The Wounds of Christ

I just discovered this amazing article by Russell DeLong ..  believe you will be blessed and amazed at reading it

THE WOUNDS OF CHRIST

Pain is common to all men, old and young, rich and poor, educated and illiterate. The

problem of evil is the most baffling of philosophy.

C. S. Lewis, the Oxford don, has written a very interesting and thought-provoking book

entitled the Meaning of Pain.

It is not my purpose today to discuss the philosophy of pain nor attempt to give a solution to the problem of evil. My thesis for this address is simply this: Jesus in His final hours of passion leading up to His death suffered every known kind of pain: physical, mental, and spiritual. No other could suffer nor has suffered as He did. He paid the supreme painful penalty of all the sins of all the human race. For a few minutes let us analyze His suffering and relate it to man generally.

In the realm of bodily pain there are five types of physical suffering.

1. Concussion -- caused by being hit violently from without or by internal pressure within.

2. Laceration -- when the flesh is cut and torn.

3. Penetration -- when the skin and joints are opened by sharp proddings.

4. Perforation -- when holes are opened up by the pressure from external objects.

5. Incision -- when cuts are made into the skin and muscles by sharp instruments.

Jesus suffered all five of these physical wounds.

He was the victim of concussion, for He was struck, hit, slapped, and buffeted about by an angry, blood-thirsty, murderous mob.

Jesus was lacerated by steel thongs at the end of the scourging whip. This Roman

instrument of fiendish design would tear the flesh in a hundred places at every vicious stroke. It would leave the flesh white and quivering, drained of blood.

Jesus suffered the third type of bodily pain produced by penetration. A cruel crown of

thorns was pushed and pounded into His holy brow. These sharp thorns were two inches long, straight and strong and as sharp as needles. They were pressed into His skin, His temples, and His veins. Blood spurted out and ran down His wonderful face.

Jesus also endured the physical suffering of perforation. Great spikes were driven through

the tender palms of His clean hands and through the tendons of His guiltless feet.

And finally Jesus suffered the fifth kind of physical pain - incision. The sharp spear not

only penetrated His side but sliced it open until both water and blood flowed down His body, staining the cross and dripping to the ground.

Do you get the awful picture? There Jesus hangs between two thieves, suffering physically the combined five kinds of bodily anguish -- concussion, laceration, penetration, perforation,  incision. No wonder the poet wrote:

"Five bleeding wounds He bears,

Received on Calvary.

They pour effectual prayers,

They strongly plead for me.

"Forgive him, oh, forgive," they cry,

"Nor let that ransomed sinner die."

But, strange as it may seem, His bodily, physical suffering was the least painful. It was His mental anguish that shook Jesus to His inner depths.

Psychologists and psychiatrists call mental illnesses traumata. In brief, a trauma is an

emotional hurt causing extreme intellectual grief. There are three main kinds resulting from three chief causes:

1. Loneliness -- to be left to one's self and deprived of social communion with others is

one of the main causes of mental distress.

2. Misunderstanding -- this is acute when related to enemies but becomes unbearably

severe when applied to friends.

3. Rejection -- here is the acme of mental anguish. To be rejected as undesired by others

and undesirable by society is the zenith of possible intellectual distress.

Jesus was an acute Sufferer of all these three types of traumata.

He experienced loneliness. His friends forsook Him. His disciples fled and even God

seemed to leave Him. Hear Him cry out in anguish, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

The hymn writer wrote:

"It was alone the Saviour stood

In Pilate's judgment hall.

Alone the crown of thorns He wore,

Forsaken thus by all.

Alone, alone, He bore it all alone.

He gave himself to save His own.

He suffered, bled, and died alone, alone. [5]

Jesus also passed through the second type of trauma, misunderstanding. He was a

conundrum to His friends and an irrational zealot to His enemies.

But Jesus also suffered the third and worst type of mental distress -- He was rejected. This kind of suffering is terrific. He was rejected by His own people, the Jews. He was rejected by society and finally by His friends and even His disciples. Peter even gave up and fled. He denied Him and rejected Him at the court scene -- but Jesus gave him that tender, compassionate glance. Jesus was betrayed by Judas, His treasurer and trusted friend. And the form of his treason was a kiss, the highest expression of love -- but now a kiss of death. Jesus was rejected.

So in the mental realm Jesus suffered all three traumata: loneliness, misunderstanding, and rejection all rolled into one.

