Intentional Manhood 13: Finances

Aaarrgghhhh! – Role Calling: Intentional Manhood 13: Finances.

I thank God for more accurate Bible translations than the one being used here. Ones that correctly recognise that the language of 1 Timothy 5:8 is inclusive:

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for
their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an

I am confident that the whole of our family is grateful that, with an understanding of role built upon  gender accurate translations, they get their money managed by Jane rather than me.

In the post we see 5 steps all created from a mis-translation. They completely contradict the one-flesh understanding of scripture. They even encourage bad relationships by advising the husband to go outside the marriage for help before even telling his wife there is a problem. How can people build a loving home when one half is kept in the dark about their finances?

One thing was clear from our training for the CAP Money course from Christians Against Poverty. Money management works much better when both partners are fully involved and committed, even though one will usually take the lead in actually doing the paperwork.

In my (limited) experience I have seen more marriages get into trouble through the spending habits of the husband than the wife – in more than one case leaving a single mother with debts run up by the husband.

We should take the consistent one-flesh scriptural view of marriage far more seriously and that has to mean honesty, openness and mutual respect and responsibility for finances as well as every other aspect of life.

In my view Male Headship has far too low a view of marriage. I believe Jesus calls us to no less than abandon self into the marriage, becoming one. Male headship continually denies that oneness, that abandonment by attempting to separate wife and husband.

In the wedding service we say "A and C, God so join you together that none shall ever part you." A pity that male headship does exactly that.

One thought on “Intentional Manhood 13: Finances

  1. Peter Kirk

    Well said. This is what I just commented on the post you linked to, with no confidence that it will be approved:
    You are basing your thesis on a mistranslation of this verse. In the Greek there is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to suggest that it refers to males any more than to females.
    No, there is not even one grammatically masculine pronoun here to suggest a “male representation” application to men only. In the context, the point is about children looking after widowed parents, and in verse 4 it is clear that this is equally the responsibility of daughters and sons. I suspect that the author here deliberately chose gender generic wording to avoid any suggestion that daughters can neglect their widowed parents.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>