Welcome to BiblicalAgrarianism.com

Search   in  

 Create an AccountHome | Submit News | Your Account | Content | Topics | Top 10 | FAQ  

Site Visitors
Login:

Username:
Password:
Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code:

Members List Membership:
Latest:rlaneberg's Profile rlaneberg
Today:0
Yesterday:0
Overall:997
Visitation
Guests:
Members:
Total:0

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Make us your Homepage

Search



Languages
Select Interface Language:


  
BiblicalAgrarianism.com FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)



Category: Main -> Biblical Agrarianism

Question
·  What is Biblical Agrarianism?
·  What do Agrarians believe?
·  What is Separatism and what does it have to do with Agrarianism?
·  Are Agrarians anti-technology?
·  What is the difference between Biblical Agrarianism and what you call "Mercantile" Agrarianism?

Answer
·  What is Biblical Agrarianism?

  "Agrarianism is the only proper seedbed for Christianity.  Where Christianity has existed in an Agrarian culture, it has thrived and produced ample fruit.  Where it has existed nominally in a non-agrarian culture it has proved to produce no fruit at all except apostasy.  Examples abound.  Christianity was born “outside the camp” in the rural areas of Israel and it found its greatest movement and growth once it was scattered out of urban Jerusalem after the stoning of Stephen.  It has been hunted down and persecuted by the great harlot city of Rome, while it thrived in the valleys and mountains of the Alps.  It found Reformation in Germany, Switzerland, England and Scotland only to suffocate again when it became the state religion in the great cities of those lands.  It fled Europe for the wilds of Puritan America and thrived in the fertile soils of the New World, only to be choked out once again by the stony ground of northern industrialism and the growing urban state.  Christianity is not just theology, and the sooner we realize and accept that, the faster we will grow into maturity.


Biblical Agrarianism is a whole system of life, and it is the only system that is designed by God to be the life-support system of true Christianity." (Michael Bunker)

http://lazarusunbound.com/uc9notes.shtml
http://lazarusunbound.com/bunkp_agrarianculture.shtml


[ Back to Top ]

·  What do Agrarians believe?

  In an article on Agrarianism by Ted J. Smith III, Ph.D., Mr Smith said,

“Agrarians believe that the best society is one composed largely of farmers who work their own land, local tradesman and independent artisans, bound together in stable, harmonious communities in which citizens know one another as persons, not just roles.  Under a regime of self-government, this arrangement offers the greatest possible scope for the exercise of individual freedom, and the greatest possible incentive to exercise that freedom responsibly.”

[ Back to Top ]

·  What is Separatism and what does it have to do with Agrarianism?

We are going to be posting a two part treatise on Separatism as it relates to Agrarianism.  Most of your questions or objections to Chrisitan Separatism will be answered in this first part.  It is long so it must be downloaded as a PDF file.  This is part 1 of the 2 part series:

http://www.biblicalagrarianism.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=21

[ Back to Top ]

·  Are Agrarians anti-technology?

Agrarianism and Technology

Permalink 01:49:52 pm, Categories: General, 1699 words

During our recent trip up to Iowa, I was asked some questions about Agrarianism that are actually pretty common today. The natural response by the colonized mind when confronted with Agrarianism as a philosophy is to question why anyone wouldn't accept all technologies (without exception) as good, beneficial and acceptable. People will ask, "So, am I supposed to get rid of my cell phone and my computer?". Others will say, "God gave us a mind and if we use our minds to create time-saving technologies, aren't we just doing what we're supposed to be doing?". Still others will say, "You are a hypocrite because you still have a cell phone and use the internet".

When addressing these questions, we have to first look at the assumptions and presuppositions behind them. Here are the general assumptions and presuppositions behind these questions and statements. True Agrarians would disagree strongly with all these false presuppositions:

1. Agrarians are anti-technology, or reject all technology.
2. Therefore if someone is Agrarian and uses any technology, then they are a hypocrite.
3. Technology is good.
4. Saving "time" is good
5. Therefore if the human mind is capable of devising it, and it can be marketed as time-saving, efficient, or necessary, then it should be accepted.
6. If the Human mind can rationalize something as good, then it is good.

Now, like I said, true Christian Agrarians would disagree with these presuppositions.

1. Agrarians are anti-technology, or reject all technology.

This is patently untrue. A frying pan is technology. Using a plow is technology. A shovel is technology. We all use technology and Agrarians do not at all reject technology. What we reject is the presupposition that all technology is good or at the least "morally neutral". Agrarians are not anti-technology just because we are willing to use our minds and our Bibles to determine if some technology is ultimately and spiritually beneficial for our use. Because we reject (or are moving away from) some technologies as harmful to ourselves, our families, our way of life and our worldview, does not make us anti-technology.

2. Therefore if someone is Agrarian and uses any technology, then they are a hypocrite.

Since the prior presupposition is wrong, this assertion is wrong as well. Since we are not anti-technology, we cannot be hypocrites for using technology. If an Agrarian weighs the cost and the effects of using a technology, and determines that the benefits ultimately outweigh the negatives, and that his worldview and philosophy will not be harmed by the use of that technology, then he cannot be a hypocrite for using it.

3. Technology is good.

Some of these presuppositions intertwine. There is an assumption made by most colonized minds that technology is fundamentally good. Some people believe that in the very worst case, technology is morally neutral. In reality, every technology exists for a purpose, or is used toward an end. Every technology must be considered as to whether:

a.) It's use is positive towards our lives and worldview, and is conducive to our Christian success and happiness..
b.) The reasons and logic used to determine that a thing is "good" or not is true and Biblical. We do not want to produce "false positives", by assuming that a thing is good just because it enables some result or action that in reality is not good.
c.) The results promised are actually the results received.

4. Saving "time" is good.

Some technologies promise to be "time-saving" when in reality none of us using that technology have any more time available for spiritual pursuits than we had before the use of the technology. In real terms, most "time saving" devices do not save time at all. They merely reallocate time to some other industrial or unbiblical use. But the presupposition exists that saving "time" is good for its own sake, as if just because a task took half the time that it would have without the technology, that we are better off for it. This is usually not the case. The cult of "time-saving" has resulted in mentally and spiritually crippled people, unable to do the most basic and necessary tasks, ignorant of the means of basic survival and unable to hunt, grow, build, fix or create. The argument for saving "time" has become an end in itself. No one is willing to ask "save time for what?" Are our lives really more spiritually full and complete now that we are surrounded by "time-saving" devices that must be served by us, no matter the cost? At the root of it is the question, "What are we here for?". If God put me here to be perfected as I am digging post holes and building fences, am I really well served to be able to do all of that with machines that do the job in half the time, leaving me to serve the machines and to spend more time on spiritually and mentally debilitating pursuits?

5. Therefore if the human mind is capable of devising it, and it can be marketed as time-saving, efficient, or necessary, then it should be accepted.

By rejecting the concept of "time-saving" as being intrinsically good, we can also come to the conclusion that many of the devices created by men for that purpose are also not good. Just because an invention promises me that it will save me time and be easy to use, does not mean that it is good for me to use it. Buying industrialized butter from a commercial chain store may be easy, but is it good? Would I have been eternally (and physically) better served to go through the process of making my own butter? That is the real question.

6. If the Human mind can rationalize something as good, then it is good.

Because of the high regard we have for our own thoughts and ideas, we generally are not willing to question the character and state of the mind that thinks the thoughts and that comes up with the ideas. Speaking of the mind of man, the Bible says that the heart (mind) of man is desperately wicked, and naturally at enmity with God. Since the flesh wars with the Spirit, is it not safer to assume that the mind naturally wants to serve the flesh and not the spirit? If the mind rationalizes something as good, don't you think it would be wise to take that thought captive to the obedient of Christ Jesus by comparing it with the Word that He has given us?

Here is a post I put on our discussion forum regarding a conversation about whether or not Christians should refuse to do business with a company that is openly supporting the sodomite agenda:

Some guiding principles:

Every commercial and industrial technology must be closely examined concerning the usage of it in our lives. We are not anti-technology, but we do believe that these things should be contemplated, studied and prayed over before they are accepted into regular usage in our lives.

It is easy to say "XYZ company supports sodomites so that is bad and we shouldn't use them", but it is much more difficult to say "XYZ company is evil because of its purpose and worldview, and supporting sodomy is only a reflection of the evil nature of the corporation"; therefore we must be very circumspect in our usage of it, weighing the positives and negatives for OUR worldview, since these worldviews are at war. It is strangely humorous to hear that a Christian is bothered that XYZ company supports homosexuality, but they were not concerned that XYZ company supported the corporate destruction of the concept of Biblical Agrarianism by spreading the industrial mind set and values and by infecting men with greed and covetousness.

The fact is it will be almost impossible to find any corporation or modern company who is not seeking the advancement of corporatism (fascism) over community, and who is not supporting industrialism over agrarianism. Supporting sodomy is just consistent with the industrial worldview that requires peaceful, ignorant and sedate consumers and workers to "feed the machine".

In regards to the phone company that is supporting sodomite activities, the question is not "should I use company A or company B", the question should be, "Should I have a phone and if so, why". Make a list of the benefits and the negatives. Be honest and thorough. Then, when you have your list, go back over your "positives" and re-examine each one to see if the positive you list is REALLY positive, or if it is a negative disguised as a positive:

EXAMPLE: Your positive list concerning a phone may look like this...

1. I can be contacted by friends, family and associates to maintain some fellowship with them.
2. I can be contacted (and contact help) in an emergency.
3. I can quickly and easily gain information (if a store is open, if someone is home, order a pizza, etc.)
4. etc.

Then you want to go back over this list and you will find out that some of these "positives" are not positive at all, but are really negatives. This helps us examine our heart and our motives.

Let's say that after examining this we determine that the only real positive of having a phone is to be able to get help (for ourselves or others) and to be able to respond if a family member (wife or child) is in trouble. If that is true, then you do not need a land line, but you might consider a cell phone. If you only need it because of "work", then you might say, "well, I am going to keep my phone as I work my way out of this job, and then I will get rid of it and not have a phone any more.

So the point is that we should be examining every technology to see if it is a net negative or positive towards our desires and worldview. Use of the technology is morally neutral until we see the "end" or design in its use. As for what evil industrial corporations do with the money they make, examining that is a cop out to allow us to stay in the system without examining OURSELVES.

Michael

[ Back to Top ]

·  What is the difference between Biblical Agrarianism and what you call "Mercantile" Agrarianism?

The difference between real Biblical Agrarianism and "partial" or "mercantile" Agrarianism

Let me start by saying that I prefer any Agrarianism to modern Industrialism, and that my comments are not designed to deflate, attack, or dishearten anyone who is engaging in any Agrarianism anywhere.

I appreciate Agrarianism wherever I find it, but I did want to delineate between what we mean by "Biblical" or "Christian" Agrarianism, and what we would call "Mercantile Agrarianism". Mercantile Agrarianism is a form of Agrarianism which developed late in Agrarian cultures, usually as the last step before Industrialism; Mercantile Agrarianism was not Agrarianism in its purity, but was really the last dying gasps of Agrarianism. In its purity, an Agrarian society consisted mainly of homesteads and farms where family groups (or colonies) produced most of their means of survival (food and supplies). Though there was often trade and barter, commerce and exchange, the primary means of survival for each family or colony was in farming, husbandry, and gardening. There have always been craftsman and tradesmen in Agrarian societies, but even these craft and tradesmen provided most of the means of their survival for themselves - from the land. In the later stages of an Agrarian society, if the people are not careful and on watch to protect themselves and their society and culture, the tradesman and craftsman gives way to the merchant. The merchant begins to take over control over the society, and Agrarianism gives way to mercantilism. Trade becomes the central truth and reality of the culture, and from there compromise, mass production, and industrialism become inevitable; the merchant society becomes a consumer society, the merchant is overthrown by the corporation, the market is overthrown by the superstore, and, as we have seen, the tradesman and craftsman is replaced by the laborer. A "middle class" of consumers develop who produce nothing for themselves, but who serve to be consumers of those goods owned and sold by the rich and mass-manufactured by the labor of the very poor. These middle class workers are constantly bombarded with messages that intend and serve to increase consumption, usually marketed on the altar of "comfort" or "leisure", so that they might keep the system afloat by an ever increasing appetite for flesh satiating goods and gizmos.

The danger is always there, even on the small scale... even in the family group, colony, or community. When our desire for a more simple, separated, and God-centered life begins to give way to the desire for profit, comfort, or leisure; when we begin to seek our sustenance from the merchant instead of from the ground; when we settle for a "picture" of Agrarianism, instead of the real thing - then the collapse of our system is inevitable. In Mercantile Agrarianism, the "agrarian" is satisfied to live on a small portion of land (in many cases less than an acre), living (for the most part) like the industrialites who live around him, but convincing himself that he is different from them. I am not talking here about the reality of historic Agrarian societies, where there were always specialists who lived and labored for larger land owners. There were Fullers, Millers, Coopers, Smiths, Brewers, Shepherds, Bakers, Carpenters, etc. Sometimes these folks lived as workers on the land of a land owner. There is no inconsistency between this reality and Agrarianism. The difference between a worker who worked on a large farm that he did not own, and the modern "Mercantile Agrarian", is that the farm specialist in a truly Agrarian culture was a part of the family or the household of his master. He was not a slave, but he was a proper servant. He worked for wages, but he owned himself. He was God's servant, and for God's glory he served His master and made an honest living. He likely provided for most of his own food and goods, and what he could not produce he procured by barter, trade, or purchase. He hadn't given himself over to mercantilism because of his idolatry and greed (the reason most wannabe Agrarians never pull the trigger on leaving the suburbs), but he had become a working part of an Agrarian society in exactly the place and station in which God had placed him. In an Agrarian society not all men will own large tracts of land and large farms. In fact, not all men will own land at all. But there is a huge difference between the Agrarian specialist or craftsman, and the modern Mercantile Agrarian - who attempts to blend Agrarianism with modernism, and his Christianity with the world. I mentioned this not long ago when I read the blog of a minister who claimed that "everyone" is an Agrarian, because if you eat, you are Agrarian. From this philosophy comes the idea that any suburbanite who plants a garden, or who raises a few chickens is an Agrarian. While we do encourage suburbanites to do their best to provide more and more of their necessities and to rely less and less on a failing economy and worldly culture - it is wrongheaded to call a part time gardener an "Agrarian". Just as it is wrong to call a large commercial agricultural producer a "farmer". The reality is that, though these folks are doing some good things for their health, their well-being, and their security - in the long run they are still cogs in an evil and worldly system that is contrary to the Kingdom of God. I know that there are some who will insist that if anyone, anywhere, ever - participates in even the smallest way with the modern industrial/commercial system, then they too must be cogs in the world system, but this is not the truth. It is understood that there will always be some level of concourse with the society, even in the perfect Christian Agrarian culture, but we must not allow mere necessary contact to become an excuse for defending actual intercourse with an idolatrous society. So in Mercantile Agrarianism (no matter what it calls itself) you may see two extremes: On the one hand you may have the suburban gardener, or a small land-holding entrepreneur, for whom Agrarianism is a hobby, or maybe a profit-center, but not an over-arching philosophy and way of life. On the other hand you may have a commercial agriculture capitalist, who raises some cash crop that is to be pumped into the industrial society that supports him. If the market dries up or crashes - he may lose the farm and everything, or he may rely on the government to get him through to the next bull market. Both types of Mercantile Agrarians buy the bulk of their goods from the merchant, and they produce very little of what they consume. Their Agrarianism is utilitarian, but we dare not call it "Christian" or "Biblical", and it is important that we know the difference between Mercantile Agrarianism and truly Biblical Agrarianism.

I hope that all makes sense.

I am your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

[ Back to Top ]




The only hope for anyone who desires to truly understand and obey the Holy Scriptures, is a return to both the Biblical culture and worldview where the scriptures were at home... Doctrine, Culture and Worldview... these things are not unconnected, except if we are to count that all three have been abandoned by modernist religion.




All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2005-2006 by Michael Bunker.
You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php or ultramode.txt
PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
Page Generation: 1.74 Seconds