But as terrible as were the physical and mental wounds, those of the spirit were worst of

all. Jesus carried the combined sins of all men. They pressed in and crushed Him. (Forsaken by His Father..*), His spiritual heart was broken and it affected His physical heart so that the elastic sac surrounding this organ was broken and out poured blood and water. In the garden before His crucifixion He sweat great drops of blood. So in His awful passion Jesus' blood was watery and His sweat was bloody.

Yes, "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities."

Physically Jesus endured all types of bodily wounds: concussion, laceration, penetration,

perforation, and incision. He suffered the three mental wounds: loneliness, misunderstanding, and rejection. And in addition His soul was distressed by the sins of the race -- yours and mine.

Yes. "He was wounded for me, wounded for me; there on the cross He was wounded for

me."

Isa 53:1 Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

Isa 53:2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. 

Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, [our] faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.   

Isa 53:4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted.  

Isa 53:5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.  

Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.    

Nirvana, Gen X and Hope

It was the early 90’s and I was just entering adolescence.  Though he was 11 years and 2 days my senior, I think Kurt Cobain was still in his adolescence too.

I was more of a Counting Crows fan myself but I know it was Nirvana that ushered in the new sound of the disenfranchised Generation X.   Alternative… Grunge rock.

Cobain said of himself and his generation … "I'm such a nihilistic jerk half the time and other times I'm so vulnerable and sincere [. . . The songs are] like a mixture of both of them. That's how most people my age are." 

Perhaps it was all of us getting tired of the big hair and heavy make up of heavy metal or a reaction to the bubblegum and bright colours of the 80’s – but whatever caused our discontent, Nirvana embodied it. They became the symbol of our generation.

This was a bit of a dangerous time for me. I was, of course, young and therefore impressionable. I was also searching for an identity . Feeling largely misunderstood and depressed – I found my identity, albeit briefly, in this type of music.

Its easy to criticize the attitude of Generation X and its musicians but it could also be said that the mistakes of the previous generation – especially when it came to divorce and parenting – left people like Cobain without much reason to want to “grow up”. 

When he was 7 Kurt’s parents did just that – divorced. He spoke of it… "I remember feeling ashamed, for some reason. I was ashamed of my parents. I couldn't face some of my friends at school anymore, because I desperately wanted to have the classic, you know, typical family. Mother, father. I wanted that security, so I resented my parents for quite a few years because of that."

This, of course, is no excuse for us as individuals – we all make our choices
.
Kurt flirted with Christianity while living in foster care with his friend Jesse Read but never seemed to embrace it. It seems that Kurt, like so many of us, struggled in his relationship with his father, feeling bitterness towards him, and soon this reflected in his view of  a monotheistic God. 

I’m reminded again of how important the family is.  And, even if our family is far from perfect, how important our attitude towards them is. Forgiveness…so much healing, so much power is there.

We all know how Kurt’s story ended…. Though his family did an intervention and he agreed to go to therapy, he eventually scaled the wall of the rehab unit, flew back to Seattle and about a week later turned a shotgun on himself.

Please know I’m not writing this to condemn Kurt Cobain or our generation – nor am I writing this to glorify them.  Every generation has it struggles, its strengths and its weaknesses.

But without hope – what is there?

This was the theme I was finding in my generation – and especially its music – hopelessness. 

Those this may sound cheesy at first - but I thank God that I knew from an early age the hope there is in Jesus. I thank God that I was able to make peace with my parents. And I thank Him that I rediscovered that hope again… fully alive in His glory, not my own.

Fulfilled and healed in His love, comforted in His grace, built up by His commands.

We all have our addictions, our pain - and Kurt was no different – he just happened to be catapulted into the position of being one of the quintessential depictions of our age. 

And let's not forget mental illness - something I struggle with , as does Adam Duritz of Counting Crows. Perhaps Kurt did too , I do not know.

What I have learned and believe to be true is that the answer to the heart cry of every generation that has walked the planet is simply  - Jesus. Whether we are talking Old Testament or New – He has been made manifest in every age and He has been found by those (of every generation) who truly seek Him.

So yes, Jesus does want you for a “sunbeam” and people can find Him… even through the limelight. Ask Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, Bryan Welch and many others.

To Kurt, we lost you far too soon. Our thoughts and prayers are with your family... 

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart." Jeremiah 29:11-13

1 Tim 1:1 “…the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope”

(The Real) St Patrick - His Life, Legacy and Lorica (Breastplate)

 'I am Patrick, a sinner, most unlearned, the least of all the faithful, and utterly despised by many.' So begins Patrick's Confession in the Book of Armagh.

St. Patrick was born in Roman Britain at Banna Venta Berniae  (perhaps  modern Ravenglass in Cumbria.)

When he was about sixteen, he was captured and carried off as a slave to Ireland.^[27] Patrick worked as a herdsman, remaining a captive for six years. He writes that his faith grew in captivity, and that he prayed daily.

Patrick recounts that he had a vision a few years after returning home:

I saw a man coming, as it were from Ireland. His name was Victoricus, and he carried many letters, and he gave me one of them. I read the heading: "The Voice of the Irish". As I began the letter, I imagined in that moment that I heard the voice of those very people who were near the wood of Foclut, which is beside the western sea—and they cried out, as with one voice: "We appeal to you, holy servant boy, to come and walk among us."   (from The Declaration) 

* Wikipedia

"Freeman ( Philip Freeman, a professor of classics at Washington University in St. Louis) helpfully retells Patrick’s conversion story, one of a mocking young hedonist to a repentant evangelist. The story sounds remarkably similar to that of Augustine—and, in the most significant of ways, both mirror the first-century conversion of Saul of Tarsus. ....

...The rest of the narrative demonstrates the ways in which Patrick carried the Christian mission into the frontiers of the British Isles—confronting a hostile culture and institutionalized heresy along the way. With this the case, the life of Patrick is a testimony to Great Commission fervor, not to the Irish nationalism most often associated with the saint. As a matter of fact, Freeman points out that Patrick’s love for the Irish was an act of obedience to Jesus’ command to love enemies and to pray for persecutors."

From Russel D. Moore:  An Evangelical Looks at Saint Patrick

St Patrick's Breastplate

Written by Cecil Alexander at the request of H.H. Dickinson

"I wrote to her sug­gest­ing that she should fill a gap in our Irish Church Hymn­al by giv­ing us a me­tric­al ver­sion of St. Patrick’s “Lor­i­ca” and I sent her a care­ful­ly col­lat­ed co­py of the best prose trans­la­tions of it. With­in a week she sent me that ex­qui­site­ly beau­ti­ful as well as faith­ful ver­sion which ap­pears in the ap­pend­ix to our Church Hymn­al."

It is said that Patrick, as he wandered the land,  would pray something like this  for protection from the enemies there who would do him harm.

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/s/t/stpatric.htm

I bind unto myself today
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same
The Three in One and One in Three.

I bind this today to me forever
By power of faith, Christ’s incarnation;
His baptism in Jordan river,
His death on Cross for my salvation;
His bursting from the spicèd tomb,
His riding up the heavenly way,
His coming at the day of doom
I bind unto myself today.

I bind unto myself the power
Of the great love of cherubim;
The sweet ‘Well done’ in judgment hour,
The service of the seraphim,
Confessors’ faith, Apostles’ word,
The Patriarchs’ prayers, the prophets’ scrolls,
All good deeds done unto the Lord
And purity of virgin souls.

I bind unto myself today
The virtues of the star lit heaven,
The glorious sun’s life giving ray,
The whiteness of the moon at even,
The flashing of the lightning free,
The whirling wind’s tempestuous shocks,
The stable earth, the deep salt sea
Around the old eternal rocks.

I bind unto myself today
The power of God to hold and lead,
His eye to watch, His might to stay,
His ear to hearken to my need.
The wisdom of my God to teach,
His hand to guide, His shield to ward;
The word of God to give me speech,
His heavenly host to be my guard.

Against the demon snares of sin,
The vice that gives temptation force,
The natural lusts that war within,
The hostile men that mar my course;
Or few or many, far or nigh,
In every place and in all hours,
Against their fierce hostility
I bind to me these holy powers.

Against all Satan’s spells and wiles,
Against false words of heresy,
Against the knowledge that defiles,
Against the heart’s idolatry,
Against the wizard’s evil craft,
Against the death wound and the burning,
The choking wave, the poisoned shaft,
Protect me, Christ, till Thy returning.

Christ be with me, Christ within me,
Christ behind me, Christ before me,
Christ beside me, Christ to win me,
Christ to comfort and restore me.
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ in quiet, Christ in danger,
Christ in hearts of all that love me,
Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.

I bind unto myself the Name,
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same,
The Three in One and One in Three.
By Whom all nature hath creation,
Eternal Father, Spirit, Word:
Praise to the Lord of my salvation,
Salvation is of Christ the Lord.

"You are not a god." or "Where Did “The Secret” or the “Law of Attraction” Come From?"

Where Did “The Secret” or the “Law of Attraction” Come From?



The secret of the book (or dvd) by the same name is basically the idea of the "Law of Attraction" taken to extremes. The idea came from the "New Thought" movement of the 19th century ( hardly ancient). Teachers like Phineas Parkhurst Quimby believed that the mind emitted unseen energies that could produce healing and prosperity.  Wallace Wattle carried this idea through in his 1910 book `The Science of Getting Rich" ( doesn't sound very spiritual...) from which Rhonda Byrne ( author of The Secret) borrowed the term "the law of attraction". 

Of course, positive thinking is a good thing. Thoughts are indeed important ( see Philippians 4:8 below).. but they are not supernatural and all-powerful. Only God is that. The problem with these ideologies is that they all teach you, eventually,   that you are a god or God.


Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. 



I have watched "The Secret" dvd and this is what the ultimate conclusion always is - you do not need God - you are God, you simply need to find 'God" within your self and your universe.

Eze 28:9 "Will you still say before him who slays you, 'I am a god'? But you shall be a man, and not a god, In the hand of him who slays you. "

 As per the actual Bible , God created you, sustains you each day, and has offered you redemption through His Son , Jesus Christ ( who is equally God, also as per the Bible). This is not "my version" of the Bible, this is the teaching you get by taking a logical  approach to the interpretation of Scripture ( called Hermenuetics) . This is what you get by taking things in context - not out of context as these folks consistently do. 

New Age / Thought teachers like Eckhart Tolle, Michael Beckworth and Deepak Chopra consistently misuse singular  Bible verses ,coming up with, quite frankly,  ludicrous interpretations given the context. They even speak of the `Spirit of Christ` , yet what they describe is nothing of the Christ described in the Gospels or the rest of the New Testament. I encourage you to read the Bible in context of itself and not just believe whatever comes out of the mouth of pop spirituality leaders.

The idea that we humans can become God or god-like is actually a very old lie.  

Gen 3:5 "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 

Satan speaking of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. 

We are not gods nor are we animals; we are something else altogether - imagebearers of the Creator God.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Gen 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Gen 1:28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

(Side note: Although we are to subdue the earth, this speaks nothing of "anti-environmentalism" or wastefulness as some love to blame Christians for. God later claims that Adam is to tend and keep His creation and we are commanded to be good stewards of all the resources we have.)

Later on, King  David, amazed at God`s grace and mercy cries out : " What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?"  Psalm 8:4

And Peter reminds us that, ...

"People are like grass that dies away; their beauty fades as quickly as the beauty of wildflowers. The grass withers, and the flowers fall away. But the word of the Lord will last forever."  And that word is the Good News (the Gospel) that was preached to you."

1 Peter 1:24-25

John also declares that

 ".. he who does the will of God abides forever." (1 John 2:7)   

 Not "he who finds his inner god" but he who does the will of the one true God.


All of this type of New Age/ Thought teaching is eerily similar to what is described in Romans:

"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.... They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen."

Romans 1:22,25

Not to mention Ezekiel 28....

Eze 28:1 The word of the LORD came to me again, saying,
Eze 28:2 "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "Because your heart is lifted up, And you say, 'I am a god, I sit in the seat of gods, In the midst of the seas,' Yet you are a man, and not a god, Though you set your heart as the heart of a god 
Eze 28:3 (Behold, you are wiser than Daniel! There is no secret that can be hidden from you!
Eze 28:4 With your wisdom and your understanding You have gained riches for yourself, And gathered gold and silver into your treasuries;
Eze 28:5 By your great wisdom in trade you have increased your riches, And your heart is lifted up because of your riches),"
Eze 28:6 'Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Because you have set your heart as the heart of a god,
Eze 28:7 Behold, therefore, I will bring strangers against you, The most terrible of the nations; And they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom, And defile your splendor.
Eze 28:8 They shall throw you down into the Pit, And you shall die the death of the slain In the midst of the seas.
Eze 28:9 "Will you still say before him who slays you, 'I am a god'? But you shall be a man, and not a god, In the hand of him who slays you.

Stay At Home Dads

Home » Is Being a Stay-at-Home Dad a Sin? (Part 1)

Follow Jared Wilson

Give High 5 (1)

Is Being a Stay-at-Home Dad a Sin? (Part 1)

Posted: Friday, October 03, 2008

by Jared Wilson
http://www.elementnashville.org

Sometimes it is.

Before my wife Becky and I married, we were agreed that day care was not an option for our future children; neither was a nanny or in-home care provided by a third party. I don't believe this decision is easy or preferable for everyone, but we decided together that one of us should care for our children during the day. Of course, it is easy to write "one of us" in retrospect. At the time, we assumed Becky would be the one staying home with our children. Then our first daughter was born. Becky had a good, well-paying job that allowed us to purchase our first home, that provided health insurance, and that supplied enough financial margin for us to begin saving for the future. I had graduated college just six months previous, an English major with primarily creative skills and experience mostly in Christian ministry and menial labor (custodial work, primarily). 

When our daughter was born we were faced with a choice. We could sacrifice financial security by having Beck come home and me go to work. We could sacrifice our sense of familial security by both of us going to work and having third party care of our daughter. Or we could sacrifice preconceived notions and risk the criticism of others by maintaining financial security in having my wife continue working outside the home and maintaining familial security in having our daughter's father work inside the home.

It was not an easy choice and, to be honest, it is not an ideal arrangement. Seven years later my wife still is the primary breadwinner for our household and I have worked both as a writer and as a minister, making some money (but not enough to support our family) and serving as the primary caregiver for our two daughters. This has been a sacrifice for us, because my wife's desire has been to be a stay-at-home mom and my desire has been to support my family financially, but in the meantime we have learned that it is okay to sacrifice our desires for the good of our family. This is called servanthood and the Bible commends it.

Others who read the Bible, however, do not. The number of stay-at-home dads (SAHDs) in America is rising every year, and this includes inside the Church, but acceptance and regard is vastly different inside and out. I received an e-mail last week from a man whose church is threatening him with church discipline for "making his wife work" and for being a SAHD. It was painful to read and reminded me not just of the sideways glances I receive from older Christian men who hear me say I've been a SAHD but also of the time a blogger called me a woman for working inside the home.

So what's the deal? Is it wrong? Is it a sin for a father to be the primary caregiver for his children while their mother serves as the primary breadwinner?

Naturally I have more than a few thoughts on this matter, but I should lay my cards out on the table to put them in context. Some of them may surprise you.

1. I Am a Complementarian
What this means is that I affirm what I see as the Bible's distinction between men and women, and how this distinction applies to their roles in the sphere of the church and home. It is not popular these days to be a complementarian, but I am not so much interested in being popular as I am in being biblical. I believe that God has placed the husband as head over his wife in the same way that Christ is over the Church. I believe that husbands are to lead their homes spiritually and that wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22-24). This biblical mandate has led to rampant abuse within the home (with dictatorial husbands and subservient wives), but in a gospel-centered household, it really means that husbands incarnate Christlikeness in service and sacrifice and that wives, like the Church, benefit from sanctification (Eph. 5:25-27).

2. I Do Not Believe SAHDs and Working Moms is Ideal
Please note that I am not saying it is unbiblical or sinful. I'm only saying that the normative biblical arrangement for a two-parent household and the normative temperament and spiritual makeup of men and women naturally converge to where fathers working outside the home and mothers working inside the home is the ideal arrangement. I will go on record as saying this applies to my own situation. Although my wife and I believe we are operating within our giftings and talents and competencies, we also believe that we are generally operating outside of our hearts. But we have accepted this arrangement for the good of our family, not for the fulfillment of ourselves.
Moreover, when I say this arrangement is ideal, I do not mean to say that it is a universal truism or, still less, a biblical command, as so many of the critics of SAHDs do. I only mean to say that households where mothers are fulfilled personally by working outside the home and fathers are fulfilled personally by working inside the home is not the norm.
To repeat: I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying it's not the norm.

That is where I'm coming from. It is probably not the typical approach of the Christian defender of SAHDs, at least the most vocal, who tend to argue from an egalitarian perspective on gender roles and from a postmodernist view of biblical interpretation.

A Biblical Framework

1. "Keepers At Home"
In Titus 2 we find one of the primary references to wives as "keepers of the home." Titus 2:3-5 encourages older women in the Church to train younger women to be "busy at home" (NIV) or "working at home" (ESV). The general thrust of this text indicates that the home is the primary sphere of care for a wife and mother. This is quite in keeping with a complementarian assertion of the household ideal. But it is quite a leap to read into this brief clause a universal prohibition of women working outside the home. 

Even the usual go-to complementarian secondary text affirms this nuance. In "The Family and the Church," George W. Knight III's contribution to Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem), Knight writes:

Some Christians have interpreted Titus 2:5 . . . to mean that any work outside the home is inappropriate for the wife and mother. But the fact that wives should care for their home does not necessarily imply that they should not work outside the home, any more than the statement that an "overseer" in the church should "manage his own household" (1 Tim. 3:4-5) means that he cannot work outside the home. In neither case does the text say that!

This comparison is a helpful observation, because the typical tack taken by critics of SAHDs involves enlarging this admonition into a universal stipulation. But as Knight points out, if being a diligent homemaker prohibits wives from working outside the home, then being a diligent manager of the household ought to prohibit husbands likewise.

Moreover, the pick-and-choose cultural application is in play here as well. Critics of SAHDs and working moms don't mind lifting this admonition to a culture in which wives pretty much couldn't support their families financially but there is more said in the New Testament about women wearing headcoverings in church than staying at home. Only a select few churches and denominations still adhere to that stipulation. Certainly at, say, Mars Hill Church in Seattle, where Pastor Mark Driscoll and the elders are critical of SAHDs to the point of threatening church discipline against practitioners in their congregation, they do not similarly threaten discipline to violators of 1 Corinthians 11:3-10, where the admonition to female headcoverings is more extensive than the brief reference to "keeping home" and actually flows from an appeal to the creation order for male headship (v. 3). In addition 1 Corinthians 11:14 says long hair on a man is shameful. Would MHCS enforce this rule as well? And if not, why not?

The thrust of "keepers at home," in context and spirit, is that women are designed to have the home as their primary concern, and that when other concerns drown this one out, their concerns ought to be recalibrated (in this instance by older women).

The Greek word in use there, oikouros, has connotations of "bewaring" of the home, of protecting the home, of managing family affairs. It ought to be connected to and tempered by Proverbs 31:27's telling us that the virtuous woman "watches over the affairs of the household."
All of this is to say that it is natural and good and encouraged for a wife and mother to have her chief concern be for her home, that it is a welcoming and hospitable and nurturing and godly environment for her family and the fellowship of believers. It does not automatically mean this can only be accomplished as a stay-at-home mom

2. Proverbs 31
I really like when critics of working moms refer to Proverbs 31 as a template for biblical womanhood. I agree, it is the best place to turn for a profile of what a wife and mother should be and do. Unfortunately for critics of working moms, the Proverbs 31 woman is doing an awful lot of work, including work for pay outside the confines of the home.

What we should all agree on, however, is that the Proverbs 31 woman is not doing this work to find personal fulfillment or to "further her career," but to provide for her home and support her family.

3. 2 Thessalonians 3:10
"If a man doesn't work, he shall not eat." Sounds pretty straightforward, doesn't it? But the context of this verse is not a husband or father not earning a living, but rather lazy men in the church who still expect to benefit from the community's having "all things in common" (per Acts 2). 
This is not an admonition to husbands to earn a paycheck so much as it is a condemnation of laziness. And as any SAHD will tell you, what we do is hard work!

But in any event, if a SAHD has adopted that role out of laziness, indifference to his ability to support his family, or apathy towards his wife's burnout or disillusionment with working outside the home, he is a lazy jerk and ought to be rebuked. 

4. 1 Timothy 5:8
This verse is really the linchpin, and I imagine it is the real source of the impetus to "discipline" SAHDs in the church. Indeed, it was on the basis of his interpretation of this passage that Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee declared that SAHDs are going to hell. The verse reads:

If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (NIV)

Everything in this verse hangs on what it means to provide. To begin with, the context is about taking care of widows. It doesn't really even have a direct connection to husbands and wives and children. It is about taking care of our elders.

Secondly, if we're going to decontextualize it and make it about husbands providing for their wives and children, we should at least admit that a) not all provision is monetary, and b) not all men are able to provide. Setting aside husbands whose job prospects earn less than their wives, let's consider the disabled. Or the unemployed during a deep economic depression. There are actually some husbands who literally cannot support their families financially. Are they worse than unbelievers?

Sliding back to the first caveat, let's remember that not all provision is monetary provision. As I delve into the synthesis of this biblical framework in the next installment, I hope to lay out a deeper, more substantive, and -- most importantly -- more Christlike focus for what it means for a husband and father to provide for his family. Providing a roof overhead and meals on the table and money for education is indeed part of a man's charge. But providing those things isn't as cut and dry as the American nuclear family ideal would always have us think. To be biblical isn't always to be the all-American dad, but to be a provider and Christlike emptier of self always is biblical.

More next time . . .