Confessions of a Consumer Addict

admin April 25th, 2010

I’ve previously written in this blog and on my web site that there is a major misconception about “the fix” for our environmental problems. Actually I believe it is a misconception of mythical proportions that will do us a lot of damage in the years to come.

The myth is this:

We will be able to solve our environmental problems such as global warming with judicious use of new technologies such as solar and wind power, electric and hybrid cars, more efficient appliances, and so forth. This, then, will relieve us of the necessity of having to use less energy and buy less stuff, i.e., we will be able to go on living as we always have lo these many years, without having to give up anything.

“Oh I can buy all the toys I want and not worry about the power problem… they’ll think of something! We’ll be just fine!

My response to this has always been that there is no way that technology can dig us out of the hole we’ve dug for ourselves for several basic reasons:

1. The technologies we will need in order to make a substantial difference require, in and of themselves, even more non-renewable and renewable resources and power to design, test, manufacture, distribute, and maintain them. These costs are considerable, especially when most of these technologies use rare and expensive metals such as the rare earths, the mining of which are highly polluting, often mined in the third world under unjust working conditions, and many of which are only available through unfriendly governments. Even though these technologies may operate more efficiently than conventional technologies, their environmental and fiscal costs are in addition to the existing, huge infrastructure that will have to support our old stuff for many years into the future.We might use less oil and coal as a result of new technologies while freeing ourselves somewhat from our Mexican knife fight with the oil producing nations, but we will only have become much more dependent on other untrustworthy governments for these exotic new materials.
2. New technologies take a very long time to develop and get into mainstream usage. Some of them are twenty or more years into the future before they come on line as practical applications, and when they do, adoption by a majority of people will take even more years. Given the scope and severity of our problem, this is a day late and a dollar short.
3. Even if the new technologies were wildly successful in every way, we have to contend with human psychology which is perversely designed to defeat such efficiencies as we always have in the past. We are all like the dieter who eats twice as much because he/she is eating a special low calorie food. “Oh I can have another order of fries because I’m drinking Diet Coke!” And as soon as we have the electric, hybrid, or hydrogen car, we will immediately begin driving even more miles because we think we think it’s free. We will then not have reduced our energy consumption even after years of effort and billions of dollars in sunk costs. There is also the issue of broad-scale acceptance of the technologies by the public. A significant number will not be accepted as has also been the case in the past. For instance there has already been a large public outcry against wind farms at a number of locations across the country.

Adoption of many technologies will not be fast or certain, and we are running out of time.
The real solution, of course, is that we do in fact have to give up some things – actually a lot of things. There is no free lunch. We cannot have it all at no cost to ourselves. And having done so much damage already, we now have to pay the piper and we simply cannot escape him by hiding behind technology.

Our situation demands simple living of all of us.

I’m not naïve enough to believe that in our overheated consumer society there will be a sudden, massive switch to simple living, but I think it is entirely possible that a shift will occur incrementally over time as more and more of us get the message and make the commitment to make a real difference in the world.

But it could also be that the shift to simplicity will come suddenly and massively as our society hits the ecological/resource wall at some point in the not-too-distant future, and we are forced to live simply as we did during the great depression and WWII (if we’re very lucky).

I saw a glimmer of hope that the incremental version may be gathering steam even now, from a very unlikely source.

Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, wrote a piece in the 4/25/10 Washington Post entitled 5 Myths About Green Energy. Of course he was probably trying to make the case that many of our green energy strategies are bound to be much less successful than predicted and we should therefore abandon such tree-hugging strategies and just let businesses do their jobs using whatever methods they see fit to use (my interpretation, not his words). But in doing so he made an excellent case for living simply as I outlined above.

His (condensed) points:

