Some quotes from this news article that are very revealing:

"Many churches expanded during the real estate boom, as banks large and small lent money based on assumptions about growth in their donations."             
"betting on the likelihood that a particular pastor could attract a large audience or, in some cases, on the popularity of one denomination over another."
"The rise of nondenominational churches and a resurgence in the evangelical movement also led to more religious institutions seeking to borrow."
"Churches were often founded in storefronts or school auditoriums, but as they grew, they built sprawling edifices, including so-called mega-churches."

Now that the economy has turned sour, many of these churches are in financial trouble.  Approximately ¼ of the churches have mortgages (and the article compares them to the "old" way of thinking- to remain debt-free), and already foreclosure filings have been made against 254 church properties(2).  One organization reported that "nonperforming church loans increased 14 percent for the quarter that ended on Sept. 30, compared with the quarter a year earlier."  What is really interesting is the thinking that is revealed. (Quoted from the news article):    

""You're beginning with a borrower that considers it a moral obligation to repay his loan," said Timothy Horner, a partner with Warner Norcross & Judd, a law firm in Grand Rapids, Mich., who has worked on church financing issues."

What, non-Churches don't think it's a moral or ethical obligation to repay a loan???  Non-Christians don't consider repaying a loan to be a moral obligation?  Why do these people think only churches would find a moral imperative to paying what they owe?

A few months ago I had a conversation with a colleague who is very well-known in the area of poverty research.  We discussed the connections between dominionism and the sub-prime lending crisis, and my colleague indicated she'd seen evidence of links between that movement and the abuses in the lending industry.  We also both agreed that this was an area that required further detailed research (although without funding, it would be quite difficult as it would be a big project).  I think we're seeing a further extension of the things noted by my colleague- fundamentalist/dominionist churches were encouraging the sub-prime lending, often in ways that benefited them (while harming the poor).  I also think that this article indicates an extension of dominionist policy- playing fast and loose with money and taking on debts based upon what they hope will happen, rather than being careful with the moneys entrusted to them.  The whole sub-prime "crisis" has impacted the poor and the middle class severely and there are indications that it has benefited the richest people in this country (especially with the bailouts).  In my own research I've already found some connections between the big banks and dominionism (although I wasn't really looking for them) - and I suspect if this was explored further we would find all sorts of links between big money and those so-called "churches".  It would be a big task- in many cases they seem to be trying to hide their relationships, and the evidence in this case rather "fell together".  We've already seen how dominionism helps and supports the elites in maintaining and furthering their hegemony.   Possibly this article could provide a glimpse into that relationship- looking at the financial relationships between the big money elites and the churches that promote returning to the days when regulations over the elites were largely non-existent.

The article also mentions that some of the churches are publishing their financial situation.  However, since they don't have to provide documentation, it would be very easy for some of the more despicable "churches" to use the foreclosures as a way to persuade people to give more- even if they really don't need it.  I think this also shows that churches should be required to report (and document) their finances, even if they don't pay taxes- and that these should be available to their members at the least.  Indeed, if the churches were honest, I think they would WANT to have good PUBLIC records, and even keep records (not public to protect the innocent) of people who may have been helped through those churches (that is, if they really DO help people).

(1) caveat- I know that there are evangelical churches "out there" that are considered to be progressive.  The tone of the statements in this article leads me to believe that the problem is largely tied to dominionism, and not to evangelicalism in general (although I also admit that I have a problem with the ideas behind "evangelical").

(2) A little quick research suggests that the number of churches in foreclosure may be far higher than this article indicates- and in the local area, the ones I know of are known for dominionist teaching.