Vaughnshire Farm

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.

For some reason this primary season came up too fast for me to give it much attention.  Honestly, it is likely the fact that I’m tired of the fake WWW wrestling match between the two parties that contributed to my un-enthusiastic interest in this year’s election.  Whatever the reason for my own disillusionment, the primary is upon us and we do have our duty to fulfill.  Since that duty is not to just run out and punch the ballot for whatever party we have grown up supporting, I thought I’d post a link or two for some political encouragement during this frustrating season.

This is an important topic in our day and age, or in any age for that matter.  Although I fear the reason I think so would not be the same reasons most might agree with that statement.  Many want to put their trust in the electoral process and electing the “right leaders”.  They believe it is important because as the Psalms tell us, when the righteous rule the people rejoice.  I do believe the blessings of righteous leaders is a biblical principle and pray for the day that we or perhaps our grandchildren would see the righteous in the seats of government once again.

However, the reason I believe this is an important topic has nothing to do with a misguided hope that the “right leader” will make everything OK.  It has everything to do with our obedience to God’s law in supporting candidates that are “biblically qualified” to hold office.  The standard is not who is electable, or who has raised the most money, or who won Florida.  The standard is, “What does God say a civic leader ought to look like?”  Since I have not committed the time to fully work through the candidate’s positions and qualifications yet, I thought I would share an article by Bill Einwechter, titled “Biblical Standards for Choosing Civil Magistrates“.  This is a very powerful and scriptural treatise on this topic which will discuss the standards a leader should adheer to. 

Of course there are other excellent discussions on topics such as women in office, the validity of third party candidates, and more which can be found here:

Then once we have a good solid biblical foundation for what we are doing on Tuesday and the standard to judge the candidates by, I have seen a few folks talking about the following site which seems to be a decent resources for getting to know the candidates that are lobbying for our votes.

http://www.knowbeforeyouvote.com/

I pray each of us are encouraged in the Lord and that we remain faithful to pray for our nation and indeed for a true repentance that will lead not to the revival of our hearts but to the reformation of our souls.  This Tuesday (or November) is not the answer to the problems our nation faces, but it is a chance to stand before God and show yourself faithful to His standards - And His people, being faithful to His standards, is the answer to the problems our nation faces.

Here is an interesting look at how well the government schools have done in indoctrinating our nation in the politically correct ideas of the War Between the States.

Ron Paul has said that Lincoln was wrong to invade the south and press the war.  Do you agree?  Here is your chance to vote.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/26/hot-seat-lincoln-wrong-to-fight-civil-war/

It is a very interesting social study if nothing else….  As the numbers stand at this moment I’m actually fairly impressed that a good number of folks seem to at least grasp the idea that 618,000 dead American’s is bad.  I doubt that most of them are voting on the basis of states rights or other principles, but it is a much closer poll at this moment than I would have imagined.  A majority of people in at least most of the traditional southern states and some confederate minded people in the north west, with the exceptions of the liberal coastal states, agree with Paul’s statement.

Check it out and place a vote.

Like R.C. Jr. stated in his latest Kingdom Notes we too rejoice that God sent His Son!  In like manner, as R.C. is grateful for the Puritans and the good they did for the Kingdom of Heaven, we are grateful for R.C. Sproul Jr and the good he has done for the Kingdom of Heaven.  However, like R.C. disagrees with the puritans on Christmas, so must we disagree with R.C. on Christmas.

I agree with so much of what R.C. stands for and what he has given the church in this generation.  The entire idea of being “simple, separate, and deliberate” for the sake of the Kingdom is something that resonates within my very being.  So it is with inner turmoil that I even voice a dissent.  I will endevor to be as gracious as possible, while still seeking the truth on this important matter.  I have been asking questions on the issue of Christmas for several years as evidence by the postings from last year on December 25th and the summary post in march.

There are many points to this fairly deep theological discussion, many of which I have mixed feelings about.  But for this posts there are two points I’d like to address.  These are two particular items that seem to be ignored by my Presbyterian friends, which I would welcome an answer to.

First, the puritans where not alone in their rejection of the holiday. The Scotch-Irish Presbyterians where in league with them, along with many other reform minded groups.  In fact according to many of the articles and videos studied most of these groups did not embrace Christmas until the mid to late 1800’s; the obvious exceptions being the Anglicans and Lutherans.  (See section 6 on this article for one reference.)

Secondly, no one seems to address the issue of the second commandment as it relates to this subject and the regulative principle of worship.  Specifically I am thinking of the 109th question in the Westminster Larger Catechism.

Q. 109 What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

A. The sins forbidden are all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any pretence whatsoever.

There seem to be some pretty strong points here against Christmas or other church sanctioned holidays that I have not seen my Christmas celebrating friends address.

I’ll grant some additional complexity to the issue as we look at jurisdictions or spheres of authority.  How do we answer the question of Christmas as it relates to family government, church government, and civil government?  Each of these are distinct jurisdictions created and ordered by God.  As such, he speaks to how each of these should operate.

I think most of those in the reformed faith would agree the civil government does not have the authority to establish a religious holiday other than specific days of fasting and thanksgiving.  If I remember my David Barton studies correctly this was a 3 day debate in the Continental Congress when it finally concluded in the affirmative, specifically and only, for days of fasting and thanksgiving.  In the story that David Barton relates the body drew heavily from the book of Ester, and ultimately concluded the matter with the following resolution: (- which I quote more for the separation of church and state folks than for the Christmas discussion.)

IN CONGRESS DECEMBER 11, 1776.
WHEREAS, the just War into which the United States of America have been forced by Great-Britain, is likely to be still continued by the same Violence and Injustice which have hitherto animated the Enemies of American freedom:

And, whereas it becomes all public Bodies, as well as private Persons, to reverence the Providence of GOD, and look up to him as the supreme Disposer of all Events, and the Arbiter of the Fate of Nations:

Therefore the CONGRESS hereby RESOLVE,

That it be recommended to all the States, as soon as possible to appoint a Day of solemn Fasting and Humiliation, to implore of Almighty GOD the Forgiveness of the many Sins prevailing among all Ranks, and to beg the Countenance and Assistance of his Providence in the Prosecution of this just and necessary War.  The Congress do also in the most earnest manner recommend to all the Members of the United States, and particularly to the Officers civil and military under them, the Exercise of Repentance and Reformation; and further, do require of the said Officers of the military Department, the strict Observation of the Articles of War in general, and particularly that of said articles which forbids profane Swearing, and all other Immoralities; of which all such Officers are desired to take Notice.  It is left to each State to issue Proclamations fixing the Day that appear most proper for their several Bounds.

Extract from the Minutes,
CHARLES THOMPSON, Secretary.
Hartford: Re-Printed by EBEN. WATSON.

All of that really to say the civil government can not “Biblically” declare a religious holiday other than days of fasting and thanksgiving. 

In the matter of family government, I’ll readily grant that a father has the right within his home to set aside special days throughout the year to help catechize his family.  The question for each head of household would then be one of wisdom and prudence in what he is communicating and the time he is communicating it.  It seems that by choosing December 25th to study the incarnation he would be promoting the publicly understood and culturally normal idea of the holiday.  There is a strong possibility that no matter what truth was read or stated it would appear the culture was driving it because of the events taking place outside of the home.  But all of this seem to me to be a matter of conscience for the heads of household to wrestle with.  As R.C. said we would not require one to violate their own conscience for the sake of conformity in this matter.  (There is a great summary of the challenges for the heads of households in this matter and additional considerations here.) 

This does lead us to the final sphere of authority, that is the church.  How is it that a church could have a Christ-mass service such as the Romans do and not infringe upon a man’s conscience who descents from embracing these very activities?  We are absolutely commanded to attend church and to partake of the divine benefits of the teaching of the Word and of the sacraments practiced.  What then becomes of a man who for matters of conscience does not wish to embrace the culture of Christmas but finds his church, his very place of worship, decorated in the themes or participating in the practices that he finds objectionable?

The second objection in this sphere goes back to the regulative principle and how God commands us to worship him.  If we are free to impose devices of our own choosing within the church service then why do reformed churches not practice drama and other such follies in the midst of a church service?  (We will let alone the traditional Christmas plays that take place during the normal weekly church service in much of American Christendom today and just focus on those of a reformed belief that embrace the regulative principle of worship.  See this post if this idea is new to you.)  If we are free to add seasonal decorations of Christmas trees and holly then on what grounds does one deny strobe lights in the church?  If we are free to leave off our normal order of service to focus on a specific seasonal theme or aspect of the Scriptures in December then what rule is there to keep us faithful the remainder of the year?  Why not just adopt the entire Roman church calendar?  Lastly, where are we a) commanded or allowed to set the time of Christ’s birth and b) commanded or allowed to make a hollowed day out of it, as a person, a church, or a civil government?  I’m sure there are other aspects of the 2nd commandment to be considered, but I’d be happy if someone could just answer these few questions.

I’ll close with yet another thing we agree with R.C. Jr. on.  We agree that indeed there is ”something worth celebrating in the birth of Jesus”.  However, we would say that God’s Word commands us to celebrate it 52 times a year in our regular Lord’s Day service.  It is also true, as R.C. said, that God does not “require” us to celebrate a special day as the day of his birth.  However, the real issue, that R.C. does not address, is that neither does God command it.

While we may be confused by our Presbyterian brothers who seem to depart from orthodoxy in the matter of Christmas, we still are very excited about the good work they do.  Specifically I would give an endorsement to anything R.C. has recorded or written.  If you don’t have the basement tapes, I think no library is complete without them.  If you have not read R.C.s books then I would recommend that you get some as soon as possible.  If you are a home school family I couldn’t recommend a more encouraging book than, “When You Rise Up, A Covenantal Approach to Homeschooling“.  And by the way, just for the record, I don’t think I have seen someone do as much justice to the santa hat as R.C. does.  Simply as a winter fashion statement, it works for R.C.

Written by:
Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas
Elijah Ministries

The Apostle Paul teaches us that God’s love needs to abound in both judgment and knowledge (Philippians 1:9). Love does have parameters which God has defined in His word. In stating this truth, there is still no question that both Testaments of God’s word declares His deep concern for the poor and those who suffer under the weight of poverty.

To deal effectively against the onslaught of lack, however, one must discern its root cause. Biblically, this root is revealed as idolatry. There is a reason why the Christian West has prospered and has experienced a better quality of life beyond pagan nations. We, at least, historically, worshipped the true and living God. He became our great benefactor as a result. But notice, how much our wealth is being drained as we become more idolatrous. Jobs are going overseas and illegal immigration is straining our national infrastructure.

We must also discern Biblically how God expects mankind to deal with the poverty. On the one hand, He declares the poor shall always be amongst us (John 12:8). So, we can never tire of God’s prescriptions on how we handle poverty. First, God’s word teaches us that hunger should work for a man. Hunger is used by God to combat man’s natural inclination to be lazy, slothful, and unproductive. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 states, “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should they eat.” Thus, God’s first line of defense against poverty is self-government. Each person is responsible before God to serve, work, and be industrious in some meaningful way in this life. In fact, the Apostle Paul goes one step further and states, “Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth (Ephesians 4:28).” So not only is it God’s will for a man to work to satisfy his own hunger, he should work to help others in need as well.

Some might argue, what happens if an individual is handicapped or incapacitated? What happens if someone cannot work to provide his own needs? What happens then? In such cases, God introduces His second line of defense to defeat poverty, which is family government. 1 Timothy 5:8 states, “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” God expects the family to care for its own. Parents are to lay up for the children and as life progresses and the parents age, the children are to care for the parents. This is God’s social security and welfare system. At one time in America’s history, this brilliant system was known as family. Today, however, it is called Federal Programs.

Lastly, if these two governments fail, the last line of defense is the Church of Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 5:16 states, “If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.” Notice the Church is called upon only in the case the family cannot perform its duty. James stated, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” God expects His Church to feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit the sick and prisoner, relieved the oppressed, and be a father to the fatherless, especially, when individuals and families fail in their responsibilities.

There is no mention, however, where God calls the state to care for the poor. The symbol of God’s authority ascribed to the state is a sword. It is not a spoon or a welfare trough. The reason for God prohibiting the state to be involved in caring for the poor is man’s natural inclination towards idolatry. The one who meets the need, tends to be the one worshipped.

Plus, we need to weigh the Biblical principle that teaches, he who serves, leads, especially, when it comes to ministering to the poor. The humanist that views the state as the ultimate authority understands this concept a lot better than the Church. It is also this ignorance on the part of the Church that is one of the leading reasons why we have become irrelevant in our nation. The humanists have replaced the role of the Church in our nation with Marxist, socialist, policies that are taxing us to death to care for the poor. Their pagan philosophy is cradle to the grave government programs. This empowers them and is one of the reasons why they are leading our nation further and further away from the God of our fathers and the Biblical principles that blessed us in times past. Ultimately, civil government pursuing this idolatrous course will eventually go broke as they try to play God in the life of its citizens. The bottom line is civil government can never be used as a replacement for Almighty God amongst the citizenry. It is a terrible substitute for God and fathers for that matter. Civil government should never be viewed as Jehovah Jirah, the One who sees the need and provides. Unfortunately, for too many Americans, this is exactly the national view. Too many believe the Savior of mankind resides in Washington DC, rather than being born in Bethlehem.

Add to this dilemma, there are well-meaning Christians who are lacking in a Biblical worldview when it comes to these crucial matters. Thus, they inadvertently prop up this deplorable condition that robs God of His worship and robs from people the incentive of living productive lives. Therefore let us return to God, understand his word, and apply His truth to the burning issues of the day. This is the only way we can effectively minister to the poor, secure God’s worship, and bring our government back to its Biblical and Constitutional jurisdictions.

The Difference Between Capitalism and Industrial Capitalism 

After my long “discussion” on the lack of a Biblical foundation for the notion of federally authorized and created entity or “persons” commonly called corporations, I want to be clear that I am not against people making money.  I’m not against capitalism as a political / economic system, I am very much in favor of true capitalism.  However, what I see changing the face of the America I grew up in, is the Industrial Capitalism planted in seed form before the war between the states.  The difference is a true free market economy verses a system where every big business has such a symbiotic relationship with the government that it might as well be communism.

Just as a reminder, for those of us who are government educated, Communism, at its roots, is government control over the tools of production.  It is interesting to note that Communism is a response to the dangers of Industrial Capitalism; the “bourgeois”.  It did not come about until the 19th century when Industrial Capitalism was on the rise and its chief complaints are against the fruits of Industrial Capitalism (IC), not traditional Capitalism.  While The Communist Manifesto correctly identifies many of the weaknesses of IC, it posits a solution that leads to less freedom and a stronger state.  (Not a position that tends to advance liberty!) 

So then, what is the difference between Capitalism and Industrial Capitalism?  It would be trite to say that it is a sole proprietorship verse a corporation, but it is.  But it is much more than that. 

• It is a philosophy as well as an economic discipline
• It is a nation of families, verses a nation of individuals
• It is community, verses nationalism
• It is Calvinism, verses Unitarianism
• It is filling a need, verses marketing a good
• It is traditionalism, verses progressivism
• It is free market, verses government control
• It is agrarian, verses industrialism
• It is gold currency, verses paper notes
• It is small town shops, verses large scale production

It is all these things and so much more.

Robert Sobel in The Pursuit of Wealth speaks to one aspect of this.  In the chapter “Emperor Wheat and King Cotton”, he states:

“One historian, Eugene Genovese, in some of his works, most notably The Political Economie of Slavery, has argued persuasively that the southern frame of mind was precapitalist.  While northern businessmen were concerned about maximizing their wealth, southern cotton planters, while hoping to live graciously, were more interested in preserving their way of life.” (emphasis not in the original)

I think this quote sums it up fairly well, in that the difference between capitalism (which he calls pre-capitalism) and industrial capitalism is a different approach to life.  One says, “it’s the economy stupid”, the other says some things just aren’t for sale.  It’s a matter of priorities.  One says that if I can just make a little more money, then I can buy the things my family “needs”.  The other says, the more time I spend making money the more my family needs things that can not be bought.

This captures the heart of the difference between industrial capitalism and true capitalism.  It would be a great study to compare each of these items one by one.  But perhaps the more telling study will be to contrast the fruit of the industrial capitalism as a whole to the fruit of true capitalism.  We’ll begin to take a look at the fruit of industrial capitalism next.

• Is Walmart Evil? - Part 1 Corporations
• Is Walmart Evil? - Part II Corporations Continued
• Is Walmart Evil? - Part III Capitalism verse Industrial Capitalism
• Is Walmart Evil? - Part IV The Fruit of Industrial Capitalism
• Is Walmart Evil? - Part V The Fruit of True Capitalism

A few more lingering thoughts on corporations before we get to Capitalism.

A corporation is a creature of the state in every sense of the word. It must have the blessing of the state to exist. It must play by the rules of the state according to the industry it competes in. Depending on the industry, it is subject to governmental control through regulations instituted by departments such as OSHA, ATF, the departments of the treasury, transportation, and agriculture, the FAA, The Surgeon Generals office and any number of other governmental offices that have a measure of authority over most of the corporations in operation today. If you want to see where your tax dollars are at work, check this site out for a fairly exhaustive list of governmental agencies.

If you add to this direct control the national aspect of corporations and the huge sums of money that flow through the boards of these organizations, you see another connection between the government and the corporations, that of mutual financial benefit. If you have any doubts of this, revisit the details behind Enron, or any of these telling articles:

• Oracle Giving
• Political Accountability,
• The Hill

Two last points on corporations. According to The Pursuit of Wealth, by Robert Sobel, Corporations are a means to control the competition that threaten the business people’s existence. They evolved from pools and trust, a la The Sherman Anti-Trust act, and where originally called holding companies. They were a vehicle used to buy up competition and transportation positions that would squeeze out the competition’s ability to transport their products, specifically on railroads.

When they arrived on the scene corporations where not received by everyone with joy. Senator William Lindsay of Kentucky cautioned the members of the American Academy of Political and Social Science in 1900,

“We have reached the point at which the individual feels he can no longer compete with his incorporated rival, and where members of old-line partnerships are no longer willing to pledge their personal credit in competition with members of incorporated companies.”

In other words, the corporations were killing the small business. Walmart anyone? We’ll have to come back to that thought, but has anyone seen the gutted downtown areas of America’s small towns where Walmart has come in?

So how were the corporations able to get the upper financial hand? After all it’s just men running the organization. What makes it superior to a family business or local partnership?

One of the ways they out distanced the individual businessmen, was the means of raising capitol. A corporation can raise funds via a more liquid assets in the form of stock and they could do so beyond the actual value of the assets of the corporation. People would (and still do) pay a premium on the stock price based on what they believe the company will do in the future. First, just strictly from a biblical perspective, this is called gambling or speculation. I think one could make a strong case that this is not acceptable for a Christian.

Let me be clear, investing is where you purchase part of a company’s tangible assets and become a part owner in the company. There is hope for the future, but value for today. If the company goes under, you can sell the assets and receive your original funds back. (barring other risks) Gambling is where you pay for part of a company that is valued beyond it’s assets with the hope it will preform in the years to come. If this company goes bankrupt, there are not enough assets to pay the shareholders and you loose most of what you put up.

Back in the late 1800’s they called this process stock watering and according to Sobel, “to prudent investors of that day this seemed tantamount to fraud.”

“Depriving a [corporation] of its stock-watering feature,” surmised Senator Lindsay, “is almost the same as depriving a venomous serpent of its fangs.”

We are so steeped in the language of corporations, let me give an example of what this might look like in a partnership. The richest man in Babylon comes to me and wants me to invest with him in some fine Persian rugs. The rugs can be purchased in bulk in Persia for 100 talents of gold per 100 rugs. The rugs currently sale for 2 talents apiece here in Babylon. The risks are, theft, damage in shipment (camel trips and falls), another supplier comes and loads the market with better rugs, or cheaper rugs, etc…

Now, we have the same situation, but the rugs are currently selling for 1 talent a rug and we are buying them at 1 talent a rug. However, the richest man says, hey I have an inside tip and I know that there is going to be this huge rug seminar to teach people about how superior Persian rugs are and the prince has promised to buy one from us so we know everyone is going to be wanting a rug, so I’m certain we can sell these rugs for 2 talents apiece. This is called speculation… it’s called gambling.

All business has risk, but not all business investment is speculation.

Of course, what the corporations can do with this capitol is the point, not the individual responsibilities with investments. With it they can control prices, endure hard times, and drive every competitor they desire out of business. Remember this was the original reason for the creation of these companies; to control the competition.

After they remove the local family store, the corporations remove the money from the local market and place it in the hands of a few men to distribute as they see fit. This is re-distribution of wealth. This is one of my chief complaints against Walmart. Every dollar spent in their store goes directly to Bentonville AR. Money spent in a local store will support and benefit 5 to 8 neighbors before it leaves the community.

Here are a few links to bring this back home to Walmart:

• http://www.ourfuture.org/docUploads/sticker_dl_color.pdf - Walmart bumper sticker
• http://www.newrules.org/retail/midcoaststudy.pdf - Effects on a small town
• http://economics.missouri.edu/~baskere/papers/ - other articles

Of course we should not miss the political giving. Even if they are giving to “conservative” organizations, they are buying benefits for them, not us. They are taking our money and giving it to causes which benefit them, not our family or our community. But, that’s what we can expect when we give our money and our business away to the lowest bidder.

Again, there is more to life than price. Wall Street may judge on numbers, but we have the capacity to discern between right and wrong.

Don’t forget to contact Walmart and let them know what you think.

http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=224 - Contact Walmart

• Is Walmart Evil? - Part 1 Corporations
• Is Walmart Evil? - Part II Corporations Continued
• Is Walmart Evil? - Part III Capitalism verse Industrial Capitalism
• Is Walmart Evil? - Part IV The Fruit of Industrial Capitalism
• Is Walmart Evil? - Part V The Fruit of True Capitalism

What a week in the news for the idea of separation of Church and State.  We must be getting near an election or something of that nature.  American Vision, much like Chalcedon in the previous article has captured an important aspect of the design and purpose of Josiah Project.

Separation of church and state is not a historical concept that originated with the founding fathers.  In fact it is completely antithetical to the documents they wrote, the laws they passed, and their actions while in office.

James Madison

“The historical facts dispute this seemingly authoritative interpretation of the First Amendment. James Madison issued at least four Thanksgiving Day proclamations.3 If the Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court has accurately captured the meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, then Madison “violated both his oath of office and the very instruments of government that he helped write and labored to have ratified.””

Check out the complete American Vision Commentary of the Newsweek article here.

Here is a great summary of the governments of God that captures the heart of JosiahProject….

———————————- 

Rev. R.J. Rushdoony
September 11, 2006California Farmer 237:3 (Sept. 2, 1972), p. 36.

California Farmer 237:3 (Sept. 2, 1972), p. 36.One of the more serious examples of false or muddled thinking today is with a regard to the use of the words “church” and “government.” When people say “government,” they usually mean the state or federal government, and nothing could be more false. The Puritans knew better. The state for them was “civil government.”

Government meant first of all the self-government of the Christian man. There is no more basic and important government in society than that. Government also means the family, a very important area of rule and authority. It means the school, which governs the early lives of people, and it means also the church, a very essential area of government.

Our work governs us, as do our friends and relatives, and the people of our community, by their attitudes and opinions.  Continue Reading here.