A remarkable testimony of the power of the gospel to deal not just with our past but to prepare us for our future.
And a true testimony to how God’s grace is sufficient even in unimaginable trials.
Zac Smith went to be with the Lord in May 2010.
A. Why do women return to work after children?
In the following list I’m not trying in any way to pass comment on the reasons women return to paid employment, merely to identify them.
1. Financial necessity
For many the option of choosing to stay at home is not open to them. Economic necessity means at least some part-time work to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. In parts of the world it would be beyond the wildest dreams of any family to survive on a single income.
2. Financial improvement
For others work is a choice but a choice in which economics plays a big part. It might be possible to live for a few years on one income but going back to work is about ensuring a better quality of life for a family. It’s about having enough not just to pay the bills but to enjoy a nice holiday, etc.
3. Missing the world of work (maybe even a grief over loss of independence)
Someone described stopping work to look after a baby as a form of grief; the loss of a life, of a world, in which so much energy, time and commitment had been given and so many rewards had been received. For some it feels as if a life has ended and it’s not too strong to think of those first few months at home as a grieving over a loss of independence.
There are friends at work you don’t see any more and then there is the enormous challenge of leaving something you’re good at to do something you don’t feel very good at.
The goal for some women is to re-enter the work-place and resume the career ‘as soon as’.
4. Escaping the isolation of caring for a baby
‘When I became a mother I found myself for the first time in my life without a language, without any way of translating the sounds I made into something other people would understand.’ Rachel Cusk writes in ‘A Life’s work’.
Someone else commented:
‘I went to a dinner party on Thursday. And I had nothing to say. I was out of it. I couldn’t talk about the only things that mattered to me.’
Raising children full-time at home when everyone else is out in the world of work can be an isolating experience.
5. The embarrassment of staying at home ie peer-pressure
It’s inevitable that people will start to ask ‘are you coming back to work’ even before the birth. In a culture (see below) that has created the expectation that mothers will work it can be a little awkward to tell people you’re not.
6. The cultural expectation is that women should have it all.
Good bosses desperately want to keep good employees and do their utmost to keep women in work.
The culture creates favourable terms to ensure women can work (and thus fosters the expectation)
The law protects a woman’s right to return to work after the birth of a child.
‘Policy makers urgently need to face up to the fact that the values underlying much social policy may not match the desires of women not the extent that they have assumed.’ Professor Geoff Dench
7. The battle to prove that you can have it all
Almost the definition of the modern woman is to have it all. Those who choose to give up work to raise children feel that they are not
B. Should Christian wives go back to work?
1. The bible’s model of a godly woman or ‘an alphabet of wifely excellence’
The wife of Proverbs 31 is a purposeful, energetic, wise, successful, strong, capable wife.
She cares for the family, she earns an income.
‘Wise daughters aspire to be like her, wise men seek to marry her, and all wise people aim to incarnate the wisdom she embodies, each in his own sphere of activity.’ Waltke
There is nothing unbiblical or sinful about a mother working alongside her duty to her family.
This woman works in a way that keeps the priority of being a wife and mother.
2. The priority for wives
teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
i) The primary Christian duty of wives and mothers, according to Paul, is that they should ‘love their husbands and children’.
Love, as defined by God’s love is measured in sacrifice and service.
ii) Busy at home – John Stott comments: ‘It would not be legitimate to base on this word either a stay-at-home stereotype for all women, or a prohibition of wives being also professional women. What is rather affirmed is that if a woman accepts the vocation of marriage, and has a husband and children, she will love and not neglect them.’
iii) Such a biblical understanding of womenhood should bring:
- Blessing to the home
- Fulfilment to the wife
- Honour to God
iv) Our culture of ‘liberation’ works to undermine God’s priorities and replace it with a secular agenda
- Feminism makes the mistake of equating equality of status with equality of role.
- Feminism encourages women to forsake their calling to care for husband and children in pursuit of self-fulfilment in a career outside the home.
3. What is the Biblical principle that should be at work in the decision?
“In what way can I best love those God has called me to love (especially my husband and children) as I love and serve Christ? By working outside the home or by working inside the home? By working part-time, full-time or not at all.”
Key conclusion: The answer to this question will be different for
i) different families
ii) in different situations and circumstances
iii) with different gifting and capacities
iv) and even for the same family in differing seasons of life.
Our natural inclination is to polarise the debate by reducing everything to a simple ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ view on moms going back to work.
What we need to recognise is that in our churches there will be a spectrum of positions. A scale shall we say between 1 and 10 in which 1 is a decision to choose to work (there is no economic necessity no need other than a self-motivated decision to seek a career) and 10 a decision to choose to stay at home (again a situation in which the income of a wife plays no part) and then a 5 represents the woman who willingly or unwillingly has to look for paid work to pay the bills.
For the most part it won’t be obvious to us where any couple sits on this spectrum and that usually means that we are not in a position to judge the motives of those who work and those who don’t.
In the next post we’ll consider:
What are the dangers in women trying to hold together the world of work and home?
What part should husbands play in all this?
Qumar David was a Pakistani Christina serving a 25-year prison term for blasphemy. He did not receive a fair trial.
He died in his prison cell on Tuesday. His lawyer says he is ’100 percent certain it was murder’.
The Post reports:
‘Regional prison chief Ghulam Qadir Thebo said the prison doctor believed Qumar David, 50, died of a heart attack on Tuesday in Karachi Central Jail after complaining of chest pain. An autopsy is due to be carried out on the body in the presence of his family members.
Two prominent Pakistani politicians have been murdered this year for their campaign to change blasphemy laws that make it a capital offense to insult Islam. Critics say the laws are widely misused to persecute Christians or settle scores in the mostly Muslim country.
Human rights groups say Christians convicted under the law have been murdered by extremists.
David’s lawyer Pervez Chaudhry says he is “100 percent” certain it was murder but was unable to offer evidence. Chaudhry said both he and David had received death threats during the trial in 2010.’
1. Heaven and hell really do matter. It’s important that we talk about it.
2. Heaven and hell matter because God’s reputation is at stake.
3. When you write a controversial book be sure to get your history right. Especially if you want to claim someone is on your side. If you misrepresent someone’s view chances are it will be spotted.
4. ‘Asking questions’ is NOT asking questions if you ask them in such a way that suggest there is only ONE reasonable answer.
5. Ambiguity only leads to confusion. Write to be understood. If in doubt say it again.
6. Releasing a provocative video with provocative questions that you intend to wait four weeks to answer will only damage the church. It might also suggest you’ve written the book to make a name for yourself rather than bless the church.
7. Asking questions is good but setting forth Jesus’ answers is better. Jesus didn’t intend to confuse us about heaven and hell. Ask self ‘have I said everything Jesus says about hell in my book?’
8. Be careful who you let interview you – especially if they are theologically sharp and don’t intend to let you get away with not answering the question. In fact it may be best to avoid interviews altogether.
9. Pray that you might be more passionate to save people from hell than you are to prevent people teaching wrong doctrine about hell.
10. Don’t enjoy falling out with other Christians and don’t even give the impression that you do.
11. Mourn over division in the church whos unity brings glory to Christ.
12. There is no love where there is no truth.
Famous for his interview of Princess Diana, Bashir is not so gentle with Rob Bell in this one!
Does Dawkins understand atheism?
Having read and re-read the God delusion I now think the biggest surprise in the book is not that Richard Dawkins has problems understanding Christianity (you might expect me to say that) but that he doesn’t seem to understand atheism either!
In a chapter entitled ‘The God Hypothesis’ Dawkins sets out what he calls a ‘spectrum of probabilities’ on the question of God’s existence. Each individual holds a position somewhere on the scale of 1 to 7.
1) Represents the Strong Theist whom he describes as ‘100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’
2) Very high probability but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
There are a range of middle-ground positions and then at the other end of the spectrum are
6) Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.
7) Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God. With the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’
But here is Dawkins controversial and crucial conclusion;
‘I’d be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated.’
Why would he say that? Because Dawkins wants to represent atheism as a moderate view based on evidence. Theists may be crazy and arrogant enough to believe with certainty but ‘Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist.’
Dawkins wants to limit the definition of atheism to all intents and purposes to position 6 an altogether more reasonable position. We might call it a kind of moderate or liberal atheism.
How Dawkins misrepresents atheism
It’s as you look a little bit more into atheism that you begin realise that Dawkin’s is not exactly being far to atheism. For in reducing atheism to 6) Dawkins is skewing the definition(s) of atheism and he manages to obscure (even dare I say cover up) the debate between atheists over centuries.
