Hard to be crunchy
I gave a talk last night at
St. Peter's Classical School in Fort Worth, and met some great folks before and after the talk. I got this e-mail this morning from one of them, a Southern Baptist. In it, he alludes to the house Julie and I bought a couple of years ago near downtown Dallas -- a small 1914 Craftsman cottage in a gentrifying neighborhood. We got it for next to nothing in part because people in Dallas strongly prefer to live in the suburbs, or at least in newer, bigger dwellings. (That, plus the fact that the public schools in Dallas aren't great). But since we bought it, our part of town has become hot, and with the price of gas going up, there seems to be the beginnings of a migration back to the city center. We couldn't afford to buy our little house today. Anyway, this guy makes some great points, and I can't wait to read what the rest of you think about them:
Your comments struck a strong chord in my wife and me. As you said, we have generally found that evangelicals are pretty good in identifying worldliness in the church with regard to sexual issues: adultery, fornication, pornography, divorce and the vulgarity of the media. The sin of lust is well recognized and condemned. But with regard to the worldliness of consumerism there is near silence. The sins of greed and envy are virtually ignored. There are prayers for "financial freedom" but this is understood as "God, give us more money so we can pay for all our stuff."
This may be so because it is such a struggle to get our bearings; if we are not Amish or monastics we are just lost at sea in such a capitalist/consumerist world . Like you, we would like to live close to downtown in a smaller house with sidewalks and trees,
but find that these have been bid up to where they are now quite expensive and
"objects of desire" in their own right, with polished hardwood floors and granite and stainless steel kitchens. We would like to buy the small, frayed, 1930's rental house we live in now, but it is in a "tear down" neighborhood close to the cultural district. It will soon be sold by our landlord for 300K plus and replaced by a million dollar, zero lot line house. The "new urbanism" developments are also expensive, so
the houses that are affordable for ordinary people are in the decaying 1960's suburbs, ranch houses with no sidewalks, no front porches and fenced backyards, or in the new, desolate, crackerbox subdivisions far out of the city.
Tim Keller, a wonderful preacher and teacher at a PCA church in New York, Redeemer Presbyterian, has a theory on why dealing with our own greed always escapes us in America. He says that no matter how much money we make, or how rich and indulgent our lifestyle, we always have friends who have more and better possessions than we do, so in comparison we feel we aren't and can't be the greedy ones. People who make 60K, have nice used cars and a 3/2 in the suburbs have friends who make 100K, have new cars and a 4/3 with a pool out back. People who make 400K and have a million dollar home in Plano know people who make 900K and have a two million dollar home in Highland Park, as well as posh vacation homes at the lake and in the mountains. And so it goes, on up the ladder.
It seems to me that the competitive instincts of men have been almost totally corralled by this race for success and acquisition in western, corporate culture. This may be preferable to having these instincts gathered for war, as in the Crusades for example, but still not ideal. (It seems that militant Islam has decided that war is preferable to capitalist modernity as the employment of male competitive energy. That is why we need to fear them; they will be a formidable enemy for a long time. We have the wealth and technology, but they have the will, the patience, and the bodies to sacrifice.)
I don't know if these instincts can be marshaled in a quest for virtue or holiness in the culture at large; maybe this can only been done in a monastic or small sub-culture setting. In Jefferson's and Kirk's rural world, in the world of the southern agrarians--Tate, Percy, Ransom and Berry--it may have been easier for these instincts to be tamed on behalf of family and community (although, as you know, real and perceived racism has always plagued this vision.) It may be only Jesus who was able to value his own local, particular, tribal world and still be universal in his love for those who were different.
The Apostle commends us to look after our own. That is one of our primary moral obligations. These natural affinities for home and kin are part of providential order, and to the extent that they are natural Christians are obliged to respect and value those affinities and fulfill the obligations connected to them. The only reason why anyone could legitimately separate himself from these natural affinities is to become a monastic and live entirely for Christ without any earthly attachments. You might as well ask what the Christian justification for having a family is as to ask why Christians should have the proper attachmenmt to their home and country.>
I've never quite figured out why so many people think Americans (in general, as opposed to in particular) have such a problem with greed. Yes, there are some people, perhaps a few more than the average, who are greedy.
So far as I can tell, most of us just want to "live well"--to have enough to eat, a place to sleep, a group of people who care for us, and a little entertainment to keep our minds busy and help us relax. (Relaxation is a real human need, although like all others it can be overdone, and is one of the lesser needs--you can get by without it if you must.)
When people accuse me of greed, I think first of Jesus at a party. "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you said, 'Look at the drunken glutton!'" Asecticism is not an end in itself. The world is made, admittedly only in part, for our enjoyment. We are not expected to live in misery.>
Certainly Christians, like all people, have a tendency to be blind to their own sins, or at the least to focus more on certain sins. But I have a hard time seeing the argument that excessive desires for material goods is "more corrosive" than sexual sins, or that the latter is less important to combat in the current context. There are a variety of powerful forces, some intentional, some byproducts of technology, that are attacking the proper ordering of sex, marriage, and the family. In fact, I think a pretty good argument could be made that Christians, evangelicals in particular, are not attacking sexual sins enough, as witnessed by the fact that levels of divorce, fornication, and adultery don't appear to be much different in that population from the society at large. And the damage done by divorce, abortion, and having children out of wedlock is far more serious and long-lasting than excessive pursuit of material goods. I'm not saying that the latter should be ignored, or that evangelicals pay enough attention to that particular sin, either, just that I think it's reasonable to focus on sexual sins first. Of course, in some ways the two sins are related, in the sense that they are both about the primacy of what one wants at the moment, as opposed to self-restraint. But I don't think excessive consumerism does the same degree of damage as our confused notions about sex, marriage, and the family does.
Which brings up the following point - a strong tenet of conservatism has been it's pro-life stance, it's pro-family stance, it's opposition to pornography, it's opposition to the normalization of homosexuality, it's opposition to same-sex marriage, etc. Yet Rod claims that "mainstream conservatives" don't sufficiently value the family as the social unit most worth defending, at least not as much as Crunch Cons do. How does one reconcile these two positions?>
I generally agree with Mr. Dreher's premise, though I worry about the greed discussions.
It's not that Americans don't exhibit greed. Greed is something we should talk about. It should be preached against. Yet I worry of an overreaction in favor of legalism or socialism. Pastor Keller is right, but the economy is not a zero sum game. My shopping at Gap is not preventing someone else from starving anymore than if I shop at Target.>
free preview free sex video
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.