Christian Practice of Frugality
George Bolt
Introduction
Everyone likes to get new things. Some have the financial capabilities to do so very often, while others seldom have the chance. Regardless, the thrill of material goods is present among even the poorest of people. The society of today is one that seems to promote and encourage consumerism. After all, the purchase of material goods can bring one temporary happiness, and increased consumerism leads to a healthy economy. This raises a few questions for the present day consumer. Is frugality something worth putting into practice beyond the financial reasons? Obviously, if one cannot afford to make certain purchases then it is in their best interest to be frugal. But do those who are well-off have an obligation to spend their money in a controlled fashion? And how can the rich justify consuming at a rate that is not possible for the rest of the world? These questions might be answered simply by someone who thinks they have no moral or ethical obligation with the way that they spend their money, however, that is not the case for the present day Christian. Because of ecological obligations and Christian ethical principles, a Christian should not only uphold frugality as a financial principle, but as a virtue with intrinsic value as well.
In order to tackle whether or not frugality is a virtue that ought to be practiced, one must first understand what frugality means. Frugality, for the purposes of this essay, should be understood as a combination of moderation, cost-effectiveness, efficient usage, and contentment.¹ This definition describes frugality in the basic sense that it is essentially a measurable thriftiness. A number of theologians and economists have given their insights about what frugality is and why or why not it ought to be pursued, but before examining that, one should examine where frugality comes from.
Background
Frugality is often considered the positive virtue on the opposite end of the spectrum apart from material consumption, or greed. While the argument can be made that the longing for and hoarding of good desires could be described as healthy greed, the nature of a love for material consumption is problematic.² However, the truth is that all things need to consume to stay alive.³ The difficulty lies in finding where that consumption becomes too much. The idea of encouraging frugality is not a new trend. Max Weber, in his book The Protostant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, traces the roots of frugality to Calvinism.⁴ John Calvin preached that bringing God glory through productive labor is a good way to live.⁵ This relates to frugality because it puts the emphasis on the work that one does rather than the things that one gets. Abraham Maslow, an American psychologist, argues that the idea of frugality is innate within humans. He says that human beings have a hierarchy of needs, and they provide for them accordingly. Humans value their security and survival more than their social needs. He says that once a reasonable standard of living is achieved, humans will gravitate away from material consumption and towards their self-actualization needs of love, truth and justice.⁶ A Chilean economist named Manfred Max-Neef says that there are exactly nine fundamental human needs, and there are different things that satisfy them. Frugality would be one such thing that satisfies those needs, and material consumption would do the opposite.⁷ Even if frugality is a principle that comes from long ago, or is within all humans, it is clear to see that the society of today in America is one that does not always hold frugality to be extremely important.
At the root of American society is capitalism, and therefore, the encouragement of consumerism. Larry Rasmussen in his book, Economic Anxiety & Christian Faith, talks about how Samuel Adams had a view for American society to be a “Christian Sparta” that was defined by strong discipline and frugality.⁸ This is not the case in present-day America because the rise of capitalism has not allowed for a culture that cultivates the self-denial of material indulgence. Adam Smith, who is considered to be the father of capitalism, talked about how consumption is the sole purpose of all production.⁹ Rasmussen describes three components that replaced frugal ideals with consumerism in America. The first is the end of WWII.¹⁰ The aftermath of WWII left the American economy flourishing, and created a societal change in ideals. No longer were one’s biggest worries in life the war or the Great Depression, so people were able to settle down and enjoy more material pleasures than before. The second factor that led to increased consumerism was the American view of prosperity.¹¹ If one was very prosperous and having financial success then it was seen as a result of divine favor or moral accomplishment. The third factor has to do with the viewpoint of poverty.¹² Poverty was seen as a mark of moral depravity and failure. Even if one wasn’t impoverished then it would have been shameful to live a frugal life. Because of the United States’ focus on the growth of their economy, capitalism replaced the Protestant ethical goal of giving glory to God through one’s work with a motivation for material worth.¹³ There are specific reasons that would suggest that living a frugal life would yield negative outcomes. For example, Paul Ekins describes how frugality could potentially increase unemployment.¹⁴ If frugality were to be widely practiced, then the demand for goods would go down and could put many people out of jobs. Although this is one reason why perhaps frugality should not be encouraged, many would still advocate for a push back against increased material consumption.
