Charles Murray’s book, Coming Apart, has been receiving a lot of attention. It is a book about the growing divergence between elites and average Americans, and shows that the wealthy and well educated are far more conservative in their way of life than many assume. Ross Douthat at the New York Times has been largely favorable and at the conclusion of one of his posts, he writes something about traditional morality which suggests you don’t need to be a Christian or a social conservative to understand the value of good behavior.
Finally, Murray makes a very convincing case . . . for the power of so-called “traditional values” to foster human flourishing even in economic landscapes that aren’t as favorable to less-educated workers as was, say, the aftermath of the Treaty of Detroit. Even acknowledging all the challenges (globalization, the decline of manufacturing, mass low-skilled immigration) that have beset blue collar America over the last thirty years, it is still the case that if you marry the mother or father of your children, take work when you can find it and take pride in what you do, attend church and participate as much as possible in the life of your community, and strive to conduct yourself with honesty and integrity, you are very likely to not only escape material poverty, but more importantly to find happiness in life. This case for the persistent advantages of private virtue does not disprove more purely economic analyses of what’s gone wrong in American life, but it should at the very least complicate them, and suggest a different starting place for discussions of the common good than the ground that most liberals prefer to occupy. This is where “Coming Apart” proves its worth: Even for the many readers who will raise an eyebrow (or two) at Murray’s stringently libertarian prescriptions, the story he tells should be a powerful reminder that societies flourish or fail not only in the debates over how to tax and spend and regulate, but in the harder-to-reach places where culture and economics meet.
The 2k kicker is that the two-kingdom proponent has to say yes and no to this assessment (as Douthat, himself a Roman Catholic might admit). The happiness that Murray describes and that Douthat lauds is good and valuable for people and societies this side of glory as part of God’s providential care for his creation. But this happiness is not ultimate. The happiness of Christianity is paradoxically available not only to the well bred and well off, but also to thieves hung on crosses. And in some cases, human flourishing may actually prevent people from seeing their need for ultimate happiness.
This means that the danger of much conservatism, especially the kind promoted by neo-Calvinist inspired transformers and social conservatives, is to identify salvation with human flourishing. If you make that kind of identification, you also make it hard for people who lead sinful lives (which includes faithful spouses and productive businessmen) to see their need for a happiness that is only available to those who will admit that their incomes, stable families, and civic involvement count for nothing when it comes to spiritual flourishing.
Old Life 
DGH is on the money once again. Being rich does not mean you were more moral. And being more moral does not mean you are God’s elect.
But this good news. Being a sinner does not prove that you are not justified before God. Morality can be nothing but “dead works”. And even our good works are no part of the righteousness by which God accepts elect sinners as adopted children.
LikeLike
Darryl, good post… food for thought.
This means that the danger of much conservatism, especially the kind promoted by neo-Calvinist inspired transformers and social conservatives, is to identify salvation with human flourishing.
And could that be true, in part, because human flourishing, which is based on doing, accomplishing… i.e. law-keeping, comes naturally to man in his temporal world (it seems right) as opposed to faith in eternal promises of his unseen God fulfilled by his unseen Savior applied by Word and Spirit? Do earthly interests lead the neo-Calvinist conservative to “naturally” conflate the two, as he enlists heavenly weapons to fight worldly battles?
LikeLike
It looks like this is the old confusion between civil righteousness, which men seek to clothes themselves, and Christ’s righteousness, which is the only clothing acceptable to God. Perhaps until men see the difference, they will continue to misunderstand the two kingdoms?
LikeLike
Douthat’s upcoming book, “Bad Religion,” discusses how Christianity can influence the broader culture positively. His position there is similar to how he describes the merit of “Coming Apart” in that quote. He’s certainly not 2k and I can’t remember much if any invocation of natural law. But his position seems fairly compatible when you add the proximate/eternal good distinction, whereas the theonomist/transformationalist infusion of redemption into creation or the pietistic/conversionistic minimizing all things proximate are fundamentally antithetical to 2k.
Of course, the latter two are presbyterians’ confessional brethren, but it’s getting hard to recognize anything of a healthy, balanced Christian (or just human) life in their distinctives.
LikeLike
Mike K.,
Re: …it’s getting hard to recognize anything of a healthy, balanced Christian (or just human) life in their distinctives.
I may be missing the point you are making, but if I understand it properly, I would ask to suggest that a robust doctrine of vocation could be beneficial to them. Vocation is a vital part of the Lutheran understanding of 2k, for it is through our vocations that we live in the left-hand kingdom.
Today, Dr. Gene Veith offered a preview of his new book that addresses our vocations within our family, written with his daughter (a deaconess in the LCMS). It looks quite promising and his other book on vocation, God At Work, is good. If you are interested, you can find more info here:
http://www.geneveith.com/2012/03/01/our-new-book-on-family-vocations-is-out
LikeLike
Lily,
Thanks for that link to Veith’s new book. I just ordered it. I’m working on a review of a recently published Christian book on parenting that I’ll be posting on my parenting blog. That particular book approaches parenting, more or less, as a “redemptive ministry” rather than, primarily, as a godly-vocation. I expect his insights should be helpful.
LikeLike
Jack,
It’s more than strange to hear that someone would think parenting was a “redemptive ministry” – yikes! I hope you thoroughly enjoy the Lutheran view of the vocations in the family by the Veiths. Dr. Veith is a wonderful man and I believe you can email him if you have any questions or points you would like to clarify. Bon apetit!
LikeLike
Lily,
I just finished God at Work and it was very helpful. I think a Reformed (confessional) view would be differently nuanced at points, like at “Luther said that faith serves God, but works serve our neighbor,” but I agree that his view is both more realistic and, in the end, more God-glorifying than the strained Reformed alternatives mentioned before.
LikeLike
Mike K.,
I’m glad you found Veith’s book helpful. I’ve not heard the Luther quote put that way. What I normally hear a version of this: “God doesn’t need your good works, but your neighbor does.” It sure helps keep the focus outward towards others concerns and needs. It would be wonderful if those portions of the Reformed community who are off-course would learn about the doctrine of vocation. Very grounding and makes life much easier and focused where it should be, imnsho.
LikeLike
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. Galatians 5:6
Gene Veith’s Book was just recommended to me last week. Looking forward to reading it.
LikeLike
You know what’s revealing about this… Douthat’s solutions to the supposed problem Murray painted (more like took his pants off and sat on a canvas) seem just as prodding, invasive and culture-warish as the louder issues old white people argue about. Which leads me to question -is this vision of civic happiness really so universally held, so uniting, and the path to it so clearly this or that poke?
I roll my eyes when people start holding up “conservatism” in civic matters or “conservatism” in the church as a cure-all. Unfortunately, this seems to be the dominant narrative of the OPC in its official publications, especially on historical matters.
LikeLike
Joy, where do the OPC’s official publications hold up conservatism as a cure all? Please explain your drive by.
LikeLike
Check out Dorothy Martyn’s book on parenting– “Beyond Deserving”:
In speaking of the indestructibility of what lies in the unconscious mind, Freud spoke of “paths…laid down once and for all, which never fall into disuse” (Interpretation of Dreams). Why does a habitual gambler repeat again and again his doomed enterprise, even bringing himself and his entire family to utter destruction, when all probabilities are so heavily against his succeeding? Why does a dangerously obese person continue to eat ice cream or other weight aggravating foods in quantity, right in the face of medical warnings of illness and possible early death?
LikeLike