many Christians could attend FPU and not notice anything wrong with its message.
What distortion? What is wrong with its message?
A truly Christian viewpoint, however, sees everything through the lens of the gospel. This flies in the face of so many Christian attitudes toward everyday life, whether it be money, music, the arts, technology, or any host of cultural issues. The typical Christian response is to find some scattered verses and weave together a loose tapestry of references organized by his preconceived notions. To be truly Christian is to approach the issue from the standpoint of the gospel, and here is where I find FPU to be downright lacking.
Are you suggesting that EVERY conversation, every presentation of any topic must include the gospel message? That every presentation must have the gospel message as its central theme? Can there be no discussion of the weather without direct and specific reference and explanation of the gospel message? Can there be no professional discourse without the specific interweaving of the gospel into that professional presentation?


First, when it comes to explicit references to the gospel, FPU is a disaster. In one video Ramsey tells the sad story of a young father who was diagnosed with cancer. By following Ramsey’s advice, this man had been able to provide for his family, so that when he died, his wife would not have to work, and his young children would be cared for. Ramsey proceeds to tell his audience that the man did eventually die, but it was “OK because he loved Jesus” and therefore we know where he is. This is the only reference to the gospel I could remember in the entire thirteen-week curriculum (although admittedly, I never attended the last session).
In my personal opinion the ONLY specific reference to the Gospel per se (as opposed to general references to God, Jesus, the Bible, Scripture, etc) is in lesson 13, which you admittedly never attended. For any Christian lesson 13 is critical to the Biblical understanding of finances. To have made this commentary on the lack of a gospel foundation to FPU and more specifically the distortion of the gospel without having sat through the most critical, the most directly Biblical lesson steals from you any credibility you might have had in your commentary / critique. I reiterate, however, that it is NOT required of a Christian to provide the details of the gospel message with every utterance from his (or her) lips.
If a church uses FPU as an evangelistic tool, it needs to be fully aware that the gospel will not be given in any recognizable fashion in the program.
The gospel is NOT central to the FPU discussion on Scriptural financial principles. FPU is weak as an evangelistic tool if the expectation is an altar call after lesson 13. However, there is great value in presenting the practical, financial related Scriptures in the context of a financial class. There may be those attending such a class who do not want to hear anything about God and may cringe every time they hear a reference to Jesus or the Scripture. But, they may also become intrigued over the course of the program by the many references to the practical Scripture references and they may be interested to learn more. That is probably as far as FPU should be expected to take any non-Christian who attends the classes. Except, perhaps, that lesson 13 might result in a conversion for someone who was already seeking. Otherwise, this ** financial** class is NOT an evangelistic tool per se, it is a teaching tool presenting Biblical financial principles.


Remember that FPU is marketed to other segments of society also, such as businesses and the military; and in these versions, all reference to Scripture and God are removed.
This statement is UNTRUE. You are WRONG. You have made an assumption and have not taken the time to verify whether or not your assumption is accurate. I assure you that the above quoted sentense is in error. Although it is true “that FPU is marketed to other segments of society …, such as businesses and the military”, it is completely, 100%, absolutely incorrect to state that “all reference to Scripture and God are removed” from the program when it is presented to those “other segments of society”. I am currently coordinating a “Community” class. The videos, audios, book, and workbook contain exactly the same material as is presented in the church setting. The ONLY differences between the program as presented to those different “segments of society” are: (1) the Free Preview video differs in the content of the “man on the street” comments, (2) the Coordinator guides do not include the brief Bible study after the video and prior to the discussion time. Otherwise, the content presented to each segment of society is exactly the same (except that the military version includes an extra, bonus lesson directed specifically to military personnel).


If the only difference between a version of the course that is acceptable in secular settings and one that is designed for churches is a few Bible verses and off-hand references to God, how explicitly Christian is this view of money, really?
Again, those are not the only differences. Further, the references to God and Scripture are not off-hand. And, again, lesson 13 is specifically centered on “God and money”. An entire lesson is devoted to this, and YOU skipped it. I STRONGLY encourage you to, at least listen to the audio for lesson 13.


In another video Ramsey actually directly contradicts the gospel when he mentions the various steps for getting out of debt. One of his necessary steps is to pray. Knowing that his audience is probably a mix of believers and unbelievers, he encourages them to pray nonetheless. He then tells his audience in effect, “Some of you don’t want to talk to God because you think, for whatever reason, that God is angry at you. God is not angry at you!” Now, if this video were specifically designed for an explicitly Christian audience, I would perhaps understand why he makes this statement. But after stating this, Ramsey in no way qualifies his statement. He simply proceeds to inform the audience that God wants to help them out of debt and that He loves them.
God does love them. He does want them to be out of debt. God wants to converse with man. Every man. There are certain things that stand in the way of this. One of them is pride. One of them, frankly, is fear. We could have a lengthy theological discussion about whether or not God hears the prayers of the unsaved. Some people believe that the only prayer of the unsaved He hears is the salvation prayer. I disagree. I believe He hears every prayer that is directed toward Him (indeed, since He is all-knowing and everywhere present, He hears and knows of every prayer regardless of who or what it is directed toward). He may or may not answer those prayers, but He does hear them and He does care.
Some might object that FPU is a financial program and not a gospel presentation. While I acknowledge this fact, any time a Christian speaks about God or the gospel, his comments should be clear, complete and biblical.
Where is your gospel presentation in this critique? You have made reference to God and the gospel without being “clear, complete and biblical.” Which returns me to my initial comments: not every utterance from the lips (or fingers in the case of the typist) must include a “clear, complete and biblical” explanation of the nature of God and the gospel.


