Are There Lessons for America from the 1950’s?

Reminders of the era of the 1950's.

I am a member of the “baby boomers,” representing children born from roughly the end of World War II to the period of the early 1960’s.  While American culture in this era was not without need of moral and spiritual revival, many would consider the 1940’s and 1950’s as one of the most favorable times in which to grow up as a child in America.   For the sake of brevity, I will refer to this era, which encompassed my elementary school years, as “the 1950’s.”

So, I was interested to learn that two university professors have published an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer entitled, “Paying the price for breakdown of the country's bourgeois culture.”  Amy Wax is the Robert Mundheim professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School; and, Larry Alexander is the Warren distinguished professor at the University of San Diego School of Law.

Wax and Alexander open their article with what many of us would agree is a pretty accurate summary of the current state of socio-economic affairs in America today:

Too few Americans are qualified for the jobs available. Male working-age labor-force participation is at Depression-era lows. Opioid abuse is widespread. Homicidal violence plagues inner cities. Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and even more are raised by single mothers. Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries. 

"I don't shrink from the word 'superior'." -- Dr. Amy Wax 

The authors admit that the ”causes of these phenomena are multiple and complex, but implicated in these and other maladies is the breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture.”  Although the term “bourgeois” generally means “middle class,” it can also suggest values of materialism, pro-capitalism, and anti-communism.  Wax and Alexander may be using the term “bourgeois” in their title to grab attention, but their intent is to call readers to consider the merits of “1950’s middle-class values” which they outline as follows:

Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

Evidence of moral decline in America.

According to the two law professors, these cultural values “reigned” in the era of the 1950’s for two reasons.  They “could be followed by people of all backgrounds and abilities,” and they were “backed up by almost universal endorsement.”  The principle assertion of the authors is that adherence to these values and disciplines “was a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period.”

As if to anticipate the skepticism and pessimism of our divided culture, Wax and Alexander quickly admit that not everyone of the 1950’s era adhered to these values: 

There are always rebels--and hypocrites, those who publicly endorse the norms but transgress them. But…even the deviants rarely disavowed or openly disparaged the prevailing expectations.  Was everything perfect during the period of bourgeois cultural hegemony?  Of course not.  There was racial discrimination, limited sex roles, and pockets of anti-Semitism.  However, steady improvements for women and minorities were underway even when bourgeois norms reigned.  Banishing discrimination and expanding opportunity does not require the demise of bourgeois culture.  Quite the opposite: The loss of bourgeois habits seriously impeded the progress of disadvantaged groups.  That trend also accelerated the destructive consequences of the growing welfare state, which, by taking over financial support of families, reduced the need for two parents.  A strong pro-marriage norm might have blunted this effect. Instead, the number of single parents grew astronomically, producing children more prone to academic failure, addiction, idleness, crime, and poverty.

Whether or not you agree with Wax and Alexander, most readers will not be surprised at the harsh manner in which their article was received.  And if it were not enough for the authors to laud the values the values of the 1950’s, they also claim that “All cultures are not equal. Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy.” 

Note that the authors are not saying one culture is better than another--only better at preparing human beings to have productive lives in the cultural context within which they will live.  Nevertheless, in several articles, including articles in the U. Penn student newspaper, the Daily Pennsylvanian, the authors are accused of using “hate speech” and preaching “white supremacy.”  One of these articles, entitled “Notions of 'bourgeois' cultural superiority are based on bad history,” was written by five of Amy Wax’s own law faculty colleagues at U. Penn.  Imagine that occurring to you as a professor at the beginning of a new academic year. 

Professor Dorothy E. Roberts and colleagues consider Wax and Alexander’s “nostalgia for the 1950’s ‘bourgeois’ culture” to be “bad history” and compare it to a defense of Confederate statues that promote white supremacy.   They add that, “nostalgia for 1950’s ‘bourgeois’ culture erases its historical context and serves as a thinly veiled argument for… Anglo-Protestant superiority….”

In defense of Amy Wax and “1950’s values,” Heather Mac Donald, asks readers of National Review:

Were you planning to instruct your child about the value of hard work and civility?  Not so fast!  According to a current uproar at the University of Pennsylvania, advocacy of such bourgeois virtues is “hate speech.”  

Mac Donald then points out the flawed and biased approach of Roberts et al and other liberal progressives who view “1950’s values” with disdain and who accuse Wax and Alexander of promoting cultural bias and racial supremacy.  Mac Donald summarizes by putting her finger on what she calls the “primary sin” of Wax and Alexander—the need to change human behavior with emphasis on individual responsibility:

The op-ed’s primary sin was to talk about behavior. The founding idea of contemporary progressivism is that structural and individual racism lies behind socioeconomic inequalities. Discussing bad behavioral choices and maladaptive culture is out of bounds and will be punished mercilessly by slinging at the offender the usual fusillade of “isms” (to be supplemented, post-Charlottesville, with frequent mentions of “white supremacy”).  The fact that underclass behaviors are increasingly common among lower-class whites, and not at all limited to poor blacks and Hispanics, might have made it possible to address personal responsibility.  That does not appear to be the case.

Some of my readers will question the notion that America ought to consider returning to the values of the 1950’s.  Questioning is a good thing--if accompanied by an objective analysis.  I hope my article does not discourage readers from doing just that. 

Some of you who may be skeptical of the Wax-Alexander assertions are not “baby boomers.” Others, like me were not yet adults during the 1950’s.  I was an elementary schoolboy who had seen little of the wider world outside my rural, farm community.  I have great memories of those years, but I was not immune from learning of moral and ethical transgressions within our family and our community.  Thankfully, God was already showing me His provision through Christ to forgive my sin, make me His child, and teach me to understand the world and His plan for me.

So, let no reader think that I look back on the 1950’s with a fog of nostalgia or with colored glasses.  Rather, I believe the articles I have cited and others are affording our nation with the opportunity to have a polite discussion and debate about what is good and redeemable about American culture of past and present, and where changes are needed.  I hope you will read the assertions of the Wax-Alexander article and of opposing articles such as Roberts et al; and, critiques such as that of Mac Donald.  I am not optimistic that a “polite discussion” will or even can happen without a moral and spiritual revival.  As long as we choose to view our history with an arrogant disdain that refuses to acknowledge the importance of individual responsibility for moral and ethical choices, there is little hope.

The Book of Proverbs teaches the connection between wise discernment by the individual and the corporate benefit of individual righteousness to the nation as a whole:

Wisdom rests in the heart of the discerning;
 it is known even in the heart of fools.
Righteousness exalts a nation,
but sin is a disgrace to any people.
                               Prov. 14: 33-34 (NET Bible)

We must realize that “individual righteousness” is not “self-righteousness.”  The Bible says that all of our self-righteousness is but filthy rags to God (Isaiah 64:6).  Therefore, God instructs us in Titus 2:  12-14 to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us [give us right standing before a Holy God] from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.”

Heather Mac Donald does not offer much optimism for American culture.  She concludes her article asking,

What if the progressive analysis of inequality is wrong, however, and a cultural analysis is closest to the truth?  If confronting the need to change behavior is punishable “hate speech,” then it is hard to see how the country can resolve its social problems.

When I read the progressive liberal critique that considers  the mention of timeless, multicultural values like hard work, moral uprightness, and civility as “hate speech,” I am reminded of the Prophet Isaiah’s warning of coming judgment:

Therefore My people go into exile for their lack of knowledge;
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
                                                        -- Isaiah 5: 13a, 20

What About You?   Do you have good memories of the 1950’s or of reading about that era?  Do you agree with authors Amy Wax and Larry Alexander that America would benefit if we were to return to some of the values the 1950’s?   What is your answer to the hope for America as a nation, and more broadly for human civilization?

Lessons in Helping the Poor

Have you read the short story known as “A $50 Lesson” which has circulated on the internet for several years?  In this story, a young girl explains to her neighbor in the hearing her liberal progressive parents how she, if elected President of the United States, would give top priority to helping the homeless.   As we learn from reading the “original version of ‘A $50 Dollar Lesson’,” the girl’s parents are encouraged by her commitment to social justice on behalf of the homeless.  However, when the girl’s neighbor suggested a fiscally conservative solution to helping the homeless—one that could end his dependence on government aid and reinforce his dignity as a human being, her liberal parents essentially “go away mad.”  While the ending to the story may bring glee to fiscal conservatives and exasperation to liberal progressives, I believe the account falls far short of a higher purpose.

Jubilee Leadership Academy:  Restoration of the Whole Person

What if I were to tweak the “Lesson” to illustrate how a conservative approach would deliver true social justice by addressing the "whole person?"  And what's more, my altered scenario is not only possible but demonstrable.  Today, there are numerous well run assistance programs helping people financially as well as emotionally and spiritually. 

For example, Jubilee Leadership Academy*, Prescott, WA uses a farm operation, as a setting in which to transform the lives of young men.  After all, God is calling His people to help restore the poor not only materially but also in terms of personal responsibility and dignity.   And, all the while, to achieve these ends while also building bridges of understanding among people of all political persuasions, and ultimately between Creator and human kind.  With that thought in mind, please read my modified version of “A $50 Dollar Lesson.”  Hopefully, you'll find that this version replaces the barbs between liberals and conservatives with a bridge of understanding that could bring diverse political philosophies together for a common purpose:

A $50 DOLLAR LESSON*

Recently, while I was working in the flower beds
in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they
returned home from walking their dog.
During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl
what she wanted to be when she grew up.  She said she
wanted to be President someday.

Her parents who were both liberal progressives
were standing there so I asked her, "If you were President
what would be the first thing you would do?”

She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless
people." Her parents beamed with pride!

"Wow...what a worthy goal!" I said.  "But you don't have to
wait until you're President to do that!" "What do you mean?"
she replied.  So I told her, "You can come over to my house
and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay
you $50.  Then you can go over to the grocery store where
the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50
to use toward food and a new house."

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me
straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come
over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?

I said, "Great!  Now you’re thinking like a conservative.” 
Sometime, if you and your family would like to come with me
I’ll show you around my farm** outside of town.
I pay a staff to run the farm which provides jobs for homeless men.
In turn, the men earn an income from the sale
of fruits, vegetables, and poultry.
Many earn their way back into responsible living,
and some even stay on to work on my staff.

Her parents were both scratching their chins.

Modifying the “Original $50 Dollar Lesson” by removing the political barbs and adding an example of practical solutions to lead the homeless from dependence to independence seems pertinent to the current debate over how to address our failing welfare system and its fruit of spiraling human dependence.  As Mindy Belz writes in her article, “Greek Tragedy” [WORLD, Feb. 21, 2015], with reference to the failing economy in Greece,

… now is the time for Americans to flee our own country’s growing dependence on government entitlements.  Such “anti-poverty” benefits are a staggering growth industry that’s changing the character of our nation and its standing in the world.

Perhaps the “$50 Dollar Lesson” if properly taught, could save us billions and, more importantly, save many souls for eternity.  Who might be headed your way looking for an opportunity to rise to a challenge?

_______________
* NOTE:  I modified this original "50. Dollar Lesson" scenario to the form as presented here.
** If you are not a WORLD Magazine subscriber but wish to read about Jubilee Leadership Academy*, Prescott, WA, just contact me at silviusj@gmail.com and I’ll see that you get the complete article.

Stewardship of “God’s Economy” – Reverent Discernment of His Word and World

The Greatest Teacher often pointed to His creation to illustrate important principles or to reveal God’s nature and purposes.  To his anxious followers, Jesus said, “look at the birds” and “consider the beautifully arrayed flowers” (Matthew 6: 26, 28).  He pointed to the vine (John 15: 5) and the fig tree to teach fruitfulness (Matthew 21: 19-20).

Today, there are plenty of reasons to be anxious and pout about our circumstances, or point fingers at Washington or our parents or spouses or pastors rather than take individual responsibility.  But we often face a second challenge – stewarding the Earth at a time when we seem to have limitless power and ability to alter creation from the ocean depths to the atmosphere above.  We use technology’s tools to mine the treasures of God’s creation in search of a satisfaction that material pursuits alone cannot deliver.  Instead, God is calling His stewards to “mine” His creation and His special revelation in the Scriptures with a disposition of reverent discernment that we might learn and exercise our individual responsibility toward Him, toward our neighbor, and toward His creation.

Won’t you join me in an exercise of “mining” creation-- thoughtfully considering it as Christ, the Creator, commanded?    Respectful contemplation of creation is warranted because creation belongs to God and is meant to reveal His wisdom and glory. 

 

Let’s get acquainted with three creatures and consider what lessons they might teach us about real stewardship, or oikonomia (hence, our word, “economy.”)  Stewardship in this context is management of a human economy within God’s created order, or Economy (Berry, 1987) with due respect for the laws that govern this Economy for the good of all and the glory of God.  Our panel of three creatures includes Spring Draba, Skunk Cabbage, and Black Bear.  Later, we will meet “Mr. Hourly Wage Earner” who resides in many different cultures.   

Spring Draba is an early-blooming spring wildflower which the 18^th century botanist, Linnaeus, named Draba verna.  In March in SW Ohio, the alert observer can usually find Draba growing in the hard soil of paths or trails, or in the bear spots that interrupt an otherwise smooth, green lawn.  Best if we get on our knees to look carefully-- a good posture for reverent discernment of God’s Economy.  There, you may see Draba, barely the height of the toe of your shoe.  Even then, she reaches this height only when her delicate, white flowers are hoisted on slender, leafless stalks to attract pollinators.   Until flowering time, Draba is only a lowly rosette of tiny leaves covering the otherwise bare soil. 

Spring Draba, Draba verna, with fruits (Fr) developing from the flowers.

Usually by mid-April, tiny Draba has already completed her annual life cycle.  Seeds from the previous year have sprouted and the ground-hugging, leafy rosettes have captured sunlight necessary for growth, flowering, fruiting, and production of new seeds that will be shed to lie dormant until the next Spring.  How does such a tiny flowering plant survive, being relegated to the hard-packed soil and expected to bloom on cold, windswept, March days?

Pretending to understand more than we actually do, botanists claim that Draba is “adapted to its niche,” or “occupation,” through natural selection.  However, some of us would credit a Divine Designer for originating the genetic blueprint which then has passed down through succeeding generations with minor changes through natural selection to become what we call Draba verna. 

Although Draba’s origin is debated, there is no debating the “do or die” situation that Draba faces each year.  Survival depends upon germination of tiny seeds in bare soil each Spring.   The tiny leaves unfold at ground level, the warmest place on blustery March days, to soak up the sunshine necessary for photosynthesis of food to support growth, flowering,  and seed production for the following year.  While still on our knees, we can consider how Draba teaches us individual responsibility to live in harsh places.  But Draba is not the earliest-blooming plant in the Midwest.

In February, long before Draba blooms, I make my annual pilgrimage to a nearby fen (alkaline wetland), often while it is still blanketed with snow.  Careful examination will reveal the pointy, purplish mottled spathes of Skunk Cabbage, Symplocarpus foetidus, poking through the snow.   Each spathe is like a sheltering shroud that protects a fleshy, thumb-sized spike of tiny flowers within what amounts to a “warm room” in which pollination can occur. 

Skunk Cabbage:  Spikes of tiny flowers are surrounded by a hood-like "spathe"

What you won’t see on a cold, February day is the massive Skunk Cabbage taproot anchored deep within the wetland soil beneath each pointy spathe.  Here, soil temperatures average 55^o F year-around.  Within the taproot are rich stores of “heating fuel” in the form of carbohydrates stored there during the year before.  When Skunk Cabbage flowers are ready to display mature pollen to insects for pollination, the flower hikes up its “thermostat” and burns stored “carbs” that flow up to the spike from the taproot.  Environmental physiology students and I have measured temperatures as much as 15^o F warmer within the flower spikes than temperatures in the surrounding winter air!   Result?   Apparently, insect pollinators are attracted by the warmth and by the odor that is dispersed by the heat into the surrounding air.  By April, new cabbage-like leaves have emerged and their photosynthesis enables the production of many large seeds and the replenishment of taproot “fuel” for the following year.

Whereas, the Draba’s economy depends upon year-to-year production and germination of tiny seeds, the Skunk Cabbage economy is based on long-term savings and investment in underground energy reserves.   From these reserves it generates heat to accomplish pollination in the winter when there is little competition from other plant species for insect pollinators.   No matter to Skunk Cabbage if a bad year occurs; its taproot will have sufficient energy assets to “hold its ground” until a better year comes.

The Skunk Cabbage reminds me of another creaturely example, the Black Bear, Ursus americanus, common in western North America.  Like Skunk Cabbage, the economy of the Black Bear is based on large energy reserves formed during the summer by a diet that includes storage roots and tubers of plants, nuts, plant shoots and buds, large and small mammals, insects, honey, and salmon.  [Humm!  Would a Black Bear feed on a Skunk Cabbage taproot?] 

Like Skunk Cabbage which overwinters underground with its stored energy in a huge taproot, Black Bears also “go underground” in a den for the winter.   As days become shorter, bears prepare for winter’s food scarcity and cold by extensive foraging which leads to the addition of hundreds of pounds in body fat.  Pregnant female black bears have the additional challenge to their economy.   They must nurture two or more baby bears within their uteri which are then birthed in late winter.  To conserve energy, the Black Bear enters a suitable den to reduce body heat loss; and then, sharply reduces its metabolism to lower body temperature.   Denning and lowering metabolism conserve energy reserves for the bear just like a human family in a well insulated home that lowers its thermostat to save on their energy bill.

Black Bear, Ursus americanus

We have seen how one species, Draba, with relatively small energy reserves, and two larger species, Skunk Cabbage and Black Bear which depend upon huge energy reserves, each take responsibility to prepare for and survive harsh winters and rugged environments.  The energy economy of humans is not all that different from other creatures.  Each must have suitable nutrition, shelter, and social relationships necessary for procreation and nurture of offspring.  However, biblically speaking, humans have been created with vastly superior intellect and ability to enter into more complex social and political relationships that revolve around a monetary economy.

Let’s consider the laborer who earns an income based on an hourly wage or who is paid by contract when a particular task or job is completed.  The survival of many of the world’s workers and their families depends upon hourly or otherwise regular wage-for-work.  The plight of many laborers may be illustrated by the story once told by Ralph and Lucy, our family friends who once served as missionaries in Bangladesh.   Ralph had come upon a heated argument between several laborers, or coolies, along a riverbank.  It seems that at least one coolie was objecting to a request from his superior to unload bags of rice from a truck and onto a boat docked at the riverbank.  Why would a healthy, adult Bengali male refuse this opportunity for employment?

Upon inquiry, Ralph learned that the payment being offered to the coolie in rice grain for food in return for his labor was unacceptable to the man because it offered insufficient caloric value for his service rendered.  Amazingly, this man’s economy had taken into account the calories required to unload the rice from the truck, a task he was willing to do.  But, he refused to move the rice onto the boat in what would have been a smoother, more efficient operation.  Reason?   His payment in calories and nutrition would not have provided sufficient compensation for his bodily work plus extra calories and nutrition needed to feed his family.

This account illustrates the large cultural and economic gap that exists between Asian coolies and most people who read this blog.  The Bengali breadwinner’s economy required literally a day-by-day “balancing of the books” for him and his family to survive.  Few of us can even comprehend such an economy.  Like Draba with her “do-or-die economy” in the harsh soil and cold days of early Spring, many wage-earners must take day-to-day responsibility to support themselves and their loved ones.

We now return to our opening question:  If we agree that God calls us as His stewards to consider  His creation with a disposition of reverent discernment of our individual responsibility toward Him, toward our neighbor, and toward His creation; then, what can we learn from creatures so diverse as Draba, Skunk Cabbage, Black Bear, and a human laborer?   First, we learn the principle of God’s provision.  God provides for His creatures through the Economy of His creation.  All creatures must have a continual supply of energy and nutrition for sustenance.  Draba and Skunk Cabbage rely on sunlight to power their growth and reproduction from inorganic building blocks in the soil and atmosphere.  On the other hand, Black Bear and the human worker consume plants and sometimes meat as food.

Though they are diverse, the Creator has equipped each creature to obtain necessary sustenance according to their niche in the Economy of creation.  No creature can create and sustain life out of inorganic constituents.  Test tube experiments to produce even one living cell have failed, let alone efforts to create and sustain the economy of a whole ecosystem as attempted in the Biosphere 2 project in the Arizona desert in the 1980’s.

God’s special revelation in the book of Job underscores the necessity of His provision for His creation:

            But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you;
              And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you.
              Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you;
              And let the fish of the sea declare to you.
             Who among all these does not know
             That the hand of the LORD has done this,
             In whose hand is the life of every living thing,
             And the breath of all mankind?  -- Job 12: 7-10 (NASB)

The second principle we learn from the natural revelation through these four kinds of creatures is the principle of individual responsibility for survival and reproduction.   Within the larger Economy of creation, in order to survive, each creature must operate within physical and biological limits that govern its own economy.  Thus, we see Draba being and doing what Draba is designed to be and do; namely, facing the rigors of cold, March days on hard soil to grow and produce seeds for the next year.  

Likewise, the Bengali worker must complete his task for a payment of food that is sufficient for his bodily sustenance with enough extra to feed his family.  On the other hand, the economy of Skunk Cabbage, Black Bear, and many of us includes a means of storing energy or monetary assets that provide a “cushion” against immediate life or death.  However, the principle of individual responsibility still applies in that all creatures must acquire energy and nutrients during the season of opportunity and save extra for an unfavorable season lest they die.

A third principle revealed in Scripture and in creation is the principle of reverent discernment in conservation and restoration.   Successful conservation of the diverse forms of life on Earth must respect the unique requirements and context upon which each species depends for its existence.   Our panel of four creatures can each testify that even well meaning attempts to promote their welfare often represent a violation of natural laws that govern their well being.  For example, let’s help Draba by tilling the soil in those hard-packed, bare-soil spots and then add some nitrogen fertilizer.  Result?   Many of her tiny seeds will be buried too deeply to germinate; and, the increased soil fertility will enable other plant species including lawn grass to invade and occupy the bare spots and make it inhospitable for Draba.  The harsh environment that Draba is designed and adapted to face is the very key to her survival.

Like Draba, both Skunk Cabbage and Black Bear naturally benefit from simply being left alone by well meaning caretakers.  There is a reason that the two plant species have been called “wildflowers” and that Black Bear is considered a “wild animal.”   Attempts to “domesticate” or otherwise alter their natural context have violated the very nature of what they were created to be.

Well meaning attempts in the late 1800’s to conserve the Black Bear in Yellowstone National Park while providing closer access for tourists to observe and feed them led to a conversion of this grand , wild creature from bear to beggar.  As Angela Reese reported in her masters thesis (2007) 

Yellowstone condoned the regulated feeding of bears at these “lunch counters,” and tacitly gave patrons permission to feed bears themselves. Later she adds: Roadside feeding transformed passive spectators into active participants and allowed the park visitor an opportunity for interaction with park wildlife. These visitors became shapers of bears’ lives and behavior (Biel, 2006).

The same well meaning efforts, sometimes in the name of “social justice”, without reverent discernment can be as demeaning and degrading to humankind as it is with wild creatures. Before developing this notion further we must remember both the uniqueness of humankind and the great cultural diversity within Homo sapiens.

