Only Spiritual Brotherhood Can Save Men in the Job Crisis
We are deeply concerned by the crisis of young men dropping out of society. Despite so much bad news, we see many positives in the future. If men come together to support each other, this problem can and will correct itself. With the right support system, young men can achieve tremendous personal growth.
There’s a strange thing happening in the American economy right now—what we read in the newspaper or see on TV doesn’t match what we’re witnessing with our own eyes. Job numbers reported in the media seem wonderful. Amazingly low unemployment that hasn’t been witnessed in 50 years! Hundreds of thousands of new jobs created monthly. Yet for all these rosy numbers, when we look at the real world, we see critically understaffed businesses, long waits for repairs, and customer service in the gutter.
America’s young men are in crisis, and the answer to this problem is spiritual, not economic or political. While the media continues to trumpet good news about the economy, the reason your real-life experiences don’t match such optimism is because these reports typically only give you part of the picture. What corporate media doesn’t tell you is that about 11 million jobs remain unfilled right now.
That’s why service is lousy everywhere and you can’t get a plumber. Those jobs go unfilled because millions of young American men between the ages of 25 and 54 aren’t working. At all. As Bloomberg reports, they’ve been left behind, with a lower percentage of men between those ages working than in 1970 — a statistic that emerged before the economic disaster brought by coronavirus lockdowns.
Millions of Young Men Doing Nothing All Day
So, how can millions of men be out of work when unemployment is extremely low? Easy, if you don’t count them.
Yes, the unemployment rate hovers at a record low figure, but this number doesn’t count all unemployed people. It only includes those who don’t have a job and are actively seeking one. This cheery (and erroneous) unemployment rate doesn’t count the millions of young men who aren’t looking for a job. Young males fitting this description are often referred to as “NEETs,” an acronym originating in the U.K. that stands for “Not in Employment, Education or Training.” These fellows aren’t working and, worse, aren’t interested in work.
Of course, this was already a growing problem in the last decade. But unemployment went full supernova during the coronavirus lockdown — and finally smart people are paying attention to it. Mike Rowe of “Dirty Jobs” fame recently hosted a podcast discussion on the crisis of young men not working.
To further understand the problem’s depth, Rowe interviewed economist Nicholas Eberstadt, who wrote “Men Without Work.” It explains the seriousness of this issue, documenting how the unemployment crisis goes far beyond simply not having a job. Too many men in their prime have fallen into a hollow existence. And their parents — and our tax dollars — subsidize such incredible waste.
What do such men do with their copious amounts of leisure? According to Eberstadt, they aren’t only not working. They aren’t going to church. They typically aren’t dating. They aren’t engaging in charity work or civic activities either, or even helping with housework.
Instead, they play video games, binge watch TV and movies, and, perhaps most concerningly, abuse drugs. So many young men are not only lost to our economy, but lost to their families as well. They are at risk of becoming another gloomy statistic in the opioid epidemic.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
When Does “The End” Begin?
My only hope is that you see the time frame references the New Testament is speaking about, and realize that much of what we consider “end of history events” are actually “end-time events” that have already occured in the past. I also hope that when you see a phrase like “last days” in Hebrews, that you will understand where we are in redemptive history. We are not waiting on the last days, we are living in them.
Gordian Knot Eschatology
As we begin this study on the end times, I would like to address you from the junkyard of eschatological insanity that we find ourselves in today. To my left lies a cardboard cutout of the late Harold Camping, a stack of books titled “88 Reasons Why The Rapture Will Occur In 1988”, and a few posters of various blood moons, pale horses, and tracks about being left behind. To my right, an ever-growing pile of Antichrist candidates and mark of the beast hopefuls heaped on top of one another and most are now well rusted.
All around us is the odious stench of eschatological failure. From end times views assuming future failure, to failed past and present predictions, to wild speculations about Gog, Magog, and Vladamir Putin. Is it any wonder that the church is confused, frustrated, and lacking the joy and hope that a Biblical view will bring?
In this series on the end times, my hope is to bring the joy, clarity, and hope back into eschatology. And to do that, we need to flush everything we have heard about the end times, clean down the eschatological toilet, and wave goodbye as it goes back to where it belongs. I say this so strongly because the Bible was never meant to be a Gordian knot to confuse, frustrate, and paralyze you. It was always meant to be a clear revelation to encourage, strengthen you, and give you a living hope as you face the days ahead. When we return to what the Bible says and examine it in Biblical ways, I believe eschatology can be one of the most encouraging topics you will ever study.
So, in the weeks ahead, I want us to look at what the Bible says about the end times, and today I want to focus on the consideration of time. When do the end times begin? Are they getting ready to happen in the 21st century? Are they still long into the future? Or did they begin sometime in the past? Let us look at a few passages in Scripture to gain a Biblical perspective.
End Time Incarnation
By far, one of the clearest passages in all of Scripture, that teaches us when the end times will begin, is Hebrews 1:1-2, which says:God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.- Hebrews 1:1-2
The author of Hebrews is appealing to two very different sets of times in the history of redemption. There is the old covenant era of temples, feasts, priests, and sacrifices, where God once spoke to His people through the fathers and the prophets. This era is known as the Old Testament. But, now we are told a new era of human history has dawned (in fact it is the final era of human history), that began when Christ came as the incarnate Son of God.
What Hebrews is saying, is that when Jesus came He not only secured salvation for His people, but He also fulfilled all of the Old Covenant expectations, types, shadows, and norms, in Himself. For instance, He is our true King (Hebrews 1:8), that serves as true priest (Hebrews 2:17), making Himself to be our true and perfect sacrifice (Hebrews 7:27), offering Himself in God’s true heavenly temple (Hebrews 9:11), to secure a perfect unvarnished redemption. The point this book is making is that when Jesus uttered “It is finished”, He perfectly drew all of the Old Covenant types and shadows to a glorious end, fulfilling every jot and tittle of the Law, leaving no temple stone unturned, so that He could become the cornerstone of a new end time era. In Him, the old has been finished, and the new has come.
The importance of this cannot be understated. Jesus Christ put an end to the old era of redemption and began a new redemptive era called “these last days” at His coming nearly 2000 years ago. That is why the author of Hebrews says that God has spoken to us during the ends of time because he assumes we would understand that these end times began in Jesus’ first glorious coming! And since that much is true, it is clear to say that you and I have been living in the end times our entire lives. It is also clear to say that the Church has existed entirely during the period called the “last days”. That fact has been true for two successive millennia and will continue until the Royal Son returns a final time!
Unlike what many have wrongly said, the Church is not an asterisk period, the Gentile Church was not plan B, and we are sandwiched awkwardly between the Old Testament and a future millennial kingdom. The Church was, is, and will continue to be God’s plan A, for these last days. We are His end-time bride on His end-time mission until the final sands in God’s end-time glass have fallen.
Whatever thoughts we may have about this topic, at a minimum needed to be ground by the firm exegetical understanding that the “last days” have already come and that we are currently living in them. To that end we continue we a few more proofs.
End Time Dissolution
As mentioned above, one of the reasons we can be so confident that the end times have already begun is that Jesus so carefully and methodically brought an end to all the old-timey stuff. He brought a new priesthood, new temple, new mountain, new sacrifice, a new bride, and is bringing about a new covenant city. In the weeks ahead we will examine some of these things in greater detail, but for now, how about a summary? And how about we begin with the old and new bride?
In the Old Testament, there is very specific wedding language that must be understood before we will have any hope of understanding the eschataological bride that is given to Christ in the New Testament. Take for example, Israel. In the Old Testament, Israel was called to be God’s faithful and covenantal bride (Ezekiel 16:8-18). She is the one He lovingly drew out of the land of Egypt, clothed in His love, and brought to a mountain marriage ceremony at Sinai (Jeremiah 31:32; Ezekiel 16:59-60).
If this were not clear enough, God explicitly calls Himself the husband of Israel in Isaiah 54:5 and identifies their relationship as a marriage betrothal in Jeremiah 2:2. It was these people that God set His affections upon (Deuteronomy 7:6-9) and it was this nation who provoked His holy husbanding jealousy (Exodus 20:5; Ezekiel 16:38). It is to this matrimonial status that God appeals to Israel to repent (Jeremiah 3:14), when she burned in belligerent and raunchy affections, playing the whore with the other pagan nations and pagan gods (Ezekial 16:27-48).