Opinions about the Nature of Frugality
After grasping where the idea of frugality comes from and understanding the societal expectations that contrast it, it is important to look at observations that a few experts on the subject have determined about the nature of frugality. James Nash, one of the first eco- theologians, argued that a culture that promotes consumerism, thus stimulating both envy and greed, can only be fixed by frugality.¹⁵ He says that frugality rejects a “gluttonous indulgence,”¹⁶ and that it is a denial of “vanity and envy” replaced by “an expression of fidelity and relationality.”¹⁷ To Nash, frugality is all about sacrifice. This sacrifice leads to an abundant life because it makes an individual concerned about being more rather than having more. By saying this, Nash is arguing that being frugal has value to the individual, not just humanity.
Nash also makes a point to describe misconceptions of what it means to be frugal.¹⁸ First, while encouraging frugality in the grand scheme of the world is a middle ground in which the rich must reduce and the poor must climb, individuals should not understand it as austerity. It does not require people to share with others in poverty, rather it is a sharing in solidarity to eliminate poverty. Second, frugality should not be seen as a triumph of the flesh. It is not there to make one feel righteous when they are otherwise deprived. Third, being frugal is not a concrete set of rules. The best and most practical way to be frugal is subject to scenario. Finally, Nash wants it to be understood that frugality is not a means to prosperity. Self-inflicted poverty does not lead to divine favor. It should also not be understood that frugality is against prosperity, but instead seeks to redefine prosperity in less consumptive ways.¹⁹
Nash goes further to say that the idea of frugality has two aspects. Not only is it essential to stress-reduced consumption on your own part, but it also assumes an obligation to elevate others who are not as well off.²⁰ Nash’s ultimate claim is that practicing frugality on an individual level is healthy and leads to an abundant life. However, he also claims that for the virtue of frugality to have any great world impact, it would require complete social acceptance which is unlikely.²¹
Maria Antonaccio is a religion professor whose ideas align very closely with that of James Nash. Antonaccio would agree about how when one individual decides to live frugally, they benefit themselves, regardless of whether or not they are helping humanity. She goes further to say how doing so is “an expression of love.”²² The idea behind this lies in the fact that when someone denies themself a good, that thing is now available for another person. This act of love fulfills an individual more so than it would for them to acquire that material good. It’s the same principle as gifts. Often the giver of a gift feels more uplifted than the receiver.
Unlike Nash, Antonaccio points out an idea that counters the idea of frugality. Frugality discourages consumption, but consumption can have some fulfilling applications too. She argues that consumption opens up the avenue of creative self-development. In many cases, when people acquire more material goods or a higher economic standing, they are able to illuminate good aspects of their own natures.²³ Nonetheless, Antonaccio believes that this type of healthy consumption still fits under the umbrella of living frugally.
James Griffin, a preeminent philosopher and professor at the University of Oxford, also wrestled with the question if frugality in and of itself is a virtue. He concluded that frugality should not be considered a virtue if the word “virtue” is to be understood as “a disposition that will carry one through typical trying circumstances in life.”²⁴ This viewpoint is in contrast to that of Nash and Antonaccio. To Griffin, frugality alone has no notable redeeming value to an individual. However, he would not say that practicing frugality is completely useless. He focuses on the opposite of frugality, consumerism. The satisfaction of one’s desires, or chasing material goods, doesn’t necessarily make that person better off or more fulfilled. To describe consumerism he uses the analogy of a treadmill that is chasing something but getting nowhere.²⁵ He says that frugality itself does not yield a better life, but is worthwhile because it prevents the destructive cycle of consumerism. A frugal life is a simple life, and a simple life does not always put one in touch with real redeeming values, but allows one to find those real values easier.²⁶ Griffin’s final claim is that some people get to choose a simple life and it will make them more in touch with some positive values, while others endure an extreme frugality that is “nothing but evil.”²⁷ In this case he is referring to people who are impoverished and says that their struggles don’t necessarily yield any positive values.