The average American has more economic security than many lower-income workers around the world.  Like the Skunk Cabbage and Black Bear, many of us have reserves in our household economies.  Nevertheless, all humans have an individual stewardship responsibility to utilize time, abilities, and opportunities to care for themselves, family, and neighbor.  Responsibility to work is grounded in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures which reveal a Creator Who works and rests.  It follows that God has given mankind a weekly cycle of work (six days) and rest (a Sabbath day) (e.g. Exodus 20: 9-11).   The Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians, Chapter 3, that Christians should not lead “an undisciplined life” (verse 6).  Paul’s own economy as a tentmaker underscored his teaching (verses 7-9) as well as his command that “if anyone will not work, neither let him eat” (verses 10-12). 

There is no contradiction in God’s Word between “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19) and “if anyone will not work, neither let him eat.”  We are called to help the helpless; but with a correct definition of helping, one that respects human dignity.  Marvin Olasky (WORLD, 2009) quotes Josephine Lowell, a 19^th century New York City charity leader, who wrote: 

the problem before those who would be charitable, is not how to deal with a given number of poor; it is how to help those who are poor, without adding to their numbers and constantly increasing the evils they seek to cure.  

Olasky further quotes an article in Charities Review, in 1900, in which Edward T. Devine called for charities whose goal was 

not "that poor families should suffer, but that charity should accomplish its purpose." Thoughtless generosity was akin to selfishness if it made charity misfire. Generosity plus discernment was key. 

Throughout history, there have always been people in need of help.  Good stewards are to use reverent discernment to rightly identify God-given abilities and opportunities both for meaningful work and to rightly discern the right ways to help our neighbor when he or she is in need (see Ephesians 4: 28).  Nowhere does the Bible teach that it is the responsibility of government to help of the poor and needy.  The 19^th century charity leader, Amos G. Warner, understood this principle and saw governmental welfare as necessarily more impersonal and mechanical than private charity or individual action (Olasky, 2009).

Today’s news is filled with reports of well meaning efforts by Washington to help the needy while challenging the more fortunate to “pay their fair share.”  Yet Washington’s distance from the diversity of American families, businesses, and local economies, and its “one-size-fits-all approach is like fertilizing Draba or providing food “dumps” for Black Bears.  Result?  A violation of the natural order in which human dignity is often lost and an ever larger percentage of Americans become dependent upon government.

In summary, we can discern from God’s created order that all creatures are dependent upon His Economy.  Second, God has equipped each species to respond by using its genetic and behavioral equipment to “be fruitful and multiply.” Fruitfulness depends upon both individual responsibility and the state of the environment and biotic community within which a given species lives.

Third, any human effort to “help” another species or a neighbor must be guided by reverent discernment of God’s natural and special revelations.  Our father Adam’s first lesson in stewardship was to become acquainted with the other creatures with such detail that he came to understand that his niche was totally different from any other creature (Genesis 2: 15-25).  Likewise, humble discernment is necessary for effective conservation and restoration human communities and local economies.   Conservation of wildlife such as the Black Bear requires more than provision of feeding “dumps” that convert them to beggars.  Likewise, restoration of human dignity and purpose among the needy depends upon short-term assistance that includes assistance and incentives to find meaningful work.  

Conservation and restoration of both mankind and fellow creatures requires knowledge of and attentiveness to the uniqueness of each biotic community and neighborhood; gaining a “sense of place” as described in Oikonomia, Sept. 31, 2011 .   These are the tasks best taken up by responsible members of family and church spheres of authority in cooperation with appropriate local community groups.  

Your comments are always welcome.  My sources and some additional references are listed below.

References:

Berry, Wendell.  1987.  Home Economics.   North Point Press, San Francisco.

Biel, Alice Wondrak. 2006. Do (not) feed the bears: The fitful history of wildlife and tourists in Yellowstone. University Press of Kansas. 186 pgs.

Olasky, Marvin.  2009.   Giving That Worked.   WORLD Magazine, March 14, 2009).

Reese, Angela.   2007.   Addressing Food Conditioning of Cascade Red Foxes in Mount Rainier National Park, Washington.   Masters Thesis, Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA.