Sunday Night Inquiry: Should one’s ability or inability to manage one’s household be used as a litmus test to determine the potential success and/or failure rates for larger management opportunities? Yes or no?
Consider, if you will, 1 Timothy 3:4-5, which says: “He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church?”
Masculine pronouns and the sorry idea of “submissive” children aside, I’m curious, how do you, my progressive friends, read and interpret the big idea of the above passage? Is there applicable truth to it? Should it be a litmus test? Is it simple common sense? Is it divine revelation? Is it a combination of both?
Is the way a person manages his or her household indicative of how he or she would manage the church, or any other organization for that matter? Does household management expose our dedication to larger responsibilities and our ability to successfully satisfy them? Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
Related posts:
I think we look back with very different lenses than the folks to whom it was written.
Iff we agree that it was a time when men were the head of the family, clan, and village; when men were the source of teaching to their children; when fathers were to be obeyed; and if church leaders were to be followed in the same paternal pattern — then it would make sense in that time and place to say a man who ran his family poorly would probably do the same with the church. But what about now?
The man is a partner with his wife, and children have their own voice in family decisions as well as their own actions; children learn from many sources — some wholesome and some less so; and the community is not an extended family that can be depended on to teach or reinforce proper behavior.
Hmm, my thoughts took an unexpected twist as I was think/writing through this! Maybe the post modern church setting and the post modern family setting ARE still similar, even while neither resembles the early centuries in the Mid-East.
Take out the sexist stereotypes of an earlier time, and perhaps a person whose house is in disarray should not be disqualified, but lovingly supported by the fellowship in restoring order to life before taking on the extra burden of leadership in the messy and sometimes unruly gathering we call church?
I’ve always found this verse fairly confusing. Mostly because the people groups who throw it around and/or who follow it also tend to be the groups who in reality have the women in charge of the home. The man goes to work, earns a paycheck and that’s really about it. He’s sort of divorced from much of family life … his wife is the one who is de facto “running” the household. But then he is held accountable for it for some mysterious reason … instead of acknowledging that we live in the 20th century and live completely different lives now. By that I mean, we don’t live in extended familial villages where the men are but a short walk away in a field or in the next building (the shoemaker, for instance) and the women are also in the fields at certain times of year and in the home, the children are at our sides until they marry, etc.
So … first, I never understood (when I was in that milieu) why men were measured by something women were doing.
Second, I think it’s used far too often by people who don’t know any better to create unhealthy situations in church communities … where boundaries are not respected or are breached in order to build a “so-called” Biblical community.
Sonya, I think you understood very well! And I think you nailed it. Just because men claim to be running things doesn’t make it so, it just means they are taking the credit — so maybe it is fair to let them take the blame! lol
Thank you both for the thoughts on this. I hope others add their own thoughts to it. I have my own, but I want to hear other people’s thoughts.
I would also say that making the “man” or “male leadership” the point of this verse is a hermeneutic travesty of monumental proportions and smacks of human idiocy. Seriously, there are people out there who read these verses and walk away thinking that only men can be leaders. That’s just stupid. :)
I do wonder, however, if their is something important being said in this passage concerning our ability to manage things, regardless of gender.
Few thoughts:
First, the head of the household/church is to “keep” or rule over? Yuck.
Second, isn’t Paul essentially saying that the church, the body of believers, should be submissive and respectful (subordinate) in everyway to that head? Sounds a lot like “being seen and not heard.”
Third, was Timothy even married? What household did he have? Or Paul?
It makes less sense as a look at it and it feels a little controlling. Or maybe I just rebel a little more than I need. I preferred my son to explore and be creative, while still being respectful. I think God prefers us that way, too.
I will just wait quietly for someone else to throw some more pieces into the mix.