Another dimension of the Eucharist is what it says about time. After serving the bread Jesus said, “…do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). Remembrance is something that takes place not in our minds, as we usually understand it, it is not something I can quite do still and in solitude. This kind of remembrance happens with our hands and with our bodies. It happens in us as the very real bread and the very real drink happen in our very real bodies, brought together as a body. Remembrance happens in your stomach, in your gut, not in your head. We are not just recalling the suffering of Christ but we are calling it out of the past and into the present. We remember as a way of saying, together with those who need bread regardless of who they are, together with the poor and the oppressed, in solidarity with beaten and crucified people, “what has happened to Christ is happening to us.” Just as Israel took the passover meal as a way of entering into solidarity with the liberated slaves of Egypt, the church which is the new Israel takes Christ’s body and blood, consuming and being consumed, as a way of entering into solidarity with the crucified Christ who shared and shares his identity with the “least of these.”

At the same time that we are calling the past out and into the present we also call the future into the present. After serving the cup Jesus said, “I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” As we eat and drink in solidarity with the crucified Christ saying, “what has happened to Christ is happening to us,” we are not only calling the past into the present but we are calling the future into the present–anticipating the day, as though it were now, that Christ drinks with us. We are calling the future into the present, insisting on a future when all will eat, drink, and live while denying a future–the Empire’s future–where death and decay are the inevitable and unavoidable end. We call Christ’s future into our present, with feet grounded in the suffering of Christ, proclaiming and anticipating with our hands the day when Christ will drink again from the fruit of the vine in his father’s kingdom, when “new wine will drip from the mountains” (Amos 9), when all will eat and bread will not be withheld. We become, in our freedom and in our openness in the body of Christ, the future here and now. We become the foretaste of God’s kingdom. in the Eucharist, we are now what we imagine the world can be.

The great and profound claim about time, which the Eucharist makes yet which so many Christian traditions miss, is that waiting is not on the agenda. Time is not governed by what must be but in the Eucharist it is governed by what can be. We do not have to wait for eternal life to happen in the future, giving in to cynicism and despair in our waiting. Instead we can call both future and past into the present, making this place the thin space in which heaven meets earth.

“The only way to live in any true security is to live so close to the bottom that when you fall you do not have far to drop, you do not have much to lose.” -Dorthy Day

This quote is so very pertinent to my life right now…why am I trying to climb? Why am I so concerned with my own security? Simplicity, until recently, has been little more to me than an idea. I have been so concerned with my financial situation that I have placed “being responsible” over following Christ. Though my situation is very different from “climbing the corporate ladder” or trying to “get ahead,” there is a very real sense that I am perusing security and it has taken up residence in my mind and has begun to transform my mind without my permission.

I think I see why so many people go to college and build a very noble value system only to abandon it for the “real world.” I see why people lose sight of the things that are really important to them. It’s as though they learn truth and beauty and then they enter into this strange new world where those things are seen as unrealistic. They don’t really know what they’re doing in this world so they just listen to the people around them who think they’ve got it figured out. They hear the voices that say, “taking care of the poor is ok, but you’ve got to take care of yourself” and since they feel a little lost they readily accept any advice they can get, slowly conforming to the patterns of this world. The voices around them take their minds and their imagination captive and they exchange truth and beauty for cynicism and complacency.

“I just found out there’s no such thing as the real world, Just a lie you’ve got to rise above” -John Mayer from the song No Such Thing

I have only recently entered this world and all the ideas I have about living simply and creatively seeking God’s Kingdom above security, wealth, and comfort have slowly begun to seem impractical and out of reach. Thus Romans 12 has taken on new meaning for me.

“Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”

If we do not seek transformation from Christ, if we do not take Christ as our example and take that example seriously to the most serious level, then we will be transformed by the world with or without our permission. You see, it’s quite impossible to discern God’s good, pleasing, and perfect will if money and comfort take up residence in our minds because God’s will has literally nothing to do with those things. In our confusion and in our vulnerability our love for others dims and our concern for trying to “make it” in this world brightens. Seeking first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness/Justice (Matthew 6:33) means not working for “the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life” (John 6:26-27). Seeking Christ, seeking to be transformed by the renewing of mind means selling all we have, selling out on our concern for self, selling… if only to get them out of our minds… our values for wealth and comfort. Following Christ means giving up on worrying about tomorrow for tomorrow has enough trouble of it’s own (Matthew 6:34). Following Jesus means remembering that “we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it” (1 Timothy 6:7). Is not following Jesus about emptying yourself of selfishness?

