Father, Come Home . . . And Change The World!

 

Over the last decade or so hundreds of thousands of Christian families have begun a process of returning home. The choice is registered most visibly in the choice to homeschool the children. But this choice almost always includes another: the mother does not work outside the home. Her work becomes very much home-centered. Then, as the homeschooling process unfolds year by year, most families have discovered that just having Mom and the children at home is not enough. Dad must also “come home” in the sense that he must reclaim his responsibilities and privileges as head of the family if the renewal his family has begun to enjoy is to prosper. The homeschooling movement has had the salutary effect of turning the hearts of each member of the family back to the home.

 

This “family renaissance” is most welcome in a day when the home has become, even among Christians, a combination fast-food restaurant, transportation hub, and motel. Surely it is a wholesome development when families begin to take back responsibility for areas of life which God gave to them but which they have abandoned to other institutions over the years. And so not only have we seen education coming home; we have also witnessed a renewed interest in families taking charge of health decisions, caring for elderly relatives, and becoming self-sufficient in food, clothing, and shelter. Beyond this, many men are talking openly of their desire to come home in the sense of establishing a home-based business that would allow them to be closer to their families and would allow their children to follow them in a self-sufficient lifestyle. Some have even come to express open admiration for the simple, family-centered lifestyle of the Amish (without embracing their theological perspective). Surely this turning of the hearts of fathers to the home is to be lauded—or is it?

 

Is Being Home-centered a Form of Effeminate Abdication?

 

One esteemed brother and Christian writer recently scolded the Christian “masculine renewal movement” for actually being a quiet adoption of feminism! He refers to “the ‘neo-Amish’ home-centered reaction to modernity” in which “[t]he woman’s perspective on the home and family is accepted as normative and binding on all members of the family. Because she is home-centered, so must everyone else be…. But among many traditionalist Christians, the women have decided that the men must come home too. And so the men have, meekly submitting once again. But as the men adopt the home-centered vision which God intended only for wives, they have in fact betrayed their wives” [his emphasis].

 

He goes on to show that the Bible presents godly men who have vocations outside the home and which cannot be carried out at home (soldier, city treasurer, etc.). The model for manhood is the husband of the Proverbs 31 woman who “is where he is supposed to be, away from home, sitting in the gates with the elders of the city (v. 23)” [his emphasis].

 

He reaches his conclusion when he states that “those men who have accepted the home-centered vision deserve the strongest rebuke—not because of their traditionalist masculinity, but for just the opposite problem, that of effeminate abdication…. Neither should we praise those men who go home to try to give their children two mothers.”

 

The author was obviously in something of a pique when he penned his short article (I am purposely not identifying the author or publication because of the regard in which I hold both). But even allowing for the excesses of rhetoric which we writers too often employ to dismiss those with whom we have some disagreement, the brush with which he paints home-centered fathers is exceedingly broad! Most of the Christian men I know who are aiming to “come home” are conscientiously attempting to fulfill what they understand to be a biblical duty; they are not modeling fatherhood on motherhood.

 

So let us ask, should Christian fathers aim to come home, even to the extent of trying to establish a home business? Is it indeed a feminization of men for them to have a home-centered understanding of their role? Does a man have an outward focus that his wife does not, and if so, is that compatible with any efforts to “come home”?

 

As we examine Scripture on these points we will discover that, although we do not need to become “neo-Amish”, being home-centered is indeed God’s calling for men. However, while the term “home-centered” may properly be applied to both their callings, the term means something much different for the man than for the woman. Lets begin at the beginning.

 

A Job to Do, and Someone to Help

 

When God created man he made the male first (Gen. 2:7), gave him a job to do (v. 15), and provided him with the moral guidance he needed to get the job done (vv. 16-17). Adam’s job was to take care of the garden the Lord had planted in Eden. This was a specific application of the general job description God had given to man upon his creation: to rule, or take dominion over, the whole earth (1:26,28). The calling of the man was clearly an all-encompassing, world-changing, outward-oriented task. He was to reflect the universal dominion of his Creator-King by being a steward of this planet, re-creating and ruling this earthly domain to the glory of God.

