Subject: usury
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 20:10:06 +0100
From: David Bell <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

I have not participated in this group for a couple of years due to some
major breakdowns in my life.

But for many years I have been exercised about the problem of usury.
In the context of the debate about forgiving debt I thought I would
contribute something.

Personally I think it is wrong not to repay a debt. If someone lends me
money I expect to pay it back as soon as possible. I cannot see why
nations should be any different.

And historically debt has not been so much a theological issue as has
been the question of usury.

The warnings and prohibitions against usury belong to the very fabric of
both Biblical and ecclesiastical teaching.

The medieval and reformation churches railed against the practice of
charging interest on a loan.

For example we read in one of the ancients: "To take usury is contrary
to scripture; it is contrary to Aristotle; it is contrary to nature, for
it is to live without labour; it is to sell time, which belongs to God,
for the advantage of wicked men; it is to rob those who use the money
lent, and to whom, since they make it profitable, the profits should
belong." and Luther wrote: "The greatest misfortune of the German nation is
easily the traffic in interest. The devil invented it."
(All this and more is documented in "Religion and the Rise of
Capitalism" by RH Tawney).

The churches campaign against debt is misguided in my view. It strikes
at the branches but ignores the root.

The root has always been the taking of interest on a loan.

Islam is far more determined and sincere in this matter; charging
interest on a loan is absolutely forbidden, and they don't do it.

David Bell
Bell, Book and Candle Theological Book Market
www.possumpages.com.au/bbc