Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Hell and the Credit-Card Lobby

Hell and the Credit-Card Lobby

Last updated on: May 20, 2009 at 7:33 pm by Fred Clark

Hell and the Credit-Card Lobby 2009-05-20T19:33:50-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I've mentioned before that I don't believe in the idea of "Hell" as a place of infinite, eternal torment for those beyond or outside of the grace of God.

And neither, apparently, does Edward L. Yingling.

Yingling is the head of the credit-card lobby. He's spent the past several months vigorously fighting against any limits on the predatory usury and capricious, fine-print larceny that his industry regularly employs to transfer billions of dollars — yes, billions — from the poor to the wealthy. This is an industry that routinely lends hundreds of dollars to the desperate or the unwise and then demands and collects thousands of dollars in repayment.

Edward L. Yingling is, in other words, a Very Bad Man. His actions produce actual, human victims — people with names who are suffering because of the professional work of Edward L. Yingling, people whose suffering has been very lucrative for Yingling and those he works for. The two-word biography of this man: Human fail.

In yesterday's New York Times, Yingling argued that if banks aren't allowed to continue their practices of arbitrary fees, undisclosed charges on those fees, and usurious interest rates invoked under the cover of the failure to promptly pay the undisclosed charges on the fees on the rate hikes — if any of that is to be subjected to regulation, then good, responsible, hard-working white people will suffer in order to subsidize lazy, irresponsible crack addicted welfare queens. As a professional apologist for unchecked corporate power, of course, Yingling know he can't state it quite that baldly, so he euphemizes. In the wake of regulation of the debt market, Yingling says:

“It will be a different business,” said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation’s biggest banks. “Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.”

That last sentence is a marvel. We could unpack that for weeks — the bald-faced threat, the dishonesty, the mythologies reasserted and reinforced. Divide and conquer? Check. Assertion that the poor are morally inferior and therefore deserving of their lower caste? Check. Warning that justice is a zero-sum game and that you will suffer if others are not preyed upon? Check. And let's not even bother lifting the rock of "those that have credit problems" to see what's wriggling and squirming under there.

So, again, Edward L. Yingling is not a good human being. He's not good at being human. It's clear from his behavior that he does not believe there is such a place as Hell because he must surely know that if there were such a place, there'd be a very special room in it reserved just for people like him.

Yingling is guilty, after all, of sodomy. "This was the sin of your sister Sodom," the prophet Ezekiel wrote, "She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and the needy." That's Edward L. Yingling and his employers in a nutshell. The credit-card magnates are arrogant, overfed and unconcerned. They sodomize the poor, every day, for money.

Perhaps, then, the world might be a better place if usurers and their lobbyists were convinced in the reality of an eternal, sulfurous torment awaiting the unjust. The idea of Hell might provide some value as a deterrent.

Something like this notion of the deterrent value of Hell is frequently suggested as an objection to my initial statement in this post, that I don't believe in Hell as a place of infinite and eternal torment. "But without Hell," this objection goes, "why should anyone be good?"

To their credit, almost none of the devout people raising this objection really means it. They are not, themselves, shaped and driven primarily by the fear of punishment. Such a fear is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain their own belief in the obligation to be and to do good, to love, to do justice or to correct injustice. The fear of Hell is, for them personally, scarcely a motivating factor at all. Their motivation is more like what 1 John says, "We love God because God first loved us," and not the terrorized and traumatized mutilation of that scripture, "We love God because God will burn us forever and ever if we don't."

So it's telling that the main advocates of the idea of Hell as a deterrent are not themselves influenced by that deterrent at all.

Nor, unfortunately, are those who really need to be — the usurers, the torturers, the tyrants, abusers, enslavers, despoilers or predators.

I don't know of any attempt to measure this precisely, but it is a measurable thing. We could look across or within societies to gauge the pervasiveness and intensity of a belief in Hell and then, in turn, we could measure the corresponding presence and frequency of behaviors that members of that society associate with those who are bound for Hell and …

You get the idea. It'd be soft science, but science nonetheless. It would also be an awful lot of work — particularly since what I strongly suspect it would uncover would be little or no evidence to support the idea that belief in Hell influences hellish behavior one way or another.

The example of Edward L. Yingling provides a good illustration for why that is — why the idea of Hell doesn't actually work very well as a deterrent. To be a usurer — or, in Yingling's case, a professional advocate for usurers — one must remain undeterred by dozens of things more tangible and certain than the abstract fear of a potential future torment. To do what he does, Yingling has to pretend that other people are unreal — that they do not matter. Compared to that, disregarding the fear of Hell is a piece of cake.

