Author: Alicia

This is my last post about Helen Rhee’s book, Loving the Poor, Saving the Rich. I want to finish writing my thoughts on her work and move back to some other topics I’m curious about. Here I want to share some of Rhee’s conclusions about the early church’s dealings with wealth and poverty.

Most of Rhee’s book covers how the early church linked one’s functioning in the economic world with one’s beliefs. The early church leaders argued financial attitudes and practices should be rooted in their theological beliefs regarding eschatology (the end times), soteriology (how salvation works), koinonia (how community works), ecclesiastical control (how the church got rich and powerful) and ultimately Christian identity. I won’t cover these issues individually but I will say this.  The early church was right to connect one’s financial activities to one’s Christian identity.  Who we are with our money is who we are. We can’t compartmentalize faith from finances.

As the early church grew, geographically and numerically, it also spread across the socio-economic strata in the Greco-Roman society. Most early Christians were deeply impoverished, but it’s clear there were some wealthy Christians as well. The early church leaders needed a way to create a new culture and community, rooted in the beliefs and teachings of Christ, for both poor and rich believers.

As a result, the church fathers leaned hard into the themes of the pious poor/unrighteous rich. Ultimately, they created “redemptive almsgiving” as a means of helping the rich secure their eternal reward. In redemptive almsgiving, the rich give generously to the common chest, from which the bishop could care for the poor. In return, the poor, whom God listens to, would pray and intercede on behalf of the rich.  They argued that God’s gifting of the rich with wealth was for the purpose of caring for the poor. The poor, meanwhile, must guard against desiring the wealth of the rich and endure their poverty well. Thus, at best, wealth was a means for securing one’s spiritual growth and eternal rewards through the regular practice of giving it away. At worst, it was evidence of one’s idolatry, faithlessness, and sure demise.

The practice and preaching of redemptive almsgiving would continue for the first several centuries of the Christian church. When Emperor Constantine finally decided everyone would be Christian, the Church was put in a unique situation. As a persecuted minority, it had used the donations given by its rich members to meet the needs of its poor members, especially the sick, those imprisoned for confessing the faith and their families, the widows, orphans, and so on. Once the Church became the official religion, it received Imperial (State) funding and the responsibility to care for all the poor. Thus, the wedding of the Church and the State. 

My mom, a professor of political science, reminded me it wasn’t until Thomas Jefferson, and the early days of America, that the Church and State would get a divorce, or, at least, a separation. For centuries, western governments followed the example of Constantine and used the Church as the sole means of meeting the needs of (and controlling) the poor in their countries. Jefferson would argue successfully the government should not raise funds for other institutions. Additionally, the budding America country was already home to several churches and denominations. How would the government choose how much to give and to whom? Jefferson believed the government bore some responsibility to care for the poor and vulnerable. Taking care of the least among us was not something solely to be delegated to the plethora of churches, but was the responsibility of every American and of its government. Jefferson probably didn’t have in mind the social safety nets we have today. He believed carefully crafted laws and the abundance of land “available” would be enough to provide the poor with the means to work hard and make their own way. The man had some blind spots to be sure, but at this pivotal point in history, Jefferson would help create the core value that governments have a responsibility to the people they govern. So now we argue endlessly about how those in power and with the means are responsible for providing the means for the poor to have enough – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  

So, what now?

Understanding more about the ancient world’s economy and philosophies has been helpful for me. It’s been valuable to note the very real differences in the economic world of then and now. Then it was a agricultural economy with limited goods and resources. The wealthy owned the landed and consumed the goods. Most people were incredibly poor with no real means of upward social mobility and without any social or economic network to prevent them from literally dying of starvation or exhaustion. They would work until the day they died. Whereas, wealth in the western world now is focused on production, investment, advancement of technology, etc. As the wealthy today get richer, there has been an increase in wealth for the poor. There exists now a middle class and a social safety net. I am not the poor, nor am I the rich that the Biblical authors and early church referenced when they wrote. Additionally, this has changed my view of the rich. They are not exactly the villains of old.

