“My point is that a man cannot sin by bowing his head over it, saying grace with true gratitude in his heart, and then tucking in—and this truth is not affected by whether what he is about to eat is a chocolate pudding cup from a fast food joint or lots of spinach, rich in iron” (Food Catholic, p. 4).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
What if he is eating three times as many calories as he burns, simply because he doesn’t feel full until he has reached King Henry VIII levels of satiety? Isn’t there a basic sin in that?
How much bacon was involved?
????????????
I think that Doug’s main point with all this is the moral indignation against anyone who does not eat organic free range chicken and that sort of thing. There is a lot of “food shaming” out there and I think Doug (echoing St Paul) is just saying that there are no clean and unclean foods anymore.
I don’t think he would say that it is wise to shovel unlimited amounts of food or anything like that.
It would be nice if he just stuck to that point, if that’s all it was. But he’s also made clear that he doesn’t feel like there’s anything wrong with industrial food production, has claimed that the world would starve without it, said that any Christian who is into non-industrial food would realize that they were idiots if the perverts hadn’t confused them, and seems to head off any legitimate discussion about whether industrial food is a real problem in any sense by attacking the most outlandish examples or by going on complete red herrings. (For instance, I have never… Read more »
Wilson does live in the Palouse, which is industrial wheat production country.
Wilson is likely correct that humans world wide would starve without industrial food production.
Can you consider that Berry writes about non industrial farming, as a fashion statement for the affluent?
Are red herrings industrial fish?????
Where do you get the idea that humans worldwide would starve without industrial food production? It’s less-efficient by acre, less-efficient by soil, less-efficient by fuel, less-efficient by water, and less-efficient by artificial chemical inputs. It’s only more-efficient by profits and by manpower. But neither profits nor manpower are serious limiting factors in today’s world. So why would there be starvation? I have a very hard time that anyone who has read any substantial amount of Berry’s writings would see it as a “fashion statement for the affluent”. I highly suggest you try looking at them yourself, and not just one… Read more »
J’, Happy New Year! I do look forward to continuing functional discussions with you this year! Re: industrial food production: “Agricultural production across the world doubled four times between 1820 and 1975 (1820 to 1920; 1920 to 1950; 1950 to 1965; and 1965 to 1975) to feed a global population of one billion human beings in 1800 and 6.5 billion in 2002.[12]:29 During the same period, the number of people involved in farming dropped as the process became more automated. In the 1930s, 24 percent of the American population worked in agriculture compared to 1.5 percent in 2002; in 1940,… Read more »
Dysfunctional discussions amuse me more!
Racist! ????
Whoops! I mean mysogynist!
With increasing scale economies of scale can become diseconomies of scale. In other words, just as getting bigger can lead to greater efficiencies, getting bigger can also lead to greater inefficiencies. It all depends on the details of each specific enterprise at a given time. There’s no magic/universal reason to believe that getting bigger will lead to increased profitability. In other words, there’s no more abstract truth to economy of scale than there is diseconomy of scale. Sometimes the little guys can outcompete the big guys. Sometimes the big guys can outcompete the little guys. Sometimes the big guys are… Read more »
So…….,what is the “greater inefficiency” of modern “industrial” wheat farming methods in the Palouse?
Do keep in mind that current methods do include soil conservation, erosion protection crop rotation and fallow times.
Are you asking what factors are keeping farms in the Palouse from getting even bigger than they are now?
No. Palouse farms, whatever their size, use modern “industrial” methods now. How are they more “inefficient” than a non industrial farm?
The dichotomy you’re suggesting bears no relation to the real world. The real questions aren’t perfectly and completely (a) “industrial” or (b) “non-industrial”; the real questions are at the margins. I’m not at all well connected to that part of the country, but I’m sure there are farms with the newest and biggest combines, and I’m sure there are even some farms still using old pull-type combines. There are probably even some very small non-commercial “farms” harvesting enough wheat for their own use by hand. There’s probably at least a farm or two where at least some of the field… Read more »
Well, miniwendell, we sort of agree, the false dichotomy we are riffing on, perhaps belongs to Wendell Berry, not me!
Finally, I believe much of the Palouse wheat goes to Japan, a place that is simply dependent on food imports.????????????
“…the false dichotomy belongs to…Berry”
I don’t follow you there.
As to Japan, there may not be any short-term (or even medium-term) way for the whole country to become largely self-sufficient in food, but there are surely lots of options for most any Japanese family that wants to shorten its own supply lines to make a lot of progress on that front.
Miniwendell, the short version of Berry’s dichotomy is: non industrial good, industrial bad.
Off island industrial agriculture feeds Japan, and other countries.
Anyone that would talk of industrial agriculture “feeding the world” ought to consider the likelihood of those kind of supply chains leading to severe famines (as in the Bengal famine of 1943 or the Vietnamese famine in 1945.)
Miniwendell, industrial agricultural feeds the world now. Crop failure and famine can happen with any sort of agriculture.
Industrial agricultural generally feeds the least vulnerable people (and their cars…) Subsistence agriculture largely feeds the most food insecure people of the world now. Industrial agriculture commonly requires expensive inputs that poorer people can’t afford and it also doesn’t work so well in places where supply chains are more vulnerable to disruptions, extreme currency fluctuations, etc. Crop failure can happen with any sort of agriculture, but it’s most likely and worst with industrialized monocrops and in cases of over-reliance on particular crops (as with the Irish potato famine.) (Crop diversification is especially a weakness of industrialized agriculture.) And famines, at… Read more »
“Industrial agricultural generally feeds the least vulnerable people”
Miniwendell, the “least vulnerable people” acheived their “least vulnerable” status, via industrialization. This is where your position contradicts its’ self. See my last comment to Jonathan to wrap us up.
; – )
> the “least vulnerable people” acheived their “least vulnerable” status, via industrialization. Three problems I’d note with that idea. (1) Up to 3 million dead in the North Korean famine of 1994-1998, 5 million dead from the Russian famine of 1921, 10 million dead in the Soviet famine of 1932-33, 43 million dead in the Chinese famine of 1959-62. In other words, the first problem with your assertion is the facts. These famines were caused particularly by industrialization. Granted, disrupting the status quo can lead to problems no matter which direction things are moving, but these famines happened in large… Read more »
Are you upset at being nicknamed miniwendell?
