John Jensen commented on my Krakatoan output (I'm mainly impressed that anyone could use the word krakatoan in a sentence -- a vocab prize goes to John). But for today, just a short post.
The ailments of children are these -- they get sick all the time. A week and a half ago, Sarah Grace had a throat infection. She then passed it along to Annalise. Yesterday, I woke up and it hurt to swallow and I felt like my body was weighted down with lead -- couldn't sleep last night because my throat hurt so.
Yes, I've succumbed to parenthood -- the little infections of our children get passed on to us in spades. So I took today off and stayed in bed most of the day, drinking green tea (flavored with orange juice). I'm feeling a lot better as of 5:15 -- but I still won't be putting up a major post today. After all -- all men are like grass....
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Crunchy Cons: Food
This chapter of Crunchy Cons has directly changed my behavior. Dreher quite graphically describes the process that some industrialized meat processing plants use in “advanced meat recovery systems”: “taking a beef carcass that’s had most of the cuts taken off of it, and using a blast of high-pressure steam to remove ligaments, tendons, cartilage, spinal cord, every bit of tissue left on the bones – people wouldn’t want to eat it. That goes into hot dogs, luncheon meat, all kinds of processed meats.” (71) Because of that very paragraph, I can no longer eat hotdogs, bologna, chicken nuggets in odd shapes – if I don’t have a pretty good idea that this is an intact cut of meat, I just can’t bring myself to eat it anymore.
Once again, Dreher shouts, begs, wheedles, cajoles, and otherwise provokes us to ask questions about things we take for granted. We eat our fast food, take what the grocery store offers – no questions asked. We act as though we trust them completely to supply inexpensive, healthful, delicious food. I wonder if we gave our food suppliers the kind of scrutiny that we gave to our investment portfolio, how might our decisions be different.
Much of this chapter is taken up with telling the stories of a few organic ranchers – and hearing their voices on why they believe that their product is healthier, tastier, and better than industrial processed meat.
Dreher introduces us to Robert Hutchins, a Rush Limbaugh listening texas rancher who says “…we raise our cattle the natural way, and feed them only what they were designed to eat. They were created only to eat certain things, with their ruminant stomachs: that’s grass and forage They weren’t created to eat grain, so we let them eat what they’re supposed to eat.” (67) But what grabbed me about the story was when Hutchins followed up with this quote: “The real philosophical issue behind why we do what we do, is because we’re Christians…We would be called evangelical Christians, and probably fundamentalists also. We try to align our lives with what we understand from Scripture would be a God-honoring lifestyle.” (67) Here is a man who is working hard to bring his vocation in line with what he sees as scriptural teaching. That really got my attention.
Dreher talks about the Slow Food Movement – begun in Italy to celebrate, encourage, and preserve local traditions of cooking in the face of incursions by McDonald’s and other fast food chains. As the Slow Food Movement grew beyond the bounds of Italy, its proponents realized that they could never succeed by trying to stop McDonald’s and its ilk. Rather, they had to show people why the Slow attitude toward life – esteeming tradition, celebrating particularity in the face of mass culture, and taking time to enjoy life – is more sensible, more fun, and more human.” (63)
He talks about Weston A. Price, a dentist who in the 1930’s began to be concerned about the poor health of his patients – he began to travel to societies that had different eating habits from ours. He traveled the world to explore the connection between diet and dental health. He found that in cultures where there was good dental health, there was an avoidance of highly processed grain and sugars. There was a preference for animal proteins and fats and a preference for homecooked over processed foods. He set up a foundation to promote and further advance the insights found.
As often before, Dreher sometimes gets preachy: “We are told that small scale farming is inefficient – this is true – and that because our factory farms feed the masses, and do so cheaply, we should be satisfied. And that’s a deal that makes sense to nearly all of us: just keep the stuff showing up in produce bins and under cellophane in the supermarket cooler, and keep it relatively cheap, and we’ll ask no questions. But in striking that devil’s bargain, we sign away our responsibility to what’s in that food, how it got there, and what was done to human communities to close the deal. To participate in a system and a way of thinking in which the act of eating is merely a commercial transaction is to sell out our spiritual and cultural patrimony. I understand the free-market reasons why Americans do this. But I don’t understand why it’s called conservative.” (62)
The main point, however, is to get us to ask questions. The industrial food industry does produce lots of cheap and filling food – but they make very few reliable promises about personal health. For years, we accepted partially hydrogenated oils in almost all our processed crackers, breads, and foods. We didn’t know what it was, didn’t bother to ask. Now, doctors are telling us that this artificial preservative is even worse than saturated fat for heart health – but this is after decades of simply trusting the food industry. Now high fructose corn syrup has come into the crosshairs of health researchers – but again, it’s been used for decades without anyone batting an eye.
Dreher posits a very conservative idea – we have to take responsibility for our own health and wellbeing. We need to be stewards of our bodies and what we consume. We cannot abdicate to the food industry the responsibility for selecting the range of foods that we eat. It’s tough to do – it takes us putting ourselves out and doing some research and putting effort into cooking. But, he’s convinced that in the end, it will prove a superior set of choices than mindlessly receiving what is offered us.
Looking forward to your thoughts on food.
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
Index of interesting Links:
Other reviews
* Jonah Goldberg from National Review -- a withering attack (while admitting there's lots of good in the book)
* Kevin Holtsberry from RedState online
* Maxwell Goss of Right Reason gives one of the more balanced critiques I've read.
* The Wall Street Journal's review
* Michael Dougherty giving a reasoned and balanced critique.
Crunchy Con resources
* Atheists, Agnostics, and Conservatives by Amy Welborn – a good view of the difference between faithbased crunchy cons and uberlibertarian agnostic cons
* Joe Carter's Evangelical Outpost on materialism and Jesus Junk
* Russell Kirk Center
* Rod Dreher’s Crunchy Con blog
* The Immaculate Direction a blog that is very crunchy connish
* Cerulean Sanctum’s series relating the book to 21st century Christian life. Very thoughtful and thought provoking.
Once again, Dreher shouts, begs, wheedles, cajoles, and otherwise provokes us to ask questions about things we take for granted. We eat our fast food, take what the grocery store offers – no questions asked. We act as though we trust them completely to supply inexpensive, healthful, delicious food. I wonder if we gave our food suppliers the kind of scrutiny that we gave to our investment portfolio, how might our decisions be different.
Much of this chapter is taken up with telling the stories of a few organic ranchers – and hearing their voices on why they believe that their product is healthier, tastier, and better than industrial processed meat.
Dreher introduces us to Robert Hutchins, a Rush Limbaugh listening texas rancher who says “…we raise our cattle the natural way, and feed them only what they were designed to eat. They were created only to eat certain things, with their ruminant stomachs: that’s grass and forage They weren’t created to eat grain, so we let them eat what they’re supposed to eat.” (67) But what grabbed me about the story was when Hutchins followed up with this quote: “The real philosophical issue behind why we do what we do, is because we’re Christians…We would be called evangelical Christians, and probably fundamentalists also. We try to align our lives with what we understand from Scripture would be a God-honoring lifestyle.” (67) Here is a man who is working hard to bring his vocation in line with what he sees as scriptural teaching. That really got my attention.
Dreher talks about the Slow Food Movement – begun in Italy to celebrate, encourage, and preserve local traditions of cooking in the face of incursions by McDonald’s and other fast food chains. As the Slow Food Movement grew beyond the bounds of Italy, its proponents realized that they could never succeed by trying to stop McDonald’s and its ilk. Rather, they had to show people why the Slow attitude toward life – esteeming tradition, celebrating particularity in the face of mass culture, and taking time to enjoy life – is more sensible, more fun, and more human.” (63)
He talks about Weston A. Price, a dentist who in the 1930’s began to be concerned about the poor health of his patients – he began to travel to societies that had different eating habits from ours. He traveled the world to explore the connection between diet and dental health. He found that in cultures where there was good dental health, there was an avoidance of highly processed grain and sugars. There was a preference for animal proteins and fats and a preference for homecooked over processed foods. He set up a foundation to promote and further advance the insights found.
As often before, Dreher sometimes gets preachy: “We are told that small scale farming is inefficient – this is true – and that because our factory farms feed the masses, and do so cheaply, we should be satisfied. And that’s a deal that makes sense to nearly all of us: just keep the stuff showing up in produce bins and under cellophane in the supermarket cooler, and keep it relatively cheap, and we’ll ask no questions. But in striking that devil’s bargain, we sign away our responsibility to what’s in that food, how it got there, and what was done to human communities to close the deal. To participate in a system and a way of thinking in which the act of eating is merely a commercial transaction is to sell out our spiritual and cultural patrimony. I understand the free-market reasons why Americans do this. But I don’t understand why it’s called conservative.” (62)
The main point, however, is to get us to ask questions. The industrial food industry does produce lots of cheap and filling food – but they make very few reliable promises about personal health. For years, we accepted partially hydrogenated oils in almost all our processed crackers, breads, and foods. We didn’t know what it was, didn’t bother to ask. Now, doctors are telling us that this artificial preservative is even worse than saturated fat for heart health – but this is after decades of simply trusting the food industry. Now high fructose corn syrup has come into the crosshairs of health researchers – but again, it’s been used for decades without anyone batting an eye.
Dreher posits a very conservative idea – we have to take responsibility for our own health and wellbeing. We need to be stewards of our bodies and what we consume. We cannot abdicate to the food industry the responsibility for selecting the range of foods that we eat. It’s tough to do – it takes us putting ourselves out and doing some research and putting effort into cooking. But, he’s convinced that in the end, it will prove a superior set of choices than mindlessly receiving what is offered us.
Looking forward to your thoughts on food.
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
Index of interesting Links:
Other reviews
* Jonah Goldberg from National Review -- a withering attack (while admitting there's lots of good in the book)
* Kevin Holtsberry from RedState online
* Maxwell Goss of Right Reason gives one of the more balanced critiques I've read.
* The Wall Street Journal's review
* Michael Dougherty giving a reasoned and balanced critique.
