If change is to come, then, it will have to come from the outside. It will have to come from the margins. As an orthodoxy loses its standards, becomes unable to measure itself by what it ought to be, it comes to be measured by what it is not.  - Wendell Berry

In 1930, Harper & Brothers published an agrarian symposium entitled I’ll take my stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition. In it, twelve men sought to do the impossible. They labored to preserve a coherent set of values that were at once “socially conservative and economically radical.”1

Specifically, they articulated the good life by drawing attention to the ancient values of domesticity, esteeming the family as the true foundation of society, commending the arts and amenities of life, stressing religion, and earnestly defending the values of rural life and man’s proper place within the created order. Contrary to popular opinion, the Agrarians argued neither for social structuring, nor from the growing pain of nostalgia. Rather, they simply believed the emerging spirit of the age was a formula for deracination. Thus by expounding upon what they believed to be timeless human values, they hoped to abate the prevailing drift toward consumerism, materialism, and mass dehumanization.

Did anyone listen? It is fair to say that Harper’s symposium commanded an audience. Their fervid convictions challenged the status quo and exposed many of the fallible assumptions of modern day life, culture, and familial living. Yet at the end of the day the warnings and concerns of the twelve agrarians primarily went unheeded. Their voices neither stirred emotions nor moved people’s minds to question the hidden trappings of modernity. Why is this? Notwithstanding the many socio-historical factors available for critique, I believe the failure of their project can be pinned to two suppressive forces, forces that are still at work to this day, subtly squelching even the most celebrated and creative voice of the movement thus far – farmer and poet, Wendell Berry.

To begin with, the Agrarian Project was fighting a giant of global proportions. They were fighting a movement called Progress, a movement that presumed to know the truth. Progressives rejected age-old wisdom. They systematically questioned and dismissed the traditional values and principles of the American Founders. Their goal was to shape a new democratic citizenship, one guided by the union of science and politics. And in their zeal to improve the world and overcome the growing conflicts between individual concerns and social goods, they squelched any and all voices that questioned their utopian hope, dismissing them to the margins of life and labeling them as echoes of a detached and by-gone age.2

The southern agrarians certainly understood the pride and power of this movement. They entered the battle with moral passion. Thus the reason for their “stand.” But the question in need of answering is this: who did they stand with? Who did they enlist to fight with them? The answer is the second suppressive force at work within the noble project called New Agrarianism.

by Duane D. Otto

————————————————-

Footnotes:

1 Alan Carlson, The New Agrarian Mind (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2004). p.4

2 See: Bob Taylor, Citizenship and Democratic Doubt: The Legacy of Progressive Thought (University Press of Kansas, 2004).

Duane Otto is a pastor, farmer, and the founder of Ithaka Fellowship in Gridley, IL, where he lives with his wife and six children. He received his degree in Agriculture (BS) from the University of Illinois, and degrees in Divinity (MDiv) and Counseling (MAC) from Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, MO.

1. When did you begin to be attracted to the ideas associated with the “New Agrarianism”?
I discovered the writings of Wendell Berry about seven years ago. From Berry and Zimmerman, through Lytle, Agar and Father Ligutti, my “New Agrarian” imagination grew.

2. Are there ways in which you differentiate yourself from the “New Agrarianism”?
Yes. The agrarian project reflects the dynamics of any large-scale social development. It is composed of many diverse thinkers, each possessing their own monolithic agenda and/or ideology. It’s kind of like eating fish. The bones need picking.

3. What is one way the concepts associated with the “New Agrarianism” can be translated to an urban context?
Since we live in a society that is primarily urban, and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, people need to understand that agrarianism is more than farming. It is primarily a mindset, an ordering of the mind that is in tune with place, the particularities of place, and God’s active presence in creation. For example, cooking and eating can be an expression of faith when practiced as an agrarian act, not simply an act of consumption. “The Spirit of Food,” edited by Leslie Fields, is an excellent book on this subject.

4. Why are you a Christian?
About thirty-five years ago the gospel exposed my sin and unveiled the glory of God’s presence. At the same time the message revealed the complete sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work to make me fully acceptable before the Father and it beckoned me to repent and trust in Christ alone as my Savior and Lord. This threefold message changed my life, and it continues to do so to this day.

5. Tell us more about Ithaka Fellowship.
Ithaka is an agrarian study centre that seeks to strengthen the interrelationship that exists between Christ, Man, and the Created World (Colossians 1:19 ff). Emphasis is placed upon wisdom theology since the order of creation, the gift of life, stewardship, and the vitality of human beings are fundamental themes throughout the wisdom corpus. Throughout the year we host Friday night lectures and special events. We also open our home to visitors and offer counseling in a farm setting. You can find us on the web at IthakaFellowship.org

“So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.” (Romans 11:5, NIV)

The Remnant
by Lin Warfel

History is laced with them
keystones of the seasons
little wedges
placed just so
at just the right time and place
to connect the dots

Governments come and go
people swirling, dancing briefly
passing on and far away
So often, it seems to me
just a little group
just a few folks
take control
Fists holding tightly
Swords always at ready
slashing away dissenters

I picture mighty Egyptians
chariots racing
chasing Hebrews across the desert
My mind’s eye sees Romans too
chasing Hebrews, chasing Christians
So powerful! So intimidating!
Gone

Leap forward to modern times
a band of Russians, focused
taking command of a vast country
expanding the borders
Fists holding tightly
Swords always at ready
slashing away dissenters

Yet another small group
a manic, powerful leader
taking command, declaring war
brutalizing people, cities, nations
Millions marching, goose stepping
arms held forth in salute
attacking, expanding
slashing away dissenters

In America today
small groups seething
some with fists clenched, raised
others with anger and guns
lashing away in frustration
blinded in hate

There remains a remnant
people aligned with God
people sold out to Jesus
people sold out to Jesus
who flavor the earth with love

They serve others in Christ like love
marrying to serve, raising children to serve
serving in churches
spicing communities
even government

So often they are out of view
not in the papers
not on tv
never in the news
They quietly serve

The remnant people save us
putting forth The Way, The Truth, Life
here and forever

Take two steps back
calm yourself
you can see them!
Encourage them, please,
as you go along
Lift them up in prayer
and know

His eye is on the sparrow….

Lin
2/11

Abrahamic Traditions Dinner, March 5, 2011

The Abrahamic Traditions Dinner brought together individuals from Christian, Jewish and Islamic backgrounds. Hosted by the Intercultural Friendship Foundation, a Turkish Muslim campus group, everyone enjoyed an excellent homemade Middle Eastern dinner and a time of warm conversation around the table. I would estimate the total attendance was around 100 people.

Dr. Dannie Otto, professor of Medieval Philosophy at Eastern Illinois University, moderated the event. He is also the First Mennonite Church liaison to the Muslim community in Champaign-Urbana. He provided an explanation of the specific themes found in A Common Word between Us and You. His introduction was followed by three responses from Rabbi Norman Klein of Sinai Temple, Me, and Rizwan Uddin, a professor at the University of Illinois.

A time of discussion followed the response papers. There were two major themes that emerged during the discussion: 1) the importance of separation of church and state for creating peace among peoples of different religious perspectives, and 2) the sometimes complicit role that religion has played in the death and destruction of human beings.

All the responders were in agreement on the vital role the separation of church and state principle plays in maintaining peace among rival religious perspectives. Indeed, Rabbi Klein highlighted the fact that in America, where the principle of separation has been most rigorously pursued, the number of Christians attending church regularly is significantly higher than in Europe. I echoed this comment and stated that I believed the principle of separation to be one of the great insights of western civilization.

The three panel members were largely in agreement in their responses to the second theme, too. While there was some discussion about the “Just War” theory, it was agreed that the theory was often times ignored. There was also agreement that religious believers have a right to protect themselves and that pacifism was not a dominant position in Christianity, Judaism or Islam. I raised the question about the responsibility of religious believers to participate in government and the complicating situations this sometimes created on issues of war and peace. I brought up the country of Ghana as an example. Ghana has become a majority Christian country over the last few decades and recently declared itself officially a “Christian nation”. Whether one agrees with such a pronouncement or not, should the Christian believer in Ghana take responsibility for running the country since they make up the majority of the people? And if the answer is “yes,” doesn’t that mean they will be forced to sometimes make messy decisions on the issue of war and peace? This, of course, is not to ignore the historic truth that Christians, as well as Muslims and Jews, have committed atrocities against other peoples. My own belief, derived from studying the history of Christianity for over twenty years, is that collectively Christians usually commit their most egregious crimes when they have mixed their Christian faith with some ideology, such as communism, Nazism or nationalism.

As I reflect back on the evening, I continue to think about a topic that was not raised at the Abrahamic Traditions Dinner. This is the issue of forgiveness. While it is clear that Christians, Jews and Muslims have each participated in the most sinful acts against each other, there was not a word spoken about the role of forgiveness in bringing about peaceful relations between the three monotheistic religions. A Common Word between Us and You, as helpful of a document as it is in its call for peaceful coexistence, does not mention forgiveness. Instead it is assumed that Christians, Jews and Muslims can begin anew their relations with each other without addressing the sins of the past. Perhaps a “Truth and Reconciliation Committee”, such as the one used in South Africa, needs to be formed to begin a thorough assessment of the crimes and sins committed in the past and present between the three religions. Perhaps we could form the first committee here in Champaign-Urbana. The fruit of such an exercise might create the necessary space for forgiveness to be discussed, given and received. Only then, I believe, will we be ready to move forward on the basis of the love of God and neighbor for which A Common Word calls.

by Dr. Joe Thomas, Assistant Professor of Church History