Nonetheless, our embrace and engagement with wealth and the economy still matter to our identity as Christians and our fulfillment of the Great Commandment. This hasn’t changed. Rhee writes, 

“Our attitudes (understanding of ownership, stewardship, attachment, or detachment) govern our use and lifestyle (conspicuous consumption, miserliness, simple living, or generous giving) and distribution (hoarding or sharing; justice and equity)…Our individual and collective use of wealth impacts distribution of wealth in personal choices and public (social, economic, and political) policies.” (p. 192)  

What we think about money affects what we do with it. Human ownership is a myth. God is the owner of all things and we are stewards of what God has given to us. We don’t actually earn a living; we are given life. God provides us with work, and the monies we receive are to be stewarded according to God’s purposes – meeting one’s needs and the needs of others. 

The difficulty now is determining what’s enough and what’s the appropriate enjoyment of the abundance from God. The creation of a middle class has resulted in what used to be luxuries decades ago, are now seen as “regular” or even “necessary.” Ironically, these luxuries include things like washing machines, cell phones, and the occasional eating at restaurants, but not health care. Nonetheless, it is a sign of the progress and positive contribution of democratic capitalism. In our economic culture now, we struggle with a more fluid sense of sufficiency, necessities, and material enjoyment as well as greed, luxury, and materialism. Despite having more stuff and more access to luxury, we tend to not be happier or more faithful in God’s provision or presence. Our economy and culture is largely structured to maximize the consumption of goods. As a result, it is easy to denounce our economy and culture in abstract, but much harder to identify and deal with in concrete ways. 

Thus, the teachings of the early church vis-à-vis wealth are not so irrelevant. Rhee argues we must also support economic, social and political policies which promote economic justice, recognizing that some of the struggles of today’s poor are due to systemic problems. Additionaly, she advocates the continued practice of renunciation through simplicity and generous almsgiving. All these actions can help combat confusing American economic culture with kingdom of God culture. Simplicity means taking regular inventory of one’s possession and cutting away excess goods — freely given away. This practice requires constant vigilance and discernment in determining what is enough in probably stricter terms than our culture. It is about cultivating a discipline of contentment in God’s abundance and provision. The call for generosity is our response to and imitation of God’s character toward us. The practical specifics of how to do this can be very diverse.

So then, what is money for? Money is for meeting one’s needs and the needs of others. I now understand, ultimately, God doesn’t actually care about money. It is merely another means by which we are called into relationship with Him and with one another.

I will continue to study Scripture’s comments about wealth and poverty, but I’m looking forward to exploring some practical ways of living out minimalism, generosity, and economic justice today.  Lent is a great season for re-orienting one’s sense of need.  

One of my professors from Fuller Seminary once said, “The ancient past is like another country. They do things differently there.”  

In understanding the Bible, I find it extremely helpful to know the context in which it was originally written and heard and lived.  Not that you can’t be inspired or convicted with a cold read of the text, but I’ve always found that knowing more about the world it came from makes it possible to understand and apply the text more profoundly in this world.  One of my primary takeaways from Helen Rhee’s Loving the Poor, Saving the Rich is a better picture of the economic world of the New Testament people and early Christian church.  I was surprised by what was different and what was not. 

Basically, the early church had two competing cultures it functioned in.  On the one hand, they lived in the Greco-Roman world with its economy, culture, beliefs, and assumptions.  On the other hand, the early followers of Jesus were rooted in Jewish heritage and history.  Somehow they had to live out the revolutionary teachings and example of Jesus in the midst of these powerful forces.  Some things never change. 

So, what was the Greco-Roman world like?

