The False Doctrine of "Primary Bread Winner..."

1 Timothy 5:3-16, in the KJV, states:

"Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.

Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless. 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."

"Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan."

"If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed" (1 Tim. 5:3-16).

To honestly determine the context of this passage is not difficult. To misinterpret and proof-text 1 Tim. 5:8, removing it from its above context, is even easier.

"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."

How Christians allow 'authority figures' to get away with butchering God's word based on a fictitious "office" astounds me. Christians, we are responsible to God to "prove all things" (1 The. 5:21) not submit to authority figures.

We as individuals (2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:7) are responsible to understand and defend the truth--not relegate OUR responsibility to an oligarchy and "gospel preacher."

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad" ( 2 Cor. 5:10).

^"So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God..." (Rom. 14:12).

Let us ask ourselves these questions about 1 Timothy 5:3-16 to determine if 1 Tim. 5:8 means, "males are to be the 'primary bread winners' of every family..." Is this teaching true or false based on the context of the passage?

Who is the passage discussing from the very first (vv. 3-16)? Widows.

Are husbands or males ever told that they must make more money than their wives? No.

Are women restricted by Paul on how much money they can make? No.

The context is not discussing "husbands or males exclusively making more money than their wives..." The context is discussing (taking care of) widows. All "children"(v.4)--male and female--are to "show piety" or "requite" (take care of, prioritize) their own parents so that the rest of God's children are not burdened with another person's responsibility. That is Paul's concern, not that it be gender specifically legalized.

1 Timothy 5:8 contains the phrase, "ei tis."

It means "If anyone..." not just husbands or males "...does not provide for his/their own relatives." The masculine pronouns "he, his, his own" while perhaps a grammatical necessity are unfortunate. Anyone "tis" has denied the faith who does not take care of his/her own. The word "aner, andras" (husband/male) is not present. Not even the word "anthropos" is present. That's how generic and NON gender specific this passage is.

Also, notice that "the faith" here is not making sure we follow 5 steps or 5 acts, but making sure we are behaving like Christ who took care of his widowed mother:

When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home" (John 19:26-27).

1 Timothy 5:8 does not say "husbands/males are to be the primary bread winners of their households and those who are not are sinners/infidels/not manly, etc." It is a false doctrine to teach such because, as we can plainly see, it is not the truth of what the context of the passage states. In fact, money is not even mentioned, much less how much money "anyone" is to make or be limited to making.

Paul's concern is that (younger) widows not be idle, becoming busybodies--or minding other people's business--and talking non-sense.

Working mothers/women is exactly what Paul wants!

It is a male chauvinist doctrine--not God's word--that attempts to control and limit the amount of money women can make.

It is a false doctrine to teach "men are to be the primary bread winners..." from the context of 1 Tim. 5:3-16.

Becoming An Ultra Runner

I was glad to be done!
Photo by Gregg Gelmis

Running any distance beyond 26.2 miles is considered ultra running.

50k, or 50,000 meters (31 miles), is the most common distance followed by 50 miles, 100k (62 miles), and, finally, 100 miles. 

There are a few less common distances and even some beyond 100 miles, like the 135 mile Badwater Ultra Marathon in Death Valley, California (in July!), as well as, 12 hour, 24 hour, and many relays even longer than that, but 50k is where ultra running begins.

RECOVER FROM THE HOLIDAYS 50K

Since New Year's Eve 2013, I have finished four 50k's (with 1 DNF) and one 40 Miler. My first ultra marathon was a very satisfying experience. It is called "Recover From the Holidays" held every year on December 31st at John Hunt Running Park in Huntsville, AL.

JHRP is a 3-mile trail loop that winds along the outskirts of a golf course to its north and just over the hill, to the south, is the city dump. You never see the landfill, but if the wind is right, you definitely know it is there! Surprisingly, only a whiff is all I've ever gotten when running John Hunt, and I've run over a hundred miles there. I finished RFH50k in 6 hours and 32 minutes.

The set up is one aid station at the turn-around of the loop. That part of the course is an open field, so everyone sets up chairs and blankets on the ground with personal aid. The turn around itself is a row of tables with extra goodies to munch on every 30 minutes give or take, depending on your pace. The mood is jovial, probably because it's New Years' Eve, but also because the Race Directors do a great job. I am very glad I chose it to be my first ultra.

When Is An Example BINDING? Never.

This excerpt was taken from a much more detailed 2-part article that may be found here.

I do not categorically agree with everything said below, but I believe what is written moves us closer to the truth and would contribute to unity among churches of Christ.

I have included in this excerpt only what I hope will spark consideration and discussion. 

The author lists opposing arguments in great detail in the full articles.

He writes,

"Bible examples without a doubt are meant to teach and instruct us in what God finds acceptable and unacceptable.  Whether or not examples can teach us is not the question. The question is, "Are we required to imitate examples that the Scriptures show have God's approval?" Most in the Churches of Christ would answer yes."

"If we answer yes, then we must have a way of telling which Bible examples are essential and which were just incidental or else we have no means of knowing which examples God expects us to imitate. If we cannot tell the difference, then we must either imitate every New Testament account of action, or concede that we aren't required by God to follow any of them."

"In discussing the matter with other brethren, no one that I am aware of has produced a logical means by which the difference between significant and insignificant examples can be ascertained. If no objective means of distinction can be identified, then we must either bind all examples or none of them." 

"Indeed, we have been very inconsistent in the binding of examples. There are a number of examples that would seem to have God's approval yet we do not bind them upon ourselves. Consider the following "approved" examples which we don't imitate."

• Eating the Lord's Supper on a Thursday (the day Jesus instituted it).
• Baptizing outdoors. The only passage under the new covenant which records where a baptism took place says that it was outdoors (Acts 8:36-39).
• Eating the Lord's Supper only in the evening. The only passage that mentions the time of day that the Supper was eaten says that it was in the evening. By definition the word "supper" means an evening meal.  (Mt 26:20)
• Restrict the number of deacons in local congregations to 7.  (Acts 6:3)
• Setting aside the ninth hour as an hour of prayer. (Acts 3:1)
• Observing the feast of Pentecost as Paul did.  (Acts 18:21, 20:16)
• Daily assemblies.  (Acts 2:46)

"Why do we not bind these examples? How have we been able to logically conclude that they are insignificant and not worth binding?"

 

The Harmful Effects of Dualism: Today's Patriotism and Christianity

Used from $8.40 + 3.99 shipping

I think we need to focus less on "separating the sin from the sinner" and focus more on the spiritual battle occurring in the cosmic realm. 

As Paul says,

"This is not a wrestling match against a human opponent. We are wrestling with rulers, authorities, the powers who govern this world of darkness, and spiritual forces that control evil in the heavenly world."

Dualism causes us to view worship as separate from the rest of life and when we combine this part of our worldview with the compartmentalizing of being an American as separate from a Christian, then patriotism will dominate. Sometimes we will wear the hat of Christ, but mostly we will wear the hat of Caesar.

As a result of this Caesar oriented dominance, Christians become afraid of being branded an ungrateful traitor by advocates of the state, when in fact, Jesus was crucified by the state and by His own countrymen who viewed Him as a traitor to their nation's worldview. 

As John says,

"Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did."

Do we? 

Or have we inherited an admixture of the state and church that we will find it harder and harder to justify the more the world becomes globalized? I do not mean to cause the crony capitalism of central banks to come to mind when I say this, but Christianity has sought to globalize the world for 2,000 years.