“No money for an IPhone.”
Where shall we begin our conversation about this consistent phenomenon of life? Let us begin, perhaps, with the “Encyclopedia of Russian Life”—with Eugene Onegin. In the first chapter of the novel, we get acquainted with the family of the main character who gave the novel its name.
Serving excellently and nobly,
His father lived on debts,
Gave three balls annually
And finally squandered the rest.
As is clear at first glance, before us is a “professional debtor” who is accustomed to living beyond his means and brings the family to ruin by regularly throwing dust in society’s eyes. Such is Eugene’s father. In our days, it is said that “adults also have their toys, only they are more expensive.” But the principle itself has existed since ancient times.
The essence of this principle is as follows. People for some reason decide to live beyond their means. In the dilemma “to be or to seem,” they bet on the second, on “to seem.” And they pay for the image… with other people’s money. Then they find themselves unable to return what was taken. Further options are diverse: debtor’s prison, inventory of property, flight, suicide, drinking from despair, and so on.
Eugene’s father spent everything he had on champagne, confectioners and cooks, hiring an orchestra, outfits. This was necessary to maintain weight in society. Being initially a not poor person, he then reached ruin. As another Pushkin character, Hermann from “The Queen of Spades,” explained his unwillingness to play cards: he “did not want to risk losing the necessary in the desire to get the superfluous.” But Eugene’s father precisely lost the necessary, raising his status in a visible way and “not cutting his coat according to his cloth.”
This is how it happens from time immemorial to this day. It is relatively wealthy people, at least not beggars, who are conveniently caught by the “deceitfulness of riches” (Mt. 13:22) and fall into slavery to creditors. History convincingly proves to us that the financial power of creditors grows precisely thanks to people accustomed to luxury who are fundamentally unwilling to live more modestly. In former times, these were the lazy offspring of noble families, flagrant degenerates, unable to live without other people’s money and for show. Today, this army of people is being replenished regardless of class differences, which are maximally erased. But neither greed, nor stupidity, nor human irresponsibility have been erased.
A student who dines at McDonald’s and dresses in second-hand clothes, takes out a loan to buy a new iPhone model. A person who has a working car for half a million rubles, takes another half a million on credit and buys a higher-status car. A family that can afford a vacation at an accessible middle-class resort without debts, takes a loan for a trip to a high-status resort. There are very many such examples, and each of us, if we wish, can supplement this list with our own “eccentricities” or similar examples from the lives of acquaintances.
We will not consider cases of borrowing for business needs or covering utility debts; that is, cases in which true, not imaginary, need drives a person. But pay attention to the “ninth wave” of examples relating to the category mentioned at the beginning. Fashion, status, desire for novelty, eternal striving for change, fear of being no better than friends and acquaintances, fear of being reputed a simpleton… All these mental tyrants—even demons—rudely, like convoy guards, push people to actions completely not compelled by genuine need or life necessity.
Hunger and nakedness—this is a material problem. But binding oneself with debts, say, because of fashion—this is a spiritual illness
This is a spiritual illness. And it must be treated by the Spirit. Hunger and nakedness are material problems (also having spiritual causes). But binding oneself with debts, say, because of fashion—this is a purely spiritual illness, in no way dependent on material factors. Note that it is precisely people who declare ideological materialism (I, they say, do not believe in God and do not pray, these are all inventions) who are in practice more defenseless than believing people against the aggressive onslaught of advertising, public opinion, or their social circle’s expectations.
Let us listen to the voice of the Apostle Paul. He may not be an authority for everyone, but for someone, God willing, his words will surely touch the soul: But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content (1 Tim. 6:6–8).
Let a person stop at this word and reason: what did he bring into the world when he came out of the womb? What will he take with him when he closes his eyes and stops moving? Will not all desires for acquisitions and possessions seem like a dream? And the world, which so successfully seduced him daily, teased and beckoned him, will laugh at the dead man, to continue deceiving the living.
We repeat that many debts and dangerous enterprises are not compelled by anything, absolutely nothing substantial, except vanity and stupidity living in a soul alien to faith in God. About this Paul speaks further: But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition (1 Tim. 6:9).
