Fire and Knowledge

By Joshua Sowin

What is to be the fate of self-control in an economy
that encourages and rewards unlimited selfishness?
Wendell Berry¹

In part one of this essay we went over how our lives are lives of consumption—both at work and at home. This makes us dependent on corporations and government for the essentials of life. We concluded that we must each individually change to reverse this trend.

If we must change, what must we do? The rest of this essay will address that question. What can we do? Thankfully, even while living in an urban environment, there is much we can do. We will talk about areas such as character, housing, food, transportation, energy, and entertainment.

The first step is to recognize the problem: we are consumers. This should not be difficult—most of what we do gives great evidence of this. Think about how much food, clothing, gadgets, and fuel we buy. Think about how much garbage we produce. Is there any doubt?

After this recognition we must decide to do something about it. It is far too easy to recognize a problem but do nothing personally to solve it. We would much rather give money to an institution instead of personally doing anything. But giving is not the same as doing, even though we often act like it is. Giving is good—it’s just not doing.

Once we have decided to do something about our consumption, the solutions begin to become clear. We begin to see how wasteful and extravagant we live, and how we can cut down. In this final part of the essay, I hope to give practical suggestions that spark ideas to help others consume less.

A Crisis of Character

Our crisis of consumerism is a crisis of character. It would be wrong for us to condemn consumerism without realizing that we are condemning our character and thus ourselves. Consumerism is the fruit—character is the root. We lack neighborliness, responsibility, contentment, economy, and loath hard work. Do we deny ourselves anything? Do we even know what self-control is? If so, have we experienced it? We only think of obtaining more and more, instead of being content with what we have.

Jesus said “out of the abundance of the heart [the] mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45). What we do and say comes from who we are. That we merely consume is evidence that there is something defective with our character.

We lack neighborliness. Everyone knows the Golden Rule which tells us to “do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves.” When Jesus was asked, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” he answered:

“The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-31)

Loving our neighbor is a high calling that we should be pursuing in all areas of our lives. However, many of us are harming our neighbors through our consumerism. As Wendell Berry asks:

How can you love your neighbor if you don’t know how to build or mend a fence, how to keep your filth out of his water supply and your poison out of his air; or if you do not produce anything and so have nothing to offer, or do not take care of yourself and so become a burden? How can you be a neighbor without applying principle—without bringing virtue to a practical issue? How will you practice virtue without skill?²

Through our consumerism, we create massive amounts of garbage, which is carted off to our neighbors here and abroad. We cause water to be polluted. We cause air to be poisoned and polluted. We can destroy small businesses and communities. All of these issues involve loving our neighbor—how can we then ignore them? How can we say we love God, yet ignore his command to love others? We have a strange view of Christianity if we think we can do one and ignore the other simply because our economy is based on exploiting neighbors.

We lack responsibility. Someone who takes and takes but never gives back is irresponsible. The earth is ours to use and to keep (Genesis 2:15)—can we really say we are keeping the earth? Do our lives and spending habits give evidence of it? Or do we contribute to the rape of the earth by doing what comes easy?

We lack contentment and self-control. Even when we have everything we want, we are not content. We quickly grow weary of new purchases and rush out to replace or upgrade them. What happened to contentment? Our economy does not allow it—if we had a widespread revival of contentment our growth would stop and we would be in an economic crisis. That should say something about what kind of economy we have.

We lack economy. No longer do people practice economy or think of it as a virtue. Our households spend money and produce garbage at astonishing rates. Few housewives now try to be thrifty by doing their own cooking and baking, sewing, etc. Everything is done by machines or corporations. Instead of harnessing the free power of the sun and of the body we use machines which require expensive and destructive energy.

We have a loathing for hard work. Wendell Berry has made the observation that “we have made it our overriding ambition to escape work, and as a consequence have debased work until it is only fit to escape from.”³ Many of us spend large amounts of time trying to get out of small amounts of hard work. This is why many people prefer to work for someone: so they can pay for others to do the work they do not want to do.

As I noted in part one, the Bible speaks highly of “working with [our] hands” and commands us to do it. C.S. Lewis, commenting on this and what the “ideal Christian society” would look like, said:

[The New Testament] tells us that there are to be no passengers or parasites: if man does not work, he ought not to eat. Every one is to work with his own hands, and what is more, every one’s work is to produce something good: there will be no manufacture of silly luxuries and then of sillier advertisements to persuade us to buy them.⁴

Hard work isn’t always drudgery to be avoided. Adam was put in the garden to work. The curse was not that Adam had to work but that work would be more difficult and painful. Instead of trying to avoid hard work completely, we should seek to enjoy it and accept it is part of a good, complete life.

Character matters. To reduce our consumption, we must change the kind of people we are. We must look at our character deficiencies and strive to be better people. We must have better role-models than celebrities. We must learn to be neighborly, responsible, content, self-controlled, thrifty, and hard working. Having good character is the most important solution for us to consume less and produce more.

Purchases

At the same time we are working on our character, we must also be working on our actions—specifically, our actions of consumption. We consume through our purchases, of which there are two main categories: necessities and luxuries. Practically everything we purchase falls into the category of luxuries. Most of what we think of as necessities are not “bare necessities”—they are “luxurious necessities.” We live like kings and queens. Thoreau said “most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind.”⁵ The Bible warns us against living “luxurious and self-indulgent” lives (James 3:5). We need to determine what purchases we need, and what purchases are extravagant, luxurious, self-indulgent. The list of unnecessary purchases is longer than most of us think.

Asking Questions

Asking questions can help determine what our needs really are. “To ask the question is to break the spell,” Neil Postman said. When walking through the store, and a product catches our eye—and then our hand—we should ask, “Is this something I really need?” If not, why buy it? Why should we be so quick to part with our money? The purchase will not bring lasting happiness, and will only leave us poorer.

We also need to ask, “Can I make something like this or get by with something else I already own?” For instance, disposable paper napkins could be replaced with reusable cloth napkins; disposable tissues could be replaced by reusable handkerchiefs; boxed mashed potatoes could be made from scratch.

Another question to ask is “Is this product of quality workmanship?” It is good economy to purchase products that will last for a long time. Sometimes this means spending more up front to save long-term. Purchasing a product that can be cleaned and maintained by the user will also save money. The simple tools are often best. Why should we buy something more complex than we need? Why buy something that will break after a year? Yet we do so far too often, and support shoddy work.

Origin is also of importance. “Is this made (or grown) near here, and what were the conditions it was made (or grown) in?” Made in the United States is good, made in your state is better, but made nearby is best. It is almost always best (and rewarding) to support a local economy when it is feasible. Local organic food is always fresher, and sometimes cheaper (due to fewer transportation and chemical costs), and product quality can be better (and if not, easier to influence it for better). Buying locally also supports local jobs—and thus local people. It is also possible to see how the product was made, under what conditions, and if it is a person or corporation you want to support financially. It gives a form of accountability that cannot exist in a global market. When our food is brought in from hundred of miles away, how can we see how it was grown?

It is important to study consumption habits and reduce them. Asking questions can help us achieve this goal. Economy does not happen on its own, especially in a society inundated with advertisements that claim what we have is never adequate.

Housing

In order to reduce spending, we need to see what we are spending our money on. Housing is often the largest expenditure. Most of us pay an enormous amount of money for shelter. Home owners are often in extreme debt and spend most of their lives paying it off. Renters end up paying even more and never have anything to call their own or pass on to future generations.

