The Frontier House
The Public Broadcasting Network in the U.S. is known for its educational and scientific programming, along with programs about history, computers, travel, and a variety of other subjects. Then, of course, there’s Lawrence Welk and Red Green. PBS people are not particularly known for balanced research, however; even their occasional documentaries on subjects pertaining to the Christian faith are clearly slanted to the far left with the intent of debunking Christianity in general and “born again” believers in particular. Even Baptist Bill Moyers openly hopes to “de-myth-alize” traditional Christianity.
So, it came as some surprise when, in recently watching a documentary series called “The Frontier House”, I found my mind forming some stimulating conclusions that have something significant to say to the believer and to the Church. I was reminded of a passage which God used in my life in rather dramatic ways while pastoring in Iowa in the late 1970’s —- “I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ” (II Cor 11:3).
Not that the program was Christian . . . . or even religious . . . . in any way, but the principles and truths were clearly there. Here’s the scenario:
1. The hypothesis was simple. Would it be possible for a modern Twenty First Century family to survive for an extended period of time in the mountains of Montana if they were totally cut off from all modern provisions, influences, and conveniences, and if they had to live completely by the standards and with the resources of frontier life in the mid to late 1800’s?
Well, this thought immediately intrigued me, because the “real me” hiding inside for most of my life has always been the guy who would love to live such a life with all its simplicity. So, never knowing when I can actually watch T.V. from one day to the next, I set the VCR to record each of the six episodes. I was able to see five of the six, finishing it night before last.
Well, what do you think of the idea? Do you think it possible for such a venture to be successful? In this case, each family had to start from absolute scratch, travel by wagon, horseback, or on foot to “homestead” 160 acres of virgin land previously touched only by the Indian tribes of the past, roaming livestock, and an occasional ranch hand who came through the area hunting for lost cattle or taking a herd to better grazing territory. They had no modern conveniences of any kind. Even their clothing was authentic in every detail.
After several weeks of training, history, and equipping, they were allowed one “prairie schooner” wagon load of supplies for their two day journey into the mountains. By lot the three families were given their individual 160 acres of land to “own” for five months.
2. The “homesteaders” were varied. There were three family units from diverse backgrounds and age.
One was a young black man, soon to be married, with his father in his 60’s. The father was experienced in primitive rural life, but the son was a Harvard educated “white collar” guy with absolutely no experience. It was his job, with his father, to clear the land, build a cabin from scratch, and get a garden going before his bride-to-be arrived a few weeks later. Upon her arrival, the wedding would be conducted “frontier style” and the father would return home to modern life, leaving his son and new daughter-in-law to try their hand at Nineteenth Century life.
Another was a couple in their 40’s with two teen-aged daughters and a younger son. The husband was the CEO of a large manufacturing firm in California. Wealthy in every material way, they actually left a new million dollar home in the middle of construction. Modern in every respect, they were convinced they could survive . . . . and thrive . . . . by the standards and code of ethics of 150 years ago. The husband’s philosophy seemed to be to do whatever was “expedient” and keep pushing the envelope as long as you didn’t get caught or blatantly break any of the rules, and he employed those tactics as they tried to renovate an old line shack into a liveable home.
The third was a “blended” family consisting of a mother and her two biological children (a girl in her early teens and an adolescent son), along with her fairly new husband who pretty much felt he should be running the show, but who was, instead, constantly being shut out, often by his own mannerisms and personal conduct. By her conversation it was clear that the woman was a believer; she constantly talked about her church, her Sunday school class, her moral and Christian convictions, etc. She was an idealist who essentially refused to face certain realities within her own family as well as within the community structure they were trying to create. With their claim stake, they had the benefit of a new but not quite finished log house which they could complete.
So here you had an interesting mix of people. One family, just beginning, with fewer “survival” obligations than the others, well educated, filled with idealistic dreams, and madly in love. The second family, more a Yuppie type, driven by image, prestige, and materialism, convinced that if anyone could survive the challenge, they could . . . . and they could do it in grand style, even if it meant bending the rules a bit. The third, a middle class family, in constant internal conflict over personality issues, preferences, and religious convictions, always trying to find ways to satisfactorily mix the two philosophies of Christian morality with secular reason.