Defending FPU based on its purpose as a financial program is akin to defending The Shack’s heresies because it is “just a novel.” I would rather Ramsey left out all reference to God and Scripture than for him to obscure the gospel and place Scripture alongside other ancient wisdom as if the two are equal.
I’m sorry, what “other ancient wisdom” are you referring to? You are way over the deep end when you compare an incomplete gospel presentation (when no attempt to specifically present the gospel is even being made) with heresy. Once again you lose credibility.


Second, and more significantly, Ramsey’s whole approach to money is counter to the gospel’s approach. For Ramsey, up is up and you save your life by saving your life. In the gospel, the way up is down and you save your life by losing it. Ramsey’s goal is never to have to worry about money again. The gospel way is to be willing to have your needs met day by day. Ramsey’s way is to be self-sufficient, relying only on your financial foresight, savvy and accumulated wealth. The gospel way, regardless of how much money one possesses, is to be utterly dependent upon God for everything. Ramsey’s way is one of increasing wealth which is a way to escape suffering and need. The gospel way is to expect suffering in this life and to be increasingly needy and dependent. Ramsey cannot conceive of failing to tear down one’s barns and building greater. The gospel cannot conceive of even taking a staff on the journey, but to trust that God will provide whatever is needed.
Your view of FPU and scripture is distorted. There are an abundance of Scriptures which make direct reference to finances. Dave’s central Scripture (if I may presume to speak for him) is Proverbs 22:7: “The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.” (NKJV) This is a clear Biblical reference in wisdom literature to avoid borrowing money so as to avoid being the servant of another.

Proverbs 21:20 (another Scripture he references) says “In the house of the wise are stores of choice food and oil, but a foolish man devours all he has.” (NIV) Once again, wisdom literature advices that we store up resources and not waste what we have been given.

Another reference is made to Proverbs 17:18 and 6:1-5 regarding becoming surety for someone else’s loan. Also, Ecclesiastes 11:2, which specifically recommends diversification of your wealth.

The patriarch Abraham was a wealthy man. So was Isaac. So was Jacob. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was their refuge, their strength, their supply. They relied on Him, not on their accumulated wealth. Job also was a very wealthy man. His reliance was on God. We can be assured of this because he still trusted in God when all of his wealth had been stolen or destroyed. You distort the Scriptures when you suggest that it is not possible to trust God and accumulate resources which provide you a cushion against the storms of life and allow you to give to those in need (again, why on earth would you skip lesson 13??).
The gospel should change the way we view everything, including money. While many good principles are taught in FPU, churches and their leaders need to be aware of the problems with it as well.
Be aware of the problems with this critique!


It is probably least helpful for older people whose earning years are mostly behind them, for people who have significant uncontrolled expenses such as large medical bills, and for people who have committed themselves to full-time vocational ministry and don’t expect ever to make more than enough to survive.
It is for everyone. Those older people who are either nearing or in retirement, perhaps living on a fixed income for the first time can greatly benefit from the budgeting lesson. Those who have significant uncontrolled expenses can greatly benefit from the lesson on savings and dumping debt. Those in full-time ministry can also greatly benefit from the lessons on budgeting and saving. Everyone in any financial or life situation can benefit.
Because I fall into these last two categories, I felt depressed at times during the course over my failure to make money more of a consideration in my career and job choices. Sometimes after an FPU class I felt like a fool for taking positions since graduation from seminary based on the question of whether my family could survive financially, because I felt God leading me. I have since fully recovered from this slight depression by returning to a gospel focus, and realizing that even if I have to work my whole life and die a pauper, if I lived for God, it will have been worth it.
Some are so gifted. Others may be called to accumulate wealth to provide for people such as yourself who are in full-time ministry. Those who are accumulating that wealth MUST sit through lesson 13!


While there are many helpful ideas and helps in FPU, I’m afraid that in the end it presents a view of money, God, and the purpose of life that stands in conflict with the gospel. If a church is going to use FPU with its members, I would recommend a complementary study of a biblical theology of stewardship and suffering to buttress the weaknesses of FPU.
You misunderstand the Scriptures and FPU. Primarily, I suspect, because you skipped lesson 13. A portion of my current FPU class is sitting through “The Truth Project” prior to sitting through FPU … same day, a few hours earlier. Those of us participating in The Truth Project will be primed to recognize any distortions if they come up during FPU. However, I do not believe there are any distortions. Again, FPU is not a gospel presentation. And, again, you should NOT have skipped lesson 13.

God does not call us to suffer financially. Some choose to take a vow of poverty, it is true. But God does not want us to suffer. God does not want us to squander what we have. If we do, what we have will be taken from us and given to someone who will use God’s resources wisely because (as is stated in lesson 13) it is all His!