One of the men in my church mentioned that he read how the Puritans drove for miles to get to a Puritan church, often past numerous other churches. (I should ask him where he read this.) His takeaway is that it has not been uncommon (at least for hundreds of years) for devout Christians to be seen as weird for going further than “normal” Christians do to get to a good church.
In this context it makes me wonder how much “harder” we actually have it. I’ve wondered the same thing when reading Little House on the Prairie. People who were living on farms, at least in the US frontier, were apparently far enough from everybody else that having somebody over was a real event, even if it was your nearest neighbor. Perhaps that is out of the ordinary down through history, though? I simply don’t know. Still, it seems to me that the average person today has much more social interaction than most throughout history have had. We simply have way more free time. And I suspect this is in large part a result of technology—both the increase in free time and the increased ability to see and spend time with others, for example via cars, leaving aside Skype.
Regarding the Amish, it’s also worth noting that it is not uncommon for people in Indiana communities to sell their land and move to Wisconsin communities where land is cheaper. I don’t know the details, but I know that this breaks up extended families, because they will hire people to drive them back for special family events, at times.
This is true, especially in the aftermath of nonconformity effectively being made illegal. Pastors were not allowed to live within five miles of their former congregations. John Owen lived 11 miles from his congregation - in London that’s a huge distance, especially so in the 1600s - though I think he also rented some sort of modest dwelling nearer to the congregation part of the time. And for believers who were servants, their employment dictated where they lived not the other way around. The idyllic picture of village life with a physical proximity to a congregation blessed with generational ties is something that most Americans have never known. And given the trouble Jonathan Edwards had in just such a situation, I wonder how truly idyllic it was.
Not to say, @Joel, that your perspective is untrue (don’t worry…I am still tracking with you!). I rather suspect you’re correct. But I think that makes my point rather than refutes my point. Do we really think that all the Christians in the first century Rome or Corinth had that much interaction with each other on a daily basis? What percentage of those congregations were slaves? How much time do we think they really had ‘to themselves’ to be able to devote to fellowship with other believers throughout the week?
European Christians (to say nothing of Christians in other parts to the world) have long had to deal with this problem. It has served, when it’s been taken to heart, to reinforce the importance of the weekly sabbath meeting. It is truly a sabbath, a fellowship, a high point of the week.
I don’t disagree, but I do wonder how often throughout modern history Christians might have said this. One church history professor I know claims the invention of the automobile was the most catastrophic technical advance, at least as pertains to effective church membership. Excommunication lost its teeth overnight if a disgruntled member could easily drive to another church without reconciling to a former congregation.
Full disclosure: the majority of the congregation where I serve live within a 15 minute walking radius of the church. It definitely makes ministry easier. I’m not discounting the value or even importance of proximity. On the contrary.
But I think the scripture (both New and Old Testaments) points us to such proximity as being a luxury rather than a necessity. Like @joehelt I’ve had a fair bit of interaction with Amish and Amish-ish groups over the years…needless to say I think we can be a bit idyllic in looking at their lifestyles from the outside. Aside from the fact that scripture doesn’t call us to any such thing. Learn from their dedication to their views, perhaps. Such principled living is possible. But adapt any significant measure from their philosophy? I think probably not.
I don’t really have any disagreement with you, @jtbayly and @aaron.prelock. God has ordained the times we live in, which are worse in some ways and better in some ways, than other times. And our call is to live faithfully in whatever situation we find ourselves in.
I guess I just see that much of what is promoted as an invevitable outcome of technology is really a policy choice that could, in principle, though perhaps not in politics, be different. And if Christians are going to make decisions about use of technology, they ought to be aware of the pressures in the larger environment and not just the immediate impact of an item like a smartphone.
@jtbayly’s words about the attempted application of older courtship methods to our present time come to mind – not a bad idea per se, but it always struck me as ill-fitting. Rather than cutting something out of another culture and time, we have to organically develop new approaches that biblically deal with the challenges of our own culture and time.
What I keep thinking is that if I had to gauge the impact of technology making it harder to live a healthy Christian life, an awful lot of its impact is due to it spreading unhealthy, anti-Christian entertainment among us.
Homeschooling for middle income families is really only possible because of technology. Labor saving devices and increased leisure time make possible for those of modest means what was only available for the wealthy (private tutors, servants etc) in former times.
Technology is a blessing. The fact that you can buy an orange in December is incredible, and it’s something we just take for granted. We are blessed. The bad consequences are mainly due to entertainment, as Joseph said.
I think this is essential. One of my recurring thoughts in reading this article about the crackdown on the Uyghurs is that in China, there is only the state. Everything comes after the state. And so the Chinese have no freedom to make decisions that set a higher priority on their religion or their family or their local community than the state at large.
In this country, a similar kind of thing is happening. All ties to anything other than the state or a sports team or to one’s own “self-fulfillment” are being attacked and eroded. If you try to base your life around something other than sports or a good job - like, say, deciding to move because you want to be near a good church, or not having a TV because you don’t want your children to suck that stuff in constantly - then you will be considered weird and cultish.
I think this is true. And I make no apologies for bringing this up again: we don’t take pornography seriously. We really don’t. How is it possible that I am worried about the temptation to look at naked flesh - and worried about it for my children - in my own home? That’s just insane. That should not be. And how can you separate information technology from pornography?
Thanks for writing this, @joehelt . Those of us who have less experience with the Amish tend to idealize them.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they exist. But I was talking with a couple pastors here earlier today, and it was pointed out that the real difference between them and us is that the Amish are content to retreat from the culture. We aren’t.
