Survival Mode

It has occurred to me that too many people are in survival mode to look beyond their present circumstances. It is true that in Matthew 6:34 Jesus says, "Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will worry about itself." BUT, it also says in Proverbs that a wise man sees trouble and plans for it (takes refuge) whereas the simple keep going and suffer for it. Obviously, balance must come into play here and that will look different for everyone, but Biblical principles hold true no matter what our circumstances.

My point in this is so many Christians (esp. large families) are so concerned with basic survival (which in reality, their idea of *basic survival* is still incredibly luxurious when compared to the billions of people who have lived before them as well as over hmmmmmmmmmmmm 85% of the rest of the world's population), that they neglect to look at the long term logical extensions of the *principles* they live on. And the reality is the principles they live on are not even based on anything other than *what is most convenient and expedient for me and my family* which is enough to make me barf.

For example, on my favorite board we've been discussing a lot of forced wealth transfer issues lately. One lady was upset when I referenced the fact that indeed barring a miracle from the Lord God Almighty himself and Ron Paul were to be elected, a socialist (doesn't really matter what party) would be elected and all their *pet* social programs would continue uninterrupted. She was upset because I used the word *pet*. Well, I'd write the following to her, but, once again, her husband is not interested in providing a decent enough living for them so that they are not on forced wealth transfer programs to provide for their food, so my breath would be wasted. The fact is, on principle, I do not believe in any wealth transfer programs (including subsidies for farmers, corporations and foreign aid of ANY kind, EBT, WIC, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, Pell Grants, student loans, National Arts Association, Memorial Parks, Congressional Medals of Honor, and whatever other bags of goodies of programs I don't even know about). Basically, I do not support any program that is not mentioned in the constitution as a legitimate function of government.

Now any reasonable person would agree that we have WAY too many excesses in government. I KNOW that the lady who replied to me would agree. BUT, in her mind there are very legitimate forms of wealth transfer programs that she applauds and directly uses. I'm not sure on what basis she approves them other than *she is doing right in her own eyes*, which I do not agree is a legitimate litmus test as to whether something is right or wrong. So, by definition, she *knows* she does not approve of each and every program, and therefore, she does indeed have *pet social welfare* programs. But, apparently she doesn't want to own up to that. Sigh.

That is the problem...most everyone wants their piece of the pie, but they don't want to have it accurately described as that. They want to pretend that it is the *Lord's provision*, which of course is supernatural and doesn't involve taxation from one individual or corporation to give to another. That definition just might make one so uncomfortable they'd have to give it up. LOL

One of the moderators, a very logical girl for them most part, but her husband believes in wealth transfers and makes ~$30,000 per year for a family of 7, objects to my definition of forced wealth transfer as being not so nice. I asked her for a more kindly way to define it (other than that property taxes are taxes that are extorted from property owners at the threat of gunpoint should you choose not to pay your taxes and stay on the property that you rightfully own (assuming you don't have a loan from a Federal Reserve Bank, in which case they hold the title and you do not)). She could not. She did not object to the accuracy of my definition; rather her complaint is that when I state things that way, it causes women to either be dissatisfied in their marriage or for them to abandon their sense of what is right to defend their husband's wrong choices. So...anyone care to tell me why the marriage relationship supersedes the obligation to hmmm.....not steal or to not covet? Apparently among Christian women the obligation to submit to your husbands even when they are total screw-ups is the idol they worship at, never mind they make their families ultimately weaker and provide for a weaker society and as my husband is fond of pointing out, all debts must be repaid; so apparently it is okay to stick the debt to their children in the name of submitting to your husband. Of course, one could make the assumption (and I guess I will since I'm not telling you to divorce your husbands), that as long as you're sticking with your husband you're using fewer wealth transfer programs than you otherwise would. True. Still doesn't make any of it right...but if we must integrate incremental steps, I guess this will do.

Now, that said, I know it is not easy when your husband does not believe in adequately providing for his family. I'm not suggesting you leave him. BUT, I am suggesting you recognize that your husband's choices not only are poor, and they will affect not only your family in a negative way but again make a weaker society overall, making it more difficult for your children when they grow older and so don't jump all over someone when they point this out. Rather, inside, acknowledge that hmmm....they're right, but this is the way it is for your family so why not keep your mouth shut instead of jumping up to defend him as if in some way you are restoring his honor (which you're not).

Another poor logical statement is that it is a husband's and wife's business how they educate their children (which it is as long as the decision made is for homeschool or private school) and that if they choose public education it is none of our business. Excuse me? How ridiculous is that. Of course it's *our* business. When you make an application for public $ to be spent on behalf to support a decision that is an option for you instead of a requirement, you have opened your decision to be scrutinized (and dare I say *judged*) by others (as opposed to hmm.....having to use legal tender instead of gold and silver because that is what the law clearly states and Biblically speaking we are to obey our leaders unless they are requiring something contrary to the word of God). To say that somehow that when someone applies for a government program noone should judge them is so out in left field it is difficult for me to craft a response that maintains the dignity of that person. How ridiculous. Do I really have to state the obvious? Apparently so. Let me do this again so that I am completely unambiguous.

When one chooses a course of action that requires public $ to be spent on your behalf, specifically, (be it Medicaid, EBT, WIC, Section 8 housing, public school) you have opened up that area of your life relating to that decision to be scrutinized by others.

You have no reasonable expectation that that decision is between you and your husband anymore. To think that you do is insane imnsho. Good grief.

On another related tangent:
Romans 9:14-22

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

It has occurred to me on my board, that perhaps my problem is this; I view all the ladies there as created for noble purposes, even if they haven't seen it yet. Perhaps they are not and I need to not address them as if they are. It does not mean they are loved any less by the Lord, but it does mean that his purpose for their life is different than mine. I know that comes across as incredibly arrogant, but I have been told by many people that I have a gift for this; cutting to the point of issues without the baggage of emotion and subjectivity. Really, I am an imperfect human (just ask my husband and children) , but I do believe I have some special talents and was created for some bigger things than others.......I hope that I will have used the many talents (I believe I was given more than 1 as per the story there in Matthew) to the best of my abilities so that the Lord will say "Well done, good and faithful servant."