On Money - John Wesley's Take

Gain all you can,
Save all you can,
Give all you can
~ John Wesley

I've had some interesting conversations this past week about voluntary simplicity, money, finances, the economy, and giving of ourselves to the larger world. As sometimes happens, this week I also ran across an article I had bookmarked a long time ago about Wesley's view on money. Charles Edward White published an article for Leadership magazine for the Winter 1987 edition. An adaption of that article can be found here: http://www.missionfrontiers.org/oldsite/1994/0910/so949.htm

While the article talks about Wesley's understanding of money, and his teachings upon money, it doesn't mention much about Wesley's greater work in alleviating dangerous working conditions, and the systemic problems that were keeping people poor. In this, the article is lacking in some of its context. None-the-less, I find this article to be inspiring and challenging, especially considering these views came from Wesley, one of the richest English preachers of his day.

Here is a brief synopsis of Wesley's teachings:
Wesley grew up poor, he even watched his father hauled off to debtors prison. But as a professor/lecturer at Cambridge, he found himself making 30 pounds a year. Yet, he found himself unable to give any money to the poor. This started a life of earning money, and giving most of it away. During his lifetime, he kept his living expenses as close to 28 pounds as possible, giving the surplus away. Consequently, when the time came that he made 192 pounds, he used 28 upon himself, and gave 92 away. Or the year that he made close to 1400 pounds, he lived on 30 and gave the rest away. When he died, he left his books, and change in his pockets and drawers.

Here are his views:
Gain all the money you can - but not at the expense of yourself (health - both spiritual, physical and environmental) or at the expense of others (dangerous working conditions, etc.).
Save all you can by living simply, for this allows you to ...
Give all you can. Wesley's understanding is that all money is God's to start with, we are merely the trustees.

He then instructed the Methodists to follow these four scriptural principles, which Wesley interpreted as follows:

1. Provide things needful for yourself and your family (I Tim. 5:8). The believer should make sure the family has "a sufficiency of plain, wholesome food to eat, and clean raiment to put on" as well as a place to live and enough to live on if something were to happen to the breadwinner.
2. "Having food and raiment, let us be therewith content" (I Tim. 6:8) . "Whoever has sufficient food to eat, and raiment to put on, with a place to lay his head, and something over, is rich," he said.
3. "Provide things honest in the sight of all men" (Rom. 12:17) and "Owe no man anything" (Rom. 13:8). Wesley said the next claim on a Christian's money is the creditors'. He adds that those who are in business for themselves need to have adequate tools, stock, or capital for the carrying on of that business.
4. "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10). After the Christian has provided for the family, the creditors, and the business, the next obligation is to use any money that is left to meet the needs of others.*

But what about those things that don't quite fit in the above "rules," what then? Wesley provided a series of questions:

1. In spending this money, am I acting like I own it, or am I acting like the Lord's trustee?
2. What Scripture requires me to spend this money this way?
3. Can I offer up this purchase as a sacrifice to the Lord?
4. Will God reward me for this expenditure at the resurrection of the just?*

_____
*from the adapted article at: http://www.missionfrontiers.org/oldsite/1994/0910/so949.htm

A Book Review: Harlan Hubbard's Shantyboat

In 1944, Harlan (an artist and viola/violin player), and his new wife Anne (a librarian and cello player),  build a shantyboat on the shore of the Ohio River (at Brent, just downstream from Cincinnati) and drift down to the Gulf of Mexico.

I had no theories to prove. I merely wanted to try living by my own hands, independent as far as possible from a system of division of labor in which the participant loses most of the pleasure of making and growing things for himself. I wanted to bring in my own fuel and smell its sweet smoke as it burned on the hearth I mad made. I wanted to grow my own food, catch in the river, or forage after it. In short, I wanted to do as much as I could for myself, because I had already realized from partial experience the inexpressible joy of so doing (Hubbard, 38).

They spend two years after the construction learning their "apprenticeship" to river life, and growing a garden along the shore to stock up their provisions. Down the Ohio they go, stopping at Payne Hallow after a winter of drifting. Here they set about growing a large garden, fishing and bartering for eggs and milk during the spring, summer and fall before setting off down the river again. Little do they know at the time, that they will return to Payne Hallow and homestead there. The next spring, they stop at Brizzle's Bluff on the Cumberland River. Again a season is spent growing garden crops before setting out for another winter drifting, this time moving quickly to the Mississippi. Their next layover is at Natchez. Then the following winter they are off again, getting to New Orleans in March, 1950. The total distance is 1385 miles.
One of the interesting things about this voyage, and the book, is that Harlan never mentions the United States is fighting World War II, nor that the war ends, while they are drifting down the river. This story is told with delight, humor and an overriding sense of passion about living life. Lest you think they are a young couple, Harlan is 44 and Anne 41 when they marry. And, as Wendell Berry points out, this experience shapes their relationship to one another and the world around them. In some ways, their homesteading is a continuation of this way of life.
Many people have an idea that cruising, or shantyboating, costs lots of money. But it needn't. I'm not saying the life that the Hubbards lived on their shantyboat is for everyone, but I will say that their life provides a different way to live, one that is full of time for leisure as well as work. (For those familiar with the Nearing's books on the Good Life, you may find some similarities here).
By traveling every winter, the Hubbards were able to use the strength of the rivers' currents to move their boat/home. Their only other power was of a human kind (sweeps on the shantyboat, oars on the john boat) plus a few times in which they are towed a short distance. This allows them to grow/catch their own food, and by canning, keep it until they are able to grow more. For eggs and milk (and the like) they barter what they have for what they don't (i.e. catfish for milk and eggs). For heat, and other supplies, they use drift wood.
Harlan lived, as Berry points out, a life of faith: "What we need is at hand" (Berry, 93). Is this not truly seeing the world as a place of abundance?

How are we living? Are we living in ways that give us growth: in spirit, in character, in creativity, in accomplishment, in pleasure, in joy?
Here's to a New Year filled with this kind of growth!
Blessed Be
Rev. Joel

***
See Harlan Hubbard's Shantyboat: A River Way of Life. (University of Kentucky Press, 1953) and Wendell Berry's Harlan Hubbard: Life and Work. (University of Kentucky Press, 1990).
Or visit the website devoted to the Hubbards: Harlan Hubbard.com

Patagonia's Don't Buy Advertisement

Patagonia ran an advertisement on Black Friday (the Friday after the USA Thanksgiving that for some strange reason starts the Christmas shopping season) and Cyber-Monday that I only heard about on the radio. So I went and did a quick Internet search.
Here's the advertisement:


Patagonia (PDF)/Promo image


While this advertisement may bring more people to Patagonia to shop, I don't believe that this is the reason for the running the ad in the New York Times. I do think Patagonia is very concerned about their (and our) environmental impact. As they say, there is more to the purchase price:

It’s Black Friday, the day in the year retail turns from red to black and starts to make real money. But Black Friday, and the culture of consumption it reflects, puts the economy of natural systems that support all life firmly in the red. We’re now using the resources of one-and-a-half planets on our one and only planet. ...

The environmental cost of everything we make is astonishing. Consider the R2® Jacket shown, one of our best sellers. To make it required 135 liters of water, enough to meet the daily needs (three glasses a day) of 45 people. Its journey from its origin as 60% recycled polyester to our Reno warehouse generated nearly 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, 24 times the weight of the finished product. This jacket left behind, on its way to Reno, two-thirds its weight in waste.

I also find their adding two new "R's" to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle a great insight and idea:

REDUCE
WE make useful gear that lasts a long time
YOU don’t buy what you don’t need
REPAIR
WE help you repair your Patagonia gear
YOU pledge to fix what’s broken
REUSE
WE help find a home for Patagonia gear you no longer need
YOU sell or pass it on
RECYCLE
WE will take back your Patagonia gear that is worn out
YOU pledge to keep your stuff out of the landfill and incinerator
 REIMAGINE
TOGETHER we reimagine a world where we take only what nature can replace 

In the course of the search, I also found the article below ("Don't Buy This Shirt Unless You Need It").

I couldn't help but find it a bit serendipitous after my last Monday's blogging about how we tend to attempt to purchase items with a long life (sometimes we choose wisely, sometimes not).

Patagonia Article:

Don't Buy This Shirt Unless You Need It by Yvon Chouinard & Nora Gallagher 

(Late Summer 2004)

 
Chouinard and Gallagher start by talking about the Chumash Nation that lived in Northern California, near the Patagonia headquarters, and "Gerald Amos, a member (and former chief) of the Haisla Nation in Kitamaat, northwest Canada" as examples of other types of economies before continuing with these tid-bits. Note that I have included them here to prompt you to read the article.

Such lives are often called subsistence, which brings to mind the barest, hardscrabble survival. But there is another way to look at them. At Patagonia we choose to call them “economies of abundance.” In an economy of abundance, there is enough. Not too much. Not too little. Enough. Most important, there is enough time for the things that matter: relationships, delicious food, art, games and rest.

Many of us in the United States live in what is thought to be abundance, with plenty all around us, but it is only an illusion, not the real thing. The economy we live in is marked by “not enough.” ...

We don't have enough money, and we also don’t have enough time. We don’t have enough energy, solitude or peace. We are the world’s richest country, yet our quality of life ranks 14th in the world. As Eric Hoffer, a mid-20th century philosopher, put it, “You can never get enough of what you don’t really need to make you happy."

And while we work harder and harder to get more of what we don’t need, we lay waste to the natural world. Dr. Peter Senge, author and MIT lecturer, says, “We are sleepwalking into disaster, going faster and faster to get to where no one wants to be.”

We might call this economy, the one we live in, the economy of scarcity. (page 1)

Lest you think the economy of abundance is gone with the old Chumash, consider Europe. Europeans still buy only a few well-made clothes and keep them for many years. Their houses and apartments tend to be smaller than ours; they rely on public transportation, and small, efficient home appliances and cars. Europeans enjoy a 25 percent higher quality of life than Americans (while we consume 75 percent more than they do). (page 2)

I've blogged about this before. Check out What's the Economy For Anyway? In the essay by the same name, John de Graaf explores how the United States has shrunk in overall happiness/health/lifestyle while Europe has gained in these areas. In fact, Europeans have caught up to the USA in economic "production," too.

In the economy of abundance, wild salmon are given back rivers in which to run. Trees grow to their natural height. Water is clean. A sense of mystery and enchantment is restored to the world. We humans live within our means and, best of all, we have the time to enjoy what we have. (page 2)