I wonder about that. I mean, I agree according to a pretty strict assessment that ultimately every individual is responsible for their own behavior no matter what. I think there's a lot of good truth there, but grace seems to more about considering things like influence, circumstances, context, sincerity, effort, and a few dozen other significant factors. Have you ever had personal experience with anyone who has been inconvenienced by debt?
What about any situation where you'd reasonably conclude someone was taken advantage of by various savvy credit-related sales pitches, whether they be loans, credit cards, mortgages, or whatever...?
What about anyone whom you would say was actually harmed (according to whatever definition you feel is right for the context) by debt?
Teaching. Guiding. Influencing. Marketing. Manipulating. Creating interest. They could all be synonyms depending on context. Different people can be convinced to see the same piece of evidence from dozens of contradictory perspectives. Somehow, it has become not only acceptable, but a symbol of social status to have the highest capacity for the greatest amount of wealth which does not belong to you (i.e. high credit scores).
Of course debt does not appear as slavery. It's not profitable to portray it that way.