In regard to your first concern, I would not characterize Dreher as being primarily concerned with so-called crises. Although one chapter of Crunchy Cons is devoted to the enviroment, his approach is one of conservationism, which he points out has a heritage in conservatism. He argues that modern conservatism has departed from that heritage in favor of advocacy of free-market economics and limited government.

I think your second concern is quite perceptive. And I think you have put your finger on one of Dreher’s weaknesses. This may be because of his Catholic/Orthodox leanings. (When he worte Crunchy Cons he was Roman Catholic, since then he has become Greek Orthodox. I don’t think the reason is so much doctrinal as it is institutional, Dreher is very disillusioned over the RCC response to the priest-pedophilia scandal, and various liberal practices in the American RCC.) Although he devotes one of the book’s chapters to religion, there is no gospel orientation it, he emphasizes living a lifestyle that is consistent with one’s beliefs–which is fine, as far as it goes. In fact, I think our witness is enhanced when our practice is consistant with our beliefs.

Your Screwtape quote is apt. I think Dreher comes close to having Christianity being an endorsement of his lifestyle, rather that seeking to conform his lifestyle to the purpose of following Christ.

I may just have to take you up on your original suggestion and write a review of Crunchy Cons, particularly to indicate what I liked about it.

I suppose I would be less worried about Dreher’s ideas if he indeed does prefer “non-statist courses of action.” Less worried, but still skeptical. While government is a really lousy messiah, I doubt that altruistic appeals to individual activism will do much better.

The problem is two-fold. First, the crises that such people seem to find under every rock and bush are mostly bunk. The pitches used to peddle this stuff–of course–have some reasonable sounding ideas in them, but so does any well-crafted sales pitch. When I was in college, I tried (briefly) to sell Cutco cutlery. The whole gist of the sales pitch is “You are putting your wealth, health, and your very life at risk unless you shell out $650 for a set of our knives.” They had some nice-sounding arguments, but–in the end–they were just kitchen knives! Wise people continued using what they already had–and I decided I needed a different job. Don’t believe everything a salesman tells you!

The second (and greater) concern I have with such thinking is that it tends to replace the real human crisis and the real Messiah with things that are ultimately trivial (even on the rare occasions when they are legitimate). For non-Christians, that is to be expected, but I think there is a serious problem when Evangelicals start replacing (or at least supplementing) the gospel of God’s grace with the gospel of environmental or economic activism. A Christian may participate in causes that he believes are generally helpful to his neighbor, but he must be careful not to confuse such activism with Christianity.

I can’t resist citing Screwtape:

“Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely a part of the ’cause’, in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favour of the British war-effort or of Pacifism. The attitude which you want to guard against is that in which temporal affairs are treated primarily as material for obedience. Once you have may the World and end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and chastity, he is our–and the more ‘religious’ (on those terms) the more securely ours. I could show you a pretty cageful down here.”

Here are some thoughts, but not a fully thought-out position (’cause I don’t have one):

KWR: I would guess that Dreher is really just a confused liberal who thinks he is conservative.

Except that in significant ways, Dreher is conservative. Some of his positions are decidedly conservative: he is pro-life, he advocates policies to curtail illegal immigration, he argues for the role of religious values in the public square. He favors limited government, and on a number of his “liberal” positions he tends to propose non-statist courses of action. So, believing that say, large-scale production of grain-fed is harmful to the environment and tends to produc a less-healthy product, he advocates patronizing small-scale produces of grass-fed livestock. He is more likely to advocate lifestyle changes than government solutions. On the one hand, Dreher seems to have less of a political agenda than a cultural agenda. (You would be right to point out that these are not, nor cannot be exclusive.)

On the other hand, he is not libertarian. So since he sees business like WalMart as destructive of local economies, he would probably advocate zoning laws that would prevent WalMarts from being built in certain neighborhoods or communities. That would be a liberal solution (and the kind of thing that I am still sceptical about).

Some of his conservatism is the cultural (Tory?) conservatism similar to what you might find in George Will, Pat Buchanan. Not necessarily the same positions as those two, mind you.

KWR: Liberals (and perhaps Dreher) love to think of themselves as little messiahs who can by certain easy actions–usually silly things like giving a cold shoulder to drinkers of free-trade coffee or voting for a tax increase on cigarettes–save the world from impending doom.

I think I know what you mean. What good can inidividual actions do, beyond being gestures which do little more than communicate my feelings? “I care about the environment.” Still, I think it worthwhile to make choices that are consistant with my values.

And I agree about activism against spurious, the-sky-is-falling crises. I remember the doomsayers of the 70s like Paul Ehrlich. And where are all the anti-nuclear activists of the 80s? (Whoops, I guess Ronald Ray-gun took the wind out of their sails.) Still, conservatives can share some of liberal’s concerns for the environment even if they do not see the problems in the same way or advocate the same solutions.

In any event, my thinking about a number of issues seems to be changing. I have come to doubt the wisdom of our country’s military action in Iraq. I have long had a certain isolationist (not pacifist) side to me, and I think have finally gone over to that side. (The dark side?) I question the wisdom of free trade, although my training in economics tells me that free trade provides net benefits to both trading partners. I just have doubts that it necessarily leads to a better quality of life as opposed to a higher standard of living. And I’m aware that I am inconsistant regarding my preference for a high degree of liberty for myself and for others.

Anyway, if you and Megan ever make it up this way, we’ll toss up a nice salad for you.

Thanks for reading and responding! In fact, I think more thought went into your comment than my post.

I’m going to respond at greater length a little later today, I just want to clear your post from moderation and let it display for now. “Talk” to you later.

How is it that Dreher has changed your mind? I would be interested in your review of the book. I somewhat doubt that I would find his arguments convincing.

Having glanced at some summaries of the book, I would guess that Dreher is really just a confused liberal who thinks he is conservative. Liberals (and perhaps Dreher) love to think of themselves as little messiahs who can by certain easy actions–usually silly things like giving a cold shoulder to drinkers of free-trade coffee or voting for a tax increase on cigarettes–save the world from impending doom.

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to be more suspicious of those who believe that they have just now recognized the greatest crisis ever to befall the world.

Their suspicion is well-founded, for the predictions of such crisis mongers are almost universally forgotten within 5-10 years.

In my lifetime, I well remember confident assertions that the earth would completely run out of crude oil by 1980, that the earth would, because of ozone depletion, be uninhabitable before the 21st century, that a global ice age is overtaking the earth, that global warming will melt the polar ice caps and cover the entire earth with water, etc., etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum!

These crises become the fad of the moment, but they usually pass as quickly as they came, and those who buy into them never seem to question whether or not their devotion was misplaced.

Anyway, I am sure you will enjoy the fresh produce.

KWR