3. The objective was clear. Starting with nothing other than their wagon load of supplies, each family unit had to prepare a place to live, begin a plan of providing a food supply, and make provision for the safety, care, and use of their livestock, consisting of a team of horses, a half dozen chickens, and two cows. Their ultimate goal was to do all of this in such a way that they would ultimately have not only enough for the present, but would also make improvements and store provisions sufficient to carry them through a Montana winter in the mountains.
But the objective was bigger than that. Though separated from each other by one-half mile or more up the valley, they were also to form a sense of community and a corporate life of friendship, commerce, and partnership.
It didn’t take any of them long to realize it was going to be more difficult than anticipated. The sense of adventure wore off quickly and was soon replaced by reality, eventual begrudged duty, feelings of unfairness, and ultimately, resentment and boredom. I do not remember an occasion where the battles of human relationships were so graphically portrayed. Not only was there conflict within each family, but there was growing conflict and resentment between the families. Developing a community spirit was the furthest thing on their minds; they were committed solely to family survival and superiority. I supposed it helped me see it by having five months of life condensed down to less than six hours of video tape.
As I tried to discern what the producers of this idea actually had in mind, I wasn’t certain I knew. I actually felt they had a sinister goal of being able to say, “See, we told you so . . . . modern man cannot handle the hardships of pioneer life.” However, there were some objectives I saw that certainly interested me.
Immediately I saw the contrast of values between believers, non believers, and good moral people. Additionally I was intrigued by the idea of trying to “go back to the good old days”, something which I have often wished I could do. I also wondered how people would deal with the idea of material things and of hard work. I wanted to know what would become really important to them. I wanted to see how they would handle competition, disputes, and other relationship issues. MY CONCLUSIONS:
At first glance, this whole idea of escaping from their respective “rat race” lifestyles seemed to be particularly exciting to these people.
For the first couple, it was the idea of getting a fresh start without all the people crowding around them and all the “things” clamoring for their affections. This was their opportunity to start life together and have it built on solid ethical and traditional values. It was clear that this bi-racial couple wanted to be free of the pressures of prejudice and cynical scrutiny. The young man certainly wanted to somehow emulate the simple lifestyle, work ethic, and moral convictions he saw in his father.
To the second family I’m certain it was an opportunity to escape the pressure cooker world of success, competition, one-upsmanship, and find a way to spend more time together as a family, enjoying a lifestyle centered more around relationships than around possessions.
To the third family I suspect it was the desire to find some common ground around which they could come together as a family. And, perhaps it was also an opportunity to get away from the memories and pains of failed marriages and get a chance to start over with their own identity as a complete family rather than a “hybrid” of two previous families.
To what extent these families realized their hopes, I can’t say. Based on their concluding remarks I suspect they went back home with some great memories, some nostalgic sentiments, and some pretty serious disappointments that their basic hopes had not been realized to the extent they had hoped.
My own conclusions, however, were totally unexpected. In fact, I had no idea there would be any particular moral or spiritual lessons that would come out of this. I actually wanted to watch the series simply because that little boy inside me still longs for wilderness living even with its simplicity and its hardships. Here’s what I did conclude, however:
1. A change of locale or era does not alter the likelihood of a simpler and more enjoyable lifestyle. I have known this for years, but this was the first time I think it was so visibly clear. I remember first coming to grips with this idea back in the 1970’s when so many of us had the urge to return to “true New Testament Church life”. This included embracing principles and practices that were foreign to many in their respective arenas of ministry.
It was during those times that styles of worship, plurality of elders, house churches, healing services, and other “new wine skins” were being promoted as the answer to a simpler and more effective church life. However, the fact remains that just changing your location or trying to go back to the “good old days” has little or nothing to do with a sense of satisfaction, fulfillment, and effectiveness . . . . either personally or in ministry.
In other words, your surroundings have little if anything to do with the measure of simplicity you choose for your lifestyle.
2. Turning your back on possessions and conveniences does not necessarily guarantee a happier and more harmonious life. This was so clear with these families, especially the second and third. It’s not “money” that is the root of all evil, but the “Love” of money. Whether you have lots of it and are trying to find happiness by spending it, or whether you are trying to get enough to be comfortable, abandoning that drive to a life of simplicity and essentials will not give you fulfillment.
