As a description about different people's approaches to *this* life, I think it's quite apt. It's also downright critical to evaluate for something like romantic relationship compatibility. The fundamental problem that I think the article unintentionally has an over-realized eschatology. The "middle class" vs. "striver" dynamic is I think often completely inverted when looking at the next world from a Christian perspective.
I Corinthians 1:26-31. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
C.S. Lewis's Great Divorce has a very compelling story about a nobody/ordinary woman ("Sarah Smith") who was the spiritual equivalent of a very high noble in heaven. I know an older lady who does have some element of striver in her regular engagement with the city council and various community affairs, but that's nothing compared to the fact she and a group of other ladies have met daily for 5+ years for about an hour of prayer for big and small issues alike.
A couple of commenters are pretty harsh but upon reading this post I also wondered how the prominent New Testament ethic in both gospels and epistles of the last being the first should inform this line of thinking.
The striver wants "to vacation in the right destinations." So, if I am thinking about taking the family to Lake Tahoe on vacation, but I hear people around the office saying that the trendy spot these days is Aspen, I should change my plans?
Hasn't every significant thinker in history who has addressed this subject concluded that being driven by other people's opinions is a sign of weak character? How can you describe the strivers in such pathetic terms and then identify yourself as one of them?
As always, your "soft progressivism" leads you astray, Aaron. You begin by equating material wealth with dignity, and then you essentially say: "Those who strive for more are different than those who are happy once they reach a given level of material wealth."
Calling this a "Christian worldview," or thoughts on "how to be a Christian man in 2025" is a misnomer. There is not a single Christian thing about what you've described.
I understand--the postmil theobros you're hanging out with all say the same thing you're saying here. Vivek is saying the same thing, and heck, he's not even a Christian. Elon is saying the same thing, too!
But this all misses something.
Dignity.
Dignity does not come from "getting enough stuff and stopping." Dignity does not come from "always wanting more stuff." Dignity comes from one place, and one place only. Fulfilling God's design in our lives. Sometimes dignity requires striving. Sometimes dignity requires Sabbath.
You really need to stop for a bit and learn something about the other parts of Christian and Jewish thought you are ignoring. You really need to stop for a bit and learn something about what dignity is and where it comes from.
You are drifting further and further into hard progressivism.
I don't see anything "progressive" about Aaron's post here-- that word is usually associated with a set of very leftist positions and Aaron no where touches on any of those, at least not in this post. Perhaps a better word for this piece might be "secular" or "just "worldly".
We have been taught, our entire lives, that progressivism only includes a set of liberal beliefs, such as universal income, sexual rights, etc. Progressivism, however, in it's original meaning, is any attempt to build an "ideal society" through human effort.
The problem with the modern definition is: it leaves no way to describe "conservative" forms of progressivism. For instance, I just saw a clip of a pastor saying: "We should have the government shut down all liberal churches and hand their assets to conservative churches ... this is totally within the realm of what the magistrate can do." If we say "progressive" just means "extreme leftist," we have no way to describe trying to create the "Kingdom of God" on the Earth via government power.
One of the powers of language is to make things that exist in the real world "disappear" because they can no longer be described. This is one of those cases.
What Aaron often represents is an attempt to use government power to create a "close to ideal Christian world." It's still a drive for utopia, just a different kind of utopia a leftist might desire.
The elephant in the room seems to be that class transcends both politics and religion, and that both Americans and Christians pretend it doesn't exist.
Thoughts on how this distinction interacts with being a Christian man in the US in 2025?
It also sounds like middle class or striver might be more predominant depending on who is in your social network (like attracks like), denomination, etc.
As a description about different people's approaches to *this* life, I think it's quite apt. It's also downright critical to evaluate for something like romantic relationship compatibility. The fundamental problem that I think the article unintentionally has an over-realized eschatology. The "middle class" vs. "striver" dynamic is I think often completely inverted when looking at the next world from a Christian perspective.
I Corinthians 1:26-31. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
C.S. Lewis's Great Divorce has a very compelling story about a nobody/ordinary woman ("Sarah Smith") who was the spiritual equivalent of a very high noble in heaven. I know an older lady who does have some element of striver in her regular engagement with the city council and various community affairs, but that's nothing compared to the fact she and a group of other ladies have met daily for 5+ years for about an hour of prayer for big and small issues alike.
A couple of commenters are pretty harsh but upon reading this post I also wondered how the prominent New Testament ethic in both gospels and epistles of the last being the first should inform this line of thinking.
The striver wants "to vacation in the right destinations." So, if I am thinking about taking the family to Lake Tahoe on vacation, but I hear people around the office saying that the trendy spot these days is Aspen, I should change my plans?
Hasn't every significant thinker in history who has addressed this subject concluded that being driven by other people's opinions is a sign of weak character? How can you describe the strivers in such pathetic terms and then identify yourself as one of them?
As always, your "soft progressivism" leads you astray, Aaron. You begin by equating material wealth with dignity, and then you essentially say: "Those who strive for more are different than those who are happy once they reach a given level of material wealth."
Calling this a "Christian worldview," or thoughts on "how to be a Christian man in 2025" is a misnomer. There is not a single Christian thing about what you've described.
I understand--the postmil theobros you're hanging out with all say the same thing you're saying here. Vivek is saying the same thing, and heck, he's not even a Christian. Elon is saying the same thing, too!
But this all misses something.
Dignity.
Dignity does not come from "getting enough stuff and stopping." Dignity does not come from "always wanting more stuff." Dignity comes from one place, and one place only. Fulfilling God's design in our lives. Sometimes dignity requires striving. Sometimes dignity requires Sabbath.
You really need to stop for a bit and learn something about the other parts of Christian and Jewish thought you are ignoring. You really need to stop for a bit and learn something about what dignity is and where it comes from.
You are drifting further and further into hard progressivism.
I don't see anything "progressive" about Aaron's post here-- that word is usually associated with a set of very leftist positions and Aaron no where touches on any of those, at least not in this post. Perhaps a better word for this piece might be "secular" or "just "worldly".
We have been taught, our entire lives, that progressivism only includes a set of liberal beliefs, such as universal income, sexual rights, etc. Progressivism, however, in it's original meaning, is any attempt to build an "ideal society" through human effort.
The problem with the modern definition is: it leaves no way to describe "conservative" forms of progressivism. For instance, I just saw a clip of a pastor saying: "We should have the government shut down all liberal churches and hand their assets to conservative churches ... this is totally within the realm of what the magistrate can do." If we say "progressive" just means "extreme leftist," we have no way to describe trying to create the "Kingdom of God" on the Earth via government power.
One of the powers of language is to make things that exist in the real world "disappear" because they can no longer be described. This is one of those cases.
What Aaron often represents is an attempt to use government power to create a "close to ideal Christian world." It's still a drive for utopia, just a different kind of utopia a leftist might desire.
The elephant in the room seems to be that class transcends both politics and religion, and that both Americans and Christians pretend it doesn't exist.
Fascinating thoughts here, Aaron. I cannot remember seeing these distinctions and categories before.
Thoughts on how this distinction interacts with being a Christian man in the US in 2025?
It also sounds like middle class or striver might be more predominant depending on who is in your social network (like attracks like), denomination, etc.