The Greco-Roman economy was a subsistence agriculture economy. This is a big difference from our American economy. The vast majority of the economic activity in the Roman Empire was agricultural – growing food, harvesting food, selling food. Most markets were local. It’s true the Roman Empire built roads and trade routes, but there was no technology or way for perishables to be stored long-term or transported long distances. The silos of the wealthy could store grain, oil, and wine, but that was kind of it. Compared to the American economy in which agriculture (specifically, farms) reportedly contributes less than 1% to the gross domestic product.  Even adding all related agricultural industries (food service, textiles, forestry, fishing, etc.), agriculture makes up less than 20% of our economy.  (See here for more detail. https://www.fb.org/market-intel/farm-contribution-to-agricultural-gdp-at-record-low) The GDP is only one measurement, and not necessarily the best one, of a nation’s economy. That’s not the point. The point is the shape of the American economy is significantly different than that of the ancient near East.  As a result, it is tempting to dismiss the economic struggles and attitudes of the ancient people in regards to wealth and poverty as irrelevant now. If anything, though, learning how the ancient economy shaped the lives and beliefs of the ancient people challenges us to consider how our beliefs affect our engagement with the marketplace and how the economy shapes our views of money, the wealthy and the poor today. 

The majority of people in the Greco-Roman empire were near, at, or below subsistence levels. It’s widely accepted that the ancient economy kept 97-99% of the population extremely poor.  Widows, orphans, beggars, the infirm or disabled, prisoners, and unskilled day laborers would be below subsistence levels. Their days were spent struggling to get enough food to survive that day. Some farmers, merchants/traders, skilled and unskilled laborers, and other wage earners lived at subsistence levels. The work they did each day provided enough for them and their families to eat and survive that day. They would probably have a job the next day and could earn enough to eat tomorrow too. Maybe. There’s growing consensus that even in the ancient world there were some merchants, traders, artisans, large shop owners, freed persons, and military veterans who likely had stable income and work which kept them above subsistence level with reasonable hope of staying there. They would almost be considered middle class. Almost. They made enough income to stay out of abject poverty and most likely maintained that level of income, but the ancient world had zero social safety nets and a LOT of risk. There were no sick days and no health care. In fact, one of the strangest things about the early Christians was their care for the infirm even as it cost them their life. There was no retirement plans or pensions. There was no welfare or insurance in case of disability or natural disaster or job loss. There were no rights to vote, own land, retain a lawyer, or have a different belief. One’s stability could be taken forcibly and without recourse. It’s estimated that, at best, 42% of the population were in this ‘middling’ group. That’s a significant portion of the population. The biggest difference between that ‘middling’ class and today’s ‘middle class’ is the existence of several social safety nets to help prevent people from falling into poverty.  (We can debate the efficacy of welfare and insurance companies and social security some other time.)

The remaining 1-3% of the population were the wealthy – the emperor, the landed elites, senators, provincial officials, some retired military, and a few freed persons.  In true Greco-Roman fashion, they viewed wealth and poverty in a binary fashion, and believed your birth determined which you should be. Born wealthy. Stay wealthy. Born poor. Stay poor. Not quite the American dream. Additionally, the wealthy, unlike in today’s economy, did not create wealth through investment or entrepreneurship or development, but rather were the primary consumers. They used wealth to perpetuate their system of patronage. Patronage was the voluntary exchange relationship of goods and services between men of unequal power and status. This would be appropriated and Christianized by the early church. Patronage encouraged wealthy men (and women) to provide gifts and opportunities, protection, justice, and influence to men of lesser wealth in exchange for honor, gratitude, and allegiance. The Greeks and Romans lauded generosity and expected the wealthy to be lavish in their gifting and charity.  However, they were never expected nor encouraged to give based on need. Even when wealthy patrons gave “charity” to an entire city, the giving was based on civic rank, because the system of patronage was a means of social control and submission for those who could reciprocate. Since the poor could never give honor to the rich, even if a wealthy patron gave the city a million dollars, none would go to poor farmers or laborers, widows or orphans, or most merchants. Charity was given on the ability of the recipient to bring honor to the giver. In some ways, this hasn’t really changed. Those with the means to give to others (myself included) often want to know the recipient of the gift is “worthy.”  We avoid giving to the “ungrateful poor” who “won’t use it right.” The early church never freed itself from the economic system of patronage. It did, however, drastically change the system so that charity would be based on need. Instead of receiving honor and power for their charity, the wealthy received the prayers of the pious poor. This would *help* secure their salvation. More on this in part three.