3. Changing methods and strategies doesn’t guarantee the results being any better or any worse. Years ago there was a study comparing large farmers to the traditional five-acre farmstead of the early Twentieth Century. A similar study was conducted more recently in the 1980’s between the large farmer and the Amish farm setting. In both cases the net profits from the smaller operations which used more simple and basic machinery and methods were far greater than the more modern large farms. So, simpler, instead of meaning less, actually garnered more.
Just because a church decides to change its form of polity brings no guarantees that things will be better. Just because a church modifies its worship style doesn’t not assure deeper spiritual maturity. Just because you change your preaching style or the number of hours you spend in sermon preparation, you are not promised any difference in outcome. Just because you move from house church to big arena, there is no promise of reaching more people.
4. Unless there is a change in the heart, no relocation or change of occupation or method will improve personal relationships. None of the three families went away from that experience seeing all their dreams realized. However, they all experienced a heart change of some kind. Some changes were good, others were not. And in every situation where the change of heart was good, the relationships were strengthened.
With the first young couple, their relationship with each other was strengthened because the hardship of struggles helped them give more focus to each other one than upon one’s self. As a result their dreams and aspirations became more unified and less personal.
Interestingly even the second family grew stronger and closer, but it was because their attention was diverted from things and conveniences to simple survival. In that they had less possessions to occupy their attention, they spent more time together. In so doing, they got to know each other more intimately, and their love and appreciation for each other intensified. In many ways, selfishness was almost eradicated, and care for one another greatly increased. I found a final scene of the two teen sisters sitting in the swimming pool of their brand new mansion to be significant. As they discussed their experience, they both looked whimsically out over the valley below, turned and looked at each other and, with tears in their eyes, the younger said, “I want to go back”, to which the other responded, “Yeah!”
Unfortunately it seemed to me the third family was in for some more heart break, and probably divorce. The husband continued to alienate himself from the family even after their return to modern life. He had moved out of the house to an apartment. She continued to live in her ideal dream world of simply trusting God, ignoring conditions, and taking no personal responsibility to resolve issues.
5. All of life must revolve around the fundamental principle of Jesus Christ. The early Christians understood this all too well. When Paul stood before the Athenian leaders in the Areopagus on Mars Hill, he sets forth the case that all of life is created by, comes from, and is sustained by God Himself and the personal relationship we can have with Him through Jesus Christ. He says, “for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His offspring.'” (Acts 18:28).
That was the missing ingredient with the entire hypothesis, analysis, and outcome of “The Frontier House” project, which, of course, should come as no surprise since matters pertaining to the soul seldom appear on secular television. As long as our lives revolve around places, possessions, power, projects, and other such things, we’ll never discover the simplicity and contentment that each individual heart has been created to crave. The thing that made this experiment less than the families had hoped for was simple —- relationships are built from the heart and not from outside circumstances and conditions.
This is true not only with life in general, but it is certainly true in the life of the believer and all his or her unique relationships. Life must be built on relationships, or it is not life. It is simple existence otherwise. You can have the best sound equipment in the world, but if there’s nothing in the heart, then nothing comes out of the speakers worth listening to. You can preach the most eloquent sermons ever heard by human ear, but unless you have an anointed word from God, you have nothing to say, no matter how many hours you spend in preparing and polishing.
I wonder why we need to be reminded so often that Jesus is the sum and substance of all that we are, all that we have, and all that we do. Without Him we are nothing. If your life and ministry are not built on that foundational relationship, then there is no reason for you to continue doing what you do.
FINALLY:
You may be wondering what all this has to do with you and me. As Christians and as ministers of the Gospel, it has everything to do with us. For in those three families and their experiences, I saw the struggles of the individual believer, that of a local congregation, and that of the Church in general. It was astounding to see the parallels. It was sobering to see how the very mistakes these three families made are being made constantly in the body of Christ, either personally or corporately.
Far too often we conclude that if we could just relocate, if we could just discipline ourselves to live with less, or if we could discover a simpler and more effective tactic or method of doing ministry, then we could enjoy our ministries, our families, and our walk with the Lord more. And nothing is more filled with error. Isn’t this exactly what Paul warned us of in II Corinthians 11:3? Again he said, “But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds [also] should be led astray . . . .”
We’d like to blame our discontent, our exhaustion, or our failures on our circumstances, but that’s not where the blame lies. It lies with us. We have listened to a lie . . . . again. Satan has deceived us into thinking that serving Christ has to be complicated and exhausting. We have bought into his claim that to serve Christ is to be miserable and to have loss of our own identity and personhood. We have yielded to the temptation that both Eve and Jesus faced when Satan confronted them to “Do something!”, to “Have something!”, and to “Be somebody!”.
We must reject the lie that says, “If you are who you say you are, do something to prove it!” (Luke 4:3). We must turn our back on the enticement that says, “If you’ll do it my way, you can Have all of this!” (Luke 4:7). We must see the rank absurdity of his taunt that says, “If you are who you claim to be, prove it and be somebody!” (Luke 4:9-10). That’s not where our identity, our purpose, or our ministry come from! It’s not who we are, what we have, or what we can do that brings us a life of spiritual quietness and contentment.
Where we are serving, what we do or do not possess, what methods we use, which church we pastor, or what position we hold are absolutely irrelevant to living a simpler lifestyle. I know you may disagree, but I hold to my conviction. We don’t develop our levels of contentment and enjoyment of life and ministry by managing our possessions, positions, and activities. We manage our possessions, positions, and activities by first entering in the abiding relationship of simplicity and child-like faith that is found in Jesus.
The beloved Apostle John reminded us that the world system and all the things that are in that system are . . . . 1) not to be loved or desired, 2) is not from God, and 3) is purely temporary and is clearly disappearing like sand sifting through clawing fingers (I John 2:15-16). He reminds us clearly that any passion to “Do” (lust of the flesh), to “Have” (lust of the eyes), or “Be” (pride of life) is worldly thinking and never satisfies or fulfills. That’s why “The Frontier House”, in spite of all its appeal and adventure, didn’t satisfy those three families, and that mind set won’t satisfy you or me either, my friend.
So, if you’re struggling with where you are, who you are, what you have, and what you’re doing, go back to the basics —- be restored in your soul; then any journey you might take back to your own little “frontier house” will accomplish everything it is intended to accomplish. But, until you come to grips with the Master of the “house” you’re erecting, you’ll never know peace, fulfillment, or intimate relationship with God, with your family, or with your church.
Take another look at John 15. It’s pretty simple, . . . . and it’s very clear.
Have a wonderful week, dear friend.
In His Bond,
Bob Tolliver — Rom 1:11-12
Copyright May, 2002
Life Unlimited Ministries
If this letter has blessed you, feel free to forward it, with proper credits, to any and all you wish.
Are we as interested in accepting the Holy Spirit’s invitation to attend His activity as we are
in urging Him to attend ours?
MAY I RECOMMEND . . . .
If you have a heart for God and would like to be encouraged in your life and ministry,
and you have a burden for your church, your community, and the world,
then you may want to receive . . .
“National Pastors’ Prayer Network” newsletter at
http://www.nppn.org ~ email: phil@nppn.org
Register your PPG: http://www.nppn.org/ppg/
Bob Hall’s “Friday Fax” from South Africa
fridayfax-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
“Life Action Outreach” at
“Bulletin On Revival” by Francois Carr in South Africa at
www.revivalcsa.co.za .
“Mission America” at
www.missionamerica.org.
“The Lighthouse Movement” at
“Global Watch Prayer Alert Newsletter” at
global_watch-subscribe@welovegod.org.
“God is always at work around you. He invites you to join Him in what He is doing.” (Henry Blackaby)
Fight the Good Fight of Faith
A personal letter of encouragement to you, written solely to “lift up hands that hang down”.
TO SUBSCRIBE send a blank message to shoulders-subscribe@welovegod.org .
TO UNSUBSCRIBE send a blank message to shoulders-unsubscribe@welovegod.org .
IN EACH CASE you will receive an automated request for confirmation which you must answer.
FOR BACK COPIES go to Shoulders Archives . Click on “Start Reading”