“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter— when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?” (Isaiah 58:6-7).

Following Jesus and seeking first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness means trusting and praising “God from whom all blessings flow” (this is why we sing the song after we give offerings and tithes) rather than trusting and praising the advise of the world from which only counterfeit blessing flows. Seeking this God’s kingdom means actually taking the imagination of God and the simplicity of Jesus Christ into the strangeness of the “real world” just as folks like Saint Francis, John Wesley, Mother Teresa, and Shane Claiborne have done throughout our family history… and it means creatively doing so in whatever capacity and in whatever setting we may find ourselves.

I feel called today to rediscover the passion I have not yet completely lost and to start again now in seeking first the Kingdom of God in all its simplicity and peace.

“But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Timothy 6:6-10)

First, Driscoll says this about the “calling” or “courting” system of the last century:

The major downside of calling [courting during the 19th century] was the expense, which made it impossible for many people in the middle and lower classes. They simply could not afford a sitting room or parlor designated for calling, complete with a piano, along with formal attire to wear and specific food to eat (p. 181).

Driscoll then talks about how the world has “changed” so much saying:

This [the car] altered the nature of male-female pursuit so that the best men were those with the most money (symbolized by which kind of car they drove) and therefore the most able to afford the nicest dates, and the most prized women were the most outwardly beautiful and sexual who could serve as the best trophy (p. 182).

I don’t know if I’m the only one who noticed this glaring inconsistency in Driscoll’s writing.  I could understand how this might be missed in one of his fast-paced sermons (the man is a smooth-talker and he does it a million miles a minute with no notes), but in print it seems that in the courting age, those with money were given preference in the courting system, and in the automobile age those with money to buy automobiles were given prefence.  The story seems to be exactly the same: preferential treatment for the rich in our dating social systems.  Those without cars or those without money in the previous system are left out of the accepted dating or courting norms of their culture.

Driscoll – read your own words – nothing has changed.

He then talks about how cohabitation is now a huge problem in the United States jumping from 1 million cohabitators in 1978 to 5 million in 2008.  He uses this evidence to say that now the   “expectation is that they will cohabit prior to marriage.”  Let’s ACTUALLY look at the statistics: taking into account population inflation that means the percent of cohabitators in the United States has changed from 0.8% of the population to 3.3% in the last 40 YEARS.  In other words, less than 4% of the population cohabits before marriage.  This surely does not lend itself to the idea that people are “expected” to cohabitat before marriage.  The statistics, in fact, still say exactly the opposite.

He does make the point that a quarter of women 25-39 cohabitat before marriage, but this STILL means that the majority (75%) do NOT cohabitat before marriage.  Which STILL does not establish an “expectation.”

Using his expectations, he then makes the case that:

“Virtually all research on the topic has determined that the chances of divorce ending a marriage that was preceded by cohabitation are significantly greater than for a marriage that was not preceded by cohabitation.”

Again, he seems to ignore the same statistics that young [often sex-crazed Christians] couples in their early twenties [who can't wait any longer or are 'burning with passion'] are also more likely to divorced than those who get married later.

What am I trying to say?  Basically, I am asking that those like Driscoll would stop using statistics to “prove” his points.  Statistics are complicated and the general public is often duped into believing all sorts of false things based on the idea that the “statistics” prove the point.

What else am I trying to say?  Basically, that Driscoll and others should address some of the root points of our societies obsession with sexual relationships.  He bemoans the move away from the “calling” system (which, he admits, was bent towards the conveniences and the excesses of the rich with their parlors and free time).  What can Driscoll say to what we might call “the working poor” with kids who can’t have that kind of supervision because both parents work full-time?

The same issues that Driscoll talks about as “modern” are rife in the literature of former arenas.  Just read Thomas Hardy or Jane Austen to find that many of these same social problems were alive and well back then in Driscoll’s ‘good old days.’  What issues am I talking about?