Crunchy Con resources
* Atheists, Agnostics, and Conservatives by Amy Welborn – a good view of the difference between faithbased crunchy cons and uberlibertarian agnostic cons
* Joe Carter's Evangelical Outpost on materialism and Jesus Junk
* Russell Kirk Center
* Rod Dreher’s Crunchy Con blog
* The Immaculate Direction a blog that is very crunchy connish
* Cerulean Sanctum’s series relating the book to 21st century Christian life. Very thoughtful and thought provoking.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Joe Carter on Materialism
A quick link to Joe Carter's Evangelical Outpost. Joe does a regular feature called the CPR (culture politics religion). This week's report features a comment on one blogger's intent to fast from unnecessary purchases for a month -- and Joe's corresponding intent to invest in Kiva (see my previous post on Kiva). The closing comment of this post points us right back to the concept of Jesus Junk that we talked about a couple of days ago here on the Eagle and Child.
Thanks Joe
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
Thanks Joe
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
Responsible Stewardship with lightbulbs
A quick break from the Crunchy Cons series to take a side tangent on a somewhat related topic. This month's Fast Company Magazine (Note the link is to the subscriber only section for now -- when the next issue comes out, nonsubscribers can access the article) features an article by Charles Fishman on compact flourescent lightbulbs. These bulbs are the expensive twisty bulbs that look something like a soft serve ice cream cone. They've been available for a couple of decades, but haven't been widely embraced by the market. Environmentalists buy them because they use a lot less energy, but the broad market still has not caught on to the idea. In Fishman's words:
Here's the bottom line for consumers -- each compact flourescent bulb uses 75% less energy than a regular lightbulb and it lasts 10 times longer than a regular incandescent lightbulb. There's an immediate bottom line dollar savings that consumers will be able to see in their wallet. Now here's the interesting thing - magnify the energy and cost savings across a couple of million consumers: what we find are even greater savings that get passed along -- lower energy costs, not as many bulbs going to landfills (reducing the potential tax burden of waste removal), lower environmental costs of energy production. It's a win win for everyone.
Now, after all the buildup, here's the story: Wal-Mart and GE are teaming up to promote compact flourescent bulbs as a wise consumer choice, not just for individuals, but for society as a whole. Let me say that again: Wal-Mart and GE. This isn't some big government program nor is it a fringe idea from the environmental movement. These are two really big businesses who see future concerns about energy prices and availability, and they've found a way to address those concerns in a way that benefits both consumers and the companies. I applaud them on their forward thinking.
Of course, I believe that as Christians, we're called to wise stewardship, even without the promotion of large corporations. I've been using compact flourescents for about 10 years now -- I had the first one burn out on me just last year. We see an appreciable difference in our electric bill. It's just plain good sense.
And that's how this relates to Crunchy Cons -- it's about a mindset and a lifestyle that is grounded in wisdom and good sense. More to come on that tomorrow.
Excelsior
Russell
Other wise-stewardship posts:
Earth Day, or Stewardship Day, you pick
Environmental Stewardship -- up close and personal
For two decades, CFLs lacked precisely what we expect from lightbulbs: strong, unwavering light; quiet; not to mention shapes that actually fit in the places we use bulbs. Now every one of those problems has been conquered. The bulbs come on quickly; their light is bright, white, steady, and silent; and the old U-shaped tubes--they looked like bulbs from a World War II submarine--have mostly been replaced by the swirl. Since 1985, CFLs have changed as much as cell phones and portable music players.
One thing hasn't changed: the energy savings. Compact fluorescents emit the same light as classic incandescents but use 75% or 80% less electricity.
What that means is that if every one of 110 million American households bought just one ice-cream-cone bulb, took it home, and screwed it in the place of an ordinary 60-watt bulb, the energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people. One bulb swapped out, enough electricity saved to power all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island. In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads.
That's the law of large numbers--a small action, multiplied by 110 million.
The single greatest source of greenhouse gases in the United States is power plants--half our electricity comes from coal plants. One bulb swapped out: enough electricity saved to turn off two entire power plants--or skip building the next two.
Here's the bottom line for consumers -- each compact flourescent bulb uses 75% less energy than a regular lightbulb and it lasts 10 times longer than a regular incandescent lightbulb. There's an immediate bottom line dollar savings that consumers will be able to see in their wallet. Now here's the interesting thing - magnify the energy and cost savings across a couple of million consumers: what we find are even greater savings that get passed along -- lower energy costs, not as many bulbs going to landfills (reducing the potential tax burden of waste removal), lower environmental costs of energy production. It's a win win for everyone.
Now, after all the buildup, here's the story: Wal-Mart and GE are teaming up to promote compact flourescent bulbs as a wise consumer choice, not just for individuals, but for society as a whole. Let me say that again: Wal-Mart and GE. This isn't some big government program nor is it a fringe idea from the environmental movement. These are two really big businesses who see future concerns about energy prices and availability, and they've found a way to address those concerns in a way that benefits both consumers and the companies. I applaud them on their forward thinking.
Of course, I believe that as Christians, we're called to wise stewardship, even without the promotion of large corporations. I've been using compact flourescents for about 10 years now -- I had the first one burn out on me just last year. We see an appreciable difference in our electric bill. It's just plain good sense.
