This is the 3rd of a 13 part retrospective of the 2004 book Anxious About Empire, a collection of 13 essays about The National Security Strategy of the United States. You can find the first post here.
The third essay, entitled Thoughts in the Presence of Fear, is written by Wendell Berry. I know Berry is about sustainability, but have not read much of his work, just a snippet here and there, so I won’t try to summarize his works.
In this essay, Berry writes 27 Roman numeraled thoughts that build on one another. I find his voice a bit more direct in pointing out the fact that the American people are reaping what corporate America had sown. Since this is a retrospective, I think we see that, while most of America probably hasn’t read Wendell Berry, his words were not far off from what happened five years later. Though the population sought a change from the direction Bush had taken the country, it only changed the captain not the course. I will quote from Berry’s last thought, XXVII:
The first thing we must begin to teach our children (and learn ourselves) is that we cannot spend and consume endlessly. …An economy based on waste is inherently and hopelessly violent, and war is its inevitable by-product. We need a peaceable economy.
In electing Obama, the American people showed their displeasure, frustration, and anger over the actions and policies of George W. Bush. Berry’s “peaceable economy” is the concept most humans want to attain, but have been conditioned to consider it a utopia by those who would continue their greedy quest for wealth and power. Americans cannot comprehend a way of life beyond the parameters of our current political and business models, therefore to break away from such strong traditions is a foreign concept, an unthinkable treachery to the “American way of life.” So the people strive for a peaceable economy only to fall short, because the framework in which they try to institute change is designed to stop such change.
Consider the following: Obama was/is considered the polar opposite of George Bush and in many ways, Obama IS the polar opposite of Bush. Yet what has really changed? Our military is still in Iraq, we are ramping up for massive troop increases in Afghanistan, torture is still an option in Obama’s back pocket, Obama saw Bush’s deficit and kept running, and the list could keep going.
The person behind the podium and the desk in the Oval Office may have changed, but the framework hasn’t, therefore America will continue down its destructive path.
The framework I speak of isn’t the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. No it is the pervasive corporate culture that has lobbied for and put into law, policies that, as Berry puts it in thought III,
…did not acknowledge that the prosperity [of America] was limited to a tiny percent of the world’s people, and to an ever smaller number of people in the United States; that it was founded upon the oppressive labor of poor people all over the world; and that its ecological costs increasingly threatened all life, including the lives of the supposedly prosperous.
All of this ties into one of the main reasons I left the Church (capital ‘c’, as in institution) in the first place:
For too long, the Church has intertwined itself with America’s government. Christian flag standing next to the American flag. Both with their own pledges of allegiances even though Jesus said in Matthew 6:24:
No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Berry offers an ultimatum in his essay between an economy that is based on self-determination, justice, and sustainability and one that is based on winner takes all. America has continued to consume more than its fair share; it has continued to artificially adjust prices to benefit the few while impoverishing the majority. The American Evangelical Church has chosen to support the latter. Which makes me think more and more that
the American Evangelical Church cannot be reformed because it was never the true church to begin with.
In closing, Berry’s essay takes more a stand on certain issues than the previous two essays. The most important element not to miss about Berry’s essay is that it still evokes thought and discussion, and even passion. This essay can still be picked up and pondered whereas the Avram and Bellah essays have dated themselves and are much less effective in bringing about a shift in the American population’s mindset.
People must be willing to destroy the policies and laws that corporations have put in effect to benefit the few. Just as those who see the dicotomy between the Church in America and the words and actions of Jesus have left in search of something more authentic.
-mike
June 12, 2009 at 1:44 pm
[...] part 1 - part 2 – part 3 [...]
June 12, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Did you know that I once shared a stage with Wendell Berry (he’s a Ky author)? Brian McLaren would heartily agree about the supreme underlying fault of an economy built without any heed for limits. I just finished reading “everything must change.” good book. very hopeful. highly recommend it. makes me feel excited about being a Christian.
June 14, 2009 at 10:48 am
@ laurie,
I knew he was from KY, but how did you end up on stage with him? He is on my list, but my list grows faster than I can keep up.
I still have not read any McLaren. He is also on my list. I’m intrigued when you say his book makes you feel excited about being a Christian. How so? Shane Claiborne did the same for me, especially Jesus for President.
-mike
June 15, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I do enjoy that Mr. Berry
June 18, 2009 at 1:46 am
Sure the Evangelical church is not the “true” church but was there ever a “true” church to begin with? Is such a thing even meant to exist and if so, why?
June 21, 2009 at 10:55 am
@ Chris,
Yes, I think there was a true church, I think there always has been, long before the term church, and always will be, long after such a term fades away. So if we dispense with the term church, what I speak of is a group of people who are pro-creation, those who take care of one another as well as this planet.
I do not speak of some sort of vegan hippie culture. I speak of those who value each human individually and realize the necessity of good stewardship of our planet.
Therefore I think this group of people was always meant to exist in order to be a voice of justice and advocates for peace against those who would rape and pillage anything and everything on earth out of greed.
-mike
June 22, 2009 at 3:06 am
What you are talking about then isnt a true church at all… its just good people. It has about as much to do with Jesus or the church as it does with anything. very little. So why then is the term “true chruch” even still relevent. Perhaps “true humans” would be better
June 23, 2009 at 1:43 am
@ Chris,
In the context of this post, the term church is relevant. In a larger scope, maybe not.
I agree that my description of what I thought true church could be broadened to the phrase “true humans.” I also have no doubt that those who act with compassion and justice and mercy may never step foot in a church or consider themselves part of a church. And that is just fine.
However, when I use the term church I am doing so purposefully.
Let me try to explain where I’m coming from. Ideally, “good people” are boundless. They see humanity first, they see the individual first. These “good people” are nation-less, they transcend nationalities, borders, governments, and self-imposed social boundaries.
But let’s be honest, these people make up a small number of our society. Most people, because of either their conditioning or a built-in need, these boundaries help them define their identity. “Church” is one of those boundaries. Therefore, I think people can be “true humans” and still work within those boundaries.
I don’t think it is an ideal situation because any type of self-imposed social construct may start out with good intentions, but ultimately will turn into something much more sinister and controlling.
So when I compare the evangelical church and the true church, it is within these ideas I speak:
Consider Shane Claiborne and the simple way. No one thrust the limitations they live within on them. They felt they could best serve humanity within their own self-implemented rules.
So I would consider them “good people”, but I would also consider them the true church.
On the other hand, self-imposed rules that are forced onto others, like those of evangelical Christianity or conservative Islam, are exactly the opposite of freedom. The problem is the subtleness in which people are convinced to self-restrict themselves for some false sense of holiness.
This I why I said the evangelical model can never become the true version of freedom because it is built on teaching others to place self-imposed boundaries on themselves that they otherwise would not.
I’ve wondered if we can’t just trash it all. But the fact of the matter is we can’t because it would create a vacuum that would be filled with some other social construct.
Hence the idea of a “true church.”
Thanks for pressing me to better develop my thoughts on this idea.
-mike
June 24, 2009 at 3:39 am
I think we need to trash it all. That will never be accepted on a large scale but it can certainly be accepted on a personal one. I guess to me its like standing in a condemned building and saying “well, we cant tear it down because they’ll just put something else here and they may not be good either”. I guess I’ve just come to the point where discussing the differences in the christian church and who is right and wrong, is like doing the same for scientology… it doesnt matter who has the method right if the idea behind the whole damn thing is wrong.
June 24, 2009 at 1:43 pm
@ Chris,
I agree with you that the ideas behind religion, and in particular western Christianity, are wrong. But I think we have to be realistic about that fact that religion has been around for as long as humans have. Like you said, trashing it all will never happen on a large scale. Religion will be around long after you and I are gone because those hungry for power will always use it to their advantage.
However, I believe the idea of freedom, justice, mercy, and compassion for all humans is not wrong. I would argue that in many cases, these ideas are in direct competition with religious ideas. It is where these two sets of ideas collide that I want use an example.
Now I understand what you mean about the method being irrelevant because the idea is wrong. But in order for errant religious ideas to be brought down, something must be offered in their place. I would turn to Martin Luther as an example that proves both of our viewpoints.
In proving mine, he introduced a model that brought about much equality and freedom for the time period. It was a step in the right direction, not a full step mind you, but a step.
In proving yours, because it was based on faulty ideas, Luther’s version of church became just as bad as the Catholic version he left. So any method is wrong because the ideas are wrong.
So I guess my question for you would be, if it all could be trashed, what then?
-mike
June 25, 2009 at 1:45 am
Personal choice. personal responsibility. that’s what comes after religion. It’s hard to swallow on a large scale, i understand. But at one point, so was NOT worshipping the sun, or believing that the earth was round. Im not saying its completely realistic to think that there would never be religion… but one person trashing it at a time is something I can live with and will do my part for. I think people need to look inward and ask why they need it in the first place and eventually if they need it at all. As you know this is not an easy process, therefore very few will be courageous enough to take that path. Did we really start this to deal in the easy and accessible. Is it really necessary to preserve something just because its unsure what will take its place?
July 1, 2009 at 12:50 am
I’ve been wrestling with this discussion for several days; with the ramifications of which side I will ultimately fall on.
I’m not so concerned about what will take the place of the Church as I am about the absence of any type of community. I don’t think the institutional church is a healthy form of community, which is why I am so critical of it and advocate its passing.
But my desire to preserve some of the remnants of my faith comes from my brief contacts with what I consider true community within the confines of Christianity. I see some good there that I think should be preserved.
I will say those good ideas (justice, mercy, freedom) transend religion and therefore do not need to keep labels such as ‘Christian’ or ‘church.’ Religion is merely a forced version of those things so you are right to say that personal choice and personal responsibility come after religion.
I find myself seeking community based on those ‘good things.’
I looked up the definition of community and I found a few entries from Merriam-Webster that resonate with me:
-a unified body of individuals.
-a people with common interests living in a particular area.
-an interacting population of various kinds of individuals in a common location.
-a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society.
-mike