Can A Christian Be An At-Home Dad?

This discussion stems from what has been going on recently at the blog Clark Kent's Lunchbox.  Ron Mattocks has been stimulating discussion about the role of men as fathers and it all started with a commercial from Tide.  Yes, that very same Tide commercial that I looked at from a marketing standpoint.  Ron started with the issue of the cultural acceptance of at-home fathers, but brought up a very interesting point in his most recent post about the Christian point of view when it comes to the subject.  There is an argument that at-home dads are further proof of the erosion of masculinity, but I would argue the opposite.  I've never felt more complete as a man, and there are reasonable people who have done a great job responding to such claims, especially by pointing out that Jesus was not very masculine by traditional definitions - he washed the feet of his disciples, he cooked them breakfast, he did not retaliate with physical violence, and he said that slaves and children were the models of greatness in his kingdom.

One of the items Ron posted (and began to pick apart) was this video of Mars Hill Church pastor Mark Driscoll and his wife, Grace, talking about whether a Christian man can be an at-home dad.  See what you think of their reasoning, and read on for my thoughts.  For the record, there are only two points in this entire video that I see eye to eye with Pastor Driscoll and those are that daycare is not the preferred method of child rearing (although I can understand that some people need it, and I don't judge someone for utilizing the service) and that your status as a human being isn't based on your possessions (but you'll see that he is not willing to abandon the thought that your status as a man is directly related to your ability to bring home a paycheck).






Introduction

Apparently, this lesson is supposed to be based on Song of Solomon 1:8-2:7 which is a dialogue between young lovers that ends with a warning from the young woman to other young maidens to "not arouse love before it desires" which is often interpreted that a man should pursue the woman he desires and not the opposite (that's an entirely different topic).  As you will see, these verses are never mentioned and have nothing to do with what they actually talk about.  Maybe if they had stayed on topic, we could have avoided this mess.  But I digress...

"It's hard to respect a man that is unwilling to provide."

If I were reading this without further explanation, I would say that I agree.  A father that is a dead-beat and does nothing to support his family physically, financially, spiritually or emotionally is hard to respect.  There are, of course, lunatics out there that preach that all stay-at-home dads are lazy and are going to hell.  But I don't think the Driscolls are painting that broad a brush stroke, and they don't talk about eternal judgement (just possible church discipline) as a consequence of being at at-home dad.  What happens next is the beginning of the sweater unraveling.  Grace quotes 1 Timothy 5:8 "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." (NIV)

"...worse than an unbeliever."

Let's look at the context of this passage.  I prefer the method of exegesis ("reading out of the scriptures") to isogesis ("reading into the scriptures" usually to prove a point of your own).  The context of the letter to Timothy from Paul is written with the knowledge that Timothy is struggling to care for a divided flock, and the people he is having trouble with are older than him.  It is known that they look down on Timothy for his youth, and do not respect him as a leader.  Paul is advising Timothy on how to interact with these elders in order to gain their respect and lead them toward unity.  In chapter five, Paul is talking about how Timothy can gain their respect by treating them with respect.  He then advises Timothy on how to handle the widows of his community.  Paul instructs Timothy to encourage the young widow to remarry and have a new family while older widows are to be taken in or taken care of by their families (verse 4).  Just before verse eight, Paul tells Timothy to have the church step in to care for widows if their families will not.  After verse eight, Paul begins to define the terms of how the church can identify widows.  So, unless Paul stopped his train of thought to deliver social commentary on men of the household and their willingness earn a paycheck, he is still talking to Timothy about families caring for their own widows in verse eight.  And if you look back at the Greek text, the translation can vary.  Some versions say "care for" and others say "provide".  Paul is saying that the family, especially if they are of the faith, should take care of their own widows as to not place an extra burden on the church.  Anyone who uses this verse to comment on stay-at-home dads has taken it way out of context.  Not only that, anyone who defines the word "provide" as simply earning a paycheck has a very narrow definition of providing for their family.

  "... how different our kids would look if he was home with them."

If the couple is in agreement that the wife is the better primary caregiver, then it would make sense that they feel that she should stay home with them in the best interest of the children.  What if this is not the case?  What if the man is better suited to be the primary caregiver?  Should the best interest of the children not dictate that the man should stay home?  The important part of this segment is - they are both in agreement over their decision - therefore, there is peace in the home.

"As women, we're built to be home with our kids." 

I'm not exactly sure what she means by this, but she repeats it several times.  Once a child has stopped nursing, the differences between a husband and wife taking care of the children are not as noticeable.  The myth that moms are naturally better at caring for children is just that - a myth.  Studies have shown that if men are given the same amount of time and support, they develop child care skills at exactly the same rate as women.  Both genders are awkward with a newborn, but through time and support can grow into caring, nurturing parents.  Dwayne Wade was built to play in the NBA, but he was also built to be a dad.  Yes, I realize that he earns a giant paycheck, but I believe he would fight just as hard to take care of his children because of his desire to emotionally provide for them as much as he can financially provide for them.

 "The Titus 2 Woman" vs. "The Proverbs 31 Woman"

Interpretation of scripture is a very difficult thing.  I don't pretend to be an expert, but I take it seriously enough to not try to support my own agenda with it.  In the beginning verses of the book of Titus, Paul is writing to Titus  (who is ministering on the island of Crete, a place where the locals do not have a good reputation) about how to get the church in order, set up elders, and instruct the people in the teaching's of Jesus.  In chapter two verses four and five, Paul writes, "Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God" (NIV).  If you don't read verse six, you don't capture the spirit in which Paul is writing. "Similarly, encourage the men to be self-controlled" (NIV).  Paul's entire point is to instruct the people to be self-controlled.  That would be particularly helpful if your people have a reputation of being "liars and thieves" as Paul said in Titus 1:10-13.  I would presume that Paul is instructing the women to stay at home in order to keep them from falling into gossip, as he warns against in various other letters to churches.  And depending on your translation, the words "subject to" and "submissive" refer to a reverence or respect and not an abusive, dominating relationship as men are to "love their wives as Christ loves the Church."  This is not as much a directive to stay in their homes as as it is a practical idea to keep women from gossip and making the church look bad to unbelievers.  I would also bet that most at-home dads would tell you that when their wives are home from work, they are "busy at home" as the scripture says.        

The Proverbs 31 woman is a very popular example of what a Christian woman should strive to be; however, this passage is never brought up by the Driscolls.  Why?  Because it does not support their point that a man should be working and a woman should be at home caring for the children.  The Proverbs 31 woman purchases land, starts a business (vineyard), trades for profit, gives charitably, sells the clothing she makes and is not idle.  The Driscolls and John Hagee (video link above, see: "lunatics") would have you believe that at-home dads are lazy.  At-home dads are no "lazier" than at-home moms.  We both do essentially the same job, and although we may go about it with different techniques (along with our own strengths and weaknesses), I would bet that none of us consider ourselves lazy!

"... to just toss that (motherhood) aside like it can by done by anyone, I would say it's a selfish view.  Our children need us."

I don't think that any at-home dad would consider his wife to be selfish.  Think of what she is giving up!  The selfless act is admitting that dad might be the better primary caregiver and being willing to bear the added burden of bread-winning.  Grace is right that her children need her.  My child needs her mother too.  Children need both parents, but unfortunately, life doesn't allow us all to stay at home with our kids.  She goes on to say that moms are "built to be able to recognize" all of the little needs that their children have.  As I said before, a father, when given the same amount of time and support, will recognize those things as well.  Again, we're talking about a father, not just anyone.  

"If you cannot provide for your family, you are not a man." - Mark Driscoll

Pastor Driscoll says that only men who are "injured, get sick or get cancer" are excused from being able to provide.  Any "able-bodied man" is to provide for the needs of his family as an act of worship to God.  He even goes so far as to say that being an at-home dad would be a case for church discipline!  On what scriptural grounds?  As we have already seen, there is no scriptural evidence to say that men have to work and women have to stay home.  The other supporting scriptures that speak about family talk about the condition of the heart and the attitude of the partners.  So, Mark, what is it that I am doing that deserves church discipline?  Earning a paycheck was killing my family.  I chose to stay at home to strengthen my family and probably save my marriage.  The condition of my heart did not change when my role at home changed.  If anything, I would say that my time at home has been beneficial to my relationship with God.

We already talked about the scripture he is quoting (1 Timothy 5:8) and how it is being taken out of context.  It is interesting that someone can say things like "your value as a human being is not dependent on your zip code or the material things that you own" but can then say "your value as a man is dependent on your ability to earn a paycheck."  "Provide" has a much broader definition, in my opinion.  If I take a job that is far away from my family, so far that I never see them, but I send them a big paycheck, what have I taught my children?  If I was actually lazy at home and did not support my wife in her role as bread-winner by doing housework, what example would I be showing my child?  If I earned a big paycheck, yet I verbally abused my wife and children, would I still be a man?

Mark quotes Romans 12:2 "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will," but he does not finish the thought of the passage that continues through verse six.  "For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us."  If a man's gifts happen to make him better suited to be the primary caregiver for his child, is he supposed to deny those gifts and force his wife into a role that she is not gifted for just to fit some "formula" for success?  Or is it better to work together with their unique set of gifts to do what is best for their child?

"... safeguard their marriage from divorce, they need to organize their home like that"

Mark talks about statistics, yet he does not offer any.  The top causes for divorce are infidelity, communication issues, abuse and finances.  If a family has chosen dad to be an at-home father, and his wife is willing to bear the burden of bread-winning, for the benefit of their children, then they are both in agreement.  Yes, things can change, but I know of several dads that have been at-home with their kids for over 10 years.  What happens if you try to organize your home in the traditional way and it is not working?  Should you sacrifice your family just to keep it organized in the traditional way?

"... you have to go to culture and then find worldly wisdom and then try and sanctify it"

Is Driscoll not trying to sanctify his own model?  Pastor Driscoll says that there is no example of an at-home dad in the scriptures.  I can concede to that, but I would also argue that there is no evidence that the model that he is suggesting is anything more than cultural.  The entire notion of a patriarchal society in which the man is the primary bread-winner and the woman is the primary caregiver is cultural.  Thousands of years of tradition don't make something "right" or "true" especially when it comes to creatures as complex as human beings.  I'm not aware of an instance that Jesus lays out this example as the formula of the "ideal" family.  The scriptures that I read about family typically have to do with the conditions of the hearts of those involved in the relationship and the behaviors that they practice with one another (Ephesians 5:21-30, Ephesians 6:4, Colossians 3:15-25, 1 Peter 3:1-7, Mark 10:2-12,  Matthew 8:21-22, Matthew 22:24-30).  Paul was especially conscious of this with his instructions toward women, not wanting them to upset the culture with their new freedom in Christ.

The God that I study and the scriptures I read do not reduce life to formulas (which is what Driscoll is attempting to do).  Jesus always seems to be concerned about the condition of people's hearts, not their paycheck or their "position" (Pharisee, tax collector, blind, crippled, child, man, woman, rich, poor, etc).  In fact, Jesus' view of "family" would shock most traditionalists.  Jesus actually rejects his traditional family members in favor of his new family, the Church.  But that's a whole different lesson.  I hope that you have found this helpful, and maybe we can finally put this notion to rest that Christian at-home fathers are worthless, lazy and going to hell.  I have more important things to worry about, like my child waking up from her nap, and what Jesus himself said was most important in Matthew 22:37-39.