Banner
Wendell Berry's Halcyon Bean Patch PDF Print E-mail
Culture and Politics - Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Tuesday, 15 January 2013 11:55

Wendell Berry has come out in favor of Christians laying off their hateful opposition to homosexual marriage. You can read more about it here. A few immediate thoughts come to mind.

First, I trust that this will cause many Christians who have looked to Berry for cultural insght to rethink things, and go back to first principles. Berry, it turns out, initial appearances notwithstanding, was not a representative of the moral tradition of the West. Wendell Berry, when it comes to the spirit of the age, turns out to have been a vanguard kind of guy, not a rear guard kind of guy. It is as though we were wandering through the aisles of WalMart and came upon him with a shopping cart filled up with those bags of Bugles, manufactured by General Mills. Wendell, we hardly knew ye!

In other words, a lot of Christians were attracted to what he was saying because they thought he was premodern. Turns out he is postmodern, with all the requisite sexual confusions. Berry won the National Humanities Medal in 2010, and was the 2012 Jefferson lecturer for the National Endowment for the Humanities. Previous recipients of these awards were fellow outsiders like Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Elijah the Tishbite.

Second, let me briefly respond to Berry's observation that the Bible has a "lot more to say" about other sins, like fornication and adultery. This is quite true, and almost entirely beside the point. Say that a mother came home from grocery shopping to find out that her twelve-year-old son had set fire to the couch. When she was remonstrating with him, suppose further that she was met with the argument that he had been listening carefully to her for years, and that she had always had a "lot more to say" about table manners than this. This may be perfectly true . . . and yet . . . the couch.

For believing Christians, the issue is what the Bible teaches, not how much it teaches on one thing compared to other issues. There are matters of first importance compared to other matters, but this is determined by wisdom, and not by word counts. We should not tally up citations of the Ten Commandments throughout Scripture in order to manage our disobedience by triage.

Third, Berry says that liberals and conservatives have both invented a "politics of sexuality" that establishes marriage as a "right" to be granted or not by the prevailing side. Berry says that this "contravenes principles of democracy" -- as though the principles of democracy were not themselves a construct that determines how we grant or withhold certain defined things on the basis of the prevailing side. He wants to go on to say that that "self-evident" rights are not bequeathed by the government. This is quite true, but let us ask a few follow-up questions. Self-evident to whom? By what standard?

Mustafa has four wives and it is self-evident to him that he should have them. Bob has Bill and it is self-evident to him that this was meant to be. John has Suzy and it is self-evident to him that Bob and Bill are missing something important. In short, not to belabor the obvious, the meaning of the phrase self-evident falls out of particular worldviews -- it is not a neutral thing that creates the right worldview. There is no neutrality anywhere, not even in Wendell Berry's halcyon bean patch.

And last, Berry says that "condemnation by category is the lowest form of hatred." Yes, but what he fails to recognize here is that the Bible has a "lot more to say" about not eating oysters than it does about condemnation by category.



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Rob Steele  Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:43 pm
"And yet . . . the couch" is my new favorite Wilsonism.
BrentR  Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:17 pm
That's your perspective while tweeting on your iPhone from an ecclesiastical office-suite lit with fluorescent tubes. You would have an entirely different vantage scrawling your thoughts out on a moleskine with your 0.5mm pentel at the back of a team of mules.
James B  Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:03 pm
This is bad, and I have to say that my disappointment with aspects of Wendell Berry's work goes back at least as far as my appreciation for other aspects. The question is, does that limited appreciation indicate corrosion in my overall worldview? If so, I'm unable to put my finger on the specific problems.
Berry's work has always reflected a deficient view of the place and authority of both the scriptures and the church. His politics are at least as bad as N.T. Wright's. His visioning of community, tradition, and family is fatally flawed by these errors, but his sense of where at least some of the damage has come from is stuff I can just as easily read in Ch. 8 of Father Hunger.

Another question is whether Berry's public stance on homosexuality puts him in a different place (and his books on a different shelf) as far as his public influence. For me, that has to be a yes.

But maybe I can hope for someone to do a better job than he has of articulating an attractive vision of church, community and culture free from slavery to, as you call it crony-capitalism. So far I haven't really seen it.
Matthew N. Petersen  - Meh  Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:40 pm
It seems to me that if we look at why he said what he said, and not merely what he said, we find that he's an anabaptist. Which shouldn't be terribly surprising, since he is an anabaptist.
oldfatslow  - Who dat?  Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:30 pm
Never heard of him.

ofs
Will S  Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:38 pm
Mathew,

I call BS on your comment.

If he said what he said because he is an anabaptist, why is he justifying the sin with statements like "the bible says more about other sins" and "condemnation by catagory is hatred"?

I can understand taking a libertarian view on gay marriage because one is an anabaptist. But anabaptists have (or should have) the same morals as the rest of us.
Matthew N. Petersen  Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:59 pm
Perhaps it's his concluding statement that makes me think he says this 'cause he's an anabaptist:
Quote:
For want of a Pilate of their own, some Christians would accept a Constantine or whomever might be the current incarnation of Caesar.
I disagree with him regarding Constantine, but he's a baptist.

Why does he say the Bible says more about other sins? Perhaps he's asking what we should emphasize? Why does he say condemnation by category is a sin? Perhaps because he's asking us to consider homosexuals as people, and love them like people, rather than seeing them primarily as belonging to a category? I don't see anything wrong with either of those positions.
katecho  Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:58 pm
Wendell skipped all the way from pre-modern to postmodernism in one giant leap, bouncing right over modernism. Perhaps, for him, it was never really more than a rejection of modernism.

“Condemnation by category is the lowest form of hatred, for it is cold-hearted and abstract, lacking even the courage of a personal hatred,” said Berry, vilifying a category of Christians who still dare to utter anything against the steamrolling, State-sanctioned sexual perversion of our day.

Did Berry just compare us to the mob that cried out for Christ's blood? Berry seems late to the party. Maybe he feels it is now safe for him to come out to join the new majority and throw his rock at our category. How courageous.
John Tomberlin II  - It's hard to take this seriously.  Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:01 pm
A man - an accomplished writer, thoughtful essayist, and not a bad poet - has some great insights into community, work, food, neighbor, et al. This same man says something foolish regarding gay marriage, et al. Therefore Christians would do well to pay him no mind? It's that simple? Hmmm. Again, Doug, Berry sounds a lot like you sometimes in his observations (I've read much of his and your stuff, and listened to many of your sermons). I wish you'd read some of his actual work instead of taking this and making it paradigmatic for all things Berry. I know, I know...here come the Berry groupies, blah blah blah. I just find it odd, after recently admitting you've never read anything of his THIS is the first and only thing you've ever quoted of his. Luther on the Jews a good representation of Luther? Maybe. But maybe not.
Rick Davis  Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:26 pm
I think I must have missed the part where Doug says we should "pay him no mind".
John Tomberlin II  - A good and necessary inference?  Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:32 pm
Or something.
katecho  Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:30 pm
It's not hard for me to take Doug's critique seriously, while still acknowledging that Berry is a fine craftsman in his trade. Berry is just out of line on this issue. Way out of line. And I'm thankful to be made aware of it. I had no idea. I'm frankly quite disappointed.

But it doesn't mean we can't enjoy his poetry any more, it just means we have to have our eyes open, if we didn't already.
Rick Davis  Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:54 am
That's exactly what I got from it as well. When Wilson critiques N.T. Wright for women's ordination or crazy political views, I have never gotten the impression that he was saying we should disregard Wright altogether. Just that we need to be careful not to fanboy out and throw discernment to the wind.

I'm getting the same vibe here regarding Berry. I don't think he's saying never listen to anything Wendell Berry has to say. I think he's pointing out that Berry does not actually share the same presuppositions that most of us do about the Bible, society, God's law, etc. So don't get so enamored with Berry that you treat him like some sort of modern agrarian saint. Perhaps even examine those areas in which you appreciate him to see if those things are built upon a biblical foundation and not just faddishness.
holmegm  - re:  Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:45 am
Rob Steele wrote:
"And yet . . . the couch" is my new favorite Wilsonism.


Likewise!

The Bible has a lot more to say about genealogies too. And ancient near east political developments. And golden calves. We should definitely spend more energy guarding against literal golden calves, because of the higher word count.
David Smith  Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:27 am
I love Mr. Berry's agrarianism! Far from being mere utopian fancy, it is to me the most basic sort of conservative reality. However, what he's written here regarding homosexuality is clearly high-falutin' nonsense.

Again, take in what is good, reject the bad. It's that simple.
David Paul Regier  - Hmph.  Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:38 am
An agrarian who doesn't understand the first thing about seeds.
Melody  Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:34 am
How many words in the Bible are devoted to 'sex-trafficking'?
J. Clark  Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:50 pm
The category doesn't come from the Christians, it comes from the homosexuals themselves. They initiate their own to demand from the public a recognition according to their genital preferences. That is the irony here. They formed the homo-guild, they are the ones that ized.
J. Clark  Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:52 pm
The category doesn't come from the Christians, it comes from the homosexuals themselves. They initiate their own to demand from the public a recognition according to their genital preferences. That is the irony here. They formed the homo-guild, they organized their own .
Andrew Lohr  Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:59 pm
We all know we should love the homosinner and hate the homosin, but the churches are full of fornicators and divorced-remarried people, and our Lord told us to get the branch out of our own eye so we can help our brother get the twig out of his. Are we, maybe, tending to yell too much about the weird sins of a minority out there while equanimously tolerating our own favorites? (I suppose the church Doug works for improves on most US churches in this, and other, regards, but as a generalization, is it not so?)
holmegm  - re:  Friday, January 18, 2013 8:27 am
Andrew Lohr wrote:
We all know we should love the homosinner and hate the homosin, but the churches are full of fornicators and divorced-remarried people, and our Lord told us to get the branch out of our own eye so we can help our brother get the twig out of his. Are we, maybe, tending to yell too much about the weird sins of a minority out there while equanimously tolerating our own favorites? (I suppose the church Doug works for improves on most US churches in this, and other, regards, but as a generalization, is it not so?)


I don't think I've ever encountered a church that supported "adultery-pride" or "divorce-pride".
Nathaniel  Monday, January 21, 2013 5:33 pm
All you people and your fancy talk.

I am liking you less and less, Mr. Wilson.