The lover of silver is not the one who has much, but who wants much. It does not matter whether he drives a Chevy or a Mercedes. The content of the heart determines the secret of a person, by which he will be judged by the impartial God. Therefore it is said: “Those who desire to be rich,” not simply “the rich.” This is that “deceitfulness of riches” mentioned above. Deceit means deception, an illusory dream harboring within itself a crushing disaster. To “snares and temptations” directly relate those troubles into which a debtor can fall. The higher the loan, the stronger the threats. Children, movable and immovable property, internal organs, and life itself often become means of repaying the debt. That this is so is convinced by both criminal chronicles and historical examples.
It should be natural to fear debts—as one naturally fears slavery
It should be natural to fear debts—as one naturally fears slavery or other grave dependence. Borrowing from some to repay others, fearing phone calls, hiding, changing addresses—is this not slavery?
Let us note that debt is an image and likeness of sin. By the Lord’s Prayer, we are taught to pray: “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” And the whole host of Biblical exegists, as if with one mouth, explains to us that our debts before God are our sins, errors, voluntary and involuntary misdeeds. Likewise, the debts of neighbors before us are their sins requiring healing through reconciliation and active love. Consequently, if the Divine lips of Christ replaced the word “sin” with the word “debt”—the essential similarity between them exists unequivocally.
Sin binds a person, enslaves. And so does debt. He who has sins is a slave of sin. He who has debts is a slave of debt. Both one and the other are obsessed with fear, deprived of freedom and joy. They do not enjoy life but live crushed, like a slave under a load.
The modern world accustoms a person to easily take on debt, entangle himself with loans, not worrying too much about when he will pay them back. This means that the world reduces our consciousness to a certain infantile level, at which a person is able to rejoice at a visible thing but is unable to reflect on the responsibility for possessing it. Look at children. How boisterously they rejoice at a new toy and how quickly they forget it upon seeing another. In them, there is minimal memory of the past or foresight of the future. This is a natural weakness of mind for an infant. But in an adult, this is unforgivable feeble-mindedness. It is a sign of active external work on his consciousness. After all, what messages does our soul absorb from everywhere? “You need it—take it. You’ve taken it—rejoice. Don’t worry how you’ll repay. You’ll repay somehow.” A person living in such a paradigm is truly feeble-minded.
He is dangerous not only for himself and his relatives (people often take upon themselves the burdens of repaying debts made by an egotistical relative). Such a person is dangerous also for the lender. Criminologists and investigators, if desired, would tell us many stories in which victims of murder were those who lent money. First, a person takes. Then he cannot repay. Then the devil whispers a wild plan for getting out of the situation: “Kill him and repay nothing.”
That this is not fantasy and not a joke is proven by a multitude of examples.
In general, repaying is harder than taking. For, as a well-known joke rightly says, “You take someone else’s temporarily, but you give your own forever.” And people are so unzealous in repaying that another proverb says: “If you want to quarrel with a someone, lend him money.”
It is worth speaking about this too. The Gospel words speak only about those who give, namely: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. (Mt. 5:42). But we are talking about the mirror reflection of this commandment, which should sound like this: “Did you borrow? Repay on time.”
Such “extrapolation” of the Gospel is not something reprehensible, since the Lord, on the contrary, requires that we derive rules of practical behavior from Gospel principles. It is said, for example, about condemning those who look at a woman with lust (cf. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: Mt. 5:27) that have already committed adultery in their heart. This is said about men. But one can boldly “deduce” that a woman who casts a lustful glance at a man is also judged as an adulteress. In our times of perversely understood freedom, one has to speak as much about female fornication as about male.
So, reflection on the commandments is required of us, for we are people. The commandments are given to free and intelligent beings, not hard-wired like a circuit board in a robot. Based on what has been said, we can indeed make demands not only on those who give (to give!), but also on those who take (to return!).
Debt is a forced measure, not the norm of life. The norm of life is to be able to live within one’s means
But again and again, it is worth returning to the main thought. Debt is a forced measure, not the norm of life. The norm of life is to be able to live within one’s means and Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law (Rom. 13:8).
Let us also add the word of one ascetic who taught that the best way to always be poor is the intentional non-repayment of debts and working on Sundays and feast days. The meaning of this saying is that no one wants to live in poverty. However, one will have to live in poverty if he does not honor God, neglecting Sunday and feast day services in church. He will work on these days as on weekdays. And second—he will borrow and not repay, even if he has the means to do so. From these two oversights, some holes as if form in a person’s soul. Then an infernal draft can blow through them, sweeping all of God’s gifts out from the soul.
This is not abstract moralizing. These are questions of spiritual practice that everyone can check on personal experience. For all commandments are tested by deed.
Prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts (Mal. 3:10).
