My Photo
Location: Somewhere in the Heart of Dixie

Redeemed Sinner. Deep Roots. Southern Heart.

Thursday, December 17, 2009


While Obama and other terrorists tyrants from around the world are trying to solve a problem that doesn't even exist, another angle on the subject of "going green" has come to the front that might surprise some folks.


In other words- not dependant on anyone else for electricity or water. Despite the fact that a lot of folks in my circle of friends have a tendency toward it, this CNN article notes examples from all over the world of this becoming a growing trend. I think it's very interesting that CNN is even acknowledging going off the grid because this seems to go against their communistic tendencies.
As mentioned in an earlier post on this subject, it is not unbiblical to live on the grid, God has obviously called some people to this.

However, living an urban lifestyle shouldn't be the first choice.

Labels: , , ,


Blogger RM said...

Great Post! I have believed in getting off the grid for years now. I believe that having all the neccesary infrastructure to go off the grid, while still using the benefits of modern living (electricity, internet etc) is the best route to go.

Have you done any research on making your own fuel? All that ethanol is, is 180 proof Moonshine. Its quite easy to make with your own home-grown product.

Deo Vindice.


December 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM  
Blogger Daniel said...

" an urban lifestyle shouldn't be the first choice."

Why not?

We've discussed this point before, and I have to come back to the old "Van Tilian" question: By what standard? I'm not asking for a proof-text, I'm just asking for a reasoned defense of this sort of statement. You say in the preceding sentence that God has obviously called some people to "live on the grid". Wouldn't this be an example of a situation in which the 'urban lifestyle' should not only be the first choice, but would in fact be the ONLY moral choice?

I have no desire to criticize the agrarian lifestyle, or even the efforts made by some of our mutual acquaintances to live "off the grid". These may indeed be wise tactical decisions! I also am not attempting to glorify urbanity or city life: Babel is just one of many examples to show the danger of this lifestyle. My point is simply that some of your statements tend toward what I might call 'Agrarian Superiority' in a manner that I can't believe to be consistent with scripture.

Certainly God has called men to the task of laboring to feed their families (see Gen. 3:19 and 1 Tim. 5:8): but note that both of these verses were written by men of urbane backgrounds! Moses, though he spent time as a shepherd, was raised in Pharaoh's house and made his mark as a prophet/politician; and the Apostle Paul was a tent-maker, scholar, and itinerant minister seldom in one place long enough to plant a garden! Certainly there have been farmers who changed the world (George Washington and Patrick Henry come to mind), but God has mightily used an awful lot of city boys (Luke, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Henry Knox, and Athanasius to name a few) for me to be easily persuaded that urban life is somehow equivalent to second-rate citizenry in His kingdom.

December 30, 2009 at 5:54 PM  
Blogger Stephen Boyd said...

As you quoted me as saying, urban living shouldn't be the first choice. Note I said choice and not an inferior position to agrarianism. Both have advantages, but to me the advantages of agrarianism outweigh the advantages of urbanity. I would liken this to the self employment vs. employee situation. Personally, the advantages of self employment outweigh the advantages of being an employee.

Why do I hold these positions? Because I believe that agrarian living (and also self employment) tends to a more self sufficient, self-responsible way of life that makes it easier to glorify God and enjoy him forever. It's simply a means to an end and if you can do the same (as you obviously are) in an urban environment, God bless you!
I do not intend to portray Agrarianism as a superior lifestyle. In my statements which you say "tend toward what I might call 'Agrarian Superiority' in a manner that I can't believe to be consistent with scripture", I am attempting to encourage agrarian/simple lifestyles. I feel like many Christians look down on this because it's not as "evangelistic" as people who live an urban lifestyle. These people run around town, involved in reaching out to the community, missions, taking kids to soccer, dance, etc. and have zero relationship with their family.

I hope this answers some of your concerns, please point out any errors you may see.

December 31, 2009 at 10:55 AM  
Blogger Daniel said...

I think, at the end of the day, we agree with each other insofar as God can place people wherever He chooses and use them for His glory in whatever circumstances he deems fit.

The only point I was trying to make is that caution should be exercised in making rhetorical swing statements like the closing line of your original post. I did (and do) note that you used the word "choice"; my issue was with the word "shouldn't". When you use words like "should" or "shouldn't", it sounds more like a moral judgment than a statement of your personal preference. It can also be helpful to begin a sentence with "personally" or "to me..." as you did a couple of times in your comment above. This helps to distinguish between ethical conclusions and individual views of advantage or preference.

Thanks, as always, for your humble, yet thoughtful response!

Deo Vindice!


January 1, 2010 at 11:45 PM  
Blogger Johann Van De Leeuw said...

Excellent conversation, gentlemen. I really appreciate this, as it has been on my mind somewhat. Great food for thought!

January 2, 2010 at 9:52 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home