Origins of the Emerging US Caste System

I've mentioned the social and economic chaos that springs from males unwilling to be men (get married, be loving & faithful, support a family), and females unwilling to be women (get married, be loving & faithful, be a suitable helper (especially with children)).

Mitch Perlstein discusses this in this week's Weekly Standard in an article entitled "Broken Families, Broken Economy" (evidently a short summary of his forthcoming book "From Family Collapse to America's Decline).

Two key excerpts (entire article highly recommended).  Bottom line: there's a growing income gap in America that's largely traceable to changing sexual mores.

Kay Hymowitz, in Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age, describes “poor or working-class single mothers with little education having children who will grow up to be low-income single mothers and fathers with little education who will have children who will become low-income single parents​—​and so forth.” That perverse cycle is producing what Hymowitz calls “a self-perpetuating single-mother proletariat.” She asks, “Not exactly what America should look like, is it?”


Moderately educated Americans are decreasingly likely to embrace “bourgeois values and virtues” such as delayed gratification, temperance, and an emphasis on education​—​the “sine qua nons of personal and marital success in the contemporary United States.” Most highly educated Americans, by contrast, still “adhere devoutly” to the sequence education, work, marriage, and only then childbearing, thus maximizing their chances of “making good on the American dream and obtaining a successful family life.”


The second paragraph reminds me of Shelby Steele's discussion in "The Content of Our Character" of the shift in black identity in the 60's which rejected traditional moral values as being "white."

A final suggestion: the following two MP3 recordings are from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's recent  Recalibrate conference; the "Boy to Man" is excellent; haven't listened to the other one yet.

From Boy to Man: Biblical Manhood in an Adam-ized World - Al Mohler, Jr
Women of the Word: Biblical Womanhood in a Eve-ized World - Mary Mohler

Patriotism and Authority in a Democratic Republic

During a family gathering this July 4th the topic of patriotism came up.  The comments I made (regarding God's sovereignty over all of reality, including government's role in administering justice) were, on reflection, not as measured or nuanced as they should have been.
So, here's a few observations on the topic, ranging from what seems clear in God's Word to what seems uncertain or debatable.
First the clear items:

• God has delegated authority to governments.  This authority (Rom 13) includes the following: to "carry out God's wrath on the wrongdoer", to approve what is good, and to collect taxes to fund these activities.  It includes national defense and apprehension/punishment of criminals.  It does not seem to include re-allocating wealth/poverty or taking care of those in need;  God constantly calls individuals (Jews & Gentiles in OT,  Christians in the NT) to do these things voluntarily as part of (at minimum) "what we can't not know" (see below).
• Christians are to be subject to this authority, which includes paying taxes, paying revenue, paying respect, and paying honor.
• Jesus' kingdom is not of this world.  The church's reaction to persecution in the first and second centuries AD makes it clear that they followed Jesus' command to not resist evil doers, including governments.  Rome, despite the many evils tolerated, encouraged, and practised by it, never had to put down Christian insurrections.

Then, some inferences that seem highly plausible:

• This delegated authority is illegitimate when (and only when) it is in direct conflict with God's created order of what is good and what is evil.  This is inferred from God's punishment of governments and governmental authorities in the OT and NT when they did what was evil (various verses on the nations the Israelites destroyed, prophecies against foreign governments, Herod's death).
• There are certain things that everyone knows are right and wrong (Rom 2; see also J Budziszewski's "What We Can't Not Know").  I personally think these include a knowledge of (a) the value of life from conception to natural death, (b) the distinctive male-female lifelong unity seen in marriage, (c) the right to private property, (d) the understanding that all humans have an inherent value that makes them equal to each other, and of greater value than the rest of creation, and (e) the understanding that governmental authority is not autonomous, but is constrained by the "law written on the heart."
• Both good and bad governments deserve taxes, revenue, respect, and honor.
• Christians are justified in disobeying government only when its directives or prohibitions conflict with God's (eg, confess Caesar as Lord).  This is inferred from both the nature of delegated authority, and from the early church's example.
• Those who are under Christ's Lordship can serve in government.  This is inferred from examples in the OT (eg, Daniel) and NT (eg, Zacchaeus was not told to "leave your life of sin").  However, it would seem that they are, at least in a democracy, limited in their ability to "approve the good" and "punish the evil."  For example, since God does not coerce individuals to become Christians, neither should the government.
• Christians should give thanks for governments that are good, and pray all, including those that are evil.  In all areas of human stewardship, it seems clear that those who are faithfully carrying out God's stewardship mandates should be praised, and those who are not should be called to account for their rebellion and encouraged to repent.
• Government is not God (see previous posts).  Any Christian who puts family or country or anything else above God is engaged in idolatry.  Daniel's example is perhaps the clearest in the Bible.  He was a wise and "patriotic"/faithful steward, but he made it very clear that ultimate loyalty was to God.  And, he clearly understood that government is not God.

Finally, some complications that are introduced by the fact we live in a democratic republic (though the republic aspect has faded significantly in the past 100+ years):

• Every citizen eligible to vote has been delegated a "piece of the government."  I take this to imply that Christian stewardship includes faithfully carrying out the duty to (a) run for office if they believe that is what they have been called to do, (b) vote for individuals who will best carry out God's purpose for government, and (c) praise good government actions and condemn evil government actions.
• Since all humans are fallen, all institutions are also fallen.  I can understand the temptation to withdraw from all contact with the unsaved (ala the Amish), but I think Godly stewardship in a democracy includes voting in elections as part of rendering respect and honor.
• And, I think that this stewardship includes being thankful for governments founded on the basic principles "written on the heart" and praising those governments when then live according to those principles.
• Finally, I think it is, at the very least, unwise (and possibly a deliberate undermining of God's structure of delegated responsibilities) to, in a democracy, direct the government to take on responsibilities that God has delegated to the individual (saved & unsaved via the "law written on the heart") and the church.  This includes care for those in need.

This topic is little discussed in the NT, and is currently complicated by individual Christians being part of the government in a democracy.  As a result, there's a fair amount of room for serious and faithful Christians to disagree on various details.  For one recent view, see Wayne Grudem's "Politics According to the Bible."