permaculture

["Ben Martin Horst" <ben.martinhorst@gmail.com>]

On 1/30/07, Lawrence F. London, Jr. <lfl@intrex.net> wrote:
> What Christian bashing?

That would be the Christian bashing where, responding to a
well-reasoned and expressed post, you tarred each and every Christian
with the same brush: the stereotypical anti-abortion, anti-stem cell
research, anti-evolution, Bible-banging,
from-the-pulpit-hell-and-brimstone-preaching militant,
uncritically-Bush-supporting buffoon. This is a stereotype, and it
isn't critical thought. Someone might as well go off on you or me as a
man for the long, sordid, and continuing history of oppression of
women. Would it be justified? Probably. All of us men share in that
ugly legacy. But would it be helpful in the context of this list? I
doubt it.

Something that's been lost in this thread is that whatever the label
is for a particular belief system/spirituality/religion, there's
always at least as much variation within that group as there is
between groups. That is, the beliefs and actions of two Christians
might actually be more divergent than those of a particular Christian
and a Muslim, or between a Christian and a Buddhist, or a Christian
and an animist.

I doubt anyone here would dispute that Pat Robertson would make a
lousy permaculturist. But one of my PDC instructors, Tom Ward, is a
brilliant permaculturist who also happens to be Christian (of the
Quaker variety).

Daniel Quinn tends to be correct when he characterizes Taker religions
as conceiving of "Man" as separate from nature, meant to dominate it
and use it as they see fit, and Leaver belief systems (the
hunter-gatherer and horticulturist animists) as conceiving of humanity
as an interwoven part of the greater ecology of Life. But that has not
so much to do with the actual tenets of a particular religion as with
the Taker societies that have appropriated them. Take, as an example
pertinent to this thread, Christianity:

The founder of the Christian movements, a Palestinian guy named Jesus,
actively sought to break down all the hierarchical divisions in his
society.  He sat around a table with women as equals -- unheard of in
the patriarchy of the day. He broke bread with all the pariahs of his
day, from lepers to tax collectors. He championed the rights of the
poor, and gave people effective new strategies for opposing Roman
oppression that wouldn't bring the entire vast military might of the
Empire down upon their heads.* He advised people to forget about the
Rat Race and live like the other living beings in the world, such as
crows and lilies. And his prescription for good life was to be
compassionate toward every living being rather than to be bound to the
legalistic structures imposed by the Romans and their local cronies.
In short, the way of life that Jesus lived and taught was markedly
similar to that of Leavers -- that is, animists -- except that it had
to account for the presence of the larger Taker constructs of the
Roman Empire. Jesus' vision was quickly corrupted by those that
followed him, and it lost most of its revolutionary potential when
Constantine adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman
Empire. There have always been a few who have kept that original
vision alive, nurtured it, and carried it in creative new directions.
Take, for example, the Quakers, or the Catholic Workers, among
countless other groups and individuals.

Similar accounts could be given of most of the Taker religions. The
history of Sufism in Islam, for example. The point is, any belief
system has wide and sometimes wild variability. Some of us find it
more authentic at our personal core to express our spirituality in the
context of the Abrahamic (or other) traditions that we descend from
than to try to reconstitute a totally different experience. While my
beliefs  and practices differ widely from many of my fellow Christians
(and indeed from many of my denomination, the Mennonites), it seems
more grounded to me than if I were to try to create a New Age
spirituality for myself, though I know the experience of others may
well differ.

This definitely won't be a productive conversation unless we can stop
attacking each other for beliefs and positions that they may not even
possess.

-Ben

*Jesus advocated nonviolent resistence methods quite similar to those
of King and Gandhi -- perhaps not surprising when one considers that
both of those great thinkers and doers frequently cited Jesus as an
inspiration to them.  In one set of teachings, Jesus advised those
forced to carry a Roman soldier's belongings for one mile (the
distance allowable under Roman law) to carry them farther, opening
that soldier up to prosecution for exceeding the allowed distance.
When someone was hit (backhanded) by a supposed superior, Jesus
advised them to "turn the other cheek," forcing that superior to
strike them forehanded, a blow normally reserved for people of the
same social standing, and thereby asserting the equality of the two.
Similar teachings on resisting hierarchical power are found throughout
the Gospels.