I mean, you really can’t. I’m thoroughly persuaded there is no way.
Which is kinda why even though I am appreciating all this dialogue, it isn’t really moving the needle for me as I think through the Amish and pinpoint the exact points of how I would critique them. I don’t know how we guard ourselves from certain threats without rejecting certain technology.
Bear with me. I am more or less just trying on the devil’s advocate hat to try to wrap my head around the Amish rationale.
We talk about purity at the individual level quite often in the church. We exhort men, personally, to make no provision for their flesh, with an expectation that such efforts manifest differently for different men, given their individual struggles. But at some point does a church, as one man, just say, enough is enough? If we are constantly exhorting our men to put down their smart phones, does there come a point where we just say to hell with the smart phone altogether? Does a church ever covenant together, as one man, to put away some specific thing – even though the thing itself be arbitrary in the overall scheme of things, and not an explicit command of Scripture? In other words, could the elders impose a ban on the use of smart phones in the congregation – as Chrysostom banned the attendance of the theatre? Or does such a prohibition constitute an unlawful binding of the conscience that oversteps the authority of the church over the individual?
I mean, come on. Based on the last several months of posting, it seems like @jtbayly is ready to be done with film/entertainment and @ldweeks is only a stone’s throw away from rejecting the internet. We’re not far from jettisoning certain technology. You’re on the doorstep of some sort of new Amish paradigm, guys. Just pull the trigger.
But as to the critique of hypocrisy, I have a thought. If the prohibitions on certain technology among an Amish community are already admittedly arbitrary, then is it possible that hypocrisy concerning those rules isn’t necessarily a big deal?
Here’s what I mean. Let’s say I make a rule in my house that we don’t wear shoes upstairs. The reasoning behind this rule is that we wish to strive to maintain clean carpet in the bedrooms, free from the mud and debris that gets tracked in from the outdoors. This rule is effectively arbitrary; it doesn’t come from any specific moral imperative. It comes only from the desire to keep clean carpet.
Well, let’s say I get the family packed up and ready to go somewhere, and everyone is out the door, when suddenly I realize I forgot my keys in my nightstand. My boots are already laced, and we’re running late.
What do I do? Do I unlace my boots and take them off in accordance with the rule? No. I do a quick visual inspection of my boots to make sure there’s no obvious mud on them, and if there isn’t, I run upstairs with my boots on and get the keys.
Does this make me a hypocrite? Not sure. But seems to me that since the rule itself is arbitrary, and I am the rule-maker, then I have the prerogative to set it aside as I deem appropriate in extenuating circumstances, provided I am still maintaining a dedication to the end for which the rule existed to begin with – all while still upholding the general equity and goodness of the rule.
I adopted the previously suggested approach of no devices in bedrooms and all usage done in the open, and it occurred to me last week that for similar considerations I couldn’t leave a teenager at home alone unless I locked up the devices and changed the passwords on the desktop computer. Not that I thought the teenager would be looking at porn, but there’s other problems with unrestricted access besides porn, and I also wanted to set the right precedent for succeeding children. Crazy.
Again, this is an issue of policy rather than technology. It only seems anonymous because people in authority aren’t bothering (or appear not to be bothering) to track who’s viewing what. If the societal will were there (and it is not), porn could be pushed much farther out to the fringes.
The difficulty is that it would involve much more than just smart phones.
I’d be up for signing any such “Presbytamish New Deal”, “Baptamish New Deal”, etc.
Voluntary, of course, and only as a set of guidelines. Kind of like the Billy Graham rule. But it would be nice to have a list of “wise moves”. What you mentioned about no electronics in the bedroom should definitely be on the list.
Can’t behind that, need that sweet command prompt.
The hypocrisy is not from arbitrary rule enforcement, it is from their presentation of themselves as free from modern technology. If they would be consistent in that and not claim moral superiority it wouldn’t be hypocrisy. They would be known as prudes rather than idelic.
It is the whole mantra of evangelism from before I was born. And yet it seems the times of greatest revival are not from engagement but rather great calls of holiness and repentance.
Where does scripture call us to retreat from culture? Flee from idolatry and immorality; that much is clear. But is that retreating from culture? @ldweeks, I know you’re making a different point (and my sense is your own background makes you able to see better than most how unnecessary much of our own lifestyles are today) but I think it’s still worth considering why we think the Amish have something we ought to value. What is it about them that’s admirable? Is their retreat the means by which they get consistency between generations and ‘purity’ of their lifestyle, or is it perhaps more that they just don’t care what the ‘outside world’ thinks of them? In other words, are we looking at the result and assuming it’s the cause?
I remember some years ago realising that Keller’s transformationalism and Westminster West’s neo-anabaptism weren’t the only options. Much of biblical Christianity simply was…Christian. They didn’t have delusions of conquering society nor did they indulge in useless opting out of society.
Spot on. That’s neither engagement with culture nor retreat from culture. I believe that would be called ‘faithfulness.’ In the home, in the church, and in society. There’s always going to be parts of society that we can’t participate in (like Corinthian idol feasts), yet we’re explicitly called to be ‘in the world.’ Be faithful husbands, fathers, pastors, businessmen, day-labourers, government employees. When we’re no longer able to be faithful in our given employment, we move on (that’s not in any way to trivialise the legitimate issues @Joel brought up earlier), but we do so trusting God that he will enable us to provide for our family - even if it’s not at a level or in a way that would be our choice.
