SAHD Fathers

It's really, really difficult for me to take I Tim 5:8 (I assume that's the citation) to be a command for men to be the bread-winners of the household. How does this verse assign the providing to men:

"But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

Are you basing it on the "his"? Given that that's the only biblical citation that applies to the crux of the issue (men should be providers), I find the argument unconvincing.

Also - this is a side note - we have to stop talking about the family as a separate entity that operates alongside the church. The family is a part of the church. There's a good reason some old Southern Christian folk call each other brother and sister, because we are brother and sister, just as much so as blood relations.

Parenting starts with birth parents, but the entire church has a hand in it.

Feistily,
Tim

First, to the second part of your comment. I never said anything contrary to the latter part of your comment. Yet you cannot assume that Mom/Dad/Kids are not directly addressed with certain imperatives in Eph 5/6. Yes, the covenant community is comprised of these families and of course has a part in the raising of children...but it never takes the primary responsibility off of parents - which was given in Deuteronomy and extends in the NT instructions about family.

And what is it with the language "old Southern Christian Folk" - Are you reliving your roots? I think it is more than "southern Christians" who use that language - all do, no? I was not raised in "Southern Christian folk" context but understood the use of "brother and sister" as a very new Christian. Not sure of your point there?

To your comment about 1 Timothy 5:8 - The whole context for 1 Timothy 5, that of family and provision (for widows both old and young), screams the issue. Why was the church charged to care for those who were truly widows? They were women in the community who had no support. The apostle first argues that their family should care for them, then the church. Nobody would write about this today...especially for younger widows. Why does Paul include "marriage" in his discussion of younger widows if the marriage did not bring provision? A man was to provide...this is very simple to see is it not? To provide is more than to just make money, but certainly taking care of one's physical needs is in view in this context.

Now we may choose to (or want to) explain this as "for that time" or "because of an agricultural society" etc. Someone can present that argument and certainly those who argue against any social structures being ordered in Scripture do so. Some would say - that is just an old goofy cultural custom that men should take care of their families. We never want a woman to ever be dependent on a man for anything ever again. Some do argue this way and despise the biblical view of father led homes.

So Tim, are you making the case that the Old and New Testaments do not demonstrate that fathers should provide for their families? Maybe I am missing something in your objection, but I find it completely true on its face that men were to provide for their families in the OT/NT...and yes, the communal aspect is present, I didn't deny that.

I could be wrong though - so do more than just react and give historical, biblical evidence that men did not and were not expected to provide for their families.

Remember, I have daughters. I desire for them to be intelligent, well educated, gainfully employed at some point, confident women quite able to find service and joy in paying vocations. I just want them to marry men who will be responsible, kind and loving husbands and fathers...who feel a burden to provide for a family. So my girls can also bear the title, if able to have children, that God only gives to women - Mom.

One final question - why do you feel so feisty on these issues?

First of all, I like the usage by old Southern Christian folk. It reflects a fantastic reality.

Also, I wasn't suggesting that you would disagree with me on church-as-family; I just like to call attention to it over and over again, because I think it's that important.

On to the more substantive point.

First of all, I'm all for taking the "for that time", "agricultural society", etc. card off the table. We obviously don't wave the culture wand over the Bible and make it disappear.

Secondly, I want to start by only addressing I Tim 5. That's the verse in question, so I'm going to limit the conversation to that first, and we can expand outward from there.

So on to verse 5. The question we're addressing is whether or not it's okay for men to stay home and raise kids, rather than women in certain situations. This is a more specific question than I think you're dealing with. The question isn't whether men are to act as heads of household (yes), or whether men are to be the spiritual leaders of their families (yes). The question is, very specifically, is it biblically permissable for men to stay at home and watch kids. This is a pastoral and practical question, rather than a theoretical one. So if we're taking that verse (5:8) to apply to this situation, let's read it:

"But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

So are stay-at-home dads "[denying] the faith" and "worse than an unbeliever"? I think that's not at all the situation he's addressing. Paul is confronting laziness and responsibility, not gender roles. If the family cannot eat, then dad darn well better get out and work, and that, I think, is what Paul's saying here. But for a great many folks (especially up here in the Northeast), they're confronted with hard choices. And often there will be seasons of life in which the men will stay home (this is common at my work, which has very favoritable paternity leave policies). If we take this passage to apply to them, then any time spent not receiving a paycheck by choice is a grave sin for a man with a family. I think the context (taking care of widows, family) rules that out.

It's not that I can't go with you on gender roles (I've just about come around on women elders), and I think that there are biblical roles for men/women. But we have to be rigid where the Bible calls for rigidity and flexible where it doesn't. Changing times will call for changes in the way we approach masculinity and femininity, and we have to make sure that the ideas we have are biblical, and not merely traditional.

Do you have some other verses that apply to this situation specifically (men staying home)?

oooh, how fun is it to read this?!

i have to somehow agree with you both (as if my uneducated opinion mattered). yes, the Bible is very clear here and other places that men are to provide. yet. providing may not necessarily mean financials--such as Tim was writing about with spiritual leaders and heads of household. and, perhaps providing financially, with material necessities, food, etc., could also be making sure that the wife's (who is more than happy with her job and finds pursuing it to be Biblically and heartfully correct) income is providing for such needs, budgeting (though, the majority of this I think goes to the more detailed person--anyone a fan of Dave Ramsey's view on this?).

but, this gets very messy does it not? the "coulds" and "perhaps" always drive me up the wall. i guess all i am saying is that i see both sides, that it may not be as black and white as we want, and is most definitely one of those areas we are apt and able to have conflict on.

i, however, must admit that although i do enjoy working, as a formerly more radically feminist woman, and as a believing female, i look forward greatly to having a family, to providing for them, but to dedicating as much time as i can to my children, wherein my (future, cough, cough) husband and i try to work as hard as we can toward the goal of not raising a family until i can stay at home.

so, while i see both sides of the debate, can even find ground for SAHDs, i myself don't want that, and i also wouldn't recommend it to others or truly support such decisions. thus, in theory it sounds great, but in practice i would try to not even consider.

(okay, sorry about my ramble. though i knew your ridiculously active minds might read this, i am too lazy to try to make it sound intelligible, let alone intelligent. oh, and tim, you'll make it to the "other side" eventually of women not being called as elders. i myself am often perplexed that i made it there, but dangit, if you're gonna follow Christ, The Word, then you have to admit the Bible's pretty clear on this.)

Dear God, I'm sorry guys. I do not even think it is "always a sin" to be a stay at home Dad. I mean I would not want the church to discipline someone for this. Maybe punch him. Just kidding.

I do not think it is beneficial or advisable as a long term choice. Additionally, it very much could be sin if responsibility for provision (Laine, your understanding of this as being beyond mere financial is correct and the meaning of the Greek term in 1 Tim 5:8 means to look ahead to provide for the family) is being passively abdicated.

My only argument is that a man ought to have and feel responsibility for his family. Furthermore 1 Tim 3 makes this a qualification for a man who might aspire to elder. We need to see how (if married) that man takes care of his household, wife and children. He ought to manage his home well. That does not mean be a tyranical jerk, but a servant leader who shepherds his home with grace, truth and in the gospel. He repents and shows a transformed life - and his wife and kids affirm this.

So, let me apply "all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial" to this issue. I tried to be specific in my intro by saying "I mean no harm to anyone walking this route, but I do hope they would change their minds. In this post I am not referring to temporary situations or single fathers or fathers who work from home. What I am addressing is men who intentionally do not work to be the primary source of care for babies and small children."

My practical counsel would be to work towards giving your wife the option of being with the children. Work together on this.

I don't think I would ever counsel a man "hey, you ought to work so that you permanently stay at home full time with the kids" though I could see many situations where this might be a course that should be taken for a season.

Good discussion, and Laine, thanks for throwing in with us on this here at the POCBlog. You were right to see lots of coulds, shoulds and perhapses on this one and I am glad you do not "want that." :)

As a Christian, you are no doubt used to using ancient events and texts to determine what is ethical and wise for the present and future. Evolution can not be read in the same way. It may explain why we have the bodies and minds that our genes build, but it can not be read as a guide to life. Just because something had an evolutionary advantage in the past does not mean it is still advantageous. We can not wholly escape the vestiges of our evolutionary past- but we can recognize that we do not have to hold to evolutionary explanations like dogma. We have moral philosophy, literature, social science, and reason to help us understand the difference between helpful and harmful. Being afraid of the dark had survival value in prehistoric times, but it is more of a bother if you live on a cozy suburban street in 2008. We may still have the impulse to jump at every shadow on the wall, and falsely see and hear things that go bump in the night as anthropomorphic, but we use our minds to recognize that there's very little if any reason to be afraid. Hopefully, we only give in to our fear if there is evidence of the rare but possible real threat or intruder. The bottom line on evolution and stay at home dads is that no credible scientific organization says that there's evidence to support the idea that children raised by stay at home dads suffer disadvantages in relationship to those raised by stay at home moms. The people I know who were raised by stay at home dads, with working mothers, aren't noticeably different from anyone else. They are stable, happy, secure, honest, hard working, etc. Social science research confirms this anecdotal evidence. God help us when Christians start appealing to "evolutionary" evidence in order to argue how things should be done in the present day. Lust is another example of something that has evolutionary survival value even today- but in modern society we realize that we don't have to give in to lust every time we experience it. Just because something gave our ancestors an advantage in passing on their genes, or gives us an advantage in doing the same, does not mean it is even relevant in modern society. We can not completely escape our genes by means of the intellect, but we can at least recognize this fact. The idea that stay at home dad-families result in negative outcomes for children is not based in evidence. If research showed that SAHD's were bad for children, even in a small way, and the APA or American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a statement let's say, evolutionary explanations would be interesting to discuss but definitely secondary to the fact that it was found to be harmful to children here and now. Richard Dawkins's books on evolution are an awesome resource on these matters.

Jesse,

Thank you for the intelligent and respectful post. However, I find your argument unconvincing from within an naturalistic (there are Christian evolutionists you know) evolutionary worldview. Your view seems to undermine evolutionary psychology which desires to explain why human ethics have evolved.

Moral values are behavior guides yet in an naturalistic evolutionary framework there is no real "ought" or prescriptive nature to ethics. A few examples:

- Why is love a universal human virtue? An naturalistic account will create some just so story from our evolutionary past to explain why we love loving so much. The problem is this offers zero reason to continue with our evolutionary, gene driven past. Now you might say "we choose it" - but in naturalistic worldviews free will is an illusion as all is driven by natural, blind forces alone. So, my argument above is that a naturalistic framework would describe "WHY" the mother as care giver, father as provider/protector (which has and continues to be a universal pattern in cultures) evolved. So today, if one chooses to "break with evolution" then the reasoning that "this is moral for societies" because of evolution simply evaporates - or at least evolutionary ethics cannot provide ethical action guides. So to me this shows it bankrupt as an ethical system. Your post said as much. Your real ethical guides are:
"moral philosophy, literature, social science, and reason" which displays that you do not believe that evolution can explain human morality. Now, if you say these things are just "products of naturalistic processes" you have a bit of a dilemna on your hands.

My contention is that within an evolutionary framework of gene survival and propagation, that the mother as care giver and father as provider/protector has a long evolutionary track record and should be considered (from within that worldview) as something to be cautious about disdaining. Also, if all that we are is the dance of our DNA and selfish genes, is not society simply a macro version of the same. Where are you getting this free will, we can now choose stuff in a naturalistic evolutionary framework. You know literally not philosopher who subscribes to a naturalistic worldview believes in things such as "free will"

Also, whether or not something is "still advantageous," in an evolutionary sense, would require much more time than a few decades. In reality, this is a choice of preference of modern humans, not of any evolutionary advantage at all. If two hundred years from now an army of men and robots comes marching in to conquer a nation that has ceased to have children and ceased to have men who can protect, perhaps the lack of an advantage would show through.

Additionally, I don't think I said anything about kids turning out bad from SAHD homes. I was not simply making a utilitarian argument. I did say that sons need to see a certain sort of masculinity - and there is some data today on the growing disarray of the lives of men and boys in our culture. Though it will likely frustrate you, you can see some of the statistics on men in my article on gender here:
http://theresurgence.com/reid_monaghan_2007_twisted_gender

Your contention that this is not harmful, etc. may be valid, it may not be - but this would take sociological study over a much longer period of time. Furthermore, what is "harmful" or "normal" is quite a fluid concept is it not. Finally, to be quite honest, I am concerned about men themselves in this issue not only the outcome on the children.

Perhaps the discussion should be centered on how we determine right or wrong "now" and for our future. Though I am a Christian and value Scripture every era of human existence has new scenarios, ethical challenges, decisions needing wisdom and clear reasoning - where and what we reason from has always been the issue for moral philosophy. In other words, our moral first principles are deeply important in shaping our philosophy, literature and reason. As you well know there is nihilistic philosophy, mein kampf and the reasoning of the killing fields. The question is always "whose philosophy, what literature and whose reason?"

I find naturalism providing no real guidance here on the ground floor of morality - as you admit, on its own terms it can only tell us what is, and never tell us what we ought to do. If we value altruism because evolution made us so...we are free at any time to reject that vestige if we want to - just like you say we can jettison the social structures which evolved from our pasts. So I find this moral framework pretty bankrupt all around - but some hold to it, so I offered an argument from this view...obviously you do not "really" hold that view so you found that argument worthless - my apologies for not being helpful.

Thanks again Jesse for your comments - they have sharpened me and for this I am grateful.