My principle and your position problem still stand. Communist countries are never “less vulnerable”, they are always more vulnerable in every way, by being communist. Increased yields are due to ag. Tech. Progress, which is part of “industrialization” of agriculture.
Finally, I don’t neglect “freedom”. Freedom brings us both (all) kinds of agriculture, including industrial.
No, I rather like it. I even considered changing my disqus name from Wendell to Miniwendell. > your position problem still stand I don’t understand what you’re saying there. > Increased yields are due to ag. Tech. Progress, which is part of “industrialization” of agriculture. Grossly misleading over-simplification followed by circular reasoning. > Communist countries are never “less vulnerable”, they are always more vulnerable in every way, by being communist. Fair enough, but if you’re defending industrialized agriculture at the same time you’re missing the reality that neither industrialized agriculture nor communism exist in a vacuum. Communism and communist measures… Read more »
Well miniwendell, you just gained huge “non-industrial”, and “authentic” sense of humor points!
To your final “merger” point, the architecture firm I work for, was recently aquired by a firm with global reach. There is part of me that chafes at the thought. But business, government and farms, are run by human beings, and ultimately controlled by God. There in, lies the possibility, that they can b run to the good on earth, and to the glory of God! Sort of like blog comments ! ????????????????
Think of this response as a shortcut to a greater volume of books and stories and experiences it took for me to get it. :) It’s been many years since I was born on the Palouse and I was too young to know anything of wheat production, so I can’t speak directly about their fields, but I can give you some possibilities. Not all of these apply to the same farm. And I’m not proposing any sort of strict definitions – what I mean by “industrial farming” is basically “the tendency for profit motive to dominate over supporting the family/community… Read more »
Do you think any of the above, will get my wife to put stuff in the recycling bin? (I hope so, but I doubt it.) ????
Sounds like “boutique farming” does have its place, but industrial farming has its place as well. How “sexy” can soy beans be?????
I am no expert, but industrial argiculture does achieve greater economies of scale, aka, it is more “productive”. The above brief conflicts with your “less efficeint” postition. If you were correct, there would be less industrial farming. It is more efficient in terms of profits and manpower. It is less efficient in terms of acreage farmed, water input, fertilizer input, soil erosion, soil fertility, and overall community health. Those large gains you note are the result of putting massive new quantities of acreage under production. Human agriculture now covers over 30% of the Earth’s usable surface. “Rural good, Urban bad”,… Read more »
J’, to wrap us up here, with some agreement, “industrial” farming, and non-industrial farming, both have their merits and their place. If you give any credence to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”, the invisible hand gave us industrial farming, which is not without its’ merits. Our opinions on their respective merits are just that, opinions. As for Berry, and the case for “non-industrial”, I like the idea of hippies, and back to the land notions, but they, like everything else, have their pros and cons. Beyond that, an implication re: Berry, is that in contrast to his alleged non-industrial “authenticity”, whatever… Read more »
Adad, you seem to be responding to a false caricature of Berry. I think it would be worth confronting/disagreeing with the real Berry. Here’s an essay of his that talks particularly about why and how and where and when to draw the line on industrialization:
http://www.crosscurrents.org/berryspring2003.htm
Sorry miniwendell, I missed this one! I did skim the article. I did notice that maxiwendell disallowes general indictments, which is unfortunate, since many blog comments are nothing but general indictment!????
He also seems verbose, an attribute I try to avoid myself!
The invisible hand also gave us internet pornography. The invisible hand goes where the short-term profit goes. I think we are only now beginning to realize how often and how completely this can be a very bad idea. For everything else you say, I’m not sure I see where the actual criticism is on the points. There are articles where Berry gets quite specific on where specifically industrialization goes wrong. (And, as I’ve pointed out before, he early relied not only on his own personal experience but on the work of agricultural scientists before him.) It’s certainly not just a… Read more »
Ah! The invisible hand! I see that an associated idea is ” the bees of social virtue are buzzing in man’s bonnet”.
As for Berry and his (and your) points, the enumeration of them does not make them correct. My foundational response is, that you and Berry assign too little “virtue” to the modern agriculture that we have now. Which is not to say it is perfect, or that Berry’s notions are perfect. Bottom line, I suspect Berry’s vision of agriculture, may have weaknesses similar to Obama’s vision of healthcare! ???? ????
In his argument for the efficiency of small-scale agriculture, Jonathan focuses on things like fertilizer input, water input, and soil erosion. Jonathan gives little attention to the issue of human efficiency that “A” dad raised, because Jonathan associates it with profit motive, which he implies should be distasteful, if not immoral. However, Jonathan’s argument for small-scale agriculture depends on the assumption of a high proportion of society being fully engaged in food production. Depending on how he defines industrial agriculture, his view suggests that at least 10% of our population should leave their current specialized occupation and take up a… Read more »
While I think I had, functional discussions with both Jonathan, and MiniWendell, (who was good humored enough to like his nickname), I was always trying to have a discussion on principle, where they would defer to their short version of “technical” when it suited them. ‘Cho, your point seems similar to mine, in that “modern” methods have more virtue, then the Wendell Berry’s of the world assign to them. For instance, I am a bit of a “MiniWendell” myself, via my suburban wood stove, though if everyone did the same, there would soon be no wood to burn! (and thanks… Read more »
“A” dad, my response to katecho above would apply to some of your own discussion of the invisible hand (not including my comments directed particularly at the way katecho has approached the discussion.)
Miniwendell! Looks like the invisible hand exposed some closet miniwendell of my own!
In any case, I think I am trying to have a simpler discussion. Perhaps it is this, micromanaged individualistic organic farms doubtlessly have their merits. But does that really mean those should be the standard by which stewardship agriculture should be measured? Do you really think that all industrialized farming lacks adequate stewardship?
I think much of it does have adequate stewardship.
Would you trust a scientist to tell you what chemicals you need and then feed you on chemicals alone? Do you think that would be good for your health? Yet we do it with our food. Not to mention the # of gallons of oil its taking to produce each acre of industrial food nowadays. Not to mention pollution, in air as well as chemical and soil runoff. Those are three obvious ways in which I think stewardship falls short when you industrialized a complex living process. And they don’t even get into the root issues – that less human… Read more »
J’, “yet we do it with our food?”
Beyond sodium chloride, what chemicals?
I mean that we feed our food chemicals, when we wouldn’t do that ourselves. We take the complex living organisms that are our crops and replace their natural food (once a huge mix of animal manure and decaying plant matter and decaying insect bodies and decaying rocks and all that mix fixed in the soil by fungus and bacteria and other plants to be ingested by the roots) with purely chemical inputs. We think we can make real, fully healthy plants despite feeding them nothing whatsoever but a few basic chemicals. And then get surprised when those plants seem to… Read more »
A dad, thanks for the reply. (I see that Jonathan has replied in the meantime. I’m going to marginally disagree with Jonathan. Or at least I wouldn’t put things quite like he does.) > micromanaged individualistic organic farms doubtlessly have their merits. But does that really mean those should be the standard by which stewardship agriculture should be measured? I wouldn’t be inclined to call “micromanaged individualistic organic farms” (or any other kind of farm) a “standard,” so much as I’d want to call them one of many possible answers to the question of how to produce food. I would… Read more »
Katecho, you could recognize most of the questions you direct at Jonathan as obvious straw men if you’d just recognize a couple basic points, points you seem to prefer dancing around rather than confronting directly. Should questions about fertilizer input, water input, and soil erosion, etc. weigh in the balance at all (alongside any other questions)? If so, should they weigh in the balance (alongside any other questions) for the individual consumer in his purchasing decisions (and also for the individual laborer in his decisions about how to direct his own labor)? If you can say yes to those two… Read more »
Or, Katecho, I could just point out that I’ve said there are places for many types of life, and even for technology. Personally, we have one small laptop between my wife and I, and we don’t replace it till the old one dies. So as a family we get one computer about every five years. I also own a camera and a mobile phone I was given, and my wife actually bought a new phone. No TV or anything like that. That’s about it as far as that type of technology goes in our family. We’re not against it, but… Read more »
It’s wonderful to hear that even though Jonathan makes liberal use of a computer, it’s only a laptop, and a small one at that, and it’s also old. Apparently that’s how easily his use of the fruits of high-tech industrialization can be rationalized. In any case, my point was that his ideal of small-scale, high-efficiency farming only matches industrialized food output when a society devotes at least ten percent of its people to the vocation of manual food production. Jonathan doesn’t offer to impose upon or incentivize society to return to such a value, and he doesn’t even support his… Read more »
It’s wonderful to hear that even though Jonathan makes liberal use of a computer, it’s only a laptop, and a small one at that, and it’s also old. Apparently that’s how easily his use of the fruits of high-tech industrialization can be rationalized. Actually, you’re wrong, our laptop is only about a year and a half old. And your claim that I make “liberal use of a computer” is just a continuation of the ridiculous personal attack you keep making from a position of ignorance. My only reason for using that example in response to your personal attack was to… Read more »
Jonathan, if every argument for industrialized farming was coming from Monsanto, I would see your point. But how do you get around the fact that Nobel scientists, the Royal Academy for Science, the WHO, and the UN–as well as countless other groups with impeccable scientific credentials–are arguing that with a burgeoning world population, most of whom are already malnourished, and with no more than 15% of the world’s land suitable for agriculture, industrialized farming is efficient and necessary?
Berry would start out by asking you where all those agricultural scientists are getting their education and research funding. An enormous amount of the funding for agricultural research originates with industrial agriculture. And I’d also ask why you’re worried about a “burgeoning world population” and “most of whom are already malnourished”. There is WAY more than enough food worldwide. The issue is distribution, not quantity. I recommend “Enough: Why the World’s Poorest Starve in an Age of Plenty”. Even though its authors are non-farmers and non-scientists, and fully on-board with industrial farming because they don’t know any better, they still… Read more »
If Berry can’t get basic things like what families and societies are and how they work correct, why should any of his other opinions be listened to?
(My family raises grass-fed beef cattle. Good food is important, but only in the sense that doing any job well is important.)
Because the arguments themselves are compelling. Do you not believe that there’s anything we can learn from unbelievers? Mt 5:47 talks about truths that even pagans recognize. 1 Cor chapter 1 talks about God choosing foolish things particularly to shame the wise. There’s a similar theme in Romans chapter 11.
Of course I do, but I don’t see anything to distinguish Berry out of the crowd of bien-pensant SWPLs who value “authenticity” while living and thinking in a thoroughly modern fashion. What am I missing?
I wouldn’t say that Berry “lives in a thoroughly modern fashion.” Berry certainly isn’t, in many respects, a progressive. Although he has more recently headed down that path in some ways, his best writing pre-dates most of that. I would say he wrote (especially in the 70s and 80s) not at all as a bien-pensant SWPL but as a rural Southerner in a very conservative agrarian tradition. I wouldn’t call him a Christian, and he seems to have avoided calling himself a Christian, I assume because he isn’t and hasn’t been one, but he was (until relatively recently at least)… Read more »
How is this not a thoroughly modern attitude? Liberté, égalité, etc. Marx would smile.
Are you trying to make that quote out to be some kind of socialist/redistributionist quote? You’re totally misreading it if you are.
Does it matter? Where can you find this sentiment before the French Revolution?
> Where can you find this sentiment before the French Revolution?
Leviticus 25:13. Isaiah 5:8
LOL
Apparently I was wrong to take you seriously.
Perhaps I should take a step back and not assume that you understood the quote (and “this sentiment”) you asked about. Which definition of democratic are you reading into that quote?
1. relating to democracy, a system of government
or
2. available to the broad masses of the people (as in saying rifles are democratic in a way that nuclear weapons aren’t)
Both. Either.
The quote has nothing whatsoever to do with the first definition.
OK. And?
OK, and your objection to Berry, at least this particular one, is then based in a false interpretation of what he said and is therefore a faulty criticism.
No.
Yes.
Further evidence: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/261818-in-a-society-in-which-nearly-everybody-is-dominated-by
Berry is just another worshipper of liberty and equality. He offers no alternative to the modern structure.
What do you mean by “the modern structure”? And why is offering an alternative to whatever that is an absolute precondition to a writer being worth reading?
And what is that quote supposed to be evidence of? That Berry believes democracy is a good thing? Doug Wilson believes in democracy, too. Does that mean all of his writing and ideas are worthless, too?
I’m looking for evidence that Berry is better than his principles. Wilson, at the very least, acknowledges the necessity of society to be organised in obedience to the kingship of Christ Jesus and the commands of Scripture. He and I differ on whether democracy is an effective means to that end. Berry displays no such restraint.
Can an editorial in a newspaper not be convincing without knowing how true the author is to his own espoused principles?
And hasn’t Wilson explicitly denied the necessity that agriculture be organized in obedience to the kingship of Christ Jesus and the commands of Scripture? Hasn’t Wilson categorically denied any applicability of Scripture to agriculture?
Has he? I certainly have seen no evidence of Wilson thinking that. He doesn’t seem to think that modern agricultural practices are disobedient to God’s revealed will, but that’s different from saying there’s no applicability.
What’s the difference between saying there’s no applicability of God’s revealed will to agricultural questions and saying that there’s no problem with Christians answering farming questions just like unbelievers? (You are saying Wilson is saying that there’s no problem with Christians answering farming questions just like unbelievers, right? If he weren’t saying that, wouldn’t he instead expect there to be (and with any knowledge of agriculture also recognize) particular problems with the agricultural practices of people that deny and ignore the kingship of Christ Jesus?)
Ever heard the saying “Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while”? God’s will is revealed in nature as well as in Scripture.
I’m not saying Berry is wrong about everything. I’m saying there’s no particular reason to trust or follow his reasoning or sentiments. No doubt they coincide with that of a well-ordered Christian society at many points.
If Wilson is going to critique Berry or critique the ideas for which Berry is a prominent spokesman shouldn’t we expect a better critique than “there’s no particular reason to trust or follow his reasoning” because he’s not a Christian? However true it may be that he lacks the right credentials/creeds/foundations, shouldn’t we respond to his reasoning (insofar as we’re going to respond to him at all or deal with the issues he has become an unavoidable spokesman for) instead of just dismissing him with a Christian ad hominem?
If a man loudly denounces thistles for not producing figs, why should we praise his insight into the general preferability of figs?
Huh?
Berry identifies symptoms in our society but has no insight into their causes.
You sound like someone that has never read a single on of Berry’s books. But, yes, of course, non Christians (or Christians that don’t write specifically and openly as Christians) aren’t going to be able to address the root causes of this world’s problems. That’s not to say that every unbelieving economist and chemist and forester can’t help us solve any of our problems, though.
I haven’t, my wife has. Let us say that Jayber Crow left us with an impression the dude is seriously odd.
That’s the only fictional book of Berry’s that I’ve read, and I didn’t care for it. Maybe some of his other fictional books are better, but I haven’t ever been motivated to read another. What I would recommend are Berry’s non-fiction books, especially from the 70s and 80s. Most of his books are collections of his essays, but The Unsettling of America is a regular book, and I would highly recommend it. That one’s almost a history book. Another Turn of the Crank is a good short book, a collection of essays that I think represents Berry’s writing well. Life… Read more »
I would still be very interested to hear your direct answer to these questions, ashv:
What’s the difference between saying there’s no applicability of God’s
revealed will to agricultural questions and saying that there’s no
problem with Christians answering farming questions just like
unbelievers? (You are saying Wilson is saying that there’s no problem
with Christians answering farming questions just like unbelievers,
right? If he weren’t saying that, wouldn’t he instead expect there to
be (and with any knowledge of agriculture also recognize) particular
problems with the agricultural practices of people that deny and ignore
the kingship of Christ Jesus?)
I’ve only read excerpts of Berry’s fiction, but I’ll note that Jayber Crow was written as an insert into a community’s story that he’d already been developing for 39 years, and when I read reviews (I just bought a different one, “A Place in Time” for my dad), several people mentioned that it was quite inaccessible as a first read of Berry’s.
I, too, have primarily read Berry’s nonfiction. “Bringing it to the Table” has his essays on food specifically. I very, very much liked, “Citizenship Papers”, which is a more recent book than the ones miniWendell recommends.
Helms wrote: And hasn’t Wilson explicitly denied the necessity that agriculture be organized in obedience to the kingship of Christ Jesus and the commands of Scripture? Hasn’t Wilson categorically denied any applicability of Scripture to agriculture? No, this was a false accusation raised by Jonathan and repeated by others. I provided specific examples where Wilson appealed to Scriptural principles with respect to food production. Jonathan chose to ignore them and repeat the false charge. I believe Jonathan owes Wilson an apology for bearing a false witness about him. With respect to food production, what Wilson rejects is the notion that… Read more »
Wilson did explicitly deny the necessity that agriculture be organized in obedience to the kingship of Christ Jesus and the commands of Scripture, and Wilson has categorically denied any applicability of Scripture to agriculture. The point was raised by Jonathan as well, but he and I (and others) came to that conclusion independently on the basis of Wilson’s own words. Jonathan defended the point very well here: https://dougwils.com/books/the-whole-hipster-food-industry.html#comment-3063989054 You didn’t refute any of that. You only said the point had already been refuted. If you want to be taken seriously, you’ll need to take that post of Jonathan’s seriously piece… Read more »
Apparently Helms is aka ourdemascam. It’s unfortunate to see that he has joined Jonathan in persistently and falsely accusing Wilson. Helms wrote: Wilson did explicitly deny the necessity that agriculture be organized in obedience to the kingship of Christ Jesus and the commands of Scripture, and Wilson has categorically denied any applicability of Scripture to agriculture. Helms has already been confronted about this falsehood and challenged to provide a direct quote of Wilson. If Wilson had ever explicitly denied these things, Helms should have no trouble quoting him. If Helms cannot support his accusation, then I expect him to apologize… Read more »
OK, so Wilson did object on the basis of Scripture to feeding tallow to cattle. Meanwhile, however, doesn’t he defend buying and consuming conventional beef, which includes tallow fed beef (which I say based only on Wilson’s explanation of the facts based in turn on Pollan)? How does that constitute an application of Scripture? Does one wishful thought constitute an “application”? (And what other example is there? You suggested that there was more than one, but one of your two links didn’t seem to contain any.) Or is Wilson simply arguing for more/better government regulations? Are government regulations the only… Read more »
Helms wrote: OK, so Wilson did object on the basis of Scripture to feeding tallow to cattle. OK, so Helms needs to apologize to Wilson for misrepresenting him. Helms needs to apologize to Wilson for accusing him of explicitly denying the application of Scripture to food production when Wilson has clearly done no such thing. This needs to be cleared up first. Helms wrote: How would you suggest I better rephrase what it is that Wilson is objecting to applying Scripture to? I (and others, including ashv, bethyada and Farinata degli Uberti) have already explained this before. Wilson is not… Read more »
If I don’t say what you want me to say in the order you want me to say it, are you going to use bold face type on me again? I think I’ll be intimidated into submission then.
Helms repeated a claim that Wilson “explicitly denied” the application of Scripture to food production. Helms was predictably unable to support that accusation with any direct quote from Wilson, and I showed specific evidence of Wilson applying Scripture to food production. It was an open and shut case. If Helms cannot acknowledge these simple facts and apologize to Wilson, then I can have no expectation that he will acknowledge any other points or responses that I provide to his other questions. If Helms can’t be corrected on this one obvious point, then how can his views be informed by anything… Read more »
Try it yourself, beginning with the responses to what Wilson actually said, as I linked above, in The Whole Hipster Food Economy. You can make up convenient narratives and straw men all day long, and then point to one example that you say disproves the rule and not even be able to describe a rule consistent with that alleged counter-example. And then if everyone else isn’t willing to follow that logic, you just completely ignore every other argument (which you were doing even before) and think everyone else needs to demonstrate good faith. LOL! Jonathan carefully dealt quote by quote… Read more »
So how much of Berry have you read to reach that conclusion? What other SWPL do you feel Berry can be compared to in terms of his overall focus and ways of reaching it.
Is this short letter to the editor by Berry representative of how you would characterize Berry?
http://www.utne.com/Politics/Wendell-Berry-Work-Life-Balance
Yes. I find his tastes congenial but he does nothing to address or even identify the difficult problems our civilisation currently faces.
Do you not think that “the difficult problems our civilization currently faces” have roots in or connections to economic structures? For example, would a society defined largely by relatively self-sufficient family farms not respond differently to difficult problems than a consumer society? Do you think it’s a coincidence how many major corporations signed onto the amicus brief supporting the decision that came out of Obergefell? And that no major corporations spoke out against it (even though the country as a whole was very divided on the issue)? Berry may not have anything worth reading when it comes to the difficult… Read more »
The disorder in our economic life is a symptom of a disordered understanding of man and society. Berry wishes to heal wounds lightly.
OK. But restoring a blind man’s vision is a good thing even if healing his soul is infinitely better, right?
What makes you think that Berry’s desires or plans are feasible?
Berry’s “desires or plans” are eminently feasible, especially because Berry speaks primarily to individuals (as opposed to primarily addressing institutional or governmental issues) and because the changes Berry advocates are mostly gradual and marginal changes. Here’s an example (from an interview): Berry: Shorten the supply lines. Bring your economic geography back into your own view. That’s not to say that we don’t need tuna fish here [in Kentucky], but even if we were catching ocean fish in the least destructive way, it would still be wrong for us to be too dependent on tuna in Kentucky. We ought to eat… Read more »
LOL
Yes, that would be fine advice if everyone (or even most people) were exactly like him.
Certainly it’s not advice I would give particularly to someone living a subsistence lifestyle in South Sudan, but it is fine advice for the vast majority of Americans. We Americans would almost all do well to shorten our supply lines and to give more thought to how we’re shaping our communities and the world with our purchases and with our labor (and to let those thoughts influence our purchases and our labor.)
It’s advice I would give to poor people in India. In fact, there are publishers in India who print Berry’s books in multiple languages. The issues are virtually the same in India, just earlier in the process but with much more serious consequences.
If Berry is able to accurately point out disorder in our economic lives and help provide a vision of better ways to order our economic lives — in this respect I value Berry as an historian and a storyteller — ways that we can gradually shift toward, that’s good and productive, right? Although all such things will be corrupted by sin, there’s no reason an unbeliever couldn’t be helpful in that way, is there?
Have you actually read Berry on families and society? He’s written a lot about it – in fact I’d say that it’s the entire focus of his fiction writing, though only a minority (but still important) part of his nonfiction. I know for a fact that when Pastor Wilson wrote that post, he hadn’t read a single book dealing with Wendell Berry’s view on families and society, just that article with had a few quotes from one statement Berry made (I doubt he even read the statement in full because all the quotes he used came from the article.) And… Read more »
He has no intellectual defences against communism, individualism, or hedonism. What good is he?
Wilson’s remark that “a lot of Christians were attracted to what he was saying because they thought he was premodern. Turns out he is postmodern.” seems to cover the situation pretty well. Premodern rulers in Christendom didn’t need state control of marriage because they relied upon the church for it. The wrong of state non-reliance upon the church and the wrong of public perversion don’t add up to make a right. Direct state control of marriage may not be ideal but it’s better than nothing.
I guess the answer to my question is “no” then, if your response is that nonsensical first sentence.
“the sexual practices of consenting adults ought not to be subjected to the government’s approval or disapproval”
“Shall the usable property of our country be democratically divided, or not? Shall the power of property be a democratic power, or not?”
Is this unrepresentative of Berry’s views on family and society? If so, what should I read where he takes a different position?
That’s like asking how Chick-fil-a’s sandwiches could taste good if the CEO said this or that about marriage. It’s beside the point. Berry isn’t a political philosopher, and it would be silly to read him primarily as such. You could ignore Berry’s political philosophy altogether (which he’s really only written about tangentially anyway) and what makes him valuable would still make him valuable.
Berry rarely talks about sex and the government at all, and virtually never about homosexuality, because his focus is on traditional families and our own lives. So I’d say that is unrepresentative of Berry’s view on family and society because it’s something he hardly says. Except that more government interference is generally a bad thing, a position I’ve seen him take strongly on everything from farming to the surveillance state. If you want to understand what he really cares about in this realm, “Sex, Economy, Freedom and Community” might be the place to be. Or his novels, which primarily revolve… Read more »
You think he has no intellectual defenses against communism, individualism, or hedonism? Where do you get that? Have you ever read any of Berry’s essays? Who offers any stronger defense against communism, individualism, and hedonism than Berry? As to what you’re saying about state control, you seem to be looking at Berry as some kind of political theorist, which I don’t think is a fair characterization of Berry at all. I think where Berry excels is as an agricultural economist and a home economist (as in one who deals with home economics). These are the foundations on which any effective… Read more »
My point is that he’s got some slightly different aesthetics from most modern Americans, but no depth. He hasn’t gotten beyond “wouldn’t it be nice if”. His anthropology is just as deranged as any other modern or postmodern thinker. His statements about state control of marriage reflect this. Effective defences against those ills I listed require rejection of the modern understanding of man and engagement with a traditional understanding of society.
Berry is quite the gateway drug. I’ve seen more orthodox Christians go off the deep end starting with him than any other person.
What does that “deep end” look like?
And how does that compare to the number of orthodox Christians for whom the dollar has been the gateway drug to the deep end of modern American consumerism?
Here’s an applicable Doug Wilson quote:
“Now some will object that
the books I have cited are not by believers. And I will point out in
reply that things have gotten really bad when unbelievers can see what
Jesus is doing more accurately than believers can. When unbelievers by
common grace are reading history right side up, why should we reject
that in favor of believers who are reading their Bible upside down?”
Yes! That’s a very good observation — when that’s what’s happening. You still need to make the case for it.
My “case for it” is the book recommendations I already made!
When it’s clear that I share almost none of Berry’s starting assumptions, what value can I find in his arguments and conclusions? If he’s right, he’s right by accident.
Or, to put it another way, who are these Christians reading their Bibles upside down and why do you think they are?
> When it’s clear that I share almost none of Berry’s starting assumptions, what value can I find in his arguments and conclusions? I think the main part of what Berry has to say about agricultural economics is like what you said about brick laying: “There’s no Christian way of laying bricks, running a hay baler, or doing trigonometry.” Do you have any starting assumptions when it comes to agricultural economics? Most American Christians (as well as most Americans in general) don’t have any coherent assumptions at all. If you do have starting assumptions regarding agricultural economics, what are they,… Read more »
LOL no.
Other than children and some elderly people over whom others have power of attorney and prison inmates and maybe some other categories like people that are intentionally starving themselves to death as some kind of protest, practically every American regularly and significantly is an active player in agricultural markets (i.e. engages in agricultural economics.)
Says you.
Christian, as I said before in another thread to someone else, there are two huge holes I see in your interpretation. First of all, Wilson doesn’t just do whatever he randomly feels like when it comes to educating his children or when it comes to voting. He looks to the Bible and finds applications. He publicizes the conclusions he comes to. He has detailed and extensive opinions. He defends his reasons for coming to his conclusions. He believes his conclusions are consistent with and ultimately grounded in Scripture. He most certainly does not say “the option and variety is just… Read more »
I did, however, watch one of his videotaped Q&A’s on whether it is lawful for a Christian to diet (it’s on Youtube). I was astonished because it seems to me more reasonable to ask, in a nation where there are a lot of seriously overweight people, whether it is lawful for a Christian to pig out except at Christmas and Thanksgiving. His general take was that while dieting may become necessary (when someone else has to tie your shoelaces was one light-hearted example), American Christians are unhealthily preoccupied with losing weight. He thinks we wrongly admire an anorexic level of… Read more »
Gluttony isn’t about overeating.
Not always, but it can be.
You’re changing Doug’s claim
How so?
How so? Isn’t his claim that as long as you are grateful for what you eat, you can eat as much as you wish?
Now, if the underlying point is not to make a fetish of food, I think he is right. But making a fetish of food goes many ways, and I don’t see that some of those sinful ways get automatically sanitized by saying grace.
No. That is not his point
What is his point then and how would one recognize the difference between his point and what Jilly is saying?
Then please, dear bethyada, tell me where I am missing his point!
Didn’t mean to repeat your question, Jilly. I hadn’t seen it when I said basically the same thing.
It is about all food is good and gratitude to God sanctifies the food.
Now one can feast at times and that is fine. This is no approval of gross excesses. If an obese person sits down to 5 portions of potato salad or pulled pork the problem long antedates this meal. There isn’t a problem in the type of food they are eating.
Thank you!
Wilson (and perhaps you too?) seem to want to make a broader point, though. When you say all food is good are you saying that there is nothing and can never be anything wrong (even in relative terms) with buying whatever kind of food suits your fancy regardless of how it was produced? In other words, are you saying that it’s wrong to even consider whether one farmer or system of farming is more worthy of support than another? Is that automatically false moralism because “all food is good”? If all food is good, are you saying that it would… Read more »
I think this illustrates what Wilson is reacting against. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErRHJlE4PGI
I enjoyed the video, thank you, but I think Wilson’s trouble is that he hasn’t seriously confronted an argument much more serious than that video, which demonstrates a horrible lack of intellectual integrity for someone that would write a whole book on these subjects that he would have us take seriously.
Who can provide a serious argument? Pastor Wilson is specifically addressing the moral dimension of the issue, which Berry is obviously disqualified on.
At least Berry hasn’t, like Wilson, explicitly denied the necessity that agriculture be
organized in obedience to the kingship of Christ Jesus and hasn’t categorically denied any applicability of
Scripture to agricultural questions.
I would be very interested indeed to see where Wilson has done that, as I’ve been reading his posts for several years and never encountered such. At most I suspect you can only show that he’s never talked about details of how Scripture should be applied to farming.
(Wilson has said much about how moralism about what we eat is wrong. If eating meat sacrificed to idols is not sinful, then I can’t imagine how eating meat factory-farmed by illegal immigrants is.)
ashv, you already said, “He [Wilson] doesn’t seem to think that modern agricultural practices are disobedient to God’s revealed will…” How is that different from saying that there’s no problem with Christians answering farming questions just like unbelievers? And how is that different from categorically denying any applicability of Scripture to agricultural questions?
Boring.
Some questions really do just depend on natural revelation. There’s no Christian way of laying bricks, running a hay baler, or doing trigonometry. Or rather, unbelievers do it the Christian way too.
This is not to deny there’s a Christian way to be a farmer. But plenty of “farming questions” will be answered the same.
Certainly I agree with you in one sense when you say there’s no Christian way of laying bricks, but at the same time don’t you recognize the power of sin to corrupt any human activity (especially activities and systems as complex as modern agriculture)? There may not be a Christian way of laying bricks, but there are Christian ways of treating your employees that are laying bricks, right? And what about laying bricks on Sundays? Is that a Christian way of laying bricks? What about trying to talk your customer into buying more expensive bricks that you can make more… Read more »
OK
> Wilson has said much about how moralism about what we eat is wrong. If eating meat sacrificed to idols is not sinful, then I can’t imagine how eating meat factory-farmed by illegal immigrants is. This seems to contradict the way you answered my questions above, when I asked bethyada: When you say all food is good are you saying that there is nothing and can never be anything wrong (even in relative terms) with buying whatever kind of food suits your fancy regardless of how it was produced? In other words, are you saying that it’s wrong to even… Read more »
Helms wrote:
If Wilson has been so explicit in his denials, then Helms needs to support this assertion with a direct quote or else apologize to Wilson for misrepresenting him.
I had to confront Jonathan on this false charge as well. I provided examples where Wilson applied Scripture to food production, but these were simply ignored.
What can be worse than food sacrificed to an idol?
So that’s a yes to all my questions?
Not necessarily. But if nothing can be worse than food sacrificed to idols then one does not by necessity need to take pretty much anything into account. That doesn’t prevent people from being activists against sinful agricultural practices, or boycotting if such pleases them. What is does prevent is activists claiming that people who do not bother with such endeavors are in anyway sinning.
Can nothing really be worse than food sacrificed to idols? That’s certainly not good for the soul of the person that sacrificed it, but in another sense it’s completely meaningless, especially insofar as it’s not in any way what you’d be paying for as a Christian consumer. In other words, it doesn’t represent any share of the value of the product, of what you’d be paying for. How would food sacrificed to idols compare to stolen goods, for instance? Suppose someone stole one of someone else’s cattle, and to hide the theft, butchered it and sold the meat. Suppose you… Read more »
No, if you know food is stolen then you know it is not his to sell. But you do not have to rightly divide the motivations of other men in buying their goods.
The Bible says we are allowed to eat food sacrificed to idols even though Idol worship is wrong. This principle basically means we do not have to trace purity of motive back beyond ourselves; something that is otherwise impossible. But such a principle does not mean we can hire men to sin for us, as that is our sin.
If hiring men to sin for us is our sin, then it would also be our sin to intentionally turn a blind eye to where we know there likely is sin responsible for the “good deal” we’re getting with what we’re buying, right?
Well it depends on the sin. But in general, we don’t buy stolen food (assuming we know about it) but we can buy sin food as men cannot but sin. A butcher who beats his wife sins, but that doesn’t stop us buying his food. We are not asked by God to trace sin nor are we the policemen of the world. We can be activists against sinful practices (including boycotts) but we cannot condemn men who do not share our concern. We cannot get men to directly do our sin for us. But involvement with the world isn’t sinning… Read more »
I’m wondering now if it’s a coincidence that Wilson (1) seems to suggest in contexts like these that the Christian buyer is absolved from all responsibility in everything he pays someone else to do and (2) that Wilson also followed the Cruz attack on Trump, saying that women shouldn’t be held responsible for hiring hitmen to murder their babies.
1. is incorrect concerning Wilson.
2. is how does one deal with mass sin that should be crime in a world where it is not a crime.
1. Can you find any counter-example, particularly one with food? Isn’t Wilson’s whole book — I’m certainly not inclined to buy it — about how he’ll buy absolutely any food from any source produced in any way without troubling his conscience? Regardless of what else he says in his book, hasn’t he said as much here on this blog? If that’s not the point he’s trying to make with this particular blog post, what point is he trying to make? In other words, how else is Wilson suggesting some people today falsely believe they can sin with food they “bow… Read more »
1. you don’t have to buy the book, read his old posts. There are heaps under the label of creation and food. It is not that a farmer cannot sin, of course he can. But not everything called sin by our culture is sin. And the common man may not know. Romans tells us we don’t need to track sin. If idolatrous food is made clean by gratitude to God anything can be made clean. In the old system the unclean made the clean unclean. But in the new covenant clean Jesus makes everything unclean clean. Some Christians may address… Read more »
> we cannot condemn men who do not share our concern. I think I should begin by clarifying a couple things. First of all, I agree we shouldn’t condemn anyone that comes to different conclusions. I’m not talking at all about condemning anyone else. I’m not suggesting we condemn anyone over any agricultural questions. However, not condemning others over agricultural questions isn’t the same as not asking agricultural questions, much like not condemning others over how they vote isn’t the same as saying our votes don’t matter. Secondly, I don’t mean to be saying anything about buying food from butchers… Read more »
I actually think that is part of the point: that we don’t have to care. We are not buying food sinfully manufactured so we don’t have to do the same food. We are buying food to eat. In as much as that is all we are doing, we don’t have to care. I use to term directly because it means intent. It is not that the pathway is complicated or involves many people, it is about intent. Hiring a hitman through 5 intermediaries is direct. Indirect means there is no intent. Buying idolatous meat because you want meat is indirect.… Read more »
You are free to practice as you want – I will not judge or condemn you. I do wonder what it means that the rich in Israel were willing to sell the poor for a pair of sandals. The interpretation isn’t obvious and clear cut. But it seems worthwhile not dismiss it. And I would never say that those who buy food without caring where it came from are “sinners”. But if I had a choice between two shirts, and I knew that one was made by fairly-paid people who were making the free choice to support their family, and… Read more »
(I should add that Pastor Wilson actually agrees with me on the principle here, that we should give our business to those who don’t abuse their workers, and I assume that should extend to keeping our business form those who do the other things I said as well. But in that logic, he appeared to have said at times that he simply doesn’t believe that industrial food production abuses the land or workers, that saving water is an important concern, that organically produced food is healthier than industrially produced food, etc. However, I’ve never seen him defend such claims, and… Read more »
I will say, however, that there is clearcut unambiguous sin in American agricultural policy and the way it is particularly designed to help the rich at the expense of the poor, and has been completely hard-hearted to the loss of lives of the poor as a result. Those who frame such policies and those who lobby for them, I believe are sinning against God and against their brothers and sisters. I don’t know how far down the loop you have to go (voting for the politicians, refusing to speak out against the policies, trying to shush those who do open… Read more »
There are several things you’ve said that I’d like to respond to and offer further clarification for my part, but before I do that I’d like to ask you an extreme question to maybe help myself understand what you’re saying better. I’d like to take your vaccine example and turn it into an even more extreme hypothetical. Suppose instead that a new child had to be aborted for every so many doses of vaccine. Suppose even that there were a market for aborted babies such that some women were selling their babies for parts. If the vaccine otherwise cost two… Read more »
I would buy the vaccine unaware (meaning I do not have to investigate every vaccine), I would not buy it aware.
But to offer another extreme example, I think that one can buy clothes made by slaves in countries where slavery is permissible.
Why would you pay more money for a different vaccine if “their sin isn’t yours”? Would you feel convicted on the basis of biblical principles? But to speak of “conviction” is to speak of conviction of sin, right? And if it’s their sin, not yours, then there’s nothing for you to be convicted of, is there? Why spend more money on something that’s morally meaningless for you as a consumer? Am I missing something?
Because I believe abortion is murder.
Yes you are missing something. If I can eat meat that is tainted by idolatry I can eat it tainted by other sins. And I don’t have to go searching for all the issues around my meat. I don’t have to go searching at all. If I am made aware that a product is made from killing people I stop using that product because I shouldn’t be using it at all. But how is this relevant to how any other species is treated?
Sure, abortion is murder, but idolatry is sin, too. Why not just say, “their sin isn’t mine,” and buy the cheaper vaccine? If you “can eat meat… tainted by other sins,” why are you telling me you wouldn’t eat meat (or in this case buy a vaccine) tainted by murder? On what basis can you personally be convicted about a sin that isn’t in any way yours (if it really isn’t yours)? Are you saying there’s no moral difference (at least as it would concern you as a consumer) between buying and eating meat that you knew had been sacrificed… Read more »
But here you are getting into the indirect. Which is part of my point. It is not the direct death of a baby, it is the possibilities. You go from the confirmed direct intentional death of one child to a future of a thousand assumptions and guesses. God does not expect me to read every possible thing and judge the motives of every possible authority about each possible input into a single purchase. (As to your first comment, yes you are somewhat in alignment with my thoughts, but others sins are not ours if we don’t know. When we do… Read more »
I pretty much don’t follow any of what you just said. When you say “But here you…go from the confirmed direct intentional… to a future of a thousand assumptions and guesses,” where was “here”? Is that a response to my answer to your question about animal welfare? I’d rather leave that question alone if the principle you’re defending is so broad as to allow someone else to intentionally murder for the benefit of our consumer products. I think if you’re trying to point me to a principle and that principle would even cover the murder vaccine example, then that extreme… Read more »
The Here Is when you start talking about future generations. That is a thousand assumptions and indirect. Baby killing is direct and no assumptions.
Yes we can eat meat that was sacrificed to idols.
I live in a place where there is both a lot of semi-slave labor and a lot of very cheap clothing. If I know, as a fact, that a T-shirt company in my area has been repeatedly fined for massive wage and safety violations, is it lawful for me to buy their product?
You are free to boycott. If this is something important to you you can act the best way you wish. Presumably if it has been fined and not shut down the fine was for past offenses and the company is under surveillance so one need not assume the issue is current. I am not trying to get people to push their conscience as far as it can go. It is more about rejecting the moralism that attaches itself to buying ethically. Generally one cannot trace the source of his purchases. And for what he does know what does he not… Read more »
I agree with you that we don’t have to investigate supply lines, and I understand the concern about forcing one’s own morality on everyone else. (Heaven help you if you wear a fur coat in my native Canada–when my mother-in-law rewarded me with a mink coat for producing the Snowflake, I took it to Canada and used it as a blanket.) Now my best friend is using it as a blanket. On the street I would have heard, “Hey! The animal looked better in that coat than you do!”
Everything to the store is a supply line. All we usually know is the product we want and the store-man selling it.
> It is more about rejecting the moralism that attaches itself to buying ethically. That’s begging the question, though, isn’t it? Isn’t the question whether there are any legitimate moral concerns that consumers should have? If there are any legitimate moral concerns for consumers at all, then the right answer will be for those consumers to follow their individual consciences in these matters, right? Even if their concerns are based on poor understandings of economics (sweat shops, international trade, “fair trade” labels, etc.), that doesn’t mean we’re talking about “moralism,” does it? Nor does it mean that there there aren’t… Read more »
I don’t think moralism here means the moral judgements are necessarily incorrect or necessarily based on false morals. I think it means the moral concerns and the resultant actions are not fitting into their proper place within the context. You can do the right thing in the right way or in the improperly moralistic way. Without being absolutely sure of or entirely willing/able to defend the specifics of what Wilson is saying, I think that proposition is at the heart of his point here. Once again we get back to the idolatry thing — sacrificing meat to idols is worse… Read more »
The issue Wilson wishes to address is: Should different answers to this question (or different definitions of “agriculturally responsible”) be an occasion for judging your neighbour or disrupting fellowship with him? My reading (and my conclusion as well) is “definitely not”.
The rest can be thrashed out at leisure.
If that’s what you’re saying then I completely agree with you. How do you get that from your reading of Wilson, though? Where does Wilson suggest that we should be seeking to answer the questions at all? First of all, he seems to have pretty directly objected to any attempt to answer the questions at all. Secondly, his broad defense of conventional agriculture confirms that he’s opposed to considering any farming questions in his food choices (and that, presumably, if he were a farmer, he would seek simply to meet the market demands of consumers giving no consideration to farming… Read more »
Do farmers face moral choices that influence how they farm? Could sin lead a farmer to do things that a farmer might not do otherwise? Perhaps things to save a buck or make more money? Do you categorically reject all such possibilities? If not, do you think that consumers can ignore any responsibility they have in the same questions by doing the same things by proxy, perhaps by intentionally remaining ignorant (either of agricultural questions in general or of connections of any given food choice to those questions or both)?
I think we discussed this a couple of weeks ago, and I could think of lots of moral dilemmas even without going all liberal and environmental on everybody! A GM farmer could fail to establish buffer zones, allowing gene flow into a neighboring organic farm and causing that farmer to lose his certification. He could salt his neighbor’s acreages. He could fail to provide his workers with basic hygiene amenities. He could force workers to remove safety guards from equipment in order to speed up production. A GM engineer could set out to make a product addictive. It seems to… Read more »
Is it possible that something which is not “sin” is still a bad idea?
Yes, such as running with scissors in the house or cutting the tags off the mattress.
Or sending your kids to certain schools, funding their gap year in Europe, using whatever terminology the Left dictates for whatever, letting a mentally disturbed person use a gun, pouring poisons onto farmland, supporting businesses that do active harm to things we believe God sees as important, etc?