Of Bullfights and Other Art

Posted by Michael Bunker
editor@lazarusunbound.com

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:27-28)

February 22, 2006 – This short article began as a response to a good question sent to me for our Q&A Friday email. Awhile ago I mentioned that I appreciated bullfights, and would probably “run with the bulls” in Pamplona if I ever had the opportunity. Several readers have asked me how I can support a “sport” that glorifies the killing of helpless animals. Not all of the questions utilized the same terminology, but all were based on very similar presuppositions.

I think that the question will serve as a good launching point to discuss some larger topics that are important for those who are interested in Biblical Agrarianism as a philosophy and a way of life. The particular topic being discussed here is (what we erroneously call) bullfighting, though my purpose in discussing it at length, is that I might comment on the right use of animals, and of art.

For those who are interested in this topic, I would highly recommend Hemingway's Death in the Afternoon, because the book does a good job of rebuking our somewhat modernist, effeminate, and immoderate “love” (actually worship) of animals. I will provide a quote from Hemingway with which I heartily agree, and then I will produce my own personal reasoning on the subject.

“From observation I would say that people may possibly be divided into two general groups; those who, to use one of the terms of the jargon of psychology, identify themselves with, that is, place themselves in the position of, animals, and those who identify themselves with human beings. I believe, after experience and observation, that those people who identify themselves with animals, that is, the almost professional lovers of dogs, and other beasts, are capable of greater cruelty to human beings than those who do not identify themselves readily with animals. It seems as though there were a fundamental cleavage between people on this basis although people who do not identify themselves with animals may, while not loving animals in general, be capable of great affection for an individual animal, a dog, a cat, or a horse for instance. But they will base this affection on some quality of, or some association with, this individual animal rather than on the fact that it is an animal and hence worthy of love.” (Hemingway, Death in the Afternoon)

Now before I get into explaining my personal opinion, let me lay down some definitions and Biblical/Agrarian presuppositions so that they can fairly be juxtaposed to the presuppositions of those who would oppose bullfights on animalarian (a Hemingway word; his attempt to identify humans that personify animals) grounds:

I want to define the word “Tragedy” since I will be referring to it with both of its common definitions:

a.) A dramatic poem (or drama) representing some signal action... generally having a fatal end or result for one or more of the main characters.

b.) A fatal and mournful event; any event in which human lives are lost by human violence, more particularly by unauthorized violence.

In this article, when I use this word “tragedy”, I will put an (a) or (b) next to the definition I am using in that instance.

Presuppositions behind my explanations:

1. We believe that all good art has Agrarianism as its root, in that it proceeds organically from the primary work of man in fulfilling his role as both king and caretaker of the creation. Here we would delineate strongly between any urban/industrialized art which proceeds from the pride and rootlessness of urban man, and that of agrarian art which rightly proceeds from what man should be doing according to the Bible. Since we believe that husbandry, farming, and the crafts and trades supporting them are the principle and most important labors of man, and that all good art proceeds from man in his right vocation, fulfilling his rightful duties, we must also conclude that, without a proper worldview, it is impossible for modern man to rightly judge art.

2. We believe that one of the methods used by the devil and the Antichrist to colonize the mind of man is through the personification of animals (attributing human feelings and emotions to animals), and encouraging an inordinate affection for those things that were created for our practical use and enjoyment. We can find the roots of mental colonization by following the acts and movements of the devil and his minions, since we are not ignorant of his devices. Note especially that the wicked, satanic world has introduced movies and methods by which animals are made to talk, and to be seen with human characteristics, emotions, and feelings. There is a reason that every Christian should avoid any spectacle (play, movie, etc.) where animals are personified – it is because this tool of the devil is used to teach children that animals (given for their help and use) are actually just like people, and should not be ruled over as God has commanded. Wherever you find the production of movies where animals are made to talk, you have found a training ground for the colonization of human minds.

3. We believe that created things only have value in relation to the purpose for which they were created, and that there is no other value inherent in any thing outside of God's commanded purpose for that thing. Therefore it is Biblical to love a particular animal because of its bravery, honor, integrity or other actual attributes as they are exhibited in the fulfilling of that animal's purpose; but it is not Biblical to love animals (in general) merely because they are animals and therefore, somehow, worthy of love. The idiocy of the words that must be employed by animal lovers to define how animals are to be treated, bears witness of the intrinsic error of animalarianism. See, for example, how animal rights people demand that animals be treated humanely, which means “like humans”. It is both unreasonable and a sin for man to treat an animal like anything other than what it is (according to its purpose), or for us to attribute human feelings and emotions to animals in order to rationalize our own sinful and inordinate feelings for them. It is especially sinful for any person to treat an animal like a person, or to expect or demand that anyone else treat an animal in such a way.

4. We believe, then, that the death of an animal can only be considered tragic (b) or immoral in relation to its loss to man as its owner. The loss or death of a particular animal can only be rightly understood in context with its usefulness as a creature sent by God to benefit man, who is the rightful king and master of the animal 'kingdom'.

