He believed faith-based funds were overly optimistic about their moral purity, and weren’t sufficiently realistic about the moral ambiguity of our world.To the issues of stewardship and conscience, he added a third critique, this time with a theological lens:.This is a reference Romans 14, which described Christians with a “weak conscience,” whose moral alarms were always going off like a malfunctioning alarm clock. He believed faith-based funds were shrewdly packaged products designed to make money from those with a weak conscience.But Matt said that was only true on the basis of my second concern:.Faith-based funds, values-based funds, socially responsible funds - they all seemed simply like the latest gimmick by which actively managed funds continued to underperform.

He said his analysis of the numbers led him to a clear verdict: smart money commits to low-fee index funds, while stupid money chases returns in actively managed, high-fee funds.His first real concern: Matt believed faith-based investing funds were fiscally irresponsible, and therefore, represented unwise stewardship.Matt share his journal now an advocate for faith-based investing.Matt writes for the Eventide Center and recently penned an article titled “Why I Was Skeptical of Faith-Based Investing - and What Changed My Mind.”.Matt Rusten is executive director of Made to Flourish, a ministry dedicated to helping Christians live their faith seven days a week, not just on Sunday. Matt Rusten joins us to help answer those questions today on MoneyWise. And a small, but growing industry of faith-based investments is seeking to meet that desire. Many investors want to apply their faith to the way they invest their money.