There are differing opinions on whether or not frugality has virtuous value to an individual, but most philosophers and economists agree on the benefits of frugality to a community or humanity in general. Charles Birch and John B. Cobb are both theologians and environmentalists who point to some ecological reasons for frugality. They address the issue of poverty alongside looking at the carrying capacity of the earth, also known as how well the earth can sustain human activity.²⁸ They claim that if everyone were to live as middle income Americans do, the world would not have the natural resources to sustain us. Many people believe that if every person below the poverty line were to be elevated to a reasonable standard of living, then all would be well and good with the world. Birch and Cobb argue that this cannot be the solution; it would require those who do consume more to cut back. They quote a swedish economist, G. Adler-Karlsson, who is very extreme and says that no individual should try to increase their own affluence until everyone has their essentials.²⁹ This idea basically reverses the principles of capitalism but Birch and Cobb are not this extreme. Rather, they think the answer lies in encouraging the wealthy to be more frugal. In order for any real noticeable ecological change in the earth to happen it would require a complete societal change. Critics of Birch and Cobb would point out how when the rich work to increase their affluence it opens up more possibility for positive ecological impact through technology. However, they combat this argument by pointing out how technological advances that may potentially help the environmental standing of the earth require the use of a lot of energy, often through fossil fuels. In contrast, being more frugal is a possible solution to the world’s environmental issues that does not have polluting activities. Birch and Cobb say that ultimately, “the technology fix is the technology trap.”³⁰
Frugality in the Bible
As outlined by the preceding authors, there are a number of secular reasons to practice frugality — it is ecological, economically smart, and ultimately fulfilling — but one may now ask how frugality fits into Christianity. A consumerist society is concerned with attaining wealth through material accumulation, but Christians define “wealth” in a different way. Theologian Jay McDaniel says that Christians ought to define wealth as “well-fare, wellbeing, and weal.”³¹ He also says that “wealth is the experiential wellbeing of an individual in community.”³² This means that if Christians can remove their inclinations about wealth in the material sense, they will be able to interact with others better.³³ In order to do this it is important to remember where all things come from, and that is the Lord. It can be easy to forget that when one has an abundance of possessions. An individual’s economic activity is not separate from their relationship with God; it is subject to God’s will and revelation the same as anything else in life.³⁴
These principles of frugality are biblical as well. They can clearly be seen in the life of Jesus Christ. He had no financial wealth, but as said by McDaniel, He was wealthy because He was “in harmony with himself and the word of God.”³⁵ Jesus was the best example of living frugally in the way He identified with the poor and the downtrodden.³⁶ Not only did Jesus live frugally, but He preached it as well. In Luke 18, He speaks of how it can be easier for a camel to inherit the kingdom of God that it can be for a rich person. And He gives the Parable of the Rich Fool in Luke 12. This story warns against coveting material possessions and it aligns very closely with the consumerist behavior of society today. Even after Jesus, the idea of frugality continues on. It is noted that none of Jesus’s disciples took possessions with them to preach after His death. The lives of His servants Paul and Timothy were also extreme examples. The two of them lived and travelled with next to nothing and encouraged others to do so. The list of admirable people who exemplified frugal lifestyles can also be seen through the lives of figures after the Bible time. Some examples include Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., and St. Francis of Assisi, who inspired generations of imitators.³⁷ Ultimately, there are a number of examples of frugality within the Bible and in the lives of important figures, and this increases its importance.
Conclusion
Living frugally might not align with the ideals of society today. In many cases, Christians are called to live by a different standard and not conform to the norms of society. The virtue of frugality is one such case. While the economic and ecological benefits of living frugally can be understood by all people, Christians should hold it in a higher regard. In a Christian household, frugality should not be a virtue that simply sits on the top shelf and collects dust, rather it should be a virtue that is rigorously valued and actively pursued.
Notes:
[1] Nash, James A. “Toward the Revival and Reform of the Subversive Virtue: Frugality.” The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics 15 (1995), 144.