Now, what about those Judaic influences of the early Church?

Rhee notes that the early Christian church was also deeply rooted in the Israelite and Jewish teachings. There are quite a few teachings about wealth/poverty in the Hebrew Bible. In the Torah, everything belongs to God and God particularly cares for the poor. Thus, there is a social obligation toward the poor. It really cannot be overstated how weird this would have been to the Greeks and Romans and how important these beliefs remain today. In the Deuteronomic and later wisdom traditions, wealth is seen as God’s gift to the righteous for their obedience and poverty as the consequence of disobedience and sin. However, with the rise of the monarchies and the related wealth gap in Israelite history, we eventually find the prophets denouncing wealth as idolatry and the means by which people obtain and retain their wealth as economic and social injustice. 

In the Psalms, even the ones written by King David, the speakers frequently self-identify with the poor and the needy. Identifying as poor and needy extended the concept of poverty to the religious and spiritual level and was done because God particularly cares about the poor. Thus, the poor are the humble, afflicted, oppressed, and the righteous who turn to God. The Old Testament ultimately draws a distinction between the pious poor and the unrighteous rich. Even in the apocalyptic writings the theme of “righteous poor/oppressive rich” will be highlighted by the few, yet glorious examples of the generous rich who fulfill their spiritual mandate by actually caring for the poor. The piety of caring for the poor is an essential religious duty, according to Jewish teaching, and would be carried forward by the early Christian church.

In light of these two dominate influences, the early Christian church sought to live out their faith in the marketplace and in community. Most of Rhee’s book is about how the issues around wealth and poverty wound their way into the life and theology of the New Testament people and early Church. She focused more on how theology is formed, and I want to focus on how theology is lived. Next week, I’ll wrap up with how the early church dealt with wealth and poverty in light of their religious heritage and secular environment. I also want to consider how all this can (should?) be applicable today. 

For now, learning how different and how similar my world is from the early followers brings me closer to them. We are both committed to the Old Testament belief in a God who inclines His ear to the oppressed and expects His people to care for the “least among us.” We still live in a world which largely determines the worth of a person based on their monetary value.  Rhee writes that the wealthy Roman authors 

“presented the urban poor as the idle mob whose grievances and moral defect (such a laziness) led them to crimes, riots, and sedition…[but] they idealized the rural poverty of a peasant farmer…a kind of poverty characterized by an idyllic simple life and ‘unwealth,’ but not deprivation or destitution.  This poverty was praised as the paradigm of good and honest living with the virtues of frugality and self-sufficiency…” (p.21) 

Sounds awfully familiar considering how different the wealthy and poor of the ancient world compares to today.

So here’s the question I’m left with:

As an American middle class woman, I am not (literally) what the Biblical authors talk about when they refer to the rich or the poor. But, if the Bible is God-inspired and relevant for living in God’s world today, how can these ancient words apply to life today?

What questions do you have?

When I started this blog, it was to document and “think out loud” about a transition in my life.  God had been nudging me for years to reconsider my relationship with money.  Finally, in late 2017, it became impossible for me to maintain my denial and avoidance of the problem and continue to ignore God’s pestering.  Writing was to help me see, and ultimately remember, how God was gonna work this transformation and sanctification in me.  I knew I couldn’t just self-help my way to a new relationship with money.  It’s not that I don’t understand how to make a budget or spreadsheet or pay down debt.  It’s not that I need a better grasp on compound interest and investing or planning for the future.  It was (is?) a deeper issue than that.  

I need to know how to answer the question, What is money for?

I mean, obviously money is for buying things – things we need, things we want, things others want and need.  The Bible has A LOT to say about wealth and poverty.  In fact, the internet tells me there’s more than 2,000 verses about money.  Second only to God Himself, the Bible speaks about the poor and money most frequently.  This entire realm of existence — participating in the marketplace — is a big deal to God.  Clearly, how I was dealing with money (which was largely to pretend to ignore it) was not what God wants. The Bible speaks so much about money because our attitude and use of money is fundamentally about our love of God and our love of others. 

