Here’s a Colson commentary from the other day. It’s a great
illustration of how these folks think. It clearly displays the assumptions of
Dominionist thought and hints at the frightening extent to which these people
would flex their muscles if given unlimited power. This can be seen clearly
even when it comes to a seemingly innocuous topic like residential architecture.
Here’s the link to the original post and my comments are
interspersed below.
Habitats for Humanity
Beauty Amid Junk and Bewilderment
By: Chuck Colson|Published:
August 5, 2011 9:30 AM
Our homes
-- the style, design, furnishings, and decoration -- say a lot about who we as
individuals are and as a culture.
Brent
Hull, who is new to our Centurions Program, thinks a great deal about houses.
Houses are, in fact, his business and they’re the subject of a book he is
writing.
Over the
years, he has observed three problems with American homebuilding. First, he
says, homes are often poorly designed. That is, in part, because most are not
designed by architects, but by builders. This saves homebuyers money, but can
come at the cost of good design. Second, when architects are involved, most
reflect the modernism and relativism they were taught in architecture school.
Third, both good materials and good craftsmanship have become scarce and
expensive.
Proto:
As to the
first point, is this an argument rooted in some kind of Biblical thought, or
this is simply elitist pomposity?
To the
second point, I think you perhaps so some of the modern architectural styles
reflected in cutting edge houses in the 1970’s, especially in newer
construction areas like on the West Coast. However, I don’t think the average
home architect is trying to project modernism when they’re designing a house
for middle class America.
Third,
the materials themselves have eliminated much of the craftsmanship. Building a
house today is more like assembling something rather that actually crafting or
building it. Why? This is the funny part…the economic system Chuck Colson
promotes encourages efficiency over any other consideration. Streamlining and
profits, the Capitalist ethic have driven our culture to mass produce Wal-mart
style cheap junk that has now extended to almost every consumer item in society…
including our building materials.
Colson:
Most
homes prior to World War II were built around a distinctive architectural
style, like federal, Victorian, and colonial revival. But after World War II,
we began to mass-produce tract homes. Suburbs like Levittown, Long Island,
bland and uninteresting, sprawled out with cookie-cutter sameness.
“Not
coincidently,” says Hull, “the change in homebuilding happened at nearly the
same time that relativism and modernity crept into the American psyche.”
Proto:
Suburbia
developed for a host of reasons, again largely stemming from the economic and
social culture of our country. White people didn’t want to live with minorities
in the city. The ‘American Dream’ took on a hyper-covetous consumeristic flair.
People wanted more and the suburbs could give it to them. The growth of the
automobile culture and the rapidly expanding wealth of post-war America also
contributed to this.
Mass
production is a result of the Capitalist mindset. Produce it cheap to drop
prices and beat your competitors. Capitalism has often exhibited a complete
lack of soul…hence our modern McAmerica, our plastic cookie-cutter franchise culture.
I blame people like Colson for this, because he and his political allies have
laboured to propagate this for decades…in the name of Christ no less.
Is he
being deceitful here or he is really blind to the fact that he’s complaining
about the fruits of his own system?
If
Relativism and Modernity have anything to do with this issue, it’s the fact
that the profit-driven mindset says…it’s doesn’t matter if it’s cheap junk,
people will buy it and then in a few years when it prematurely falls
apart…they’ll buy more. Legal? Yes. Ethical? No.
Colson:
My friend
and a developer, Paul Cauwels, adds: “During the McMansion era of the
late 80s and 90s, the focus was on size and first impression the house gave,
not on function and quality. Consumers with a post-modern and relativist
mindset drove the problem as much as the design.”
Proto:
That’s
not post-modernism…that’s arrogance and pride. McMansions are the architecture
of Empire…the status symbol that the Villa represented in Rome. The Real Estate
Agent or Banker that bought or built the McMansion is trying to show off….not
demonstrate a rejection of moral absolutes.
Again if
anything it is the unrestrained Capitalist model that says…if you’re dumb
enough to buy it and not look around to make sure you’re getting the best
quality, than that’s your problem.
It’s made
Wal-mart billions of dollars. We finally realized that to save the few bucks
and buy their junk wasn’t saving us anything. We kept having to buy more
things, because their stuff didn’t last very long. It’s better to do without
and spend more to buy something a little better.
Sadly
though, there’s not a whole lot more to choose from. In our rural area Wal-mart
has wiped everyone out. Thankfully we have the internet which opens doors for
us.
The
problem here, with Wal-mart, the McMansions, and with most manifestations of
the Capitalist ethic… is there no sense of society, it’s only the individual
thinking about himself. He doesn’t care if the town looks like garbage…he’ll
live somewhere else among the rich folks. To him it’s all about making money
and fulfilling one’s own needs.
Colson is
expecting fallen man to naturally love and think about his neighbour. He often
seems to suggest that we can teach fallen man to act Christian if we just work
hard enough and even more dangerously this type of thinking enables him to
redefine the very term…Christian.