The houses in which we live are palaces—and we pay accordingly. Because we cannot afford to pay for these palaces, we borrow enormous sums of money from usurers in order to have an elaborate roof over our heads. Thoreau said (in 1854!):

Most men appear never to have considered what a house is, and are actually … needlessly poor all their lives because they think that they must have such a one as their neighbors have…. It is possible to invent a house still more convenient and luxurious than we have, which yet all would admit that man could not afford to pay for. Shall we always study to obtain more of these things, and not sometimes to be content with less?⁶

Ironically, we spend little time in these palaces. We are too busy working, eating out, driving, going to movies. Time at home is usually spent in front of a television or computer—or, more likely, in a bedroom sleeping. Ah! What a life! One works all day to pay for a palace to sleep in!

Strive to be free from the bondage of a mortgage. “The borrower is the slave of the lender,” King Solomon wisely said (Proverbs 22:7). Depending on circumstances, selling a house that cannot be afforded and moving to a cheaper dwelling is often profitable and beneficial, especially if the new dwelling has more land. If a person is willing to discard public approval, prefabricated houses are often available from a fourth to a half of the price of frame-built houses, which can be paid off substantially quicker. Or, someone who is handy could consider building his own house. Any way we do it, we must purchase or build houses we can afford—and not what the bank says we can afford. Never forget that the borrower is a slave. We must purchase houses that we have the money for or can pay off quickly.

Food and Land

Much of our money goes toward grocery stores and restaurants. How can these costs be reduced? With land. That is why it is important to purchase a house with land—even if only a small amount. Money can be made and saved with land. Owning land and living on it also gives motivation to care for the land properly—many of our ecological ills come from absentee ownership. With land a garden can be planted, which is one of the best things that can be personally done to reduce consumerism and begin improving and caring for the earth:

Odd as I am sure it will appear to some, I can think of no better form of personal involvement in the cure of the environment than that of gardening. A person who is growing a garden, if he is growing it organically, is improving a piece of the world. He is producing something to eat, which makes him somewhat independent of the grocery business, but he is also enlarging, for himself, the meaning of good and the pleasure of eating. The food he grows will be fresher, more nutritious, less contaminated by poisons and preservatives and dyes than what he can buy at a store. He is reducing the trash problem; a garden is not a disposable container, and it will digest and reuse its own wastes. If he enjoys working in his garden, then he is less dependent on an automobile or a merchant for his pleasure. He is involving himself directly in the work of feeding people.

If you think I’m wandering off the subject, let me remind you that most of the vegetables necessary for a family of four can be grown on a plot of forty by sixty feet.⁷

Growing our own food moves us from mere consumers to producers. It can also be pleasurable, healthy, and give us a great deal of independence, financial savings, exercise and garbage reduction. If a person cannot own land, a friend may be willing to let them use a portion of their land, or there may be communal garden space available in their area.

When we purchase food, we should try to purchase from local organic farmers and families. This can usually be done through local farmers markets. If there is not one in the area, work with co-ops or directly with farmers. Whenever possible, purchase raw materials and make food yourself. Avoid precooked or prepared meals. This gives us fresh, sustainable, nutritious food—without poisons—while at the same time supporting a local economy, which is essential for healthy, sustainable, safe communities.

Transportation

Next to housing and food, one of our biggest expenses is automobiles. Gene Logdson gives  good advice about this:

Be especially astute about buying automobiles, your biggest cost next to housing. If you borrow money to buy a new car, you will pay for it at least twice because of interest on your debt. Owning even the cheapest new car will cost you $2000 to $3000 a year out-of-pocket, if you use your own money. If you use the bank’s, that car will cost you $4000 to $6000 a year. People who pay on car loans all their lives will spent a hundred thousand dollars in interest alone. Much of that money could otherwise be in a savings account making you money, not losing it. If you have only enough cash to buy a $1500 car, be content.⁸

The initial cost of an automobile is only the beginning. Automobiles usually end up costing more in fuel, insurance, and maintenance than the initial price. The ideal way to reduce this cost is not to have one. But our society has been so shaped and changed by the automobile that this is very difficult to do, unless one lives in a large city. In large cities, stores are often within walking or biking distance—or. if farther, there is public transportation. When possible, walk, bike, or take public transportation to work (or if possible, work at home). If you can do this, you will be saving yourself a large amount of money each month while making the city a safer and less polluted place. Those who hate smog and smokestacks should be at least trying to reduce their usage of a moving pollution machine.

If you can’t bring yourself to get rid of your vehicle, only have one. One car is more than you “need” so don’t say you need more than one vehicle. You don’t. Make it work. It is possible, believe it or not. Another option is to own a motorscooter or motorcycle instead. They often get better gas mileage than even those expensive, fancy, hybrid cars. The major downside, though, is the lack of safety and storage room. Cars do not always see you—and when they do not, you are the one who gets hurt.

One last comment on transportation. Always drive under or at the speed limit. It doesn’t matter what arguments you use to justify casual speeding. It is illegal and dangerous for you and others. Is speed more important than life? While as a culture we have answered that question in the affirmative, we should question that conclusion. The faster one goes, the less reaction time there is to respond to something—like someone walking in front of the car, or another vehicle suddenly stopping. Since speeding puts human life in more danger than if going the speed limit, it makes speeding a moral issue. For that reason, it seems casual speeding is immoral and uncivil. How can you love your neighbor and put his life in jeopardy—just so you can get somewhere a few seconds faster?

Even if you do not believe in the moral aspect of speeding, speeding often reduces gas mileage and thus is more expensive—in other words, speeding is another aspect of our consumer culture. Speeding does not even save much time—sometimes it even takes longer due to traffic lights that are timed to punish speeders. Driving aggressively—accelerating fast, speeding, braking—apart from being stupid and dangerous, wastes fuel. Also, if you get a ticket (and you should) then it will make your trip slower and you will have to pay the ticket price and pay more for insurance each month. Bottom line: speeding is illegal, immoral, uncivil, ineffective, expensive, and consumptive. Don’t do it.

Energy

We are also consumers of energy and utilities. Wendell Berry, talking about energy, writes:

[T]he basic cause of the energy crisis is not scarcity; it is moral ignorance and weakness of character. We don’t know how to use energy, or what to use it for. And we cannot restrain ourselves.⁹

We waste enormous amounts of energy each day. Instead of mindlessly using energy, we must ask ourselves what the proper use of it is, and learn to restrain ourselves to use it in that way. Saving energy does more than save money. It makes the world a better place to live due to less pollution or radioactive waste and less need for strip mining and other ecological damaging practices. When we use less city water, less sewage needs to be treated. Here are some suggestions to reduce energy and utility use:

Don’t turn lights on in the daytime—use the natural light God has given us. Turn lights off when you leave the room. Replace old light bulbs with energy-saving fluorescent bulbs. Instead of using an electric or gas dryer, hang up clothes outside and use the free energy from the sun (which is also less damaging to clothes). Obtain a wood-burning stove and get access to a woodlot where you can cut your own wood—as Thoreau experienced, you’ll warm yourself chopping the wood and then again while burning it.