But his task was not one he could do very well by himself. So the Lord God made a woman out of the man to be his companion-helper (2:22). Eve was, like him, in the image of God (1:27) and was to be his partner in carrying out the dominion mandate. But her role was a subordinate one; she was to assist Adam in carrying out the task God had given him before she was even created.

 

The heart of her role can be discerned in the other part of the dominion mandate: beyond ruling the earth, the man and woman were to “be fruitful and multiply” (1:28). The creation of woman made this fruitfulness possible. Adam could have ruled the earth without a wife, but he could not have borne children! The woman’s role was thus focused upon her husband, first of all, and then upon the children she would bear him to enable him to fulfill his calling as ruler over the earth.

 

The woman focuses on the home, while the man focuses on his dominion tasks with the whole world in view. This understanding of their respective roles is confirmed by noting that, after they sinned, the curse on the woman involved her children and her husband (3:16) while the curse on the man involved the ground (vv. 17-19), the earth over which he was to exercise dominion. Man is outward-oriented; woman is home-centered.

 

The rest of Scripture supports this understanding. The woman of Proverbs 31 is totally focused upon her husband, her children, and her household, while her husband in out in the city gates (v. 23). Similarly, Titus 2 presents a picture of a godly woman who is a “homeworker” and whose calling is absorbed with her husband and children—”so that no one will malign the word of God” (vv. 4,5). Men are church and community leaders, tentmakers, fisherman, and carpenters, carrying out their masculine callings in a myriad of ways.

 

(We should note that although fulfillment of the dominion mandate has been complicated by sin, God has never suspended it. Rather, he has provided in the cross of Christ the remedy that makes its fulfillment possible. So now we preach the gospel in order to make disciples of all nations, disciples who obey everything God has commanded, including the original command to rule the earth to the glory of God (Matt. 28:18-20). The Great Commission is the means to fulfilling the Dominion Mandate.)

 

Defining “Home-centered”

 

So far it may appear that our study has only served to confirm the perspective of the writer who dismisses home-centered men as merely second mommies. It is true: women are home-centered and men are outward-oriented in their callings. But this is not the entire picture. More needs to be said if we are to be faithful to all of Scripture.

 

The Bible also clearly shows that men are to be home-centered. Now, they are to be so in a way that is different from their wives, but they are to be so nonetheless. Let’s summarize the point first and then look at the biblical data.

 

A woman is home-centered in the sense that the scope of her particular calling as a woman begins and ends in the home. As we have seen, she is properly preoccupied with matters that relate to her husband, her children, and her household. As the family ministers to extended family, church, and community she will have contact with many other people and her influence will spread; as she helps offer hospitality and stands by her husband in his various callings, she will have an effect on many other people (even “at the city gate,” Prov. 31:31). But all of her influence results from her role as the helper of her husband. God did not intend her to have an independent influence. She does have a vital part to play in taking dominion over the earth, but it is a part that is expressed solely in her home-centered functions.

 

A man, on the other hand, is home-centered in the sense that the foundation of his particular calling as a man is in the home. His calling by no means ends in the home; it extends to every physical element, every person, every institution on the earth, all of which he is to offer to the glory of God through Jesus Christ. But his calling most certainly does begin in the home. The family is the most important sphere in which any man exercises his God-given dominion, and he cannot effectively serve God in other spheres unless he serves well first at home. A man should be home-centered in the sense that he makes his family the first priority in his life. Out of that commitment will grow effective dominion over the whole earth.

 

The home-centered calling of a man is seen, first of all, in the biblical injunction for a man to love his wife, to cherish her, to live with her as a joint heir of the grace of life (Eph. 5:25,28,29,33; 1 Pet. 3:7). She who was made from his own body, and is thus bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, is the most important person in a man’s life. She is his partner, his lover, his best counselor, his friend. In marriage he enters into a covenant with her to love her faithfully as long as they both live (Mal. 2:14). At the emotional center of any home stands the woman, and it is her husband’s devotion to her that makes her a radiant wife (Eph. 5:27), a channel of blessing to every member of the household and all who come into contact with it. A married man has no higher duty than to love his wife.

 

The second way in which the Bible reveals the home-centered calling of a man is in its emphasis upon his duty to raise his children for God. Out of the one-flesh union of the man and his wife comes the blessing of children. The multiplication of godly offspring is one of God’s chief purposes for marriage (Mal. 2:15), and the man is blessed of God whose quiver is full of child-arrows with which he can fight the battle for godly dominion (Ps. 127:3-5). Merely having children is not enough; God wants godly offspring, well-wrought arrows. He wants men to turn their hearts toward their children (Mal. 4:6; Lk. 1:17). This certainly involves gentleness and compassion (Eph. 6:4; Ps. 103:13) but it is much more. Fathers are to turn to their children with loving discipline (Heb. 12:9) and with sober teaching about the word and works of God so that succeeding generations will serve the Lord (Ps. 78:1-8).

 

Turning his heart toward his wife and children is both the highest temporal duty of a man and the most effective way to fulfill his manly duty of taking dominion over the earth and making disciples for Jesus Christ. As he devotes himself to shaping his children as disciple-arrows, and they in turn shape their children in the next generation, and so on, the earth becomes filled with godly seed. The children of the man who fears the Lord will indeed “be mighty in the land” (Ps. 112:2). Being home-centered is the most potent way for a man to be outward-oriented.

 

A home-centered focus is also necessary in order for a man to be effective in the other spheres in which God has called him to serve: church, civil government, commerce, etc. The Holy Spirit makes clear through Paul that a man is not even fit to lead in the church if he is not first leading his own family in a godly manner (1 Tim. 3:4-5). Faithfulness in the smaller sphere is necessary before a man can be entrusted with stewardship of a larger sphere (Matt. 25:21). A man who has not learned to manage his own family well has not developed the character necessary to take dominion in the other areas of life. Conversely, if he succeeds in the home, he is primed for success elsewhere. Real men are trained for their larger dominion tasks by faithful fulfillment of their home-centered task.

 

So men are indeed supposed to be home-centered—but that does not mean they are feminized. Quite the contrary. They are most masculine when they recognize that their family calling is the absolutely essential foundation for successfully carrying out their larger, outward-oriented dominion tasks.

 

Can “Coming Home” Go Too Far?

 

We come now back to the question of “coming home.” We earlier stated that it is a good thing that men are coming home in the sense of returning to their duties as head of the home and, in the process, reclaiming responsibility for education, health care, family welfare, etc. The question is, can this process go too far (as the author we quoted seems to suggest)? For example, the trend toward homeschool fathers wanting to start a home business or a self-sufficient homestead in order to be close to the family—is that going too far? Does that desire signal an abdication of a man’s outward-oriented dominion tasks? Is he making too much of his family and too little of the rest of his calling?

 

Our answer is threefold. The first we have just given above as we explained that being home-centered is part of a godly man’s strategy for accomplishing his dominion task. The aforementioned author presents a false choice: you will be either home-centered or outward-oriented. The fact is that you can and must be both simultaneously.

 

Second, a man may in fact be going “too far” in coming home if he views his family leadership role as his only calling in life. Some homeschooling fathers may indeed be a species of “neo-Amish” who renounce any world-changing role beyond the home. They are in serious error. The problem is not, however, that they are home-centered; it is that they are not also outward-oriented. A father has duties in his local church, his community, his nation, his world. His mission begins at home but does not end there. Some men will be elders, some community leaders, all should play some role in influencing these other spheres of life. For the “neo-Amish” the solution is not to remove the men from the home but to remind them that they are also in the world, a world over which Christ now rules and which he expects Christian men to influence to his glory.

 

Third, the desire of a father for a home business or a homestead points to a healthy reexamination of the balance of work and family. Too many have seen their jobs as their life focus, but the focus of life for the Christian man should be service to Christ—in his home, in his work, everywhere. And this will mean viewing his vocation not as an all-consuming end in itself but as a tool for both extending his influence in the world and family discipleship. God has not created the elements of life to flow in separate, unrelated channels—job, family, church, etc. All the channels should blend as currents in a unified stream of life, each with its due emphasis. A Christian father needs to think about how God may intend to create a confluence between his vocation and his family discipleship task. Home business and homesteading are two good options.

 

Not every man can start a home-based business or buy land for a homestead and begin to spend all day around his family (nor will this be the form of God’s calling for every man), but every man should aim to maximize his opportunities to disciple his wife and children. Some men will be able to become freemen and work for themselves or establish a family settlement, others will not, but both groups can serve the Lord Jesus, and neither can abdicate their calling to their families (cf. 1 Cor. 7:21-22). Coming home to work is not the only way for a man to increase the opportunities for discipleship of his children, but it is one of the best ways. Those who remain in callings that take them away from the family for large portions of time will have more of a challenge discipling their families, but if they are where God has placed them for now he will give the grace and wisdom to help them minimize the hindrances.

 

The Perfect Father-Son Relationship

 

Fathers need to meditate on the truth of John 5:19,20: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does.” Here is revealed the perfect father-son relationship. It is characterized by an intimate association between the two, a loving relationship in which the Father models and the Son imitates. It is the original discipleship relationship. Jesus recapitulated this relationship with his disciples: he spent time with them, loved them, and provided a model for them in his life and teaching.

Fathers are responsible to disciple their sons (and daughters). How can they do this when they are not even around the home? How can they develop intimacy and express love when they are away most of the time? How can they provide a model for their children when they are not with their children? Fatherhood is so much more than putting meat on the table. It is a heart to heart relationship through which to teach children and prepare them for life. How is this happening when Dad is off at his job all day? Many men have answered that question by getting back home vocationally, as much as possible. The more a father is with his children the more effectively he can fulfill his fatherly discipleship duties. (This is especially so with sons, and it is increasingly so the older the children are.)

 

Methods are not neutral. They make a difference. It makes a difference whether your children are educated at a public school or at a private Christian school or at home. Likewise, it matters whether children are raised with no exposure to their fathers or a little exposure or a lot of exposure. The same logic that suggests home education as the best alternative for raising godly children also suggests that the more a father can be present to disciple his children, the better the process will go.

 

So, can a father go too far in his coming home? No. He might wrongly neglect his wider calling, but he can never overdo his relationship with his family. Was God the Father too close to the Son? The more the family can be with a father to share his days, the better. A home-centered father is just trying to be like his heavenly Father.

 

In raising children to be disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ there is no substitute for the father-child relationship. In developing the father-child relationship there is no substitute for time with the child. The trend toward home-centered fathering is a promising one because it is one of the most potent forces for spreading the gospel and kingdom of Jesus.

 

Real men come home—as much as possible—in order that they can be truly effective in their world-shaping mission. They come home so that they can more carefully fashion the arrows in their quiver to strike a blow against the enemy and increase the dominion of the King of kings.

 

Come home . . . and change the world!

 





Fathers: It’s YOUR Home School

lincoln reading bible to his son home schooling

One of the notable features of the home education movement is that it is pretty much a women’s movement—at least down in the trenches.

 

In the day to day battle of planning and teaching, scheduling and organizing, disciplining and encouraging it is the mother who bears the brunt of the work, at least in the vast majority of homeschooling homes.

 

It is true, we fathers often adopt the title of “Principal” of our home school, recognizing that we are in the position of leadership in the family. Yet too often this remains simply a title we wear as our wives actually do all the work.

 

Most of us would not even question that this is, as a very practical matter, how it must be. After all, we fathers are busy earning a living to support the family, and this usually takes us away from the home for most of the day. So if homeschooling is going to be an option at all, it is going to have to be the responsibility of our wives, right?
Wrong!

 

You Are Responsible

 

You see the painful truth is that you are totally responsible for your home school. Yes, “totally.” No matter what your involvement today with the process of education in your home, the fact is that everything that happens there is your responsibility. If your wife has chosen the curriculum for the children—that is your decision. If she is failing adequately to teach one of the kids his math—that is your failure. If your son has an attitude problem with his mid-day chores—you are responsible.

 

Let’s imagine the Lord visits your home tonight to check up on any of these or a hundred other matters pertaining to your home education program. He walks right past your wife and children in the kitchen in order to find you in the family room, and he looks you right in the eye and asks for an accounting of these things.

 

When you begin to explain that you are rather busy with the necessary tasks of earning a living—and maybe even leading in the church—and that you have delegated the home school to your wife, you find the Master’s gaze does not follow your finger which points hopefully toward your wife. He keeps looking at you as if you are really responsible for everything. And that’s exactly the way it is.

 

Now, this is not my idea. Believe me, I am as inclined by nature as the next man to avoid responsibility. No, this principle is clearly taught in the Word of God and it rises up to shake us out of our complacency. So let’s look there to see what the Lord has to say to fathers.

 

The place to start is at the starting point, the book of Genesis, and in particular its account of man’s creation and fall into sin. Here we see the foundational principles which define the role of the man in his home. We can learn a lot from our first father, for better and for worse.

 

God Created The Man As The Leader

 

Chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis reveal that God very intentionally established the man as the leader in his relationship with his wife (and, of course, by implication, his children). This is demonstrated in several ways.

 

First, the man was created first. God the Creator fashioned him from the dust of the ground, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and thus made him a living being (2:7). The woman was not formed until later (v. 22). So what? So God was in this way signifying who was to have the lead position in the relationship. This order of creation is the foundation of Paul’s instruction that women should not teach or exercise authority over men (1 Tim. 2:11–13).

 

Second, the woman’s very being was derived from the man. Rather than creating her from the ground, God shaped Eve from the rib or side of Adam (Gen. 2:22). That this derivative existence demonstrates the authority of the man is made explicit in the New Testament. In establishing the basis for the assertion that “the head of the woman is man” (1 Cor. 11:3), the Holy Spirit through Paul offers this: “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man” (v. 8).

 

Third, the woman was created for the man. The Lord seems to have gone to some lengths to be sure Adam understood this. Only after parading the animals before him and letting him discover his need for her did God create Eve (Gen. 2:19,20). She was then created to be a companion-helper (v. 20) to assist him in fulfilling the mandate God had given him to multiply descendants and take dominion over the earth (1:28; 2:15). Again, Paul appeals to Genesis in support of the headship of the man and the woman’s submission: “neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (1 Cor. 11:9).

 

Fourth, the man named the woman. Just as Adam had exercised his authority over the animal kingdom in naming them (Gen. 2:19; cf. 1:28), so he demonstrated his authority over his wife in naming her “Eve” (3:20). In the Bible, having the prerogative of naming someone always indicates a position of authority over the one named.

 

Fifth, the man was the guardian and teacher of God’s Word. Before Eve was even created, Adam was given God’s commandment concerning what they could and could not eat (Gen. 2:16,17). There is no evidence that God repeated the commandment to Eve, and yet she knew all about it (3:2). Apparently Adam had taught her.

 

Sixth, the man was held responsible by God for their fall into sin even though his wife had taken the initiative in that sin. She was approached by the serpent, enticed by his lies, and deceived into sinning. Only then did Adam take and eat the forbidden fruit (3:1-6). Her’s was clearly the initiative. Yet when the Lord came to demand an accounting for the offense he went straight to the one he held responsible: “But the Lord God called to the man, ‘Where are you?'” (3:9)

Not only does Genesis show unmistakably that God designed man for a role of leadership, it also shows how quickly that role was neglected.

 

The Man Abandoned His Leadership

 

The first sign that Adam was not doing his job of guarding and directing his wife is his absence during her temptation. Actually, the language of the text seems to suggest that Adam was indeed there, he was just passive and uninvolved. After Eve had eaten the fruit we read, “She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it” (3:6). It appears that though he was right “with her” (where else would you be if God had just given you this fabulous creature to be your companion?) he did not interfere with the Tempter. Further, he simply submitted to his wife’s leadership even though it meant disobeying the Lord.

 

Then as if to confirm the fact that Adam had discarded the role of leader and protector, he quickly tried to pass the buck to Eve when the Lord confronted him for the disobedience of them both. “The man said, ‘The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it'” (3:12). Adam even seems to blame the Lord himself for putting the woman there—anything to avoid responsibility!

 

The Legacy Of Distorted Roles

 

Unfortunately for all of us, the distorted patterns of Genesis 3 have become the norm for our sinful world, and even for our Christian homes if we are not careful. The woman has a tendency to step out from under her husbands authority, to act independently of him and even to try to lead him. And the man tends to abdicate his position of authority as he retreats into passivity, all the while denying his responsibility. In addition, he sometimes substitutes harshness for true leadership, thus compounding the distortion of his role.

 

This scenario seems to be foreseen in the curse pronounced on the woman in Genesis 3:16: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” She will desire to control him, but he is stronger and so will simply dominate her by his strength. Not exactly the relationship God had in mind!

 

Becoming A Leader Again

 

Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil, and that certainly includes the distortion of the man-woman relationship in the home. His grace is sufficient to free us from our sinful patterns and lead us into the freedom and joy that comes with obedience to his revealed will.

 

Specifically, the Lord wants to help you and me to become the leaders of our wives and children. The headship of the husband is still God’s plan, and Jesus is our perfect model for how to implement that calling (Eph. 5:23,25ff.). We can and must follow his example.

 

Above all else, we must simply accept the stark fact of our responsibility. Authority always carries with it responsibility. It is inescapable. Authority can be delegated, but responsibility cannot. We can and must enlist our wives to help us raise our children, but we remain totally responsible for the process.

 

Consider a ship’s Captain and his crew. The Captain delegates authority to those under him in the complex process of running his ship and delivering it safely to its destination. But the Captain remains totally responsible at all times. If he is in his quarters sleeping when a petty officer or seaman makes a mistake that damages the ship, the negligent underling may be disciplined for his error, but the Captain is still accountable to his superiors and may lose his command. He delegates authority, but he remains responsible.

 

So it is with a father. He is totally accountable for everything that happens in his home. He is answerable to God for everything his wife and children do, or don’t do. They bear their own personal responsibility for their actions, but the overall burden is always his. When on the day of judgment the Lord inquires about the conduct of the family and the training of the children, it will be the father who renders an account.

 

However, then, a father may view the process of homeschooling in his family, the fact is that it is his home school. He may sit on the sidelines and leave it all up to his wife, but that does not mean that he is not the leader; it only means that he is a poor leader. Because a leader he is, for better or for worse.

 

So we might as well exercise our leadership since we are going to be held accountable anyway! Since the decision about curriculum, for example, is our decision whether we make it actively or passively, we might as well be active in the process.

Most of us have inherited a good bit of our original father’s penchant for wanting to avoid responsibility. However, we will be no more successful that he was.

 

Realizing that we cannot escape responsibility may not be the highest motive for learning to practice leadership, but it will do for starters! Once we have begun, we must then keep our eyes on our new Leader, the Lord Jesus, and learn from him what it means to embrace headship.