A Stay-At-Home Dad Vs. the Bible

By Trevor Catlaster

I was an egalitarian Christian stay-at-home dad, caring for six children during my 20-year marriage. However, my in-laws, marriage counselors and church pastors were all complementarian. Their counsel to my wife and I was that I had sinned against God for not being the breadwinner of the family. This led to a grievous divorce. Therefore, I was inspired to research how the Bible was used to destroy families and communities, from colonial America to the present day. I also discuss the pushback that resulted from such biblical interpretation, including and especially the rise of feminism. Since it was an interpretation of the Bible that led to the dissolution of my marriage, the institution of biblical marriage is also scrutinized, especially in the context of divorce. Stay-at-home dads should have the Christian right to be caregivers of their children, if they choose to do so, without being threatened with divorce.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Jun 2, 2021
• ISBN: 9781664177147

Book preview

Copyright © 2021 by Trevor Catlaster.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Rev. date: 06/02/2021

Xlibris

844-714-8691

www.Xlibris.com

830602

CONTENTS

Introduction

Chapter 1 Women, Men & Conflicts in Scripture

Chapter 2 Historical Challenges Interpreting Scripture

Chapter 3 More than One Way to Look at Things

Chapter 4 Fundamentalism, Feminism & Sola Scriptura

Chapter 5 Beyond Sola Scriptura: The Holy Spirit in Modern Times

Chapter 6 Hierarchical Gender Roles & Scriptural Interpretation

Chapter 7 Leadership, Divorce & Reversal

Chapter 8 Path of Tradition, Social Impact & Aimee Semple McPherson

Chapter 9 The Controller-Subjugate Relationship in Christian Marriage

Chapter 10 Sister Aimee’s Three Marriages & Biblical Rules of Divorce

Chapter 11 The Cost of Misinterpretation or Poor Interpretation of Scripture

Chapter 12 The Holy Spirit & The Problem of Family Legacy

Chapter 13 Divorce & The Cost of Discipleship

Chapter 14 Forgiveness & The Question of Remarriage

Chapter 15 Rendezvous & Final Thoughts

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

A fairytale modern marriage, guided by egalitarian and feminist principles, was destroyed by a patriarchal complementarian interpretation of the Bible. The ideal 21 st Century liberated marriage, where the wife was the breadwinner of the family and the husband the caregiver of the children, came under fire because relatives and church leaders disapproved of this untraditional marital arrangement. Their shaming of the husband for his failure to act as head of the household, as they understood it, led to broken relationships and eventually divorce. This is my story of how I lost my job as caregiver of our six children and forced to leave the family because of an interpretation of the Bible that judged me a sinner deserving of e xile.

Heartbreakingly, none of this was necessary under the sovereignty of God. Much of this interpretation of the Bible was more based on traditions that arguably grew out of misinterpretations and misunderstandings of the genuine biblical text. The authors of the Bible were patriarchal, true. However, to record the truth about God and Jesus, they had to report about an egalitarian God who showed no favoritism and a Jesus who exalted women rather than subjugating them. Such biblical accounts may be difficult to uncover given how the biblical authors attempted to downplay the important roles of women in ministry. Nevertheless, Jesus lifted the curse of inequality through his penal substitutionary atonement on the cross and the forgiveness of sins.

How the Bible should be read and interpreted has been defined by many people in many cultures and throughout many generations. The effects of those interpretations on cultures, history and people have been monumental, in both good and bad ways. My desire is to illustrate how difficult biblical interpretation can be, identify places in Scripture where misinterpretation exists in American Christian tradition, place those verses in their cultural and historical context to better explain their meaning, and offer an interpretation which better reflects the love of Christ.

As a pretext, however, I felt it important to reflect on the problems of biblical interpretation historically. Specifically, I examine how experiments in theocracy failed in colonial America, and the need for the separation of church and state under God’s sovereignty. Further, I describe the theological justifications that arose in anticipation of the American Civil War and how biblical interpretation contributed to this conflict. Finally, I compare and contrast Christian fundamentalism against the rise of feminism in America and the biblical perspective of both. The purpose is to show how difficult biblical interpretation can be, how easily it can be manipulated to forward one’s own agenda, and the damaging effects that theological constructs can have on relationships.

To be clear, the Bible will be approached from a hermeneutic of suspicion. Often evangelical feminist criticism will attempt to liberate the scriptures from participation in oppression by retranslating the text so that it can be interpreted as somehow neutral, pure or objective. Displacing ideological intentions with other ideological intentions is not my intention. Instead, the Bible will be interpreted as the literary product of the people and cultures which created it, including their intentions and agendas, as best as can be discerned. Moreover, a socio-critical approach will include the exploration of a variety of interpretations of Scripture, while being sure to critically reflect on my own agenda and conclusions with openness for possible correction.¹

To explore the biblical text is to explore its context, searching to understand the ancient crisis and ascertain the meaning of the Lord’s intervention into it. Not that this is always accomplishable. However, when it is, then a better understanding of how to apply the text to a similar contemporary situation can be achieved. Understandably, no body of work can be written without some level of bias. Nonetheless, an honest attempt will be made to seek the truth about the scriptural texts, the people who wrote them, and the characters and events portrayed therein.²

This is not to remove God from Scripture or to say that the Bible is not the sacred holy work that has transformed the world for generations in the name of Jesus Christ. The Bible has literally saved my life, by reaching into the core of my being, through a loving relationship with the Creator God, his Son the High Priest and Sacrifice, and by being filled with the mysterious but ever present indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Theology is a contextual discipline, encompassing historical, contemporary and personal experience with a relational God.³

Feminist criticism confronts the ideological agenda of patriarchy with its own ideological agenda of liberation. Certainly, patriarchy has forwarded the privileged and empowered a masculine agenda, resulting in sexism, racism and classism, among others.⁴ However, to argue that people such as Moses, King David or the Apostle Paul did not participate in forwarding this agenda is simplistic and reflects an unwillingness to recognize the imperfections of their humanity.

