"a man must provide for the needs of his family" ....but what if you can't?

[Labayu]

I've noticed that a lot of American Christian girls with Christian parents, especially if their not from New York, LA etc that I know in real life resent that they have to work prior to marriage and see being a SAHM as an ideal to look up to. Some of them get really po'd when they marry and realise that they need to work for a couple of years until the first kid comes along (and often after that too).

On the other hand most Christian girls from the UK assume that they will need to work during the marriage.

Part of it is prob cultural. My mum was a SAHM but my dad was a pastor and had a free house. Lots of people my age didn't have SAHM, and most of my freinds who are married, even in their 30's have both parents working... basically, to buy a house you need two incomes in the UK nowadays, whereas in the States you don't always (ie Welshman's story of the very nice house in America costing £250,000. You'd get an awful place for that in the UK... plus you'd need a US$40.5k deposit and be earning US$68,000 to get a mortage on it)...

Part of the reason is that male incomes in the UK having been falling in real terms since the 1970's and they now compete with 100% more people since most woman work. Basically unless you earn way over the national average in the UK (US$40,000) you need to be in a dual income house.

 

[Luther073082]

My take:

Stay well clear of any woman that demands to be a stay at home parent, or thinks it's some sort of God given right to women. I would seriously question why on earth any adult in this day and age would really want ot live like a dependant child for the rest of their lives.

Being a man doesn't mean you should work yourself to an early grave so another grown adult can stay at home and do nothing. Before children are school aged it may well make sense finanically for one parent (doesn't have to be mom) to take a break from work for a while. But once the kids are in school there is simply no need for a stay at home parent. Sharing all the responsiblies of living gives both spouses an equal share in the headaches and benefits of income earning, housework, and child care. So I wouldn't worry about it: find someone that wants a partner, not a meal ticket, and you'll be fine.

I agree, during the younger years its good to have a stay at home parent. (Doesn't always have to be the mother). But after that arrangements can be made for both parents to work.

I would also suggest that instead of leaving the mother at home all the time so she can home school, maybe it would be better for the mother to work and her employment would more then cover the cost of sending a child to the private Christian school of your choice. In fact if she where working full time at only minimum wage it would still more then cover the tutition.

There are some public school systems around here I would never send my kids to. (There are others that I would) But I also know there are at least 3 different private Lutheran schools they could attend in the area. Plus several Roman Catholic schools and a couple of non-denominational/baptist schools.

Part of it is prob cultural. My mum was a SAHM but my dad was a pastor and had a free house. Lots of people my age didn't have SAHM, and most of my freinds who are married, even in their 30's have both parents working... basically, to buy a house you need two incomes in the UK nowadays, whereas in the States you don't always (ie Welshman's story of the very nice house in America costing £250,000. You'd get an awful place for that in the UK... plus you'd need a US$40.5k deposit and be earning US$68,000 to get a mortage on it)...

Depends on where you live in the US. Around here where the cost of living is fairly cheap my parents managed to get a house and 1.5 acres of land for $80,000. (49,780 pounds). (Low population density helps)

But lets not kid ourselves though, even though the cost of living is low this area doesn't exactly have a thriving economy either. Low cost of living often equals out to low level economy and low average incomes.

Example: In 2008
Average Household income where I live: $34,000 (note thats household, not per person)
Average for the rest of the state: $47,966
% living under the poverty line (Which is very low): 24.6%

So I guess in a way it all equals out. Yes there are a few high income jobs around here, but not many. You pretty much have to be a doctor or a lawyer.

http://www.city-data.com/city/South-Bend-Indiana.html

 

[WileyCoyote]

honestly this distresses me. I have come from a very poor family [unchristian as well] and I probably will end up falling in their footsteps..... I just can not make a super lot amount of money and my emotional and mental issues even make working incredibly difficult for me [not impossible mind you].

Now I'm not saying a godly man is a 30 year old man who lives with his mommy. But I will say that some christian men are very very poor..... and over-looked and dismissed.

honestly..... why is this the 1# dealbreaker for christian women? It makes me feel like you want me only for my wallet. It makes me SCARED to make alot of money for fear of attracting gold-diggers who use the "provide for the needs of the family" to excuse their selfishness. If this is really all it comes down to is money? I think i'd rather not marry.

thoughts?

I remember this one rap lyric that I believe can apply here:

"She needed chedder and I understood that. Looking for cheese don't make her a hoodrat."

TRANSLATION: Just because a woman seeks security doesn't mean she only wants a man for her wallet.

For me personally, I would feel like a total failure if I couldn't support a wife and children. For a lot of men, they get a lot of their identity from how well they provide for their families. I hate to be brutally honest here, but you are the man. It is your job to take care of your family. You do that by whatever means you have to. Even the Bible looks very lowly on those who can't support their familes:

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Timothy 5:8)

Wow. If you fail to provide for your household you are worse than an unbeliever. It's not your wife's job or your children's job to provide. That is YOUR job. If you refuse to do that, well, you read the scripture.

 

[Luther073082]

You know if people are going to cite a verse perhaps it should be posted in context.

1 Tim 5:4-8

4But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn(D) to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for(E) this is pleasing in the sight of God. 5She(F) who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and(G) continues in supplications and prayers night and day, 6but(H) she who is self-indulgent is(I) dead even while she lives. 7(J) Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. 8But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for(K) members of his household, he has(L) denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

I'm also noting that the verse says anyone not "the man".

Secondly I'm also noticing the verse talks about widows.

To me this says that if you arn't going to look out for your family when you have the resources then yes you are worse then an unbeliver.

It speaks nothing of people who just don't have the resources to provide. Not having the resources would make them. . . POOR. And Jesus seemed to be about helping the poor.

I'm not saying that Jesus endorsed laziness. But I also don't see the bible calling people who just can't provide at times "worse then an unbeliver" That just doesn't fit into the context.

Nor does it specifically say MEN must do all the providing either. In fact I can only find it referencing men specifically in rare non-standard translations on bible gateway. All the standard translations, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ESV, Message, NASB all say something to the effect of anyone. The two translations that specifically refer to men are Wycliffe NT and World Wide English.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Someone wants to help you, and you can either accept it to enjoy life a little better by going to posh restaurants, buy expensive toys or you can use it to increase your chances for a better job so that you can pay it back to that person.

I totally disagree with this statement in regards to "paying it back". If you DID try to do that, I believe, you would be robbing that person of his potential blessing from God by paying it back. God allowed that person to give you that money for a reason. If you truly don't need it, and use it to further bless someone else that DOES need it, God would probably want to "bless" you more because of your heart in helping others. That is a big part of our journey here is to Love. Especially at this time of year. If I had gotten the money I would have tithed 10% and probably used the rest for bills because I really need it, but if I was financially secure and really didn't need it, then I would be looking for someone to bless with it. Maybe a military family that can't afford Christmas presents, or someone you know that may have lost their job recently. Either God gave that money to you because you needed it, OR, because he knows that you would use it to bless someone he is trying to bless through you.

 

[WileyCoyote]

You know if people are going to cite a verse perhaps it should be posted in context.

What's up with the "if people"? Talk to ME. I'm right here.

I'm also noting that the verse says anyone not "the man".

Yeah, I guess I got that impression because of all the "he" and "his" references. I can see how that can be confusing.

"But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God. She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day, but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

The first part of that passage uses words like "she" and "her" and then when it gets to verse eight, it uses words like "he" and "his". Could that possibly mean it is talking about men? Anyone who is a man? Perhaps. But it does use the gender specific pronouns "he" and "his" in verse eight, where elsewhere it uses the gender specific pronouns "she" and "her". That says something.

Secondly I'm also noticing the verse talks about widows.

To me this says that if you arn't going to look out for your family when you have the resources then yes you are worse then an unbeliver.

Well, to me it says that you must provide for those in your household and if you don't have the resources, you better go out and get them. Why? If you can't provide for those in your household, you are worse than an infidel. A lack of resources is no excuse for failing to provide for your family. If you lack resources when you are able to work, that is YOUR fault and not anyone else's.

It speaks nothing of people who just don't have the resources to provide. Not having the resources would make them. . . POOR. And Jesus seemed to be about helping the poor.

Now you are being inconsistent. First you say "anyone" and then you make exceptions for those who "don't have the resources". Wouldn't "anyone" include those you say "don't have the resources"? To me, if you can work, you can provide for your family, even if it is in a very meager way.

Yep, Jesus was about helping the poor. But that doesn't mean that a man can't work and provide for his family. Those who create familes and fail to provide for them are worse than infidels. Even you said "anyone". So that includes those who you say don't have the resources. That's why God invented work.

I'm not saying that Jesus endorsed laziness. But I also don't see the bible calling people who just can't provide at times "worse then an unbeliver" That just doesn't fit into the context.

Actually, I think you are kind of saying that Jesus endorsed laziness. Men who work have resources. He is provided by the work of his hands and the God who takes care of all his needs. If a man has faith in his God and does what God told him to do where work is concerned, there is no excuse for why he can't provide for his family. None. The only way to really lack resources when you are able to work is you are just plain lazy.

Nor does it specifically say MEN must do all the providing either. In fact I can only find it referencing men specifically in rare non-standard translations on bible gateway. All the standard translations, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ESV, Message, NASB all say something to the effect of anyone. The two translations that specifically refer to men are Wycliffe NT and World Wide English.

Yes Luther. All of the translations that fit your presupposition are standard, while those that disagree with you are non-standard. And you also didn't do your research thoroughly enough. The Douay-Rheims Bible also refers to men as well as the Weymouth New Testament. Both of these would be considered "standard". And guess what? ALL translations, whether you agree with them or not, use the gender specific pronouns "he" and "his". All of them. More evidence that the passage is refering to men.

 

[Luther073082]

What's up with the "if people"? Talk to ME. I'm right here.

You are not the only person who cited that verse.

Yeah, I guess I got that impression because of all the "he" and "his" references. I can see how that can be confusing.

The first part of that passage uses words like "she" and "her" and then when it gets to verse eight, it uses words like "he" and "his". Could that possibly mean it is talking about men? Anyone who is a man? Perhaps. But it does use the gender specific pronouns "he" and "his" in verse eight, where elsewhere it uses the gender specific pronouns "she" and "her". That says something.

I think you are drawing too much out of it. I think of Paul was trying to reference specifically men here he would have outright said so. The he and his pronouns would be standard pronouns to use when talking about any particular person.

Well, to me it says that you must provide for those in your household and if you don't have the resources, you better go out and get them. Why? If you can't provide for those in your household, you are worse than an infidel. A lack of resources is no excuse for failing to provide for your family. If you lack resources when you are able to work, that is YOUR fault and not anyone else's.

I would agree with that if you are able to work and the work is available to be had. But I wouldn't agree with that specifically with men either.

Now you are being inconsistent. First you say "anyone" and then you make exceptions for those who "don't have the resources". Wouldn't "anyone" include those you say "don't have the resources"? To me, if you can work, you can provide for your family, even if it is in a very meager way.

Well you should do your best to provide for your family with the resources that you do have. But if you just can't do it, you just can't do it.

Yep, Jesus was about helping the poor. But that doesn't mean that a man can't work and provide for his family. Those who create familes and fail to provide for them are worse than infidels. Even you said "anyone". So that includes those who you say don't have the resources. That's why God invented work.

Again if the person can work and the work is available to be had. Obviously there are a lot of places and people put in the situation where it may not matter what so ever the person's work ethic because they're either too disabled to get the work or the work isn't there to be had. I'm not think of this specifically only in America, but in some places all over the world.

Actually, I think you are kind of saying that Jesus endorsed laziness. Men who work have resources. He is provided by the work of his hands and the God who takes care of all his needs. If a man has faith in his God and does what God told him to do where work is concerned, there is no excuse for why he can't provide for his family. None. The only way to really lack resources when you are able to work is you are just plain lazy.

I disagree completly with this statement. There are plenty of very faithful people in poor nations. Faith does not create work opprotunities. Not every hard working faithful Christian is just going to always be A-OK financially speaking.

Yes Luther. All of the translations that fit your presupposition are standard, while those that disagree with you are non-standard. And you also didn't do your research thoroughly enough. The Douay-Rheims Bible also refers to men as well as the Weymouth New Testament. Both of these would be considered "standard". And guess what? ALL translations, whether you agree with them or not, use the gender specific pronouns "he" and "his". All of them. More evidence that the passage is refering to men.

First of all, at least among American Christians, I've not seen those translations used much. So I'm basing what I refer to as "standard" in terms of which translations are widely used by English Speaking Christians. And I'm sorry the Douay-Rheims is not a widely used transaltion, nor is the Weymouth NT.

The translations that I can think of that are widely used are KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NRSV (which biblegateway doesn't have), plus the NASB and the Message are somewhat used as well.

I've never seen anyone before you even mention the Weymouth NT. Nor have I seen it in any store, secular or Christian.

 

[Miles]

If he can't provide for the needs of his family, then he should try anyway. If he puts in his best effort, regardless of his circumstances, that will demonstrate good things about his character. Some women will be impressed by how he's handling the situation, and not hold it against him. When the right job opportunity comes knocking, he'll be ahead of the game. Lack of money can be tough, but lack of money + apparent laziness is much worse.

 

[WileyCoyote]

You are not the only person who cited that verse.

Point taken, Kirk (may I call you Kirk?). I didn't see anyone reference that verse here.

I think you are drawing too much out of it. I think of Paul was trying to reference specifically men here he would have outright said so. The he and his pronouns would be standard pronouns to use when talking about any particular person.

So why would he use "she" and "her" earlier in the passage and then switch to "he" and "him" if he wasn't referring specifically to certain genders? Why confuse in such a way? I don't think I'm drawing too much out of it. I think I'm reading what is actually there.

I would agree with that if you are able to work and the work is available to be had. But I wouldn't agree with that specifically with men either.

I would agree. Again, I'm basing this on the fact that Paul uses the gender specific pronouns "he" and "him" as well as the fact that the Bible consistently states that man has dominion over his wife. I think it's obvious that if man is the "head" he should be the sole provider. But that's just my two cents.

Well you should do your best to provide for your family with the resources that you do have. But if you just can't do it, you just can't do it.

I believe a man should meet all the basic needs necessary to facilitate his family's physical survival. That means adequate food, adaquate shelter and adaquate clothing. This is not unreasonable as even Jesus says God provides those things even to birds and lilies. The key is putting your faith in God as well as using your two hands to work, obeying God and providing an avenue for which God can meet your needs.

Again if the person can work and the work is available to be had. Obviously there are a lot of places and people put in the situation where it may not matter what so ever the person's work ethic because they're either too disabled to get the work or the work isn't there to be had. I'm not think of this specifically only in America, but in some places all over the world.

You have a point. But I'm not really addressing those people who CAN'T work through no fault of their own (those people who are SO disabled it is impossible for them to work in any way, shape or form). I'm talking about those people who CAN work but won't. And more specifically, I was addressing the OP. The OP seems like he is able to work, does he not?

I disagree completly with this statement. There are plenty of very faithful people in poor nations. Faith does not create work opprotunities. Not every hard working faithful Christian is just going to always be A-OK financially speaking.

Well, it seems to be a consistent pattern in the Bible that if you have faith in God, He will provide your needs, correct? (the birds of the air and the lilies of the field are excellent examples). And the Bible makes it clear that you must work hard. I believe if you do these things, you will be able to provide for your family. I believe God will open doors for those who are willing to work and sincerely want to obey Him where providing for familes is concerned.

First of all, at least among American Christians, I've not seen those translations used much. So I'm basing what I refer to as "standard" in terms of which translations are widely used by English Speaking Christians. And I'm sorry the Douay-Rheims is not a widely used transaltion, nor is the Weymouth NT.

The translations that I can think of that are widely used are KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NRSV (which biblegateway doesn't have), plus the NASB and the Message are somewhat used as well.

I've never seen anyone before you even mention the Weymouth NT. Nor have I seen it in any store, secular or Christian.

Let's say that you are right and those translations are not widely used. That still doesn't mean they are incorrect. It seems rather fallacious to suggest that just because other versions are more widely used, those versions are more correct than the ones that aren't widely used. Also, that doesn't negate my other point that all translations universally use the gender-specific pronouns "he" and "his". To me, that stands as strong evidence.

 

[GQ Chris]

If he can't or won't provide the needs for his family>epic fail.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

You're better off not making a family. You'll have the shame of rejection from society, especially from the church. Not like the culture has changed or anything..

 

[Crosscheck]

Really, a lot of Americans subscribe to the notion that poverty is voluntary because it's reassuring to believe that circumstances are always within your control. The truth is they aren't; the sun shines and the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. It goes back the the Purtians who viewed earthly success as God's favor, and earthly failure as his punishment. Of course, that's not really in line with what historical Christainty has believed. Trials are a part of life, including poverty. Material success can be just as much of a trial. So the truth is you can do everything wrong and end up lucking out, just as you can do everything right and still fail.

 

[Sunset2009]

You're better off not making a family. You'll have the shame of rejection from society, especially from the church. Not like the culture has changed or anything..

Not making a family just because you're lazy and don't want to provide just means you have a lot of underlying real, and spiritual issues that need straightened out hardcore.

 

[Crosscheck]

Not making a family just because you're lazy and don't want to provide just means you have a lot of underlying real, and spiritual issues that need straightened out hardcore.

And I think anyone who thinks they should stay home and get a free ride on someone else's work has a lot of spiritual issues with laziness. So what's your point?

 

[ido]

Really, a lot of Americans subscribe to the notion that poverty is voluntary because it's reassuring to believe that circumstances are always within your control. The truth is they aren't; the sun shines and the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. It goes back the the Purtians who viewed earthly success as God's favor, and earthly failure as his punishment. Of course, that's not really in line with what historical Christainty has believed. Trials are a part of life, including poverty. Material success can be just as much of a trial. So the truth is you can do everything wrong and end up lucking out, just as you can do everything right and still fail.