Instead of purity and fidelity to her covenant Husband Lord, she acted shamefully in debauched spiritual adulteries (Hosea 2:3-7) until she provoked the righteous fury of her God. For a time, God graciously pursued His faithless bride, beckoning her to leave her lurid pleasures behind and to be reconciled to Him (Hosea 2:7; Joel 1:8). But, alas, it was to no avail and they exhausted His mercy.
In the end, God’s first bride became so polluted in her perversions, that God, Himself, issued those ten faithless tribes a formal certificate of divorce (Hosea 2:2; Isaiah 50:1) and wrote them out of the annals of history through a devastating Assyrian invasion. Along with that, God also warned the southern nation of Judah, that if she continued to play the harlot, like Israel, her fate would be the same as her twin harlot sister (Jeremiah 3:6-10). That imagery is the operative backdrop that is in play, as soon as we turn the page over and into the New Testament.
When we arrive in Matthew we must remember two important truths. 1) God is still married to Judah (although barely). And 2) God is not a polygamist.
That second point is especially poignant because when we see God taking for Himself a new bride (The Church), we ought to remember that the only way this could be possible, is if Judah is also issued a formal divorce from God. And while we will explore this topic more fully in the weeks ahead, that is one of the major themes of the book of Revelation, how the whore of Babylon, who I take to be the unrepentant, paganized, and Rome-loving Judah, will be put away (Revelation 17:1-18) so that God can claim for Himself a new and spotless, blood-bought, bride (Revelation 21:2).
Without getting into the weeds, we can rightly assume that if God marries the Church, then He must put away the harlot Judah. We know that this divorce from God must be executed in lawful ways because He is righteous and is never the unfaithful party in His marriage. Knowing that the New Testament records how the Jews piled their adulteries up to the heavens, even making Israel blush in shame. It was Judah who got in bed with Rome and turned their back on God. It was Judah who became so blinded in her defilements that she killed God’s one and only Son. And it was feckless Judah, that God brought down the full fury of His righteous, just, and divorcing wrath.
We can know that we are living in the end times, not just because the author of Hebrews has said so, but also because God has put away His old unfaithful brides (both Israel and Judah) and has taken for His Son, a new end time wife (The Church). A bride that was blood-bought on a better mountain called Calvary, married to Him in His resurrection from the dead and is waiting for the final consummation when He returns and calls her into His arms forever. That is the mystery of the Gospel (Ephesians 5:32) and a sure clue that we, the church, His bride, is already living in the end times.
Again, we will revisit this theme when we get to the book of Revelation, but for now, let us proceed along.
End Time Demolition
Along with putting away His old wives, part of Jesus’ work to usher in the new end time Kingdom was to put away the old faithless city of Jerusalem. As you are aware, Jerusalem was the old covenant city of God where He would meet with His people. It was in that city He promised to dwell within the temple, live within their midst, to be their God, and for them to be His unique chosen people. It was in this city that the epicenter of Old Covenant religion and eschatological hope collided, with every song, every feast, and every sacrifice. Yet, in the end, this city was put away just as decisively as the faithless prostitute of old.
In some of the final moments of Jesus’ life, the city of Jerusalem collectively turned against the Son of God, and sided with Caesar as their one and only king (John 19:15). Since God alone was supposed to be King of Israel, the irony, idolatry, and infidelity were palpable. Is it any wonder that Jesus pronounced covenantal curses on this city, for all of her longstanding rebellion against God, in Matthew 23:34-36? The text says:34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous bloodshed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. – Matthew 23:34-36
Jesus is making a straightforward claim here. Jerusalem was entirely at fault as the covenant breaker! She had systematically cut down God’s prophets of old, killing them every time God sent them. It was this Babylonesque, city of sin, that would also slaughter the disciples of Christ in cold-blooded murder, after turning on God’s beloved Son, like a rabid dog, slaying Him and crucifying Him.
Read More
Related Posts: -
God Personally Cares for Children in the Womb and Prescribes Punishment for Aborting Them, Rewards for Protecting Them
May we beware of such an abhorrent affront to God’s own personal handiwork upon each child in vivo by our nation (too often amidst a complacent and thus compliant church) and pray not only for no federal mandate of its toleration, but even more, for a national law enforced against it and upon every state of the union.
Commenting on Exodus 21 and capital offenses, Umberto Cassuto notes that “The Torah wishes to affirm and establish the principle, in the name of Divine law, that human life is sacred, and whoever assails this sanctity forfeits his own life – measure for measure.”[1]
The civil right of human liberty was emphasized first in this chapter, and is followed by upholding the value of human life. We must respect and protect all lives;[2] and according to Exodus 21:22-23, this includes the defenseless infant maturing in mother’s womb.
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Those who wrongly induced risky premature labor were to cover the consequential costs—what’s more, perpetrators who caused a miscarriage had to be executed![3] This should not surprise us, for God Himself is mysteriously there in utero, personally forming the baby from his or her earliest existence.
Psalm 139:14 reads: I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.[4] Verse 13 qualifies this making as God’s intimate molding, For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. And verses 15-16 elaborate: My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Thoughts on the Present State of the PCA: A Series of Theses Presented by a Concerned Member—Part One
That the foremost sufferers of our present deeds are those that are tempted with homosexual lust. For they need to be encouraged diligently with the assurance that their sin belongs to the old man that was crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6), and that they are new creations (2 Cor. 5:17) who have been cleansed of their sin and who can and will finally overcome it (Rom. 6:12-14). And yet we set before them as leaders and models men who proudly claim their sin as an essential part of their identity, and who name themselves by it.
That a defective doctrine of sin makes impossible all right thinking and practice in ethical matters.
That all same sex attraction is a species of lust. “For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world” (1 Jn. 2:16, emphasis mine). And again, scripture in speaking of such desire always portrays it as illicit and contrary to the right order of nature (Rom. 1:26-27), and as having the same effects of defilement of body and mind as other forms of sexual immorality (Rom. 1:24, 27; comp. 1 Cor. 6:18; 1 Pet. 2:11).
That sin consists not only in unlawful deeds of the body or tongue, but also in the principle of corruption that animates such deeds, and in various perversions of desire, thought, or will. For as our Lord says, “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28).
That the teachings of those associated with Revoice imply that sin lies only in deeds and not in the corruption that issues forth as such deeds. Thus do they bring near Pelagianizing tendencies whose influence is apt to work corruption in other matters: for a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
That the teachings of those associated with Revoice have the practical effect of categorizing homosexual attraction differently than the right doctrine of the church. For we have ever held that it is a question of morality, of sin that needs to be repented and mortified; yet they often speak as though it is rather a burden to be borne, and thus conceive of it in therapeutic terms. In other cases they speak of it positively, as though it gives its bearers special grace that might be used to the benefit of others.
That it is well outside the bounds of propriety for members of the papal communion to be employed in conferences held at churches that are members of our denomination, or for their teaching to be permitted in other circumstances. A distinction is made here between Rome as she has been since the time of her depravity in the middle ages and the earlier church prior to her ‘Babylonian captivity.’
That the teachings of those associated with Revoice have brought near again the doctrine of concupiscence of the papal communion – which is no wonder, many of Revoice’s teachers being associated with that body. Having escaped from the errors and tyranny of Rome with such suffering and difficulty, are we content to again expose ourselves to its baleful influences?
That the Revoice position proceeds on the same assumption that was used to justify the recognition of so-called same sex marriage in society at large, viz., that sexual desires are the result of a largely immutable genetic or hereditary disposition (orientation).
That sexual orientation is a very recent and suspect concept, holding as it does that homosexual desires are exclusively a result of physical and psychological constitution, rather than being acts of the will or habits resulting from one’s behavior.
That sundry sins sometimes have a genetic or hereditary lineage, and that they are further propagated by example and environment; but these extravolitional factors do not comprise the whole body of sin, nor do they excuse it.
That all positive discussion of Revoice and the same-sex attraction controversy is an act of disobedience to our Lord. For he says in his word that “sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints” (Eph. 5:3); and yet we have discussed this matter openly and blithely before the whole world.
That to even have such a controversy is a loss for us and indicates how worldly we have become. For it should be unthinkable that such things would be contemplated or acted out in the church of God, and their first mention should have been censured in keeping with the urgency with which Scripture enjoins the suppression of destructive ideas (Deut. 13:6-8).
That we dishonor our brothers throughout the world in other bodies of the faith, for many of them suffer poverty or persecution at the hands of unbelievers, and yet while they languish we give ourselves to comfortable and orderly discussions of matters which ought not to be discussed at all.
That we dishonor our forefathers by acting contrary to them and dishonoring the heritage that they have bequeathed to us. We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12:1); and who can maintain that those witnesses would discuss these matters as we now do? Can we imagine Moses or Peter or John Knox or Daniel Baker regarding it as an imperative of justice and ministerial effectiveness to plead the case of immorality as is now done?
That we ill serve the world that we ought to labor to save when we engage in such matters. For the world needs to be told to flee the wrath that is to come, not to see and hear that the Presbyterian Church in America is proud to have same sex-attracted ministers in her midst.
That the foremost sufferers of our present deeds are those that are tempted with homosexual lust. For they need to be encouraged diligently with the assurance that their sin belongs to the old man that was crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6), and that they are new creations (2 Cor. 5:17) who have been cleansed of their sin and who can and will finally overcome it (Rom. 6:12-14). And yet we set before them as leaders and models men who proudly claim their sin as an essential part of their identity, and who name themselves by it. Paul says that “those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:24), and that former homosexuals were among the saints in Corinth that “were washed . . . were sanctified . . . were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 6:ll) – and yet we would hang the moniker ‘same-sex’ about the necks of the tempted or permit them to hang it upon themselves, thus constituting them a separate class of believers.
That the reasons put forward for the propriety of having publicly identified same-sex attracted ministers are self-refuting. For it is intimated that this is an important measure to reach the lost, especially those that struggle with homosexual lust, and yet our previous position, in which something like the Revoice conference would have been unthinkable, did not dissuade many of these same agitators from joining us in past years.
That the scriptural injunction about quarrels about words does not mean that the language we use is a matter of indifference, or that we may use any words we please. Paul’s prohibition in 1 Timothy 6:4 and 2 Timothy 2:14 is upon petty or needless controversies of no real consequence that are engaged (as among the ancients) rather for the amusement of the disputants than for the benefit of their audience. Paul’s ban prohibits the church from becoming the Areopagus (Acts 17:21); it does not condemn the necessity of controversies – as of the Orthodox against the Arians, the Reformers against Rome, or the Fundamentalists against the Modernists – which seek to preserve the true meaning of terms of great consequence, the mis-definition of which are matters of spiritual life and death.
That it is seldom wise and sometimes sinful to use terms taken from unbelieving society at large.
That it is not right to use the contemporary terms of our opponents (and in some cases, persecutors) in our contemporary discussions of sexual ethics. “For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light” (Lk. 16:8), and they have deliberately chosen terms such as gay, same-sex, and Side B because they portray homosexuality as at least morally neutral, and often as positively wholesome and good.
That God in his word only denominates this sin with terms of strong, unambiguous denunciation (as “dishonorable” and “shameless,” Rom. 1:26-27), ever regarding it as contrary to the proper course of nature.
That it is proper for the church to use the terms of Scripture and of traditional Christian moral teaching rather than those of the world. For he who controls the terms that are used and defines their meanings determines how such matters are conceived, and thus controls the debate.
That it is the purpose of language to illumine, not obscure, and that any language which tends to minimize, hide, or deny the egregious nature of anything to do with homosexual sin is not appropriate for use by the church or her ministers. For such euphemisms are a form of dishonest speech, and as such have more to do with the kingdom of Satan than that of God.
That much of the language which has been used hithertofore has been worldly and euphemistic, and taken from hostile, unbelieving sources.
That the use of such improper language ought to be repented forthwith for the sake of all parties.
That unbelieving homosexuals are those who are most ill-served by the use of euphemistic language that obscures the nature and severity of their sin. For one cannot repent unless he realizes his behavior is sinful, and this process includes a proper understanding of how severe his sin is and of how urgently repentance is needed.Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.