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 . . .

Focus on the Family - Christians on medication for depression

Every Christian needs to listen to this 5 minute radio segment from Focus on the Family on if and when to take mental illness related medications.

Please share this on your wall or in a message to a person who may need to hear it.

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/popups/media_player.aspx?MediaId={9579B9CD-B5CD-4205-B066-A0E8EC7033B6}&FAMILYTYPE=null&Tab=Shows&subcategory=FocusontheFamilyDailyExtras

If you want to see my personal testimony and the discussion that ensues on the Focus on the amily discussion boards pleease go to this link:

http://www.focusonlinecommunities.com/message/116901#116901

Laziness or Lethargy?

Laziness is a character flaw


Lethargy is a lack of energy due to a medical condition ( physical or mental)


It is necessary we make this distinction before judging ourselves or others.


...paraphrased from "The Dr's" March 5, 2012

Christians and Mental Illness: When OCD Gets Spiritual (Scrupulosity)

The following is an excerpt from the book "The Obssesive Compulsive Trap: Real Help for a Real Struggle" by Christian Psychologist Dr. Mark Crawford.

I trust some out there needs to read this....

In Chapter 3 we discussed the biological basis of OCD. Even though research has taught us much about the physiological causes of OCD, it remains a disorder that is frequently misunderstood by the general population. As a psychologist who works frequently with Christians, I am surprised to see how misunderstood and often how mishandled OCD is within the Christian community. Because obsessions and compulsions can have religious or spiritual themes, there are some within the Church who see OCD as a “spiritual problem.” I have even spoken with some who claim that the symptoms of OCD are caused by demonic oppression or even demonic possession. For a Christian already tormented by anxiety cause by OCD, having someone suggest that these symptoms are caused by demonic involvement can literally push them over the edge.

I’ve seen too many Christians with OCD who have been harmed by well-intended church members who suggested that if they only had more faith or prayed more, their symptoms would disappear. I’ve also heard far too many stories of Christians with OCD who were told by church members (or even church officials) that their symptoms were present because of “unconfessed sin “ in their lives. This type of uneducated advice can be extraordinarily harmful to someone with OCD whose symptoms include obsessive concerns that their normal, everyday behaviours are sinful; fears of not being a “good enough Christian”: or fears of being condemned because of bad thoughts. For example, I worked with a young man named Scott who was constantly tormented by anxiety and guilt. He described almost constantly feeling as thought he “might have lied” to someone during the course of a normal day. Since Scott believed that lying was a sin, he was constantly praying for forgiveness, and he frequently returned to the people to whom he feared he lied in order to clarify himself and to ask for their forgiveness. When I asked for an example, Scott offered the following: “This morning, I stopped by a bakery and ordered a bagel. The woman behind the counter asked if I liked cream cheese on my bagel. I told her no. After I left, I started to think that sometimes I do put cream cheese on my bagel. Today I didn’t want cream cheese on my bagel but sometimes I do. Therefore, I felt like I lied to her because she asked me if I liked cream cheese on my bagel I said no, and that is a lie since there are times when I do.” When I asked what he did in response to his thoughts, he replied, “After I left and had driven about 2 miles away from the bakery, the guilt overwhelmed me aand I had to turn around and go back. I went back inside the bakery and tried to explain to the woman that I lied to her about not liking cream cheese on my bagel. She looked at me like I was crazy. Maybe I am”. To tell this young man that his problems would disappear if he simply prayed more, had more faith, and got rid of all of the unconfessed sin in his life would be inaccurate, unethical and extremely harmful.

If you suffer from OCD, or if you know someone who suffers from OD, please understand that OCD is a biological condition caused primarily by an imbalance in brain chemistry. It is not caused by demonic involvement. To suggest otherwise is as ridiculous as suggesting that individuals who suffer from nearsightedness, diabetes, or crooked teeth are possessed by demons or suffer their malady because of sin in their lives.

The symptoms of OCD often do manifest with religious or spiritual themes. This is particularly true of Christians and people of other faiths for whom their beliefs are an integral part of their lives. Here are a few examples.

Obsessions over Committing the “unpardonable sin”

One of the more frequent obsessive thoughts/fears for Christians suffering from OCD is the fear that they may have “committed the unpardonable sin”. They may also express this as the fear that they may have “blasphemed the Holy Ghost” Almost without exception, these individuals quote the verse from Matthew 12:31 that reads, “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against thee Spirit will not be forgiven men”; or the verse from Mark 3:28-29 that reads, “assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation’ – because they said, “he has an unclean spirit. These verses serve as the source of torment for many Christians with OCD who are incessantly tormented with the thought or fear that they may have somehow brought eternal condemnation upon themselves by “committing blasphemy against the Spirit”. Few of these people can tell you clearly what they actually did that qualifies as blasphemy against the Spirit.

Theological scholars have debated the meaning of these scripture verses. However, many leading scholars suggest that these passages refer to rejecting any and all promptings of the spirit of God that convict mankind of his sinfulness and need for salvation. It is ironic that the very individuals who feel” condemned” are applying a passage of scripture that refers to those who feel no conviction from the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, even the more articulate and educated expert on the scriptures would have a difficult time convincing most Christians who suffer from this and other religious obsessions. Many people with OCD simply use emotional reasoning (a term that refers to reaching a conclusion based on how one feels rather than on facts and data.) Therefore, the OCD sufferer describes that they feel unforgiven and condemned, therefore they must be.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update From Joe:  This post has over 13,000 hits since I posted it  - so if you think you are alone, you're not!

