Some folks say modern Evangelicals have problems with feminism. I'd say they probably have problems with more than that.
Christians usually stand in opposition to any class distinctions...
(Quote by an Evangelical author).
21 For three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear:
22For a servant when he reigneth; and a fool when he is filled with meat;
23For an odious woman when she is married; and an handmaid that is heir to her mistress.
I realise the verses are from the mean Testament, not from the nice one:)
(Since the lady author whom I quoted above no doubt, meant well, and it's a sister in faith I won't give her bad publicity and mention her name).
Does you church preach Jesus or social justice?
The Old Testament mentions a very interesting social injustice in the case of King David. He was a shepherd whom Prophet Samuel annointed new king instead of the unfaithful king Saul. Was this ok? In theory we might say no because Saul's son Jonathan should have been heir to the throne. But God didn't want Saul's house to reign but David who was in service of King Saul at that time. Quite atypically for The Old Testament. The New Testament also refers to social differences: servants should do their job well as to the Lord. The Church is not a party to promote social justice, it is rather God Himself who decides who should be poor or rich considering many things that we can only partially understand. For instance if King David hadn't ruled after Saul, the kingdom would have been destroyed by pagan tribes which would have affected the genealogy of Jesus and further on the whole Christian world. The New Testament is not replacing the Old one because the latter wasn't ok. The NT explains why the Old Testament had to be and was given as a godly Law for mankind before Christ.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra, thanks for your comment! I think as Christians we should be courteous to people whether their position is high or low, yet it's quite different from saying that there should be no class distinctions at all. To begin with, they always will be because people are different and have different abilities and talents. In Western society there never has been a rigid class system so ambitious folks could rise on top. On the other hand, you could also lose your position in society, for instance if you were slothful, gambled etc.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with government-enforced equality is simply that it reminds the bed of Procrustes.
I always feel happy when people around us rise up into a decent standard after they had been feeling of low quality just because they had low incomes. Living decently and in dignity is possible for everybody if there is confidence that God helps you if you are trying your best. You are right about forcing people into standards by governmental policies.
DeleteYou are welcome.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra, in the first half of the 20th century there has been an effort to create broad middle class, by teaching poor folks to live in a better manner while simultaneously raising their living standards. I've seen mid-century American videos on YouTube of factory workers playing music in a classical orchestra after work, dressed in suits.
ReplyDeleteIn my country they started housekeeping schools to teach poor women better housekeeping.
In the 1970s these efforts were substituted by welfare payments while simultaneously they started promoting underclass morals and way of life.
I often think about the Bible verse which states that the law exists for the lawless. By removing time-proved norms and traditions, they removed necessary protection for the folks who lack the discerning capacities. It's hardly a coincidence that few children are born outside wedlock among the upper class elite. Sometimes I think they screwed lower classes on purpose...
You mentioned very interesting history aspects I didn't know in detail. We just had a socialist phenomemon by which the lower class was given power by the inprisonment and pauperization of the rich. My grandpa told me how his grandmother had been a rich woman before socialism and her servant became a maire in the village and deprived her former mistress of all her fortune by force. This is a tragedy extended over Eastern Europe during the socialist regim e. The poor were actually manipulated into social engineering strategies, but as you said, not to their real benefit as a social class.
ReplyDeleteYes, with socialists it's often not the desire to help poor folks but rather to ensure that nobody is rich and everybody has exactly the same. It's a system based on envy.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion class is not about money. Not really. I mean look at the Kardashian's: they are wealthy and not even white, and yet they are a perfect example of white trash... ;)
ReplyDeleteAnd Misses Marple and Silver were both not-so-wealthy and still their class was quite obvious. :)
Those people who do not believe in social classes should really pay attention to the people they interract with. One must be totally blind, deft and idiot if one does not see that -well, it all comes back to breeding, doesn't it? In every meaning of that word. It is the inconvenient, politically uncorrect truth...
I should say breeding, IQ, and some other inheritable traits. Yet, the idea of a broad middle class is very attractive, and there is something about noblesse oblige. While underclass will exists in every society, it's not necessary for working class/lower middle class to behave like Orwell's prols:)
ReplyDelete