Now, a “bullfight” is not really a bullfight at all. That name is erroneous and has developed through horrible translations and misunderstandings of what happens in a corrida de toros. The term “corrida de toros” means “running (or passing) of bulls”, which is an explanation of the purpose behind the ritual that people have come to call “bullfights”. Because the term “bullfight” has passed into such common use, I will use that term... though I find it a bit coarse and vulgar, as well as ill-fitting what actually happens. There are many, many erroneous ideas, understandings and perceptions about the bullfight. A brief perusal of the information available on the Internet proves this assertion. Most modern so-called “histories” of bullfighting, erroneously attribute the bullfight to pagan roots going back to the Mediterranean bull worshiping cults of Crete (like the Mithras). Every one of these “histories” mention this genesis in passing, but offer not one shred of evidence that modern bullfighting is in any way similar or connected to the Mithraic bull worshiping cults. In fact, the articles on Wikipedia and other online encyclopedias contradict themselves on this issue. Wikipedia plainly states that bullfighting must be related to Minoan bull-leaping, Greek bull sacrificing, and Roman gladitorial sports... but offers not one link between these things and the Spanish animal-husbandry practice of killing excess bulls (which all cultures do). Later in the article, we read this:

“French ethnologist Dominique Aubier considers that there is no relationship between the Greek sacrifice which is an agricultural ritualistic celebration and the bullfight which is in Spain of pure paleontological hunting origins.”

So there is no evidence that Spanish bullfighting developed from anything more than the logical process of killing bulls for Agrarian reasons. As I said before, every culture that utilizes animal meat as a main source of food and/or income, must deal with a very glaring fact... the production of males in equal numbers as the production of females demands that the excess males be killed for meat and for hides, while most of the females are spared for a time because they are used for further procreation, or for milk production, etc. Chicken farmers (even small-scale ones) must ritually kill excess roosters. Pig farmers will castrate and harvest excess male pigs. Cattlemen will castrate and then kill excess bulls/steers for meat. In Spain from the 5th Century until the 18^th Century, it was very expensive and very dangerous to kill bulls. The particular breed of bull that was most common in Spain was the toro bravo, which was a brave, aggressive, and very hard to kill bull. The toro bravo stood very tall at the front end, with horns that pointed dangerously forward and which were very amenable to killing or destroying whatever made the bull mad. This breed of bull had a very thick neck, with a large amount of muscle surrounding the upper spine and chest. Going out to kill such a beast was definitely taking your life into your own hands. Most farmers could not afford to pay specialists to come in and kill the bulls, so a practice developed where the bulls would be driven into town en masse, where they were led into corrals where they could be killed, butchered and the meat sold, all in a very short amount of time. This allowed the rancher to be able to pay the bull killers, because he would be getting paid for the meat almost immediately.

Some histories claim (probably accurately) that the Spaniards respect for these brave and dangerous bulls, led to the practice of the taunting and leaping of the bulls by young men out to prove their own bravery before the rest of the town. It is precisely because the bulls were respected and honored that challenging or facing them became respectable and honorable. As the concept of ritual and tradition mixed within the process of killing the bulls, naturally, an art soon developed. Since we believe that all good art should develop from men doing and being what they are created to do and be, why should we be surprised that an artistic people created great art from an Agrarian process? The very ritualistic process of preparing the bull for the bull killer (torero), developed into a system that both honored the bravery and ability of the bull, as well as celebrated those who were able to control and dispatch such a dangerous animal with great skill.

Just as the American concept of the “rodeo” developed from the process of herding, marking, and separating cattle, the bullfight developed from the process of killing bulls for market. However, as cattle working in America and around the world became more industrialized and sanitized, the Spaniards (for many, many years) resisted this modernization and industrialization for the sake of their great art. Somehow, the westernized mind is able to accept the mass herding of cattle into feed yards, and the industrialized and sterilized killing of cows by the thousands; cows, by the way, who have never lived the way cows are designed to live; cows who are fed chemicals and antibiotics, crowded into small areas, mass fed on processed cereal grains, the killed on conveyors like Model T's being painted. Most people would not write to me and object if I said, “I like steak”, even if the eating of steak involved and supported all of these rather obscene processes. So how much more noble and honorable is the bullfight? How much more natural is it to have a bull brought up carefully and openly on massive ranches where it will live peaceably until it is around 5 years of age, where it is then honorably and ceremoniously brought to the Plaza de Toros to be killed while exhibiting its bravery and other natural attributes? Bullfight fans love bravery and hate cowardice, therefore a brave bull is just as loved and cheered as is a brave Matador.

Let me straighten out some other erroneous ideas about bullfights:

1. Bullfighting is not a sport. No right thinking Spaniard would consider it a sport. Bullfighting is an art. It is drama. It is a tragedy (a), where one of the main actors in the drama dies.

2. Bulls are anything but harmless. It is hard for me to fathom how an animal weighing ½ ton, with knife sharp horns can be considered “helpless”. Thousands of matadors and other bullfighters have died in the performance of their art. Most art would be far more interesting, and most artists would be more respected if it were possible that they might be killed during the performance of their art. In fact, I believe we would have far fewer wicked artists, and far less wicked art, if the performance of the art might lead to the immediate death of the artist.

3. The choice is not between death or life for these bulls. These bulls must and will be killed, and they are killed in every single culture that utilizes beef as a source of food. The choice is between Art/Agrarianism or mechanized industrialism. The bull is going to die either way.

