For nearly a decade, my family (well, mostly my wife and I) have struggled with an issue over our family structure. When we dated, and were first married, we both worked; she as a lawyer, and me as an intern (ie. unlicensed) Architect. Before we met, I had struggled to keep a job in a very competitive and economy-sensitive field, and had held three such jobs in just a matter of a few years. In fact, at the time that we met, I was just a few months into my fourth such job, one I had to move “outside the box” to get. By the time our first child came along, I lost that one too. All-the-while, my wife had established a stable career that provided a steady income for our young family. We continued to struggle in deciding if we were doing right, not only for each other, but for our young child. For the first 21 months of his life, we both worked. We were fortunate enough that my mother could watch over him during the day, keeping him from growing up in a daycare center, as is so common among children these days.
That all changed in January of 2009. After holding on to my fifth career job through several rounds of layoffs in a declining economy, I found myself out of work again. This time was much worse than the previous times, as the economy was now in full-fledged recession, and jobs were nearly impossible to come by.
It’s against this backdrop, and wondering if we wanted to continue paying someone else (even if it was a Grandmother) to raise our child. We came to the conclusion that it wasn’t helping our family to continue down that path. The questions were difficult, and decisions that needed to be made were far from easy. It was clear that adopting a family model where I (husband and father) would leave the home to earn income to provide for my family, while my wife (mother of one at the time, now four) could stay home and live a June Cleaver lifestyle was unrealistic. The cold reality was that my ability to provide for the family alone was not going to materialize. What made the decisions we needed to make somewhat difficult was that my wife’s ability to “bring home the bacon” was much easier. We were going to be in a one-income family with her working, or a two-income family with both of us working. But we also sought to be faithful to God’s design for the family. Would we be living in sin if I were to stay home?
The questions we faced nearly a decade have never gone away. They resurface from time to time, for various reasons. Sometimes the stress that I admit our family dynamic brings causes us to revisit our situation. Sometimes a comment or question from others will bring us back to the decision desk too.
The Traditional View
Yesterday an article by Costi Hinn popped up on my wife’s Facebook feed. Now, I can’t help but mention my connection to Costi. Don’t get ahead of me, we’re not close friends, but we’ve “met,” in a manner of speaking. I interviewed Costi earlier this year on my podcast. I really like Costi! He has an amazing story, he’s a dear, loving brother, and I greatly respect him. His passion for the Bible, the Gospel, and the Church are incredible. So it was against that backdrop that I took a look at what Costi had to say about an issue that directly affects my own family situation.
I want to interact with what Costi had to say, not in a hostile or confrontational way (if it comes across that way, it’s not at all my intention.) My hope is that, by interacting with his piece, I can help others who face similar difficult decisions. The assumption going into this is that Costi, I, and the average reader all want to do what’s best for our families, and to do so in a way that is not dishonoring to God and His Word.
I titled this section of my article “The Traditional View,” but just what do I mean by that? Well, I brought up Costi and his article because he argues from a “Traditional view.” That is to say that, in a Biblically-faithful family structure, the husband/father should be working outside of the home to earn an income that will provide for the needs of his family, and that the wife/mother should be at home tending to the daily needs of the children.
Judging by the responses of a few of our mutual friends online (Twitter,) this is a view that others hold as well. But is it what the Bible demands? Well, though I doubt I’m going to change minds that have been made up on this, I hope to at least demonstrate that the case isn’t nearly as easy as some think it is.
Note: it needs to be said that I fully agree with some of Costi’s points. I’m interacting with them, not challenging or seeking to “refute” them. Costi is a pastor, trained in handling God’s Word, and he does a good job of that in many ways. I don’t seek to detract from that when I’m not in total disagreement with him.
The Biblical Argument for the Traditional View
Costi gave several points from Scripture to buttress his understanding of the Biblical teaching on family, and to advance his argument for the “traditional view.” While I would like to interact with them all, this is already going to be quite long, so I’m going to have to pick out the verses I think are the strongest for his case and interact with them.
First, he has a heading titled “1. Godly fathers are called to work.” I agree with Costi on the overall premise of the section. Godly Fathers are called to work. And not just fathers, but men in general. However, let’s be careful to define our terms here. In this regard, I think Costi merely takes for granted that “work” means to get down to the employment agency and find gainful employment. That’s a very 21st-Century way of reading that word though. Did Adam hit up monster.com for job opportunities? Don’t be absurd!
So just what is “work?” Well, that is actually a massive question. In fact, it’s big enough, I will dedicate a section of my view to this. It’s the question. For now, I’ll just say I think the view of “work” as being an activity that results in a paycheck is particularly anachronistic.
In his second point, under the heading “2. Godly fathers are to provide,” we find the specific verse I hear brought up more than any other.
if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8)
At first glance, this appears to be the ultimate proof-text for the “Traditional View.” I almost don’t blame Costi for referring to it. However, because I respect Costi so much, and have seen his eagerness and general ability to rightly handle the Scriptures, I’m a bit disappointed that he used this. He even acknowledges what the context of the passage is: the care of widows. Please, this is no small argument, go read 1 Timothy 5. The chapter addresses two issues: caring for widows, and honoring elders. That’s it. It’s disingenuous to use v. 8 in this discussion. That Costi closes this section with the following demonstrates his hedging, he knows this verse is often used out of context, but he uses it anyway:
A word to those feeling shame or tension over this topic: There is no need to feel shame for missing the mark in this area if you’ve never been taught biblically on it. Study further (resources below), pray through the next step with your wife, and walk confidently forward knowing God always honors His word. It may be a difficult season shifting to a more biblical approach, but trusting and obeying God will lead to joy and peace.
In his third of three sections, Costi says “3. Godly fathers don’t capitulate to culture.” Overall, we agree on this. I understand there are some stay-at-home dads and/or working moms in their situation because they are capitulating to culture. Costi mentions kids going to daycare so Mom can climb the corporate ladder. I agree with Costi on that. That’s not my family’s situation, not even slightly. I’ll have some thoughts & advice at the end of this, and I think Costi (should he read this) would see that we don’t disagree on this. It’s not really worth addressing this section much further, we overall agree.
The Natural Argument for the Traditional View
Costi doesn’t appeal to nature to buttress his view, but I would like to address it. After nearly a decade of being home with my kids, I actually think the argument from nature (or “general revelation,” if you prefer) is a stronger argument than the Scriptural one. I’ll circle back to this in my closing remarks already mentioned, where I give my thoughts and advice. To put it simply, it’s in the male nature to go out and kill animals for his family to eat, and it’s in the female nature to nurture children. That’s the most difficult reality my family faces in our less-than-typical situation. I would really be more personally satisfied as a dad to be out “killing animals,” and my wife would be more personally satisfied running the day-to-day family operations. We’re both openly out of our elements being in “reversed roles” according to the “traditional view.”
What is “Work?”
I mentioned above that the “traditional view” of work is anachronistic. Why do I say that? Well, let me just begin addressing this by stating something I’m certain Costi would agree with. When it comes to the Gospel, if the message doesn’t apply to all people in all places throughout all of human history, it’s not the Gospel. Costi knows this very well, having come out of the Word-of-Faith movement. Their Gospel says that God wants everyone healthy, happy, and prosperous. Just try selling that Gospel to the people of North Korea, or in the slums outside of Rio de Janeiro. They’re probably never going to be driving Bentleys or flying around the world on private jets.
But this principle doesn’t just apply to the Gospel, it applies to all of Scripture. If the Scriptures are going to tell us how to live, they will instruct all people in all places, at all times. And this is where I see a total breakdown of the “traditional view.”
Let’s start with Genesis, as Costi does. Way back in the beginning, when God created Man, He also created Woman. And what did he say about Woman when he created Eve?
Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him… …But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
Genesis 2:18, 20b-22
Did you see that? Woman was made as a helper for Man. They were to work the garden together. This was before the Fall, but we see this continue long after the Fall, even to the present day. There are countless examples of women working in the Old Testament, more than simply caring for children and “keeping house.” Costi pointed to the woman in Proverbs 31, which is a good example. I don’t completely agree with how he handled that passage, but don’t completely disagree either (we agree that a woman should not neglect her children in order to “climb the corporate ladder.”)