Here are some deep-issues that need to be addressed which are not at all addressed in Driscoll’s work:

1. Automobiles: Driscoll has done a good job of noting one of the root problems that has hampered our family life in the last century, but he doesn’t flesh the point out.  Why do adolscents in our culture feel the need to have a car (sometimes taking on a level of debt that takes them years to pay back)?  Why do adolescents feel the need to buy new cars every few years?  I know of people who are 23 and have already owned four cars in since age 18.
2. Family:  How do we reunite the family in a way that they are involved in the dating system in a way that does not show prefential treatment to the rich?  How do we make sure that the ‘working poor’ are involved in the conversation?  How to we restore proper family relationships?

There are other issues here too, but I feel that Driscoll has spent too much time in his second “misconception” that he has misguided his audience into thinking there is some “problem” without ever addressing the root causes.

One thing that we have not yet look at is the market anomalies within the “perfect” system of capitalism. Why do people consume at rates higher than they need to? Why do people sometimes go for the more lavish option when another option is just as good? Thorstein Veblen began noticing what he referred to as “conspicuous consumption” beginning to arise in nineteenth century Europe where middle to upper class citizens were buying things simply to show class and status. Because they had more money than they needed to simply subsist, they began to buy things they really didn’t need because certain items began a symbol of socioeconomic status. This begin to offset the “balance” of capitalism because people start doing things like building bigger houses simply because they can.

A good fictional example of this is found in The Great Gatsby. The main character Nick is living earlier in the 1920s and is living out in a rich area of New York City. Nick is introduced to a man who throws lavish parties named Gatsby. The long and short of it is, Gatsby simply has a lot of money and likes to throw huge extravagant parties, and it is, to an extent, a social symbol. There is a certain amount of mysterious surrounding him, but Nick, how is also the narrator says this about Gatsby:

“The truth was that Jay Gatsby, of West Egg, Long Island, sprang from his Platonic conception of himself. He was a son of God-a phrase which, if it means anything, means just that-and he must be about His Father’s business, the service of a vast, vulgar, and meretricious beauty. So he invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen year old boy would be likely to invent, and to this conception he was faithful to the end.”

In a kind of “self-created” identity, Gatsby has “invented” the person whom he wants to be. Because he has money he is able to sell this identity to those who share in this identity. What does this say about Gatsby’s business skills or his ability to make more money? It says nothing at all. The ideas behind the book are that this “conspicuous consumption” that takes place in the West Egg where Gatsby lives is a self-constructed “platonic conception.” None of these people really needed the things they had, but they still had them nonetheless. They could have lived in smaller houses, but they chose to live in bigger houses simply because they could. This is, in a nutshell, the idea behind conspicuous consumption—buying more than what you need simply because you can.

I have also written at length about the economic decisions that face Christians. How can we prophetically deal with conspicious consumption in a prophetic way with the people in our churches? In the American church, we sometimes forget to realize that economics and spirituality are always tied up in the same dimension. We should not try to seperate the two.

This leaves me with some major questions that I want to pursue in future posts. Perhaps my readers can give some feedback to help formulate my thoughts:

1. Should Christians care about conspicious consumption?
2. Is the church spending too much money on luxuries? If so, what in your mind constitutes a luxury?
3. If Christianity is a viable option in America, should it endorse the capitalism of its nation? Why or why not? Make sure you understand the nature of capitalism before answering that question.

The suburbs are a strange place, not least of which is the idea of a grassy yard.  Much of the US, especially in urban areas, does not have the luxury of such a place.  What is my suggestion here?  Get rid of them!  They are a waste of money and time.  It is estimated that 10 gallons of water a day is used to water a lawn.  In a church of 62 families that is 620 gallons of water a day used to water the communities lawns.  In a year that is over 226,000 gallons of water used for grass.  Instead of using that water on grass, put it into barrels and store them in the backyard in case of an emergency where the city water is turned off.

Replace the grass with something that doesn’t require watering like dirt, cement, or some other innovative idea.  The yard doesn’t need grass in order to be considered “pretty” or “beautiful.”  We simply need to think of better ways to use our space.  If you feel that you must have something in the backyard, perhaps you could read a book or two on growing vegetables, pulling up the grass, and planting a few rows where you grow vegetables or fruit. Use these fruits and vegetables to sell at church fundraisers and for nice fresh home-cooked meals.

Rather than investing in individual yard, invest in community parks where all children can come to play together in a communal fashion.  This will promote neighborhood community, it will save money on individual water bills, and it will help conserve water in case of a crisis (in California the expected drought season is already cause for alarm).

Nine: Drink more water

If number eight and nine seem contradictory, they are not.  This is simply an economic choice that must be made in every household.  There is a slight problem to me when the fridge is filled with soda, fruit juice, iced tea, and all sorts of sugary drinks.  The amount of money spent on these is not only unhealthy but costly.  If a family is consuming a 24 pack of soda every two weeks, you are spending a lot of money on drinks that are noticeably unhealthy.  Teach your children instead, to grow up drinking water and other healthy drinks like milk.  Do not allow them to have soda, fruit drinks, or any other sugary drinks.  Teach them instead to get their sugar from proper places like fruit.  This is simple, but it could save upwards of $500 a year.

Ten:  Get involved

There are so many people who simply say, “What can I do?”  Time really is a valuable resource, and if you are using it inefficiently, you need to consider how one might use it more efficiently.  Get involved somewhere instead of spending two or three hours watching TV.

In her book Altas Shrugged, Ayn Rand deals heavily with the concept of rent-seeking activity. There is in chapter three a moment where a few men are discussing the economy. In the book Orren Boyle argues that it is not fair that a company run by Hank Rearden should own iron mines and also make the best steel. As long as Rearden owns they mine, he will make profit because he can cut out all the middle men in regards to oil. One of his friends, Jim Taggert agree with him and decides that it is time for Washington to do something about it. Taggert believes he can use his influence to take the mines out of the hands of Rearden. Within the complex exchange, Paul Larkin argues that if he is given the mines from Rearden he can turn around and give the iron right back to Boyle. But why is Jim willing to do such a thing—wasting his own time and possibly the few government favors he has in his pocket? In return, Jim wants Paul to work with his own influence in the railroad industry to cut out one of Jim’s competitors in Colorado named Dan Conway. It is the twisted hand of capitalism at its best.

One of the main characters, Dagny, is present at the next meeting of “the national alliance of railroads” when a proposal comes through that suggests a majority vote will decide all major decisions for the companies from this point forward. Each company will have to subordinate itself to the national alliance in order to decrease competition among all the companies. This is really the way that Jim and the others are attempting to put Dan Conway and his Colorado line out of business. When Dagny hears about this she is very upset (even though she is Jim’s brother and is working as his competitor). She deplores this type of “rent-seeking activity” as giving her and her brother’s company an unfair advantage in the free market. She urges Dan to fight, but he is too tired and is getting ready to retire.

Such activity is rent-seeking because it is successful in changing the surplus of the market in Colorado from Dan Conway’s company. This is not, however, by means an ethical way of going about business. The only voice of conscience, it appears, is Dagny. In the midst of all the politics, she is the only one who wants to play purely capitalistically. For instance, while Jim thinks it is not “fair” for Rearden to own all the mines, Dagny simply accepts the fact that he owns the mines and is willing to pay the best price on the market to the man who has worked the hardest and most efficiently. Jim would rather pay for steel from Boyle because he is the little guy, and he seems to fears Rearden. But is Rearden being unfair? Did he not simply acquire the mines and build the best steel on the market? Such questions make us think that the real problem is not capitalism, but politics.

And this also seems to be the real premise of the author as well. For the author, the problem is not capitalism, but backroom dealing that actually hinders capitalism from really taking place. When capitalism is working perfectly, we will see all people working as hard as possible in the areas where they excel. If one person is particularly good at theology, they must work as hard as they can at being a pastor. If one is good at building houses, he should become an architect or a construction worker. While being a construction worker may not make as much money as an architect, if you love doing it (working with your hands, building things, etc.) and you work hard it, your boss should theoretically give you raises, and eventually you might even own a construction company. Rand’s argument is that you must work hard for it. Rand’s argument is that nations that are suffering are probably suffering because the government is trying to do too much.

Just some food for thought.

Five:  If needed, Christians should throw away credit cards AND Debit Cards

America’s consumerist society creates thousands of dollars in “electronic money” every day of illusory money.  Christians who struggle with impulsive buying habits should destroy both their Credit and Debit cards.  Thus, we have to plan out how much money we want to spend, go to the bank and get the money during the regular business hours, and we have a limited supply of money to meet our sometimes unlimited demand.  Consider that such a move would also help to get rid of the rampant individualism we see behind “our” money.  Rather than going to a machine to get money, we have to actually talk to a bank employee, perhaps talk to people as we stand in line, and actually go inside to pay for our gasoline.  We will more and more opportunities to come out of our individualistic bubble if we get rid of our cards.  Furthermore, if we do not have a debit card we cannot make impulsive late night trips to places we have no money for.

This also deals with the compulsive need for “borrowing” money from credit companies who already know the way the system works.  We are projecting that we will have money in the future, but Jesus clearly reminds us to worry about tomorrow when it comes.  What about loans?  Should Christians then take loans to buy a house?  Careful consideration must take place when looking at homes.  I am not qualified as an economist to talk on such issues.

Six: Christians should stay AWAY from the iPod

Technology is not the evil being addressed here, but iPods are not a good deal for for a number of reasons.  First, iPods are not the best financial choice for music consumers.  One will not receive the maximum amount of “musical space” for the amount they are spending.  Just look at this site here where a bundle of 500 CD-R (each 700mb) costs only $85.  That is total of 350 gb worth of musical space for $85.  The more bulk one buys them in, the more bang for the buck.  An 80 gb iPod already costs $250.  Simple calculations let us see the better deal.

Some might argue that an iPod compact design and convenience of being able to listen to it anywhere at anytime make it a better deal.  But iPods are also one of the largest propaganda machines for American empire.  The iPod is meant to be an individualistic endeavor where only one person can listen at a time (if you want to spend more money on listening to an iPod communally you must spend at least another $40 to listen in the car, or another $90 on a radio docking station, or at least another $20 on a cable if your stereo has the correct converters).  Another downside to iPods is that parents cannot control the volume levels and thus ear problems result.  Parents have a harder time controlling what their children listen to.  Finally if it breaks, we lose over $200 down the tube right away.  If a CD breaks it costs less than $0.50 to replace.  Christians need to think seriously about issues like this.  Not only are CDs more communal, but they can create a sense of shared identity as we listen to music together.  Music was always meant to be a communal experience.

Seven: Christians should “Go Wireless”

See!  I told you that I am not anti-technology.  Within the context of communal living that we discussed in the last post, going “wireless” is the best option for Christians.  What do I mean by this?  Christians should trash their TV and invest their money into computer technology.  Consider the economic benefits.  TV is a passive activity, and whether or not we realize it, time is as valuable (if not more valuable) than money.  In economics this idea is called “opportunity cost.”  Most people don’t think about the fact that while they are watching TV passively, they could also be cleaning the house, reading a book, talking with one another, serving the church, helping the poor, or a whole host of other activities.  In addition to this, the cost of cable and satellite can be avoided (saving you $50 a month or $600 a year).  You can still rent movies and watch them on the computer.  You can still get the news online and even watch many clips from CNN, Fox News, and other syndicated news sources.  The computer is quickly becoming the new mode of development in the world, and Christians should be taking advantage of it.

As I talked about a while ago, the technology of the internet is flattening the world.  Christians need to be taking advantage of this new medium by investing into the internet our time and resources in order to create a very particular Christian message.  This is already being done to a large extent by bloggers, web-designers, and the like who are attempting to subvert the idea of internet with the very particular message of Jesus Christ.  One idea is to create an online community for your church.  Encourage members of your church to keep blogs where they are able to share their ideas, talk about theology, ask for prayer, and talk to one another.  As a blog community begins, a pastor can send out messages quickly through his own blog, through e-mail, and can use the internet as a sounding board for new ideas and discussion within the church.  This also allows those who have to leave the church for business reasons or family reasons to stay connected to the church body after they have left through reading about the lives of the church members, praying for them, and commenting on their blogs.