And that's how this relates to Crunchy Cons -- it's about a mindset and a lifestyle that is grounded in wisdom and good sense. More to come on that tomorrow.
Excelsior
Russell
Other wise-stewardship posts:
Earth Day, or Stewardship Day, you pick
Environmental Stewardship -- up close and personal
Monday, August 28, 2006
Crunchy Cons: Consumerism
It’s probably been 20 years since I read the biography of pioneering Christian musician Keith Green, but one thing I remember vividly was his abhorrence of “jesus junk”. Some producers stamp an icthys on a pencil sharpener in either a misguided or a cynical attempt to appeal to a Christian market. He was mad at the Christians who consumed such stuff because he felt that it was dishonoring to Jesus to use his name and his symbols so cavalierly – like a fashion accessory or decorative option. He felt as though it violated the spirit of the commandment about not taking God’s name in vain. (Cerulean Sanctum has a post on this topic – featuring an absurd real life example of this kind of jesus junk).
Ghosts of Green’s complaint revived in my brain as I read the chapter on Consumerism in Crunchy Cons. Dreher defines what he means by consumerism: “It’s an uncodified materialist philosophy that considers the acquisition of goods and services at the least expensive price to be a fundamental social value. Consumerism fetishizes individual choice, and sees its expansion as unambiguous progress. A culture guided by consumerist values is one that welcomes technology without question, and prizes efficiency. A consumerist culture also tends to cede authority to the secular priesthood of scientists and other professional experts. Its idea of liberty involves the steady increase of the individual’s sovereignty ….A consumerist society encourages its members both to find and express their personal identity through the consumption of products. Its ultimate goal is the spread of happiness and well being through the improvement of material conditions, and the creation and general increase of wealth.” (29)
And then to prove that he’s not some kind of radical Marxist, Dreher qualifies “This is not to demonize wealth, at least not wealth gained through hard work and fair play. There is nothing objectively wrong with material progress, and a great deal right with it.” (29)
His point is a simple one – the love of money (and material things) is the root of all evil. Dreher doesn’t advocate withdrawing completely from the world, but he does ask questions about the affect of technology and endless consumption upon our lives. He suggests that those who opt out of the techno-consumerist carnival are often considered strange. We experienced this up close and personal – our first months of marriage we didn’t have a TV and didn’t plan to get one, and people thought we were nuts. For Christmas, we received a TV/VCR combo, so that little avenue of resistance was foiled, but in 10 years of marriage, we’ve never subscribed to cable or satellite TV. (for this reason – I didn’t want the bombardment of advertisements, the temptation to waste tons of time on triviality, and the flood of sexual imagery that comes with cable TV). But people still react as though we were some kind of lunatics to not have cable.
And that’s but one example. Consider the relentless pressure toward conformity that our teenagers face in the social hothouse that is high school. Think of the push toward bigger houses (McMansions, they’re called), bigger vehicles (who really needs a HumVee as a personal vehicle), and more elaborate amenities. Sadly, our president’s advice after 9/11 wasn’t to conserve and prepare for a long struggle. His advice was to go shopping (though I understand the logic – we shouldn’t let the terrorists think they had crippled our economy – even so, it was pretty indicative of the state of our nation). The thoughtless push to consume, buy, and acquire goes almost unrestrained in our lives. Isn’t this what Ray Bradbury warned us about in Farenheit 451? Isn’t this Brave New World? Even the recent teen sci-fi novel Uglies hits on these issues of shallow consumerism. Sometimes it takes a jolt to make us ask “what are we doing?”
Such a jolt may very well be a crisis of national proportion (see my earlier series on the Fourth Turning for further thoughts on this topic). If such a crisis does indeed strike, then it behooves us to wean ourselves from consumerist ways – but even if it doesn’t, it will be well for our spirits, our health, and our ongoing economic security if we pull back from relentless consumerism. This is where faith comes in handy:
* The discipline of Sabbath keeping – one day in seven for refraining from labor. Such a discipline reminds us that we are not entirely economic creatures. It prompts us to breathe and enjoy relationships. It leads us to find fulfillment in something other than laying waste our powers by getting and spending. It teaches us to look beyond ourselves to our Provider of all good gifts.
* The discipline of tithing – a sure way to break money’s hold over our hearts is to give it away (so I heard Richard Swensen say in a lecture from his book Margin). The more we’re able to give it away, the more we’re able to appreciate what we do have. If we give 10% to the Lord’s work (way above what most folks give), then God develops within us a healthy appreciation of money and material things.
* The discipline of fasting – taking time to refrain from food helps free us from gluttony. It leads us to appreciate what we have all the more. It leads us to identify with the hungry. It reminds us that God’s good gift comes in its own time. Sometimes It’s good to go hungry.
I could write much more, but I’m running out of my allotted time this morning for blogging. Let me know your thoughts about consumerism and resisting it.
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
Index of interesting Links:
Other reviews
* Jonah Goldberg from National Review -- a withering attack (while admitting there's lots of good in the book)
* Kevin Holtsberry from RedState online
* Maxwell Goss of Right Reason gives one of the more balanced critiques I've read.
