“A biblical social view maintains the delicate balance between the individual and his society. The state cannot provide human relationship and community. Without the covenant bodies of family and church society will err to the side of either anarchy or tyranny. In a humanist social situation, anarchy and tyranny play off each other until the system unravels. Four hundred years ago, the church took about 10% of a family’s income, the state took 5%, and the family itself retained about 85%. Today, the church gets 1-2%, the state takes 60-75% [This may be a little high, but I suppose it depends on how one calculates it, e.g. some countries have in addition to set tax rates a tax on capital gains. However, he isn’t off by much. And to think, the prophet Samuel warned Israel, when she demanded a king, that a king would take a “tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants” (1 Sam. 8:15).], and the family retains a paltry 30%. The relative importance of family and church in people’s lives is fairly minimal, thanks to the influence of Rousseau, Marx, and Dewey. Contrary to what Dewey believed, the true prophet of God speaks only what God tells him to speak. The salvation message preached must be the gospel of Christ, and the church elders are held responsible for “preaching the Word.” The family and church are the fundamental social units, and the family is responsible for the education and upbringing of children (Eph. 6:4, Deut. 6:7, 1 Tim. 5:8). Then, the state is responsible for prosecuting crimes like murder and robbery (Gen. 9:6, Exod. 21:1-5). This is the biblical social theory rejected by John Dewey” (Kevin Swanson, Apostate, 164-165).