“It’s a lonely road and they don’t care about what you know; It’s not about how you feel but what you provide inside that home,“ sang Dax in his song, To Be A Man.
This song captures our society’s tendency to see men in merely utilitarian terms – loved and respected only for their capacity to provide.
It is the mentality behind the sudden loss of respect men experience when they lose their source of income, even if only temporarily. If all of his value derives from the size of his pocket, then it makes sense to see him as insignificant when the pocket dries up.
What about those women who refuse to pick up the tab when their husbands experience financial difficulties? It’s the same mentality – “Is he not the head of the house?”. You have probably heard stories of men languishing in financial difficulties while their wives splurge on the latest products of consumerist society.
Interestingly, men are also guilty of this mindset. Their pursuit of women has become so transactional as if the only thing that makes them valuable to a woman is the size of their account balance (or crypto wallets). “Send your account number, let me send you #500,000 for being beautiful.” If you are a woman, you have probably received a variant of such messages.
It’s also the mindset that lies behind those who advise young men in their “hustling stage” to stay away from love (by which they mean dating rather than marriage) until they have “hammered.” The corollary is that when these boys “hammer,” they develop a sense of superiority that undervalues women (by seeing them as objects that can be purchased), justifies fornication or adultery (since they have enough money to “buy” as much women as they want), and overvalues themselves (by equating wealth with virtue and greatness and refusing advice from anyone with a smaller account balance).
Interestingly, there is a chicken and egg problem here: it is difficult to say if these men only internalise what society says about them (that they are only useful as providers) or if the view of society is merely an accommodation to what men say about themselves (in a sense, the implications of patriarchy).
Whichever sociological account is accurate, we can’t deny that this mentality has damaged men and women. In what follows, I seek to chart a biblical view of men’s roles and how embracing this alternative approach can “save” us all.
Beyond provision: What it means to be the head of the home
Though the Scriptures affirm the equality of men and women as bearers of God’s image (Genesis 1:26,27) and as children of God (Galatians 3:28; 1 Peter 3:7), it does not shy away from establishing male headship in the home (Ephesians 5:22,23; 1 Corinthians 11;3; 1 Timothy 3:4,5; 1 Peter 3:1, Genesis 18:19, 2;15-25).
(For more on what this headship means, read “Why Jesus Was Not Man Enough: False Views on Masculinity”)
However, it does not reduce the meaning of that headship to provision. Below are some tasks that come with that role:
Spiritual and intellectual leadership: Instruction and protection
Our societies believe that women should be the spiritual ones while men exert themselves at work to bring home the goodies.
You have probably heard tales about the value of the praying wife and mother and how some women have to drag their husbands to family devotions (if such even exists) or church. Church pews are also filled with women while the men stay home to sleep, drink beer, or wait for football matches to start. (Admittedly, the church is not helping matters, as Leon Podles has explained.) [1]
The Scriptures don’t seem to share this attitude.
God chose Abraham so that he would direct his children and entire household in the way of the Lord, the path of justice and righteousness (Genesis 18:19). Joshua spoke on behalf of his family, committing them, under his leadership, to serve the Lord rather than the idols of the nations (Joshua 24:15). Jacob also took the lead in the spiritual health of his household, commanding them to get rid of their idols and purify themselves (Genesis 35:2).
Similarly, Paul encouraged fathers to bring up their children in the training and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4), and he compared his duties of encouraging, comforting, and urging the church to those of fathers (1 Thessalonians 2:11-12).
Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul recommends that wives ask their husbands about certain matters in the church about which they are not supposed to speak (verse 35). This suggests that the husband goes to church with the wife and is at least present-minded and theologically-minded enough to explain certain things to her.
Though there are debates about why the women in Corinth were not permitted to speak and the ecclesiological implications of this instruction, it seems straightforward that Paul expects wives to learn certain things from their husbands (probably related to the weighing of prophecies, a view defended by Don Carson[2]). In essence, the husband is not to take the theological or spiritual backseat.
These references show there are positive and negative aspects to this spiritual leadership. Husbands are to instruct their households so they can follow the ways of the Lord. But they are also to serve as a spiritual (and intellectual) guardrail, ensuring that their wives and children do not follow other gods (in whatever shape and form).
And the best way to fulfil both sides of this duty is to set the example of devotion to God and rejection of idols.
“A Christian husband must be a Christian,” said Doug Wilson, a pastor and author. “He must love God, and he cannot love God unless his heart is transformed and he has been born again. True godliness is not measured by church attendance or doing normal middle-class, respectable things. It is measured by whether the husband honestly loves Jesus Christ. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to deny Jesus, you must say no because you love Him. If you cannot do this, then that is the problem with your family.”[3]
Protection
“Fight for your families, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your homes” (Nehemiah 4:14). That was the rallying cry as Nehemiah encouraged Israelite men to fight against their enemies. As men, it was their duty to protect their loved ones and possessions from enemies.
In 1 Samuel 30, we see how David and his army pursued the Amalekites who had come to capture their wives, sons, daughters, and possessions while they were away at Aphek.
Though societies have full-time security personnel who protect lives and properties, this does not take away the duty of men to defend their households against invaders.
This duty is also implied by the physical superiority of men (1 Peter 3:7). “The man’s strength is for the common good, and in particular for the women and the children,” said Anthony Esolen, a social commentator and professor of Humanities. [4]
Wilson highlights that this protection can extend beyond physical threats to life and property. “A godly husband is someone who stands between his wife and the various blows and insults that come from the world,” he said. “If something is said or done to his wife that is insulting or hurtful, he needs to speak to the person involved. A husband sometimes even has to protect his wife from other family members: things her parents or her in-laws might say to her might be very harmful, and in such cases the husband needs to step in and say, ‘No, you may not say that: I am my wife’s protector now.’ A godly husband is a wall around his wife.[5]
Representation
The husband of the Proverbs 31 woman represents the household at the city gate, among the elders of the land (verse 23). In ancient times, the city gate was where the elders of the city gathered to make decisions that would further the common good.
Job was also a member of this decision-making group (Job 29:7), where he was especially respected for his wisdom.
Even in today’s society, we see fathers represent their households in landlord/estate meetings. Of course, husbands can delegate this role to their wives, and single women can represent themselves, but there is an implicit assumption that the man of the house should represent his household (an assumption not inconsistent with scriptural affirmation of male headship).
Practical leadership
Men’s practical leadership flows from their headship in the home and the command for women to submit to their husbands.
God created Eve to be Adam’s helpmeet (Genesis 2:18); all the matriarchs followed the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Sarah was even commended for calling Abraham Lord – 1 Peter 3:6) as they pursued God’s calling; Zipporah followed Moses’ lead.
In Christian theology, the Greek word “Adiaphora” (things indifferent) refers to things that are not inherently good or evil. That is, there is no specific biblical teaching that makes it inherently right or wrong to do certain things or abstain from doing them. Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-9 provide examples of this application of this principle.
When faced with such decisions, wisdom is profitable to direct. However, two Christians can differ on what wisdom requires in particular circumstances. For example, is it wise to relocate to where you can earn a higher income (but spend more money and live a stressful life) or stay where the income is lower (but the cost of living is lower and the quality of life is higher)?
Practical leadership demands that men don’t shy away from such decisions. Rather, they must discuss with their wives and children and arrive at a decision that will be in the best interest of the family (which in some cases will mean adopting the viewpoint of the wife or children).
There are two extremes to avoid here. First is one where the husband selfishly makes decisions for his benefit without concern for the interests or opinions of other family members. In contrast to this attitude, men must be willing, like Christ, to love their wives (and children) sacrificially.
“Leadership is not being bombastic or dogmatic,” said Wilson. “It is not coming home and demanding everything your way. Leadership includes being like Jesus when He got down and washed the disciples’ feet.” Again: “When husbands sacrifice the way God wants them to, that is the foundation of all authority. Biblical Christian leadership is built on the foundation of men giving themselves up for the sake of their families.”[6]
However, this does not imply that the husband never makes a decision (for the good of the family, of course) that the wife or children won’t disagree with. A man motivated by virtue and love can make decisions that his wife will disagree with. Just as he would follow the wife’s viewpoints in some matters, he would reject them in others.
After explaining what true leadership is, Doug Wilson notes that “This is not the same thing as the feminist understanding of marriage, where the wife’s perspective is always right and the husband is a doormat.”
“So if you think that sacrificial leadership is just letting your wife have her way, then you are actually abdicating,” he continues. “It is sacrifice that enables the family to want to follow you, because they know that you have their best interests in mind. When godly husbands sacrifice and bleed, their wives want to obey them and follow them because they know the husband is being a sacrificial man, which is to say, a masculine man.”[7]
Of course, for matters where God has clearly spoken, the husband’s spiritual leadership requires that he practically leads his household towards obedience to God and away from idol worship. Also, since the woman’s devotion to God is supreme (Matthew 10:34-29, Acts 5:27-29, Ephesians 5:25, Colossians 3:18), disobedience to the man is justified if he seeks to lead her on the path of disobedience to her creator and redeemer.
What then are the implications of this full-orbed view of men’s roles?
Implications of a full-orbed view of men’s roles
Respect cannot be limited to the capacity to provide
Someone may have misread everything I have written to imply that provision is irrelevant or at the base of the pyramid.
But any careful reader should see that this would be an inaccurate conclusion. For the sake of clarity, let me restate that a comprehensive view of men’s roles in marriage does not underrate the importance of provision. Paul indeed said, “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8). (Though this is a primary reference to those who don’t take care of their parents and grandparents).
However, a temporary inability to provide due to a job loss and a downturn in business (among others) does not suddenly make a husband less of a man, especially if he is still faithfully fulfilling his other duties.
Similarly, the fact that a man has not lived up to the income potential you forecasted at the beginning of the marriage or is not earning as much as his mates or some rich men (or even boys) on social media does not make him “irresponsible.” Whether he is responsible or not is an evaluation that must be made independently rather than comparatively. Anyone old enough knows that two people with similar work ethic can still have different life outcomes. Inequality is a fact of life.
Furthermore, the command for a woman to respect her husband is not based on the respectability of the man (though a woman should not marry a man she does not respect) just like the command for a man to love his wife is not based on the submissiveness of the woman (though a man should not marry a woman that does not submit to him).
“It says husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church,” noted Wilson. “It does not say love your wife if she respects you as she should. The Bible tells wives to respect their husbands. It does not say to respect him if he is respectable.”[8]
For example, Christian women are not to divorce their unbelieving husbands who are willing for the marriage to continue (1 Corinthians 7:13) but are to respect them (1 Peter 3:1) even though they can’t provide them true spiritual leadership at the time.
Women can support their husbands financially
The Proverbs 31 woman is a hardworking businesswoman who takes care of her household.
Women who earn income (by working for another person or managing their own business) should not shy away from supporting their husbands, especially when they fall into financial difficulties. It can be something as simple as buying fruits when coming back from work or choosing to buy all the children’s school books for a particular term (without asking for a refund, of course).
It’s an aberration and an indictment of our conception of love that a husband who is struggling to gather enough money to pay rent would prefer to beg strangers for money than ask for his wife’s support. It doesn’t matter if his hesitation is due to his pride (“I am an Odogwu”) or the wife’s attitude, actions, and words.
Men hurt themselves when they internalise the reduction of their value to provision and prefer to struggle alone instead of asking the “love of my life” for support. Similarly, if men hesitate because they know the woman won’t help or would only do so with a frown, the bottled-up distrust, anger, or sadness will find a room for expression one day, to the woman’s hurt.
The other side of this is that men should also be willing to support their wives (especially working women) when it comes to domestic chores. It can be something as simple as picking the beans or cooking dinner when she’s running late from work.
Of course, these are not the kind of matters where we can go into too much specificity. The most important point is that where love leads, husbands and wives will work diligently to seek each other’s good.
Women must look beyond money when selecting a spouse
We live in a culture where a woman will say she’s not ready to marry her lower-middle-class boyfriend of five years, but would gladly marry an upper-class man she met two months ago. The difference? You guessed right!
Those who marry solely for money and ignore a man’s character and ability to fulfil all the roles highlighted above will console themselves that it’s better to cry in a Lamborghini than in a Corolla. For them, marriage is no longer about happiness but a competition of who is the richest sad woman.
Godly women cannot think like this. They will embrace a comprehensive approach to evaluating potential suitors (godliness, virtue, wisdom, maturity, courage, discernment, etc.) rather than merely choosing the one with the biggest bank balance. Of course, the one with the biggest bank balance can also be the most qualified based on other factors, but that is not a given.
In essence, we cannot serve God and mammon (Matthew 6:24).
Men must not reduce themselves to their financial capacity
Once women begin to set more comprehensive standards, men will start paying attention to their overall character instead of assuming that having a lot of money makes them a good person.
But men don’t have to wait for women to take the lead. Men can stop internalising the reduction of their role to provision and combat the materialism that has infested modern culture. If they do this, women will take a cue and also adjust their conception of men. When no one is sending them money for being beautiful or trying to outspend all their “toasters,” women will also be less controlled by materialistic tendencies.
In essence, men should not wait for women to change, and women should not wait for men to change. Only a simultaneous rejection of avarice and pursuit of godliness and virtue by both genders can reorder our societies.
[1] Podles, Leon J. The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity. Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[2] Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 by D.A. Carson. Everand Edition.
[3] Wilson, Douglas. The Covenant Household (pp. 39-40). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[4] Esolen, Anthony. No Apologies: Why Civilization Depends on the Strength of Men (p. 9). Skyhorse Publishing. Kindle Edition.
[5] Wilson, 53-54.
[6] Wilson, 44-45.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., 57.