1. Solar and wind power have serious drawbacks. They “require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, [while] disrupting natural habitats.” This land demand led to the Nature conservancy, an extremely green organization, criticizing “energy sprawl” in its paper last year. He went on to provide even more statistics to bolster his point that these technologies aren’t going to give us the bang for the buck that we assume.
2. Green energy technologies will not reduce our dependence on foreign imports and erratic foreign governments to sustain our power needs. We have a choice among about 20 countries for obtaining our oil and natural gas supplies, but the rare earth necessary to build and maintain new power technologies are only available from… China, not the most reliable of partners in any weather. This will only make us more dependent on a country we desperately wish not to be dependent upon.
3. We talk a great deal about the new green jobs that will be created to support green technologies, however Bryce points out that we have the same problem here as we have had with shoe manufacturing – high American labor costs compared to many other Third World or emerging countries like, again, China. We simply will not be able to compete with them and we will therefore create far fewer green jobs than has been advertised.
4. Electric cars will not substantially reduce demand for oil because of the physics involved. Gasoline has about 80 times the energy as the best lithium-ion batteries which are famously finicky, short-lived, and which take hours to recharge. Although the electric motor is much more efficient than the internal combustion engine, the process of getting power to the electric motor is not, and there is little on the horizon to make us more optimistic along these lines.
5. America has actually been a leader in moving toward green technologies and has improved its energy efficiency as much as or more than, all other developed countries except Switzerland and Denmark. Bryce’s point here is that since American industry is already doing such a terrific job, we should just let them continue doing it.

   However I would apply another interpretation to this data: if we have done such a terrific job and we have hardly moved the needle after all these years of trying, then at best, it will be a very long time before our technology will even come close to solving our problem, if it ever does.

So I thank Robert Bryce and the Manhattan Institute for so brilliantly and so publically making my point for me even though they wouldn’t ordinarily cozy up to advocates of simple living like me!

Tags: Commentary, Information

• Coping With Consumer Culture , Environment , Living More Simply
• Comments(1)

admin April 13th, 2010

I’m coming closer to believing that the notion of Christian Anarchy (for a quickie refresher on what Christian Anarchy is, see my previous posts here and here) is a very good way to think about living the Christian life in general and Christian simple living in particular.

But there are problems too

It comes across as a very negative way of seeing the faith. Even the name, Christian Anarchy, is negative if not frightening. Many of the works discussing it spend much of their time on what’s wrong with human organizations (“the powers” in the Bible), or ‘arkies’ (Vernard Eller’s shorthand for any of the world’s ‘archical’ or hierarchical organizations). Tolstoy and Ellul were not a cheery bunch of writers either! And my own foggy musings are pretty negative as well.

It’s never a good idea to describe something by what it is not, or to sell a concept as a glass half empty!

It’s also a very complicated idea to understand as well as describe, which makes it difficult to translate into something practical and useful.

Part of the problem is that the classic works on Christian Anarchy (which I’ll refer to as CA from here on) like those of Leo Tolstoy, Jacques Ellul, SØren Kierkegaard, Vernard Eller, etc., are focused on the theology, philosophy, or sociology of CA rather than its practical application. And although Eller clearly says that CA is not ‘anti’ anything, but rather is just being not interested or impressed by the powers, some of these thinkers are very much anti- government, anti-capitalist, or anti-hierarchies in general, giving their views a radical twist.

Contemporary CA practitioners often organize social justice programs such as Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement (a very good thing) (http://www.catholicworker.org/) or promote radical political positions such as Graham Cameron’s (http://christiananarchy.com/articles/).

These are big thinkers and big doers intent on changing the world, or a significant part of it. But there are probably a lot of people who, like me,  don’t want to virtually take  sword in hand and march out to right the world’s wrongs, but merely want to live a good, and even occasionally courageous personal life where they are with the people around them. And most of us probably aren’t intent on tearing things down to do it.

And I just don’t agree that Christian Anarchy is primarily about being a social activist or political revolutionary. I believe that CA principles can apply to all Christians who are really trying to follow Christ, like Christian simple livers, and that we should be able to use the positive norms and values inherent in CA to help build-up ourselves, our congregations and our communities.

I also think that when you use the tenets of CA to create a social or political organization, you have already violated the spirit, if not the definition of CA by creating yet another arky. And since these organizations are created by mere mortals to carry out their own parochial visions, by definition they become just another worldly arky with all their natural human flaws.

… and so we’re right back to where we started – and we probably aren’t in the Kingdom of God yet!

So in an effort to see a practical and hopeful side to CA, I’ve started to think through the issue of practicality – and I emphasize the word started. I’ll keep you posted on my thoughts as they occur to me.

Here goes:

Life Among the Arkies

Christian Anarchy, as well as traditional Christian belief hold that we should live only according to God’s ‘Arky’ and not according to the world’s arkies or in Biblical terms “the powers” – rich and powerful people, organizations, and governments.

As I have defined CA in previous posts (derived from the writers mentioned above, particularly Eller), CA sounds a lot like The Kingdom of God as Jesus might have described it, in the sense that all of The Kingdom’s members would be joyfully living according to God’s law and Jesus’ teachings rather than the world’s values. That may actually be the simple definition of CA and its goal as well!

That would put Christian Anarchy adherents and its practitioners in pretty good company but, like The Kingdom of God as described in the New Testament, CA theory doesn’t give us a lot of help in figuring out how to actually live it as a practical matter. Jesus merely noted that various people were “coming close to the Kingdom.”

No membership manual! He basically said “just do it!” Of course He said a lot more than that, but mostly he taught by example and we have precious few of those examples in the Bible. It leaves me hungering for much more. I learn best through examples and I just get confused when I read things, and especially when I try to write.

So OK, how are we to behave in the arky known as the Kingdom of God? And how does that mean we should relate to, if we are to relate to them at all, the world’s arkies – our government, political parties, fraternal and civic organizations, the corner store and global corporations?

If these arkies surround us and we have to interact with them every day, and they are not to be trusted or followed per Eller’s view of CA, then what is left for us to do and how would our behavior be different from those who do follow the world’s arkies – often blindly or unknowingly – which would include a majority of folks in modern consumer culture?

As I first thought about it I really got bogged down in a long list of do’s and don’ts for living a CA life. In the end it seemed like hair-splitting legalism – and long.

So I took cues from the Gospels and my own meditation practice and things started getting simpler.

The World’s Arky Assumptions and Values

In our culture with its worldly arkies, we tend to pay attention, and often buy into, its arky assumptions, values, desires, and activities – often unconsciously and uncritically. Some of the biggest, broadest assumptions and values could be: “Growth is good (or bad);” “Look out for number one;” “You should always be or look young;” “Success is the most important thing;” “Make as much money as you can;” “The end justifies the means;” “Shoot for the stars;” “Everyone should take care of themselves,” “survival of the fittest,” “Cheapest is best.”

More specific assumptions might include: “Health care reform is good (or bad);” SUVs are good (or bad);” “People should always think you’re on top of things – buy the newest cell phone/PDA/computer/game/car/house;” “Conservatism or liberalism is good while the other is bad;” “The profitability of the company is more important than its employees.”

We believe these notions to be true only because we’ve heard them much of our lives. But where do they come from? We didn’t invent them.

These basic assumptions about life came to us via the thousands of arkies we know and love (or hate), whether they are political parties, corporations, the corner store, the Government, Rotary Club, Boy/Girl Scouts, or schools.

In the end most of these assumptions have a focus on ‘self’, what’s good for me or us, whether it is to be right, rich, powerful, beautiful, successful, or just happy. The arkies advertised these values to us pervasively, although often surreptitiously, and over the years we began to believe them. All arkies do this because the values they espouse support their goals and ultimate success, whether it is to achieve its mission, make money, have influence, “right wrongs,” (as defined by the arky), or “make the world safe for…”

So to a certain extent all worldly arkies are disingenuous because they aren’t primarily concerned about your, my, or anyone else’s welfare. Even when their goal is to be compassionate, like The Church (an arky if there ever was one), a social service or disaster relief organization, the arky itself takes on some of the less-than-compassionate characteristics of their founder’s and leader’s personalities.

An arky’s true goal, despite its hype, morphs toward promoting and maintaining the organization itself and the positions of those who own, manage, or work in it. Even in compassionate organizations, the goal is organizational success, and individual needs begin to take a back seat to the hierarchy (all organizations have them) and its arky goals. In arkies that don’t start with compassionate goals, things can be a lot worse if not blatantly immoral or illegal.

Living Under The Arky of God

So, after all this arky bashing, what’s so great about the Arky of God, and how would we live in it in contradistinction to how we live amongst the world’s arkies?

Simply put, we must live by the norms, values, and assumptions of God’s Arky (Kingdom) as found in such places as the Sermon on the Mount, the Ten Commandments, and the laws of the Pentateuch, and never equivocate or make accommodations with the arkies on these matters. We don’t put them aside if our employer arky, government arky, or our political arky sees it otherwise. We don’t ever allow arkies to be our proxies or stand-ins for God’s values.

This means that we live with equanimity and compassion about all things and all people whether we agree with them or even like them or not, seeing things as they actually are, not as we are told they are, and not judging but acting with compassion towards all people. Living this way can be easily inferred from Jesus’ teachings and it would be living only under the Arky of God, and not being led or controlled by other arkies of any stripe.

