A Renewed Focus on Predatory Lending

"The poor ask for medicine and you offer them poison; they beg for bread and you give them a sword; they plead for freedom and you subject them to slavery; they implore to be freed from their bonds and you entrap them in an inescapable net." - Basil of Cesarea

A common argument against social justice Christianity is that this prophetic and socially-attuned version of the faith is considered a relatively recent development, something born out of the World Wars, identity politics, and liberation theologies of the 20th century. Yet when it comes to Christianity’s ancient history of condemning exploitation of the poor, this is patently untrue. On usury, the predatory lending of money at exorbitantly high interest rates to the poor, the Old and New Testament and early church fathers such as Basil of Cesarea, John Chrysostom, and Ambrose of Milan make many of today’s most fiery social justice preachers look tame by comparison.

“You rich,” Basil fairly sneers in his Homily on Psalm 14. Delivered while he was a bishop at some point between 363-378 CE in what is now modern-day Turkey, Basil preached “Listen to the advice that we give to the poor in view of your inhumanity: Bear any suffering than the calamity that will come from usury.” Basil was preaching directly to the wealthy landowners who were also the primary lenders to the poor of Cesarea. He denounced their lending practices from the pulpit stating, “Indeed, it is extremely inhuman that some have to beg for the most basic necessities to support their lives while others are not satisfied with the capital they have, but excogitate ways of increasing their opulence at the expense of the poor in distress... The poor ask for medicine and you offer them poison; they beg for bread and you give them a sword; they plead for freedom and you subject them to slavery; they implore to be freed from their bonds and you entrap them in an inescapable net.”1 

Inspired by Basil’s homily, the fourth century bishop Ambrose of Milan offered equally searing words in his homily On Tobit. Ambrose even echoed Basil’s forceful opening line: “You rich, such are indeed your favors! ... For you even the poor are a source of profit. You subject the poor to usury; you know how to oblige them to pay you interest even when they do not have enough to look after their basic needs.”2

It is difficult to imagine preachers today standing in a pulpit and inveighing against the predatory lending practices of bankers, mortgage, student loan, and payday loan industry executives as forcefully as these two bishops did to the lenders of the fourth century. This is, in part, because such lending has become depersonalized, the actions of banks and companies rather than a few wealthy landowners. Nevertheless, the Church still needs to bear witness in this area as predatory lenders have never ceased “excogitating ways to increase their opulence at the expense of the poor in distress”, and one can readily point to the recently deregulated payday loan industry and racial disparities in mortgage lending as egregious examples of taking advantage of the poor. As faith leaders, we need to reacquaint ourselves with the Church's long history of condemning usury. This includes exploring the Old and New Testament’s abhorrence of predatory lending, the early church councils’ forceful prohibitions on usury, and the writings of figures like Basil of Cesarea, John Chrysostom, and Ambrose of Milan, among others, from the first few centuries of the Church. 

One of the challenges of recovering a focus on usury is that there is an overwhelming amount of material to explore on the topic. For the purposes of this chapter, therefore, I will focus my comments on Basil of Cesarea whose Homily on Psalm 14 integrates many of the main teachings on usury in the Old and New Testaments. Those scriptural condemnations laid the groundwork for church councils to prohibit both laity and clergy from engaging in usury. This means that Basil is standing on solid biblical and theological ground when he condemned the predatory lending practices he was witnessing in Cesarea. After reviewing those themes, I will explore why the Church needs to take the issue of predatory lending up again today. 

Basil of Cesarea

Basil of Cesarea - also known as Basil the Great - is a fascinating figure whose work and witness integrates the philosophical, prophetic, and philanthropic traditions of Christianity. Born to a family of wealthy Christians in 329 in Caesarea, capitol of Cappadocia, Basil practiced as a lawyer until a chance encounter with the Christian monk Eustathius of Sebaste rekindled an earlier interest in hermetic asceticism and ultimately led Basil to leave his law practice. In 357 he traveled to Palestine, Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia to learn more about ascetic practices and distributed his personal fortune to the poor along the way. While in Egypt, he visited Pachomius, an abbot credited with having brought solitary ascetics into an organized form of communal monasticism for the first time. His travels and visit with Pachomius’ community would inspire Basil to found a monastery on his family’s estate, an experience that would leave an indelible impression on Basil’s understanding of the social and communal purpose of wealth. 

