Turning In The Keys

One of the sadder effects of the Bush/Obama Depression has been the phenomenon of numerous families losing their homes to foreclosure. The direct causes for the losses have been varied. Some have lost employment and have had to choose between eating and meeting their mortgage payments. Some have been transferred to a different location in order to keep their jobs, and not being able to pay for both the home in the old location and that in the new, have abandoned the old. Some have realized that the home they purchased at a high price has devalued and that they are paying on a mortgage loan which, in terms of the value ratio that once was and the one that now is, has an exorbitant and punitive effective interest rate.

The reasons are numerous. Walking away from a house and its attached debt, however, is a poor solution, and should be avoided at all costs. Granted, there are financial advisors who would argue differently, but the picture should be examined not just as an economic one but also as a moral, ethical, and spiritual one.

It is possibly true that the most egregious sin (if you don't like that word, I would advise that you stop reading now) in America is covetousness. That is an old-fashioned word that loosely translates into English Vulgate as "greed". It is the driving factor in the American economy. It is the desire to have what someone else has. Prohibited by the 10th Commandment, it is there stated as wanting one's neighbor's specific belongings.

That is a narrow reading of the Law. The underlying principle has to do with the fact that God is the giver of all good gifts. America in general rejects that concept. In the modern American economy, it is believed that those who work hard and smart get rich, and those who are lazy or weak remain poor. A man's wealth is evidence of his brains and brawn, a major factor in his self-steem and pride. Thus "keeping up with the Joneses" or better yet a little ahead of them, has become the American dream and greased the path to further sin. It matters not how often he goes to church; a little leaven does a great puffy amount of damage, and few are immune to the lure and ravages of such sin.

A consequence of this rampant covetousness is the willingness to sell one's self into slavery. There is a certain segment of our society that believes it has a corner on the discussion of slavery. Because their long-dead ancestors were abused by people also long-dead, they carry a grudge against anyone who does not belong to their culture group, all the while tolerating (and even encouraging) a form of slavery more insidious and debilitating. They have no monopoly on being slaves. The great majority of the American populace has joined them.

The concept of credit in a capitalistic culture has a number of nuances. At it's core, credit is used to facilitate trade. Trader A has a stock of widgets which he is offering at a set price, but will sell them in bulk with a discount if he can liquidate his stock. Trader B needs the widgets, but has left his gold at home. Trader A agrees to sell all his widgets right now, with Trader B promising to send the gold as soon as he gets home. He signs a note to that effect. On his way out of the market, Trader A spots a fat sheep for sale by Trader C. He has no money, but his family is hungry. He trades the note from Trader B to Trader C for the sheep. As long as Trader B keeps his promise to pay, everyone is happy. This is the essence of a banking economy.

There is no condemnation of such an economy in the Scripture. There are warnings, though. The borrower is the slave of the lender (Prov. 22:7). Failure to pay what is owed is considered to be fraud (Lev. 19:13, Rom. 13:7). Further, failure to keep a promise is a sin (Num. 30:2, Matt. 5:33) and the warning is given that promises should always be conditional (Matt.5:34-37, Jas. 5:12, Jas. 4:13-17).

In our society we rarely consider these things, carelessly agreeing to Terms and Conditions, whether in a software download or a loan, often without reading thoroughly what it is we are agreeing to. Thus, in my career, I have come across people like the lady who was having her house appraised for a HELOC, not even knowing that her fully paid-for home would become the collateral (the loan officer, she said, had told he it was a good idea to take out the loan). Or like the man who became angry when told that his home would be compared to homes that had recently sold. He saw no sense in that, because as he put it, he was not selling his home; he was blithely unaware that he would be signing a mortgage deed selling his home to the bank until the loan was paid.

In the past 6-7 years there have been hundreds of thousands of home foreclosures across the land. In some places, like California, if a debtor returns the collateral (hands the keys back to the bank), the debt is extinguished. In most other places, though, returning the keys, or worse yet just walking away from the property, creates headaches and potential headaches to follow a person for years and perhaps the rest of his or her life.

Ownership of real property is a privilege that is taken for granted in the United States. There are few other places in the world where it is so easy to become a land-owner with the rights and privileges available here. With those rights and privileges, though, come obligations. When a deed for title is recorded, the owner of the property becomes responsible for its upkeep, for paying the taxes, and for protecting visitors. When a loan against a property is made, the mortgage deed will spell out the need for the debtor to continue to do those things, or it will provide a means for the lender to do so.

Simply walking away from a home or other real estate because the burden of payment has become oppressive or the shine has worn off the ownership is a very bad idea. First and foremost is the aspect of sin. To promise to pay, and to renege on that promise, is sin. It matters not that one has lost the ability to pay, or that the interest rate suddenly appears usurious, or that the grass is simply greener elsewhere. To break a promise is sin.

There are other consequences that are generally not considered. The bank holding the mortgage will not usually allow the property to deteriorate, and for this reason most high LTV mortgages have escrow accounts to pay the taxes and insurance. If the debtor defaults on his payment, the bank simply continues to protect the property, and adds the cost to the loan. The debtor goes deeper into debt. If the bank does not have such an account, the debtor incurs even greater risk. If the insurance lapses and the house burns, the total cost of the damage becomes the debtor's. If someone trespasses on the property, is injured, and sues, the debtor becomes fully liable for the lawsuit. If the utilities are turned off and the pipes freeze, ultimately the cost of any repairs will accrue to the debtor. If the house is vacant and vandals enter it, damaging it or dealing or manufacturing drugs, the clean-up costs accrue to the debtor. Walking away and leaving the home empty is a recipe for disaster.

Ultimately, after default, the bank generally forecloses. That is not, however, always the case. If damage to the home is great, and taxes have accrued to a considerable extent, the bank may allow the home to be sold at tax sale. The title will transfer, but the debt will not go away. If the bank does foreclose, the house may be sold by the bank at a substantial loss. The proceeds of the sale may not be sufficient to cover the debt plus the legal costs to the bank; the debtor most likely did not read the mortgage papers carefully and may not realize that the debt has not gone away.

I have heard of advice given that there is nothing to worry about in such cases. A prevailing feeling seems to be that the bank will not do much beyond sending threatening notices. This has often been the case until recently. Lately there has been an uptick in suits to recover damages from defaulted borrowers, and suits to recover damages from appraisers who fraudulently inflated values on appraisals so that the loans could be made. There is no statute of limitations for fraud; some of those appraisals were done 6-8 years ago and are just now going to trial. A sleeping dog may look like it is just lying there, but beware that it is not plotting revenge.

My advice to any homeowner who is no longer able to pay on the mortgage is to stay put. Keep the home in good repair. Keep it insured, with the utilities on. If, ultimately, the bank evicts the homeowner in the foreclosure process, the eviction will come after the filing of the foreclosure deed and the bank will have to take the responsibility for upkeep. In some cases, it may even be possible to work out a rental agreement until the bank is able to sell the home. All these things will work to minimize the size of the balance remaining on the debt.

Meanwhile, if the problem is due to not having enough income to cover the mortgage, it will be worthwhile to seek legal counsel regarding filing bankruptcy. I do not recommend bankruptcy unless it is absolutely necessary. It is too often seen as a means of escaping debt. Never forget that even if a bankruptcy proceeding is successful, and protection from creditors is afforded, the debts are not erased. If someone has promised to pay, he is morally obligated to pay -- it is sin to not pay, even if the court states that only a percentage is required to be paid back. Never confuse what is legal with what is right.

Bankruptcy carries a stigma, and it is true that for a number of years it may affect a person's ability to purchase things on credit, or even to rent a home. Eventually, however, the bankruptcy is cleared off the credit records, and life can return to normal. The debtor is required to pay the amounts judged by the courts, and can also arrange to pay the debt in full as opportunity arises. It is not a good thing to endure, but the debtor is protected so he can do what is right in the course of time.

But what if the debtor decides to not seek bankruptcy? What if the debtor allows the lender to proceed with a suit for judgment? Some people say this is not likely to happen. I say, it is more likely than not to happen. In such a case, without the protection of a bankruptcy judgment, the lender is free to garnish the wages of the debtor until the debt is paid. There may never be enough money left in such cases for the debtor to start over and get back on his feet. The judgment may follow him all his life; it will also touch the lives of any people who might enter into contracts or relationships with him. Deficiency judgments are meant to be punitive. Avoid them if at all possible.

Ersatz Theologies, etc.

Eschatology is a consuming passion in certain evangelical Christian circles, with all manner of positions on what will happen in the future. It is almost as though the core belief in those groups is that the Bible is a day planner for future events.

My recent readings in Daniel (part of the annual romp through the whole Bible), the Apocalypse (currently in the Sunday Bible study series), and Mark ( I definitely plan to finish the sermon series in that Gospel, if I live long enough) have brought together some interesting observations.

Just so that no one is horribly shocked by what I write later, I will shock them now and get it over with. Bek will not be happy, but we have had this talk before -- here it comes. I do not believe that Jesus is going to descend from the sky and take away His church so they do not have to go through "The Great Tribulation". That's right. I'm not a Seventh Day Adventist, I don't follow Millerite or Darbyite theology, and I firmly state that a Scofield Bible is not a King James version (King James would have had Scofield executed for inserting all those comments). My theology is somewhere post-Reformation, pre- Second Great Awakening, non-Arminian, very literal in translation from the Koine, and as Hebraic as the Septuagint will permit. In short, I am a non-dispensational Calvinistic Anabaptist, however one may think that to be an impossibility.

Now, as to the 19th and 20th chapters of the Apocalypse, the scene is set at a point in the history of the world where the iniquities of "Babylon" have reached a crescendo and she has been destroyed. While the events of chapters 10-14 and 15-18 may be sequential they appear to be somewhat parallel and perhaps describe the same events but from different perspectives. The whole point of prophecy is not to function as a means whereby people can plan for the next event in sequence, but as a confirmation that God is the one who declares things before they occur -- He has planned the whole show, has absolute control over the actions of the players, and has provided the prophecy so that His people, after the fact, can point to it and say, "See, God said it would happen that way!".

Anyway, in chapter 19 John sees the sky open up and Jesus appears as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, arriving to (1) consummate His marriage to the Church and (2) begin his thousand year rule over the Earth as King of Israel, with Satan bound in a long orbit to the regions beyond the solar system and back (OK -- that last part is my take on it, but I have no better frame of reference for a bottomless pit). This event is the Rapture. I do not believe the Scripture teaches multiple Second Comings of Christ.

Chapter 20 gives a short summary of the Millennium -- the Church reigns with Christ (her bridegroom) over His kingdom, centered in Israel, with reinstatement of the Temple worship in a golden age with all the rest of the Earth subject to Israel (see Ezekiel and Zechariah for more definitive statements). The cataclysmic event of chapter 19 is then referred to by John as The First Resurrection. Here is where it gets a bit dicey. If we correlate this to Paul's statements in his letters to the Thessalonian church, it is the dead in Christ, along with those who remain alive at that point, who are caught up with Him in The First Resurrection. That is, all those believers who have died from the time Jesus rose, along with any who might be yet surviving The Great Tribulation.

That presents several problems in modern American evangelical theology (the pre-Tribulation Rapture appears to have been invented by J. N. Darby around 1828 and was popularized by Scofield ), since there are even songs about meeting Old Testament saints in the air. Paul doesn't say that. He says, "in Christ", and while those saints may have anticipated Messiah, they were not "in Christ". This may even be referenced by the statement of the angel to Daniel, “As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.”

In chapter 20, at the end of the thousand years, Satan shows up again, is unbound, and instigates rebellion against Messiah. The armies of the entire world surround Messiah's capital, and God sends a fireball which slags the entire earth -- no survivors among the people who are not part of the First Resurrection. The stage is set for judgment before the Great White Throne, the books, including the Book of Life, are opened, and anyone not found in the Book of Life is tossed into the Lake of Fire.

It is at this point, the Second Resurrection, I think that the Old Testament saints, "all Israel" (Romans 11), and even Millennial proselytes, are raised to eternal life in imperishable bodies. Thus Daniel has his hope consummated "at the end of the days". This solves a thorny eschatological problem.

To many evangelicals, only the First Resurrection is a resurrection to life. In pre-Trib theology, the difficulty then becomes, "What about the people who become believers and are killed for their faith during the Great Tribulation? (Apoc. 7:14)?", and, "What about people who are killed for not worshipping the Beast (Apoc. 13:15)?" These are particularly troubling for two reasons. (1) Pre-Tribbers believe that the Holy Spirit is removed from the earth, with the Church, at the Rapture. This produces a doctrinal conundrum, since Jesus said that no one could come to Him unless the Father drew him, and that the rebirth is a work, not of men, but of the Holy Spirit. How could those people be saved without being born again? (2) Since, in their theology, only the First Resurrection is a resurrection to life, and the post-Trib "born again without the Spirit" believers missed that one, they have had to invent a corollary -- the Continuous Resurrection, which lasts for the 7 years until the tribulation ends. In the Continuous Resurrection, if a "born again without the Spirit" believer dies, he immediately rises to new life. Neither of these concepts has any serious Scriptural foundation, a consequence of Darby's invention.

The Scripture simply states that those not found written in the Book of Life suffer the second Death. It does not say the Second Resurrection is only a resurrection to damnation. It does not say that a person resurrected in the Second Resurrection could not be found in the Book of Life. Getting rid of those misconceptions does away with a number of eschatological problems.

Now what about Mark? In all the Gospel accounts of Jesus speaking about the latter days, he warns his disciples that many would come saying, "εγώ είμι" -- the same thing which He had told the Pharisees and for which they wanted to stone Him. His warning was not intended to let them do future planning, but to alert them to the idea that when He would return, it would be unmistakable, impossible to ignore, and totally unexpected. They were not to fall for any imposters. Paul's letters also bear that out; he further states that for the believers, the day would NOT come as a thief. Sometimes sticking to the actual wording of the Scripture does not make for good sales of popular books and movies.

So now I am fully out of my cave. God is still in charge, and I will stick with sola scriptura, leaving the fables to others.