I suspect that when people raise the objection that Hell is necessary for people to be good what they're really getting at is something deeper — something that indicates their moral development actually has progressed a bit since they went through the terrible twos. What they're saying, really, echoes the cry of the Psalmist: "Why do the wicked prosper?"

Belief that life is meaningful, they are saying, seems to require a belief in something like justice. But, well, look around. For this idea of justice to matter in any meaningful sense then there must be more to it than what we see here in this world — there must be some kind of transcendent justice in the long run, some kind of ultimate balancing of the scales for those wretched who suffered more than they deserved as well as for those wicked who may have inflicted or ignored that suffering.

They're not suggesting that the threat of Hell is necessary to frighten people into virtue, but rather that some kind of ultimate justice is necessary to make sense of this life in this world. I'm quite sympathetic to this idea, but I don't think Hell is what it requires.

This is where I came in, actually. I read that NYT article yesterday and hit that quote from Mr. Yingling and said, out loud, "Go to Hell, Edward L. Yingling." But that's just a saying, of course. It's not really something I would want or wish for. I do want to see Yingling and people like him get their comeuppance, their just deserts, but that wouldn't require infinite suffering for eternity.

What I'd like to see — by which I mean what it seems to me ought to happen, the thing that would s

eem just –
– would be for Yingling to experience a bit of instant karma. I want him to get a bill in the mail that, unexpectedly, requires a payment 50 percent higher than it reasonably should be, and 30 percent higher than he can manage to pay without defaulting on something else. Then I want to see him hit with penalties for missing this payment, and penalty rates on top of that and fees and charges on those in turn. And as he protests that this isn't fair, that they're changing the rules, I want his protests to be met with disdainful disapproval of his reckless irresponsibility and with the bland, bureaucratic reassurance that everything that is happening to him — as he loses his home, his car, his job, his ability to sleep — is perfectly legal and appropriate. I want him to experience and to absorb the powerlessness of that situation, his utter impotence to escape the vortex of rapidly and massively compounding interest and ever shifting rules and penalties. And then, at his lowest point in all of this, I want him to experience the full weight of society's condemnation — the full force of the idea that his sudden, relentless and inescapable poverty can only mean he deserves it.

"The punishment should fit the crime," we say, expressing another aspect of that seemingly innate human longing and need for a just universe. "Fit" there entails both proportionality and apt-ness.

We discussed proportionality a few months ago the last time we were raising the subject of Hell. Disproportionate punishment doesn't serve up a double-dose of justice, but rather it answers one injustice with another. Hell is, by definition, disproportionate — meting out infinite punishments for finite evils and eternal punishments for temporal wrongs.

But when we say "the punishment should fit the crime" we don't only mean in degree, but also in kind. This isn't due to a longing for retribution or retaliation. It's pedagogical. This is also clear from the language we use when we talk about justice and injustice: "See how you like it …" We want the perpetrator of injustice to experience, to feel, what his victims felt, and thereby to understand the wrong that was done and why it was wrong. In other words, we want the punishment to teach so that the wrongdoer can learn.

What we have in mind there is just as corny and as glorious as Scrooge on Christmas morning or Zaccheus scampering home on his wee little legs to give everything away before dinner. What we have in mind is repentance and restoration. That is the purpose of punishment. That is ultimately what justice requires — what justice means.

Here in this fallen, broken world, such ultimate justice is elusive and rare. The wicked often prosper, and repentance and restoration are exceptional.

But if we're reaching for some notion of transcendent, eschatological justice that can give meaning to the injustice of our lives in this vale of tears, then that idea or ideal of justice can't be one that settles for cheap counterfeits like mere retaliation or retribution. It must teach and restore and make whole.

Hell cannot teach. It cannot restore. In fact, it makes restoration impossible. Hell would therefore seem to be a transcendent injustice — an idea that makes our lives here in this world less meaningful.

So, in summary, since I cannot tell Mr. Yingling to go to Hell, which is all I really set out to do here, let me conclude, instead, by saying this:

Screw you, Edward L. Yingling. And the horse you rode in on.

class warfare

Previous Post

May 15, 2009

TF: Bible studies

Next Post

May 22, 2009 Real-Reasons

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "Am I not sending you?"

Select your answer to see how you score.

God Elijah Moses Jesus