Yes, I bring this up again. It seems to be a recurring topic (http://thebaldwingang.blogspot.com/2009/05/why.html and http://thebaldwingang.blogspot.com/2007/04/homeschooling-thoughts.html), I know, but it keeps coming up, so I wanted to share some more thoughts. This post was inspired after reading another post – here: http://raisingolives.com/2009/04/public-school-homeschool/ I agree with this post entirely, so there are quite a few similarities between the two posts, and yes some of it is directly copied, sorry; I guess my government school education didn't stress enough not to plagiarize. :-)
Homeschooling is not the “mainstream” or “normal” way of doing things, but not much of what we do here at the Baldwin homestead is “normal” or “mainstream”. It’s also a lot more difficult “doing it ourself”, than passing it off to the State. So why do it the weird, hard way? Here goes:
Why Education by the State is not an option for us.
Our family’s goal is to base our lives on God’s word. We’re not always very consistent, and are thankful for God’s mercy and grace. We don’t know everything and all too often get things wrong, but we are learning and He is allowing us to grow thru our mistakes. My purpose here is to try to share what we believe and why.
First off – these are what we use as our ground rules for this discussion:
1) God’s Word, both the Old and New Testaments, is our standard by which we live. Human logic and practicality do not trump God’s Word, ever.
2) Real knowledge apart from God’s Word does not exist. (Proverbs 1:7, 2:5-6, Col. 2:3, Psalm 111:10, Psalm 53:1)
3) According to God’s Word we should be law keepers in as much as the law does not violate God’s law. (Romans 13:1-7)
4) Christians should train their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Eph. 6:4)
5) God has given parents the responsibility to educate their own children. (Deut. 6:4-9)
6) Education is not neutral. (Luke 11:23)
Here are some reasons that our family has chosen not to allow our children to be educated by the State.
The State school system violates the eighth commandment. (you know - “thou shalt not steal”) The State-sponsored “edu-mah-catation” system is based on theft. Yes, that’s right – theft. The government takes (steals) money from our family (and yours) and uses it for the education of other family’s children. The state did not earn that money, our family did. The state did not ask for it as a voluntary donation; if we don't pay up, men with guns show up to take it by force. That’s not only theft, but one of the basic ideas of socialism - taking from the producer by force to "share" with the masses "for the common good". The state is also using force, or threats of force to steal money in support of things that many people are morally/religiously against. Roman Catholic parents must pay for prescription birth control to be passed out to 11 year old girls, Christians are forced to pay to have their children indoctrinated with GLBT and Pro-“choice” (pro-death) propaganda.
Nationalized education is unlawful. The national involvement in the state school system is illegal. Yes, illegal. The US Constitution limits the power of the federal government. Our founding fathers knew that the natural tendency would be for the central government to grab more and more power and so, in an attempt to preserve our liberty, the Constitution spells out (enumerates) the powers that are given to the federal government (article I, section 8) and then to make things clear the tenth amendment says:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Read the Constitution. Our federal government was not given authority over education, therefore according to the tenth amendment that power is reserved for the States or the people.
State schools are Godless. Several Supreme court decisions and continued federal involvement and regulation in the government schools have led to a system where God, the Bible and Christianity are marginalized at best, and viewed with disdain and contempt at worst. In the government schools teachers are forbidden by law to pray (Engel v. Vitale) or read the Bible (Abington School District v. Schemmp) in class. They may not directly teach the students about how God’s word applies to every facet of education. (Read this story for one example of how teachers can get into trouble for telling students about God’s truth and love.) Since our goal is that our children would love the Lord their God with all their heart, with all their soul, and with all their might, and that they would examine everything in light of God’s Word, it does not make sense for us to choose to have them "educated" (brainwashed), for 30+ hours a week, in an institution that, by law, excludes God and His word.
God gave the responsibility for training children to the parents, not the state. If parents would stop shirking their responsibility to educate their children, even though it is difficult, even though it’s “weird”, we would not have the problems that we see all around us today.
Until next time.....
