It appears that in the 1970’s and early 80’s, marriage before children remained pretty much the expected norm among working-class couples, at least when men were well employed; by the 2000’s, that norm no longer held. Marriage has become irrelevant to lower middle-class women’s decisions about childbearing. The most disturbing part of this is that even in the lower middle class, children growing up with married parents are more likely to go to college and earn a high income at age 25—that is, to be upwardly mobile. For that to happen—and to see inequality and immobility decline across all classes—children will need something more than higher household spending. “Reversing the decline in married-parent families for children,” as Kearney concludes, “will likely require both economic and social changes.”  

In 2004, the late Sara McLanahan published a landmark article called “Diverging Destinies: How Children Are Faring Under the Second Demographic Transition.” The paper was the first scholarly attempt to propose that the decline of the two-parent family in the United States since the 1960’s was intensifying the already unequal life chances for poor and more advantaged children. The insight encompasses an irony that continues to perplex social policy debates: post 1960’s changes in the family which promised people—especially women—greater personal freedom and liberation from traditional constraints was making inequality worse.
Armed with another 20 years of data, Melissa Kearney, an economist at the University of Maryland, has now revisited the subject in “The ‘College Gap’ in Marriage and Children’s Family Structure,” a working paper recently published in NBER. Her primary findings won’t surprise anyone keeping track of the scholarship on families and children, but she is able to expand and refine our understanding of the trends that McLanahan saw were creating a dangerous disparity in national well-being—disparities that since then have grown and hardened into a seemingly intractable socio-economic reality.
McLanahan’s article, based on surveys from 1960 to 1990, showed that while most college-educated women continued to raise their children in two-parent homes, that was no longer the case for the least-educated women. A sharp rise in single motherhood among that latter group during those decades was limiting the future of children who were already at a social-economic disadvantage. A third group of what, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll call lower middle-class women (those with a high school degree and perhaps a year or two of college) had a modest shift towards single motherhood but for the most part continued to marry and establish traditional two-parent families. Since that time, as Kearney demonstrates in her new paper, the lower middle-class family has all but collapsed. While the children of the least and highest-educated mothers continue to live in the same general family arrangements as they did in 1990, the percentage of their working-class peers growing up in two-parent families fell from 83% to 60 percent. They now resemble their poorer and least-advantaged sisters more than they do their college-educated peers. In this respect, Kearney’s paper adds to the considerable literature on the “hollowing of the middle class;” the middle class is dwindling while the ranks of the lower skilled and affluent grow further apart.
Taking advantage of a growing body of disaggregated data since “Diverging Destinies” was published—as well as a mounting interest in racial gaps—Kearney also delves into family differences between identity groups. At one end of the spectrum, a strong majority (77%) of white children and an even larger share of Asian children (88%) live with their married parents. In the middle are the 62% of Hispanic children living with their married parents and at the low end are 38% of black children (all 2019 numbers). The “college gap,” as the author calls it, holds for all four of the largest racial and ethnic groups, though there are notable differences between them. Black children are by far the least likely of the four groups to live with married parents, but they have a substantially better chance of doing so if their mother has a college degree: 60% of black children with college-educated mothers have both parents in the house compared to a mere 30% for both the other black education groups. Like the population as a whole, children of the lower middle class in all identity groups saw the biggest decline in two-parent households between 1980 and 2019. This pattern holds for Asians as well, but mothers of all education levels are far more likely to be married than mothers of other racial groups.
Read More
Related Posts:

As Augustine explained, Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh so that our sinful flesh might be cleansed and purified. This shows that it is not the flesh itself at fault, but the sin that corrupts it. That sin must die so that we might live. Thus, Augustine affirmed the created goodness of the body, and with it, the goodness of Creation. He also reminded his listeners that Jesus was born without sin so that we who have sin might be reborn through faith. 

From the earliest days of the Church, Christian theologians have marveled at the paradoxes found in the incarnation. Among the earliest expressions of this marveling comes from St. Augustine, the most influential theologian in Western Christianity. 
Augustine was born in 354 in Thagaste, a Roman city in modern Algeria. A brilliant thinker, he initially rejected Christianity as an intellectually empty faith, despite the faithfulness of his mother. After wandering through various pagan philosophies, the equally brilliant St. Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, showed him how Christianity was superior to pagan philosophies. Augustine became a Christian, and eventually returned to Hippo, where he was elected bishop. 
Augustine was an expert orator. He had been a teacher of rhetoric in Milan when he met Ambrose. As a Christian, he used his intellectual abilities and communication skills to address both the pressing theological issues and conflicts facing the Church in the late fourth and early fifth centuries as well as the challenges brought by opponents of Christianity. He also employed his impressive skills in his preaching. In his many years as bishop at Hippo, Augustine preached many Christmas sermons that discussed various aspects of the incarnation. One of his most striking sermons addresses the many paradoxes involved in God taking on human flesh. For example, in what is known as Sermon 184, which Augustine delivered sometime before A.D. 396, he pointed out the paradox of God’s sovereignty with the vulnerability of becoming a child: 
The one who holds the world in being was lying in a manger; he was simultaneously speechless infant and Word. 
Read More
Related Posts:

In summary, the recent enthusiasm that many Protestants have shown for Thomas is a mistake. The church has not been well-served by its eminent men lavishing praise upon an idolater and commending him to her members. There are many among us, especially young men, who are zealous to learn all that they might about the things of God, but who are impressionable and have not the prudence to discern between good and bad in the study of God. To commend an idolater to them is at best irresponsible; and if any of them stumble into the vanity of scholasticism or the pitfalls of Romanism on account of it….

Aquinas taught the propriety of worshipping images of Christ (“the same reverence should be shown to Christ’s image as to Christ Himself”)[1] and the cross (“in each way it is worshiped with the same adoration as Christ, viz. the adoration of ‘latria.’ And for this reason also we speak to the cross and pray to it, as to the Crucified Himself”).[2] Scripture teaches that worshipping images is idolatry and wholly forbidden: “You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it, for I am the Lord your God” (Lev. 26:1; comp. 19:4; Ex. 20:4, 23; 34:17; Ps. 97:7; Isa. 42:17; 44:9-20; Jer. 10:1-16). It teaches further that even lawful things can be used for idolatry (2 Kgs. 18:4), and that no tolerance is to be given to those that propagate such practices but that they are to be summarily rejected as false teachers:
If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people (Deut. 13:6-9).
That commandment was given to Israel as a civil law, but the principle contained in it – namely, that idolatry is so evil that it must be stamped out at its first appearance – applies to the church as well, though we are to apply it differently by rejecting idolaters and refusing their company rather than using physical force against them (2 Cor. 6:16-17). Elsewhere both Paul (“my beloved, flee from idolatry,” 1 Cor. 10:14) and John (“Little children, keep yourselves from idols,” 1 Jn. 5:21) teach believers to have nothing to do with idolatry and those that promote it in the church, and in the letters to the churches at Pergamum and Thyatira the ascended Lord rebukes them for tolerating idolaters in their midst and threatens divine judgment upon them for this failing (Rev. 2:14-16; 20-23).
Scripture therefore mandates we reject Aquinas entirely, not merely in part, for one should not attempt to learn the true knowledge of God from an idolater and false teacher. Why would we peruse such a person when God has raised up such an abundance of faithful lights? What is there in Aquinas that cannot be gotten elsewhere? Why pass over a purer theologian’s work for that of an idolater? And why not regard Scripture itself as sufficient? For in this matter there is an implicit denial of that precious doctrine even if it is explicitly professed by Aquinas’ admirers. If Scripture is truly sufficient for all that we need to know unto the salvation of our souls – and if our souls, guided by the Spirit, are competent to understand Scripture aright – then it is not apparent what benefit we might gain from Aquinas. No one who desires the waters of life should depart from their source in order to partake of them as diluted and poisoned by a secondary agent.
In summary, the recent enthusiasm that many Protestants have shown for Thomas is a mistake. The church has not been well-served by its eminent men lavishing praise upon an idolater and commending him to her members. There are many among us, especially young men, who are zealous to learn all that they might about the things of God, but who are impressionable and have not the prudence to discern between good and bad in the study of God. To commend an idolater to them is at best irresponsible; and if any of them stumble into the vanity of scholasticism or the pitfalls of Romanism on account of it, it may prove that it will be a source of woe unto those that have caused their novice brothers to stumble therein (Lk. 17:1-2). Nor is this possibility an idle speculation: it is common knowledge that reading Aquinas played a large part in Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, converting to Rome in 2007. (And such is his fondness for Aquinas that he has continued to attempt to propagate his teachings among us, notably with his 2019 book Never Doubt Thomas).
Dear reader, do not allow yourself to be caught up in the madness of the Aquinas craze. Let the Spirit instruct you in his Word with all humility, prayerfulness, and trembling (Eph. 6:18; Phil. 2:12-13; Jude 20), and do not allow a discontent spirit to arise within your breast that will set your ears to itching (2 Tim. 4:3) and your mind to wandering after sophistry and vain speculation (2 Tim. 2:14-19; Tit. 3:9-11). If you wish to know God in truth (Jn. 17:3) you do not need this:
The Philosopher in the Book of Predicaments (Categor. vi) reckons disposition and habit as the first species of quality. Now Simplicius, in his Commentary on the Predicaments, explains the difference of these species as follows. He says “that some qualities are natural, and are in their subject in virtue of its nature, and are always there: but some are adventitious, being caused from without, and these can be lost. Now the latter,” i.e. those which are adventitious, “are habits and dispositions, differing in the point of being easily or difficultly lost. As to natural qualities, some regard a thing in the point of its being in a state of potentiality; and thus we have the second species of quality: while others regard a thing which is in act; and this either deeply rooted therein or only on its surface. If deeply rooted, we have the third species of quality: if on the surface, we have the fourth species of quality, as shape, and form which is the shape of an animated being.”[3]
In fact, such eye-splitting, mind-numbing prose may well prove a stumbling block even apart from its speculative content. Let it not be said of you that you are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7) or that you have departed into vain speculation. Rather, “see to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8) and that you “let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things [inc. idolatry, v.5] the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (Eph. 5:6). “Hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught” (Tit. 1:9), and “if anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness” (1 Tim. 6:3) – that is, if (among other things) anyone is inclined to imagine that idolatry is anything other than a catastrophic sin with eternal consequences (1 Cor. 6:9; Rev. 22:15) – be sure to reject such a bad example (1 Tim. 6:4; comp. 2 Tim. 3:5) and to be content with the Scriptures which God has given us to know his will in all things. You will probably be reviled as an anti-intellectual, sectarian biblicist, but this is nothing (for reviling is a part of the Christian life, Matt. 5:11-12; comp. 2 Tim. 3:12), as it is better to keep from bad influences and please God than to have the good favor of society, the church, or the academy at the price of regarding favorably an idolater.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.
[1] Summa Theologica III, Q. 25, A.3
[2] Ibid., Q. 25, A.4
[3] Summa Theologica IaIIae, Q. 49, Art. 2. This is the beginning of Aquinas’s answer to the question “whether habit is a distinct species of quality?” and in the next sentence after this he contradicts what has been quoted here.

Related Posts: