Is it Ok if men stay home with children while women work

If you're going to go there, you'd better start a separate thread because the response will overload this one!

 

So I do not have God's Word? I just have some man's opinion of what he thinks it is? Why do I even take it to a pulpit to preach if it is not God's Word?

I know, as well as you, that neither of us is going to change the others opinion here. I think we both know where we stand.

Concerning the discussion of women working, even if I was to buy into your opinion that it is right for some and wrong for others and both could be right, as a man, I am not willing to lay that burden of responsibility on my wife. What do you think the chances are? 50/50 that everything would work out fine and the children will be okay and the marriage has no divisions or lacks because of this decision? Would it be 60/40? I will go high and say 70/30. If I had a 70% guarantee rate of success in the marriage and family life, I would never want to ris a 30% failure rate. (If memory serves me right, the divorce rate is drastically higher among working wives. I will search for a statistic. Who knows, maybe I am wrong but I wouldn't think so.)


Would you stand to agree with me that there is a slight possibility that the "women's lib" and the higher divorce rate, followed up with the great boom of daycare all can, to some part, be derived to women not wanting to be like their formothers? I think that with just a little bit of studying one can easily find a link to these attacks of the devil upon the home and the women's desire to leave the nest for a career. May it be by desire or the feeling of responsibility to have more money, regardless, Satan has attacked our homes and has destroyed a many of them.

 

Fixed quotation notations

Accountable said:

We believe that God is powerful enough to never let us loose our spiritual salvation yet He is not powerful enough to know how many children we should have. "I believe your powerful God but I know more than you when it comes to children. I only need two so I will take this harmful drugs and make the decision myself because your not powerful enough to make this decision." How sad.

To which abcgrad94 replied:

You're probably right!

In the end though God's Word will still stand.

 

Ok-I haven't read all this but I have a question. What about if the men have to stay home because of a disability and the moms have to go to work to feed the kids? Just wondering since that was how I grew up for most of my life.
:godisgood:

 

I just finished watching this video, when I read your response, so I want to link to this video in response to your post....

When parents think more about themselves than they do their children it is a sad day!

 

First, you are making an unfounded and false assertion against DHK and others. While he may consider himself to be a fundamentalist, meaning that he holds to the five fundamentals of the Christian faith, he has never to my knowledge claimed to hold to a KJVO position. The problem here is that while debating with DHK, myself, and others regarding the male ability (or inability) to show compassion you erroneously attempted to argue that because it is biblical for women to be the primary caregivers for children it is therefore evidence that men somehow have less ability to be compassionate. Then you took that erroneous idea and started this thread in an attempt to gain support from the general BB membership for your argument in the other thread. What you did was to fall prey to the formal fallacy of resorting to a straw man argument where you tried to caricature the opposing view in a bad light thereby making it easy to refute. However, the problem you are now experiencing is that neither DHK nor I espouse the position regarding women working vs. men working for which you are demanding that we answer. You have painted yourself into a corner here.

You are making two different arguments because you have mischaracterized the positions of those of us who disagreed with you regarding the male ability (or inability) to show compassion. Remember, you admittedly started this thread as a result/response to the debate we were having over whether or not men are somehow less compassionate then women. In this thread you sought to cast our position regarding true biblical compassion (and the source thereof) in a bad light in order to make it easier to refute. However, your erroneous assertions regarding true biblical compassion and your erroneous assertion that our position means that we somehow support men staying home while women work has landed you in a bit of a pickle.

We have no problem reading what you wrote. We are simply applying biblical truth to your statements and carrying them (your statements) out to their logical conclusions. Likewise, since no one with whom you originally debated over the male ability (or inability) to show compassion holds the radical extreme positions you are erroneously attributing to them, no one is going to attempt the refute the Scriptures you provided in support of biblical gender roles. Remember, you started this thread in an attempt to gain support against those of us who disagreed with you on the male compassion issue. The fact that God gave us specific gender roles in the Bible does not support your assertion that men are somehow less able to express true biblical compassion than women. This is not a “victory” for you. It simply means that you mischaracterized the positions of those that opposed you in the other thread.

However, I would point out that your use of the passage in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 is taken somewhat out of context for use in the current discussion. In both letters to the Thessalonians Paul was addressing their concerns/confusion over a heresy being taught by false teachers. These false teachers had convinced some in Thessalonica that the second coming of Christ was about to occur at any given moment (or that it had already occurred) and therefore there was no need to work because the end of earthly human history was at hand. Read the full context of 2 Thes. 3 it is clear that Paul is warning them to stay away from false teachers and those that do not live according to the example that he (Paul) had set for them. Some in the church at Thessalonica had bought into the false teaching and had stopped working and where eating from other peoples limited resources. Paul was addressing this issue specifically. He was not in the context of 2 Thessalonians specifically laying down a biblical principle or gender role for males to be the sole providers for their families.

 

I don't want to turn this into a KJVO debate. If you want to have this discussion you'll have to go to the Bible Versions and Translation Forum and start a new thread. I never said that you don't have the Word of God. I simply said that our English translations can not answer gender specific questions that arise because English does not use gender specific verbs and nouns. Likewise, I maintain that since the Word was originally written in Hebrew, some Aramaic, and Greek that as preachers/teachers we ought to study it in those languages, conduct our own translations using sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis, and then prepare our sermons in English (or whatever language). It is fine to preach and teach from an English translation but the preacher/teacher ought to be willing to put in the time and effort to learn the biblical languages in order to do the best teaching possible.

You are most likely correct.

Sometimes you (men) may have no choice in the matter. What of the example already asked where due to a physical handicap or disability the man can no longer work? What about the case I presented regarding my family while I was in seminary? My wife and I were/are 100% sure that the Lord intends for me to serve Him in full-time ministry and that He led us to SEBTS for my formal education and preparation for ministry. However, in moving to NC for seminary I had to leave a good paying job behind in GA. While in seminary I worked full-time as a third shift security guard for SEBTS. I think my take home pay was about $4,000 less per year than the minimum required to be at the poverty limit for a family of four in NC. Praise the Lord that as a full-time employee I did receive free tuition. Praise the Lord I was able to work at night and do my homework between making my security rounds, and able to attend classes during the mornings while my kids were at school. However, there is no way that my paycheck could have afforded basic housing, electricity, natural gas, water, groceries, a vehicle maintenance and fuel, clothing, plus buy my textbooks. I could not have even just paid the rent and purchased groceries on the salary I earned at that time. Likewise, because I was a full-time employee I did not qualify for the few scholarships that were available. However, I joyfully worked every night as if working for Lord. We knew and still know that God placed us where we were in order to better prepare us for ministry. God also provided a way for my wife to work as a contract employee with great freedom to work from home and to set her own schedule (just like the Proverbs 31 Woman) to help meet the expense of living in one of the highest cost of living areas in the Southeastern USA while I was at seminary. I did not place a burden of responsibility upon my wife; rather, she came along side of me as the helpmate God intended her to be (Gen. 2:18) and eased the massive responsibility I faced in trying to serve the Lord's will and at the same time provide for my family.

You make it sound as if being a Christian and following the Lord's will for our lives is some sort of guarantee that we will be safe and secure throughout all our lives. The voices of Christian martyrs cry against such thinking. I am sure that you are not a proponent of the charismatic health/wealth gospel. Why would you apply a health/wealth gospel type mentality to the issue of marriage and divorce as you have outlined above? Divorce in the Christian family happens because of sin on someone's part and for no other reason. Proverbs 31 effectively demonstrates that there is no sin involved with respect to a married woman working.

What you say may well be true. I don't know. Such socioeconomic/American cultural data is not my field of expertise. I just know that even given data that would support what you say it still does not speak against the fact that Proverbs 31 gives a biblical principle for a married woman to work somewhere other than solely in the home.

 

Bible Boy, you stated the following:

You would be correct in your pressumption that I am not a health/wealth preacher. Quite the opposite actually. I teach a strong accountability and punishment at the judgement seat of Christ for the unfaithful who chose the path of "health and wealth" and "comforts" instead of the straight and narrow way that is taen by those who are willing to suffer as He has called us to (II Timothy 2:12) (ICor. 3).
The above adds to my point. We are trying to make our lives "comfortable." We want our kids to have more than we had. Why? Do they need it? Will it make them better Christians? Should we not teach them to live a seperated life? Today we are looking for what is best for me and not what is best for the Lord's will.

I do not place the fault with the women who leave the raising of their children to the Public School system and day cares as much as I fault men who will not be men. Men are not willing to lead very often any more. Where there is poor leadership......well you see where I am going.

I'm not so crazy as to be blinded to the exceptions the are out there. I honestly do not ave every answer as neither do anyother save Christ. Again, I cannot answer for none save my family. For us, we live as we see the perfect will of God in the Bible. I am not the judge of circumstance, I shall leave that to Christ who has all power. I, my brother, am just not willing to take the risk of loosing my family through greed nor ignorance. I want all of my family to stand before Christ and hear well done. Though saved, this is not a guarantee. I also have no guarantee of tomorrow all I can do is stay as close to the Lord as I can and lead my family as God has called.

God Bless.

 

I can certainly agree with you with respect to your closing paragraph.

May God bless you as well brother.

 

Except for one small statement made on the first page of this thread, which didn't express an opinion one way or the other, you certainly have assumed a lot about me. Are you "clairvoyant?" Where do you get personal information about me from? How do you know where I stand on what issues if I haven't expreesed them yet?

 

Which is the hardest.
Women in olden times worked the fields, also raised a garden which is separate from the fields, cooked, washed clothes, clean house, sumit to the husband and raise children.
They had to get up ar 4 in the morning to have breakfast ready for everyone else on top of that.

Kids were to be seen, but not heard. They were to keep their mouths shut and when old enough, go to the fields. I wonder how much time women had for their kids then. Where do you think "shut up" came from?


I forgot, do all the canning also for winter, hole up the potatos.

A story, I never will forget that a bunch of us brethren were going to an association meeting for 3 days. When I picked up this one preacher, I looked and you barely could see the top of his wife's head. She was down in the sewer line digging a drainage field. This preacher hollowed out the window of my car at her and said "honey, try to have that done by the time I get back, so I won't have to worry about it. I suspect that women would much rather be working at Wal-Marts.

 

Oh I'm sure that a terrible grievous sin. (sarcasm)

 

Both of my parents were home for 24 hours each day and for several days at a time. We had a dairy farm. During the summer in addition all of us put up hay and also canned vegetables and made jam and jelly. By the time I graduated from high school I could make a complete meal, bake most any kind of bread, cakes, and pies. We butcherd out own animals. During the school year we got iup at 3:30 and started milkimg at 4:00, caught the school bus at 6:40. When we came home wwe would be home about one hour and then started milkimg again until about 8:30 when we were done. A lot of the students lived on farms.

There have been many days I stayed home and my daughter helped me work. On many occasions we worked 11 hours. I was a general contractor and had a shop too. My shop was out my back door on the same property as my home. During those times my wife always went to work while I stayed home.

A lot of welfare recipients stay home with their children too.

 

That isn't true for all working mothers. For some working means they can feed their child today, or provide diapers and milk. for some it means their child can have medications they need. I don't know single working mother who lives in a big fancy house, or drives a brand new car.
Do not group all working women into your fantasy group.

 

With all due respect, your our grandmothers lived in a far different society. Women married young and their husbands were the providers. Today, people marry much later, and even if your daughters do get married, they may have many years where they must provide for themselves.

I mean you no disrespect, but you are shortchanging these kids.

 

How do you know how many parents shake their own kids to be able to make such a comparison?