Weekly mentorship meetings with my good friend, Samantha, have been helping.  (You can hear an interview with her here.)  I’ve also been reading.  My favorite years were the ones spent studying at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA.  The professors, the classmates, the reading, the assignments all challenged my faith, greatly expanded my knowledge, and deepened my love for and adoration of God.  I experienced immense personal growth and healing at Fuller.  I remember enjoying a class called Wealth & Poverty in the New Testament, taught by Dr. David Downs. He demonstrated the Bible has more than one theme, perhaps as many as 5, in regards to money.  Whereas the Bible can be very uniform and narrow in some of its positions (God as Creator, we can and should pray, work and rest are necessary for everyone), Scripture, at times, paints money as a blessing and reward from God for righteousness and, at other times, is why rich people won’t enter the kingdom of heaven.  I had interpreted Matthew 6:24, “You cannot serve both God and mammon,” to mean focus on God and ignore money. This doesn’t work because we have to use money all the time. We have to engage with it. My question, really, is how to use money correctly?

The Bible doesn’t seem to be consistent in its teachings about money, especially if you cherry pick your verses.  I mean, Proverbs 10:22 reads, “The blessing of the Lord brings wealth, without painful toil for it.” But then there’s James 5:1-3 saying, “Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you. Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire.”  Fun times. 

So, is wealth evidence that God loves you or evidence that you’re going to hell?  And how much money do you have to have to be considered wealthy by God?  Obviously, when it comes to understanding the Bible, context and intention is important.  So I reached out to Dr. Downs (since I have no idea where my notes are – surely in a binder in a box in the garage), and within a day, he sent me his syllabus and an extensive reading list.  Yay!

The first book on the reading list I completed is Loving the Poor, Saving the Rich: Wealth, Poverty, and Early Christian Formation by Helen Rhee. Rhee’s book examines the writings and preaching of the early church during the first three centuries.  This spans the time from when the early church was the home churches of the New Testament, a tiny minority in the vast Greco-Roman empire, through its geographical and numerical growth until the third century when Emperor Constantine legitimized Christianity.  These writings – letters, sermons, apologies – were largely written by the bishops and leaders of the churches.  Leaders like Tertullian in North Africa, and Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Peter of Alexandria, Origen, Ignatius, Eusebius, and their treatises like The Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Thomas, Didache, and Who Is a Rich Man That Is Saved?.  These writings, as well as what would be canonized as the New Testament (which wouldn’t be decided until the 5th century), articulate how the leadership sought to form and protect the church in light of their faith in Jesus, their Jewish heritage and teachings, and their situation in the Greco-Roman society and economy. 

As they waited for Christ’s return, they, like us, had to struggle with how to live out the Great Commandment – to love God, and to love their neighbors and money was a critical issue.  Understanding what the Bible has to say about money means understanding the world in which it was written and interpreted.

For a textbook, it was fascinating and I wanna share with you all the cool things I learned.  I’ve been writing and realized I’m already at 3,000+ words on my shitty first draft and nobody has time for that.  So this is my teaser.  Over the next few weeks, I’m going to share what I got from this book with you in bite size pieces.  I want to know how the early church can help us answer the question, What is money for? 

I joined my local Buy Nothing Group about a year ago, and started serving as the admin for the group about eight months ago.  I kinda love it.  

According to the Buy Nothing Project:   

We offer people a way to give and receive, share, lend, and express gratitude through a worldwide network of hyper-local gift economies in which the true wealth is the web of connections formed between people who are real-life neighbors.

Basically, it’s a Facebook group.  To join, members must be adults and live within the group’s geographic borders in real life.  The borders delineate the hyper-local gift economy.  So the Los Angeles area has 75 Buy Nothing Groups, with several more mapped out and waiting to start.   Each group has anywhere from 20 to over 1,000 members.  Liesl Clark and Rebecca Rockefeller founded the Buy Nothing Project in 2013 in Bainbridge Island, Washington.  Within five years, the founders’ one little gifting economy turned into a worldwide network. Now it spans six continents, 30 countries and 3,500 Facebook groups with over 750,000 members.  (I got these numbers from my regional admin Jaime Rosier.)

The point is to create groups of real life neighbors and then buy nothing.  Obviously people still need to buy some things, like groceries and gas and co-pays.  Still, there’s lots to share, and sharing the abundance that exists within neighborhoods and communities helps eliminate waste.  When I first joined, it just seemed like a great way to get stuff for free and an easy way to donate the things I didn’t want anymore.  Instead of having to drive to the donation center, I could just leave the stuff on the front porch and a neighbor takes it away.

Turns out, it’s so much better than that.  Yes, it is an easy way to get a surprising variety of things for free.  Some of my favorite gifts I’ve received include the bird feeder in our backyard and a Batman cape for my son.  I’ve borrowed costumes for Halloween and snow gear for weekend adventures.  Recently, someone fixed a tear in one of my pants.  We’ve been gifted entire wardrobes for both kids.  I’ve also seen neighbors help completely furnish a nursery and offer rides to pickup bulky items. One guy cleans and repairs rusted tools. People have gifted pet gear, shower hooks, plant cuttings, electronics, and art.  Recently, someone offered cases of just the lids to mason jars.  SEVERAL neighbors responded and received them as gifts.  Who knew so many people would need just the lids?

Members are free to ask for gifts, big and small.  People are free to give or to lend, but there can be no trades or payment of any kind. Gifts are usually things, but they may also be time or talent.  The gift giver may pick, for whatever reason, who receives their gift, unlike most marketplace groups which require things be given to the first commenter.  Most people are both gift-givers and gift-receivers.

I finally got around to offering my group lemons from our super fertile tree. 

A lemon ? haiku
So many lemons
On the big, yellow tree.  Lots.
Do you wants some too?

Let me know if you’d like some lemons ? 
and I’ll split them up and set them out this afternoon. 

I left the post up for a day.  Ten neighbors are coming by to get some lemons.  A couple even wrote me haikus!  

I love lemons too. Please consider me for them. 
Yay for tart lemons!

Lemons lemons yum 
Need some want some got some yum 
Coming for some yum.

Lemons! Lemons, please. Sour, sweet and yummy too. 
Lemons equal bliss.

The Project fundamentally functions on the premise that there exists abundance in every community and it serves to help neighbors connect and tap into that abundance.  It’s the difference between a gift economy and a charity.  The Buy Nothing Project states, “We see no difference between want and need, waste and treasure.”  

This is profound.

The gift economy works because there is abundance and there is need.  Neighbors who give and neighbors who receive are vital to the gift economy.  New life is given to the things one neighbor is done with and another wants and treasures.  It isn’t about getting free stuff, like I thought.  It isn’t about getting rid of the junk I don’t want anymore.  It really is about neighborliness – participating in a community in order to serve others through giving and receiving.  As a result, I’ve noticed a reduction in waste and personal expenses, a connection to my neighbors, and an increasing sense of gratitude and belonging.

Over time, this group has changed how I see my community and how I see things.  Now, when we need or want something – a new dresser, help with homework, beach toys – I check with my Buy Nothing Group first. I consider whether I actually need to own the item.  Does it really have to be “new with tags” and mine for keeps.  When I’m cleaning and decluttering, I think of my neighbors.  I’d hate to let go of this purple lampshade I bought back in college, but didn’t someone just post of picture of their daughter’s room and wouldn’t the lamp just look perfect there?  It makes me so happy when something I no longer have use for goes to someone in town who needs just that thing.  

Of course there are times when community life is not idyllic – the disappointment of not getting picked for a particularly desirable item, neighbors failing to pick up items in a timely manner, or people being rude.  It’s not the norm but it does happen.  Still, it’s one of my favorite places on social media.

Search Facebook to find your local Buy Nothing Group and join.  I’m willing to bet you’ll discover your neighborhood is better than you imagined.  You’ll find gifts and gratitude surround you.

