Down with all "isms"?
6/05/08 - 5th Day - After Breakfast. Maybe I'll have to start each blog here for awhile with a "it's so hot" joke. It is so hot that when a coyote chases a rabbit... they both walk. Well, that joke is a little too straight-forward for me. I like jokes that are more "groany" (they make you groan) and which have a bizarre twist at the end. Like this: It is so hot that if you tried to cook an egg on the sidewalk... you'd die from the heat. The next joke in my stand up routine would be one that just didn't make any sense at all, but used a word in a weird and unexpected way, like this: It's so hot you could poach an egg from a game warden. My routine would then be interrupted by me looking around to see if anyone... anyone at all, laughed.
The prognosticators are calling for a minuscule probability of rain tonight, so y'all continue to remember us down here. They are also saying that the high temps should drop a bit over the next few days. The high today is only supposed to be 94, and they are saying maybe 91 tomorrow. That is like a cold front after the last couple of weeks.
"So, Michael, Isn't Agrarianism just another 'ism'?"
Sometimes people offer up a protest or an argument that is all fat and no meat. This is an argument I hear pretty often. Isn't Agrarianism just another "ism"? Since most people have no experience in challenging presuppositions, or in pointing out the weightlessness of an argument, the average agrarian would shift into defensive mode here, trying to explain (with red face and shuffling feet) why they have been so foolish as to fall for the latest "ism".
But the question is really rooted in a very modern thought. What they are really saying is "I don't trust anything that can be defined". Sure, some (but not all) don't mind being labeled a "Christian", because someone way back when was wise enough not to call Christianity - Jesusism or Christianism. If the exact same belief system - the exact same Gospel, was called Jesusism or Christianism, then (according to this modern idea) it would have to be rejected. All "isms" are bad. In fact, in this modern world, all labels are bad. Well, not all labels, but any label that goes back more than about 50 years is bad. So, for example, you have people who are willing to call themselves "Red-letter Christians" (as if God didn't speak and write the ENTIRE Bible), but they wouldn't dare define any attribute or philosophy of the Bible with an "ism". Rejecting "isms" has become another way for confused or arrogant people to differentiate themselves or lift themselves up without actually saying or believing anything. For example, you have probably heard "I am not in a religion (the word religion is spewed like it is a poison), I am in a relationship". Forget how un-Biblical that thought is for a moment (James 1:27), but let us examine the heart of the people that say this stuff. Is it true that they have this extraordinary close and personal relationship with God? I mean, are they going over to God's house for milk and cookies while the rest of us are genuflecting at corn flakes shaped like Mary? The fact is that they have learned a MANTRA, and it makes them feel better about themselves. So, a professing "christian" tells you that Agrarianism is just another "ism", and you are expected to grovel around this high and transcendent thought. The funny answer is to look back at them very thoughtfully and say, "Oh, like Baptism... huh?" Then it is your turn to sit and watch them try to squirm their way out of it. But the fact is that this is another modern mantra that doesn't have any meaning. An "ism" is a distinctive and consistent system of beliefs, doctrines, or theories. an "ism" then, is a system or policy that actually shows forth what someone believes. Our method of BAPTISM reflects what we have believed concerning the Bible's command that true believers be Baptized. Our entire philosophy of who we think Jesus is and what He has done is embodied in our philosophy of Baptism. How silly and stupid would it be to toss out Baptism just because it ends with "ism"? It would be equally stupid to reject "Jesusism" (if the religion of Christianity had been so named) out of hand, without first examining what it is that is being defined. The fact is, people want to tilt at verbal windmills and reject any thing that is challenging or condemning because it is easier to beat the air than to actually have to defend what one believes and how what one says lines up with God's Word.
Now, I will admit that there are many flavors of agrarianism out there today - and the flavor you get from me is going to be far different from that you will get elsewhere in the thought-o-sphere. There is Mercantile Agrarianism which is the prevalent form of agrarianism being pushed by the neo-agrarianism movement. Second to that would be what I would call Syncretistic Agrarianism (or Worldly Agrarianism) which, like Mercantile Agrarianism, attempts to blend the holy and the profane, the world kingdom and God's Kingdom, and takes the failed industrial model and puts agrarian lipstick on it. If you search the internet much or read many agrarian blogs, this is mainly what you are going to get. However, if you reject those faulty schemes (as you should), you should reject them based on what they believe, what they say, what they teach, and on the errors in their philosophy... you should not reject them because of a suffix that you don't particularly like or understand. On the other hand you have Christian or Biblical Agrarianism, and here again each portal of information ought to be examined to see what it is and what philosophy it holds. Some so-called "Christian" agrarian blogs or adherents are maybe Christian, and maybe agrarian, but usually not both. One so-called "Christian Agrarian" blogger pontificates from his on-grid farm, from atop his expensive industrial tractor, about why more people don't go for "that old time religion". What he means by "old time religion", of course, is the Arminian Charismatic/Pentacostal movement, which has only existed for a little over 100 years, being created by a sodomite (Charles Fox Parham, the father of modern pentacostalism) and a bunch of women around 1900. So you have to be careful, just because someone claims to be a Christian Agrarian, doesn't mean he is. The point is that you have to judge things with righteous judgment, and examine something for what it is and not by the perfume it wears or the costume it puts on.
Man, these last few blogs have turned into rants. But I have more to say...
Your servant in Christ Jesus,
Michael Bunker
The prognosticators are calling for a minuscule probability of rain tonight, so y'all continue to remember us down here. They are also saying that the high temps should drop a bit over the next few days. The high today is only supposed to be 94, and they are saying maybe 91 tomorrow. That is like a cold front after the last couple of weeks.
"So, Michael, Isn't Agrarianism just another 'ism'?"
Sometimes people offer up a protest or an argument that is all fat and no meat. This is an argument I hear pretty often. Isn't Agrarianism just another "ism"? Since most people have no experience in challenging presuppositions, or in pointing out the weightlessness of an argument, the average agrarian would shift into defensive mode here, trying to explain (with red face and shuffling feet) why they have been so foolish as to fall for the latest "ism".
But the question is really rooted in a very modern thought. What they are really saying is "I don't trust anything that can be defined". Sure, some (but not all) don't mind being labeled a "Christian", because someone way back when was wise enough not to call Christianity - Jesusism or Christianism. If the exact same belief system - the exact same Gospel, was called Jesusism or Christianism, then (according to this modern idea) it would have to be rejected. All "isms" are bad. In fact, in this modern world, all labels are bad. Well, not all labels, but any label that goes back more than about 50 years is bad. So, for example, you have people who are willing to call themselves "Red-letter Christians" (as if God didn't speak and write the ENTIRE Bible), but they wouldn't dare define any attribute or philosophy of the Bible with an "ism". Rejecting "isms" has become another way for confused or arrogant people to differentiate themselves or lift themselves up without actually saying or believing anything. For example, you have probably heard "I am not in a religion (the word religion is spewed like it is a poison), I am in a relationship". Forget how un-Biblical that thought is for a moment (James 1:27), but let us examine the heart of the people that say this stuff. Is it true that they have this extraordinary close and personal relationship with God? I mean, are they going over to God's house for milk and cookies while the rest of us are genuflecting at corn flakes shaped like Mary? The fact is that they have learned a MANTRA, and it makes them feel better about themselves. So, a professing "christian" tells you that Agrarianism is just another "ism", and you are expected to grovel around this high and transcendent thought. The funny answer is to look back at them very thoughtfully and say, "Oh, like Baptism... huh?" Then it is your turn to sit and watch them try to squirm their way out of it. But the fact is that this is another modern mantra that doesn't have any meaning. An "ism" is a distinctive and consistent system of beliefs, doctrines, or theories. an "ism" then, is a system or policy that actually shows forth what someone believes. Our method of BAPTISM reflects what we have believed concerning the Bible's command that true believers be Baptized. Our entire philosophy of who we think Jesus is and what He has done is embodied in our philosophy of Baptism. How silly and stupid would it be to toss out Baptism just because it ends with "ism"? It would be equally stupid to reject "Jesusism" (if the religion of Christianity had been so named) out of hand, without first examining what it is that is being defined. The fact is, people want to tilt at verbal windmills and reject any thing that is challenging or condemning because it is easier to beat the air than to actually have to defend what one believes and how what one says lines up with God's Word.
Now, I will admit that there are many flavors of agrarianism out there today - and the flavor you get from me is going to be far different from that you will get elsewhere in the thought-o-sphere. There is Mercantile Agrarianism which is the prevalent form of agrarianism being pushed by the neo-agrarianism movement. Second to that would be what I would call Syncretistic Agrarianism (or Worldly Agrarianism) which, like Mercantile Agrarianism, attempts to blend the holy and the profane, the world kingdom and God's Kingdom, and takes the failed industrial model and puts agrarian lipstick on it. If you search the internet much or read many agrarian blogs, this is mainly what you are going to get. However, if you reject those faulty schemes (as you should), you should reject them based on what they believe, what they say, what they teach, and on the errors in their philosophy... you should not reject them because of a suffix that you don't particularly like or understand. On the other hand you have Christian or Biblical Agrarianism, and here again each portal of information ought to be examined to see what it is and what philosophy it holds. Some so-called "Christian" agrarian blogs or adherents are maybe Christian, and maybe agrarian, but usually not both. One so-called "Christian Agrarian" blogger pontificates from his on-grid farm, from atop his expensive industrial tractor, about why more people don't go for "that old time religion". What he means by "old time religion", of course, is the Arminian Charismatic/Pentacostal movement, which has only existed for a little over 100 years, being created by a sodomite (Charles Fox Parham, the father of modern pentacostalism) and a bunch of women around 1900. So you have to be careful, just because someone claims to be a Christian Agrarian, doesn't mean he is. The point is that you have to judge things with righteous judgment, and examine something for what it is and not by the perfume it wears or the costume it puts on.
Man, these last few blogs have turned into rants. But I have more to say...
Your servant in Christ Jesus,
Michael Bunker
posted by Michael Bunker at 6/05/2008 05:10:00 AM
4 Comments:
I'm still giggling over the milk and cookies vs. cornflakes illustration. :)
We've been through the whole agrarianism gamut - starting with a commercial livestock operation, through renting a place in the country and learning to garden and raise our own meat, through building a home on the and and trying out the mercantile version to where we are now: living on the land, separating from the world more and more, because we see it as God's plan for us. We still have a long way to go. It's a process. ;)
Judy
Michael,
I enjoy your rants, you put into words what I can't seem to express, so rant on as far as I'm concerned. LOL
I have visited in the past year a good number of the blogs that you mentioned. I found them all pretty "empty". I keep coming back to the BA site and here because this is where I find the meat. I found that agrarianism without God to be pretty meaningless. I can't separate the two, nor would I want to.
Manette
Michael,
I like the "it's so hot..." jokes.
I'm sure you'll have plenty of time to use them. Hope the miniscule chance of rain happens.Still continuing in prayer for rain. I'm going to wash both my cars- that will probably help! LOL.
"Rejecting "isms" has become another way for confused or arrogant people to differentiate themselves or lift themselves up without actually saying or believing anything. For example, you have probably heard "I am not in a religion (the word religion is spewed like it is a poison), I am in a relationship". Forget how un-Biblical that thought is for a moment (James 1:27), but let us examine the heart of the people that say this stuff. Is it true that they have this extraordinary close and personal relationship with God? I mean, are they going over to God's house for milk and cookies while the rest of us are genuflecting at corn flakes shaped like Mary? The fact is that they have learned a MANTRA, and it makes them feel better about themselves."
Amen Michael.
To your knowledge, is there any particular point of origin of the "relationship, not religion" mantra?
Bill
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home