HT to NCFIC

The commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” the Krishevsky family follows quite closely. Last Saturday, the great grandmother, Rachel Krishevsky passed away at the age of 99, leaving behind no less than 1,400 children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and even great-great-grandchildren.

You can read the entire article here.

My favorite pull quote comes from one of her grandchildren:

Grandma was a God-fearing woman…She knew the entire book of Psalms by heart, and participated in all the family events, happy and sad, up until two years ago. She knew all of her descendents. We are sad about her death, but proud of what she achieved in her life and her righteousness and compassion.

Talk about a real life example of a woman’s children rising up and calling her blessed! (Proverbs 31:28)

We have written many times on the Industrial Revolution and what a drastic change it has made to our economic, cultural, and political landscape.  There are so many ramifications, that it is difficult to even identify them, let alone be able to understand their full impact on our lives.  It may be questioned if we are even able to properly assess the different areas it effected; such as our economic system, our family structure, our church life, and even our very beliefs.

Mrs. Parunak has done an admirable job of identifying some of the challenges of parenting, specifically motherhood, that are a direct result of the industrial revolution.

Some people read an article critical of the industrial revolution and think because people are looking at the period with a critical eye, they are against any advancements in technology.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The thing to examine with a critical eye is the impact of the methodology and the shift it brought to our culture.  Advancements in technology, improvements in production, and the economic wealth of a nation are good things in general.  But, one can not embrace the good without examining the cost.

In the article, Why Modern Motherhood is So Much Harder than it Ought to Be, you will be exposed to some of the cost, in regards to our families.

I’m curious as we look at the recent events in America, how many realize the foundational belief system these things are tied to?  When we discuss Palin and the feminist / egalitarian nature of the modern evangelical, do we realize that it is Marxist theology that most evangelicals are spouting when they defend their position?

When we talk about the economy; both the troubles and the foundation of our system, do we see that it has been, since it’s inception, a move towards a socialist world order, based on Marxist ideology?

I wonder how many evangelicals have ever read the short Communist Manifesto to understand the ideas Frederick Engels and Karl Marx outline as their vision of the world economic system.  I must recommend it to everyone who, on one hand claims the name of Christ, and on the other is not self aware concerning their beliefs.  Epistemological self-consciousness is a requirement for Christians.  We are to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.  In other words we must know why we believe what we believe and where those beliefs come from.

Understanding that Karl Marx and Engels where against the industrial capitalism put forth by America, I would recommend a review of their short manifesto as a means of understanding where much of the modern evangelical thought has its roots.  The capitalist are the bourgeois they rail against.  But these are not the same capitalist that we have today.  The capitalist of today as you will see looking over the points below are very much in line with Marx and Engels.  The original capitalist would be the ones who believe in free market economics.  The capitalist of today, believe in government bailouts and the illusion of free market economics.

It is interesting to review the points quoted below from the Communist Manifesto and then watch some of the recent media about Palin or about the Economy.  You will see there is very little difference in the modern capitalist, political leader, or media pundit and Marxist thought.  Of course the greater tragedy is that there is very little difference between today’s evangelical church leaders and Marxist thought.  Here is a link to the entire manifesto, which is a short read and highly recommended as we seek to understand the challenges our nation faces.  The quotes below should be enough to encourage a thorough study of the material.

The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism.

…Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production…

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When you hear our leaders talking about the government taking over the home mortgage industry or the banking industry you are talking about a move towards the Marxist vision for the world.  It has been stated here that this was part of our system from the foundation.  When the government sanctioned corporations and trading pools they took production and wealth out of the family structure and placed it, by means of regulation, into the hands of the civil government.  This is a departure from Biblical thought where the example is production exists in the family, and a move towards Marxist thought where production resides in the hands of the state.

The most liberal translation of Scriptures clearly shows the normative pattern for women is to be their husband’s (not some other man’s) helpmate.  Many seem to be willing to give Palin a free pass on this issue, because she is pro-life, or because she may help to keep a muslim out of office, or for some other “noble” reason.  I’m at a loss to understand their thinking, or at least in my ability to see it as Biblical.  Perhaps, we have just become so use to feminist dogma in this age of female preachers, priest, and senators that we are tainted.  Perhaps, we are so influenced by the culture around us that we are simply unable to think like Christians any more.

It seems that the critiques fall into two categories.  Some are saying we, those who denounce Palin candidacy outright, are being judgmental and are being unfair to her as an individual.  Yet, others are saying that we are not giving due consideration to the idea that God may place Palin in office - that it may be part of His plan. 

To the first, I would state that when someone puts themselves forward for a position of civic or ecclesiastical leadership, they are no longer simply a private individual.  There are two things that happen.  First, their private life becomes open to public scrutiny.  After all, you cannot lead in public if your character is not sound in private.  Secondly, you and your life become intertwined with that office or position.  When we speak of “the president” we are speaking of a person and an office. 

Next, there are two things that come out of the intertwined life of a leader.  First, there is an honor that is due a properly ordained magistrate.  We are to honor the office, because it is ordained by God and by showing honor to the office we procure peace and order for society.  Secondly, that individual life is measured by the qualifications of that office.  As an example, if my 12 year old wanted to run for mayor, he would be judged not on his ability or character as an individual, but on the fact that he does not meet the minimum requirements for that office. 

I point this out to help to clarify, that when someone speaks critical of Palin they may not be speaking of her as an individual, but of her qualifications for an office.  When I make a claim that she is a feminist, I am not making a judgment about her eternal soul, her relationship with God or her heart.  But I am using her life decisions, the words she speaks and the actions she has taken, to judge whether or not she if qualified for the office she is seeking.  I am judging whether her claims to be a Christian line up with the claims her life makes.  It is not my place to make a judgment about her eternal soul, but it most certainly is our place to judge whether or not she is qualified for the office she seeks.

However, the fact that Palin is a woman, means I don’t have to go into those details to determine if she is qualified for civil office… she is not, based on her gender alone.  If you read that last statement and thought I said something about someone being chained to a stove, please re-read the statement and then read this article or look at the posts found on the topic of feminism for a more complete understanding of a counter cultural, but completely biblical concern.

Many seem to try to bend the Scriptures to either say that it is allowable for a woman to serve in a civic or ecclesiastical role.  Or they try to make a distinction between a civic leader and an ecclesiastical leader.  One does not need to go far in Scripture to understand God’s created order and the roles he gave to men and women.  Even if there was not a clear created order in the relationships between men and women, could we find examples of women leading in the scriptures? 

Let’s go through all the kings of Israel, do we see any women leading there?  How about the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, do we see any example of God’s people being lead by a woman?  Let’s search the entire New Testament, are there any examples there?  We have two examples of women who were in the “Whitehouse” of their day.  Both Ester and Jezebel are spoken of as entering into the things of the civil realm.  However, neither of them were civic leaders.  They were married to the king.  One is a great example of courage and the other… well, the other is not.

To be sure there are great women shown to us as examples in the Bible.  In addition to Esther, there are the examples of the mid-wives, Ruth, Rehab, the prophetess Anna in Luke 2, and certainly we should not forget the mother and grandmother of Timothy, Eunice and Lois.  But in all the passages we find, we see but one that seems to indicate some sort of public role, that of Deborah in Judges 4.  Bill Einwechter dealt extensively with that topic and with the topic of women in leadership in general very thoroughly here.  Look for item 5 for the commentary on Deborah.

One last point, on this topic and then I plan to dismiss it from my life.  Many are saying that God may be calling Palin forward as a non-normative leader by His sovereign will.  God may do what He wishes.  But He has given us a standard to live by.  He has graciously given us His Word so that we might be able to make sound judgments and decisions in our lives, including who we might elect for civil leaders.  I’ll be the first to admit, it is difficult to make those decisions in this post Christian nation, but that is our duty none-the-less.  The bottom line is a pro-life feminist, as a VP does not make a bad presidential pick a good one.  If McCain was not a worthy object of our vote last week, he is not worthy of our vote this week. If I may recommend one more article to you, Chuck Baldwin, who is a man worthy of your consideration for this election, has written a thorough review of John McCain’s so called pro-life record.  If we can sum up this issue, it is not about perfection.  We all are sinners worthy of the judgment.  What we are looking for is someone who can meet the minimum requirements.  McCain fails on his understanding of life and the civic and biblical duty to protect it, along with his past martial issues, and Palin fails because she is a woman and a feminist.  Anyone interested in holding Obama up to the light of scriptures?

To serve …beside such a man would be the privilege of a lifetime. And it’s fitting that this trust has been given to me 88 years almost to the day after the women of America first gained the right to vote…. It was rightly noted in Denver this week that (there are) 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

…no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child.  I believe in the strength and the power of women…

So can you name the feminist who made these statements?  Was it the pictured Hillary?  Perhaps, it was Condoleezza Rice?  Or the beloved Margret Sanger?

If you said any of the feminist above, you’d be wrong.  The feminist that made these statements was in fact Governor Palin.  In fact, Governor Palin was speaking of exceeding Hillary Clinton in the speech where she mentioned the glass ceiling.  Since when should a Christian woman be seeking to follow after or over take the path taken by an anti-Christ Marxist?  I am amazed that so many of the normally sound conservative Christians are so quickly willing to give Ms. Palin a pass on how she has embraced the feminist agenda that conflicts so clearly with the teaching of the Bible she claims to follow. 

The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.  (Tit 2:3-5)

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.  (1Ti 2:12-15)

BTW – Scott Brown has noted here that when a glass ceiling is shattered there is going to be and indeed already has been a lot of bloodshed due to feminism.

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but this one leaves me speechless!  Yep, you guessed it, this is none other than First lady Palin and five former first ladies of Alaska. 

I’m not trying to be judgmental or anything, but maybe we should enter Mr. Palin in our Apron giveaway.  What do ya’ll think?   (Check the side bar for a poll on this topic.)

Here is one of the tools we have to judge the situation before us with Mrs. Palin.  We have societal norms and standards, which while they are falling fast, still are based upon a biblical foundation.  This foundation is strong enough for most people to look at this picture and at least do a double take to see what the deal is.  How did you respond?

Here we have a picture of the antithesis.  If it is ok for Mrs. Palin to be a civil leader, then why is it so strange for a her man to be the first lady? 

My friends let us not mince words, if God would not allow a woman to rule over a man in the home or in the church, is it likely that He would condone a woman ruling over all the men in the nation? I think not. At the same time, He may place a woman over this nation according to His sovereign will as a further sign of His judgment upon a nation.  Just like the the weak childish men we have leading us today are a sign of His judgment.

So here is the deal, in honor of calling this debacle what it is, a travesty in American history. If the majority of the Vaughnshire Readers believe that Mr. Palin would make use of a good apron, I personally will buy one and send it to him.  Check the poll on the side bar and register your vote.

One of the many things I love about home schooling my children is that I am able to spend the majority of my time pouring my life into them.   Like all mothers, of course, there are times when I feel spent and in need of refueling.  My husband is so great to remind me of the important aspects of life and not to get bogged down in the mire of frivolous trifles such as toy trails left all over the house by the 2 year old.  Stepping back a few steps and evaluating reality is helpful in regrouping. 

Pouring your life into your children is something the Lord commands of Christian parents.  Deuteronomy 6 is pretty clear on how and why we pour our lives into our children and what we are to pour into them. 

For our daughters, I love the freedom that home education provides me to completely train and educate them in all the aspects of Godly womanhood and femininity.  Like I mentioned before, my daughter and I have household notebooks in which we regulary use to do lots of planning for our home.  Since I am a believer in the live and learn approach to schooling, this household notebook has provided not only an outlet for creative writing, artistic expression, planning and other viable real-life skills, but has more importantly been very useful in handing over little pieces of responsibility that in turn produce a young lady that gains maturity through the process of being handed such responsibilities.  

Shelley Noonan hit the nail right on the head when she states in her article Queen in a Home of Her Own: 

For most of us, the years of 12-18 are the years we begin to purposefully train our daughters in the domestic arts.  But, if we would look at women of the past, a case could easily be made for our daughters to learn much before this time and be capable of running our home by the age 12…..This very idea runs counter to the popular thinking of today that tends to prolong childhood and delay adulthood responsibilities. 

I agree.  Teaching our daughters the how to’s of homemaking starting around the age of 12 is way too late.  We should use the formative years of a young girl’s life, under the age of 12, to take advantage of all the opportunities of home making training.  So practically, what are some of those age appropriate tasks we can expect from our young girls?  And what exactly do you mean when you say young? 

First of all, by young, I mean very young.  I, too, once thought of my children as too little and incapable of most things that now I regularly require of them.  The problem is that many mothers do not readily accept that learning curve phase as one they are willing to deal with;  the mess, the time involved, the imperfection, the repetition and well…”it is just easier to do it myself!” 

Instead of introducing daughters into the arts of cooking at the age of 12, I advocate introducing them into these arts at 3, 4  and 5 years old and by the ages of 6, 7, 8 and 9 they should be actually cooking and producing in the kitchen.  Not perfectly, but well on their way to expanding their knowledge and skills well beyond packaged cookie mix.  By the ages of 8 and 9, it is not unreasonable to regularly taste and smell the wonderful creations coming out of the kitchen and realizing that you didn’t lift a finger to help the cook at her work this time.  And by the age of 12…well, she should be well versed in the kitchen not only in ability but a growing knowledge that only improves with age.  That comes with years of pouring into her starting when she is 3 years old and continuing a consistent training during those most formative years!

I am continually reminding myself that it isn’t just about training in skill, but capturing her heart and attitude during these formative years are the most important! 

To answer the above question on practical tasks we can expect to teach our young girls and at what age?  Stay tuned for some ideas…

I was wondering “out-loud” in the post on The Monstrous Regiment of Women what John Knox would think about Hillary and the political women of today.  Little did I know that the Gunn’s had already asked this question in their interviews for the film.  I was thrilled when Emily posted this link in a comment to my previous post.

If you have not read John Knox’s book, “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women 1558” it is a foundational treatise on the subject of women in civil leadership and well worth the read.  With the coming election potentially bringing this issue to the national stage it is important that Christians understand what the Bible says about this topic.  The challenge in such an emotional topic as this, is to remember that the Bible is the final rule for every decision a Christian makes.  We are not to rely on our feelings, emotions, or even our intellect unless they are conformed to the written word of God.

Our friend Mark has a great post on his site that was a breath of fresh air today. 

My wife likes to write about women being women and embracing their roles as wives and mothers.  That is a great topic and it is a blessing to any man who has ever had a wife whose heart was to truly serve him.  To be clear, yes we are talking about a woman who is a slave.  I say that because all the feminist rage with furry when you talk about wives submitting to their husbands.  However, they miss this simple fact.  The woman is not a slave to her husband, she is slave to Christ.  I’m talking about a woman who knows who she is in Christ and has such a heart to serve him that she is a delight to her husband and her children.  But there are two sides to that coin.  A wife can only be everything God intends for her to be, if her husband is also a slave to Christ.  A Christian man must embrace his God given role and the responsibility that comes with it, if the family is to be complete.

So what does that look like?  In our egalitarian, feminized, post Christian world how is a man suppose to act?  This is an issue which could be discussed in great detail.  There are many character traits such as, honor, integrity, honesty, humility and others that could be expounded upon and discussed in terms of how men understand and display those attributes today, compared to what the Bible has to say about them.  But Mark’s post brings out what is possibly one of the most important things for a man to be able to deal with in this age – conflict.  In today’s world, where a biblical world view is being attacked both from within and out of the church, a man must be able to deal with the conflict that will come his way in a God honoring fashion.

Mark gives the following three options for how we may approach conflict which I’d like to comment further on.

“The “let’s just all get along” approach.”

This is the approach where men have no convictions they are willing to stand for.  They are more interested in saving face or not offending anyone than standing for biblical truths or more importantly Biblical practices.  CS Lewis called them, “Men without chests”.

In contrast there is:

 ”The “let’s just all stab each other in the back” approach.”

This is where the men have neither the desire or the mental ability to actually discuss deep important issues, so they setup straw-men and pretend to be witty or wise as they try to knock them down at the expense of the person they are talking at.  These men don’t actually talk to one another because they are busy trying to get the other person trapped in something they can capitalize on.  It doesn’t matter what is said or the ethics behind it as long as they win the debate. 

“However, there is a third approach, one that is biblical and requires boldness to set forth:

A willingness to set aside surface issues of disagreement until we take responsibility to set the scriptures as our standard. This applies not only to resolving issues of debate, but more importantly, in setting forth a Christ honoring example in our relationship to the brother that we wish to debate, and the church that will be watching. Lastly, holding other brothers accountable when they do not live by this standard.

This is the essence of bold and manly discussion.

This is the approach that is not only manly, but is also one that shows biblical love.  It is the one that is the most difficult because it requires that one put aside his differences and set aside his pride to hear the other person and focus on understanding what they are saying and where they are coming from.  It is also the approach where a man must stick to hard truths even when they are not understood or are hard for the other person to hear.  It is the only approach that will bear fruit and bring any glory to God.

Thank you Mark for a timely reminder of these truths.