4. Bullfighting enthusiasts are not celebrating the death of the animal, or gleefully participating in “bloodsport”. True bullfight fans are not “entertained at the expense of helpless animals”, any more than a man appreciating a beautiful house is being “entertained at the expense of helpless trees”, or someone eating a chicken pot pie is guilty of being “fed at the expense of helpless chickens”. Bulls are put here for our use, and their purpose is to provide us food. If the killing of bulls towards that purpose can be done honorably and artfully while celebrating the natural attributes of a brave animal – then we should appreciate that over the industrialized method.

We should also note that we can often know when a thing might be of value by the enemies that thing earns. The Papacy pronounced anathemas and cursings upon bullfighting (just as they have anathematized Protestants) because it stood in the way of the industrialization of meat production. (Please keep in mind that “on November 20^th, 1567, Pope Pius the Fifth issued a Papal edict excommunicating all Christian princes who should permit bullfights in their countries and denying Christian burial to any person killed in the bull ring” (Hemingway, Death in the Afternoon)). Bullfighting was a true art that was never patronized by the Antichrist of Rome. Bullfighting is attacked by all those who hate Agrarianism, and all those who would elevate animals and who encourage sin by the inordinate and unnatural personification of beasts.

The point of this article is not to encourage the reader to study or appreciate bullfighting. The purpose of this piece is to encourage us to think differently, and to shed our colonized thinking. Biblical Agrarianism is a worldview that should penetrate every single area of our lives. Agrarians are not a people without a love for art. We invented art. God has given us dominion over the creation, and we should see the beauties of God in everything we do. Everything we do involves drama, music and poetry; we just have to stop thinking like the world thinks.

But of course, this is just my opinion.

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

Christians, the Creation, and Environmentalism

This commentary comes from Issue #50 of Q&A Friday for Friday the 16th of January, 2009. It involves a single question from a reader, and Michael's answer...

---

Hello Michael,

I recently found your blogs and I appreciate many of your efforts, both spiritually and in the material world. as a person who's spirituality is also at the center of their life (though I'm on a different path, not christian) and who's also homesteading and for many similar reasons, I can relate on many fronts. i hope that you will allow me to ask you a couple of questions related to christian viewpoints that I've learned about and heard confirmed on your blogs. please know that my asking is in the spirit of learning and creating bridges of understanding between people, not as a mechanism to divide.

my questions relate to nature and man's relationship to it. on several occasions I've run into the christian view that man's relationship to nature is one in which man is placed in nature so as to do with it as he pleases. this brings to mind a kind of pillaging of the earth. I wonder, is the christian view one of separation from nature in which man and all else in the natural world are distinct? or is it an empathic relationship of unity in which man and all else in the natural world are as tentacles (so to speak) of the same living organism which would be made up of the totality of what lives?

this subject has been on my mind a great deal lately as both religion and ecology are topics that are very relevant in our time. my own life's path has always been one of seeking unity between what appears to be in opposition and so I my curiosity has led me to your inbox because one of the issues that I hear often is criticism towards the christian cosmology because of this view of dominance over nature. i'm not sure if it was your blog or one you linked to, but I ran across a phrase that was something to the effect of "respecting nature without worshiping it." and I wondered, what would be the difference? it seems that in this time of ecological crisis, divinizing the natural world keeps it safe and held in a place of respect. what would be the harm in enfolding it into divinity? we share interdependence with the rest of the living, and we and all of nature are created things (as opposed to the creator of things). and we've seen what our overpowering of nature can lead to.

rather than presume to know, I thought I'd just ask someone who's passionate about their christian faith and who's also living close to nature.

Thanks in advance for listening. Bravo on the homestead! And many blessings to you...

Thanks for your questions.

The "christian" view you mention is not truly or traditionally Christian at all. The idea that man can do with the creation whatever he pleases is one derived from paganism (which I will address) and not from true Christianity. The truly Christian view of our relationship with the creation is that:

1. We are part of the creation, with a co-reliance on it, and a responsibility to it.

2. As the creatures with the highest mental function and awareness, and with the ability to conceive of and accept responsibility, and as the creatures made in the divine image of God and given the written Word which shows us and establishes His divine will concerning the creation, we have been given benevolent authority and dominion over that creation, not to do with it whatever we will, but to care for it and husband it for God's glory.

3. Benevolent dominion, then, recognizes that God's creation is a display of His many perfect attributes and His character, and that “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead” (Rom. 1:20).

Benevolent dominion of the creation means that we recognize that God has made all things, and that He has done so for a purpose. God has purposed that man exercise this benevolent dominion, utilizing the earth without abusing it, for God's greater glory according to His revealed will. Benevolent dominion does not allow for “pillaging” or abusive dominance, though we do recognize that some people will use such extreme language because they will claim by redefining terms that any use of the earth or it's product is pillaging or abusive dominance.