For further reading that may be helpful I invite you to read my personal testimony as a Christian with this illness here: A Beautiful Mind . Or watch it on youtube. Much love and encouragement, Joe.

Also there are some great strategies in this article for dealing with OCD ( It is a short summary dapted from Schwartz, J.M. (1996). Brain Lock: A Four-Step Self-Treatment Method to Change your Brain Chemistry. New York: Harper Collins. ) here: Managing Compulsions and Obsessions

Christians, Anti-Depressants and Psychology / Psychiatry

I just had a few thoughts to share, as a Christian with a mental illness, about the areas of Psychology and Psychiatry and some of the medicines that go with it all.

Psychology is, after all,  simply the “study of the mind”. And Who created the mind?

Psychiatry is more specifically the  'medical treatment of the mind', which is a bit more controversial.

A lot of Christians, and many other kinds of people for that matter, become very suspicious and even condemning  when these topics are raised.  We all remember Tom Cruise’s rants (of course, he is a Scientologist ).

But many Christians have knee-jerk reactions to these topics as well – and I just think there is some misunderstanding of these topics.

 I was actually in the same place as those types of folks until God taught me a lesson – the very hard way ( because that was the only way I would learn it) – you can see the very end of this blog  for a piece of my personal testimony about this as well as some Biblical input.

I know that anti-depressants and other “brain” drugs have been vastly over-prescribed and even abused.  I know some of these “doctors of the mind” are also out in left field.

But here is where we make our mistake – we throw the good away with the bad. The baby with the bath water as they say.

One of my pastors always said “Eat the orange and spit out the seeds” – in other words find and accept what is true and discern what is not and throw it out. 

There is also a saying that goes “All truth is God’s truth”. And if there is some truth in these areas of the mind – we are only harming ourselves to not see it and receive it.  Just like we accept truth in the areas of science ( i.e.  the law of gravity)  and physical medicine (listening to our doctors)  so we should in the areas of Psychology and Psychiatry – so long as it is true . True,  both in the practical sense that it works and makes sense – and of course in the Biblical sense.

As a Christian, I don’t for a minute suggest or recommend adhering to anything that is clearly un – Biblical.

However, many of the “techniques” or therapies I have learned are just common sense that is backed up by research and studies. In fact, they parallel with Biblical principles very closely. There is a lot of stuff in Psychology / Psychiatry that I don’t happen to believe ( it is , after all, an inexact science) but there is so much to be gained from learning from it what is real – don’t throw the “baby” out!

In college, as part of my course load, I was to take  two semesters of “Personal and Inter-Personal Behaviour” . Much of the information was gleaned from very basic Psychology / Psychiatry . While I did not find everything to be true to life or Biblical – I was amazed at how much I learned about myself and others. This helped me a great deal I think in my Christian ministry as a youth “pastor”. 

When I first had to see a psychiatrist I was a bit freaked out by it.  But I found her very interesting and , at the time, just what I needed. 

A fiery Scotswoman, she didn’t really beat around the bush too much and I soon learned something very interesting about her – she was a Christian.  And if that is too vague for you, let me further specify – she was an Evangelical Christian ( that’s right – the local conservative Baptist church).

I no longer see her but she was a great help to me and I firmly believe God put her in my life at that time and place… knowing I would be suspicious of a Psychiatrist.

Again – I’m not suggesting you go out and start popping “happy pills” for the heck of it. But I am saying – don’t disregard the whole topic. Don’t be a “purist” who thinks they are above the need of medical attention.  Just be wise, do some research, talk to Christians who have some personal experience or education on the matter.

By doing this you could, ironically, find yourself disobeying God as my testimony shows…..

Part of my testimony – Please feel free to read the whole thing here: A Beautiful Mind

Now having said this I have to tell you a little story. I was young but had firm opinions about so-called mental illness and the medications that went with it. This was brought to the forefront one day when I was preaching at my little church in Prince George. I was speaking about the joy of the Lord , I believe, when in my youthful fervor I exclaimed

“ We don’t need  Prozac to be happy – that is just a crutch. The Lord will make us happy”. Well apparently that night one of the dear “mom-like” ladies had brought her brother to church –the first time in a long time for him as he was not particularly religious. It turns out this man was on Prozac and I had greatly offended him. Although I still didn’t believe in mental illness or the drugs for it , I realized I had to apologize for what I had said and the way I had said it. So I made the difficult phone call and he graciously accepted my apology.

Now this is not where the irony ends my friends, for it was not long after this that I experienced that second breakdown, that my pastor’s wife had suggested depression and for the first time in my life was I was open to hear about it. With an entirely new perspective on life ( I had quite an experience with God – learning about pride and grace – but that is another story you can read about here: When I understood grace... or at least began to. , I went to my doctor and he had me fill out a questionnaire on depression. I was finally ready to be honest with my answers and I scored off-the-chart for severe clinical depression. I tried a series of different drugs until at last one seemed to help – its called fluoxetine , other wise known as Prozac. God indeed has a great sense of humour.

Taking medication for mental health is a very personal issue between you, your doctor and God. I do not believe it is the complete answer but it is a tool of medicine that God has given us just like any we would take for any other more socially acceptable disease. One thing I’d like to mention here folks is this  - the difference between “diagnosing” and “labeling”. Diagnosing is not labeling – please know the difference. Correct diagnosis can free someone – like the truth. The root problem is treated and the symptoms lessen or disappear altogether. Labeling ignores the root problem and only brings the person down further – they often even tend to become more like the label.

You may also want to read :  Mental Illness and the Bible

War of the minds - by Flame