I love reading Wendell Berry. I cannot think of anyone more prescient or more prophetic, even if my friend Adam once brushed him off saying, "Oh yes, the one who wants to call us back to agrarianism. How quaint."
But Berry possesses a keen wisdom, which stands out shockingly against the vapidness of our culture. In what is probably his most well-known collection of essays,
Sex, Economy, Freedom and Community, he writes a prophetic indictment of the Christian church, accusing it of conniving in the murder of the creation it was intended to steward. He writes
Despite protests to the contrary, modern Christianity has become willy-nilly the religion of the state and the economic status quo. Because it has been so exclusively dedicated to incanting anemic souls into Heaven, it has been made the tool of much earthly villainy. It has, for the most part, stood silently by while a predatory economy has ravaged the world, destroyed its natural beauty and health, divided and plundered its human communities and households. It has flown the flag and chanted the slogans of empire. It has assumed with economists that "economic forces" automatically work for good and has assumed with the industrialists and militarists that technology determines history. It has assumed with almost everybody that "progress" is good... It has admired Caesar and comforted him in his depredations and faults. But in its de facto alliance with Caesar, Christianity connives directly in the murder of Creation.
Since I could not put the situation any more eloquently or succinctly than Berry (or draw on a reputation as well-deserved as Wendell Berry's), I will not expand on his indictment, except to ask, how can anyone argue with this? How can anyone observe the church, and not conclude that we have been far too accomodating to a life-strangling, dead-end culture, or system of cultures?
I don't necessarily want to have the argument, mind you. I just wonder what would make anyone argue with Wendell Berry here.
I have a theory, but I'll keep it to myself unless pressed for it. What do you think would prompt someone to argue against this statement?
-NDSR
Comments (22)
I can't argue against his statement.
@TheGreatBout - Added a final question. Check it out.
what would prompt someone to argue? the remnants of the ideology behind historical imperialism. love of money, comfort, brand names. an interestingly christianized take on karma, namely that you deserve what you have or don't have, if you're poor it's because you don't work hard enough, if you're wealthy or even just comfortable you're clearly doing the right thing.
also, a bottom-line type education. it seems to me that people who at least have decent exposure to the humanities are more likely to care, to see the web of damage. anthropology and sociology classes in particular, as they make a point to trace and study the connections, the integration of cultural elements.
and sometimes, i have witnessed this in a few people, just a sheer unwillingness to be responsible, or to admit such possibilities into their worldview.
@SirNickDon - It could be many things. Predominantly I would suggest that people are afraid to admit the errors of Christendom but I only say that because I believe most people who want to defend the Bride of Christ don't really know who she is or is suppose to be and in their confusion and fear they have this strange idea that what they are clinging to must be good. It's hard for many to confess the true identity of the Church and give in to being a part of that community authentically because it costs so much. It requires confession of truth, changing the way one is as a whole person (which includes how they live their life decision by decision) and giving in to a strange and unwordly kingdom.
The "Christianity" that many cling to has to be strong (like military), and pure (like government). That form of Christianity needs defending, because it is really weak and shallow. The kingdom of G-D needs no defending and is much scarier even if it is full of goodness. It's hard to see sometimes.
@TheGreatBout - That's an insightful thought. I think you're right especially that Christians want to defend the church, whatever her form, because they don't know what the church really is. It's a problem of eccesiology. I'm sure a lot of Christians see me as an enemy or provoker for that reason, whereas I see myself defending the church from deformity.
@TheGreatBout - @SirNickDon - This may not be the place for this, but are you unique in your church or do most of the people in your congregations share your views?
@soy_esteban - We graduated from the same Christian university. Travis has a pastoral ministry degree, I believe, and I double-majored in Christian ministry and English. We both minored in Bible/theology. I'd say we're not part of the majority mindset, either in our school or our church group, but we're not lone voices, either. Church of God (Anderson) is a tradition particularly well-suited to the issues that are most important to us, and at times has held nonviolence (or at least nonparticipation in the military) and communalism as a majority stance. At the same time, ChoG has never been comfortable with doctrines, claiming (provocatively) that "the Bible is our only creed."
I'll let Travis answer for his specific congregation, but I'm more or less all alone in my congregation.
@SirNickDon - Gotcha. I understand the motto, "The Bible is our Creed." I'm a new arrival to the Disciples of Christ, by way of the local church I attend/pastor, which has the similar saying of "No Creed but Christ/the Bible."
@soy_esteban - Sorry to butt in, but I'm a member of a Church of Christ/Christian Church. The DoC and CoC share the same history as part of the Restoration Movement. So, ahh, hey. 8D
@stuartandabby - Hello. You'll probably catch me writing about the DoC in the near future. I'm becoming more and more familiar with it...some good and some bad, as with everything.
I choose not to argue >*<
who's arguing against it and what are they saying?
I think part of it has to do with the rejection against the ancient prohibitions against usury, and the type of economic system that it eventually led to. I'm not going to argue against the statement though, I agree that too many Christians stand by and ignore their Christian obligations...
I still hold by my position that he is a quaint agrarian, but as quaint agrarians go, he's the best since Jefferson.
-A. Rust
@soy_esteban - ND said it pretty well. I'd quote the the late John Lennon in saying "You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." In all the congregations I've been a part of I have never been a part of the majority with a lot of my stances (at least the ones I write about), but I have rarely been completely alone. Right now I am part of a nondenominational congregation that has a few differing views from me (particularly in women in ministry and divorce/remarriage) but they are more peaceful and less empirical than some other congregations I've been a part of (but I think that's more of a Pacific NW thing than a commitment to G-D thing).
@soy_esteban - not wanting to support worldly empires (whether it be their nation, money, or whatever else). We speak a lot about it actually.
@TheGreatBout - Yes, and I appreciate it. I'm in the same boat. In my church there are many who do not appreciate it. Keep writing and keep having the conversations in your church, that's where it is needed the most.
@TheGreatBout - I believe the word you're looking for is "imperial," as in "Imperial stout" or "Imperial Star Destroyer."
@SirNickDon - Yeah. You're right. Good call. lol My congregation is NOT in favor of star destroyers.
I think someone could argue against that statement with a few (or many) positive things about the church. The church isn't all bad and corrupt. People are sinful and won't be perfect, and I think our churches reflect that. But God does do good things in our churches.
Ei, bumped post?