The next advantage of Christians becoming an “internet community” is to stay connected to the information of the church at large.  We can quickly receive updates from missionaries in the field, learn about conferences taking place all over America, be involved in blog conferences like the ones taking place on the catholic theologian Balthasar and become part of the church universal.  We can be praying for one another worldwide and whatnot.  All of these things require that Christians become competent with the internet and wireless world.

…more coming soon…

To be clear from the beginning, all of these ideas are, for the most part, purposefully anti-American. The ideas are communistic in nature, but their communistic nature should not suggest the ideas are not economical. Many economists admit that the family structure already caters to a largely communist structure where people take what they need and contribute what they can. These ideas are ways to show how the communist structure fits within a Christian worldview.

Below are the first four decisions I believe American Christians must make.

One: The Practice of Communal Living

Christians should consider communal living where two or three families live under one roof. Let us be clear: this is not an attempt to return to 70s hippie communes, but an economic solution in the face of rising property value. Consider a four bedroom house with two families living inside where one room could be used for one set of parents, one room for another set of parents, one room for girls, and one room for the boys. If each family had three children (let’s say for example 2 boys and four girls), the two boys could share a room (obviously giving up some of their closest space to the girls), and the four girls could share a room. How much does this save? We will use the United States average housing costs rather than my home state of California (where rates are significantly higher than much of the rest of the US). The median cost of a home in the US runs at about $210,000 plus or minus the part of the country you live in. In other words, both families would share half of the savings of the money they would have saved trying to each buy a house independently-a savings of $105,000 per family. It also cuts the mortgage payment in half for both families each month.

Consider a similar situation for a six bedroom house for three families. For the sake of the example, lets say they each have three children (nine children total), with the make up of 3 girls and six boys. We have three bedrooms for the three sets of parents, one room for the girls, and two rooms for the boys (three in each). Think of the wonder of school. When the children come home they can all help each other with homework, they can all do chores, and they will learn self-sacrifice (especially if the house has only two or three bathrooms). What better way to raise children? How much money do you save now? You are saving the cost of two other houses, but you are probably losing about $100,000 to get the extra room and possibly a third bathroom. If the average house cost for all three families was $210,000 the total would have been $630,000 for all three houses, but we are assuming with the added $100,000 that the one house they do buy would cost about $310,000-still a savings of over $106,000 for each family.

Also note that you have free baby-sitting, access to save even more money if you rideshare, a pool together to buy bulk food at COSTCO (plus saving money, if you shop together, of buying the other two COSTCO cards that you would normally cost about $35 a year), you save money on furniture (saving $500 per family on a couch or $100 per family on only one table instead of three), you save money on DSL internet costs (a savings of about $100 a year). The economic benefits of such a move are endless.

If everyone in a small church of 500 paired up with another family-where we average each family consists of about four people (about 125 households)-the costs of mortgages for the 62 families would be cut in half. In other words, the church of 500, where communal living was practiced, could save over $13 million. These ideas could seriously change the financial situation of the American church.

But think even further on the spiritual benefits. You have in your house a set of Christian friends with whom you “do life together.” You have a group of people who are able to keep you accountable in the way you raise your kids, the way you do your taxes, and the way you read the Bible, pray, and meditate on the Spirit of the living God. You have to learn to practice patience when others frustrate you, and you must learn to live practically in “sharing” with one another. Plus the church saves the resources of the two or three people who would try to “create” this small group feeling. Rather than trying to orchestrate such a feeling, the small groups would be the people you are already living with 24/7.

Two: Only One Car Per Household

Christians should consider only having one car per household. The needs for another car are largely individualistic and for convenience. In a two income household one of the two should carpool to work or take public transportation. The idea that we need two cars costs Christian households (depending on the car) anywhere from $10,000-$25,000 that they spend on the car plus the money each month for gas (at least $40 a month), and the cost for annual repairs and oil.

Let us make a conservative estimate about the cost of two cars vs. one car. If we are economical and buy a mid-range car at $15,000 used, we will also have to pay for the oil checks and maintenance about every quarter ($80 a year), we will have to pay for registration of the car each year ($60 a year), we will have to pay for gasoline for the car ($40-80 a month, we will go with $40 to be conservative). If we have the car for five years, we are paying the $15,000 plus an extra $3,000 on gas and maintenance (these estimates are conservative). So if we are not conservative, we will be paying upwards of $20,000 over five years for a second car.