* The Wall Street Journal's review
* Michael Dougherty giving a reasoned and balanced critique.
Crunchy Con resources
* Russell Kirk Center
* Rod Dreher’s Crunchy Con blog
* The Immaculate Direction a blog that is very crunchy connish
* Cerulean Sanctum’s series relating the book to 21st century Christian life. Very thoughtful and thought provoking.
Ghosts of Green’s complaint revived in my brain as I read the chapter on Consumerism in Crunchy Cons. Dreher defines what he means by consumerism: “It’s an uncodified materialist philosophy that considers the acquisition of goods and services at the least expensive price to be a fundamental social value. Consumerism fetishizes individual choice, and sees its expansion as unambiguous progress. A culture guided by consumerist values is one that welcomes technology without question, and prizes efficiency. A consumerist culture also tends to cede authority to the secular priesthood of scientists and other professional experts. Its idea of liberty involves the steady increase of the individual’s sovereignty ….A consumerist society encourages its members both to find and express their personal identity through the consumption of products. Its ultimate goal is the spread of happiness and well being through the improvement of material conditions, and the creation and general increase of wealth.” (29)
And then to prove that he’s not some kind of radical Marxist, Dreher qualifies “This is not to demonize wealth, at least not wealth gained through hard work and fair play. There is nothing objectively wrong with material progress, and a great deal right with it.” (29)
His point is a simple one – the love of money (and material things) is the root of all evil. Dreher doesn’t advocate withdrawing completely from the world, but he does ask questions about the affect of technology and endless consumption upon our lives. He suggests that those who opt out of the techno-consumerist carnival are often considered strange. We experienced this up close and personal – our first months of marriage we didn’t have a TV and didn’t plan to get one, and people thought we were nuts. For Christmas, we received a TV/VCR combo, so that little avenue of resistance was foiled, but in 10 years of marriage, we’ve never subscribed to cable or satellite TV. (for this reason – I didn’t want the bombardment of advertisements, the temptation to waste tons of time on triviality, and the flood of sexual imagery that comes with cable TV). But people still react as though we were some kind of lunatics to not have cable.
And that’s but one example. Consider the relentless pressure toward conformity that our teenagers face in the social hothouse that is high school. Think of the push toward bigger houses (McMansions, they’re called), bigger vehicles (who really needs a HumVee as a personal vehicle), and more elaborate amenities. Sadly, our president’s advice after 9/11 wasn’t to conserve and prepare for a long struggle. His advice was to go shopping (though I understand the logic – we shouldn’t let the terrorists think they had crippled our economy – even so, it was pretty indicative of the state of our nation). The thoughtless push to consume, buy, and acquire goes almost unrestrained in our lives. Isn’t this what Ray Bradbury warned us about in Farenheit 451? Isn’t this Brave New World? Even the recent teen sci-fi novel Uglies hits on these issues of shallow consumerism. Sometimes it takes a jolt to make us ask “what are we doing?”
Such a jolt may very well be a crisis of national proportion (see my earlier series on the Fourth Turning for further thoughts on this topic). If such a crisis does indeed strike, then it behooves us to wean ourselves from consumerist ways – but even if it doesn’t, it will be well for our spirits, our health, and our ongoing economic security if we pull back from relentless consumerism. This is where faith comes in handy:
* The discipline of Sabbath keeping – one day in seven for refraining from labor. Such a discipline reminds us that we are not entirely economic creatures. It prompts us to breathe and enjoy relationships. It leads us to find fulfillment in something other than laying waste our powers by getting and spending. It teaches us to look beyond ourselves to our Provider of all good gifts.
* The discipline of tithing – a sure way to break money’s hold over our hearts is to give it away (so I heard Richard Swensen say in a lecture from his book Margin). The more we’re able to give it away, the more we’re able to appreciate what we do have. If we give 10% to the Lord’s work (way above what most folks give), then God develops within us a healthy appreciation of money and material things.
* The discipline of fasting – taking time to refrain from food helps free us from gluttony. It leads us to appreciate what we have all the more. It leads us to identify with the hungry. It reminds us that God’s good gift comes in its own time. Sometimes It’s good to go hungry.
I could write much more, but I’m running out of my allotted time this morning for blogging. Let me know your thoughts about consumerism and resisting it.
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
Index of interesting Links:
Other reviews
* Jonah Goldberg from National Review -- a withering attack (while admitting there's lots of good in the book)
* Kevin Holtsberry from RedState online
* Maxwell Goss of Right Reason gives one of the more balanced critiques I've read.
* The Wall Street Journal's review
* Michael Dougherty giving a reasoned and balanced critique.
Crunchy Con resources
* Russell Kirk Center
* Rod Dreher’s Crunchy Con blog
* The Immaculate Direction a blog that is very crunchy connish
* Cerulean Sanctum’s series relating the book to 21st century Christian life. Very thoughtful and thought provoking.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Crunchy Cons: What is a Crunchy Conservative
Given the vitriol that Rod Dreher received from his fellow conservatives, you'd think he pronounced Karl Marx as a patron saint. Jonah Goldberg from National Review delivers a withering attack followed by Kevin Holtsberry giving duck and jive punches. Meanwhile Radley Balko writes what appears to me to be a shallow and kneejerk critique (and I don't say these things lightly). After you've dipped into those critiques -- read what Dreher actually says about his concept:
“Crunchy conservatism is not, as you’ll read here, a political program; it’s a sensibility, an attitude, a fundamental stance toward reality, and a pretty good road map to a rich, responsible, fulfilling, charitable, and above all joyful life.” (13)
This is probably the most important, and least heeded, sentence in the book. Dreher’s work is all about asking the right questions -- questions about the sacramental nature of life. For instance – a few years back, a Christian environmental group encouraged Christians to ask the question “What would Jesus Drive”. They were immediately lampooned and ridiculed in conservative circles (and among Conservative Christians I might add). However it is a perfectly reasonable question (though I’d rather phrase it “What would Jesus Have you drive?”). Critics may assume that the person asking the question has a pre-determined answer – a little 4 cylander tinfoil piece of trash. And they may be right. However that doesn’t absolve us from the responsibility of asking the question of ourselves.
Consider this – if Jesus is the sovereign over all our lives. If we truly believe our theology when we call Jesus Lord. If we truly believe that we’ve been crucified with Christ then in fact we must ask the question of everything – what would Jesus have me drive; where would Jesus have me live; what would Jesus have me do with my life. We are not our own and we must spend time wrestling with such issues (caveat – not to the point of paralysis – some issues can wait. We can after all only wrestle with so much in a given day, the rest we simply offer up to the Lord in prayer and trust in His guidance through the Spirit).
Just because we don’t like the answers that some people arrive at, it doesn’t absolve us from asking the questions – the big questions of “how are my daily actions and my big decisions congruent with the values I profess”
Dreher tells us that asking the big questions is what Crunchy Cons is all about. If you don’t grasp that, this will be a very frustrating and indeed annoying book (the criticisms of smugness and cheap prose are not without merit – this is something of a breezy book -- see the much more balanced and fair critique from Michael Dougherty or Maxwell Goss)
So what is a crunchy con – someone who recognizes the sacramental nature of life – “Being good is not something you do because it works; being good is something you do because it’s the right thing to do, even if it costs you. At the risk of sounding pompously metaphysical, for people who adopt a sacramental way of being, everyday things, occurrences, and exchanges provide an opportunity to encounter ultimate reality – even, if you like, divinity.” (14)
And there’s the rub – we are not defined by our political ideology – we are ultimately defined by our relationship with Christ. If our politics are organically connected to our faith, so too must our lifestyle choices be so connected.
More fodder for thought next week.
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
“Crunchy conservatism is not, as you’ll read here, a political program; it’s a sensibility, an attitude, a fundamental stance toward reality, and a pretty good road map to a rich, responsible, fulfilling, charitable, and above all joyful life.” (13)
This is probably the most important, and least heeded, sentence in the book. Dreher’s work is all about asking the right questions -- questions about the sacramental nature of life. For instance – a few years back, a Christian environmental group encouraged Christians to ask the question “What would Jesus Drive”. They were immediately lampooned and ridiculed in conservative circles (and among Conservative Christians I might add). However it is a perfectly reasonable question (though I’d rather phrase it “What would Jesus Have you drive?”). Critics may assume that the person asking the question has a pre-determined answer – a little 4 cylander tinfoil piece of trash. And they may be right. However that doesn’t absolve us from the responsibility of asking the question of ourselves.
Consider this – if Jesus is the sovereign over all our lives. If we truly believe our theology when we call Jesus Lord. If we truly believe that we’ve been crucified with Christ then in fact we must ask the question of everything – what would Jesus have me drive; where would Jesus have me live; what would Jesus have me do with my life. We are not our own and we must spend time wrestling with such issues (caveat – not to the point of paralysis – some issues can wait. We can after all only wrestle with so much in a given day, the rest we simply offer up to the Lord in prayer and trust in His guidance through the Spirit).
Just because we don’t like the answers that some people arrive at, it doesn’t absolve us from asking the questions – the big questions of “how are my daily actions and my big decisions congruent with the values I profess”
Dreher tells us that asking the big questions is what Crunchy Cons is all about. If you don’t grasp that, this will be a very frustrating and indeed annoying book (the criticisms of smugness and cheap prose are not without merit – this is something of a breezy book -- see the much more balanced and fair critique from Michael Dougherty or Maxwell Goss)
So what is a crunchy con – someone who recognizes the sacramental nature of life – “Being good is not something you do because it works; being good is something you do because it’s the right thing to do, even if it costs you. At the risk of sounding pompously metaphysical, for people who adopt a sacramental way of being, everyday things, occurrences, and exchanges provide an opportunity to encounter ultimate reality – even, if you like, divinity.” (14)
And there’s the rub – we are not defined by our political ideology – we are ultimately defined by our relationship with Christ. If our politics are organically connected to our faith, so too must our lifestyle choices be so connected.
More fodder for thought next week.
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Off the Shelf: Crunchy Cons
I know that a book, film, or cultural phenomenon is big when it starts coming to me from different directions. I knew that the DaVinci Code was big very early when I had people in my church who were early adopters started asking me about it. The Napoleon Dynamite phenomenon came on my radar when I had both 20 year olds and 70 year olds telling me about it.
The same is true with Rod Dreher's Crunchy Cons. I've had folks from all across the political spectrum mention it to me, so I had to pick it up. I'm glad I did -- Dreher's call for sanity and self-moderation within the conservative movement is a much needed counterbalance to the shrill chorus of pundits that dominate the airwaves. Dreher's basic thesis is that there are a whole lot of Conservatives who live lifestyles that are more associated in the popular imagination with liberalism: eating organic food, opting for smaller urban houses, homeschooling, participating in the slow food movement, advocating for environmental concerns. And yet these people also hold true to core conservative principles: limited government, healthy suspicion of human nature, emphasizing individual liberty and responsibility.
Dreher writes this book as a corrective to what he sees as an unhealthy obsession with greed and a worship of efficiency and the blind force of the markets. This is a book that should be devoured by strategists of both the Democratic and Republican parties -- for it reveals a vast grassroots outside the beltway of Washington who care less about the chess game that is DC politics and more about the living of a truly conservative lifestyle.
To that end, I'll be bloggint through this book on and off over the next several posts. It's a fascinating read -- I believe that many of the concepts are very helpful for navigating the crisis implied by The Fourth Turning (see the previous series on that fine book). To whet your appetite -- here is Dreher's Manifesto for Crunchy Cons:
Looking forward to exploring this book with you.
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
Supplemental Resources:
Rod Dreher's Cruncy Con Blog
The same is true with Rod Dreher's Crunchy Cons. I've had folks from all across the political spectrum mention it to me, so I had to pick it up. I'm glad I did -- Dreher's call for sanity and self-moderation within the conservative movement is a much needed counterbalance to the shrill chorus of pundits that dominate the airwaves. Dreher's basic thesis is that there are a whole lot of Conservatives who live lifestyles that are more associated in the popular imagination with liberalism: eating organic food, opting for smaller urban houses, homeschooling, participating in the slow food movement, advocating for environmental concerns. And yet these people also hold true to core conservative principles: limited government, healthy suspicion of human nature, emphasizing individual liberty and responsibility.
Dreher writes this book as a corrective to what he sees as an unhealthy obsession with greed and a worship of efficiency and the blind force of the markets. This is a book that should be devoured by strategists of both the Democratic and Republican parties -- for it reveals a vast grassroots outside the beltway of Washington who care less about the chess game that is DC politics and more about the living of a truly conservative lifestyle.
To that end, I'll be bloggint through this book on and off over the next several posts. It's a fascinating read -- I believe that many of the concepts are very helpful for navigating the crisis implied by The Fourth Turning (see the previous series on that fine book). To whet your appetite -- here is Dreher's Manifesto for Crunchy Cons:
1. We are conservatives who stand outside the contemporary conservative mainstream. We like it here; the view is better, for we can see things that matter more clearly.
2. We believe that modern conservatism has become too focused on material conditions, and insufficiently concerned with the character of society. The point of life is not to become a more satisfied shopper.
3. We affirm the superiority of the free market as an economic organizing principle, but believe the economy must be made to serve humanity’s best interests, not the other way around. Big business deserves just as much skepticism as big government.
4. We believe that culture is more important than politics, and that neither America’s wealth nor our liberties will long survive a culture that no longer lives by what Russell Kirk identified as ‘the Permanent Things’ – those eternal moral norms necessary to civilized life, and which are taught by all the world’s great wisdom traditions.
5. A conservatism that does not recognize the need for restraint, for limits, and for humility is neither helpful to individuals and society nor, ultimately, conservative. This is particularly true with respect to the natural world.
6. A good rule of thumb: Small and Local and Old and Particular are to be preferred over Big and Global and New and Abstract.
7. Appreciation of aesthetic quality – that is, beauty – is not a luxury, but a key to the good life.
8. The cacophony of contemporary popular culture makes it hard to discern the call of truth and wisdom. There is no area in which practicing asceticism is more important.
9. We share Kirk’s conviction that ‘the best way to rear up a new generation of friends of the Permanent Things is to beget children, and read to them o’ evenings, and teach them what is worthy of praise: the wise parent is the conservator of ancient truths…. The institution most essential to conserve is the family.”
10. Politics and economics will not save us. If we are to be saved at all, it will be through living faithfully by the Permanent Things, preserving these ancient truths in the choices we make in everyday life. In this sense, to conserve is to create anew.
Looking forward to exploring this book with you.
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
Supplemental Resources:
Rod Dreher's Cruncy Con Blog
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Classic way of being church -- missional
Series Index to The Classic way of being church:
An Apologia
Intergenerational
Preaching
Recall, my friends, that this series on the classic way of church is by no means my way of saying it is the only way of doing church. It is rather my apologia, my confession of the value I find -- and my assertion that there is still value for such a way of doing church.
Now, my emergent church and house church friends might raise an eyebrow at the use of the term missional for classic church. After all, the normal critique of the classic church is that it's irrelevant, out of touch, and stale. How can it possibly serve as a missional outreach - how can it possibly equip the saints for living as disciples when it's so horribly out of touch with the modern world.
First thing is that we dare not equate external expression with inner fire. Missional is a way of being, not a program for marketing. Being missional is about being oriented in such a way that the people of God recognize that they are sent and that God has planted them where He has sent them. Missional is about understanding whole life discipleship and the oscillation between being made strong by the spiritual disciplines and being sent to use the strength Christ gives us.
That said, a classic church, done right, can be very missional. The orderliness, the regular attention to spiritual disciplines, the attention to the saints of the past as a living fellowship with the saints of the present. All these things make us strong.
Then classic churches, when done right, afford dozens of opportunities to serve, in both large ways and small. Because of their institutional nature, they attract all kinds of information from all across the community on ways that Christians can plug in and be a blessing. They also gain a kind of instant credibility when they approach places in the community saying they'd like to serve -- no major background checks needed because of the institutional flavor of the classic way of being church.
Classic churches, done right, bring people together in all kinds of different combinations so we can learn community and build deeper relationships. No, it might not be as intense as the community in a house church -- but house churches might be surprised at the level of commitment people in classic churches have for one another.
Yet another way classic churches are missional is that they are different from our everyday reality. I'm keenly aware of the evangelistic impulse that drives churches to adopt seeker-sensitive models, and I applaud the passion for the lost that these churches demonstrate. However, it is a fallacy to absolutize that model then as the way of reaching out. There are plenty of people who are wounded and disaffected from those churches and are looking for worship and community that has a completely different texture. They may feel that the seeker churches feel commodified -- or perhaps they feel too much like a show. Or perhaps it's just that they want to feel like when they come to worship, it's something different than what they encounter in the rest of the week.
It's also very puzzling for those who aren't used to it -- and sometimes it's not a bad thing to be puzzling. It is a bad thing to be puzzling without having compassion. But being puzzling in of itself is probably a very good thing.
Of course I realize that the classic way of doing church also gives people liscence to hide behind the professionals; it also becomes a fortress for those who just want music they way they like it (and the devil can have anyone else that doesn't like it that way); it also becomes an in-club that makes outsiders prove that they really want to belong. I know these are the dangers and I know these are the critiques. However, these are perennial temptations, regardless of style.
There is hope yet that classic churches continue to reach people in a spirit of love and they continue to faithfully build up the saints and proclaim the gospel.
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
An Apologia
Intergenerational
Preaching
Recall, my friends, that this series on the classic way of church is by no means my way of saying it is the only way of doing church. It is rather my apologia, my confession of the value I find -- and my assertion that there is still value for such a way of doing church.
Now, my emergent church and house church friends might raise an eyebrow at the use of the term missional for classic church. After all, the normal critique of the classic church is that it's irrelevant, out of touch, and stale. How can it possibly serve as a missional outreach - how can it possibly equip the saints for living as disciples when it's so horribly out of touch with the modern world.
First thing is that we dare not equate external expression with inner fire. Missional is a way of being, not a program for marketing. Being missional is about being oriented in such a way that the people of God recognize that they are sent and that God has planted them where He has sent them. Missional is about understanding whole life discipleship and the oscillation between being made strong by the spiritual disciplines and being sent to use the strength Christ gives us.
That said, a classic church, done right, can be very missional. The orderliness, the regular attention to spiritual disciplines, the attention to the saints of the past as a living fellowship with the saints of the present. All these things make us strong.
Then classic churches, when done right, afford dozens of opportunities to serve, in both large ways and small. Because of their institutional nature, they attract all kinds of information from all across the community on ways that Christians can plug in and be a blessing. They also gain a kind of instant credibility when they approach places in the community saying they'd like to serve -- no major background checks needed because of the institutional flavor of the classic way of being church.
Classic churches, done right, bring people together in all kinds of different combinations so we can learn community and build deeper relationships. No, it might not be as intense as the community in a house church -- but house churches might be surprised at the level of commitment people in classic churches have for one another.
Yet another way classic churches are missional is that they are different from our everyday reality. I'm keenly aware of the evangelistic impulse that drives churches to adopt seeker-sensitive models, and I applaud the passion for the lost that these churches demonstrate. However, it is a fallacy to absolutize that model then as the way of reaching out. There are plenty of people who are wounded and disaffected from those churches and are looking for worship and community that has a completely different texture. They may feel that the seeker churches feel commodified -- or perhaps they feel too much like a show. Or perhaps it's just that they want to feel like when they come to worship, it's something different than what they encounter in the rest of the week.
It's also very puzzling for those who aren't used to it -- and sometimes it's not a bad thing to be puzzling. It is a bad thing to be puzzling without having compassion. But being puzzling in of itself is probably a very good thing.
Of course I realize that the classic way of doing church also gives people liscence to hide behind the professionals; it also becomes a fortress for those who just want music they way they like it (and the devil can have anyone else that doesn't like it that way); it also becomes an in-club that makes outsiders prove that they really want to belong. I know these are the dangers and I know these are the critiques. However, these are perennial temptations, regardless of style.
There is hope yet that classic churches continue to reach people in a spirit of love and they continue to faithfully build up the saints and proclaim the gospel.
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