Living with equanimity means we don’t follow any arky’s predetermined philosophy, principles, rules, or hierarchical structures and organizations, none of which function purely with compassion. But it also means that we don’t hate, abuse, take advantage of, or misuse the arky and its people because we see things differently. We must be compassionate with them too. We just don’t buy-in.

Living with equanimity and compassion under God’s Arky would mean never consciously or unconsciously buying the “whole package” of any worldly arky’s mission, principles, rules, or advice. Instead we would try to see clearly, in an unbiased way, what the arky along with its hierarchy and rules actually does and how that affects people and the rest of the world. We ask whether or not any part of the arky or its actions are consistent with CA. When it is we can go along with it on an instance-by-instance basis. When it is not, we don’t “go along to get along,” and we may need to end our association with that arky regardless of personal consequences.

This, of course is not at all easy. It takes a lot of practice, honesty with ourselves and others, and support from our like-minded Christian community.

More important, it takes a reordering of our minds so we can see clearly with astute awareness and discernment – again a very tall order for most of us because we’ve spent our entire lives living according to what the arkies tell us while abusing our own psyches in the process.

I have found insight meditation practice in combination with deep prayer to be extremely helpful in gaining some amount of clarity in discerning my reactions and responses to the arkies and my personal relationships as well. Without this practice I’m not sure I’d be able to attempt it at all.

To close out this ramble, I’d like to add that I believe Christian Anarchy directly supports Christian simple living. Most of our self-centered consumer behavior is actually based on the messages and values the various arkies have fed us, and getting past those arky assumptions makes it much easier to live authentic, simple lives that are closer to Jesus’ teachings, and doing so without rancor or bitterness toward the world of the arkies.

God’s peace.

Tags: Commentary, Information, Personal Experience

• Christian Anarchy , Consumer Culture and Economics , Coping With Consumer Culture , Faith and Politics , Meditation and Prayer
• Comments(1)

admin April 4th, 2010

Resurrection Sunday, 2010

Wonderful revelation this Easter morning in, of all places, The Washington Post business section!

Michelle Singletary, in The Color of Money column, reviewed a new book by Gail Blanke entitled Throw Out Fifty Things: Clear the Clutter, Find Your Life, (Springboard Press, $13.99) which of course I haven’t read yet, but will shortly.

The point of the book is that much of the stuff we have (junk and clutter, savings in the bank and mental junk as well), not only doesn’t make us more secure, as we have been taught, but rather when we lose these things as we inevitably will at some point, it causes us to feel very insecure, sometimes to the point of crumbling if what we lose is important enough.

All the while we are collecting and maintaining this stuff we are not free. We are prisoners to it because of the debt it creates in order to buy and maintain it, the pressure to make money to support it, striving to make more money to get out of our increasing debt or, worse, buying even more security blankies (my term) to bolster our sagging egos.  Then of course there is the need for either more space to keep it in, or suffer a loss of living space as we give it over to storage, not to mention having to live with our irritation, stress, and possible depression around having to live in the midst of it all. It gets in our way and slows us down.

On the flip side, you probably won’t be surprised to learn, when, as Gail tells us, we get rid of all those useless security blankies we miraculously find that we not only feel just as secure without them, we actually feel more secure because we are free of it and the burdens it creates for us. Getting rid of it frees us to begin finding out who we are or who we want to be, since we may not know who we or God wants us to be because we’ve been hiding behind our stuff, lo these many years.

Gail says we should throw away 50 things because throwing away our blankies is a cumulative experience in which success at throwing things away breeds still more success and leads to more and even joyful throwing away – our power over our stuff grows while our self-esteem and freedom grows along with it. We also begin to realize the real value of things, not the value we fantasize it will give us before buying it.

I won’t go into the details Michelle Singletary lays out in her review about how this all works because I want to get to the part about my Easter simple living revelation.

Simple Living Easter Resurrection

Easter is about resurrection and new life for all of us, and Lent is about sacrifice or “giving up.” Christian simple livers understand that living simply with less stuff opens a door to new life that is not contingent on physical stuff, and that new life becomes fuller as we deepen our commitment to living a life as much for others as ourselves.

Giving things up for Lent should not be an exercise in self-flagellation just for the sake of experiencing pain or loss. Instead it is intended to be a time of growth in which we re-discover ourselves by getting rid of the things in our lives that separate us from God and from others. For most of us that would mean our stuff and our irrational emotional attachment to it.