The church we attend often hires me to sing in the choir concerts.  This year, the Christmas concert was Mozart’s version of Handel’s “The Messiah.”  In Mozart’s version, some of the choruses have sections sung by a quartet, instead of the choir.  Normally, I would just be in the choir helping the alto section.  However, this year, the alto soloist, a good friend of mine, asked me to do the quartet portions of the choruses. 

On the Tuesday before the performance, we had our dress rehearsal.  I sat in front with the quartet feeling nervous.  I asked the soprano to confirm we should wear red tops and black bottoms like the choir.  She said no – the quartet should be in gowns and tuxedos and sit at the front for the entirety of the performance.  

Cue: internal panic.  

The soprano suggested a red gown since I would be with the quartet but also with the choir.  The conductor was busy running the rehearsal.  I was busy freaking out.  It was 5 days until the performance, in the middle of the holidays, and now I needed a red gown.  

How am I going to get a new-to-me Christmas red gown, and not spend money?

Quickly I snuck off stage and texted my MOPS (Moms of Preschoolers) leadership group.  We would be meeting the next morning for our holiday party.  Maybe they could help.  Amazingly, one had a red gown she would bring in the morning! 

Ugh.  This picture did not fill me confidence.  Would I look decent?  Would it fit?  I didn’t have time to shop, and honestly, I really didn’t want to buy a new gown for a single performance.  I thanked her and hoped this dress would work.  I ran back onstage.  It was time to rehearse.

In the morning, my daughter and I went to my MOPS leadership Christmas party.  My friend forgot the dress.  I would have to add driving to her home to pick up the dress to my schedule.  Deep breaths.  I can do this.  I mean, my schedule only had a lunch meeting, get my daughter down for a nap, pick up my son from school, teach piano, help with homework, feed the family, follow-up with a friend, and practice my music.  I can totally do this.

It happened to work out perfectly that I had the 30 minutes needed to drive to (and from) her home to get the dress.  She handed it to me and said, it’s a small.  (I am petite, but definitely not a small.) It was, however, a beautiful color of red velvet with a plain scoop neck and long sleeves.  She had tried TWICE to donate it to Goodwill, but Goodwill wasn’t accepting more clothing donations.  The stores were so full of inventory and not enough customers.  She had meant to try again the day before, but had been too busy.  It was mine now and, if it didn’t work, I could try to donate it.  

Was this God’s providence?  Part of why I wanted a new-to-me dress was because there’s already so much stuff in the world.  Surely there would be several red dresses just sitting in closets in the town where I live on the night of the performance.  Now I was holding one, a FREE red gown that even the thrift stores couldn’t take.  Would this work?

That evening, while the kids were putting on pajamas, I finally had time to try it on.  Praise God it fit!  It was a little tight, but I only needed it for one day.  It hugged my body.  Now, this body of mine has made two beautiful children and unabashedly loves cookies, pasta and bread.  Just how much of my shape was this gown highlighting in red velvet??  

I stood before the mirror.  I was not happy with what I saw.  I didn’t feel beautiful.  I felt squishy and itchy.  Then, my daughter saw me.  She ran into the room and stopped. Her mouth dropped open.  “Mama!”  She began petting the dress.  Then, she smiled, hugged me, and ran to the kitchen.  “Dada. Caden.  Come look at mommy!!!”  They all came into the room and gasped.  “You look so beautiful!”  

Maybe they could see something I couldn’t.

I still had a problem.  Several inches needed to be hemmed from the bottom, and I can’t sew.  I texted my friend, a costume designer, to ask for help.  Sadly, she couldn’t do the hem for me, but she did know of a dry cleaners that could do a hem in less than a day.  She said to expect it to cost $25-35.  Not bad.  Not free, but not bad for a hem-in-a-day.

Before I added this expense to my list of things to do, I wanted to make sure the soprano was right.  It took most of the day to confirm I would indeed need the gown.  The performance was now three days away.  So I would add two errands (drop off and pick up) and $35 to my list of things to do on a Friday in December.  Keep breathing.

Milt & Edie’s Dry Cleaning is so incredibly L.A.  It’s open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.  There are 14 tailors on the premises and 8 cashier stations.  Large TV screens play overhead to keep you entertained in case, God forbid, you had to wait, and holy cow, even with 8 cashiers, I had to wait a few minutes.  Also, they had free popcorn, cookies, and coffee.  They have a floor manager to help customers find their stations and bring them welcome gifts.  I’m not even kidding.  

It was kind of an amazing experience, especially considering it was just a visit to the dry cleaners.  It would have remained a thrilling experience except I discovered the job would cost $50.  Ouch.  I could have bought a new dress for that amount.  I begrudgingly left the dress to be hemmed and paid the $50.  

I was bummed.  My goal had been to use a new-to-me dress, which God had provided pretty quickly.  But my goal had also been to not spend money.  I didn’t have the time or the energy to find another option.  Was $50 my fine for not knowing how to sew or for not being taller?  As I thought about it over the next day, I began to feel less depressed about the cost.  Instead of spending time and energy searching stores for a new gown I would wear once, I would spend $50 to give a used dress a new life, and pay a skilled worker well.  She did great work. There’s actually a lot to be glad for in that.  

Will it always be so difficult to use pre-owned stuff?  Is it always going to be expensive to get things done last minute?  I don’t know, but I have to say, overall, this was a good experience, especially considering I had such a specific need.  I mean I couldn’t just borrow a dress; it had to be a gown, Christmas red, size 8 petite, and had to be procured within 4 days during the busiest season of the year.  That’s a tall order.  In filling it, though, I helped a friend get rid of a dress she didn’t want.  I got to experience the only-in-L.A Milt & Edie dry cleaners, which was a hoot.  Plus, I didn’t have to go to a clothing store in December, and deal with racks of clothes, and fitting rooms, and lines.  I mean, I’m not sure it can be overstated how wonderful it is to find what you need without having to deal with crowds or advertising.

In the end, the concert went well and the dress was a hit!  I’m calling this a success.

Hi. I’m Alicia.  I’m a white, suburban mom in southern California.  Certainly my husband and I are a team working together to run the house and raise the kids, but I’m the keeper of the calendar, the chauffeur, the emotional support coach, the buyer of all the things, and the cook.  In an effort to keep my sanity as a mostly stay-at-home parent, I tend to be a bit of a compulsive planner and stick closely to my carefully crafted schedule.  You know, the schedule that means everyone gets to work and school, but also fed at regular intervals and enough sleep so as to minimize  tantrums, meltdowns, and general melee.  I love being with people, and getting things done, but at the end of the day, I want a hot cup of tea, some chocolate and a good book. My life is beautiful.  It’s filled with loving my husband, raising our two kids, going to church, making music, and spending money.  It’s this last part – the money part – well, and the church part, that inspired me to start this blog.  I want to know:

How can money draw me closer to God?  

Money is a huge source of stress for me.  Sometimes it seems like a blessing, a way to bring beauty and delight into our lives, but mostly, it is a responsibility.  A worldly thing that threatens to lure me from the God of the widow, orphan, immigrant, and poor.  Participating in the market economy is unavoidable and I have so many questions on how to do that ethically and spiritually.  I spend money.  Every. Day.  Daily I must choose what to buy, where to buy, when to buy, who to pay, how to pay, and what not to get.  I buy food, clothes, gas, gifts, and treats.  I support the church, the schools, and charitable organizations.  I buy books, movies, pay for admission and activities and order supplies.  I pay the mechanic and the plumber, I pay our rent and the housekeeper.  My husband, thank God, pays the bills, keeps all accounts current, and puts money in savings.  But what if this entire part of life – the marketplace – can be another way to actually draw nearer to God, another way to experience God’s presence and grace?  What if money, not just a tithe, but all of it, could be a way to love God and love others?

This blog is about what I learn along the way to making this happen.  I expect this journey to take awhile and, at times, be uncomfortable and disorienting.  It certainly has been so far.  But I’m determined to see this through, to be changed.  Because if I know Jesus at all, I know He cares about this and that, in the end, I will be free.  There will be victories along the way, and mistakes, but peace will be my reward.