Men Who Let Their Wives Work Are “Destroying” Children’s Minds

3405 reads

There are 22 Comments

Rob Fall's picture

I did some rough calculations. In my locale, a single breadwinner would need to make +/-fifty dollars an hour to be "middle" class.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Jim's picture

Observations:

  • The article from patheos is from the "friendly atheist"
  • The church appears fringe (it is KJV only anyway)
  • The speaker - I actually thought it was Steve Anderson - is Steve Anderson-like
  • AND ... the church is associated with Anderson's church. Scroll down here to see
  • There are always problems with 2-3 min sermon clips. Probably even the best of men says some things not-so-smart. A clip is easy to have the context edited out. [example from this weekend. Trump called the EU a "foe". The full context is "trading foe". Watching NBC this morning ... they dropped the context]
  • The sermon clip seemed more against deadbeat dads / men that are more about "play" ("gaming") than work.
  • As to the text itself - "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." 1 Timothy 5:8 - I don't see "man" / "dad" in this text. There are single women / divorced women / widowed women who have to "provide not for his own"
G. N. Barkman's picture

Did the wife in Proverbs 31 destroy her children's minds by working and contributing to the household income?

G. N. Barkman

Ron Bean's picture

I've heard whines like this from preachers who apparently suffer from egg shell egos and fragile masculinity and are threatened by anything that looks like a woman being able to maintain any sort of independence from or equality to a man. (I'm complimentarian BTW). I heard an IFB preacher and respected grad of one of our best seminaries launch into a mini-sermon about why a man should never let his wife drive his car and let him be a passenger with the warning "That's how it starts!".

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

John E.'s picture

Titus 2:5 is frequently read in a capitalistic context that has very little similarity with the way homes and business were conducted in the first century. "Working at home" would have most often involved the wife helping the husband in his work and not visiting mommy blogs and watching Netflix idly wandering around from friend's house to friend's house while the husband did all the work. 

Bert Perry's picture

G.N. beat me to Proverbs 31, but that--as well as numerous other passages indicating that women were engaged in grinding, tending vineyards, tending sheep, and the like--seems to argue against the notion that women can't work outside the home.  Plus, Lydia, no?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Larry Nelson's picture

 

I've noticed that those who insist that married women should not work outside the home usually (at least in practice) exempt these two jobs:

  • Church secretary
  • Teacher in a Christian school

 

Jim's picture

My son and d-i-law have an ideal situation (my view):

  • He's an engineer for the Donaldson Company her in the Twin Cities.
  • He's also a lieutenant in the MN National guard
  • She's a part time paralegal

He's gone from time to time. This year he's been away for a month

There are two sets of grandparents who help with childcare. We love it and they love it. Today they are at our house with grandma and grandpa Peet.

dgszweda's picture

I have also seen numerous instances where the man stays home with the children and the wife works.  And that situation works out very well.

dmyers's picture

I agree with the above comments as to families where it's economically necessary for the wife/mother to work (including, for example, some situations where the wife's job affords health insurance benefits that the husband's doesn't).  But . . . where it's not economically necessary, the wife/mother working outside the home seems selfish and sub-optimal for the family (both the children and the marriage).  (The selfishness could be the husband's -- he wants even more income than his well-paying job affords, which was the case with my wife's ex-husband -- or the wife's or both.)  I was fortunate enough to be able to earn enough money during my kids' childhoods that we did not need my wife to work, so she didn't work from the time our first child was born until he started college (at which point we definitely did need the extra income to help pay those tuition bills).  We could have used some extra money for extras that we couldn't afford on one income -- vacations, debt-reduction, etc. -- but we had the necessities covered.  During those years, I would have regarded any insistence by my wife that she needed to work in order to be her own person, to have her own identity, etc., or just to have more money, as selfish and unbiblical.  I think we've grown soft, infected with the culture's rampant feminism, when we issue blanket endorsements of wives/mothers working outside the home even when it's not necessary.  (I am specifically not taking issue with mothers working where it's necessary -- i.e., to satisfy 1 Tim. 5:8.)  If even in fundamentalist circles we're criticizing husbands who don't want their wives to work when it's not necessary as having fragile egos, that's not just sad, it's bad.

G. N. Barkman's picture

But there is absolutely no indication that the Proverbs 31 wife's income was "necessary."  (Which in itself is a very slippery term.  What seems necessary to one does not to another.  It is necessary because of purchases that were not truly necessary now makes it necessary to keep up the payments?)  It's impossible to make hard and fast rules that fit everyone's situation.  Clearly a wife and mother should not neglect her home and family.  Ages and number of children vary a great deal from family to family.  However, as the Proverbs 31 woman exemplifies, many wives and mothers can find creative ways to contribute to household income being while still attending to the other needs of the home.  I think the general principles of the Bible should be taught.  I think the application of these principles must be left to each husband and wife to decide for themselves.

G. N. Barkman

dmyers's picture

I'm not sure that's the case.  But in any event, it certainly wasn't work that she was doing to demonstrate her independence or equality, to protect her individual identity, or because she was bored at home with the kids.  Also, keep in mind that the "work" of the Proverbs 31 woman and the extent to which she was "outside the home" to do that work was very different from 99% of the outside work wives/mothers do today.

Plus, I was defending husbands who have decided that she is not going to work outside the home from "friendly fire" that he has an "egg shell ego" or "fragile masculinity."  

Ron Bean's picture

Am I correct in assuming that Scripture does not prohibit woman working outside the home? 

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

dmyers's picture

To the extent the implied scope of your question is, "Does Scripture prohibit all women working outside the home in all circumstances," my answer would be no.  If your question is limited to married women or even married mothers, my answer would still be no.

dmyers's picture

My experience is that in almost all cases, you don't have to wonder about motives because they'll tell you their motives unbidden.  And in cases where they don't, one could simply ask.  

Jim's picture

dmyers wrote:

My experience is that in almost all cases, you don't have to wonder about motives because they'll tell you their motives unbidden.  And in cases where they don't, one could simply ask.  

Someone shares his motives privately .... it's best to address his motives privately!

 

Ron Bean's picture

“I have found it best never to ask why when you can ask what. What must be done? What should I do? Why gets you only head-ache or hear-ache.” (From “No Snakes in Iceland”. A novel by Jordan Poss)

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan