Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kent Miller's avatar

“In more settled times and places most people lived their private lives only intermittently public, within and under the influence of the families and communities that formed their characters when they were children… People's membership in their families and home communities has diminished and their membership in the public has increased as they have become consumers, answering to the influence of the electronic media and advertising, fashions, and fads. The influence of local elders and rememberers, home folks, necessarily has decreased as the schools, indifferent to the value of local knowledge, teach the assumptions of the public economy and deference to expert opinion. Also, according to our dominant legend, the root of success, or career advancement, or the realization of one's potential as an individual, has led away from one’s orgins in family and community and into the public sphere.

By now the rural community, the small town, even the small city, are conventionally thought to be backwards and drastically limiting of the powers, ambitions, dreams, and salaries of the college educated, who, according to the same legend, are sort of a new class predestined to success.

The public or the public sphere, centered in and ruled from the larger cities, is perceived as the sphere of self realization and success. It is perceived also as the sphere of freedom where one shakes off the burdens and constraints of local loyalties and the traditional or conventional forbiddings of religion and responsibility.

This is surely exciting, and one can imagine how it quickens the breath of the careerist in a corporation, or a university, or a government, but, the public is not, except in the most remote and theoretical sense, a membership. It is nobody's home and its gate keepers are not filled with the spirit of welcome and hospitality. The freedom it offers is, in fact, the freedom of the richest and most most powerful to reign and the the freedom of the less rich and powerful to succeed as human resources, perhaps highly paid, perhaps not, and, like all resources under industrial rule, to be used, used up, and discarded.

The public sphere, at the present, is the realm of extremely powerful, wealthy, childish, and badly spoiled adult humans.”

~ Wendell Berry

The Need To Be Whole,

Patriotism and the History of Prejudice

The Reformed Baptist Layman's avatar

I 100% agree, but there’s a yes and no here. I’d slap a big fat “it depends” here.

There is much in this article worth appreciating. In an age of rootlessness, there is something deeply biblical and human about loving a particular place, honoring one’s people, building a household, and desiring continuity across generations. Scripture is full of covenantal language tied to land, inheritance, households, and remembrance. A man should not aspire to drift endlessly through life with no loyalties, no home, and no people to whom he belongs.

At the same time, one can risk overstating rootedness in a way that does not fully account for the breadth of God’s providence and calling throughout history. Sometimes men do not return home. Sometimes God calls them outward permanently — to plant churches, settle frontiers, establish communities, explore unknown lands, build industries, or simply pursue opportunities unavailable in their hometowns. Abraham left his country and kindred. The apostles scattered throughout the world. Entire civilizations were built because men went west, crossed oceans, mined for gold, cleared forests, laid railroads, and founded new settlements their grandchildren would eventually call home.

Historically, mobility was not nearly as rare as romantic localism sometimes implies. Traders crossed continents, sailors spent years abroad, settlers migrated, craftsmen followed opportunity, and younger sons often had to leave because there was little land or inheritance left for them at home. The American experience especially cannot be understood apart from movement and expansion. Many men loved their homeland precisely by carrying its culture, faith, and traditions into new territory. What mattered was not always returning to the old village, but building a new one faithfully.

Biblical localism is healthiest when it emphasizes ordered responsibility rather than geographic absolutism.

The question is not simply, “Did you stay?” but “Were you faithful where God placed you?” For some men, faithfulness means remaining deeply rooted in the same community for generations. For others, it means answering a call to go outward, build, labor, and establish something new. Roots matter, but Scripture also honors pilgrimage, mission, and courageous expansion.

A man can honor his fathers without living his entire life within sight of their front porch.

5 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?