Let us instead consider ride-sharing. If we let the kids car-pool to soccer practice, after-school activities, and if one of the two parents carpool to work, there are expenses to be paid. As good stewards, we should be paying those people who are driving our kids around by paying for half the gas they use while driving our kids. Lets use a very extreme example and say that this costs us $50 a month-$25 for our carpool to work and $25 for the carpooling for our kids. This will come out to $3000 over five years. In other words, we will save at least $17,000 over five years in a family with only one car per household.

Three: Practicing communal living with neighbors.

Notice above how we suggested that communal living can save money when one only has to buy one table instead of three or one cabinet instead of three. Now we turn to the neighborhoods in which we live. For instance, not everyone in a neighborhood needs to own a vacuum. If a group of ten neighbors were to share a vacuum cleaner, that would not only save the cost on that one vacuum cleaner ($100 or upwards for a good one), but it would save the other nine families the cost of buying their vacuum cleaner (a total community savings of $900). This can also be true for lawnmowers, weed-wackers, tool sets, refrigerators, toys, and other such things.

Let us be clear, communal neighborhoods pose the biggest challenge of all ten suggestions to actually carry out in real life because it doesn’t depend on us. Our neighbors would also have to consent to such a plan, and we cannot force others to conform to our plans. Other nations-namely France and Russia-tried to have such revolutions where everyone was forced to be equal and share, but these revolutions largely failed to garner popular support. The Christian way never forces the state to “agree” with our practices, but provides an alternative expression to state politics in order to show a truly revolutionary way of living in the way of Jesus.

We embody Christ when we move into a new neighborhood and attempt to start such a communal attitude in our neighborhood. This may mean gathering neighborhood support and teaching others in the neighborhood how to sell their lawnmower or tool sets on craigslist in order that ten or fifteen neighbors share the best toolset amongst themselves (a good toolset, by the way, costs hundreds of dollars). This will depend on your neighborhood’s willingness to live communally, and the American empire has to a large extent already indoctrinated us to believe that we all need our “own” set of tools, lawnmowers, and toys. But we need to do our best to provide an alternative for our neighbors from a kingdom mindset. This alternative, although it may not be embraced by all, will provide a real and tangible way for the sharing nature of the Eucharist to break out of the four walls of the church and embody our lives in the here and now.

Four: A Practice of Giving Graciously to the Church

I have outlined the first three options above because the moment I begin talking about “giving graciously” to the church the response often is, “I don’t have enough to even meet my own needs, let alone the church.” Hopefully as we have considered the three options above, we see that communal living presents a better way to live. We are often just too individualistic to see it. Another excuse: “Well, I give to other organizations and missionaries and it is already more than ten percent, so I don’t give to my church. They already have enough money.”

These statements says two things. First, it suggests that we care more about organizations in other places than we do about the people in our community. Do we care about our pastor’s well-being? Do we not realize that he depends on the money from the offertory to keep his family fed? Second, it says something about where the church gives their money. Should we support churches using their money to build bigger parking lots and sanctuaries? ***Side-note: There would be no trouble with parking if families would carpool and singles could be picked by families with extra space in their cars. Churches should really consider this.*** Churches need to make sure they are constantly giving the money back to where it belongs: the least of these, the orphans, the widows, and those who simply cannot repay them. We need to make sure we are a light to the cities we are in. If individual members are more willing to buy into the vision of the church, they will be more willing to give money to the church. In this sense, the church budget should be discussed almost weekly in the church so that members know where their money travels.

In other words, part of the service should consist of the pastor explaining that week where the money in the church had gone. If applicable, pictures or video should be shown as evidence that the money actually went where the church wanted it to go. Such evidence is not always possible (especially since Jesus calls us to do many of our deeds in secret), but there needs to be more accountability on a weekly basis as church money funnels out to the world. Pastors should also be able to theologically explain why the church spends money on certain projects and not on others (i.e. building bigger barns vs. helping the poor). These things will help the church immensely.

…more to come in the near future…