Great post.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a man wanting to be the sole provider and a woman wanting to be a SAHM. I was a SAHM for over 4 years until my circumstances changed. But, I also worked PT off and on - with a flexible schedule so that my kids were either with me or my mom or (now ex) husband could watch them. I wasn't too proud to help contribute financially when seasons in our life called for it. I think to have an all or nothing attitude is dangerous and prideful.

 

[Crosscheck]

Great post.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a man wanting to be the sole provider and a woman wanting to be a SAHM. I was a SAHM for over 4 years until my circumstances changed. But, I also worked PT off and on - with a flexible schedule so that my kids were either with me or my mom or (now ex) husband could watch them. I wasn't too proud to help contribute financially when seasons in our life called for it. I think to have an all or nothing attitude is dangerous and prideful.

If that's what people want to do it's obviously none of my business. As I said, there are even times it makes finanical sense. I mean a part time retail job isn't going to even cover daycare costs most likely so there'd be no point in just working for the sake of it either. OTOH, I'm not much for the idea that staying a home is somehow a right bestowed on women and if that's not possible than the guy is a lazy scum bag. In the farming soceities that existed during the era in which the books of the Bible were written labor divison existed when there were enough farm hands to make it happen. If there weren't everyone worked the fields. Frankly, a huge amount of it simply comes down to social instructions for people 2,000 years ago don't apply to modern soceity one for one.

As for me personally, I'm a teamwork kind of guy. Not to turn everything in life into a hockey analogy, but it's incredibily stressful when forwards won't play defensive hockey and defenders won't chip in on offense. In the same way I don't think harmony is increased in the home when two people split themselves off into two unique and completely separate roles. A perfect 50/50 share on everything isn't possible in most cases, but I just feel when everyone is sharing the load across the board it makes life easier for everyone and avoids some of the silly illogical problems we see in modern soceity. For example: it's simply not logical to complain that a man isn't involved enough in child care when he's expected to finanically support the entire household. I don't think there's anything wrong with the notion of the modern involved father, but there are only so many hours in a day. For more father involvement in child care to be possible then women need to do some paid work.

In addition, I think we will continue to see life spans increase. This means people need to give increasing amounts of thought to their lives in the "empty nest" as the gap between the children leaving home and retirement increases.

 

[SonicBOOM]

Really, a lot of Americans subscribe to the notion that poverty is voluntary because it's reassuring to believe that circumstances are always within your control.

yeah.... this about sums it up. I'd like to think that people are smarter than this..... but usually the financially successful are more set in their ways on this issue than a ten thousand year old boulder.... I gave up trying to get them to see the light..... it sucks not being able to make alot of money and having the entire world blame you for it makes it all that much worse. However it seems it is completely unavoidable..... no one seems to get it.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Why not bring the whole family to work for 12 hours in dangerous conditions. Little lazy 5 year old Johny has no excuse! Little bum that he is~ Of course, it's God's punishment, not them being exploited at all..

Not making a family just because you're lazy and don't want to provide just means you have a lot of underlying real, and spiritual issues that need straightened out hardcore.

Is this for me or just in general, in general I'd say there are issues, but this isn't the case with me.

 

[K9_Trainer]

Not making a family just because you're lazy and don't want to provide just means you have a lot of underlying real, and spiritual issues that need straightened out hardcore.

Why be so judgmental of the way other people choose to live?

Some people don't want to have babies....Maybe it is because they don't want to have to provide for them. So what? Big flippin deal. It's not selfish, they don't have problems. Children are a HUGE responsibility, they demand a LOT of time, and money, and attention and some people simply do not want that.

There is nothing "wrong" with people or couples who choose to live childfree.

 

[Stravinsk]

Begin rant...

I don't know about any of the other men here - but generally, women who's primary focus is on the income of a man makes my blood boil. I mean, I realise there are practical considerations, such as area where one lives, enough to buy clothes and food etc, and for raising children - but beyond that, there are so many men that *do* treat women badly because they think of them based on how too many act - like their genitals/looks are up for the highest bidding. And what does that make them?

My Gosh, I basically disowned my entire extended family after my wife died (most of whom were church goers) - because the majority of what they valued in life (and what they spoke about) was the latest they had in technology (T.V's, disc players etc) - the size of their house and what they had in it, and generally the things they could buy based on their income - which all amounted (in my mind) to stupid *boasting rights* and *keeping up with the Jones's*.

The majority of them were all there to impress each other and compete based on income and possessions and it frankly made me ill.

A good friend of mine told me just today that when his daughter turns 18 he will have no reason to live(he strongly implicated he will kill himself). He loves his daughter to bits...but is only allowed to see her once a week and it's killing him - and to top it off, his former wife owns a house free and clear and he has to rent...because - well - in the seperation one of the biggest determining factors was that he is male. GAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH....