Mom, Make Up Your Mind

Published by

on

It’s admittedly been a long time since I posted anything, and there are a lot of very notable and/or terrible things going on in the world and our country of late that I could voice my tiny opinion about. I could write about the problem of liberal racism, or I could share my opinions concerning Hillary Clinton’s corruption, or how Donald Trump’s followers are being woefully deceived. But today I don’t want to blather on about politics or our society’s constant struggle with national suicide. I want to talk about a more fundamental-and personal-problem that is occurring in homes across our country, and has virtually no difference between the churched and the unchurched. I’m taking about working women, and I’ll warn you, this is a “mean” article.

My wife and I attend the Sunday School at our church fairly religiously. In that small room, we listen to a lesson along with two or three other couples. Almost all of the wives in the church have children… and jobs. Most of them work in the medical field, at hospitals or health care providers in our area. Their jobs are demanding and their schedules are often unforgiving, forcing some of them to miss church entirely and often. They also all have children, often several children and often very young children. In order to work their taxing jobs, they have to do something with their kids. Older kids are easy: they go to school. Younger kids are tougher to deal with (or kids on break from school), and these working moms would have to send them to daycare, but their family members are more than happy to take the kids so they don’t have to.

And I, as a father of five, whose wife stays at home full-time with our kids, I sit in that polished little white room and listen while the teacher makes statements like, “Some women neglect their children, but I don’t know any in this church. All of you sacrifice so much for your children.” On Mother’s Day, these women glow with appreciation while they are complimented by other church members, friends, and acquaintances. But the fact is, these women do not sacrifice for their children. I know these women, and I like them, but as mean as it is to say, they are not sacrificing at all. And the ones who know it most are their own children.

Our secular, God-hating society is busy telling women that in order to be fulfilled and happy, they have to work. The worst fate a woman can suffer, says the world, is to be relegated to the home-to be kept home slaving while their husbands enjoy the glamorous, fulfilling, paid jobs that are the highlight of being a human being. Working a job is the ultimate in women’s pleasurable pastimes, you know, and any woman who does not should have her head examined, or has not been “liberated.” Many do find a sense of fulfillment or satisfaction (or yes, even “happiness”) at a desk for eight or nine hours, or wearing their pantsuit as they sit at Starbucks with their briefcase leaning against their chair leg, or just getting that paycheck that supposedly makes all the stress and effort worthwhile. And if that’s you, then I can say without the slightest hint of sarcasm or irony: Great!

“Wait,” you say, “I thought you were a Bible-thumping member of the League of Men who Want to Hold Women Back in the Dark Ages (you know, the LOMWWTHWBITDA.” Ah, yes, the LOMWWTHWBITDA, I know it well. I mean, not that well. I haven’t met a man who was a part of it yet, at least not one who would openly endorse it. Anyway, I really do think that if a woman wants to work, she should be my guest, including Christian women, including married Christian women.

But…….

Don’t have kids.

See, my problem isn’t with women who work. It’s with women who find all of this purpose and meaning and happiness in a job, and still feel like they aren’t quite complete until they’ve satisfied that nagging little maternal instinct. Frankly, I don’t get all the hubbub about working a job. As far as I know, men have worked jobs forever because families had to eat, and most of the time the men who worked them would rather not have. Most people don’t get to do what they love and get paid for it. Take me, for instance. My passion is to write. I would love to work a job where I write opinions, stories, novels, even whole epics, and get paid enough to feed myself and my family. That would be great! But I can’t, because it takes a lot of work to get into that field, and I already have a family, so starting over isn’t really an option for me. Instead, I work as a draftsman. Do I like drafting? Yes. Yes I do. Does it grant me a sense of wonder, fulfillment, and purpose, so that if anyone said I couldn’t work this job and that I had to stay home with my family all day I would be offended? No. No it does not give me any such feeling. It’s no wonder that men don’t normally weigh in on this whole women working thing. After all, if your wife wants to go to work and double your income so you can afford a bigger house and newer cars, what’s not to like, right? We’re at work anyway, so what happens to the kids while we’re gone isn’t really “our deal” is it? Actually, yes it is.

I don’t mean to get off the trail. The point is, if you want to work, then work. Make money, wear the pantsuit, go to the office parties, buy all the cute wall decorations for you cubical, and enjoy your sense of euphoria. But leave the children out of it. Because they need their mother and father. Dads like us, we have to work, because God made us to be protectors and providers, and while we can (and should) do housework, we’re just not as good at running and organizing a home as our wives. But kids need to have as much of their parents as they can get, because parents are their sense of comfort, being, and origin. Children in those early years define themselves largely in terms of their parents, and more importantly, find their sense of self worth in how their parents react to them. If you as a mom are always off having a love affair with your job, to the point where you work all the time and only see your kids in the evening, then your children will inevitably come to the conclusion that your job is more important than they are, a concept that good fathers have to work hard to fight. I have to constantly remind my children that someone has to work to keep food on the table, because they constantly think it’s what I’d rather do than be with them. Even if you’re trying to spend your free time with your kids, working mom, the fact is that you could be spending it all and you choose not to.

Raising children full time is hard work, so we can stop acting like being a stay at home mom is the equivalent of a vacation package. Children are dirty, disobedient, challenging, and demanding. Multiple children are easily as stressful as the most challenging job outside the home. Raising children is physically exhausting and mentally taxing, and rather than make money, costs you money. If that’s part of the reason you want to go to work, then do yourself a favor and don’t have kids. Because kids can’t help that they are that way-they don’t know how to behave because no one has taught them. And if you let someone teach them who isn’t you, you’re heading for a host of problems down the road. But I’m not even getting into that. I’m just talking about sacrifice. We sacrifice for the things we love the most, and what angers me is that even Christian women are living a lie where they believe that they are being loving and sacrificial mothers because they spend time with their kids after work. Not so. If you are working a full time job and you don’t have to, and sending your kids to daycare or grandma-care half of their waking lives, then you are not sacrificing for them… you are sacrificing them. If you have kids, ladies, then they are your job-your only job. God intended for mothers to sacrifice all personal desires to do their job, and uniquely equipped them to do so. Fathers have a duty to spend as much time as they can being a dad when they are home, but that’s another article.

It a mother’s duty not to neglect their children for the sake of personal fulfillment, money, or general pleasure, but the secret is being a mom full-time is actually more fulfilling and pleasurable than you would think, just ask my wife. Money lasts for a while and then you spend it and it’s gone. Feelings of fulfillment or personal happiness feel good for a while but it gets harder and harder to keep up with them. But bringing up your children is a job whose outcome is eternal. Your children will live forever, and more than that, they will have children of their own, and those influences you have on them will live on long after you are gone. God intended family units to consist of a man who work as much as he needs to, then comes home and be a husband to his wife and a father to his children; He intended families to have a mother who spends her time teaching, training, and taking care of the children, providing love, care, and discipline on a constant basis especially when they are young; and he intended children to be disciplined and taught, and to look around them and see their mother and father loving them enough to sacrifice personal pleasures and fulfillment for their sakes.

“Are you telling me I should quit my job???” comes the irate response from the churchgoing mom who also works 90+ hours a week at the hospital and makes $50,000+ annually.

Yes. Quit your job. Sacrifice for your children. Show them that your own sense of fulfillment and happiness is not more important than their immortal souls. Tell them through taking a hit on the budget and settling for a smaller house or a cheaper car that you don’t care as much about money as you do about their emotional well-being. It’s not too hard. You can do it. God made you specially to take care of your kids. No one can do it better than you can, and making someone else do it when you could be doing it is selling your kids short of what they ultimately deserve.

They deserve you.

14 responses to “Mom, Make Up Your Mind”

  1. Jamie Carter Avatar

    Sounds like you need to spend a little time among the men and women at the margins of society. The numerous households where both husband and wife make minimum wage and have no choice but to live pay-check to pay-check while being supported by food stamps to help feed their kids would be an instructive environment for you. Or perhaps single working moms or dads would teach you how the other half lives. Not everyone gets a choice on their family arrangement, not everyone gets enough to support the entire household on one paycheck – and we’re not talking about living in extravagance, but in near-poverty. Look, you can believe what you want, but you can’t require all those women at your church to quit their jobs to earn your approval of their lifestyles. Men and women really aren’t two different creatures, you find you identity in your work, it’s who and what you are. When people ask: “Who are you?” Your job is usually right up there among the first ten things you’d say about yourself, right? Working moms sacrifice more than you will ever know, and it’s for the sake of their children, same as working dads. Which isn’t a surprise as they’re both human beings.

    Like

    1. Arnan Avatar

      Jamie, I’m glad you commented, because my wife was talking to me about this piece, and she mentioned some of the same things.

      First, let me address that the article was directed at people who CAN do without both parents working. I did allude to this several times, but as my wife pointed out, I didn’t spend a lot of time on it. It was NOT addressed to people at or around the poverty line. Obviously, if you must choose between spending time with your child or making sure your child has food, clothing, and housing, you must choose the latter. However, the point remains that this is not how it was intended. It is not ideal. It shouldn’t actually be that way and it isn’t the best situation for the child. As you said, not everyone has a choice. My target audience was actually people like those at my church, where the husband and the wife both work jobs at or above the $30k/year income bracket. Since many of these people work in the medical industry, it’s not a stretch to estimate that they make the greater part of $100k per year combined, probably ending up around the $70-$80k bracket. Mothers in these families have no excuse for choosing their work (and ultimately themselves) over their children. They aren’t bad people and they believe they’re doing ok. They might even believe that they are doing what’s best for their children. But they aren’t. They’re ASSUMING that they must work to meet their own “needs” and then within that limited frame of reference, they’re doing everything they can. But they don’t realize that their children have already taken a backseat from the get go.

      I do not ask anyone to earn my approval. I am merely making plain the truth that motherhood is inherently about putting children first (as is fatherhood, by the way). My approval means nothing. And I’m not trying to make anyone do anything. I am stating a truth. If you want to really do the best by your children as a mother, then be there for them. They want you to be there for them. They NEED you to be there for them. When people ask who I am, the first thing that comes up in my mind isn’t my job. Not even close. First I am a Christian. Then I am a husband. Then I am a father. Everything else is peripheral.

      Your last statement needs qualification. Are you talking about ALL working moms? Because if you are, then it’s simply untrue. Motherhood is a full-time job. If you are splitting your sense of worth and accomplishment between your children, who will live and grow up and have their own children and eventually die and go to heaven or hell, and your job, which grants temporal convenience, pleasure, and ultimately worthless money, then it is clear that you are NOT sacrificing more than I will ever know. On the other hand, if you are just talking about mothers who must work, because if they don’t their children will starve, then they may very well sacrifice more than I could ever know.

      Thanks, Jamie.

      Like

      1. Jamie Carter Avatar

        The thing about complementarian gender role teachings is that you have to live in an ideal construct, be able to live off of one pay-check, either be the one that works or the one that raises the kids, be without injury or disease that impairs you from fulfilling these teachings. One show I was watching featured the story of a husband whose wife was dying of a disease that weakened her muscles, she can no longer do even the simplest household chores as she tires easily. His love for her inspired him to train up his muscles so that he could carry her each and every day as long as she lives, he also picks up the slack by doing the household chores. Pat Robertson once advised a man in a similar predicament to divorce his ailing wife and marry again rather than go against the gender roles teachings and actually do women’s work. These gender teachings have become idolatry to the point that they are more important than marriage which itself is an idol in the church because it speaks nothing in the lives of single men and women who have to both work and keep the house regardless of their gender. The problem that women have always worked – think of the Proverbs 31 woman – she lived in a whole other world where she had servants / slaves capable of doing some tasks so she could focus on others. When you erase the help, women are left with a dizzying array of tasks and not nearly enough time in the day to get it all done.
        God isn’t a one-size fits all sort of creator. He didn’t create Ruth to be just like Deborah, or Huldah just like Athaliah. So too, no two women are destined to walk the same exact path. Some women are quite happily suited to motherhood and want nothing more than that. But others are just like men in in that they find satisfaction most in work and in their kids. When I did genealogy research, I discovered that one of my ancestors had three total marriages because back in her day, women working at all was unacceptable, but re-marrying after being widowed was acceptable, so that’s what she sacrificed for her eight or so children. Today women shouldn’t have to marry in order to care for their children, especially when they’re not ready or just not finding a suitable replacement for a guy who walked out on her. I remember watching a story about how as a woman C.E.O, a mother was asked all the time: “How do you have time for it all?” and she pointed out that nobody ever asks men “As a father and a C.E.O, how do you have time for it all?” The thing is that society has begun to shift, work hours are flexible, some mothers work from home, over the internet, at least half of the week. Work isn’t what it was. The ideal depends upon people living up to the ideal, which is something the first two people couldn’t manage to do with just one rule – and something that statistically, with all-time low rate for marriage and high rates of divorce, we just won’t see it happening, ever. Since my co-workers, men and women both, like both having kids and working – the least I can do as a Christian is support them and be glad that they find happiness.
        The thing that bothered me is that your post boils down to two statements: working women shouldn’t be moms and moms shouldn’t be working women. Such a statement about fathers wouldn’t fly: working men shouldn’t be fathers and fathers shouldn’t be working men. Why is it any different? Don’t kids needs both parents? Or just one parent at a time? if it’s one parent at a time, then what’s wrong with both parents working, mom taking a shift in the morning and dad taking a shift in the evening?

        Like

      2. Arnan Avatar

        Here’s the thing, Jamie: I’m talking about the way it should be, the way God intended. God designed marriage. He thought it up, and then he genetically engineered men and women to be able to fill certain roles in the family. He designed men to be providers and protectors, with greater muscular strength and a propensity for physical work and combat. He designed women with maternal instincts, emphasizing care and sensitivity. So, the man and the woman, when joined in marriage, form a unified, complimentary package. The husband is to do the work required to enable the family have food, clothing, and shelter. When he is home, he is to assist the wife as much as possible, lead the home, and teach/discipline the children. He is responsible for literally EVERYTHING that goes on in the home. The wife has the daunting job of taking care of the children, keeping them from harming themselves, and bringing them up so they know how to be people.

        This is not some church teaching that came into being with Pope Innocent III or something voted on by the Southern Baptist Convention. This is what we are DESIGNED to do, from the ground up. Our physical, emotion, and psychological natures are directed toward these things. You imply that this is an outmoded concept that isn’t really viable in our day and age. It is. My wife and I have lived like this since day 1. My wife has never worked, though she very well could have, and probably made as much or more than I do as a teacher. I have lost my job, and I have worked wherever I could, to the point where we were actually very low on food for several months, and were literally scraping by. It takes a LOT of life circumstances for God’s plan to become unworkable.

        Of course, God knew that people would make mistakes, life circumstances would occur, diseases would happen. The Bible says that God allowed Moses to divorce people because of such circumstances, though the Bible makes it clear that God was NOT happy about it.

        See, Jamie, the reason that I didn’t discuss all the nuances and circumstances and situations that might occur in our lives is that I trust my Christian readers to take look at their lives and realize this truth: if your goal is to do the absolute best for your children (if you want to do what God expects you to do) then as a mother you should take care of your kids. If you can’t or don’t want to do that, don’t have kids. That’s it. If you have kids, they deserve you being a mom full time. They deserve nothing less. That’s the whole point.

        Now, I expect my readers to take a long look at the ideal I have presented, and their own lives, and make an evaluation. Does my wife have a debilitating disease that makes it impossible for her to perform the duties of a mom without harming herself? Then OBVIOUSLY God doesn’t expect my wife to kill herself trying to reach an ideal that because of sin (as in Adam’s sin, not hers or anyone else’s) is no longer possible for her. But just because there are a bunch of people out there who are at the poverty line and both have to work, or there are moms whose dirt bag husbands left them, or any of the 3,000 individual circumstantial cases that would make the ideal impossible for them, it doesn’t mean it is no longer the ideal.

        From what it sounds like, Jamie, you’re kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It sounds like you’re saying, “Well, ignorant male blogger, your idea of marriage and motherhood is just the rhetoric of the Old Church, which didn’t understand that the world in which we live in today precludes such limited gender roles. Basically, blogger, Biblical marriage and motherhood DOES NOT WORK in our society.”

        See, that’s a strange thing to assume, because even in our day and age, my wife and I have been living this way, and please don’t think I’m being arrogant, because I know a TON of people who are living the same way. They’re still making it work. They’re sacrificing for their children, staying home and living within God’s intended plan for motherhood, and the dads are working and coming home and taking care of their families and leading their homes, just like God intended.

        It’s not only possible to have a nuclear family, it’s happening. But because of the idea that such families are “old-fashioned” or outmoded, a lot of kids are getting the short end of the stick. They’re being deprived of their mothers (and their fathers, but that’s another post entirely, and one I plan to write eventually). Maybe what you have’t realized, Jamie, is that the secular world hates God and wants people to go against His plan, which is what is best for them and for their children. It’s telling people that God’s plan for marriage and parenthood is no longer workable. It tells people, “Look at all these special circumstances that happen to certain people. Obviously you can’t be staying home with your kids!” And then a man and woman who CAN make their home right are instead justifying themselves in working two jobs, sending their kids to daycare, and meanwhile buying themselves big houses and three cars and the latest iPhones and vacation packages to Disneyland. And all the while they’re thinking that they’re sacrificing for their kids. They’re not necessarily trying to be bad, but they’re being lied to, just like you have been lied to, Jamie. God’s way never gets old. Traditional marriage and parenthood has survived for six thousand years, and in that time countless civilizations have used the line that special circumstances for a part of the population prove that God’s way doesn’t work anymore. The very fact that traditional marriage has survived this long is evidence for the fact that God created, sanctioned, and preserved it. No matter what, it will still be what is best for every member of the family. It is full of self-sacrifice, men and women putting their spouse and children first.

        Like

      3. Jamie Carter Avatar

        He thought it up, and then he genetically engineered men and women to be able to fill certain roles in the family…
        Newsflash: everybody gets half of their genes from their moms and the other half from their dads. If it’s in our genes – then men and women both have men and women genes.

        I trust my Christian readers to take look at their lives and realize this truth …
        My grandmother worked as a tax preparer when my grandfather’s farm went under in the Great Depression and he had to go work on oil rigs in another state. My aunts are public servants, working in the Department of Transportation for their state or as fast-food cooks or elderly care nurses. So many of my relatives, men and women alike, live out the Midwestern Work Ethic that the only truth I’ve ever seen is that everybody works one way or another.

        God’s way never gets old. Traditional marriage and parenthood has survived for six thousand years, and in that time countless civilizations have …
        had different definitions and arrangement for marriages. Scripture shows us the variety of marriage in that some men had concubines, or households make up of hundreds if you include the slaves and their families. Most of the societies in the past were patriarchal, but not all of them were. Through Rejected Princesses, I’ve read stories about women who became rulers, raised up armies, conquered and fought back against the rules of their day. Some women married husbands who let them be the power behind the throne in order to get things done in a world where a woman’s word and a woman’s worth was precisely nothing. Traditions change, we don’t exist as pioneer families on the prairies or as we lived even decades ago. Living as God intended is a matter of perspective, I don’t think Jesus meant to enshrine Roman household codes as rules that apply long after the Roman empire that created them had fallen.

        Like

      4. Arnan Avatar

        Not sure about you and I are talking about genes the same way. Whatever genes you got from your male and female parents, there are certain traits that are common among all males and females. You don’t get maternal instinct from your mother and physical aptitude from your father. It’s true that some women do not have maternal instinct and some men do not have physical aptitude, but these are departures from the norm.

        Speaking of departures from the norm, so is every case you mentioned. Women were not intended by God to be rulers or leaders, but at times there was no man to fill this role, so God used a woman to fulfill his will. I have no issue with women doing things men do or vice versa as long as we understand that those were anomalies, and not the way God intended it. God never meant for men to have slaves and concubines either, so that point is hardly worth addressing at length, and the same goes for servants. It’s plain from the Bible: one man, one woman, and children make a home, and everything else is not how He made it to be.

        Lastly, who said anything about Roman family codes? The ideal I’m talking about comes from the Bible. It comes from the book of Genesis, which predates Roman and all human civilizations. That’s why, in fact, that the nuclear family transcends history: it was the original, the standard that all other derivations have departed from. But even six thousand years later, it’s still around. It was around when people were having concubines and servants, and it’s around today, when moms think having a second mortgage and office parties are as meaningful as their children’s lives.

        >

        Like

      5. Jamie Carter Avatar

        Generally, anyone who points to the household codes in Ephesians or elsewhere in the New Testament does not know that they’re reading Paul’s answer to Aristotle’s teaching on the subject:
        “Of household management we have seen that there are three parts- one is the rule of a master over slaves, which has been discussed already, another of a father, and the third of a husband. A husband and father, we saw, rules over wife and children, both free, but the rule differs, the rule over his children being a royal, over his wife a constitutional rule. For although there may be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is by nature fitter for command than the female, just as the elder and full-grown is superior to the younger and more immature. But in most constitutional states the citizens rule and are ruled by turns, for the idea of a constitutional state implies that the natures of the citizens are equal, and do not differ at all. Nevertheless, when one rules and the other is ruled we endeavor to create a difference of outward forms and names and titles of respect, which may be illustrated by the saying of Amasis about his foot-pan. The relation of the male to the female is of this kind, but there the inequality is permanent. The rule of a father over his children is royal, for he rules by virtue both of love and of the respect due to age, exercising a kind of royal power. And therefore Homer has appropriately called Zeus ‘father of Gods and men,’ because he is the king of them all. For a king is the natural superior of his subjects, but he should be of the same kin or kind with them, and such is the relation of elder and younger, of father and son. ” – from: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html
        The ancient world thought as Aristotle did, and that’s why they created a system by which husbands were superior in every way and held the advantage. The thing about Genesis is that people are just reading out of it – how can it be that A&E had marriage right and for thousands of years after theirs nobody did marriage right? Did they not teach their sons not to take multiple wives? I don’t think that God was making a statement about marriage when he put A&E in the Garden and reading it as such isn’t reading the scripture as intended. It’s a description, not a prescription.

        Like

      6. Arnan Avatar

        Actually, God was making a big statement in Genesis. That was where the order of the home was established. First, there was Genesis 2:23-24, where it says:

        “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

        This is where God made man and women equals in STANDING. They are as one being in God’s eyes. However, in Chapter 3 the reason for the physiological differences are revealed:

        “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

        Here God is pointing out that He has made the woman to have difficulty in childbearing (something for which she made is uniquely suited) and man was made to have difficulty in physical labor (something for which he is uniquely suited to do also). God showed in the very first chapters of the Bible that man and women were equal (one flesh) in his eyes, but that in the physical world they would have vastly different roles. Would the presence of the curse of sin sometimes necessitate women and men to do things for which they were not originally intended? Yes.

        The thing is, Jamie, men and women both have taken the passages in Genesis AND the ones you mention in Paul’s letters to be some kind of archaic system that has no meaning anymore, but they only do that by misinterpreting the passages. If you read them with an agenda, be it patriarchal or feminist, you will ultimately corrupt their intended meaning. Men and women are equal in STANDING or WORTH, but not equal in ROLE or ESSENCE. And the latter could not be more obvious. The vast majority of women cannot compete with men physically, nor are the vast majority of men sensitive or good with children. A man can be the head of his home, going to work, making the decisions for the home and still treat his wife as God intended. These passages are not a license for men to do what they please (patriarchal systems as you refer to them) but as a warning. Men are to lead, so they are held accountable. They are RESPONSIBLE in God’s eyes, while the woman is NOT. Even if the woman takes the lead, it is the man God holds responsible, for that was how God made marriage.

        People like to take Ephesians 5 and tear pieces of it out, both men and women, and thereby destroy its meaning, but its meaning is plain if you read the whole passage. Men and women are to defer to one another. They are to love one another equally and treat one another with the utmost respect and dignity. But they must never forget that the man is responsible for the home. He is the head, not to do what he wants and be a dictator, but rather to take care of the woman and the children as no one else can:

        ” Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” – Ephesians 5:22-28.

        Women chafe at the verse about submission, and try to explain it away with modern and ancient explanations and even linguistic tomfoolery, but it stands. When the chips are down, God expects the wife to stand by the man’s decision. And that is because the wife is a picture of the church, which is to obey Christ in all things. This verse goes directly against the “empowered” feminist agenda that women have been assaulted with in modern times. But the fact is, as “bad” as that verse is for the women, stronger still is the verse to husbands. We are to love our wives as Christ loves the church, even to the point of DEATH. We are to give EVERYTHING UP for her, even our own wishes and desires. Is our wife having trouble with the kids after we get home from work? The man is to be the leader, step up and get involved, no matter how tired he feels. Is the wife struggling with something emotionally? The man is to be there for her, even if it means missing the game or a nap and instead putting in all the effort he can muster to try to comfort and understand her. All women are told to do is to submit. All women have to do in God’s eyes is to support their husband, and if they have children, these are their next greatest responsibility, sacrificing their wants and desires for the children in the same way that their husband sacrifices his wants and desires and sense of fulfillment because of his love for his wife. That’s what it’s all about, Jamie. It’s about men putting their families first, and women putting their families first. It’s about husbands giving up their comfort and wishes because they love their wives and kids MORE than THEMSELVES. And it’s about wives giving up their sense of fulfillment and sense of entitlement and loving their husbands and their kids more than themselves, even if it means being a stay-at-home mom. We can banter about ancient systems and what Aristotle said, but ultimately the Bible is clear: family is about love, and love is about sacrifice. And by the way, when we are living that way, our sense of fulfillment exceeds anything at the workplace, or any feeling that a football game or bigger houses or more cars could ever give us, and it will stave off divorce and discontent. Of course, only God can help men and women put their families before themselves, but by His grace, Jamie, we can do it. We can all do it.

        Like

      7. Jamie Carter Avatar

        There’s a difference between: “Thou shalt …” and “God put a man in the garden …” one is a commandment, the other is a story. To take a story as a commandment is a grave miss-reading of what was meant.
        Genesis 2:23-24 is a naming poem and even a pun, this is a little more evident in the Hebrew than in the English; “adam” is “human” but at this point he calls her ‘ishah – “woman” and calls himself ‘ish – “man”.
        Since Genesis is commonly said to have been written by Moses, several hundred years had passed since the original events took place. It’s author breaks up the narrative to point out an observation, but it’s to be noted that this obeservation comes from his cultural point-of-view long, long, after the original story. One commentary says: “the origin of an existing custom or tradition is assigned to some specific event in the past” so that must mean that in the years between Genesis and Moses, no such correlation existed for them.
        The curses in chapter 3 were said to be reversed by Jesus’ death and ressurection, it’s not God’s intention for us to plant thistles, for us to cause increased pain in child-birth, or to harm the ground in an effort to obey the curses. We have developed technology and science to overcome the curse, our farming methods are as such that one farmer on a tractor can raise food on thousands of acres at a time. We have also developed painkillers to take away the pain of child-birth. I’m reminded of a story I once read where a woman was put to death in ancient England because she asked to use pain-killers when she was giving birth and the leaders of the community felt that she was trying to avoid the curse – as a woman, it was her lot to feel pain and so they made sure that she did when they burned her alive. One thing also worth noting is that it was the lot of women to work the fields as well – Ruth had it easier than the other women who were gleaners because she found favor in Boaz’ eyes. The ones who didn’t had to do far more work with much less ease just to get by – women were hard workers and always have been.
        I don’t see how you can say that women and men are not equal in essence – consider the difference between flour and bread, both originate from wheat, one is ground up and the other is formed into dough and baked. So it is with man and woman, from the earth came man, from the man came woman, therefore she is also of the earth and that is why when she dies she decomposes back into the earth; and doesn’t become man. This is what I don’t get, if men and women are hard-wired to be like x and y, respectively, then there’s no need to teach such things because that’s what they already are. If they aren’t hard-wired, then they have to be taught. Since even secular humanity often breaks the rules about what men and women are, then the hard-wired concept must be a false one.
        Two thousand years ago, ancient Israelite was under the authority of the Roman empire, her duty was to submit to her husband – a brutal tyrant known for putting down riots by the might of the sword. It was a world of inequality, where women had no rights and no education and men had all the power over everyone. Authority and submission was typical of their lifestyle, as 2/3 of the world’s population were slaves who were required to submit to the authority over them. In the household codes such as the one in Ephesians, you’ll notice that the instruction to slaves is similar to that of the wives. Today, modern Americans have no emperors or kings. Women have increasing rights and can take a bank loan without a male countersignature and do not require a male guardian to conduct business or for legal matters. Yet Christians speak of these household codes as “God says” not “God used to say…” Everything has changed, the world, the nature of our beliefs – in equality. God’s word to an authority/submission, shame/honor society doesn’t change, but it also doesn’t speak to our equality/based guilt/innocence society either. It’s like an ill-fitting shoe – you’ll have to break something to get it to fit. Since God’s word is unbreak-able, that must mean that people must ‘break’ their spirits, their wills, their hopes, their dreams – but that’s what we get when we decide being biblical is far more important than being decent humans who treat each other according to the spirit of the Word and not the letter of the law.

        Like

      8. Arnan Avatar

        All I have to say is, the moment we start saying that things in the Bible don’t apply, because of xxx reasons, we’re in very real danger theologically speaking. That indeed, is a completely different argument. Once you start explaining away what you don’t like, and deciding not to just believe what you’re reading, vast portions of scripture become meaningless. Be careful, Jamie, when looking at scripture through a lens of modern day intellect, and our own desires and understanding, and remember that everything in scripture is intentional and relevant.

        >

        Like

      9. Jamie Carter Avatar

        Right, because the next thing you know, Christian women won’t be wearing head coverings to church according to the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11 … oh wait, they don’t. Must be a whole lot of them who totally disregard their Bible, or perhaps they recognize that the teaching existed in it’s time and and it’s place for a reason that doesn’t apply to them at this time and place.

        Like

  2. Serving Kids in Japan Avatar
    Serving Kids in Japan

    Dear Arnan,

    I’ll warn you, this is a “mean” article.

    That’s about the truest thing I read in your entire blogpost, brother.

    It is mean for you to assume the worst about working mothers in your church. You seem to take it for granted that they have careers for no other reasons but self-fulfilment or enjoyment. They could have other reasons that you apparently haven’t considered. They might be maintaining marketable skills or tenure, in case something should happen to their husbands. They might be setting aside extra savings, in case something should happen to them, or to their husbands. Unless you’ve interviewed each and every one of them for this article, you have no way of knowing that. Trying to read their minds is questionable at best. Doubting their faithfulness to God or their families, merely because they work, is simply insulting.

    It is mean for you to implicitly insult my mother, who worked as a medical professional while raising me and my siblings. Even though my father was in the same field of work, she maintained her career, going to work every day, going on call, hiring babysitters when necessary… and loving us dearly. She has her faults, and I know them well. But you are in no position to tell me that my mother didn’t love us, or that she didn’t trust or obey God. I will not listen to that.

    It is mean for you to insult me and countless others by stating (both in your post and in the comments, and without any kind of support) that men are “divinely designed” to be providers and protectors, and women to be nurturers and caretakers. There are plenty of people, and plenty of Christians, who don’t fit these moulds. I’m one of them. I’ve never been physically strong, and I’m much better with little kids than I could ever be on a farm, in a factory, or on a battlefield. Does that make me “not a real man”? What about “Daisy”, a fellow commenter of mine on other blogs? By her own admission, she doesn’t like working with or taking care of kids, and has always been something of a tomboy. Do you claim that God judges her to be “less than a real woman”? Considering that He designed us both, I find that very hard to swallow.

    In my opinion, your article is indeed mean. It’s much more mean than it is true.

    Like

    1. Arnan Avatar

      Hi, Serving Kids in Japan. Thanks for your comment. I’m sorry that you felt offended by my article, or that I was making assumptions about people or personally attacking your mother. That being said, I stand by every word I have written. You did one better than Jamie, who missed the point of the article entirely, in that you missed the point of the article, and then apparently read the comments and missed the point there too, despite the fact that I let Jamie take me on the merry-go-round in order to clear up a few things. While Jamie got offended and decided to bombard me with a lot of intellectualism, I see you went the straight offended route. The article wasn’t intended to be mean, SKIJ, but I think you know that. After all, I put “mean” in quotes. And I only did that because the truth is hard to hear. I put “mean” at the beginning of the article because it has an element of criticism, but I’m not attacking anyone. All I am trying to do is point out that our society has taken us far away from God’s ideal, which is plain not only in the Bible but in everyday life. I have seen the bond of a child and mother, and it is nothing short of magic, SKIJ. It’s powerful. And it’s most powerful when the kids are young. It’s the reason adult people spend years and fortunes trying to locate their birth parents even though they know said parent(s) didn’t care enough about them to be in their lives.

      But I’m not going to address your every comment, because frankly I don’t have the time or energy to go around the merry-go-round with you too, SKIJ. If you want to take offense at my article, that’s your choice, but everything I’ve said I have backed up with scripture. But let me reiterate: it’s not about insulting anyone, it’s about the sacrifice. Your mother, the women at my church, Jamie, etc., they may have the best intentions-they may believe they are being the BEST mom they can be. And maybe they aren’t bad moms. But they aren’t the best they can be. It’s simple: does a woman have the ability to be at home without people starving? If yes, then there is literally NO EXCUSE for her being at work instead. I believe you love your mother, SKIJ, and perhaps your mother loved you. But if she left you (and your siblings) with a babysitter because she wanted to maintain “marketable skills or tenure, in case something should happen to her husband,” then she wasn’t sacrificing. God’s plan is for husbands to provide for their families, wives to take care of their children in the home, each sacrificing what they want for the sake of each other, and trust EVERYTHING to God. Don’t tell me that women are working lucrative jobs so that they can provide some sort of insurance policy for their families in case something happens to their husbands. Big houses and new cars are just the cross they have to bear as a result, right SKIJ? BUT EVEN IF THEY ARE doing it for the right reason, it’s still wrong. Even if they have noble intentions, they’re still not doing the best by their children. And please spare me the “real man,” “real woman” argument, which is just an emotionally charged smokescreen. I’m talking about being the BEST we can be, as fathers and mothers. I’m talking about striving for God’s ideal: the nuclear family, which is what is best for mom, dad, and the kids. It’s easy to be selfish, and it’s easy to justify being selfish. All of us are inclined to do so, myself included. It takes denial of self. I’m not about insulting people, but the truth hurts, SKIJ. It offends people, myself included. But when the Bible offends you, as a Christian you have to believe it anyway, and change your life if you need to.

      So, I know this response probably offended you too, SKIJ. Sorry. Sorry to let you down hard like that. I don’t know you and I don’t know your mother, but all I do know is this: no matter how well-intentioned your mother was/is, if she went to work when she could have been with her children, then no matter WHAT her motives or reasons, she wasn’t doing the best by you or your siblings. She may have loved you very much, but she wasn’t willing to give up what she wanted for your sakes. And that is a typical story in our culture. She was lied to. She was told that she’s “entitled” to work a job. She was told that homemaking is “outmoded.” I don’t know what the case was exactly, SKIJ, but love = sacrifice, and to love much, you have to sacrifice much. My wife could easily make as much or more money than me, but she chooses to be home with our kids, not because I told her to, but because she understood long before my little insignificant article on the internet that being a mother meant SACRIFICE. Jesus gave up His life for us, SKIJ, because He loved us fully, and women today feel offended because He wants them to put their children before themselves. Shame on such women, but shame more on men who have bought into this lie and perpetuate it, and shame even more on our society for coming up with these notions for the sole purpose not of enriching women’s lives, but for the purpose of shaking their fist at God.

      Like

      1. Serving Kids in Japan Avatar
        Serving Kids in Japan

        Well, I know it’s been a while. I’ve had a bit on my plate lately. And I’ve been working to distill my anger, and turn it into something coherent. Very likely I’ll fail, because I’ve got a lot to say, but here goes anyway.

        The article wasn’t intended to be mean, SKIJ, but I think you know that. After all, I put “mean” in quotes. And I only did that because the truth is hard to hear.

        I know perfectly well that you meant the word “mean” facetiously. Yet your article was indeed mean, and cruel. And not because it was true, or biblical. It’s nothing but your opinion, enhanced by a backwards interpretation of select Bible verses, without a trace of Christlike love or compassion, or even a willingness to see your friends’ lives from their point of view.

        She was lied to. She was told that she’s “entitled” to work a job. She was told that homemaking is “outmoded.”

        Wrong. She recognized the talents and gifts God gave her, and she put them to work, like any good servant of His would. It had nothing to do with anything anyone told her about homemaking.

        This is the real lie, as I see it: The proclamation from on high — by individuals like you, and by groups like the CBMW — that men and women must remain in specific, unchangeable “roles”, or else they can’t be “genuine” Christians. I know that this is a lie, because those who espouse it, even the self-acclaimed gurus in TGC and CBMW, can’t agree what “gender complementarianism” is supposed to look like in practical terms.

        John Piper, for example, would very possibly condemn my mom and the women you mention, not because they’re working mothers, but because they work in professions in which they might be giving men orders. I know for a fact that he’s against women working as police officers or in the military — he doesn’t want them “violating” any man’s “sense of manhood”. (Whatever that’s supposed to mean.) So, why aren’t you in agreement with Piper here? If you both believe the same thing about men and women, why didn’t you simply say that they shouldn’t be in medicine?

        And then there’s Mary Kassian, who helped to pen the Danvers Statement and coin the term “complementarian”, and also published a book on the subject of male and female roles. All while she was still raising young children. So, one of the pioneers of gender comp is (by your logic) a woman who believed the lies of society and, in defiance towards God, abandoned her kids to do work outside the home.

        How’s that for irony?

        Maybe the title of this article should be, “Gender Comp Gurus: Make Up Your Minds”.

        Shame on such women, but shame more on men who have bought into this lie and perpetuate it, and shame even more on our society for coming up with these notions for the sole purpose not of enriching women’s lives, but for the purpose of shaking their fist at God.

        No. I’ll tell you what I find shameful: That groups like TCG and CBMW are trumpeting themselves as the greatest defenders of women, children and families, while their members and allies routinely mistreat women and children, and do things that hurt and destroy families.

        It’s shameful that Matt Chandler, John Piper and other so-called luminaries kept propping up an abusive misogynist like Marc Driscoll, until his brand simply became too toxic to defend anymore. How many people did he run over with the “Mars Hill bus” before his empire finally collapsed?

        It’s shameful that Paige Patterson fired Prof. Sheri Klouda from his seminary, when her husband couldn’t work and her family was in dire straits, just because he didn’t want a woman teaching Hebrew to men. Equally, if not more, disgusting is the fact that Patterson has bragged about sending home a parishioner to risk being beaten by her husband again. He certainly didn’t do much to protect these women — in fact, his actions hurt them.

        It’s disgraceful that the elders (all men) in Chandler’s The Village Church placed Karen Hinckley under church discipline, as punishment for annulling her marriage to her husband, a man who used child pornography. Chandler eventually apologized for their treatment of her, but why couldn’t he have prevented it in the first place?

        It’s unconscionable that Don Carson, Kevin DeYoung and Justin Taylor all signed a statement praising and supporting C.J. Mahaney — a statement that contained at least two obvious falsehoods. This after he was credibly accused of covering up the abuse of children in Sovereign Grace Ministries. It seems these three are more interested in protecting one of their own, rather than any of “the least of these”.

        It’s an outrage that Mahaney was allowed to speak and preach at Together For The Gospel 2016, when those who suffered under his care were protesting his participation outside. Even worse, Al Mohler introduced him with a joke at their expense. That’s how much these “manly gospel men” care for women and children.

        How do I know about all of this? Primarily, because of the hard work of women. In particular, Dee Parsons and Deb Martin, who carefully investigate matters like these and report them on their blog The Wartburg Watch. They both (as I recall) have MBAs, and I know that Dee worked as a nurse while her kids were growing up. Because of this you would probably dismiss her as a high-handed rebel against God and His Word. And yet, she does the hard work of researching and calling out the behaviour of (among others) comp-spouting men who tacitly support abuse and chauvinism.

        Which leads me to wonder: If the self-appointed complementarian experts are so righteous, and so concerned about protecting women and children, why can’t they seem to do it right? In fact, why do they consistently get it wrong in ways that even non-Christians would find repulsive? And why is a “rebellious, defiant” woman doing such a better job of advocating for the abused and mistreated?

        So I say: Shame on these men I’ve named, and the lies that they perpetuate. Every single last one of them. But I will never be ashamed of women like my mother, or Dee and Deb, or Julie Anne Smith, or anyone else who knows what’s important and fights for it.

        Like

Leave a reply to Arnan Cancel reply