When he became a bishop in the latter part of the fourth century, Basil embraced a relatively new, public role for a Christian leader -- that of ‘lover of the poor.’ He embodied this role amidst a famine that overtook Cesarea in 369 and preached forcefully to the wealthy of the city, laying bare the hidden suffering of the poor in vivid terms, and raised funds for food and medical aid. I wrote about this for Episcopal Relief & Development here. 

Basil’s focus on the needs of the poor is again evident in the forcefulness with which he condemns usury in his Homily on Psalm 14. His words still leap off the page today. There, Basil reflected on the psalmist’s condemnation of “the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread” (Psalm 14: 4) and sees the charging of interest on the poor as a form of devourment that ultimately leads to slavery. Instead, he urges the wealthy to lend their surplus money to the poor without any interest whatsoever: “Give your surplus money, do not burden it with interest, and both you and your debtor will fare well...But if you look for interest, be satisfied with those given by the Lord. He will pay, through the poor, the due interest.”3  Significantly, Basil grounds his argument in Jesus’ teaching on lending found in the Gospel of Luke: “Now what does the Lord advise? ‘Lend to those from whom there is no hope of repayment.’”4

Basil’s choice to cite Jesus’ teaching is significant because there appears to be a general misconception that the New Testament is relatively silent on the topic of usury.5 In contrast, theologian Douglas Meeks argues that “Probably the most consequential economic saying of Jesus for the history of the West is ‘Lend, expecting nothing in return’ (Luke 6.34-35, cf. Matthew 5:42). This command, together with that of Deuteronomy 23:19, impelled the Christian tradition through the Reformation to condemn the injustice of usury.” 6 

In Luke 6:34-35 Jesus states, “If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.” 

This teaching is not an off-hand comment by Jesus but occurs in a place of central importance within the Gospel of Luke. It is a part of the Sermon on the Plain which begins with Jesus saying that it is the poor, the hungry, and the weeping who are blessed. 7 Further examples of debt and release from debt occur in the Gospel of Matthew’s parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23-25) and, as I will discuss later, in Jesus’ proclamation that he has come to bring Good News to the poor (Luke 4:18a) which invokes the Year of Jubilee's release from debt and enslavement. 

Basil’s Homily on Psalm 14 also drew on the extensive Old Testament traditions that abhor predatory lending to the poor. This is especially apparent in Basil’s description of debt and indebtedness as “slavery” and “an inescapable net.”8

In the Old Testament perspective on lending, it is creditors who are engaged in horrific acts. Creditors are described as coming to take away debtors’ children as slaves (2 Kings 4:1). The Book of Nehemiah describes the horrific results of families having to borrow money on their own fields to pay the King’s tax: “We are forcing our sons and daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters have been ravished; we are powerless, and our fields and vineyards now belong to others,” (Nehemiah 5:4-5). In Psalm 15, it is only those “who do not lend money at interest and do not take a bribe against the innocent” who are allowed to abide in God’s tent.9 

The prohibition against usury is perhaps most movingly expressed in Leviticus 25:35-38. This passage powerfully connects the slavery of debt with the slavery experienced by the Hebrew people in Egypt: “If any of your kin fall into difficulty and become dependent on you, you shall support them; they shall live with you as though resident aliens. Do not take interest in advance or otherwise make a profit from them, but fear your God; let them live with you. You shall not lend them your money at interest taken in advance, or provide them food at a profit. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God.” 

The main thrust of the prohibition against predatory lending, then, is that it returns the poor to the slavery from which the Hebrew people escaped. To be engaged in usury, then, is to become an enslaver of the poor. 

Prohibitions on Usury at Early Church Councils

As discussed above, Basil’s condemnation of usury rests on Jesus’ teaching to lend without interest which occurs in the Gospel of Luke. Jesus’ prohibition itself invokes the longstanding aversion to charging interest on loans made to “kin who have fallen into difficulty” found in many parts of the Old Testament. Such prohibitions were then picked up by early Christian communities and appear in some the earliest Christian councils’ church laws. 

Indeed, the twentieth canon from the council of Elvira (around 306), which is the first church council from which the canons are extant, includes a prohibition against usury for all Christians, both clergy and laity alike. Elvira’s prohibition on usury is then followed by condemnations in the councils of Arles (314), Nicaea (325), Carthage (348) and continues through to Pope Leo the Great’s (440-461) Nec hoc quoque which forbids Christian clergy from engaging in the sin of usury and says that laity who make money from usury are guilty of shameful gain. 

The Council of Elvira was held in the early fourth century near modern Granada, Spain. And while the exact date of this council remains unclear - I’ve seen 300, 303, 306, and 309 as potential years for when this gathering took place - what is apparent is that the council was held just after a period of persecution and sought to restore order and discipline through eighty-one canons that are remarkable in their severity. Among these are laws prohibiting reconciliation with the church for idolatry, repeated adultery, and divorce, and usury. Canon 20 reads: 

If any clergy are found engaged in usury, let them be censured and dismissed. If a layman is caught practicing usury, he may be pardoned if he promises to stop the practice. If he continues this evil practice, let him be expelled from the church.10

Trying to find a translation of the Latin has been a challenge and so I want to mention one other translation found in Robert P. Maloney’s “Early Conciliar Legislation on Usury: A Contribution to the Study of Christian Moral Thinking.” Summarizing the Latin broadly, Maloney notes “A cleric who violates the law is to be degraded and excommunicated. A layman offending for the first time is to be treated indulgently if he promises not to lend at interest again; if he persists, he too is to be excommunicated.”11 

This prohibition was followed by later conciliar prohibitions, including that of the First Council of Nicaea in 325. Nicaea – from which Christians have the Nicene Creed - was the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church, and met in what is now modern day Iznik, Turkey. This council was called by the first Christian Roman emperor Constantine who hoped a general council would solve the tensions and rivalries created in the Eastern church by the priest Arius and the theological movement of Arianism. This council is well-known for producing an early version of the Nicene Creed and condemning Arianism as heresy; less well-known is the fact that it set forth a new church law concerning clerics who practice usury. Canon 17 reads: 

Since many enrolled [among the clergy] have been induced by greed and avarice to forget the sacred text, "who does not put out his money at interest," and to charge one percent [a month] on loans, this holy and great synod judges that if any are found after this decision to receive interest by contract or to transact the business in any other way or to charge [a flat rate of] fifty per cent or in general to devise an other contrivance for the sake of dishonourable gain, they shall be deposed from the clergy and their names struck from the roll.

Even so, all these prohibitions and condemnations appear to have fallen on deaf ears. Maloney concludes, “In both east and west ecclesiastical legislation prohibited what civil legislation allowed. Severe penalties were threatened against violators of the law. Yet even so, lending at interest went on. Both clerics and laymen ignored prohibitions and sought profit from their loans.”12

All of this means that by the time Basil stood in the pulpit in the latter half of the fourth century, to inveigh against the wealthy landowners for their predatory lending practices, he was doing so on solid biblical and theological grounds, and with the backing of church law to boot. 

A Muted Witness

And yet, despite this extensive biblical teaching, conciliar prohibitions, and the voices of those like Basil the Great, usury is not as much of a focus today as it probably should be. Why is that?  

Does usury refer to all lending with interest? 

I think a significant part of mainline Christianity’s muted witness on usury has to do with questions around what counts as usury. If we equate usury solely with lending money with interest, then it becomes harder to see what the Church can do at this point. One of the few contemporary sermons I have found on usury – aptly titled “The Sin We Stopped Feeling Sorry For” – exemplifies the difficulty of seeing all lending as usury: 

“Do you have an interest-bearing account at a bank?  You are loaning the bank money at interest.  You are a usurer. Do you have a retirement account, a 401K, a 403B?  You might hold mostly stocks, but I bet the part of your portfolio is in bonds as well.  Interest-bearing, usurious bonds and Treasury bills. It is inescapable. To be part of modern middle-class life in America is to be involved in usury.  And even if you somehow have avoided every opportunity to charge interest to someone else, you are almost surely still guilty of paying interest in some way: on a mortgage, on a car loan, on a credit card.  In willingly agreeing to pay interest, you are giving your creditor an occasion to sin.  You are tempting someone else to do that which displeases the Lord, according to Psalm 15 and all of the Bible.”13

Interest-bearing loans are such a critical important of the modern economy that it is difficult to imagine the Church taking up a call to stop all lending with interest. Further, Christians would quickly run up against examples of excellent financial programs that employ lending as forms of aid and economic development, such as credit unions and microlending practices. Ultimately, focusing on general lending with interest may ultimately obscure the more particular concern that the biblical tradition brings to exploitative lending practices. By equating usury with all lending with interest, we prevent the more urgently needed work of condemning the predatory lending practices that are rampant today.

The Church is no longer needed on this issue

Ian Harper and Lachlan Smirl’s essay on usury in the Oxford Handbook of Christianity and Economics cites the emergence of England’s welfare state as a turning point in the church’s involvement in discussions of loans and interest. “In England, the state began to assume responsibility for the welfare of the poor with the passage of the Act for the Relief of the Poor (also known as the ‘Elizabethan Poor law’ or ‘43rd Elizabeth’) in 1601. Similar legislation was adopted in other parts of the world… From these beginnings governments in the world’s developed economies gradually assumed greater responsibility for the welfare of their most disadvantaged citizens.”14 They continue by noting that formal government-administered welfare programs have now replaced the charitable loans organized by religious bodies which were once the primary source of relief for the poor while, at the same time, loans have become almost exclusively focused on commerce rather than charity. “These developments have stripped usury, at least in a Western context, of its antisocial connotations, and in large measure explain its demise as an issue for the modern Church.”15

As the final part of this chapter will explore, there are many reasons to challenge this notion that Western culture has moved beyond antisocial lending practices. Although it makes sense that the Church’s role as the primary body providing a social safety net and charitable loans to the poor has been displaced by government-administered programs, multiple decades of financial deregulation has opened the door wide for predatory lending practices (including in England, as we’ll see) and so it’s premature to say this issue no longer needs the Church’s moral witness. 

Usury Today

If we focus on usury as exploitative and predatory lending practices, it is clear that usury is still rampant today. This is particularly the case in the form of payday lending. To cite just one very recent example: just prior to a 2016 popular referendum that resulted in the banning of payday loans, the average interest on these types of loans in South Dakota was 652%. Imagine the impact of such an interest rate on a South Dakotan family that had to borrow $100 to make rent. Tragically, after a brief period in which this ban was in effect, President Trump’s administration instituted a permanent loophole for payday lenders that has rendered South Dakota’s 2016 ban moot.16 The payday loans are back and we remain in a country in which God’s people are forever being “eaten up as bread” as Psalm 14 puts it. 

Yet modern-day usury is hardly confined to the payday loan industry. Some of the most disturbing stories from the 2008 financial crash involve the predatory lending practices of major banks such as Wells Fargo and Bank of America and how they targeted low-income communities of color for subprime mortgages.17 It is now certain that Wells Fargo sent bank employees to many of Baltimore’s black churches to sell subprime mortgages, and in Memphis this same bank also intentionally targeted elderly African-Americans because they were perceived as less likely to understand the terms of the agreements they were entering into.18 Low-income communities of color were targeted by both Wells Fargo and Bank of America for these loans and therefore also bore the brunt of foreclosures amidst the financial crash. Richard Rothstein, Distinguished Fellow at the Economic Policy Institute and author of The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segmented America, noted “Many of the victims were in California, and of Mexican origin. Those in the East and Midwest were mostly African American. Although not specifically detailed in the government’s complaint, many lost their homes to foreclosure when they were unable to meet the harsh repayment terms to which they had agreed, mostly unwittingly.”19

Rick Santelli's 2009 rant on the floor of the Chicago
Board of Trade famously blamed the "losers" who took on
subprime mortages rather than the creditors
engaging in these predatory lending practices.
 

The example above is also interesting in that aspects of this story also capture a cultural perspective on who is to be held responsible for debt. In stark contrast to the biblical and early church tradition which places the moral onus on the lender rather than the lendee for having trapped people in ‘inescapable nets’ of poverty, US culture has tended to stigmatize debt-holders in shocking terms. This was starkly embodied on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade in February 2009. In a video rant that later served as inspiration for the rise of the Tea Party, CNBC reporter Rick Santelli scorned the idea that the U.S. government should help subsidize ‘the losers’ mortgages’ to the applause of traders all around.20 Of course, we now know that many of those who Santenelli referred to as ‘losers’ were actually intentionally targeted by unscrupulous lenders. In part because of voices like Santenelli, those homeowners never ultimately received debt relief and that “despite the biggest housing collapse in post–Great Depression American history, indebted home owners were left drowning underwater with only minimal assistance from the government.”21

It is difficult, therefore, to agree with the notion that the Church has finished its work on usury and predatory lending. Examples of church leadership on payday loans or regarding some of the egregious examples coming out of the 2008 financial crash are far and few between, and some of the very clear examples from recent years are complicated by lack of follow through or institutional hypocrisy. 

In my own denomination, the Episcopal Church, a focus on predatory lending was taken up in 2012 in the Episcopal Church’s General Convention resolution condemning usury. In resolution 2012-A081 entitled “Reform Usury Laws”, the church committed to working toward usury laws that “establish the principles of fair loan structures, fair repayment schedules, and interest rates such that debts can be repaid in a timely manner without crushing the debtor” and committed to working at local, state, and federal levels to eliminate loopholes “that allow for and sustain predatory lending practices.”22 Resolutions need the follow through, however, and I'm presently unsure of the extent to which this has been put into action.  

A more promising example – at least initially – came from the Church of England. In 2013, Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, began speaking out forcefully against the payday loan industry in England. As a former oil industry executive with extensive knowledge of the finance industry, this was an intriguing development. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Church of England’s credibility on this issue were undercut when the The Financial Times revealed in response that the Church had invested millions of pounds in England’s leading payday lending company Wonga, a company that charged annual percentage rates of more than five thousand percent.23 This usury scandal ultimately led to Archbishop Justin Welby to recommit to divesting the Church of England from the payday lending company and encourage church membership to join existing or church-founded credit unions, but the damage to the Church’s credibility on this issue had been seriously undermined.24 

What to do?

Tragically, many parts of Basil of Cesarea’s Homily on Psalm 14 remain just as relevant today as when it was first preached. Basil told the wealthy who were lending money in Cesarea that “If you take from the poor, you commit the worst crime of inhumanity: you derive profit from miseries, you gain money from tears, you oppress the needy, you starve the hungry. You have no mercy whatsoever, you do not realize the bond you have with those who suffer.”25 Tragically, such lines could just as easily be directed today at payday loan industry and Wells Fargo and Bank of America executives in light of their companies' predatory lending tactics. And, to be clear, this is just to name a few examples of what is, in fact, a much more widespread phenomenon. 

Local leadership on this issue matters a great deal more than resolutions and churchwide statements (though these are certainly important too). Therefore, at the local level, what would it look like to preach about the biblical perspective on usury and debt? Would this be an opportunity to integrate the prophetic and the pastoral, particularly in light of the way that crushing debt weighs on people in their day-to-day lives? People may be surprised to discover just how much the Old and New Testaments have to say on these issues, including the fact that Jesus connected his mission to the longed-for pronouncement of release from debt and slavery. Bible studies on these passages would be opportunities for people to explore both what the biblical tradition has to say about the predatory charging of interest on loans to the poor, and to begin to share their own experiences about debt in their life. 

I am also struck by the line that Basil wields at the wealthy. “You rich, listen to the advice that we give to the poor in view of your inhumanity: Bear any suffering than the calamity that will come from usury.” While this might have been rhetorical flourish, there is indeed a role for the church to play in warning people about predatory lending today. In my neighborhood in Brooklyn, there are municipal signs pasted on trashcans and bus stops warning people that student loans must be paid back. When I buy clothes, I am surprised at how often I’m offered a store credit card as a matter of course during checkout. Amidst the proliferation of credit opportunities and confusing messaging, financial literacy program can have a profoundly empowering impact and can help people to avoid getting entrapped by unscrupulous lenders. How might the Church be a source of truth, education, and clarity on such issues?  

At the church wide level, there is also a significant need for advocacy for more regulation of the payday loan industry and holding major banks accountable for clear instances in which they practiced predatory lending. But beyond this, the Church can help establish lending alternatives.

One inspiring example comes from the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles. In the wake of the Rodney King riots, Dr. Gloria Brown, the Diocese of Los Angeles and Episcopal Relief & Development established the Episcopal Federal Credit Union to help devastated communities avoid the payday loan and pawn shops that were the only lenders left as major banks abandoned the hardest-hit areas.26 Nearly thirty years later, this credit union has proven to be a bulwark against the economic impacts of Covid-19. It continues to offer low-interest, small loans to struggling families, and at the end of March 2020 – as the Covid-19 pandemic devastated Los Angeles – they announced an emergency cash fund for churches whose cash flow has dropped and a 50% reduction in their customary interest rate for congregational loans.27 What would it look like for the Episcopal Church to strengthen and/or replicate this model in other parts of the country? 

Basil of Cesarea’s fourth century writings and the biblical tradition he invokes speak to how central economic justice issues have historically been to Christianity. The world still needs the Church’s  witness on exploitative and predatory lending practices, and there is real opportunity for the Church to make a significant impact on people's daily lives by advocating against predatory lending, establishing lending alternatives, and developing financial literacy programming to help families avoid "the inescapable net." 

---- 

1 Rhee, Helen. Basil’s Homily on Psalm 14. Wealth and Poverty in Early Christianity. Location 419. 

2 Rhee, Helen. Ambrose of Milan’s On Tobit. Wealth and Poverty in Early Christianity. Page 108. 

3 Rhee, Helen. Wealth and Poverty in Early Christianity (Ad Fontes: Early Christian Sources) . Augsburg Fortress. Kindle Edition. Page 67

4 Rhee, Helen. Wealth and Poverty in Early Christianity (Ad Fontes: Early Christian Sources) . Augsburg Fortress. Kindle Edition. Page 67

5 Ian Harper and Lachlan Smirl, Usury, The Oxford Handbook of Christianity and Economics, Page 566. “In contrast to the Old Testament prohibitions against usury, the New Testament is silent on the subject. In particular, nowhere does the New Testament record Jesus teaching against the taking of interest.” 

6 M. Douglas Meeks, Economics in Christian Scriptures, Oxford Book of Christianity and Economics, Page 17

7 Luke 6:20-21

8 Helen Rhee. [Basil’s] Homily on Psalm 14. Wealth and Poverty in Early Christianity (Ad Fontes: Early Christian Sources). Augsburg Fortress. Kindle Edition. Location 419

9 Psalm 15:5

10 Translation from Sexuality and Power:  The Emergence of Canon Law at the Synod of Elvira (Philadelphia: 1972), through website here: http://legalhistorysources.com/Canon%20Law/ElviraCanons.htm#Clergy%20and%20trade

11 Maloney, Robert P. “Early Conciliar Legislation on Usury: A Contribution to the Study of Christian Moral Thinking.” Recherches De Théologie Ancienne Et Médiévale, vol. 39, 1972, pp. 145–157. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26188306. Accessed 8 Dec. 2020. Page 145

12 Maloney, Robert P. “Early Conciliar Legislation on Usury: A Contribution to the Study of Christian Moral Thinking.” Recherches De Théologie Ancienne Et Médiévale, vol. 39, 1972, pp. 145–157. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26188306. Accessed 8 Dec. 2020. 145

13 https://www.holytrinity-lansing.org/articles-from-father-mark-1/2020/1/20/the-sin-we-stopped-feeling-sorry-for

14 Ian Harper and Lachlan Smirl’s essay on Usury, Oxford Handbook of Christianity and Economics. 576

15 Ian Harper and Lachlan Smirl’s essay on Usury, Oxford Handbook of Christianity and Economics. 576

16 Moattar, Daniel. “Trump to Payday Lenders: Let’s Rip America Off Again.” February 2020 - https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/02/trump-payday-loan-bank-rule/

17 Rothstein, Richard. “A comment on Bank of America/Countrywide’s discriminatory mortgage lending and its implications for racial segregation.” January 2012

18 Rothstein, Richard. “A comment on Bank of America/Countrywide’s discriminatory mortgage lending and its implications for racial segregation.” January 2012

19 Rothstein, Richard. “A comment on Bank of America/Countrywide’s discriminatory mortgage lending and its implications for racial segregation.” January 2012

20 Mian, Atif. House of Debt. University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition. Page 135. 

21 Mian, Atif. House of Debt. University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition. Page 135. 

22 General Convention, Journal of the General Convention of...The Episcopal Church, Indianapolis, 2012 (New York: General Convention, 2012), p. 282

23 Sharlene Goff and Brooke Masters. “Church of England invests in Wonga backer”. July 2013. https://www.ft.com/content/1855c6bc-f544-11e2-b4f8-00144feabdc0

24 Trevor Grundy, “Following scandal, Archbishop Justin Welby offers to open up credit unions”, Washington Post, July 2013 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/following-scandal-archbishop-justin-welby-offers-to-open-up-credit-unions/2013/07/26/8507c410-f628-11e2-81fa-8e83b3864c36_story.html

25 Rhee, Helen. Wealth and Poverty in Early Christianity (Ad Fontes: Early Christian Sources) . Augsburg Fortress. Kindle Edition. Page 67

26 Miramontes, Jennifer. “Credit Unions for Economic Justice”. March 2020 issue of ECF Vital Practices.

27 Miramontes, Jennifer. “Credit Unions for Economic Justice”. March 2020 issue of ECF Vital Practices.