Not getting into the whole sticky debate of whether a man could/should seek other employment if in fact his family can't manage with him being gone so much, let's look at qualifying that time.
I submit that in a family of perpetual parturition, it is not feasible for a husband to *choose* to spend more time at work than is neccessary to make a living for the family and at the same time fulfill his role as husband and father. Notice I don't draw the line at barely maintaining sanity. No, we're talking about fulfilling-- as in FULLNESS.
On the other hand, I recognize there are situations in which the number of hours a husband must work to make a living wage is more by neccessity. I'll mention that again later.
As my brain has shut down for the evening, I'll have to leave it at that for now.
zzzzzZZZZZZ
8 comments:
There is no brightline here. There is always more a pastor could do in order to do his job well (this is true of many other workers also: doctors, salesmen, craftsmen, anyone who isn't paid by the hour). There is always someone who could use a visit, there is always a paragraph of sermon that could be improved, there is always something that could be made better. It is his job to exercise discretion as to what most needs the "betterment" he can give it. Sometimes the family is better served by him doing more than the bare minimum at work.
So again, I think this comes down to trust. The wife has to trust that he knows and does best; that if he is not home, it is because he is doing work which he has determined must be done. The buck stops with him. If he chooses selfishly or poorly, his family and consequently his relationship with his family will suffer.
(I also think perpetual parturition is somewhat irrelevant. Most families, contracepting or not, Christian or not, want Dad home.)
Have I ever avoided the kids? Ahem. I don't have a lot of room to cast stones at him.
Most definitely there is always more which could be done. Same thing happens for us moms at home. I have to make myself stop working too, lest I also neglect spouse and family.
As for PP being irrelevant... well, yes I would agree most families want Dad home. And as a wife and ten children can be neglected, so can a wife and one child-- or a wife! However, there are still only so many hours in a day, and I DO believe that the more little people there are needing their Daddy, and the more little people there are needing their Mommy-- who then needs Daddy all the more.... the more crucial each hour is, and the more important each choice of how to spend that hour is.
Another point-- if wife trusts husband's judgment as to which work is 'necessary' and which is not, this can pose a problem if the husband's judgment is skewed. Same thing the other way around. Mom can obsess over what *must* be done in the realm of housework, meals, or outside the home in church-related work, helping neighbors, etc. This can easily be done to the neglect of the family also.
These "other things" including work may be good in themselves, but not if they are done at the expense of the family and its relationships.
"...it is not feasible for a husband to *choose* to spend more time at work than is necessary to make a living for the family and at the same time fulfill his role as husband and father."
This has ALWAYS been my primary occupational philosophy. From this perspective, I have often said, "Your job is supposed to support your life, not be your life."
Of course we must remember the doctrine of vocation, which reminds us that we don't just serve our need for income by working. This is where, again, the principle of conflicting absolutes comes into play for me.
I have often felt guilt for not serving the Medicaid population and other under-served populations. Medicaid pays less than what the dentist's overhead is. Therefore, if I were to take Medicaid patients I would not only have to work extra hours to take care of them, I'd have to work extra hours (or charge the paying customers more like hospitals do) to make up for the lost income.
The same thing goes for medical mercy trips. With seven children at home, do I really have any business traveling to Africa? I believe there is a time and season for everything, and this time in my life is not the right time.
Therefore, I find I have two competing absolutes in my vocations:
We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need. [5th Commandment meaning]
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]
Trying to balance these two has always been a dilemma for me, because there are always more people in bodily need that I could/should help in my vocation as dentist, but there is also always more I could/should do to help at home.
I often have to discern disobeying which will cause the lesser evil. Thanks be to God that I am forgiven even though I'm sure I often make the wrong choice. Generally, I believe family comes first.
I'm sure the same dilemma exists for pastors and many others, especially those of us who set our own hours of work.
The husband's judgment is definitely skewed. The question is, how is the wife going to handle that fact? And how is he going to handle the fact that her judgment is skewed?
All we can do is take each other at each other's words. The wife trusts that the husband really does have to be at work right now and is not just hiding from the family. The husband trusts that the wife really does need him home right now and is not overstating their need for him to compensate for what she perceives as excessive absence.
A system that can't operate under these rules might need help from a third party.
Rebekah,
Husbands and wives know that each has skewed judgment in these matters, but we should trust that it is not?
I disagree, or else I don't understand what you are saying.
Husbands and wives should talk about what one or the other perceives to be skewed judgment in this or any other matter.
Okay, maybe I need to clarify something here. When I say "if the husband's judgment is skewed" I am *NOT* referring to sin nature. Of course that is something with which we all continually contend. If I was remiss in stating that, I apologize, I guess I take that to be a given among Christians.
No, here's what I mean. We have a conscience, right? It tells us right from wrong, it's the Law written on our hearts. Yet there are people who have an ill-informed conscience, who sin boldly but do not believe it is sin. No guilt feelings.
And why? Because the conscience has not been informed according to the Word of God.
Therefore I submit that a man's (or woman's!) judgment is only as good as it has been trained. If a man, for example, believes his vocation of pastor, because it is a "Divine calling" and doing "God's work" must therefore trump family.... wee-ell I would say that is ill-informed judgment. It's not even according to Scripture!
Similarly, if a woman believes she needs to have "fulfillment in life" and that this comes ahead of husband and children, even if that means the kids (however many she *thinks* she can "handle")go to a child care facility at six weeks of age while she continues to work at her more *fulfilling* career, then HER judgment is ill-informed. If she believes that her husband must "pull his weight" at home by doing at least 50% of the laundry, dishes, etc, in addition to pulling in the family's living wage, then HER judgment is ill-informed.
Now before you think I'm on a rant (too late) or standing on my soapbox in "judgment" let me say...
*I am NOT talking about exceptions here!*
Wanting to be sensitive, I don't see how the general rule can be debated if it is cluttered up and stifled with exceptions, so please don't do that. ;o)
I sound a little fired up because I just went through that elsewhere. Twice. *sigh*
Please take me with a grain of salt in that respect, but yes, I am referring to what we believe about the priority of the vocation of husband/wife and father/mother over any other, whether that be dentist, pastor, teacher, or even fellow Christian friend.
Way too complicated here, folks. What I'm trying to say is that husbands and wives should not be second guessing each other. Family comes first. Details must be worked out on a family by family basis.
Pam,
I agree. As I said in my original comment, "Generally, I believe family comes first."
For instance, whenever an employee of mine has had a family situation that has caused them to miss work, I have always told them to not feel guilty because I believe family always comes first.
However, my employees (hygienists, assistants, receptionists) have always been women. Truth be known, I would have supported every one of them in quitting work permanently and staying home with their children. I have always had guilty feelings in hiring mothers to work for me, but I figure if I didn't hire them someone else would.
Therefore, I'm not sure I would always support the idea that "family comes first" if I were an employer of men. At least my concept of what that means for men would probably be higher.
Post a Comment