In the winter, turn your heater down before you go to sleep. Turn it back when you wake up (most thermostats can be set to do this automatically). Open up the curtains and blinds in the daytime to warm the house. In the summer, close the curtains and blinds in the daytime and shut the windows to keep warm air out. At night, open the windows to allow cool air in. Use fans instead of an air conditioner unless you really need it.

When you are finished watching television, turn it off. Better yet, don’t own one. Turn off your computer and monitor when not in use. Don’t turn on the water faucets full blast and never leave it running when it is not being used. Take short showers or use a washcloth instead of taking a bath.

Doing these types of things will save you money, make the world a better place, and make you feel better for making a difference. There are many reasons to conserve our energy—there is no reason, apart from laziness and wastefulness, not to conserve.

Entertainment

Most of us are slaves to the massive entertainment industry. We worship at the altar of entertainment. Our idolatry is more technologically sophisticated than the idolaters of old, but we are just as devoted. We crave distraction, and want more exciting distractions than we can create ourselves. As a culture, we have three major entertainment weaknesses: visual imagery, music, and gadgets. We love our televisions, movie theatres, music players, computers, video games, still and video cameras. When we cannot have our visual fix (like when driving or walking), we turn to the distracting pleasures of audio through portable music players.

We must free ourselves from dependence on the entertainment industry. Television is often the most common culprit—through television we watch television shows (which often means purchasing cable or satellite), movies (which means movie renting services and purchasing DVDs), and video games (for which we purchase game systems and video games). The best solution is to not own a television. I—and many others—do without one quite well. If you need to be convinced about the many disservices television does to our culture (and our lives), I refer you to the best book written on the subject: Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. Everyone should read Postman’s book at least once.

It comes down to buying only the things we need. Gene Logdson advises,

Don’t buy gadgets you don’t need. Why buy garage door openers unless you are disabled? Ice crushers are unnecessary unless your hands are crippled with arthritis…. Leaf blowers are rather stupid. I saw three workers on the lawn of a public institution last week, each armed with a blower, trying to corral a flock of about twenty-five leaves into a pile. What I wouldn’t have given for a camcorder … but that’s another doo-dad you don’t need. The more kitchen appliances that people on the verge of bankruptcy own, the more they eat out. Don’t buy clothes you don’t need. A good suit can cost eight hundred to a thousands dollars today. A thousand dollars buys an acre of land that, in the right hands, might make an entire living. Let those who put their faith in fancy threads laugh at your jeans. Bury them in their thousand dollar suits.¹⁰

You don’t need a “home entertainment center”—and you certainly don’t need to “upgrade” the components of one every few years. Contrary to advertisements, retail stores, internet sites, technology companies and friends, you don’t need a new computer. In fact, you could get one that does all you “need” for free—old computers are worth nothing. They will do e-mail, web browsing, and word processing. Or enjoy the pleasures of using pen and paper to write real letters instead of e-mail. A good fountain pen will last decades and a jar of ink should last a couple years.

Instead of watching television and buying gadgets, let us read good books—if you don’t already own some, go to your local used bookstore and purchase nice hardcover or leather editions that will last. And then read them. And then re-read them. Read books aloud with your family or friends.

Instead of running in place on a machine, run outside. Cultivate a love for hobbies that honor and make use of our bodies as well as our minds. Take walks alone. Take walks with friends. Eat home-cooked meals and enjoy the company of others—eating out is a luxury and should be treated like one. Play cards or board games that you own. These things are much better—and less expensive and ecologically damaging—than staring into a screen for hours.

Advertising

We must protect ourselves and our families from advertising. Advertising is temptation. It is based on manipulation. It is a catalyst for consumption. Advertising mainly consists of telling people that what they have is not sufficient or good, and something new is. Of course, that is what was said a month ago about the old product. It tells people that they need more. It tells them that they cannot solve their own problems, but corporations can for a “small price.”

It is not easy to get away from advertising. Even when we try to get away, it is practically impossible—we are assaulted with advertisements on televisions, billboards, t-shirts, product boxes, radio stations and in newspapers and magazines. We need to resist it, yes. But we must make an effort to avoid it as well, because it has an effect on us, even if we don’t realize it. Advertisers bet (and corporations net) billions of dollars every month on that fact. If you doubt the effect and power of advertising, look at our youth.

Instead of watching TV shows when they are released, wait for the DVD to come out so you can skip the advertisements. If you browse the Internet, install an “ad blocker.” The other day I saw a popular web site on someone’s computer without an ad blocker and I was appalled at the advertisements and how they were presented. It will only get worse.

Above all, we must do everything possible to keep our children away from advertisements. A child should never have unrestricted and/or unsupervised access to the Internet or television. They will thank us—through their words and character—when they are older and wiser.

Not only do we need to shield ourselves from advertisements, but we need to not be advertisements. We should not be salesmen for corporations. This means trying not to purchase goods with advertising on them. Corporations really have it good—consumers actually pay corporations to advertise their brand and products on their clothing. There is something strangely wrong that we allow ourselves to be walking billboards. What is even sadder is that children and teens don’t feel like they “fit in” unless they wear such clothing. We need to make an effort not  to advertise unless we are purposely trying to.

Recycling

We must recycle. It is the least we can do when we support such a wasteful and destructive economy. When we have to purchase a product or food, and it has packaging, it is best to recycle what is able to be recycled. Virtually every city or town has a recycling program, and it is often easy to participate in. While recycling is not the ideal solution, it at least allows us to reduce the amount of garbage in landfills and reclaim materials. Paper is the worst offender—about 50% of landfill space is taken up by it. But at least the paper will decompose in the next couple of decades—aluminum takes 500 years to decompose and glass takes a million years! Recycling also saves energy—for instance, recycling aluminum takes only 5% of the energy needed to manufacture it from raw material.¹¹ Recycling conserves our natural resources, saves energy, reduces pollution, and reduces landfill space.

Garbage

Studying and reducing our consumption along with recycling will have a very beneficial side effect: we produce less garbage. The average person produces 52 tons of garbage by the age of 75. Gadgets and toys (and their packaging) end up in landfills—they become garbage. Our economy produces an immense amount of garbage—practically everything that we buy will find its way there relatively quickly. In other words, much of what we produce is garbage.

Purchasing less means throwing away less. In regards to food, think of all the food packaging that gets thrown away in our homes each day. Growing food ourselves or making meals from raw materials reduce this considerably. It is also more ecologically friendly and often makes food tastier, healthier, and more pleasurable to eat. It also lets us see what ingredients are in our food. Kitchen scraps can be put in a compost pile, which also reduces garbage and will provide soil rich in organic matter to grow better vegetables in. Reducing garbage is important—even apart from the ecological consequences, who wants a stinky, unsanitary land fill taking up space? No one wants to live next to them. Putting something in the garbage solves the problem for you, but it just becomes someone else’s problem. Is that a good way to love our neighbors—or God, who commands us to love them?

The Individual Solution

Consumerism is a major part and problem of our society. Worse, the consequences of it will affect those who come after us. This problem needs to be solved individually—we all need to work towards reducing our consumption and increasing our production. We must not only receive, but also give. We must start with ourselves and our families and our land. Can we condemn others if we do not change ourselves and our ways? If we all work towards this goal, we can make a better world, live better lives, and enjoy a better future together.

It is good advice when borrowing something to return it better than given. We have been given this wonderful world to use and to keep. Let each of us use it, keep it, and leave it better than we arrived.

Endnotes

By Joshua Sowin

Civilization is a limitless multiplication
of unnecessary necessaries.
Mark Twain

It is a curiosity of the modern world that intelligent people would embrace the label “consumers.” Perhaps it is because, deep down, we know that is exactly what are. We consume. Our entire lives consist of this.

Our habits, in other words, are comparable to parasites. A parasite lives off a host while contributing nothing beneficial. We despise them for their lack of contribution. This is also why it is not a compliment to be called a parasite—or a consumer. Yet most of us live like parasites. We purchase, acquire, hoard; consume, throw away, destroy. We receive but do not give back. We do not ask the questions we should, such as: Where do these materials come from? How are they extracted? How does their extraction and use affect us and our environment? How much is left? How much is required for our affluent lives? How much does a person need? Do we have a responsibility to conserve? To produce? How are our lives contributing to this lifestyle and economy? How are our jobs?

Yes, what about our jobs? Here I am writing about how we are parasites, yet we spend much of our waking time working. Doesn’t that count for something? Unfortunately, not often. What do we produce at work? Very little anyone needs, and even less of quality. In fact, few of us actually produce anything whole or meaningful. Instead, we move information on flickering screens under artificial lighting in small cages for a specified number of hours a week. And this often results in far more consumption than production: we consume fuel to get to work, consume packaged foods for lunch, consume energy at the computer. We do this because of our fear and hatred for work—hard work. Work with our hands and bodies; work that we are clearly made for. We want to be free from that, and our modern economy is the result.

Anything that might qualify for “produce” we usually have little hand in making. We might design the packaging, or create copy for an advertisement, or send an email request for manufacturing. However, few of us actually produce something whole—something meaningful—during our workday. It bares no relation to our lives, our family, our region, our religion. It does not improve the world we live in. We only do it for money. We do it to spend. We do it to purchase meaningless luxuries. Worse, we spend more than our income so we have to borrow, thus putting ourselves in financial danger if we lose our jobs—and keeps us locked into a job that pays a certain amount. We become dependent, confused hamsters spinning on a wheel so long we forget there is another way of living. A better way of living. A simpler way of living.

So we consume at home, and consume at work. This is not surprising, of course, since our entire economy is based upon the principal of maximum consumption. There was a time when economy (in the sense of frugality) was a virtue. There was a time when our government encouraged citizens to be independent, economical, and productive at home. For instance, in 1914, the Smith-Lever Act created a program “in order to aid in diffusing among the people … useful and practical information on subjects relating to agriculture and home economics, and to encourage the application of the same….”¹ The government now has little interest in teaching thrift, agriculture or home economics. Teaching such subjects would mean drastic reduction in spending and consumption, which would reduce tax from sales; reduction of spending would lead citizens to be less concerned with high-paying jobs, which would reduce income taxes. It would, in short, cause a mess of our current government and economy. The government would be forced to reduce itself—something it has been unable to do on its own. And wouldn’t a smaller government be an encouraging thought?

Freedom

Liberty is one of the cornerstone beliefs of our country. We cherish liberty and demand our rights of freedom. The Declaration of Independence says it like this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Our country was founded upon this principal. One of the main reasons for the existence of government—according to the above declaration—is to secure the rights of citizens. But now the citizens are limiting their own freedoms and the government is only encouraging it. We love to tout our freedom, yet it grows smaller, through our dependence on corporations and foreign imports. Wendell Berry argues:

A person dependent on somebody else for everything from potatoes to opinions may declare that he is a free man, and his government may issue a certificate granting him his freedom, but he will not be free. He is that variety of specialist known as a consumer, which means that he is the abject dependent of producers. How can he be free if he can do nothing for himself? What is the First Amendment to him whose mouth is stuck to the tit of the “affluent society”? Men are free precisely to the extent that they are equal to their own needs. The most able are the most free.²

Many do not know they are enslaved, to the profit of Corporate America. We have become dependent for so long that it seems natural—many of us have grown up in a world of dependence on energy, packaged goods, and superstores. This dependence seems like freedom—freedom from having to do anything ourselves, which is more like the kind of freedom of Brave New World, and less like the kind the Declaration of Independence speaks of.

When a bird is placed in captivity from birth, it finds it perfectly normal to do nothing for its own survival. Its only work is to sing and look beautiful—it is, in a sense, employed as an entertainer. Instead of being paid in money, it is paid in food, toys, and affection. But a wild bird would quickly realize that a caged life is not an independent life. It is not a natural life. It is not a life of liberty. And this dependence can have tragic consequences: When the owner goes on holiday for a week and forgets about the bird, the bird dies. If the bird is released into the wild, it does not know how to look for food or fend for itself, and often dies.

In many ways, we are like caged birds. Corporations and government are the owners. We work for them and depend on them. It feels normal and free to do nothing for our own survival—we do what we are told and we usually get paid enough to purchase necessaries and luxuries. We learn our specialty and know little else. But when one is completely dependent that means they are not independent. Perhaps a hypothetical situation will make this even clearer.

An Example of Dependence

Let us imagine that it is winter in New York City. The electric and gas companies have shut down, perhaps from terrorism or computer bugs or mechanical error or human error. How would the busy, luxury-loving, condo-living New Yorker warm, feed, and clothe himself and his family? He would quickly see how dependent he is. He probably does not even have a fireplace to warm himself much less a wood stove to cook food. Even if he does, it is unlikely that firewood would be affordable due to the sudden increase in demand.

Or, let us say someone pushes the wrong button and the wrong chemicals are applied to crops or livestock feed on a massive level. Or, something goes wrong with the trucking industry and food cannot be transported long distance. Or, there is a shortage of oil so the farm machinery shuts down. Or, there is a drought where our crops are grown. All are possible. Suddenly, the grocer has little food to sell. Supply is down, demand is high—prices skyrocket for what little is around. What will the unprepared urban dweller eat? He does not know how to grow his own food. He does not have land to raise animals. Regardless, he would not have time to do so. He is completely dependent on outside resources, and, faced with a crisis, he quickly sees his enslavement. But by then it is too late.

Compare this sad state of affairs with a family who owns a bit of land containing a kitchen garden, a woodlot, and livestock. If the electricity or gas is shut off, the family remains warm and fed. They have a woodlot with a virtually endless supply of fuel for heat and cooking, if well-managed. While the city people have trouble finding food, this family not only has food to eat but also to sell or give away to help feed others. Vegetables, meat, bread, eggs, butter, cheese, milk—they are all theirs. This family does not merely consume—they produce. They replenish. If their neighbors also do this, they can trade when one is low on supplies. Their work has meaning and they “profit” from it daily. They are not enslaved to large corporations for food, and live very well without them. It is no wonder that Thomas Jefferson called the small landowners “the most precious part of a state.” We see the wisdom and mercy of God through the biblical exhortation to “aspire to live quietly, … to work with your hands … so that you may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.” (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12, my emphasis).

The urban dweller with no garden or land or fireplace, however, has not followed this wisdom. He now faces hunger, cold, and poverty. In order to survive, he must move from a dependence on corporations to dependence on governmental programs like welfare and unemployment, and be a burden to society. Which one is better?

I am not suggesting by this example that every person should become a farmer. I am suggesting, however, that we need more producers at the local level. The examples I used are threats because of our dependence on large corporations that pressure farmers to grow huge monoculture crops that are unhealthy and unsustainable long-term. These crops are transported all through the country through the trucking industry, which is in reliant on foreign oil. If people purchased goods from small local farmers instead, then the situations I outlined above would not be possible—or at least if they were, they would be less damaging because each community would be sustainable. For a country obsessed with “home security” we do not seem very concerned with our dependence on foreign oil and imports. For instance, if we had to set up a blockade on foreign imports, could we really do it? Without middle-eastern oil, our economy would collapse.

Obviously, this is not something that can wait to be remedied until a crisis happens (and they always happen). By then it will be too late. The demand of land, food, wood stoves and firewood will skyrocket and the one who is not prepared will likely be reduced to poverty.

Go to the ant, O sluggard;
     consider her ways, and be wise.
Without having any chief,
     officer, or ruler,
she prepares her bread in summer
     and gathers her food in harvest.
How long will you lie there, O sluggard?
     When will you arise from your sleep?
A little sleep, a little slumber,
     a little folding of the hands to rest,
and poverty will come upon you like a robber,
     and want like an armed man.
(Proverbs 6:6-11)

We need people willing to establish and support local economies. We need farmers, craftsmen, small business owners, bankers, etc. in every town. Each community needs to be self-sustaining—goods should be sold first to locals and then surpluses can be exported. We need loyal local citizens to purchase from local suppliers. Then communities and people will have more independence and interdependence, and we will have sustainable communities—and therefore better “home security.”

I am not meaning to imply that all dependence is bad. Dependence can be a good thing, but we must be dependent on the proper things. Dependence for the essentials of life (food, clothing, etc.) on corporations or government is bad. On the other hand, dependence on a government for defense and to ensure the rights of citizens is proper. Dependence itself is not wrong—we are part of the Creation, and thus fit into its mystery of interdependence and are dependent on it. That is the way God has wisely and gloriously made the earth. To ignore our continuous dependence on it, and destroy it, is to destroy ourselves. It is suicidal.

Who Owns the Earth?

Who owns the earth? The one who created it. “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1). The earth does not belong to us. We do not own it. It belongs to God. God created the earth, and it gave (and gives) him pleasure: “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). Even if someone doesn’t believe God made it, they don’t believe we made it. We no more own it than the birds. Since the world is not ours, we cannot do as we please with it. We must honor the one who made it through how we use it. We must honor the other creatures that also are dependent on the earth for life.

There is a way to use the earth in a responsible way. Clearly, we are not doing that. We are pillaging it through poor monocultural, chemically-dependent crops, poor mining practices for energy, poor logging practices for paper and product packaging, and through our wasteful use of energy and our obsession with consumption without production. How much longer the earth can sustain this level of destruction is unclear—but, we do know that we require at least the current level of destruction in order to live our lives of luxury.

This is not a “them” problem. The problem is “us.” We use the electricity which requires the destructive mining practices. We purchase the food from the grocer which requires monocultural agribusiness farming. We require mass amounts of paper and packaging, and thus the destructive logging practices. We must change our ways, and change them now. How we can do this will be addressed in part two.

Endnotes

The current NAMB spending report controversy made me reflect more on the problems of institutionalized giving. When we give money to an individual person who is active in a cause, we can usually trust that the money will be put to good use (especially if we know them). However, when we give to an institution, there is a much higher likelihood that it will be used in ways the giver would not approve of — and will never know of. For example, here are two notable items in the NAMB report:

• the expenditure of $1 million on the creation of a high-tech, three-dimensional Vision Center in NAMB’s lobby in 1999, which was closed four years later due to lack of use; and the spending of another $1 million to redesign the space into a high-tech, state-of-the-art conference center
• $3,771 spent on a four-day trip to England so Reccord and his wife, Cheryl, could attend a premier of The Chronicles of Narnia.

Individuals and churches who give to the NAMB should be disappointed with spending like that. However, they should not be surprised. This is typical spending for many non-profit institutions.

Americans have more money than we know what to do with. So we give it to institutions and think we are doing something. Starving kids in Africa? Give money. Teen pregnancy center? Give money. Hurricane victims? Give money. But as Wendell Berry has said, giving is not doing. Giving to a large organization and hoping that most of your money will go to the cause is similar to hoping that most of your tax money will go to your local schools.

This is because institutions are like government. They get bigger, but they rarely get smaller. The budgets get bigger. The staff gets bigger. The salaries get bigger. The buildings get bigger and more numerous. Rarely does an institution seek to simplify and reduce budgets and spending — and when they do, they often reduce the right things to pay for the wrong things (like buying new technology when what they have works fine).

What can we do about this? One way is to reduce giving to large institutions. My initial thoughts are that we should (1) strive to do what we can ourselves, in our own way and (2) when we see a need that we can do something about, fulfill it through individual people. For instance, it is better to give to a missionary on the field instead of to a large missionary corporation organization. There is more of a chance it will be used for the right purposes and go to the actual cause.

I’m excited to announce that my new article “Surrounded by Loneliness” has been published in the most recent Circle Six Magazine. This is noteworthy to me as this is the first of my articles to be published outside my own site. I hope you’ll take the time to read it.

Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt by Anne Rice. Alfred A. Knopf (2005), 322 pages, $25.95 (hardcover).

Anne Rice has been writing horror novels for over 30 years (her first book Interview with the Vampire, was written in 1973). But something happened to her in the late 90’s. She was drawn back to God through the mystery of the survival of the Jews. In 1998 she went back to the Catholic Church.

As she began studying the Bible, she decided to give herself completely to the task of understanding Jesus Christ. She said she was “ready to do violence to [her] career,” and decided she wanted to write the life of Jesus Christ in the first person. She consecrated herself and her work to Christ, and began studying.

As Mrs. Rice read more of the skeptical scholarship about Jesus, she became disillusioned with the lack of coherence of their arguments:

What gradually came clear to me was that many of the skeptical arguments—arguments that insisted most of the Gospels were suspect, for instance, or written too late to be eyewitness accounts—lacked coherence. They were not elegant. Arguments about Jesus himself were full of conjecture. Some books were no more than assumptions piled upon assumptions. Absurd conclusions were reading on the basis of little or no data at all…. I discovered in this field some of the worst and most biased scholarship I’d ever read. I saw almost no skeptical scholarship that was convincing, and the Gospels, shredded by critics, lost all intensity when reconstructed by various theorists. (pp. 313-314)

She then decided that the real challenge was to write about the Jesus of the Gospels:

Anybody could write about a liberal Jesus, a married Jesus, a gay Jesus, a Jesus who was a rebel. The “Quest for the Historical Jesus” had become a joke because of all the many definitions it had ascribed to Jesus. The true challenge was to take the Jesus of the Gospels, the Gospels which were becoming ever more coherent to me, the Gospels which appealed to me as elegant first-person witnesses, dictated to scribes, no doubt, but definitely early, the Gospels produced before Jerusalem fell—to take the Jesus of the Gospels, and try to get inside him and imagine what he felt. (pp. 319-320)

And that is what she tried to do. But can someone successfully write a book about a man who was God using the first person? A book written in the first person says volumes about the narrator: in this case, Jesus Christ, Son of God. The personality and thoughts of the narrator are revealed—even the language, vocabulary, and general style of the writing says something about him. In other words, the narration of the novel is an accuracy problem waiting to happen. It is also, in my opinion, the foundation for much critique.

It is easy to forget that this is only a novel—some reviewers treat it as a work of scholarship. But it is a work of fiction (although based on scholarship), and this review attempts to treat it as such.

Plot

The very first line of Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt tells us that Jesus is seven years old, and we can infer that he is the narrator. Jesus is writing his history—but for whom? And for what purpose? These questions are never answered (or asked, apparently). Stranger yet, it does not sound anything like the Jesus in the Gospels. This is not because he is a child—the adult Jesus is narrating. We know from the Scriptures that Jesus has an unparalleled range of insight and is eminently quotable. Surely the adult Jesus narrator would write with amazing insights filled with wit and wisdom. But this is hardly the case. In fact, I could not find even one sentence that would be worth quoting outside of a review. If you are going to have an adult Jesus narrating, you must make it sound like an adult Jesus. And based on all the evidence of what Jesus Christ spoke like, this does not have any resemblance.

Mrs. Rice knows that there will be many people who read this who are unfamiliar with Old Testament stories. So she weaves in old stories with whatever event is happening, and she does a good job of it. She is not content to make a distant reference or allusion. This is done, for instance, with King Saul and David, as well as the story of Jonah and the whale. This is not only helpful to the reader, it also gives greater exposure to these forgotten stories—and might even create interest to read the actual stories in the Bible.

Mrs. Rice also does a good job imagining how songs and prayers might be intertwined with the daily lives of the Jews. Songs are always being sung, and prayers always being said, during travel, work, or even when alone. It fits beautifully with the characters, setting, and culture and is very convincing.

Consistent characters are key to a good story. Unfortunately, the character of Jesus is inconsistent. A recurring theme is Jesus becoming scared or frightened, and working himself into crying. He often has bad dreams and wakes up crying for his mother, for example. This does not seem to fit with any reliable information we have on Jesus, nor does it fit with his supernatural abilities. He is a boy who can kill people, raise them again, make sparrows out of clay, make rain stop, make it snow, make blind people see. Yet he spends most of his time being afraid and crying! That does not sound like consistency in character. Could it be that the author is so used to writing about fear and horror that she must assign these qualities to Jesus as well?

Another inconsistency issue is the difference between desire and prayer. For example, on page 171, Jesus wants the rain to stop, and it ceases. He did not have to pray, but only to desire. Yet all through the story Jesus desires many things that he does not get—he wants the fighting to stop in the Temple, for instance, but it does not. This is complicated by the fact that the main “suspense” in the story is Jesus being ignorant regarding his birth, and gradually learning bits and pieces from various people other than his parents (Mary and Joseph forbid Jesus to even ask about it). So Jesus wants his parents and Uncle and brother to tell him all about his birth, but Jesus does not get what he wants.

Speaking of Jesus’ birth, why do Mary and Joseph not want Jesus to know about his childhood? Why do they forbid him to even ask about it? This seems odd and unrealistic. It seems more likely that Jesus would have been told about his birth from a very young age. And it would not be something to be hushed up and awkward to speak of in the family—it would be celebrated!

The character development in general is not strong. By far the most interesting and well-developed character (other than Jesus) is Jesus’ Uncle Cleopas. The other characters are flat. Mary is treated like a child (in order to emphasize her “innocence” one presumes). Joseph is unintelligent—he forbids Jesus to ask questions about his birth because he does not know the answers. And the rest of the family (other than, perhaps, Little Salome) could all be the same people with different names and jobs.

Setting and Historical Accuracy

Enough about the plot. Is the novel historically accurate in its setting? In the author’s note at the end of the novel, Mrs. Rice explains her obsession with historical accuracy:

Every novel I’ve ever written since 1974 involved historical research. It’s been my delight that no matter how many supernatural elements were involved in the story, and no matter how imaginative the plot and characters, the background would be thoroughly historically accurate. And over the years, I’ve become known for that accuracy. (p. 305)

With as much reading as she has done, it would be hard for her not to be historically accurate! And I am happy to say that overall she is careful and accurate. There are certainly things to quarrel about. For instance, Mrs. Rice dates the birth of Jesus at 11 B.C., a view not too popular among conservative scholars. That being said, the setting and characters fit the time period and culture. The food, landscapes, towns, and rituals all fit together like a puzzle. This is certainly the best part of the novel.

Style

Christ the Lord is a “contemporary” novel in almost every sense of the word. If you can imagine our culture’s plain metal and glass buildings and our taste for concrete slabs translated into a literary style, you will have something close to the style used in this novel.

I mean to say that the writing style is very plain and simple. It could easily be understood by a child, and takes little effort to understand for an adult. The sentences, paragraphs, and dialogues are very short, and rarely complex. The language is informal, and the constant contractions grate on the mind.

The novel is mostly dialogue—there are few riveting descriptions that move imagination. In fact, at times it reads more like a screenplay than a novel. It does not take full advantage of the medium of the written word, but rather seems like it was made to be a movie (and that, no doubt, will happen). Compare Christ the Lord with a work of imagination from Charles Dickens, C.S. Lewis, or J.R.R. Tolkien and you will see what I mean.

Another stylistic problem is the narration, as I have touched on already. The adult Jesus is narrating this story, which brings in even more issues than if the child was narrating. The narrator does not sound like a mature man, much less the God-man. There does not seem very much wisdom or insight in his words. Surely Jesus would have been more didactic in his narration, and given deep truths as to why certain events happened. And can you imagine Jesus, who created everything and for whom all things were made saying that “perhaps” this and “maybe” that, even looking back? Not I.

An excellent test for literature is how it affects us after we read it. Good literature makes us new people—we experience new lives, one could say. Our minds and imaginations are stretched. An experienced reader knows this feeling well. I think C.S. Lewis has the best explanation of this concept that I have ever read:

We seek an enlargement of our being. We want to be more than ourselves…. We want to see with other eyes, to imagine with other imaginations, to feel with other hearts, as well as with our own… We demand windows. Literature as Logos is a series of windows, even doors….

In reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself. Like the night sky in the Greek poem, I see with a myriad eyes, but it is still I who see. Here, as in worship, in love, in moral action, and in knowing, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do. (Lewis, C.S. Quoted in Leland Ryken, The Christian Imagination, pp. 51-52)

But I felt none of this when I finished this book. I did not feel like I gained much of anything by reading it, other than a collection of notes for this review. I was not challenged nor stretched—and if any book should challenge or stretch me, I think it would be a book that is narrated by Jesus Christ, Son of Almighty God!

Orthodoxy

In one sense, all reading is worldview reading. The author espouses a worldview through the narration, characters, and plot. The reader must discern this in order to truly understand literature. But for the Christian, this becomes extremely important when reading works written about Christ or Christianity. Books always affect us—for the better and/or for the worse. Discerning the author’s worldview (and the worldview of various characters the author has created) is greatly beneficial to making sure we are not being misled.

And here Mrs. Rice is not easy to figure out. While she is a Catholic, not all the ideas she espouses are orthodox, even within the Catholic Church. In terms of Catholic doctrine, she certainly puts forth Mary’s “innocence” and virginity:

“[Joseph] never lies beside her….” [Jesus said]
“He never touches her because he does believe. Don’t you see? How could he touch her after such a thing?” (p. 47)

Because of Mary’s perpetual virginity, Jesus’ brothers and sisters are Joseph’s children from a former marriage (which is different than both traditional Catholic or Protestant doctrine). But more troubling than this is Mrs. Rice’s picture of Jesus Christ.

The novel begins with Jesus accidentally killing a bully. Then Jesus seeks out his dead body and gives his life back. This is essentially the Son of God not understanding his power, misusing it, and then fixing his mistake by using his power in a different way. Did you catch that? The novel begins with Jesus making a mistake. An error. God just did something wrong, and had to fix it. But an orthodox understanding of God (and therefore Jesus, since he is God) is that he does not make mistakes, and makes no errors or misjudgments.

A few pages later Jesus makes another mistake:

“There’s blood on your face!” my mother whispered. “Your eye, there’s blood. Your face is cut!” She was crying. “Oh, look what’s happened to you,” she said. She spoke in Aramaic, our tongue which we didn’t speak very much.

“I’m not hurt,” I said. I meant to say it didn’t matter. (p. 8)

Jesus accidentally said something other than what he meant to say. Again, Jesus makes a mistake. Even more of a problem, what he does say is a lie. The page before explained that Jesus had been kicked in the face and in the ribs, and “ached all over.” And his mother (in the above quote) says his face is cut. So for Jesus to say that he was not hurt is a complete lie. This is not an orthodox representation of Jesus Christ.

Little Jesus not only makes mistakes and lies, but also has trouble with obeying his parents. For instance, after Joseph commands the family to “get on your knees and stay there,” Jesus disobeys:

A wild will came over me and I struggled to get up and free. I pushed and jerked to the side until I wasn’t under Joseph, and I climbed to my feet as if I was running….
“Joseph, look,” cried my mother. “Get him, pull him down.”
I pulled free of the hands that tried to tug at me. (p. 59)

So much for honoring or obeying his parents! I wonder if Jesus got a spanking after that episode, because it sounds like he deserved it.

Another problem Jesus has is a faulty memory. Consider this passage, which serves as a good example of not only this point but also the previous two as well:

“What happened in Bethlehem?” I asked. I blushed. I’d forgotten Joseph’s order to me not to ask. I felt a sharp pain all through me. “I’m sorry I said it,” I whispered. (p. 235)

In this passage Jesus forgets his father’s order, makes a mistake, disobeys his father, and then is sorry and guilty for his sin. But this is not the only time Jesus struggles with a forgetful mind. Jesus couldn’t remember “all those links” to Old Sarah, “no matter how often they were told to me” (p. 133). He couldn’t remember the names of Old Sarah’s grandfather’s seven sons, even though Joseph could (p. 142). He couldn’t remember “a single word that my mother said to me that night in Jerusalem” even though his mother insisted that he do so (p. 173). And he couldn’t remember much about what Elizabeth had said about Zechariah’s murder in the Temple (p. 265). Clearly, the Jesus in this book has a memory just like the rest of us. He is a man, and shows no signs of being God incarnate. At best he might be a prophet, who works miracles and has glimpses of insight from time to time.

That is perhaps the most disturbing part of the novel: the lack of the divinity of Jesus. I would not think Jesus was God from this novel. Prophet, yes. Half-God, maybe. This, in my opinion, is worse than portraying a Jesus who lies, makes mistakes, and has a faulty memory. Mrs. Rice does not portray one of the most essential truths about Jesus: that he is not only “Son of David” or “Son of God” but God incarnate wrapped in human flesh. He is the God-man: 100 percent God, and 100 percent man. Yet the novel does not clearly portray this, and that should caution us and help us see that this is not—by Catholic or Protestant standards—an orthodox portrayal of Jesus Christ. A God who lies, makes mistakes, is forgetful, and is not aware that he is God does not sound like the God of the Scriptures.

Conclusion

Christ the Lord is a good experiment. It is good because through this experiment we know that writing a novel about Jesus in the first person simply does not work. God’s ways are above our ways, his thoughts above our thoughts. If we try to write down his thoughts, we will fail.

But even apart from the first person narration, I don’t think this novel is exceptionally written. The main benefit of reading this book is gaining an imaginative rendering of how Jewish culture functioned during the time of Jesus. But if you are looking for a well-written story along with an accurate portrayal of Jesus, you will have to look somewhere else.

I have a confession to make. I have an addiction. I have had it for as long as I remember. You see, I am addicted to style. That is, style over substance. Form over content. I am obsessed with aesthetics over essence. This addiction has proven hard to break—in fact, I fear that it will never be completely broken. It resists reformation like the worst of fiends.

As I said, this has been haunting me since my memory begins. Life is a barrage of images seeking for my attention. They have confronted me from every front, and I have been undone. Television, video games, billboards, web sites, product packaging—there has been no rest. Even during middle school my addiction was plain. It is illustrated well by a Calvin & Hobbes comic: Calvin is confident that he will receive a good grade on a book report because of his professional looking clear plastic binder. I used to laugh at it because it was funny. Now I laugh at it because I see myself, and it is pathetic.

Calvin: Thank you. Before I begin, I’d like everyone to notice that my report is in a professional, clear plastic binder.
Teacher: That’s very nice. Go ahead.
Calvin: When a report looks like this, you know it’ll get an “A.” That’s a tip, kids. Write it down.

Of course Calvin ends up receiving a failing grade, and receiving no credit for his professional-looking binder. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the same experience, and somehow passed most of my classes.

Here is an example of what I mean: when I begin writing an article on the computer, I select a new serif font for the body—no Times New Roman for me, thank you—and select a classy sans-serif font for the headings. My footnotes must be just right. My indentations must be just so. It is quite pathetic really. When I have something “presentable” done, I take a step back and look at it and I think to myself—“now there’s an article!” Perhaps if I spent as much time revising my content, I wouldn’t be the only one reading this. While I am certainly grateful for my college education (although I didn’t quite finish it), I am not thankful that my classmates and I were marked off more for not conforming to our style guide than for writing a poorly-researched and poorly-written essay.

But of course, it’s not just essays. My addiction isn’t happy to stop there. Websites must look good. I have even been known to recommend templates to others, so help me God. The content can come later. And that is quite sad, since the best websites have a merging of style and content. As Francis Schaeffer put it, “For those art works which are truly great, there is a correlation between the style and the content. The greatest art fits together the vehicle that is being used and the message that is being said.”

The best art is a beautiful compliment of style and content. That is why it is impossible to create good writing when the main focus is on style. The content must come first, and must be done excellently. Then, after the content is completed, a complimentary style can be adorned.

And that is what I want to do. When I am creating art, I need to keep a balanced focus on the style and content. When I am writing an essay, I need to focus completely on the content, and not worry about the style until later. To combat my tendency to focus on style, I am currently handwriting all my first drafts. This allows me to focus solely on the content and leave the style for later. With websites, I need to understand the content and what the message is—then, it can be presented through a proper medium and style.

Perhaps my addiction will never be broken. But I will fight it.

Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology, by Eric Brende. HarperCollins (2004), 233 pages, $24.95 (hardcover).

What would it be like if a young couple left modern technological life for an 18 month experiment without electricity? In Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology, Eric Brende shares his story of living with the “Minimites” (a fictional name for a real community).

Mr. Brende—a former graduate of M.I.T.—gradually became disillusioned with the way technology has taken over all facets of our lives. We work long hours so we can pay for our transportation to our job, purchase groceries and obtain “time-saving” devices. However, these “time-saving” devices do not seem to actually give us any more time. We are still rushing, always too busy to talk to neighbors, pray, cook a meal from scratch, or settle down with a good book.

Better Off is written in the form of a very compelling story. I had a hard time putting it down. In the midst of enjoying the story, I learned some very interesting things. For instance, in winter some community members harvest ice out of ponds and lakes, and pack it into sheds with thick sawdust insulation. Surprisingly, it stays cold all summer and they can have ice cream in August. Indoor plumbing can be added through a “ram” that uses the movement of a stream or spring to pump water to a house. As a bonus, I also received a refresher course on the social impact of technological history.

This book is a living experiment of how technology affects society. What is a community like that has shared values, but no TVs, computers, recorded music, video games, or cars? The hypothesizing stops: we see a real picture. The children are helpful, loving, and kind. The neighbors bear one another’s burdens. Hard labor intersects with socialization that results in close relationships and enjoyment. Meals involve enjoying the fruit of your own labor. People become skilled and knowledgeable workers (not just players) again. Leisure time for reading and playing equals (or surpasses) our own. Modesty is the rule. Divorce is virtually non-existent.

Their community is not perfect, however. They tend to be cultish: they believe their church is the one-true denomination (Brende himself is a Catholic). Their self-government seems to lack structure and written law. Some community members think there is too much technology while others think there should be less.

Like any book, it is not without faults. It gives little detail on some things (How did they solve everyday medical problems? How did they bathe? What would happen during a community crop failure?). While Mr. Brende is a good writer, his prose sometimes spills over into language that a reader might find too extravagant for such a story, for instance:

It was as if the field were there to harvest us, not we it, the whole undertaking a pretext, a cosmic matchmaker’s ruse. At the stroke of midnight we shed our mortal shells and become prince and princess of creation, presiding over the majestic ball of life, ceremoniously joining with nature in jocund betrothal, a feast of love. (p. 173)

But those are small faults for an overall excellent book.

In the end, this book is more than an interesting story. It contains technological history, life lessons, and a personal journey wrapped up in a conservative, ecological philosophy of technology. It raises questions that beg the reader to give consideration to: how much technology is needed for human comfort and leisure? How can we use technologies that serve us, and avoid those that we serve? This book might help you find the answers to questions like that. You may even find an awakening of a desire you never knew existed—a desire “to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands … so that you may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one” (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12).

Joshua P. Sowin
Minneapolis, MN

Christians In a .Com World: Getting Connected Without Being Consumed, by Gene Edward Veith, Jr. and Christopher L. Stamper. Crossway Books (2000), 190 pages, 14.99 (paperback).

Book Review by Joshua Sowin

Like it or not, we live in a “.com” world.  Everything has a .com—companies, clubs, churches, families—even individuals.  Everything “real” seems to require a “virtual” counterpart.  Those who do not have a virtual counterpart—for instance, a company—are curtly told to “get with it,” and indeed, if they do not, their opportunities and resources to compete are quickly surpassed.

This creates a question for the thoughtful person, namely, how can we live in this virtual and image-saturated culture without being consumed by it?  And that happens to be one of the reasons I read this book, as its subtitle suggests: “Getting Connected Without Being Consumed.”

The book begins with a general introduction and an excellent historical overview of computers and the Internet.  It separates this history into three chapters—the history of computers, networking, and the world wide web.  I have read a number of brief histories on computers and the Internet, but this one tops them all.  Concise and well-researched, the overview presented should be simple enough for the “uninitiated” to understand and informative enough for the “geeks” to enjoy.

Unfortunately, I did not find the rest of the book as impressive as the historical overview. Perhaps this was due to recently reading Mr. Veith’s Reading Between the Lines, and thinking this work would be on par with that excellent book.  If I did not have that expectation in mind, my impression of this book might have been quite different.

I believe most of my hopes were dashed on the high-tech rocks of technophilia. Veith and Stamper see through much of the hype of the Internet, but not all of it.  Although the authors warn against technophilia, the book sometimes struck me as being exactly that.  Consider the following excerpts (emphasis mine):

No system for finding the best product at the best price has ever existed before in human history.  Such a free economy is working exactly the way Adam Smith thought it would. (p. 10)

Electronic publishing gives anyone a press.  The competition for attention will be fierce.  The book world will converge with the Web world.  When the dust settles, what remains may not be one industry dominated by a handful of Manhattan-based monoliths but a true marketplace of ideas. (p. 92)

On the whole [the Internet] should be good for Christians.  The great theologians of the past—many of whom are now unavailable and out of print—can be rediscovered.  Christian debate and discourse will not longer have to be filtered through the demands of commercialism.  The Church, which often drifts wherever the culture leads, may be able to pull itself back together and recover its own identity as the people of God.  (p. 152)

A virtual community is still a kind of community.  Modernism fragmented human relationships and undermined communal values, but the Internet, to a certain extent, can put some of them back together. (pp. 170-1)

Perhaps this is being too nitpicky.  Scattered throughout the history and hype are many warnings and cautions, most of which people desperately need to hear and follow.  For instance, the authors mention how the Internet “obscures the normal status markers, hierarchies, and authorities…. favors short bullets of information…. [and has much] information available [that is] brief, undeveloped, and ephemeral” (p. 137).  However, although the bad is pointed out, the authors seem to believe that the good side will win.  I question their conclusion.

There are also several inaccuracies in the book, two of which I will point out.  The book asserts, “search engines do not discriminate about which sites are reliable—they list them all” (p. 137), which is an understandably incorrect misconception.  First of all, search engines discriminate by the way they sort sites by pseudo-relevance.  Second, they do not list sites that have requested not to be listed (personally or through a file on their website).  Lastly, if you are in another country, search engines can (and do) discriminate against certain sites.  For instance, MSN China recently blocked sites that contained words like “democracy” and “freedom.”

The authors’ explanation of Internet anonymity is also inaccurate.  The authors state that, “ironically, though the Internet promises anonymity, this, like so much of cyberspace, is an illusion.”  That is correct, but not for the reason the authors identify:

It provides a virtual anonymity that seems real but is not.  The fact is, nearly everything ever done on a computer can be traced and found somewhere on the hard drive.  Cookies leave their trail of electronic crumbs. (p. 143)

The problem is that anyone with basic computer knowledge can easily delete the history, cache, and cookies.  The Internet lacks anonymity because of your ISP (Internet Service Provider).  They have logs of everything you have accessed.  You also have a unique IP address that accessed sites store in their logs along with a listing of every page (and image) you access.  That is what gives the Internet its lack of anonymity, not cookies.

The authors correctly point out that the Internet is predominately centered around typography.  Since Christianity is a religion of the Word, they argue, it only makes sense for Christians to latch on to this medium.  However, the authors fail to realize (or at least fail to write about) why the Internet has been largely text-based: bandwidth limitations.  More and more households are getting broadband, and as this happens, the Internet will become based less on text and more on imagery.  We have already seen this effect through widespread use of Flash animations/videos, but it will only get worse.  The Internet will become the new TV, only with more interactivity. CNN has recently provided free live streaming video through their website.  This trend will continue, and people will end up watching TV (or something similar) through the Internet.

Overall, I think Christians in a .com World is a good book that Christians interested in technology should read.  The historical overview is worth the price of the book by itself.  However, if you are looking to know how to “get connected without being consumed” you will have to either draw your own conclusions or look to a different book.