To say that we can “enfold” the natural world into divinity, is to say that we have the power to make the divine, which would make us the creators and the natural world the creation. We have the ability (although a limited ability) to define divinity but we cannot make, change, or affect it in any way. Recognizing that we are part of nature and thus part of the creation causes us to admit that we are the product of a divine creator, and therefore there must be some natural separation and hierarchy between that which is made and that which makes. We believe it is foolish to say that we made ourselves and we believe that neither science nor nature upholds or supports that viewpoint. If we are made, then there is a maker, and if there is a maker, then he must be above and separate from that which is made. We believe that these are logical maxims. Now, once we have established that our maker is above that which He has made (which would include the natural world), then we must determine whether it is right or logical to worship the creature when we have already established that there is a creator. To “divinize” the natural world, in our view, does nothing to make it safe, any more than "divinizing" our children would make them safer. Recognizing that it is our duty and our obligation to benevolently manage (to exercise dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth - Gen 1:26) the creation to God's glory – as much as we true Christians are enabled and empowered to do so - is what we believe is best for the world. No amount of deifying the creation will make it any safer, and I say this for several reasons:

1. We must be able to define and establish what words mean. The words “damage”, “hurt”, “safe”, etc. are only empty and subjective words unless we have some canon or basis of measure with which we may measure what we mean by those words. For example, when we say that irresponsible humans “damage” the earth, we are making a value judgment that must be based on something outside of what we think. There must be some system of measure that is not subjective because otherwise each person can define that word according to whim and wish. Planting a garden, then, to some would be seen as damaging the earth, while to others it could be seen as improving or caring for it. If we are to use a “normal” or “accepted” definition of the term “damage”, then we would have to say the greatest damage and harm to the earth comes from the earth itself. The largest sources of what are called “greenhouse gasses” are volcanoes and cattle. The largest source of erosion is wind. Do you see? In order to establish that something is good or bad, damaging or helpful, we must first define by what standard we are making such value judgments. If the standard is human comfort, safety, survivability, etc., then we will come up with one definition of “good” and “safe”, if the standard is the diminution of humanity to the point where human life is seen as detrimental or secondary to the perpetuation of the rest of the natural world, then we will come up with another definition of “good” and “safe”. If we rightly define human life as a part of the natural world, and we see that human management (if properly applied according to the theory of benevolent dominion) of the world is God's will concerning the creation, then “good” and “safe” will have still another definition. Our position is this third one. We believe that God alone defines what is “good” and “safe”, and that our definition must line up with His.

2. Since we believe that God, as Creator and Maker, is ultimately the final arbiter of what is “good” and “safe”, then true Christians must accept what we believe God has to say about Himself and the creation. If we want to know what is “good” and “safe” about any creation or invention, we are best advised to go to the creator and maker of that invention in order to find out what He thinks. In the truly Christian view, God has given us instructions and commands concerning the benevolent management of the creation. In this view, one of the most dangerous things we can do is to worship the creation over the creator. God has established by His Word what is “corruptible”, meaning “what diminishes, passes away, or is subject to entropy”. Scientists have validated this view by establishing and recognizing the law of entropy. All that which diminishes, entropies, or passes away is called corruptible, and must be contrasted with that which is incorruptible. The very act of establishing or recognizing the law of entropy (the 2nd law of thermodynamics) logically establishes and recognizes that there must be, somewhere, someone or some thing which is incorruptible – or else the term entropy would have no real meaning. Things only have real meaning in the presence of their opposite. Without a concept of “light”, we would not be able to conceive of “darkness”. Without the concept of “heat”, we would not be able to conceive of “cold”. Likewise, without the concept of incorruptibility, we would have no concept of corruptibility. Now, here is what we believe God has had to say about the subject, and I would caution the reader to pay close attention, because this passage is loaded with important information: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rom. 1:18-25). I would emphasize that God has specifically declared that man is responsible for recognizing His authority when they look at the creature, and that they are specifically commanded NOT to worship (to love, serve, adore, give the attributes of divinity to) the creature (the corruptible, that which is made) more (above, in the like or greater manner) than the Creator (God, the one by whom are all things, and through whom all things are upheld), who is blessed for ever. Amen. The specific sin, then, is to worship the creature as the creator or to refuse to recognize the appropriate position and requirements of the Creator. I emphasize that to do this (divinize and worship the creature) does not make the natural world any safer, because God, who has made all things and who upholds all things, has the power and authority to destroy it or make it waste if it is put in an improper place of worship and service in relation to man and to God. To worship the creature, then, is to put both man and nature in danger. The worldwide flood, then, recognized by virtually all peoples, cultures, and religions, is evidence that God may destroy the earth if He sees fit, if He finds that mankind has begun to abuse Him and the creature for purposes contrary to His own.

The proper way, in the truly Christian view, of protecting the creation and making it safe is through a) a right view of nature and our position in it, b) benevolent dominion over and husbanding of nature according to our ability and to the authority given to us.

I am glad to see that you recognize and identify mankind as a created thing. The abuse (abuse comes from the phrase abnormal use, which presupposes a normal use) of any thing is abhorrent to God. If we were to use a hammer as a violin bow, or vice versa, we would see and hear the result of what abuse does. When we rightly and logically conclude that there is a good and normal use for the creation, then we are able to benevolently steward the creation for God's ultimate glory. Just as sinful man has abused the creation for wicked ends, scientists and other God deniers have abused facts and truth for wicked ends. Ecological hysteria based on pseudo-science and junk theories is no less abusive to the creature (man included) than is ecological and Godless pillaging and domination. Most Christian agrarians oppose urbanism and industrialism for many reasons, not the least of which is that they are unhealthy and unsafe for man, and destructive of man's environment. We also oppose unprovable and illogical junk science (most founded on Darwinism and other disproved theories), contradictory and foolish reasoning, all which are themselves based on pantheistic religion that is no less faith based than Christianity, only less logical and reasonable. In my lifetime I have seen the hysteria flow from the declarations of an imminent ice age (absolutely based, we are told, on scientific fact), to the imminent greenhouse age of global warming (again, we are told, based on scientific fact), back to the most current declarations of an imminent ice age. As Christian agrarians, we oppose industrialism, urbanism, pollution, etc. because they are abusive to the creation, and because they are contrary to our own health and well-being, and to the health and well-being of nature on which we rely. We do not need to be told (based on junk science and false presuppositions) that we are causing “global warming” because we do not believe we are, no matter how sinful and stupid are industrial production and manufacturing. It is certain that much of the industrial world is contributing to a poor environment, pollution, disease, and death – but these things are the products of sin, abuse, and bad decisions. We do not believe that aerosol cans broke the sky, or caused the polar ice caps to melt any more than the lack of them will make those caps freeze up again. The assumptions that go into that conclusion are erroneous and even silly. Using junk science and hysterical rantings to support a theory is bad policy. We ought to move away from industrialism and urbanism because God has shown us a better way, not because we have been made to believe the sky is falling by the same scientists and other extremists who invented and extolled the toxic chemicals they say are now dooming the world.

One of the problems in coming to know the truth on any topic, is that we have to be willing to cast off our concept of “truth as it is to us” in favor of “Truth as it is”. In coming to agree on anything, we have to be able to accept facts that exist outside of ourselves. We cannot use ourselves and what we think as “canon” to determine what true Truth is. In my walk and study through many of the world's religions and philosophies, I eventually determined that there was no truth that required me, or what I think, in order for it to be truth. There was no true Truth inside of me that I could come to based solely on myself using myself as the basis. In order for truth to exist, it must come from outside of me, and it must be truth despite me. It was not good enough that I thought something for me to consider it truth, it had to be truth first. And in order for me to recognize it as truth, there had to be some canon (or measuring stick) of truth that also existed outside of me. This truth has to be logical, reasonable, non-contradictory, and it has to explain the order, precision, and purpose that is evident in the creation. I say this so that you don't think that my opinions come from me. I believe I hold them because they are true even if I don't say them. I believe that the creature presupposes a Creator. I believe that law presupposes a lawgiver. I believe that logic and reason demand that a Creator of this magnitude have certain qualities, and that among these are perfect logic, reason, truth, goodness, wrath, justice, grace, mercy, personality, communication, and absolute power and sovereignty. I believe that dominion presupposes a King, and that any divine Creator must have all the attributes of a King. I believe that logic demands that a Creator with these attributes would communicate with His creature, and would make His mind known, that we might obey Him and honor and glorify Him and be responsible to Him. I don't believe that God does things the way I would do them, or that I am able to know His mind intuitively or “spiritually” outside of what He has said about Himself. I think the proper humiliation of man requires that we not elevate our own thoughts of God to the point that we create God in our own image – as if God is just some super-human who does exactly what we would do if we were God, only perfectly and without sin. God's thoughts are not my thoughts, and His ways are not my ways. God is infinitely above me, and I cannot know his ways or thoughts or apprehend them outside of the ways and means He has provided for me to know and reach His mind. As a part of the creature, then, I have submitted myself to right and reasonable worship of Him alone, and it would be treason on my part, unhealthy and unsafe, to elevate any other thing that He has created to a position of worship or divinity. I have respect, care, and love for my children – but it would be foolish to worship them or to “endow them with divinity”. I don't have to call something “god” in order to treat it properly and respectfully. However, many modern amerikans, including “christians” do worship their children, and destroy them thereby. There are other ways to destroy something other than through physical mal-treatment.

Ok, I am sorry to be so long-winded, but I have promised to deal with one more thing. I opened up this reply by saying “The idea that man can do with the creation whatever he pleases is one derived from paganism (which I will address) and not from true Christianity”. I know that the modern cult of emotionalism has created the myth of the “noble savage”, who walked lightly on the earth, taking only what was necessary for life and living, while guarding the creation for the “great spirit” or for it's own sake. It makes a good story, and it makes people feel good to think that such a nobility existed in man outside of the sacrifice God has made for His people. Unhappily, I must say as a historian (and as a historian who has some American Indian ancestry), that the myth of the “noble savage” is exactly that... a myth. Historically men of every tribe and nation of people treated the earth exactly how you have identified that some “christians” believe it ought to be treated. Pagan man (and by Pagan I am not identifying any particular religion – I mean primitive man who worshiped any number of deities or spirits, along with those things he himself created with his hands) was every bit as destructive and meddlesome with the environment as modern man, only on a much smaller scale. Industrialism and urbanism has only multiplied the ability for man to sin against God and the creation, it hasn't invented any new types of sin. When pagans crafted idols and gods from wood or metal, they cut down trees and formed metal to do so, and they did not attempt to husband the earth in the doing of it. The spare or leftover materials, whether they be tree branches or metal shavings were cast into pits and buried, or thrown into rivers or oceans. It is a modern myth to picture the primitive man as living at one with nature. His corporate ability to pollute was less than that of modern industrial man, but his individual mindset toward the earth was largely the same. The Egyptian was just as likely to mistreat and abuse the earth and the creation as is modern man. The Egyptian, in fact, from whom modern man has derived much of his pantheistic tendencies and new age religions, was likely one of the greatest polluters and abusers of nature in history. Using slave labor and destructive mining techniques, the Egyptian "raped" millions of tons of gold and other metals from the earth, drained and emptied swamps, burned and subsequently farmed forests, etc. North American indigenous tribes regularly over-hunted and destroyed native habitats. This is why most of these tribes were nomadic. However, they bettered modern man by their belief that by moving on and utilizing other areas the earth would heal the scar they most recently left upon it. Indigenous people made tools from trees and rocks, destroyed animal habitats by creating cliff dwellings and clearing forests, made wars of genocide against one another, in some cases wiping entire tribes off the face of the planet. The modern ethnic “indian” or so-called “indigenous person” (what a ridiculous concept) is helped in his historical revisionism by the fact that most of his history was oral (and thus subject to change and alteration upon the retelling) and not written. Just as the nation of Russia has successfully erased and rewritten it's own history a dozen times in the past 100 years, and several times in our own lifetime, denying its atrocities and creating “facts” that never were, the tales of Pagan natural righteousness and ecological awareness are modern myths and fantasies written by those who don't know or study history, or who are profited by the myths and fantasies they create. (I personally doubt that the modern reservation, scarred by casinos is any more environmentally friendly than modern suburbia, scarred by Wal-Mart)

My final point on the topic is that we all ought to be very wary in using modern “science” to establish our philosophy, morality, theology, or even theory. Scientists will hang you out to dry on that one. As I said, the same people who created DDT, Alar, PCB's, and other chemicals, are those who are now the buttress and support of the modern eco-religions. When God was kicked out of the laboratory, He took reason and truth with Him. The same people who sold us “better living through science” (which means the use of anti-environmental toxic chemicals, hormones, genetically modified foods, vaccines, etc.) are the people now telling us that they have the answers when it comes to climate issues. I would be wary of them, because the history of “science” is the history of finding out how wrong scientists were before they somehow now got it right. Even now, scientists are jumping off the global warming bandwagon in droves and they will leave honest people who truly care about the earth and the environment holding the bag. They've done it all before. I say this to say that, for us, the real solution is bringing people closer to the land to work it and husband it for God's glory. The real solution is to convince man that the last several hundred years of scientific and industrial advancement have done nothing to improve the actual lot or life of mankind... or of the planet. In fact, we believe that the hologram of peace, security, and safety created by industrialism and urbanism have doomed untold numbers of souls, and have wrecked our environment and our food supply. On that, we may agree.

I hope this message was not overlong, or too wordy, and I hope it helps you better understand the differences between true Christianity and modern apostate “christianity”.

Thanks again for your questions,

Michael Bunker

Off Grid Separatism and The World

July 2008

There is no easy way to do what we are doing here. Going out of "the system" and living off-grid for going on three years now has proved that to us. This is our second drought year of the three, and our second full year without air-conditioning at all. We continue to learn, and it is emphasized to us how much more we need to do to recapture the old ways and to decolonize our minds. Too many people, it seems, are wanting to live the picture-book version of this life, while insulating themselves from the reality of the work it takes to truly be free. You see, we true Christians have enemies...

You hear talk of "the world, the flesh, and the devil", and some comfortable "christians" might think that they are in some way opposed to those things, but in reality they are not. If these things are contrary to Godliness, and are the unholy trinity that comes against God's elect, then some time ought to be spent pondering them.

Anyone who dares to embrace true Christian Agrarianism will find himself contra all three of these. No professing Christian who lives in the world, in concord with the world, and in the same manner as the world, can call himself "contra-mundum" (against the world). The world has no controversy with you unless you are against the world. Likewise the flesh has no controversy with you, so long as it is being served (no matter what lies you have told yourself). A worldly Christian (and by that I do not mean a paganistic or outlandishly wicked professor - I mean a professing Christian who lives in concord with the world, according to worldly precepts, and according to the ways and philosophies of the world) will go to great lengths to convince himself that he is dying to his carnal man, but this cannot be the truth. Likewise the devil has not controversy with the worldly Christian. So long as the agents of evil have already convinced you that the world is your home and your country, and that you are to "change the world" and live in it and live by it's precepts, then the devil has no need to contend with you.

But if you once determine to live contrary to these things (the world, the flesh, and the devil), then you will find that this unholy trinity has a controversy with you, and will come against you, and will do everything to deceive you and keep your mind colonized and keep you in ignorance.

Now, there is a lot I can say about this (and a lot I have said about it), but suffice it to say that without separatism, simple living, and a completely new and more Biblical worldview, the professing Christian is heading for failure, and is likely decieved, not just about his carnal condition, but about his spiritual condition as well.

So, here is a thought you might begin to consider. Since we do have an enemy, and that enemy does desire to entrap us with the deceitfulness of the world and of the flesh, then we ought to be on guard against any agent who encourages us in that direction.

Think of prophecy. In the valleys of the Alps and in the hiding places of Europe true Christianity thrived, even during the darkest days of the height of Romanism. The move of God that included the Reformation brought to light the necessity for separation, and for Christians to eschew and reject syncretism, worldliness, riches, and earthly honor. Very soon though, the counter-reformation from the Roman Church swung into gear. I talk about this in my book Swarms of Locusts. The universal view of all the Protestants, Anabaptists, Waldensians, etc. that the Papacy was Antichrist encouraged more and more Christians to separate and to try to live simple, separate, and deliberate lives. However, too many Christians today are ignorant of the counter-reformation and what tools the devil used to bring Protestantism back into the fold of worldliness and syncretism. The greatest tool of the counter-reformation was PROPHECY. Two Jesuit priests, Ribera and Alcazar came up with two contrary prophetic worldviews (the first was Futurism, and the second was Preterism) to confound the proper identification of the Papacy as Antichrist. Futurists taught that all prophecy was to be fulfilled some time in the distant future, so why not just live your life and get along with the world, because some future rapture would protect you from Antichrist. The Preterist taught that all prophecy was fulfilled in the distant past (including the return of Christ and Judgement) and so why not just live your life and get along with the world, and take over the world for Jesus. Jesuitical Preterism particularly was used to push Christians into politics, syncretism and worldliness. Theocracy was seen as the solution for taking over the world and presenting a "christian" world to Christ. Entire nations (including this one) slipped from its separatist moorings and drifted into the wide channel of worldliness, wealth-seeking, and domination. All because the people of Christ were too ignorant, lazy, and worldly to see the dangers and to heed Christ's warnings. Antichrist was ignored by both Futurists and Preterists and what you see around you is the product of their folly.

The true Christian prophetic view of HISTORICISM was abandoned, and so was separatism, simplicity and deliberate agrarian living. Think about it. It is very likely that most bad ideas and resistence to true Christian Agrarian living is founded in a really bad idea of what the world is, who is the prince of it, and what type of lives we ought to be living as Christians.

Michael Bunker

The Difference Between Christian Agrarianism and Mercantile Agrarianism

Let me start by saying that I prefer any Agrarianism to modern Industrialism, and that my comments are not designed to deflate, attack, or dishearten anyone who is engaging in any Agrarianism anywhere.

I appreciate Agrarianism wherever I find it, but I did want to delineate between what we mean by "Biblical" or "Christian" Agrarianism, and what we would call "Mercantile Agrarianism". Mercantile Agrarianism is a form of Agrarianism which developed late in Agrarian cultures, usually as the last step before Industrialism; Mercantile Agrarianism was not Agrarianism in its purity, but was really the last dying gasps of Agrarianism. In its purity, an Agrarian society consisted mainly of homesteads and farms where family groups (or colonies) produced most of their means of survival (food and supplies). Though there was often trade and barter, commerce and exchange, the primary means of survival for each family or colony was in farming, husbandry, and gardening. There have always been craftsman and tradesmen in Agrarian societies, but even these craft and tradesmen provided most of the means of their survival for themselves - from the land. In the later stages of an Agrarian society, if the people are not careful and on watch to protect themselves and their society and culture, the tradesman and craftsman gives way to the merchant. The merchant begins to take over control over the society, and Agrarianism gives way to mercantilism. Trade becomes the central truth and reality of the culture, and from there compromise, mass production, and industrialism become inevitable; the merchant society becomes a consumer society, the merchant is overthrown by the corporation, the market is overthrown by the superstore, and, as we have seen, the tradesman and craftsman is replaced by the laborer. A "middle class" of consumers develop who produce nothing for themselves, but who serve to be consumers of those goods owned and sold by the rich and mass-manufactured by the labor of the very poor. These middle class workers are constantly bombarded with messages that intend and serve to increase consumption, usually marketed on the altar of "comfort" or "leisure", so that they might keep the system afloat by an ever increasing appetite for flesh satiating goods and gizmos.

The danger is always there, even on the small scale... even in the family group, colony, or community. When our desire for a more simple, separated, and God-centered life begins to give way to the desire for profit, comfort, or leisure; when we begin to seek our sustenance from the merchant instead of from the ground; when we settle for a "picture" of Agrarianism, instead of the real thing - then the collapse of our system is inevitable. In Mercantile Agrarianism, the "agrarian" is satisfied to live on a small portion of land (in many cases less than an acre), living (for the most part) like the industrialites who live around him, but convincing himself that he is different from them. I am not talking here about the reality of historic Agrarian societies, where there were always specialists who lived and labored for larger land owners. There were Fullers, Millers, Coopers, Smiths, Brewers, Shepherds, Bakers, Carpenters, etc. Sometimes these folks lived as workers on the land of a land owner. There is no inconsistency between this reality and Agrarianism. The difference between a worker who worked on a large farm that he did not own, and the modern "Mercantile Agrarian", is that the farm specialist in a truly Agrarian culture was a part of the family or the household of his master. He was not a slave, but he was a proper servant. He worked for wages, but he owned himself. He was God's servant, and for God's glory he served His master and made an honest living. He likely provided for most of his own food and goods, and what he could not produce he procured by barter, trade, or purchase. He hadn't given himself over to mercantilism because of his idolatry and greed (the reason most wannabe Agrarians never pull the trigger on leaving the suburbs), but he had become a working part of an Agrarian society in exactly the place and station in which God had placed him. In an Agrarian society not all men will own large tracts of land and large farms. In fact, not all men will own land at all. But there is a huge difference between the Agrarian specialist or craftsman, and the modern Mercantile Agrarian - who attempts to blend Agrarianism with modernism, and his Christianity with the world. I mentioned this not long ago when I read the blog of a minister who claimed that "everyone" is an Agrarian, because if you eat, you are Agrarian. From this philosophy comes the idea that any suburbanite who plants a garden, or who raises a few chickens is an Agrarian. While we do encourage suburbanites to do their best to provide more and more of their necessities and to rely less and less on a failing economy and worldly culture - it is wrongheaded to call a part time gardener an "Agrarian". Just as it is wrong to call a large commercial agricultural producer a "farmer". The reality is that, though these folks are doing some good things for their health, their well-being, and their security - in the long run they are still cogs in an evil and worldly system that is contrary to the Kingdom of God. I know that there are some who will insist that if anyone, anywhere, ever - participates in even the smallest way with the modern industrial/commercial system, then they too must be cogs in the world system, but this is not the truth. It is understood that there will always be some level of concourse with the society, even in the perfect Christian Agrarian culture, but we must not allow mere necessary contact to become an excuse for defending actual intercourse with an idolatrous society. So in Mercantile Agrarianism (no matter what it calls itself) you may see two extremes: On the one hand you may have the suburban gardener, or a small land-holding entrepreneur, for whom Agrarianism is a hobby, or maybe a profit-center, but not an over-arching philosophy and way of life. On the other hand you may have a commercial agriculture capitalist, who raises some cash crop that is to be pumped into the industrial society that supports him. If the market dries up or crashes - he may lose the farm and everything, or he may rely on the government to get him through to the next bull market. Both types of Mercantile Agrarians buy the bulk of their goods from the merchant, and they produce very little of what they consume. Their Agrarianism is utilitarian, but we dare not call it "Christian" or "Biblical", and it is important that we know the difference between Mercantile Agrarianism and truly Biblical Agrarianism.

I hope that all makes sense.

I am your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

Making an Emergency Drip Water Filter

We use a British Berkefeld "Big Berky" water filter for all of our drinking and cooking water here at the ranch. For those of you who are new to the blog, we live in an off-grid Christian community in the center of Texas. We live in a small (less than 500 sq. ft.)cabin. We personally have about 37 acres of land, with 2 small tanks (ponds) that usually hold water pretty much year around, unless we have a big drought. There is a seasonal (run off) creek running through the property, but it is dry most of the winter. There is one well in the community, and we are thankful for it, but it is a low producing well and the water is heavy in minerals and gypsum. This water is generally only used for purposes where it will not be consumed by humans. All of our drinking water comes from our "catchwater" system which captures rainwater that hits our small cabin and funnels it into a 2500 gallon tank. This rainwater is then purified in our Big Berky for drinking and cooking. We have been using our Big Berkey for close to 9 years, and it works well for us and we would recommend it.

As part of the Cold Weather Camping and Survival course that I have been teaching to the men in the community, I was intending to teach them how to make a field drip water filter during phase two of the course. Well, we had to cancel phase two because of high winds and the fire danger (burn ban), so I had part 1 of the water filtering and purifying class here on the land for the men and anyone else in the community who wanted to attend. We captured the class on video, so I will be attaching it here in this blog. I made a passive drip water filter which works similar to the Berky - and I made it out of materials that were readily available on the land. The main purpose was to teach principles, so that the actual filtering could be adapted according to whatever materials are at hand or available in an emergency situation. ***Disclaimer - I am NOT a water professional, and I am not guaranteeing anything that you might do. This is provided for informational purposes to show how WE did it, and what I would do in an emergency. You are responsible for yourself****

Notes: I hadn't done this in awhile, and usually you have to change and adapt things as you make the filter based on what materials you have, etc. Sometimes you have to experiment a little to make it work, if you aren't getting good flow, etc. However, this filter worked on the first try, which was a blessing. The one "mistake" I made was that I took the creek gravel directly from being boiled and put it in the filter while it was wet. This meant that it had quite a bit of water soaked in it, and this was the water that came out first during the exhibition. Since we had boiled the gravel in well water, which is real "gypy", the first runnings tasted a bit mineral rich. This wasn't a problem, because it was clean and sterile having been boiled, and the amount of water ran through pretty quickly, so after pouring out about 8 ozs. the water ran clear and pure like from the Berky.

Check out the movie:

Here is a picture of the filter, made from two large Gatorade bottles, along with the pure and clear water that passed through it. This water started as VERY murky pond water.


This next pic is from a smaller water filter that Jennifer made. She was excited about the whole project and made her own after watching me. Hers turned out great:


Ok, this is the end of part 1. I will (Lord Willing) be making a part 2 soon.

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael "Salty" Bunker

***PS - the filter is still working fine three days later. I have changed the coffee filter three times. The main change I would make is that I would use better "silica" sand (instead of "play" sand) or no sand at all. The sand we used is very powdery and blocks the coffee filter within less than half a gallon. I would add more gravel, a bit less charcoal, and better sand or none at all. That aside, we have run several gallons of pond water through the filter and it has performed admirably. Jennifer's little filter works great too!