The Gospel of Compost Tea

In our recent class on compost tea we looked at the benefits and the mystery of this microbial brew. Many claims are made about the benefits of compost tea. A while back our executive director had heard so much about it that he decided to look into it himself. He went to the library and did a thorough literature review to see which claims had merit and which were not backed by any evidence. What he found was that there was strong evidence for suppression and control of soil-borne and foliar fungal diseases, both when added to the soil and sprayed on the foliage of plants.

The Compost Tea Brewing Manual (which I have not read) makes claims about compost tea “adding biology” to the soil. Some people use compost tea by broadcasting it on a field to jump start the biology in the soil. Using the numbers in the book, it is clear that this claim is ridiculous. The amount of microbes in the compost tea is so miniscule that it is silly to claim it can boost the biology in an entire field. You’re better off using a broad range of holistic practices to improve your soil health and fertility overall. This is a slow process and anyone that tells you they can jump start is likely a card carrying member of the agricultural Amway. Run the other direction.

This same manual gives recipes for compost tea targeted at bacteria or fungal problems. This is where the gospel of compost tea rises to the surface. This way of thinking applies a modern scientific approach to agriculture while trying to use a holistic method. It’s new wine in old wineskins and you know what happens there right?

The whole point of compost tea is NOT that you are targeting a specific problem. In fact it should be a preventative measure applied before you have a problem. It can help with specific problems, but the benefit is the well-rounded additions to the soil that come from brewing up a mysterious batch of good bugs and microbes. The good microbes will out compete the bad ones, some of them actually parasitize the bad microbes. The brew also creates some compounds that have anti-microbial (antibiotic) properties.

Don’t we do the same thing in the church, for many of the same reasons? We target specific problems and think if we just apply the right complex of programming we will emerge victorious. Meanwhile, the whole system is deteriorating around us because we have not cared for the health of the soil and paid attention to the important things. The gospel of compost tea tells us that we should be brewing up people who look like Jesus, whose hearts beat for the things his does. Then those problems will resolve themselves. Healthy soil is made up of people who are being transformed into the likeness of Christ.

In the same way that the large scale of agricultural forces farmers to practice agriculture in ways that are fundamentally opposed to nature, mega churches and the large-scale thinking that goes on in churches forces people into practicing their faith in ways that are fundamentally opposed to the kingdom of God. The beauty is that we can take our decomposing methods and programs and pile them together until we get some good finished compost. Then we can brew up some sweet tea out of our old crappy ways.

photo from flickr user badalley.

Food in the Bible: Exodus 19:3-6

Exodus 19:3-6 Then Moses went up to God; the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, ‘Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the Israelites: 4You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, 6but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the Israelites.’

Okay, this verse has nothing to do directly with food, but it is possibly the most important verse for understanding the Bible. That’s a big claim I know. This is a foundational passage for Israel’s understanding of their identity as the people of God. Later, Peter appropriates this passage and applies it to the church in 1 Peter 2:9.

God’s continuing relationship with Israel is based on the memory of God’s past action on their behalf. The laws and commandments that are given are based on remembering that YHWH rescued them from Egypt. This passage sets apart Israel as a “treasured possession” and a “holy nation,” something unique and particular among all the nations. Right in the midst of this God says, “Indeed, the whole earth is mine.” This sets Israel in context, not as one isolated from the other nations, but rather one “set apart.” Holy literally means set apart, but not in the sense of being separate.

Here, YHWH clearly defines the people as those who are peculiar, particular people within and among the nations. Why? Because the whole earth belongs to God and God’s purposes are for the whole earth. Israel is a particular means to a universal end. This is always the way God works in Scripture, from the particular to the universal.

God’s possession of the whole earth works itself out in laws concerning land ownership and human relationships. We have already seen this in our brief overview of the Sabbath Day, Year and Jubilee. The reason given for returning the land in the Jubilee is that it belongs to God and not people. We only tend and steward this land for God. So, private property and economics continue to be based primarily on the ownership of land. Developers are gobbling up real estate in the U.S. at an incredible rate. Landless peasants in many countries face severe oppression because they have been driven from their land. Those farmers who continue on their land often become tenants on land their families have owned for generations, becoming basically slaves.

The only Christian position I can see is that there is no such thing as private property. We may have to live in a world that believes in private property and deal with that reality, but the underlying truth is that no one can possess what God has made. This is how the wealthy often compete with God through their acquisition of land and material possessions. Their lifestyle makes it difficult to believe that they can possess nothing, when it is so apparent that they possess everything they desire.

The people of God, from the beginning here in Exodus, are a people possessed by God. A people who possess nothing. We are nomads with a purpose and calling to bless the world by embodying God’s way of relating to the earth, each other and God. It has been said that the church is the only organization that exists solely for the benefit of those who are not members. May it be so among us.

Industrial Churches

I don’t have a name for this series yet (Every series needs a name doesn’t it?), but I’m looking at connections between issues in sustainable agriculture and church, theology and faith.

Modern science observed nature and made conclusions and theories from what they saw. Because science believed too much in its own abilities, it attempted to remake the world in its own image. Industrial agriculture is a perfect example.

Science found that three elements seemed to promote growth in plants: Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium. So, it reduced fertilizers to these three elements which it cooked up in the lab (using a lot of petroleum in the process). Voila! Industrial agriculture is born. It turns out that this approach misses some essential elements of soil composition that are more difficult to reproduce in the lab. So, there’s an example of how science attempted to observe and learn from nature, but ended up with a reductionist approach to what was discovered and ultimately became a destructive force.

Perhaps the same phenomenon can describe the (d)evolution of the modern church. The church growth movement succumbed to this kind of hubris. McGavran and others found formulas that seemed to accurately describe how to grow churches, lower cultural barriers and focus on homogenous groups being the two key points. However, I would suggest that the point of the church is not to grow, but to be faithful. As Yoder points out we are to be obedient, not effective.

Perhaps in both cases we have confused the purpose of agriculture and the church. Agribusiness and science teamed up to create an agriculture bent on primarily profits and yield without attention to the numerous other factors that contribute to a healthy and sustainable relationship with nature. The obsession with growth and effectiveness in the church has also distorted our relationship to the world. Those outside the church are primarily seen as converts or non-christians rather than children of God.

Similarly industrial agriculture sees its cost-benefit primarily in terms of dollar signs and market share instead of considering whole ecosystems and interrelationships of soil, plants, and animals (we are after all animals too). Little thought is given to the world industrial agriculture is bequeathing to our children, while there is much hand wringing over the constant fluctuation of stock prices.

The antidote to both these seems to be to return to observation of nature. In both science and theology, there is a necessary amount of humility that allows for the unknown and the mysterious. Observing nature as if for the first time can call into question our assumptions and remind us of our place within it. This silence allows room for the Other and room for each of us to engage the world and each other as fellow children of God rather than competitors in the free marketplace of religious and scientific ideas.

Start a revolution if you want…

This post concerns a “conversation” that has been happening within the church for a while called variously emerging church, missional church, emergent and maybe some others. I have been involved in it for a number of years and therefore feel passionate about these issues. If this seems too esoteric and tangential to a theology of food please feel free to skip this post.

Third, I bet you’re not disappointed with Shane Claiborne. That’s because, to this point, Shane has made the very noble decision to live a chaste life, and he has committed his whole self to an irresistible revolution. Meanwhile, most of the founders of emergent are raising children and paying mortgages and coaching YMCA t-ball. Martin Luther King didn’t coach t-ball; neither did Ghandi. Start a revolution if you want, but that’s not a price that I’m willing to pay.

The above is part of Tony Jones’ response to a growing chorus of voices saying they are disappointed with Emergent Village. Just to be clear this is about the organization, not the amorphous movement some call “emerging church” which cannot be attributed to Tony (or anyone else really). Tony has many good and important points to make in response to his critics. In fact, I agree with pretty much everything else he says. However, this paragraph made my jaw hit the floor.

After reading through the comments, it seems that the main issue people have with this comparison to Shane and his book is that it makes them feel guilty and not everyone is called to his radical lifestyle. I have previously taken on this issue in my post Relocation and Reorientation. I don’t think Shane or others in the new monastic movement would claim that all faithful Christians must follow their example. However, I will reiterate that the witness of those living out radical lifestyles (families too by the way) in following Christ both 1) criticizes the complacency and cultural accommodation of the rest of the church and 2) invites us into new ways of being the church in the world.

Far from creating a singular model, these radicals both inspire and challenge us where we are to live out our faith in more radical and subversive ways. Some commenters pointed out that they shouldn’t feel guilty for their lifestyles. I agree that what we do where we are at matters more than what someone says we should be doing.

However, my missions professor was fond of pointing out that “when everything is missions, nothing is missions.” The call to follow Jesus is a radical one and it should question our consumptive lifestyles and the way we allow the culture to organize our lives (including mortgages and T-ball). You can follow Jesus anywhere, but following Jesus means something particular. It does not condone our lifestyles or our culture. It calls us to a new way of being and living that is an alternative vision for the world. This includes a better balance between family and ministry, but it does not mean less radical.

If mortgages and T-ball are really what’s holding us back from embodying the kingdom, then those things need to be sacrificed. We must be willing to pay that price at least.

Too try and tie it back into the purpose of this blog, many young people and families are willing to trade their suburban lives for the farm life. Some have said that we will need 50 million new farmers to create a local/regional food system in North America. We will need people to buy that food and do other things. So, not everyone will become farmers, but many many more must if we are to move forward. The same could be said of the church. Many more will need to live out radical lives like Shane and others to bring the church into balance.

What can the rest of us do where we are to support those with such a call? What can we do to incorporate more radical practices into our lives where we’re at?

The Soil of Discipleship

I just caught up with an amazing post that Christine Sine shared over at Godspace on gardening and discipleship. She says,

We tend to think that the key to good Christian growth is to focus on individuals, to fertilize the plant rather than soil but maybe it is time that we paid more attention to the communities in which we plant disciples. Perhaps it is time we became better organic gardeners and realized that the best way to grow healthy disciples is by concentrating on the health of the communities of which we are a part. And I am not just talking about the churches that followers of Christ attend and worship as part of, I am talking about the communities in which we live and work and more broadly even the global community of which we are all a part.

I’ve had the feeling that she has put her finger on here. On the flip side, we only have the broken communities that exist. So what do we do with those? How do they transition? We can always strike out on our own, plant new churches, form new communities. There is a role for that, but it means that we abandoned some of God’s gardens to die. Perhaps they need to lie fallow for a season. We should also be willing to nurse them back to health as Christine suggests,

In my garden I pay a lot more attention to the plants that don’t seem to be thriving than I do to those that are healthy and growing rapidly… Unfortunately in our Christian communities it seems to me that it is the healthy plants – the pastors and teachers, the educated and financially stable, the intact families, those that are able to support and encourage our work and our ministries – that get the most attention and perhaps as a result all of us are not reaching our full potential in Christ.

Dallas Willard points out in his book The Great Omission that discipleship has become entirely optional in our consumer culture. Perhaps this is because we haven’t given people anywhere to grow. Could this lead to an overly inward focus? We might forget that we are called to plant new gardens. I don’t think this is an either/or question. In order to address both the need for good soil and the continued purpose of spreading those mustard seeds we will need to tend our gardens well.

Perhaps we could take a cue from those who preserve heirloom varieties of plants and vegetables. These people care for and nurture particular breeds with specific characteristics. It is because they have cared so diligently for their own plants that others want to buy seeds from them to plant in their own gardens. This sounds like an embryonic parable just waiting to bloom.