Wives Are Parents, Husbands Are Babysitters?

Here's today's Tapestry post:

Years ago, an author of a book on men and women in ministry with a PhD from a evangelical seminary spoke at a bring-your-own lunch workshop at another such school. Her opinions included the option that a woman might have biblical grounds for contributing economically to the household—a concept she pulled right out of Proverbs 31. Finally, one of the people in attendance raised a hand and asked, “But wouldn’t you concede that the ideal is for the woman to be home full-time raising the kids while the man is out working?"

She seemed ashamed. "Yes. That is the ideal."

At that time, my brother-in-law, Mark, and my sister, Mary, lived six blocks away. And Mark walked one of my nieces to school every morning while my sister left to teach school. A seminary student with a flexible work schedule, Mark was known in the neighborhood as the dad every kid wanted. Some afternoons my nieces came straight to our house until their parents arrived home. And none of us viewed this as unideal. In fact, we all loved it! The girls had the deep involvement of both parents, as well as the support of the extended family unit. And we enjoyed their presence.

So I think neither the speaker nor the questioner at that lunchtime talk went far enough. If we're going to speak in the realm of ideals, isn't the ideal for both parents to be around?

"She's at home, he's away at work" is a post-Industrial Revolution perspective. And while we might say it's a luxury to have a dad around during the day, it's also a luxury to have a mom around during the day. Having either set-up is a choice almost exclusively limited to two-parent, middle- and upper-class households.  

But here's the good news. Despite technology’s many consequences, one benefit is that flexible work hours are increasingly available to both men and women. A couple can contribute to the economics of their household, be available to the kids, and never have to pay a dime for daycare or leave a child without at least one parent at all times (unless they're on a date). 

Consider what life was like in an agrarian society without modern conveniences. Both parents worked at home. Mama never got down on the floor to play “Candyland” with her little ones—she was too busy canning peaches, ironing, and feeding the rabbits. And Papa was out in the field or perhaps in the shop doing blacksmith work, engaged in the tasks that required more physical strength. But he was around. And the kids spent a portion of the day helping him. Sometimes Grandma would take the kids and give both parents a break.

But industrialization yanked both fathers and mothers from the home. And until we had child labor laws, it pulled the kids out too. Only middle- and upper-class families could afford to have one parent at home. And the divorce rate skyrocketed, as the family unit no longer worked together for the common good. They hardly saw or knew each other. Even in middle-class homes where the father was the sole breadwinner and they could afford to have one parent at home full-time, the family experienced consequences. In the words of one of my students, “Our American mindset always makes it about money, and it simply isn't always about money. A man provides leadership, companionship, discipline, stability, and whatever else his gifting and abilities contribute. Having been raised in a traditional home that was bereft of a male role model because of my dad's long hours at work, I feel the void and don't believe that is God's design either."

So, the so-called biblical ideal of Mom at home with kids and Dad at the office or in the factory is really only a Westernized application of “provide for one’s own” and “be workers at home.” (Re. the latter, Paul was doubtless writing to women who were, for the most part, already contributing economically from home, and the emphasis was not on the location but on hard work.) 

One of the most devastating effects of this division of labor was and is a creeping sense that God did not “make” men to handle being around kids. Our language expresses this concept when we refer to mothers as “parents,” but dads as “babysitters.” I observe this phenomenon especially when the women go away on a retreat.

In the words of one Christian social historian, “When did we make it socially acceptable for men to be incompetent as parents?” Case in point...

A male economist/theology student with whom I discussed these ideas this week, upon viewing this clip wrote with grace: 

"It is such a denial of so many giftings that he already has and could develop. It's not so black and white. it's not "man go" "woman stay" and anything inbetween is not ideal or unbiblical. This echoes what I [feel] about wanting to engage more with my kids someday (hopefully!). Maybe being at home with my kids during the day some wouldn't be a bad thing?"  

God did not create women for childrearing and men for work. God gave both man and woman two tasks: Have dominion over the earth and be fruitful and multiply. And both male and female are needed, fully, to accomplish both tasks. How that looks today can vary. So let us show some grace and flexibility in considering how best to work out our Christianity when it comes to economics, the household, and childrearing. 

The Driscolls on Stay-At-Home Dads

Have you seen this clip from the Driscolls? I sent it to my class on the Role of Women in Ministry, and here is the response from one of the guys, John Lavoie, whose wife is working so he can go to seminary:

I watched the clip with my wife Rachel last night and we talked about it for a little bit.

Tone. I'm trying to assess his arguments in a fair and unbiased way, but I really believe that the tone in which a person communicates says a lot. Every "stay at home dad" in that room cringed at the way he reacted to the initial question. My dad used to debate socialist scholars on the university campus, and he always used to tell me, "If you want to persuade someone to believe what you believe, go for a walk with them in the park. Hold their hand, show them all the beautiful things in nature and have a nice time with them. By the end of the walk, you've taken them where you want them to go without them even realizing it." There's something to be said about winsome communication. Now, I realize Driscoll is trying to talk bluntly with the men, and as a man I appreciate that kind of frank candor (and I think women can appreciate that too!). He spoke very much about the "norm of men sole providing and women staying at home" and did very little to clarify the "not legalistic exceptions." 

Over-reaction. It seemed clear to me that they were over-reacting to what we call, "radical feminism." They were labeling mothers who want to work outside the home as shirking their responsibilities as mothers. It's not always so cut and dry. "Working" is not an automatic sign that a woman is somehow misguided in her family life. Proverbs 31 clearly affirms the value of women who are very active entrepreneurially. I think the Driscolls should have spent more time clarifying what they meant by the "exceptions" to the rule. And by clarification I mean, say more than "If you're a man and an invalid, then it's okay for you to stay at home." That is not helpful. Q-and-A sessions should help people who are in the mess, in the in-between, who are struggling to find wisdom in how to apply big biblical principles to the unique situations in their lives.

Fatherhood. I was so sad when Grace Driscoll said that her husband would let the house fall apart if he stayed home with the kids. It is such a denial of so many giftings that he already has and could develop. It's not so black and white. It's not, "man go" "woman stay" and anything in between is not ideal or unbiblical. This echoes what I [feel] about wanting to engage more with my kids someday (hopefully!). Maybe being at home with my kids during the day some wouldn't be a bad thing?

Irony. He said that Christians "shouldn't be conformed to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of our minds" but he is arguing for a 9–5 working husband, stay at home mom, post-Industrial-Revolution middle-upper class family model. That sounds culturally conforming to me.

What do you think? 

Book, Movie, and the UFC

Recently, a number of my current and former students have published some engage-the-culture stuff. Check out their work. 


Book Review:  
Of Mark and Grace Driscoll’s book, Real Marriage, by Sharifa Stevens

(The best review of this book I've seen.)

Movie review: 

Of the Indie film “Ink,” by Trevor Main 

Articles:

The Good Fight: Christians and the UFC, by Steve Smith
Raising Children in a Multi-cultural World, by Sharifa Stevens

God as Male?

I read this statement today in an otherwise excellent blog post discussing Pastor Mark Driscoll's "Macho Man" theology: "In the metaphorical landscape of the Bible, God is cast as the Male and believers (the church) are cast as the Female."

Now, while I agree with some of this statement, I have to say God is not cast exclusively as a male. In fact, God is a spirit. He does not have gender. We use "He" to refer to the fact that He's personal, and not a force. But let us be clear: saying "He" does not mean we're saying that God is male.

"You must be born again." John records that Jesus said these words to Nicodemus (John 3). We hear the phrase "born-again Christian" a lot. So let me ask...who is the birthing mother in this metaphor? By whom are believers born from above? Aren't we born of God? In the Book of 1 John, the apostle uses the phrase "born of God" no fewer than five times.

In Psalm 131:2 we find the analogy of a weaned child resting against its mother to speak of spiritual quiet and contentment.

And as part of three stories illustrating how God seeks the lost (the last of which is the Parable of the Prodigal Son), Jesus likens God to a woman who has lost a coin and rejoices greatly when she finds it (Luke 15:8).

To say Jesus is male is correct. To say God the Father or God the Spirit are male is heresy.

Also, God made male and female humans in His image. Together. Both men and women image God. I've had female students who thought males image God but women must marry to fully do so.

Let us not mince words on such ideas: They are wrong.