The More-with-Less
Cookbook and its sequel Living More
with Less, both by Doris Janzen Longacre, are early contributions to what would
come to be known as the green movement. Each book seeks to address the question
of how a Christian can live out the Gospel integrally in affluent Western
societies when so many in the world are suffering deprivations of basic
necessities. 35 years ago, Doris Janzen Longacre began engaging this question
when the Mennonite Central Committee [MCC] asked its constituency to evaluate
its lifestyle, especially regarding the consumption of food. The books are an
attempt to develop a Christian response from within the Anabaptist tradition to
the crises around food and energy supplies, especially their unequal
distribution, coupled with the West’s overconsumption of them. Summed up, they
are an exhortation to experience “more” of reality by using “less” of natural
resources, and a guide to those who experience the “holy frustration” of
wanting this but don’t know how to do it. More-with-Less
has been enormously popular and influential, well beyond the confines of the
Mennonite denomination. Both books resonate strongly with many who have a sense
of malaise in the face of an increasingly technological society, the lack of
meaning, and global injustices.
When taking up either of these two books people
might think that they have opened an interesting organic cookbook or an
exhortation about living more simply and naturally. Not so. In addition to political and economic
calls-to-action, well beyond the change of personal cooking and eating habits,
it is clear that we are dealing with nothing less than a theology. In Living More with Less, Melinda Berry,
one of the section contributors, writes:
A leap from the five standards to a
theology is really a small step…. A more-with-less theology, then, is the way
we verbalize the connections we make between God’s unified presence in the
universe and our response to God…. More-with-less theology gives special
attention to the ways that economic patterns and systems help or hurt this
response to God and all that is around us.
(36)
More-with-Less
Longacre’s first ‘statement’ (as she calls it) is a cookbook wherein she attempts to show
people how to use foodstuffs that are natural and nutritious, rely on simple,
readily available food staples, and use ingredients that do not stress the global
environment. The recipes were culled from Mennonite and Brethren periodicals in
the 1970’s which were then tested by home economists, and finally compiled into
book form. It is an excellent resource that could be a substantial addition to
any household. (We are on our third copy.) The book deals with the major food
categories: 1) Yeast and Quick Breads; 2) Beans, Soybeans and Lentils; 3)
Gardening and Preserving, etc. Each of the chapters begins with a
thought-provoking essay which helps to re-orient the reader’s thinking about
that specific category of food in different and sustainable ways. For instance,
in the chapter on Meats and Fish, we are encouraged to use less meat by
learning to combine smaller quantities of meat with tasteful vegetables. This
idea was garnered from the author’s stay in Vietnam. It points out that North
Americans over-eat protein and that we can easily get our protein from
non-animal sources (165). These section-introductions are both practical and
challenging to commonly held assumptions.
The cookbook has a real “back-to-the-land” feel to
it which includes recipes for making your own soap and sprouting your own
sprouts, encouragement to use non-processed foods, suggestions to take up
gardening, etc. There are numerous helpful features, such as the “Gather Up The
Fragments” section at the end of the chapters which show how to creatively use
left-overs; a several-pages long chart that lists foods, their average serving sizes,
the calories consumed, and ANDI scores (Aggregate Nutrient Density Index); and
helpful conversion tables. In addition, time-saving recipes are clearly marked
for busy cooks. Finally, the back index is excellent, enabling one to find
recipes easily.
We were thrilled at the help this book gave us in
the early years of our marriage—particularly as it helped us not only have good,
healthy meals, but also eat more economically. Using More-with-Less, we had a sense that we were regaining some control
over our relationship with food, and the global environment.
That said, the un-nuanced theme of “taking control,”
featured only subtly in More-with-Less,
seemed already to be a willing servant of the very logic which had arguably
contributed, at least in part, to the problem that inspired the cookbook in the
first place: a distorted relation to nature. Wishing, above all, to address
world food shortages, the book lists overpopulation among the three major
contributing factors (19). And,
lamenting “snail-paced family planning programs” (24), Longacre advocates for
“family planning programs around the world” as a solution to world hunger. Joining
in what had become the mantra of the time—that children were the reason for
global problems—this “cause” is simply taken as fact. (We note here that in
2016, the United Nations World Food
Program stated that the world produces enough food for the world’s 7
billion people and that one third of
all food produced is never consumed.)
Indeed, the MCC
has been increasingly moving in a direction which “would probably have
perplexed its founders in the 1920s,” as the professor of political science John
Redekop noted. In its interest in influencing political outcomes by
providing solutions to global problems, above all the world’s food crisis, the MCC
listed as its number one priority: “broadening and strengthening rural development
and family planning programs in developing countries.” Tragically, Mennonites take
extraordinary measures to ensure that poor countries develop a stringent
contraceptive culture. The MCC Report
of 1981 states that,
MCC with
the government of Bangladesh jointly provided sterilization services to the
people in the Saidpur community. The MCC Noakhali Family Planning Project… has
the following as its objectives: to achieve a contraception acceptance rate of
33% and a 20% decrease in the prevalence of pregnancy…an extensive field worker
and clinic system has been developed. There are a total of 12 female and 12
male field workers. Family planning service delivery continues to be a major
part of the project. Oral contraceptives, Emko foam and condoms are delivered
to clients at home. Depo-Provera injections are provided at subcenters and
mobile clinics. IUDs are inserted at subcenters.
The
embrace of contraception by the author can be found more explicitly in her
second book where she brings forward two personal witnesses. The
first significantly reduces openness to procreation:
Years ago I wanted to
have four of my own [children]. But because ours is a different world from that
of our parents, my wife and I decided to stop at two. We wanted to use the
world’s limited resources wisely… every North American baby born claims 25 per
cent more of the world’s resources than a baby born in India. Since our
Christian ideas call us to share equally, our decisions concerning the size of
our families are important. (165)
An earlier witness
considers intentionally circumventing procreation altogether:
Barb and I decided to
adopt children rather than have a biological family. In our world of limited
resources, many children exist who are receiving inadequate care… we believe
that having biological children would betray homeless children worldwide… We do
not feel all should agree with us. (275‒76)[i]
Given the
fact that some contraceptives act as abortifacients
and are, of course, in every case, a disregard for the natural unity of the
unitive and the procreative dimensions of sexual relations, it is difficult to see
how these forms of “taking control” offer an integral Christian response to a
crisis which, again, was arguably a symptom of the same form of “control”: a
perverse relationship to nature itself and a rejection of the will of the Creator. Then too, one wonders if these books aren’t
assuming a starting point that dominates much of the environmental movement,
but which is not Christian: the idea of two competing spheres which
forces a (false) choice between, on the one hand, the stewardship of the
natural order or, on the other hand, the procreation of a human being made in
the image of God. It is hard not to wonder if the proposed “solution” doesn’t
shift the moral energy away from where it is most needed, especially in the
West: less consumption of disposable
goods.
Thus, while More-with-Less
does provide challenging commentary on how we think about food and eating, and
the use and distribution of resources, one has to wonder why there is such a
rigorous embrace of principles that contradict the reverence for the life and
the created natural order that Mennonites claim to serve.
Living
More with Less
A few years after More-with-Less, and having sold nearly 200,000 copies, Doris
Longacre thought the time was ripe to “make another statement” (LMWL, 19). This time the theme went
beyond food issues and attempted to help North American Christians become
better stewards of all of God’s resources and, thereby, “live more
interdependently with the poor” (21). In both books the idea was that more-with-less
meant that “by using less we actually gain more for ourselves” (29). There are
five “life standards” by which to judge whether or not one is “living more interdependently
with the poor”:
• The first standard of Living More with Less is: do
justice. The concern here is that we never buy or use anything again
“without thinking of the poor” (42). LMWL
sees the interconnection between all people living on the earth—this, of course
necessitates a moral response, especially from those living in the West. However,
the book warns against simplistic “solutions” and sentiments to a complex issue.
Of course LMWL is a sequel to a cookbook
promoting individual responses which “offer
a realistic place to start” (43). However, it is also clear that this is not
enough. Longacre’s bottom line is that “solutions for their needs [those of the
poor and the hungry] will come primarily through economic and political change”
(43). And it is clear that for Longacre the desired political change is meant
to come from the West, on the assumption that the problems being addressed have
been wrought by the West. As one
contributor to the book wrote, “superpowers continue to impose their hegemony
over other people” (41).
• The second standard is: learn from the world community. Here, the ‘living-more-with-less’
movement is at its best as it takes seriously the life experiences of all
people and encourages the sharing of ideas and concerns, especially those coming
from poorer countries. As is noted: “Many of the world’s poor survived for
thousands of years with none of our technology. That feat takes wisdom worth
learning about.” Unfortunately, though, this section comes across simply as a litany
of condemnations against North American lifestyles without due recognition of
the advances that the West has contributed, such as life expectancy and general
standard of living. Nor does it take into account the fundamental problems in
other countries, such as religious and political tensions, lack of hygiene and
medicine, etc. Such a critique of American culture needs to be more nuanced and
root evils examined along with the positive contributions.