The New Testament is also not short of examples of a woman “working.” There’s Lydia, in Acts 16, who was “a seller of purple goods” and “a worshipper of God” (v. 14.) Purple dyes were very rare, and very valuable. Lydia was likely quite financially prosperous. I’ll venture to guess that if she was married & had kids (Luke is silent on this in Acts,) she well could have provided for their financial needs on her own. (Though I’d also venture to guess if she was married & had kids, the entire family would have worked on the family business, but since Luke said nothing of it, I’m admittedly spit-balling here.)
Look also to the human condition in general. Just as I acknowledged both a Biblical and a Natural argument for the “traditional view,” it’s important to understand both the Biblical and Natural counter-argument. How has mankind lived since the Fall? The most common trade throughout human history, and still to this day, is subsistence farming. And just how does subsistence farming work? Not only to men/husbands/fathers work the fields to raise enough crops to stay alive, but their wives generally have always been out there working right beside them. Not only that, the children are out there too. This is where I begin losing patience with the 21st-Century anachronistic view of “work.” It’s an amazing blessing to be able to survive, or even thrive, on a single income. It’s not the norm, though. The norm is every member of the family toiling in work. 19th-Century child labor laws brought about the exception to the rule.
Thus, really, “Work” is a whole-family endeavor. Even in 21st-Century America, there is more work to be done than people and time to do it. At-home parenting is no picnic, it’s hard work. Caring for kids is not easy work. But just because it doesn’t bring a paycheck or a W2 form, doesn’t mean it’s not work.
I have also encountered countless cases that are dual-income, or a sort of “hybrid” family structure system with people who are well respected for Biblical fidelity. One man who is an elder of a Reformed church, and head of a well-known parachurch ministry (I won’t name just because I don’t want to drag him against his wishes into an argument he didn’t seek) has sad that he was only able to pursue a career in ministry because his wife worked to provide their family with health insurance (I’m not certain, but believe she is a nurse.) My own pastor makes a lot less than I wish our church could pay him, and can only be our pastor because his wife (similar to my own) has a career that pays well (I’d double his pay if it were my call to make, but it doesn’t change his family’s past decisions.) And I doubt you’ll find a church in America that doesn’t have families with dual incomes, even if one is just for “a little extra money.”
Furthermore, I completely agree with the “traditional view” that when a family is able to survive, and even thrive, on a single income, it’s good for them to do so. I completely agree that it’s even ideal if the husband is the one earning that income. I completely agree that it’s not best for a family to ship kids off to daycare so both parents can work to earn more than they really need. Costi lives in Southern California, a very expensive place to live. An early comment on his post brings the question from another Southern Californian about the difficulty in earning enough for even basic housing in that part of the country. It’s never fair to suggest that the primary reason a family would resort to dual-income, or decide Mom will work because she’s capable of earning more than Dad, is to have more than they need. In most of the world, throughout most of history, this is even more apparent.
Closing Thoughts
For some, this is a very touchy subject. It can be a difficult subject. I will get some backlash for having a different point of view on this, and I’m okay with that. I agree with those who will be upset with me in that it’s important to honor God in how we structure and operate our family lives.
Advice to Husbands
As a stay-at-home dad, I do have advice to anyone considering a similar situation: make it a last-resort. Don’t seek a she-works-outside-the-home-he-stays-inside-the-home family dynamic. You might be able to make it work, but it’s not the ideal. My biggest reason is what I stated above in the “Natural Argument” section, it can be stressful.
That said, it is much better, in our view, for dad to be home with kids than for both to work. If your family can afford to keep one parent home, and it can be either parent, keep Mom home. If the only parent able to stay home is Dad, then raise your own kids rather than paying strangers to raise them for you.
For those who can’t swing the “traditional view,” I don’t believe your family structure is sinful. Whether both parents work outside the home, or just Mom, only you really know what’s best.
That said, husbands definitely are to lead their families. It’s the father that is clearly responsible to head the family-government. It’s the father who is responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of the family, regardless of his employment situation. Love your wives, and care for your children!
And to Costi… Love you bro! I don’t agree with you on this, but I don’t respect you any less for it.