THE AGRARIAN VISION
Some thoughts by
Gary Ray Branscome
That
we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty (1Timothy 2:2).
In his
book, “Conflict of Visions” Dr. Thomas Sowell identifies the ideological
conflict in our society with two competing schools of thought [i.e. visions]
rooted in eighteenth century rationalism: “The Constrained Vision” and “The
Unconstrained Vision”. He then explains how those two visions have influenced
the thinking of various scholars up to our present time. However, in contrast
to those secular visions, I would like to offer a Biblical alternative, which I
call, “The Agrarian Vision”.
THE AGRARIAN VISION
While
the “Agrarian Vision” is not as obvious in an industrial society as it was in
rural
That “vision,” the dream of
owning one’s own property, of being one’s own boss, was the motivation of
millions of homesteaders who spread out over America in the nineteenth century,
risking all to gain their own plot of land, their own family business, farm or
ranch. It was the vision of the settlers described by Laura Ingalls;
the vision of the family portrayed in “The Waltons”
TV series; and it is the vision of the Amish, who value family and community
over material wealth. Nevertheless, because both of the visions described by
Dr. Sowell are based on “rationalism,” neither is fully compatible with this
Biblical view.
The constrained vision, as
described by Dr. Sowell, regards human nature (with its greed and selfishness)
as something that is not going to change, and therefore something that needs to
be constrained by laws, traditions, and competition. In contrast, the
unconstrained vision assumes that all men are basically good, and that bad
behavior (greed and selfishness) stems from the environment, and from being
forced to compete in order to survive.
Because Christians believe
that man has a sinful nature that needs to be constrained, Christians usually
identify with the constrained vision.
At the same time, Christians take it for granted that the Ten Commandments are
part of the constraint that is needed, while not all rationalists who hold that
vision would agree. There are rationalists who would reduce morality to
“anything goes between consenting adults”. And, that is why some “Libertarians”
would legalize drugs and prostitution. At the same time, Christians should
regard the unconstrained vision, with its assumption that all men are basically
good, as a form of Phariseeism.
Even though few who hold the
unconstrained vision would be so naïve as to assume that the behavior of people
will change for the better without constraint, or that defunding
the police will result in a summer of love, they believe that under their
control human behavior will cease to be selfish and greedy, even advocating
dictatorship as a way of bringing that about. In contrast, those who have a
Biblical understanding of the Agrarian Vision know that man’s sinful nature is
not going to change in this life, and view the idea that a dictatorship [which
uses force and violence] can produce people who are no longer selfish or greedy
[the dictatorship of the proletariat] as shear madness.
Another way that the
“unconstrained” vision differs from the Biblical view is by assuming that there
is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and that the only way someone can get
rich is by taking more than their share. That view seems to be central to the
Socialist worldview, although I believe that it is also held by some who
identify with the “constrained vision”. In contrast, the Biblical vision does
not see wealth as something we get away from others, but as something that God
gives us through His blessing on our work – the clearest example being Abraham.
Abraham did not become wealthy by getting wealth away from others, but as a
result of God’s blessing. God blessed Abraham by keeping him healthy while
protecting his herds and flocks from disease, theft, predators and natural
disasters. As his flocks increased, his wealth increased, and that is the way
that small family farms get wealth.
Let me also add that freedom
according to the Biblical ideal is not freedom to do as you please (which the
Bible describes as bondage to the flesh), but the freedom to, “lead a quiet and peaceable life in all
godliness and honesty” (1Tim. 2:2). And, that is what all who share the
Agrarian Vision want to do. We want the government to keep the streets safe
while leaving us free to lead a godly Christian life. And, that excludes all
attempts to cram acceptance of homosexuality, and other evils down our throats.
In
contrast to our modern lifestyle, the rural way of life is family centered, and
tends to bind families together. While those who devote themselves to the
pursuit of material things will lose everything they have labored for when they
die, those who value their family and personal relationships can have what they
value the most in heaven with them. For that reason, those who follow the
Agrarian Vision see all attempts by the school system to indoctrinate their
children contrary to their wishes as a satanic attack on their children, and a
form of religious persecution.
In ancient
In the cities, because the
Communist party owned all of the capital, the Communists became the
capitalists. And, because they would not allow competition they had a monopoly,
making their system monopoly capitalism.
Just as owning one’s own land
is a blessing from God (Micah 4:4), losing ownership can be the result of God’s
chastening, wrath or judgment. Nevertheless, under Joseph’s administration,
after Pharaoh owned the land, the farmers were told, “You will give the fifth part to Pharaoh, and four parts will be your
own, as seed for the fields, and as food for yourselves and your households,
and as food for your little ones” (Genesis 47:24). In other words,
government and landlords together [for pharaoh was both] were entitled to only
one fifth of what the farmers produced. And, that seems like a fair
apportionment. However, in contrast to Communists, who use force and violence
to achieve their ends, those who hold the Biblical vision believe in working
through the system using legal means to bring about reform.
American Government and the Agrarian Vision
In European history, there
were times when it was common for those in power to embrace the ideals of
chivalry and honor. However, outside of the ante-bellum American South it has
been rare for those in power to share the Agrarian Vision. That being said, it
is important to realize that there is a big difference between a small family
farm, and a “plantation”. Because plantation farming results in one family
growing wealthy at the expense of others, it
is at odds with the Biblical ideal of every man sitting under his own vine and
fig tree. Nevertheless, because each of the plantation owners saw their own
farm as their own little kingdom, they wanted the power of government
decentralized. They did not want government to have the power to control them,
or their domain. That is why they adopted safeguards aimed at preventing the
abuse of power, and that is why men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson
preferred life on their own farm to political office.
In the long run, however,
because plantation farming is incompatible with the Agrarian Vision, with its
ideal of every man sitting under his own vine and fig tree; the Agrarian Vision
played an important role in the abolition of slavery.
Biblical Government
Because the Bible says, “You shall set one from among your brethren
as ruler over you: you may not set a foreigner over you, who is
not one of your brethren… And when he sits on the throne of his government, he
shall write down for himself in a book a copy of this law out of what is before
the Levitical priests: And he shall keep it with him,
and read from it all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD
his God, by keeping all the words of this law and following these statutes: So
that his heart is not lifted up above his brethren, and he does not turn aside
from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left,” those who hold to
the Agrarian Vision want to be ruled by men who are ruled by God (Deuteronomy
17:15, 18, 19, 20).
The American system of law has
its roots in English law, and English law has its roots in the legal code
adopted by King Alfred, which included the Ten Commandments along with other
excerpts of Mosaic Law (871-899 A.D.). Of those Biblical roots, lawyer and
columnist David Limbaugh once said: “In the Book of Exodus following the Ten
Commandments are further laws, sometimes collectively referred to as the Book
of the Covenant. As a lawyer I was fascinated to discover just how much of our
law – torts, contracts, property and criminal law – is obviously traceable to
this section of scripture.” (From his column, used by permission.)
For those who have a Biblical understanding of the Agrarian Vision, this is as
it should be.
In English and American law,
limited government can be traced back to the "Magna Carta".
At that time, by requiring King John to submit to the Magna Carta
the barons shifted the authority of government from the king to the law. Then,
when King John died, the barons assumed control of the government and made
John's son (Henry III) confirm the "Magna Carta".
It was that division of power (between king and barons) that made it possible
to enforce the provisions set down in the "Magna Carta".
And, that division of power was taken into account by the men who founded our
republic. The words, “The LORD is our
judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king,” then led them to
separate the powers of government into legislative, judicial and executive
branches (Isaiah 33:22). At the same time, English common law, as codified by
the commentaries of William Blackstone, became the basic textbook for training
American lawyers, extending the Biblical system of law that began with King
Alfred to
Our God Given Rights
Another important way that the Agrarian Vision
differs from both the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision has to do
with its concept of “rights”. While those who follow the constrained vision
tend to see government as the source of rights, those who follow the
unconstrained vision see self as the source of rights, and see every attempt of
some to constrain the behavior of others as a denial of those rights [Except when they are doing the constraining, as
advocated by B. F. Skinner’s book, “Beyond Freedom and Dignity”]. In contrast to all of that, the Biblical vision holds
that there are no rights other than those given to us by God. The words, “Honor your father and your mother,”
give parents the right to control the education of their children (Exodus
The Vision of the Anointed
Dr.
Thomas Sowell has written another book, “The Vision of the Anointed” in which
he exposes the folly of men whose chief aim in life is to decide how others
should conduct their lives. He makes it clear that he is not talking about men
who run businesses, design products, and have a productive role in the economy.
Instead, the men whom he designates as the anointed are men whose entire
contribution is thought — men who think that they are better able to run our
lives than we are. Dr. Sowell points out that whenever the ideas of such men
have been implemented on a wide scale the result has been unmitigated disaster.
“Hasn’t God made the wisdom of this
world foolish?” (1Cor.
The
evil programs implemented by Hitler and the Nazis had their roots in the
“intellectual” philosophers of that time, in the teaching of Darwin, Hegel and
Nietzsche to name a few. Vladimir Lenin, who led the Communist revolution in
Conclusion
The wisdom contained in the
pages of Scripture towers high above the petty philosophies, foolish ideas and
harmful if not criminal programs implemented by men who think that they know
more than God.
"There
are two consequences in history; an immediate one, which is instantly
recognized, and one in the distance, which is not at first perceived. These
consequences often contradict each other; the former are the results of our own
limited wisdom, the latter, those of that wisdom which endures. The providential
event appears after the human event. God rises up behind men. Deny, if you
will, the supreme counsel; disown its action; dispute about words; designate,
by the term, force of circumstances, or reason, what the vulgar call
Providence; but look to the end of an accomplished fact, and you will see that
it has always produced the contrary of what was expected from it, if it was not
established at first upon morality and justice." (From
Chateaubriand's Posthumous Memoirs, quoted in “That Which Is Seen, And That Which Is Not Seen”, By Frederic
Bastiat”.)