• The third standard is: nurturing people, “[n]urturing including all actions that bring
others to this full life and growth in the kingdom of God” (61). The contrast
Longacre makes here is between nurture
and exploitation. As Wendell Berry
understands it, “the standard of the exploiter is efficiency; the standard of
the nurturer is care” (61).
• The fourth standard is: cherish the natural order, which seeks to make us aware of our
relationship to creation. The criticism which is rightly made by LMWL is that instead of working with
nature, we have sought to dominate and exploit it. Longacre writes: “Today we
own the machines for full-scale plunder of our environment. For our future we
need a modern ‘organic technology.’ We need a blend between the peasant’s
ecological skill and our contemporary knowledge of what is possible” (72). This
is good advice.
• The fifth standard is: non-conform freely. The logic here comes from Paul’s admonition in
Romans 12: “do not be conformed to this world.” Longacre explains the necessity
of this non-conforming to the Christian witness: “[The church] must seek for values
and norms not shared by society. In short, it will either recover the Christian
doctrine of non-conformity or cease to have any authentic Christian voice” (80).
Key to this non-conforming for LMWL
is the need “to appreciate the freedom of not being enslaved to material
things” (81). Longacre notes how much we are brainwashed on a daily basis
through commercial advertisements which are “equal, if not more powerful than,
the political posters and slogans of totalitarian governments” (81). She juxtaposes
the choice to become mastered by money and materialism alongside of the choice
to live in simplicity which is “a narrow road of self-discipline” (82). One way of combating the insistent demands of
modernity to have that which is bigger and better is “building a common life”
which is seen as “a solution to personal greed (that) is an old and well-tested
practice” (85). As with the other standards, the call to non-conformity is an
important and indeed prophetic challenge that needs to be heeded. However, as
with the other standards, the critical question becomes what principles inform the contents of this standard. What are the
criteria for non-conformity? Here,
again, we note the MCC’s lock-step conformity with one of the most egregious
forms of environmental degradation in the very first environment, the womb. Its promotion of sterilization and
pharmaceutical birth control is hardly countercultural! Then too, there are other hints at
“non-conformist” conformity with the spirit of the age, such us gender-neutral
language for “Godself” (90).
Conclusion
As a family, we have used the More-with-Less Cookbook for years. A number of its recipes are
part of our family culture. (Shoo-fly pie is incredible!) We have composted for
years, have a small garden, made and used cloth diapers for all of our
children. (That’s a real test of commitment to ecology!) My wife has made our
own jam, ground wheat berries to make flour to make our own bread. I have done
the house carpentry and repairs since we were married, etc. We do this simply
because it makes sense to eat good food that is as close to nature as possible,
and to care for God’s creation in sensible ways. We think such practical things work with the
nature God has given us and therefore must be good for both us and for the
world. Our family has benefited, therefore, from much of the more-with-less
philosophy, including its ideas for living simply, saving energy, and, of course,
growing and making food. For this I am thankful. But there are underlying currents—not
always explicit—which appear to come from worldviews antithetical to the Biblical
one the authors purport to have, the one which assumes competing spheres (natural
and human), and which is driven more by emergencies—real and perceived—than by
a correct relation to nature, both human and non-human. When the proper relation
of man to nature is no longer the criterion of stewardship, then stewardship
itself becomes a form of mastery.
These two books taken together could almost have
been a prophetic challenge to our society. But unfortunately at critical points
they simply buy into the zeitgeist of modernity. The cookbook (More-with-Less) does this much less so
and by itself is worthwhile to have as a food preparation resource on many
levels. Living-More-with-Less, while
providing five excellent (and indeed prophetic) standards of living as developed
by Longacre, unfortunately becomes entangled uncritically with modern ideologies.
The preface to the new edition of LMWL
speaks of allowing “the voices form the past and from the present to merge into
a great cloud of witnesses” (15). While there is much good in these books,
there is also much which only echoes the value of a fallen world, at times
pitting itself against life and the created order. These books are full of many
witnesses, but about what are they ultimately witnesses of? I would propose
that our great need to-day is a return to the Biblical basis of all genuine
stewardship: the position of creaturely humility before God who is Father and
Creator.
Joseph C. Atkinson is Associate Professor of Sacred Scripture at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute in Washington, DC.