Something
he clearly knows nothing about.
Colson:
Philip
Bess is professor of architecture at Notre Dame, one of the few schools in the
country that teaches traditional rather than modernist architecture. Bess
notes, “Where once there was both a theoretical and practical agreement that
buildings should be durable, comfortable, beautiful and related to each other
in a proper hierarchical order, today we build everyday buildings [such as
houses] for short-term economic gain and monumental buildings as exercises in
novelty, self-expression, and advertising.”
The
result, he says, is “junk and bewilderment” because “we lack a shared and reasonable understanding of the nature and purpose
of architecture and building,” which are to make “good places for human
beings.”
Proto:
You don’t
like the bewilderment? Trusting solely in the market produces chaos because
again it’s only individuals thinking for themselves. Why is the Dog-eat-dog
system the Christian one?
Granted I
don’t want the government telling me how to build my home and that’s what’s
funny. These same folks often do! The wealthy are often the ones pushing for
regulation down to what colour you paint your house and the standards for your
lawn etc…. When it affects THEIR investment, they want you to conform.
I would
rather have the chaos and be free….but even better, see a non-legislated social
change where people thought about someone other than themselves.
We’re a
long way from that. Political agendas will not change this…the whole culture
has to be re-formatted.
We’re
long past the point of Reform in our gluttonous culture. The only thing (I
think) that will change people’s mentality about consumerism, waste, and
standard of living is simply….hard times. Only when people have to go without
will they re-think what they need. The youth of today cannot be re-shaped by
injecting some kind of Social Christianity into the mix. Spiritually speaking
the gospel transforms. Socially speaking, societies can change even without the
gospel, but it’s a brutal lesson.
But even
many who went through the Depression in the 1930’s forgot those lessons as the
wealth in our nation exploded. 1950’s standards were frugal when compared to
today, but many of these now elderly folks have whole-heartedly embraced the
modern consumer ethic. And how look at how they raised their kids…and how they’re
kids raised their kids…and even worse, the grandchildren of the Depression
generation are now raising their kids…if you want to call them that. They’re
almost but not quite human.
And as
far as beautiful…how do you define that? I shake my head when I hear Sacralist
Christians waxing eloquent about the Biblical definition of beauty when it
comes to art, music, and architecture. Colson has to define it according to
Western Sacralist standards for you won’t find the Scriptures even focusing on
this issue.
They’ll
point to the Temple and say see, it was to be beautiful. Right, but that was a
typological picture of Jesus Christ. The message there is not about
architecture for modern American homes and even less for modern American
‘church’ buildings. To extrapolate such a meaning is to abuse the typology if
not miss it entirely.
Colson:
And he’s
right. He’s also letting his Christian worldview show. Bess understands that
everything we do, including building, reflects our core beliefs. For
Christians, all we do should reflect the good, the true, and the beautiful. All
three are necessary for a life that reflects our identity as creatures made in
the image of God. Separate the good, the true, and the beautiful from the
design and craftsmanship of our homes, and all you have left is “junk and
bewilderment.”
Proto:
The good,
true, and beautiful. How is he defining these? What makes the house good?
Maybe
it’s good to think about my neighbour and…live in a smaller house?
Use less
energy?
Why the
concern for this? Paul hardly seemed concerned with the slum architecture of
the Roman cities he passed through. Would he have been if Constantine had been
Caesar, or is this whole discussion generated by an alien philosophical grid
being imposed on Scripture?
Colson:
Or as
Bess so eloquently puts it, “The more architects and planners have turned their
attention to building up the City of Man apart from some vision of the City of
God, the meaner and uglier the City of Man has become.” Well put, and
worldviews do matter.
Regardless
of where we live or what kind of homes we live in, we can use our Christian
worldview -- that is our vision of the City of God -- to make our homes “good
places for human beings.” Our homes -- and our lives -- can and should reflect
the good, the true, and the beautiful to a world overwhelmed with “junk and
bewilderment.”
Proto:
And here it is…the Sacralist kingdom. Somehow we’re building
the City of God with our home architecture. This exhibits a very sad and
deficient understanding of the Kingdom of God. I’m afraid it’s pretty typical
of these folks.
Have they understood nothing of the Scriptures?
What’s the Christian posture toward our homes?
We’re pilgrims and strangers. We’re laying up treasures in
heaven. Our homes….should be of very little concern to us. Functionality is
really all we’re looking for.
Anything else is pride and an attempt to make a name for
ourselves or an exhibition of some bizarre Dominionist generated view of
Transformed Culture.
What a sad commentary. Of all the things happening, this is
what Colson feels the need to comment on.
But if you’re a Dominionist, EVERY area has to be conquered
in order to build heaven on earth.
When you’re in a competition to build the best Tower of
Babel, it helps to think through every facet of every building block…I’ll give
them that. They’re trying.
But unfortunately this type of thing continues to distract
the Church from its true mission and leads to confusion regarding the nature of
the Kingdom.