[2] Taylor, Michael H. “On Greed: Toward ‘Concrete and Contemporary Guidance for Christians.’” Ecumenical Review 63, no. 3
[3] Ekins, Paul. “A Subversive Idea.” UNESCO Courier 51, no. 1 (January 1998), 6.
[4]Rasmussen, Larry L. Economic Anxiety & Christian Faith. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1981), 26.
[5] Rasmussen, Economic Anxiety, 27.
[6] Ekins, Subversive, 8.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Rasmussen, Economic Anxiety, 25.
[9] Ekins, Subversive, 6.
[10] Rasmussen, Economic Anxiety, 28.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid., 31.
[14] Ekins, Subversive, 9.
[15] Nash, Revival and Reform, 138.
[16] Ibid., 144.
[17] Ibid., 138.
[18] Ibid., 147.
[19] Nash, Revival and Reform, 148–150.
[20] Ibid., 157.
[21] Ibid., 158.
[22] Antonaccio, Maria. “Asceticism and the Ethics of Consumption.” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 26, no. 1 (2006): 79.
[23] Antonaccio, Consumption Ethics, 96.
[24] Griffin, James. “Is Frugality a Virtue.” UNESCO Courier 51, no. 1 (January 1998): 10. 25 Griffin, Is Frugality a Virtue, 11.
[26] Ibid., 12.
[27] Griffin, Is Frugality a Virtue, 12.
[28] Birch, Charles, John B., Jr. Cobb, Hargrove, Eugene C., and E. O. Painter Printing Company. The Liberation of Life: From the Cell to the Community. Environmental Ethics Books, 1990, 246.
[29] Birch and Cobb, Liberation, 247.
[30] Birch and Cobb, Liberation, 247.
[31] McDaniel, J. “Christianity and the Pursuit of Wealth.” Anglican Theological Review. 69, no. 4 (1987): 356.
[32] McDaniel, Christian Pursuit, 356.
[33] Sider, Ronald J. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger : Moving from Affluence to Generosity. 20th Anniversary Revision. ed. Dallas: Word Pub., 1997, 90.
[34] Sider, Rich Christians, 93.
[35] McDaniel, Christian Pursuit, 357.
[36] Pemberton, Finn, and Finn, Daniel K. Toward a Christian Economic Ethic : Stewardship and Social Power. Minneapolis, Minn.: Winston Press, 1985.
[37] McDaniel, Christian Pursuit, 357.
Bibliography
Antonaccio, Maria. “Asceticism and the Ethics of Consumption.” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 26, no. 1 (2006): 79–96. Accessed February 21, 2020.www.jstor.org/stable/23561498.
Birch, Charles, John B., Jr. Cobb, Hargrove, Eugene C., and E. O. Painter Printing Company. The Liberation of Life: From the Cell to the Community. Environmental Ethics Books, 1990.
Ekins, Paul. “A Subversive Idea.” UNESCO Courier 51, no. 1 (January 1998): 6–9. https://doi.org/https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000110419.locale=en.
Griffin, James. “Is Frugality a Virtue.” UNESCO Courier 51, no. 1 (January 1998): 10.https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bethel.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=125506&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
McDaniel, J. “Christianity and the Pursuit of Wealth.” Anglican Theological Review. 69, no. 4(1987): 349.
Nash, James A. “Toward the Revival and Reform of the Subversive Virtue: Frugality.” The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics 15 (1995): 137–60. Accessed February 21, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/23559675.
Pemberton, Finn, and Finn, Daniel K. Toward a Christian Economic Ethic : Stewardship and Social Power. Minneapolis, Minn.: Winston Press, 1985.
Rasmussen, Larry L. Economic Anxiety & Christian Faith. Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1981.
Sider, Ronald J. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger : Moving from Affluence to Generosity. 20th Anniversary Revision. ed. Dallas: Word Pub., 1997.
Taylor, Michael H. “On Greed: Toward ‘Concrete and Contemporary Guidance for Christians.’” Ecumenical Review 63, no. 3 (October 2011): 295–305. doi:10.1111/j.1758–6623.2011.00122.x.