Monday, November 23, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Health Care and the Fallacy of Positive Rights
Before government can guarantee provision of a specific good or service to any one individual, thus creating a so-called “positive right,” it must first take by force the means of producing that very good or service from someone else.
Health care is no different. Whether by forcibly appropriating and redistributing the money to purchase care for those who lack it, or by arbitrarily devaluing the time and effort of those who provide it, once a government mandate supplants voluntary exchange, coercion must be used to exercise that “right” to health care.
But how can taking what belongs to another person (their money, time, or effort) through legislative force be a right? Is that not the very essence of slavery?
The truth is that the only rights actually guaranteed to Americans by the Constitution are those that protect freedom of action.
They are “negative rights,” which do exactly the opposite of their positive counterparts. Rather than initiate and rely on the use of force to produce a specific reward or outcome, negative rights allow individuals to act or not act in the absence of coercion, so long as they do not hinder the freedom of others to do the same.
For instance, it is the right of people in this country to vocalize unpopular opinions, associate with unpopular people, practice unpopular religions, and even carry unpopular weapons. Thanks to our negative rights the government cannot, without due process, take the life, liberty, or property of any American.
But nowhere in the Constitution does it say that, in order to exercise their rights, each citizen must at birth be given a microphone, a bible, or a gun.
That was no accident. For more than two hundred years, the freedom and responsibility to determine one’s own future has been the foundation of America’s unparalleled success. But the critical role played by our negative rights has become less and less clearly understood over time.
Many of this country’s most celebrated leaders have manipulated that ignorance, redefining rights as unearned rewards for politically favored groups; payoffs thinly veiled in the pious rhetoric of social justice.
FDR himself was among the worst. The abject failure of the New Deal notwithstanding, FDR proposed to codify his authoritarian progressive agenda in a constitutional amendment, known as the “Economic Bill of Rights.”
It reads like a list that could just as easily have flowed from the pen of Karl Marx:
The right to a useful and remunerative job…
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition…
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care…
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
Besides being, as any citizen of the former Soviet Union can attest, economically disastrous and utterly impossible to define or achieve, the biggest problem with FDR’s list was that it sought to make America into a nation of serfs.
The logic is inescapable. Once something has been deemed a right by those in government, the ability of every person who produces or consumes that good or service to engage in voluntary transactions with the fruit of their own labor is stolen. Their labor is then owned and administered by agents of the collective.
Again, I ask: Is that not the very essence of slavery?
There is no doubt that freedom entails risk, and America has not always lived up to the promise of her founding. But when certain people or groups pervert the notion of rights, harnessing the power of government to take by force what they desire but have not earned, then negative freedom becomes a positive tyranny.
Let us hope that more Americans, before it is too late, learn how to tell the difference.
Health care is no different. Whether by forcibly appropriating and redistributing the money to purchase care for those who lack it, or by arbitrarily devaluing the time and effort of those who provide it, once a government mandate supplants voluntary exchange, coercion must be used to exercise that “right” to health care.
But how can taking what belongs to another person (their money, time, or effort) through legislative force be a right? Is that not the very essence of slavery?
The truth is that the only rights actually guaranteed to Americans by the Constitution are those that protect freedom of action.
They are “negative rights,” which do exactly the opposite of their positive counterparts. Rather than initiate and rely on the use of force to produce a specific reward or outcome, negative rights allow individuals to act or not act in the absence of coercion, so long as they do not hinder the freedom of others to do the same.
For instance, it is the right of people in this country to vocalize unpopular opinions, associate with unpopular people, practice unpopular religions, and even carry unpopular weapons. Thanks to our negative rights the government cannot, without due process, take the life, liberty, or property of any American.
But nowhere in the Constitution does it say that, in order to exercise their rights, each citizen must at birth be given a microphone, a bible, or a gun.
That was no accident. For more than two hundred years, the freedom and responsibility to determine one’s own future has been the foundation of America’s unparalleled success. But the critical role played by our negative rights has become less and less clearly understood over time.
Many of this country’s most celebrated leaders have manipulated that ignorance, redefining rights as unearned rewards for politically favored groups; payoffs thinly veiled in the pious rhetoric of social justice.
FDR himself was among the worst. The abject failure of the New Deal notwithstanding, FDR proposed to codify his authoritarian progressive agenda in a constitutional amendment, known as the “Economic Bill of Rights.”
It reads like a list that could just as easily have flowed from the pen of Karl Marx:
The right to a useful and remunerative job…
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition…
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care…
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
Besides being, as any citizen of the former Soviet Union can attest, economically disastrous and utterly impossible to define or achieve, the biggest problem with FDR’s list was that it sought to make America into a nation of serfs.
The logic is inescapable. Once something has been deemed a right by those in government, the ability of every person who produces or consumes that good or service to engage in voluntary transactions with the fruit of their own labor is stolen. Their labor is then owned and administered by agents of the collective.
Again, I ask: Is that not the very essence of slavery?
There is no doubt that freedom entails risk, and America has not always lived up to the promise of her founding. But when certain people or groups pervert the notion of rights, harnessing the power of government to take by force what they desire but have not earned, then negative freedom becomes a positive tyranny.
Let us hope that more Americans, before it is too late, learn how to tell the difference.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Constitution??? Irrelevant. Just ask James Clyburn.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, November 6, 2009 : "When I recently asked Congressman James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, to tell me "Where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to regulate everyone's health care--, he replied that most of what Congress does is not authorized by the Constitution, but they do it anyway. There you have it. Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights, it doesn't care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn't even read the laws it writes."
Until next time.
Until next time.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
More Health Care nonsense
Just received a nice form letter response from "representative" Hagan. I thought I'd share with y'all my reply to her response:
Senator Hagan - I would like a response to the issues I raise to the reply I received today. My comments are marked with asterisks(**). Thank you.
Each year, costs associated with our current system increase. North Carolinians are struggling to afford insurance coverage, and the unprecedented economic crisis facing our nation has made it still more difficult for working families to manage medical costs while making ends meet. In North Carolina alone, the number of uninsured has risen to approximately 1.8 million, which represents 22 percent of the state's population.
**Can you tell me how much of that 22% chooses to be uninsured for non-financial reasons?**
The United States spends more per capita on health care than any other developed nation, over $2 trillion per year, yet this fact is not reflected in our health outcomes. A Commonwealth Fund report compared the American health care payment and service delivery system with that of six other developed nations. The report found the United States to have poorer health indicators and outcomes, as well as a more fragmented and unstable system with substantial delays, waste, and paperwork.
**How on earth will a Federal system bring about any improvement to an “unstable system with substantial delays, waste, and paperwork “? The Federal “Cash for Clunkers” mistake is a perfect example of an unstable system with substantial delays, waste, and paperwork. I am terrified to think of the fallout of a Federal program dealing with life and death care.**
As you know, there are various opposing views within the health care reform debate, and I would like to address a few here. When crafting the Affordable Health Choices Act, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee bill, we went to great lengths to ensure that if you have a health insurance plan that you like, you can keep it. Moreover, no one will be required to participate in the Community Health Insurance Option, including individuals, employers, and health care providers.
** EVERYone will be required to participate - our tax dollars will be used to pay for it. There is no way for us to designate tax dollars.**
I recognize that medical liability reform has the potential to reduce medical malpractice insurance premiums for health care providers and decrease defensive medicine practices. Accordingly, I am in favor of President Obama's plan to implement demonstration projects to evaluate medical liability models being used and implemented around the United States.
**Why must we rely on a Federal “plan” for this? Why not allow each State to implement their own plan?**
In addition, concern has been raised about illegal aliens being able to receive medical services under health care reform. The Affordable Health Choices Act defines an eligible individual as a citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident of the United States. Illegal immigrants would be explicitly barred from receiving services under the legislation.
**How will eligibility be determined? How will it be enforced?**
Also, some believe abortion services could be covered under health care reform. This is inaccurate, due to a long-standing federal law that includes a broad prohibition against using federal funds for abortion services. Health care reform would not change that prohibition, which is known as the Hyde Amendment.
**Contrary to popular belief, the Hyde Amendment does not ban all federal funding for abortion. The legislation only bans funds from appropriations for the Health and Human Services budget from going to that purpose.**
Furthermore, it has come to my attention that some believe there would be rationing of health care services under health care reform. The Afforable Health Choices Act would not do anything to limit the ability of your doctor to pursue the course of care he or she believes is most appropriate for you. While the bill would fund research into the comparative effectiveness of various treatments, that information will simply serve as a tool for practioners to use as they see fit. The Affordable Health Choices Act specifically states that any recommendations made under health care reform shall not be construed as mandates for payment, coverage, or treatment of health services.
**And who is to say there will not be future “incentives” for practitioners to follow the Federally “recommended” treatment, even if it is detrimental to the patient’s health? This “recommendation” sounds ominously like the H.M.O. method of doctor coercion.**
Senator Hagan - I would like a response to the issues I raise to the reply I received today. My comments are marked with asterisks(**). Thank you.
Each year, costs associated with our current system increase. North Carolinians are struggling to afford insurance coverage, and the unprecedented economic crisis facing our nation has made it still more difficult for working families to manage medical costs while making ends meet. In North Carolina alone, the number of uninsured has risen to approximately 1.8 million, which represents 22 percent of the state's population.
**Can you tell me how much of that 22% chooses to be uninsured for non-financial reasons?**
The United States spends more per capita on health care than any other developed nation, over $2 trillion per year, yet this fact is not reflected in our health outcomes. A Commonwealth Fund report compared the American health care payment and service delivery system with that of six other developed nations. The report found the United States to have poorer health indicators and outcomes, as well as a more fragmented and unstable system with substantial delays, waste, and paperwork.
**How on earth will a Federal system bring about any improvement to an “unstable system with substantial delays, waste, and paperwork “? The Federal “Cash for Clunkers” mistake is a perfect example of an unstable system with substantial delays, waste, and paperwork. I am terrified to think of the fallout of a Federal program dealing with life and death care.**
As you know, there are various opposing views within the health care reform debate, and I would like to address a few here. When crafting the Affordable Health Choices Act, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee bill, we went to great lengths to ensure that if you have a health insurance plan that you like, you can keep it. Moreover, no one will be required to participate in the Community Health Insurance Option, including individuals, employers, and health care providers.
** EVERYone will be required to participate - our tax dollars will be used to pay for it. There is no way for us to designate tax dollars.**
I recognize that medical liability reform has the potential to reduce medical malpractice insurance premiums for health care providers and decrease defensive medicine practices. Accordingly, I am in favor of President Obama's plan to implement demonstration projects to evaluate medical liability models being used and implemented around the United States.
**Why must we rely on a Federal “plan” for this? Why not allow each State to implement their own plan?**
In addition, concern has been raised about illegal aliens being able to receive medical services under health care reform. The Affordable Health Choices Act defines an eligible individual as a citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident of the United States. Illegal immigrants would be explicitly barred from receiving services under the legislation.
**How will eligibility be determined? How will it be enforced?**
Also, some believe abortion services could be covered under health care reform. This is inaccurate, due to a long-standing federal law that includes a broad prohibition against using federal funds for abortion services. Health care reform would not change that prohibition, which is known as the Hyde Amendment.
**Contrary to popular belief, the Hyde Amendment does not ban all federal funding for abortion. The legislation only bans funds from appropriations for the Health and Human Services budget from going to that purpose.**
Furthermore, it has come to my attention that some believe there would be rationing of health care services under health care reform. The Afforable Health Choices Act would not do anything to limit the ability of your doctor to pursue the course of care he or she believes is most appropriate for you. While the bill would fund research into the comparative effectiveness of various treatments, that information will simply serve as a tool for practioners to use as they see fit. The Affordable Health Choices Act specifically states that any recommendations made under health care reform shall not be construed as mandates for payment, coverage, or treatment of health services.
**And who is to say there will not be future “incentives” for practitioners to follow the Federally “recommended” treatment, even if it is detrimental to the patient’s health? This “recommendation” sounds ominously like the H.M.O. method of doctor coercion.**
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Open letter to Senators Hagan and Burr about S. 510
I am writing to you regarding S. 510 - FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. This proposal will give the corrupt FDA even more wide-reaching powers to oppress the citizens of N.C., as well as the rest of the U.S. The VERY LAST thing that We The People need is to give this bureaucracy more power to control what we eat.
We’ve had heart attacks from Vioxx and Avandia and contaminated toothpaste from China; E. coli in our spinach, and salmonella in our spinach and peppers. Tainted pet food has killed hundreds, if not thousands, of our pets. And our children have gotten sick from toys painted with leaded paint. What will be the next ill-fated product “approved” by the FDA?
The agency’s list of corruptions and collusions is now a mile long. And each piece of new legislation aimed to improve its function seems to do just the opposite—making the FDA even more dependent upon financial support by Big Pharma. Now with a proposal to increase the FDA's powers to surveil our food, the corruption will only increase, as the FDA will become dependant on money from Big Agri-Business.
The US has seen numerous outbreaks of foodborne illnesses caused by imported foods or domestic foods that were processed in huge facilities and shipped throughout the country. Unfortunately, HR 2749 (now S. 510) does not focus FDA’s efforts on these very real problems. Instead, it creates a regulatory framework that will heavily burden the small farms and local food processors, such as myself, the very people who provide a safe, healthy alternative to the industrial food supply.
I strongly urge you to defeat this proposed bill, as it will do nothing to improve the safety and health of your constituents.Thank you.
We’ve had heart attacks from Vioxx and Avandia and contaminated toothpaste from China; E. coli in our spinach, and salmonella in our spinach and peppers. Tainted pet food has killed hundreds, if not thousands, of our pets. And our children have gotten sick from toys painted with leaded paint. What will be the next ill-fated product “approved” by the FDA?
The agency’s list of corruptions and collusions is now a mile long. And each piece of new legislation aimed to improve its function seems to do just the opposite—making the FDA even more dependent upon financial support by Big Pharma. Now with a proposal to increase the FDA's powers to surveil our food, the corruption will only increase, as the FDA will become dependant on money from Big Agri-Business.
The US has seen numerous outbreaks of foodborne illnesses caused by imported foods or domestic foods that were processed in huge facilities and shipped throughout the country. Unfortunately, HR 2749 (now S. 510) does not focus FDA’s efforts on these very real problems. Instead, it creates a regulatory framework that will heavily burden the small farms and local food processors, such as myself, the very people who provide a safe, healthy alternative to the industrial food supply.
I strongly urge you to defeat this proposed bill, as it will do nothing to improve the safety and health of your constituents.Thank you.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Elephant ears, Pig noses, and other animal parts
Had a great time at the Dixie Classic Fair yesterday PM and eve. Kids (and Taya) got to see their first rodeo - in person - not on TV. It was really neat to go check out all the classic stuff at a county fair - animal and farm exhibits, various foods (no we didn't try the fried butter - maybe next year), and of course the rodeo. We walked the midway, but never rode any rides. Something about machinery that goes 80mph, but is designed to get taken apart in 2 hours to get hauled on to the next stop.... kinda makes you wonder if it's not gonna come flying apart because someone didn't tighten a bolt all the way.
'Course it's all safety inspected by our local county guvmint, so it's gotta be safe right?
Until next time.....
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Boycott?? Not us.......at least not when it's popular
While our family has made a conscious decision about a year ago not to shop at Wal-Mart, it has nothing to do with a "boycott" called for this past summer by Christian groups. Our choice to refrain from spending our money at Wal-Mart came about after we realized that we actually didn't save any money shopping there!!! The money we saved because of their "low prices" was actually being negated by the money we spent on the unnecessary stuff they have on their shelves because Wal-Mart has everything under the sun on their shelves and it is very tempting to "just go ahead" and get these things we really don't need.
After we had this realization, and had decided that it was not in our best interest to shop at Wal-Mart anymore, we happened to watch a documentary titled "The high cost of low prices" and realized that there are other good reasons not to darken their doors anymore. I won't list them all here, I encourage you to watch this film and see for yourself.
I came across this article today, and it kinda reminded me about the choice we have made not to spend our money at Wal-Mart anymore, and it reaffirmed how I feel about "Christian Boycotts" - I dislike them. Personal "boycotts" or decisions not to do business with a company is one thing, but hopping on a bandwagon because someone else says you should - I disagree 110%. I think you should think these things thru and come to your own decision, not blindly follow the loud voice of whoever.
Anyway - I'm going to share the text of this article with those that don't like following links. The author - Bojidar Marinov has taken quite a bit of heat over this. But you know what - I agree with the author completely. We as "The Church", or "The body of Christ" are called to be missionaries, so this article applies to us as well. Read for yourself:
********************************************************
Raising Moral Standards of Missionaries to that of Wal-Mart
by Bojidar Marinov, Aug 12, 2009
These last couple of weeks I came across a discussion between Christians about possible boycott of Wal-Mart. The reason is that Wal-Mart outsourced the production of certain goods to Africa and thus took away the livelihood of dozens or even hundreds of families and small businesses in the Midwest who used to produce those goods. The cost went down, the participants admitted, but Wal-Mart outsourced the production to countries where slave labor–and even child slave labor–is used.
I have mixed feelings about such a boycott. On one hand, I am not sure if I want to follow that same logic to the bitter end. As a Texan, I feel bitter against Wal-Mart that buys certain goods from the state of New York and not from Texas; I believe it thus finances the corrupt and greedy bureaucracy of the state of New York. And I can’t see why a corrupt and greedy bureaucracy in the US would be morally superior to a slave holder in Africa. And the logic can be extended further and made even more absurd. On the other hand, corporations should be careful about the moral purity of their actions on the market–for instance, I find no excuse for General Motors co-operating with the Nazis during WWII or using slave labor from the concentration camps.
But I have a bigger question here: What about our missionaries? Do we measure them by the same standard as Wal-Mart?
According to the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, the United States deploys currently a little over 35,000 foreign missionaries across the world. At the average cost of $50,000 per missionary a year, this makes a total of $1.75 billion of Christian money donated for missionaries, whose job is to spread the message of the Bible around the world. Part of that biblical message is the biblical laws against chattel slavery and against all other kinds of immorality, whether personal, cultural, or institutional.
How many of those missionaries actually address the cultural or institutional immorality in the nations where they are at?
Let’s see. Wal-Mart’s primary social function is to provide us with consumer goods at a low price at a convenient place. Preaching the Word of God is not a primary function of Wal-Mart. And yet, we do expect Wal-Mart to observe certain moral standards, and even to impose sanctions on its suppliers on the basis of those standards–by buying or not buying their goods. We expect Wal-Mart to “silently preach” by the powerful medium of its purchasing departments. And when Wal-Mart doesn’t measure up to this standard, we as Christians consider boycotting them.
The primary social function of our foreign missionaries is to preach the Word of God to the nations (Matt. 28:18–20). Not just to individuals, but to whole nations. That means, our missionaries are supposed to do full-time what Wal-Mart is expected to do while conducting its main business. This is the “main business” of our missionaries, to preach against slavery, and against all other kinds of immorality in the nations. Against oppressive social and political systems; against socialist government policies that destroy the families; against cultural practices that break the Law of God; against customs that denigrate individuals or kill the unborn and the defenseless; against traditions and practices that rob people of their life, liberty and property. Missionaries should preach to the nations the beauty of the Law of God, showing them that true happiness and prosperity for a nation comes only when the nation obeys the Law of God (Deut. 4:6–9). If we expect Wal-Mart to withhold its money from those who practice slavery, we should also expect our missionaries to be there and actively denounce slavery and call God’s judgment on those who practice it.
But how many of our missionaries around the world actually preach to the nations? In my ministry, I have met hundreds of American missionaries, and I have seen precious few only who understand their mission as one to whole cultures. The vast majority of them refuse to be “social reformers,” limiting themselves to “saving souls” and “planting churches” only. Tracing it back to the source, we’ll discover that the mission organizations and the missionary boards that sent those missionaries do not even include in their vision statements challenging whole cultures for Christ. You would be hard pressed to find at least one missionary organization that officially includes in its vision statement the eradication of slavery in Africa, or passing pro-life laws in Europe, or the demise of the caste system in India, or the defense of life, liberty and property in Latin America. And of course, tracing it back to the churches, how many churches really hold up the missionaries they support to the same moral standard as Wal-Mart?
Keep in mind that the bulk of the $1.75 billion mentioned above is spent abroad, in cultures that as collective cultures break every single one of the Ten Commandments, starting from “Thou shall have no other gods” down to “Thou shall not covet.” And yet, these cultures meet no challenge whatsoever from our missionaries, except in a few individual converted souls. But then, of course, we expect Wal-Mart to do their job and impose pressure on those cultures.
Judgment always starts from the House of God. Before we look for the specks in the eyes of the Wal-Mart’s executives, we need to see the enormous beams in the eyes of our own churches and missionary boards and organizations. And before we boycott Wal-Mart for failing to “silently preach” to the nations we should start boycotting our own missionaries and mission boards who refuse to openly disciple the nations in the Law of Christ. We should withdraw our money from those who have limited the Gospel of Christ to “saving souls” and “planting churches” and make them reconsider their worldview. It isn’t Wal-Mart’s fault that there is slavery in Africa; it is our fault that we have failed to train and send out missionaries who have comprehensive worldview to evangelize both man and his institutions. It’s about time to raise the moral standard for our missionaries to that for Wal-Mart.
And then, of course, what do we do with our own pastors and denominations here in the US that refuse to challenge an increasingly pagan culture and political establishment? I’ll leave this one for you to figure out.
********************************************************
Until next time.....
After we had this realization, and had decided that it was not in our best interest to shop at Wal-Mart anymore, we happened to watch a documentary titled "The high cost of low prices" and realized that there are other good reasons not to darken their doors anymore. I won't list them all here, I encourage you to watch this film and see for yourself.
I came across this article today, and it kinda reminded me about the choice we have made not to spend our money at Wal-Mart anymore, and it reaffirmed how I feel about "Christian Boycotts" - I dislike them. Personal "boycotts" or decisions not to do business with a company is one thing, but hopping on a bandwagon because someone else says you should - I disagree 110%. I think you should think these things thru and come to your own decision, not blindly follow the loud voice of whoever.
Anyway - I'm going to share the text of this article with those that don't like following links. The author - Bojidar Marinov has taken quite a bit of heat over this. But you know what - I agree with the author completely. We as "The Church", or "The body of Christ" are called to be missionaries, so this article applies to us as well. Read for yourself:
********************************************************
Raising Moral Standards of Missionaries to that of Wal-Mart
by Bojidar Marinov, Aug 12, 2009
These last couple of weeks I came across a discussion between Christians about possible boycott of Wal-Mart. The reason is that Wal-Mart outsourced the production of certain goods to Africa and thus took away the livelihood of dozens or even hundreds of families and small businesses in the Midwest who used to produce those goods. The cost went down, the participants admitted, but Wal-Mart outsourced the production to countries where slave labor–and even child slave labor–is used.
I have mixed feelings about such a boycott. On one hand, I am not sure if I want to follow that same logic to the bitter end. As a Texan, I feel bitter against Wal-Mart that buys certain goods from the state of New York and not from Texas; I believe it thus finances the corrupt and greedy bureaucracy of the state of New York. And I can’t see why a corrupt and greedy bureaucracy in the US would be morally superior to a slave holder in Africa. And the logic can be extended further and made even more absurd. On the other hand, corporations should be careful about the moral purity of their actions on the market–for instance, I find no excuse for General Motors co-operating with the Nazis during WWII or using slave labor from the concentration camps.
But I have a bigger question here: What about our missionaries? Do we measure them by the same standard as Wal-Mart?
According to the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, the United States deploys currently a little over 35,000 foreign missionaries across the world. At the average cost of $50,000 per missionary a year, this makes a total of $1.75 billion of Christian money donated for missionaries, whose job is to spread the message of the Bible around the world. Part of that biblical message is the biblical laws against chattel slavery and against all other kinds of immorality, whether personal, cultural, or institutional.
How many of those missionaries actually address the cultural or institutional immorality in the nations where they are at?
Let’s see. Wal-Mart’s primary social function is to provide us with consumer goods at a low price at a convenient place. Preaching the Word of God is not a primary function of Wal-Mart. And yet, we do expect Wal-Mart to observe certain moral standards, and even to impose sanctions on its suppliers on the basis of those standards–by buying or not buying their goods. We expect Wal-Mart to “silently preach” by the powerful medium of its purchasing departments. And when Wal-Mart doesn’t measure up to this standard, we as Christians consider boycotting them.
The primary social function of our foreign missionaries is to preach the Word of God to the nations (Matt. 28:18–20). Not just to individuals, but to whole nations. That means, our missionaries are supposed to do full-time what Wal-Mart is expected to do while conducting its main business. This is the “main business” of our missionaries, to preach against slavery, and against all other kinds of immorality in the nations. Against oppressive social and political systems; against socialist government policies that destroy the families; against cultural practices that break the Law of God; against customs that denigrate individuals or kill the unborn and the defenseless; against traditions and practices that rob people of their life, liberty and property. Missionaries should preach to the nations the beauty of the Law of God, showing them that true happiness and prosperity for a nation comes only when the nation obeys the Law of God (Deut. 4:6–9). If we expect Wal-Mart to withhold its money from those who practice slavery, we should also expect our missionaries to be there and actively denounce slavery and call God’s judgment on those who practice it.
But how many of our missionaries around the world actually preach to the nations? In my ministry, I have met hundreds of American missionaries, and I have seen precious few only who understand their mission as one to whole cultures. The vast majority of them refuse to be “social reformers,” limiting themselves to “saving souls” and “planting churches” only. Tracing it back to the source, we’ll discover that the mission organizations and the missionary boards that sent those missionaries do not even include in their vision statements challenging whole cultures for Christ. You would be hard pressed to find at least one missionary organization that officially includes in its vision statement the eradication of slavery in Africa, or passing pro-life laws in Europe, or the demise of the caste system in India, or the defense of life, liberty and property in Latin America. And of course, tracing it back to the churches, how many churches really hold up the missionaries they support to the same moral standard as Wal-Mart?
Keep in mind that the bulk of the $1.75 billion mentioned above is spent abroad, in cultures that as collective cultures break every single one of the Ten Commandments, starting from “Thou shall have no other gods” down to “Thou shall not covet.” And yet, these cultures meet no challenge whatsoever from our missionaries, except in a few individual converted souls. But then, of course, we expect Wal-Mart to do their job and impose pressure on those cultures.
Judgment always starts from the House of God. Before we look for the specks in the eyes of the Wal-Mart’s executives, we need to see the enormous beams in the eyes of our own churches and missionary boards and organizations. And before we boycott Wal-Mart for failing to “silently preach” to the nations we should start boycotting our own missionaries and mission boards who refuse to openly disciple the nations in the Law of Christ. We should withdraw our money from those who have limited the Gospel of Christ to “saving souls” and “planting churches” and make them reconsider their worldview. It isn’t Wal-Mart’s fault that there is slavery in Africa; it is our fault that we have failed to train and send out missionaries who have comprehensive worldview to evangelize both man and his institutions. It’s about time to raise the moral standard for our missionaries to that for Wal-Mart.
And then, of course, what do we do with our own pastors and denominations here in the US that refuse to challenge an increasingly pagan culture and political establishment? I’ll leave this one for you to figure out.
********************************************************
Until next time.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
