I think agrarianism is somewhat romanticized in the modern day, as if it is the biblical ideal. That is an oversteer from the ditch we _were_ in, where agrarianism was basically seen as primitive and backward and the domain of uncultured hicks who weren't ready for city life.
In seeking a biblical approach to how we live, we should firstl…
I think agrarianism is somewhat romanticized in the modern day, as if it is the biblical ideal. That is an oversteer from the ditch we _were_ in, where agrarianism was basically seen as primitive and backward and the domain of uncultured hicks who weren't ready for city life.
In seeking a biblical approach to how we live, we should firstly distinguish between agrarians and hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherers live in the "churn" of time and chaos; but agrarianism is inherently dominion-minded: it is oriented toward cultivating the land, in order to make it fruitful. You can do that in many ways, but that is the basic idea; and that is one half of the commission that Adam was given.
What we need to recognize, though, is that there was another half, which has to do with serving and guarding the sanctuary itself. This requires a more developed center. The biblical pattern is the temple as the center of life, with the city around it (edenically and eschatologically, a _garden_ city), with fruitful fields around that, and the wilderness on the margins — which in turn is eventually tamed, at least to a large degree.
This means there is no kind of inherent contradiction between city folk and field folk, as if one kind of living is more biblical than the other. That desire to oversimplify and flatten the diversity and hierarchy of human life is perverse, and probably results from the Enlightenment, which sought to "citify" everything, extending the mindset of the city beyond its natural domain through industrialization.
Much more can be said; I am not yet qualified to say it though.
I think agrarianism is somewhat romanticized in the modern day, as if it is the biblical ideal. That is an oversteer from the ditch we _were_ in, where agrarianism was basically seen as primitive and backward and the domain of uncultured hicks who weren't ready for city life.
In seeking a biblical approach to how we live, we should firstly distinguish between agrarians and hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherers live in the "churn" of time and chaos; but agrarianism is inherently dominion-minded: it is oriented toward cultivating the land, in order to make it fruitful. You can do that in many ways, but that is the basic idea; and that is one half of the commission that Adam was given.
What we need to recognize, though, is that there was another half, which has to do with serving and guarding the sanctuary itself. This requires a more developed center. The biblical pattern is the temple as the center of life, with the city around it (edenically and eschatologically, a _garden_ city), with fruitful fields around that, and the wilderness on the margins — which in turn is eventually tamed, at least to a large degree.
This means there is no kind of inherent contradiction between city folk and field folk, as if one kind of living is more biblical than the other. That desire to oversimplify and flatten the diversity and hierarchy of human life is perverse, and probably results from the Enlightenment, which sought to "citify" everything, extending the mindset of the city beyond its natural domain through industrialization.
Much more can be said; I am not yet qualified to say it though.
Well said! Thank you Pastor!