Better books on atheism, to which I shall come in due course, set out the range of views and positions held by atheists that Dawkins prefers to ignore. The simple fact of the matter is that many atheists would and do argue for position 7 on his scale.
Michael Martins and Atheism properly understood
The best introduction to atheism written by an atheist philosopher in print today, is Michael Martins’ Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Martins is a philosopher of the first order and emeritus professor at Boston University. He is a distinguished author and edited The Cambridge Companion to Atheism published by Cambridge University Press. He gained his PhD from Harvard University.
Martins points out that the central debate amongst atheists is between those who hold position 6 on Dawkins scale and those who Continue reading »
A. Why we need to think about this topic
Lots of churches and Christians avoid discussing this ‘hot-button’ topic in the church. It’s one accompanied by strong opinions (and emotions). There is also a real danger in discussion of a polarising parties in the church and wounding other Christians. But here are 6 reasons why we have to talk about it;
1. It might be a difficult conversation but it’s one that the whole church needs to have together. The alternative is individual women seeking to resolve their theology and their feelings in one to one conversations between friends.
2. It’s an issue that involves the men too! Husbands have a responsibility to lead. For them to opt out is for them to abdicate their responsibility to lead as heads of the home. Whether or not wives return to work is the primary responsibility of their husbands. A whole church conversation helps the men and reminds them of their responsibility.
3. It’s an issue that needs to be worked through in advance. It’s not just a topic for couples who already have children but for those planning the future. For example, the key factor in whether or not a wife returns in my experience is economic. Can the family function on one income?
For some couples, the decision is made for them in the house that they buy and the mortgage that comes with the house that locks a couple in for 20-25 years. Some bills can’t be deferred but must continue to be paid. Couples with kids can help couples without to anticipate where they might be in a matter of a few years.
4. It’s an chance for the church family to learn how to listen better, discover how it’s possible to graciously disagree and an opportunity to put into practice practical support and encouragement, one couple to another.
5. It’s a discussion in which all sides feel guilty. One author has written
‘One interesting trend I have noted as a pastor, counselor, husband, and friend is that in general, whether mothers choose to work or stay home, they feel a level of guilt associated with the decision. Moms that work feel guilty about not spending enough time with their children and moms that stay home feel guilty about not using their college degree or their professional skills to contribute to the family finances.’
6. It’s an issue in which surprisingly little has been written to help us think it all through. The quote above is from a short article – literally the only piece I could find on the topic. Unless we shed light on the topic together individual couples we will be leaving couples to think it through on their own.
In future posts we’ll answer the following;
1. Why do women return to the world of work after their children are born? (see http://wp.me/p1i2hG-k8)
2. Biblically speaking, should women return to work and what criteria should we apply is assessing that decision? Are some reasons biblically justified and others not? (see http://wp.me/p1i2hG-k8)
3. What part should husbands play in this debate and in their role as parents? How should they do their paid work differently when the kids come along? (see http://wp.me/p1i2hG-kG)
4. How do we support mothers who do go back to work, as a church family? (see http://wp.me/p1i2hG-lE)
5. How do we support mothers who don’t go back to work, as a church family? (see http://wp.me/p1i2hG-lE)
Purely for the purpose of this discussion we will use the word ‘work’ to means ‘paid work’. Wives who stay at home work extremely hard but it’s too complicated to keep switching terminology.
Great video. Mindblowing stats. Thanks to Andy Shudall for the link.
A few years ago two scientific experiments were launched. The first is aimed at discovering how and when life began the other is concerned with discovering how and when life ends.
The Hadron Collider costs billions and has been built to recreate the first few fractions of a second after the big bang and the universe began. The second has a much more limited budget but I think could yield more extraordinary results it’s called the AWARE study and it explores what happens after life ends. What happens to us after we die?
How then does it work? The idea is to speak to those who have had near death experiences and test their claims. Studies show that somewhere between 10 and 20% of those who reach the point of death through a cardiac arrest but are then revived back to life actually have memories beyond their moment of death.
In particular the study will investigate the claims of people who during cardiac arrest and resuscitation attempts have described how they actually were mentally conscious and in fact actually witnessed their own resuscitation attempts as they floated in an out of body experience from a vantage point outside of their own bodies, as if they were looking down on themselves from a bird’s eye view.
People describe sometimes in great detail, everything that was happening around them whilst they were technically dead. They could describe things they should not have been able to know and couldn’t really have made up. They might be able to say which doctor was attempting to resuscitate them male, female, young, old, black or white, or recall a unique detail such as how a doctor tripped over the edge of the bed and knocked something to the ground. The sort of details that require an explanation and seemingly defy rational scientific answers.
So in the AWARE study scientists will place pictures on the ceilings in Hospital A&E bays that are only visible by looking down from the ceiling and no other way. Patients of course won’t know any of this and the images will be regularly changed.
Those patients successfully revived will then be interviewed and asked to describe what they saw. If any of them are able to describe the images accurately then scientists will have to tear up the rule books. The shame is that it will be another two years before studies are completed.
What do these two different studies tell us about ourselves?
I guess quite simply that as human beings we are curious about much more than our day to day lives. We are keen to discover and investigate. At one level we want a cure for cancer, we want cheaper petrol, we want our team to win the league but we have bigger questions about our origins and our destiny; who we are? Where we come from? Where we are going?
Inevitably in the midst of such philosophical discussions sooner or later God is drawn in to the conversations. Is he real, can we know anything about him, does scientific discovery make his existence more or less likely?
I like reading stories of people’s lives and recently I have been reading a book by Anthony Flew – you may not have heard of him he was a British Philosopher who died last year and early in his career he wrote a paper entitled ‘Theology and falsification’. It might sound a bit technical (perhaps even a bit dull) but it is actually ‘the most frequently-quoted philosophical publication of the second half of the 20th century’.
It was a paper that debunked God. You could say he was ‘doing a Dawkins’. Flew wrote a sophisticated ‘God delusion’ and it remains a contemporary classic. But just seven years ago he announced that he as wrong and has publically retracted his atheism and declared himself a believer in God.
This is what he writes in his book: There is a God – how the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind.
I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence….why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.
Flew died last year a believer in God and it was looking to modern science that he found overwhelming reason to believe in a god. As a philosopher it was simply no longer credible to believe that this universe of law and order, of complexity and apparent design could have originated from nothing.
And to his fellow sceptics Flew puts the following question:
What should have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for us a reason to at least consider the existence of a superior Mind?
It is a good question and it is essentially our question this evening if evidence of God would you need to at least consider the existence of God.
Albert Einstein contrary to popular opinion was not an atheist and in fact he expressly denied that fact on more than one occasion.
We [human beings] are in a position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being towards God.
Einstein is far from the dogmatic atheist that people like Richard Dawkins claim him to be…but he is what you might call a dogmatic agnostic….what that means is that Einstein says we don’t know much about God and we can’t. Agnosticism is actually simply another word for ignorance. The one thing that we know is that we don’t know.
We might suspect a creator, yet we don’t know and we can’t know who he is.
The stats for our country reveal that too. 60 % of the UK population believe in a personal god but most of us would not be willing to put a name to that god.
I think that’s true of most of my friends – they believe in some kind of God but they also are fairly sure that they have no good reason to believe in anything more than a distant deity.
Here’s the point – reason alone can only get you so far -perhaps the vague notion of a god.
And here then is the conclusion that many of us reach; if God is there, a God who wants to know us, why doesn’t he make himself more obvious?
Well the Christian claim is that he has made it more obvious than by what we can work out through reason. We are not limited to reason but God has given us revelation.
And the staggering claim of Christianity is that God has spoken to us not in visions or dreams not in messages in the stars but in human form, personally, in his son Jesus and what a difference that makes.
A lot of people if they believe in God at all think he communicates in some deliberately vague way almost designed to confuse us. We think the way God communicates is a bit like the way we play Pictionary. Take away words and see just how difficult and confusing communication is!
Well it might be funny on Christmas day to live without words but it’s not so funny communicating through Pictionary in an operating theatre.
The great claim of the Christian faith is that God has spoken to us face to face and mouth to mouth through his Son. Jesus said to his disciples; anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. The apostle John wrote in John 1:18, ‘No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.’
Jesus perfectly reveals God. To have seen Jesus is to have seen God!
We don’t need Hadron colliders or even near-death experiences to know if anyone is out there. God has not left us in the dark and God does not play Pictionary. We are no longer looking up and guessing because, in Christ, God has broken into our world.
- Church Planting
- Global Church
- Jesus Christ
- Medical ethics
- Social media
- Suffering Church
- The Christian Life
- Transforming Society
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010