So, here’s my revelation, and I wish I had had it a couple months ago: The throwing out of 50 things would be an excellent Lenten discipline which would not only teach us something important about who we are, our relationship to God and to others, but would do something concrete and necessary for our neighbors everywhere by decreasing the size of our ecological footprints, and would allow us to give our stuff to those who need it much more than we do.

Then, Easter morning, we can wildly celebrate Jesus’ resurrection right along with our own. We will have completed our own Lenten hard work and will emerge from the tomb right along with Jesus.

There could hardly be a better Easter than that!

Tags: Commentary, How To's

• Consumer Culture and Economics , Environment , How To's , Living More Simply , Psychology , Spiritual Development
• Comments(0)

admin March 3rd, 2010

I just have to clear the air about something before I go on to write any more posts.

I’ve been thinking a lot about Paul’s letter to the Romans. Our adult Sunday school class is doing a study of Romans at the moment, but what has been running through my mind has less to do with the class and more to do with my bumbling, stumbling, sometimes less than simple or faithful life.

I am particularly struck with Paul’s self-revelation that:

“I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do–this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.” (Romans 7:18-20, NIV).

Oh, that’s me through and through! Often as I sit writing these posts I begin to feel hypocritical because they don’t often describe what goes on in my soul or my addled brain. And what goes on in there isn’t always so pure, giving, or simple as some of my posts might imply.

I have written a lot about the foundation of Christian simple living being love and compassion for God’s people and his creation. But I have not written enough about my own struggle trying to be loving and compassionate while at the same time, being far from the genuinely caring person I would like to be and should be.

I have always had a real problem with a low-grade selfishness and defensive anger. I’m pretty good at keeping them under wraps with other people (not to mention while writing blog posts), but they are always lurking around inside my head, twisting my feelings and perceptions. I tend to get frustrated and angry easily when things aren’t going my way, and all of these un-loving traits really put a damper on actually being the kind of person Jesus asks us to be. It is said that loving kindness is supposed to be our natural response to the love God shows for us. But for me it isn’t natural and too often isn’t there at all.

I feel like Paul even to his point of writing “Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.” Often my anger at myself and others occurs in an instant – so fast that it takes me by surprise, as if someone else were controlling me. Now, having some professional background in the mental health field, I know that isn’t the case, but it sure feels that way and I know exactly what Paul was writing about.

It can be very depressing because I work hard at trying to change these irrational feelings. I pray and meditate on it daily, and try to become more like what Christ asks of us. But it’s a long hard struggle and sometimes (OK, often) not successful. I feel like giving up.

There is now substantial brain research showing that far more of our behavior and feelings are genetic, chemical, and neurological than mental health professionals used to believe, so some of this comes with us into the world rather than it all being intra-psychic processes. Like substance abuse, these ‘innate’ emotions can make us feel like they’re totally out of our control.

Of course, both from a psychological and faith point of view, regardless of how in-born some of these traits might be, they still belong to us, and we have a responsibility to the rest of the world (as well as ourselves) to tame them and make the best of them. I believe that was inherent in Christ’s message.

So once in a while, I remember that I have made some changes over the years. I have become a little more compassionate and a little less reactive through meditation and prayer. It’s just that I’m not anywhere near where I should be, and I’m terrified that my blog posts make me out to be, what I might call, an intuitive lover: one who loves instinctively and well, and therefore lives a very joyful and naturally simple life.

After all, only someone who is really good at all this, and is well-practiced and disciplined in compassion and living simply would be in a position to write about it for the whole world, right?

Not in my case! I write, not because I’m so good at living this way, but because I think these things are desperately important, and that we should all be working on becoming compassionate Christian simple livers. I believe it’s what Christ expects of us, so we all have to do what we can – being on the journey together.

So I find some comfort in knowing that Paul had his moments too. I guess when you get right down to it though, I’m a neophyte at walking the compassionate talk, and at least a little bit hypocritical. I guess it’s another thing I’ll have to make the best of, because here it is, and it ain’t going away!

So I’ll press on, hoping that you will understand.

Thanks for reading.

Tags: Commentary, Personal Experience

• Psychology , Spiritual Development , Theology and Biblical Study
• Comments(1)

admin February 2nd, 2010

Once again I’ve found strong support for Christian Simple Living in the mainstream media! Not only that, but there’s some support there for believing that Christian Anarchy might help save us from ourselves. Of course the writer of this article probably didn’t recognize that rather obscure point.

Robert J. Samuelson, contributing editor of Newsweek and The Washington Post, wrote an article in the 2/8/10 edition of Newsweek entitled The Perils of Prosperity in which he argues that having our economy go bust every now and then is a very good thing. That’s because busts tend to make us aware of the riskiness of the financial world and its institutions which in turn makes us more cautious in our dreams for our financial future as well as in our actions.

But it is in his reasoning that simple living principles stand out.

I should say at the outset that some of my interpretations of his article are based on Christian Anarchy principles… and yes, I did promise in my last post that I would make having a discussion of Christian Anarchy my next project, so let this post be the opening salvo of that discussion!

Samuelson’s thesis is that all of us, not just the bankers, brokers, real estate agents, and the failure of government regulation, were responsible for this recession, and if we continue to delude ourselves with the thought that these “bad guys” really were the culprits, then we are simply setting the stage for the next big recession.

He says, very insightfully, that “Greed and shortsightedness didn’t suddenly burst forth; they are constants of human nature.” Ah yes, we are all fallen people! So if these nasty traits aren’t new, then what really did cause the recession?

Complacency! We were lulled into the ego-centric belief that the economy and financial system had become much safer than history actually demonstrated which encouraged all of us to take unreasonable risks while expecting much more personal wealth than was either sensible or supported by long term economic history. We only saw the short term economic story of the past 25 years during which the U.S. had the greatest run of prosperity in its history. With our myopic glasses on we imagined that our economic system was nearly perfect or invulnerable and that it would last virtually forever. This prosperity only led us to engage in more and more “self-defeating expectations and behaviors. The huge profits made in these decades by investors conditioned many to believe in the underlying benevolence of financial markets.”

Samuelson notes that modern democracies have made it their jobs to try to create as much prosperity as possible for everyone, i.e. they try to create “perpetual booms,” better known as perpetual motion machines or Ponzi schemes. How else is one to stay in office??

But the author concludes that “The cruel contradiction is that this promise itself may become a source of instability because the more it is attained, the more people begin acting in ways that ultimately invite its destruction…. The quest for ever-more and ever-better prosperity subverts itself.”

The connection to Christian simple living here is fairly obvious: More is not better, and the never-ending struggle for ‘more’ not only does not bring happiness, but rather too often brings disaster.

Here I would like to inject the notion of Christian Anarchy, and how Samuelson’s thesis supports it as part of our simple living practices.

First, does the term “Christian Anarchy” mean that Christian congregations should gather downtown and throw bombs?

Mmm… not quite.

The Greek term ‘anarchy’ has two parts: the prefix “an-” is the same as “un-” in English which means ‘not’ rather than ‘anti-‘ or ‘against’, and ‘archy’ means ‘ruler’ or ‘power’. It is generally applied to governments or other power-wielding organizations,  say like The Church. So broadly defined, anarchy would mean ‘un-power’ or “no power.”

The late Vernard Eller, a Church of the Brethren pastor and theologian who has written extensively on Christian Anarchy, used the term ‘Arky’ for short, and defines it as almost any government or other type of organization that “claims to be of primal value for society.” That would include governments of all types and most other organizations such as political parties, fraternal organizations, churches, schools, philosophies, and even the Woman’s Club! All of these make some claim to our allegiance and they all attempt to govern some part of our beliefs, values, or actions for the, ahem, “greater good.”

Here’s the hitch: for Christians the only real power is God, and all other powers are subservient to Him. So Christians owe their allegiance only to God and therefore cannot owe it to any other person or organization, especially if those organizations require you to believe or act in any way inconsistent with what God tells us to do or believe.

Why?

Because only God is entirely dependable and faithful to us. All other people and organizations are fallible (often very fallible) and frequently cannot be trusted, after all, as I mentioned above, we are all fallen people. Even the very best of us. Even those we have trusted for years and years. Sooner or later they all let us down in some way, and not infrequently, catastrophically. Even “The Church.” Think of all the ills perpetrated by various factions of “The Church” over the centuries – the torturing and killing; the collaborations with illegal and/or immoral people, clergy immorality, illegal or immoral financial dealings, etc.!

Thus, according to Eller, for followers of Christ “Anarchy (unarkyness)… is simply the state of being unimpressed with, disinterested in, skeptical of; nonchalant toward, and uninfluenced by the highfalutin claims of any and all arkys. And “Christian Anarchy”… is a Christianly motivated “unarkyness.” Precisely because Jesus is THE ARKY, the Prime of Creation, the Principal of All Good, the Prince of Peace and Everything Else, Christians dare never grant a human arky the primacy it claims for itself Precisely because God is the Lord of History we dare never grant that it is in the outcome of the human arky contest that the determination of history lies…” (sic.)*

This is at once both a theological issue and a practical issue. Here, today, I’m focusing on the practical part because the Samuelson article is such a good example of what happens when we have faith in the world’s arkys – they mess with us!

This is pretty much what Samuelson tells us. We gave our allegiance to the brokers, real estate agents, bankers, and economists, naively believing that whatever they told us was right. We literally invested everything we had with these folks. We trusted a human ‘arky’ to do what human arkys can’t do, and which Jesus told us specifically not to do.

Truth-be-told, we did it because the promises they, and all the rest of consumer society told us, sounded soooo good, we just wanted to believe it – we just wanted to have it… all!

So we gave up any pretense of believing and acting on what Jesus taught us about what’s important in life –particularly that we should never put our trust in money or goods because they never serve us well. Rather we were taught to live simply and honestly and not to love money.

We gave our faith and allegiance to “the masters of the universe” and consumer society in general. We allowed them to lead us into this pit, then suffered as we crashed and burned together with The Masters of the Universe (although they are rich and don’t care).

A little Christian anarchy a few years back would have served us well.

More on Christian anarchy in the next post.

*Taken from Christian Anarchy: Jesus’ Primacy Over the Powers, Vernard Eller. Online book at http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/index.html

Tags: Commentary, Information, Resources

• Christian Anarchy , Consumer Culture and Economics , Coping With Consumer Culture , Psychology , Theology and Biblical Study
• Comments(0)

admin January 15th, 2010

Obama, Niebuhr, “Just War Theory,” and simple living are all of a piece.

It’s time for me to comment a bit on political and world affairs.

I hesitate to go there because this arena has become so filled with hate and vitriol. I also believe that we can live as Christians regardless of what any government or political party does or doesn’t do. However our congregation’s adult Sunday school has been discussing President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech and his use of Reinhold Niebuhr’s Just War Theory in it. This got me thinking about the theory, foreign policy, Christian morality, and its relationship to Christian simple living.

Niebuhr, of course, was one of America’s preeminent protestant theologians in the 20th Century who taught for many years at Union Theological Seminary. He is known for his mentoring relationship with German minister Dietrich Bonhoeffer of the anti-Nazi Confessing Church, his writings on Just War Theory, and a number of critical books on other theological topics.

Niebuhr and others, most recently Barak Obama in his Nobel speech, claim that Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi-style nonviolence never successfully stops wars or conflicts. They suggest that Gandhi or King could never have succeeded in stopping or preventing the Second World War by talking with Adolf Hitler, for instance.

The theory holds that war and conflict are permanent parts of human life because of original sin, i.e., we are ‘fallen’ imperfect people, and we will always be falling into conflict. Because we live in this sinful world, therefore, we will be forced to exercise power in order to prevent the world from collapsing into chaos, which would not be the Christian thing to do. Rather than merely trying to prevent war through ineffective nonviolent strategies, we should strive to make war as moral as possible by preventing more suffering than is necessary.

The fundamental principles for doing this are that:

• War must always be a last resort;
• Force must always be proportional to the threat (never more than an eye for an eye…);
• Civilians must be spared whenever possible.

So what in the world does this have to do with Christian simple living?

Christian simple living as I’ve defined it, is based on Jesus’ teaching that we should above all else, love and care for others and not engage in war or other acts that are destructive to people. This is what I call “Kingdom thinking.” It is a kingdom where we put our egos in our back pockets and consider the welfare of our neighbors first, no matter how far away or how much we might disagree or argue with them.

Part of doing that is to live simply so that we don’t use up more than our share of things, or use our ‘wealth’ or its accumulation, to abuse, oppress, or injure others, or injure creation as a whole which would be destructive to everyone. Rather we are to use our resources and our energy to build-up others, i.e., the community and the nations, as a whole.

This is a holistic, far-sighted, and patient approach to life which I think is at considerable odds with Just War Theory.

I believe that the notion of the just war is based on the brain wiring we are all, unfortunately, born with. That is, we are biologically and emotionally pre-programmed to use fight-or-flight responses. If a threat of any kind arises, we automatically want to either fight back (go for the jugular) or flee from the threat. Neither of these, of course, leads to peace.

The fight-flight response pretty much prevents us from engaging in long-term, proactive prevention and peacemaking efforts – the kind of thing Jesus has been asking us to do. In fact, much of the peacemaking that does go on today is focused on stopping existing conflicts, and even though that is a step in the right direction, it is not based on long-range or holistic thinking. Reducing current conflicts means that we are still focused on the conflict rather than on preventing future conflicts in the first place.

Even phrasing this as prevention is off-target because the term ‘prevention’ by definition assumes there are anticipated conflicts that we want to avoid. This is still reactive rather than proactive. Being proactive, in this case, means creating the fundamental conditions that ensure peace, period. This would mean, among other things, creating healthy interpersonal, social, economic, and international conditions which optimize the quality of life for everyone. Prevention efforts usually focus on altering only those conditions which affect the current conflict. Although the ‘healthy conditions’ might be preventative, the thinking and psychology behind them and the strategies and tactics used to create them are just not the same thing as prevention.

Under such optimized living conditions, people would tend to feel more fairly treated, would have most basic needs met, and would have better tools and resources for dealing fairly with disagreements long before they became conflicts or wars. I say this having spent a great deal of my career in the health promotion and disease prevention business, particularly substance abuse prevention. So I’ve had some time to think about it.

Our knee-jerk fight-flight response usually kicks-in so quickly that we don’t often give ourselves the time to learn or practice being proactive. We don’t have the time to practice peace! We only have time for fighting the next war or, at best, intervening once a war is about to start. Long term Kingdom Thinking requires patience and understanding so it’s usually at best an afterthought for us – after we’ve counted all the bodies.

Here, then, is my biggest objection to Just War Theory: it enables us, or traps us in the fight-flight vicious circle, because it always leaves open a large opportunity to give up on learning, understanding, patience, and peace, and instead to reach for a gun – fast, because it has been humanity’s accepted way of dealing with things. It’s a huge loophole, which we most often make use of, that actually prevents us from ever learning to do it right.

So day-by-day we get further and further from the Kingdom, and more and more entrenched in the darkening vicious circle of fight-flight and war as our preferred way of life.

So what are Christian Simple Livers to do? Do we have a role to play here?

One of the just war issues is that nations and their governments are constitutionally incapable of keeping the peace through peaceful means. That was Niebuhr’s whole point. Fallen people and their governments can’t seem to do without war. And Obama was in total agreement.

Truth be told, if I were president, I would adopt the same Just War stance even in spite of my Christian beliefs and rantings about Kingdom Thinking.

The secular world of nations and governments is mired deeply in its conflictual DNA as a way of governing and surviving. Obama and Niebuhr might be right that even a Gandhi couldn’t have succeeded against a Hitler.

But I think that is exactly the point that Jesus was trying to make about the Church and the Kingdom. It isn’t for everyone! Perhaps it can never be for everyone. But it can happen – in the Church, if we take it seriously – we just never have. A community of believers can function in this way through care and concern for each other, even those with whom we have very strong disagreements. With faith we can learn to do it. It has been done before.

I do believe that people who are intent on it, and have faith in it, and have faith in God, can create a better community and a better society at least within the bounds of the church community. And it may well spill beyond the church community as it often has in the past. We just need a lot more genuine Christian community based on living simply, and still more spillage into the secular world. Let’s think in terms of millennia here, not just a few years. But even in a few millennia I don’t believe it will be for everyone, as Jesus said.

This is my vision for the foundations of Christian simple living: We are called apart to behave differently – to take a radically different path. We don’t need to avoid the world as the Amish do so as not to be dirtied by it, but to work with Jesus in creating the Kingdom, while being “in the world” but not a part of it. This is a mark of The Church. If we can learn to live simply, spare the earth, and act in just and compassionate ways with each other, we will have taken a few more steps toward Kingdom Thinking and keeping the peace. And we can continue taking more and more steps toward creating equitable and just foundations for a more peaceful world as we mature in Christian simple living.

Within The Church – within this (potentially) blossoming Kingdom, we don’t need Just War Theory – it would destroy us.

This approach is very much in line with what has become known as “Christian Anarchy” which I am a great fan of. I keep threatening to write a few posts on this and have yet to do it, so maybe that will be my next project.

Tags: Commentary

• Faith and Politics , Fomenting Change , Psychology , Social Justice , Spreading the Word , Theology and Biblical Study , War and Peace
• Comments(0)