All too often, the heroes of the Bible become sinless gods in the minds of the faithful, unable to preach wrongful theology. Instead, this approach removes their humanity, making them less accessible because they are no longer like regular people. For example, the people of Israel revered Abraham the patriarch as a kind of demigod. They identified themselves as sons of Abraham, as if the name itself had the power of salvation (John 8:39-40).⁵ Yet, Abraham lied to save his own life (Gen. 12:11-13, 20:1-2, 5) and demonstrated a lack of faith when he slept with his wife’s handmaiden Hagar to bear him a son (Gen. 16:1-4).

In Christianity, the Apostle Paul is often spoken of more frequently than the Holy Spirit. Understandably, Paul wrote at least thirteen books of the New Testament, more than half its content.⁶ Nonetheless, Paul himself mourned of his own potential wickedness when he said, For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing (Rom. 7:19 TNIV). Sometimes even the most revered theologians preached for the subjugation of others, whether they intended to or not.

Of course, liberation for all people, including women and men from the oppressive effects of patriarchy, is a very important task. The Bible should not be excluded from this process. Quite the contrary, I believe there is a way to interpret Scripture, while acknowledging the shortcomings of its authors and participants, to find a way to unite the Christian community while still preserving the authority of Scripture. Despite the oftentimes patriarchal, pro-slavery, anti-feminist, nationalism of Scripture, the mission of God to reconcile the nations of the world to himself and to one another remains the central theme of the biblical text.⁷ The Apostle Paul wrote, All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sin against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18 TNIV).

Regarding translation, most Bible verses were quoted from Today’s New International Version. The TNIV has been criticized for making verses that were originally written in the masculine gender-neutral. Although this was an attempt by the translators to produce a Bible that reflected more gender equality for the sake of its contemporary audience, they could not remove the patriarchal themes which permeated the book. If, however, a better translation of a verse or verses could be found that better illustrated the meaning or intention of its authors, that translation was used and duly noted.

That said, I am aware that great care must be taken when choosing verses to illustrate points, compare and contrast with other verses, or apply to a contemporary cultural context. Choosing a particular translation is another tool which can be used to better express a thought, make a point, or show a comparison. Nevertheless, keeping to the biblical author’s meaning and intentions, as best as can be discerned, is imperative. The Apostle Peter counseled, For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21 TNIV).

Needless to say, these tactics can be used to manipulate thought and interpretation as much as educate. No one can approach the Bible without bias, of course, whether personal or cultural. However, there is a difference between developing an honest understanding of the biblical script verses bending the words to fit an agenda. Peter wrote regarding Paul’s letters, He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16 TNIV).

One of the major purposes of this writing is to identify and discern contemporary cultural interpretation of Scripture in contrast with the biblical author’s original intended meaning. My intention is to expose those manipulations of interpretation which established Christian traditions based on misunderstanding. In so doing, I hope to explore and find the truth about the personal and cultural biases of the biblical authors, discern their agenda as culturally based or truly divinely inspired, and compare that with contemporary cultural interpretation.

Yet, at the same time, this is more than biblical exegesis. It is a story. Unlike many exegetical works which often present theology without application, the biblical text is confronted with real world problems and difficulties through the stories presented in this work. Whether the stories are from historical events, based on historical figures, or the telling of my story, the application of the biblical text and its various interpretations reveal their benefits and failures, as Scripture impacts the lives of the people involved. For instance, the life and career of Aimee Semple McPherson provided an excellent example of a Christian woman torn between her responsibilities as a homemaker and her call from the Lord to preach and establish a ministry. Her three marriages and her struggle as an early 20th Century female preacher and church founder are analyzed in the context of patriarchy, biblical marriage and interpretation.

Certainly, another purpose of this writing is to open a dialogue among the different sects of Christianity to begin the conversation toward a biblical interpretation that brings unity among believers rather than division. Nonetheless, I am a divorced former stay-at-home dad with a master’s degree in ministry and theology. It would be wrong for me to say that I did not also have an agenda which impassioned me to write. My approach to the Bible is that it was written by human beings who interpreted God and the world with their own passions, desires and cultural biases. I do this while being aware that I too am impassioned, write from a certain point of view, and am influenced by my own contemporary cultural bias. This is my story of a stay-at-home dad verses the Bible. Is there a better way to explore biblical exegesis that to apply it to practical reality and personal experience?

I am also aware that my master’s degree does not automatically make me a professional Christian, or that I have authority over the Word of God. True, the education I received will be reflected in this writing. However, I am an explorer, searching the scriptures for truth, never too confident that I have mastered it or contained it. Unlike philosophy, a kind of detached reasoning, theology is the reflection of faith and the articulation of a belief system. All Christians share and participate in the task of biblical and theological reflection (1 Pet. 2:9).⁸

What theology must not do is become an end in and of itself. It must take into consideration the fluidity of the contemporary context in which thoughts and perceptions are ever changing. Scriptural interpretations must take into account the context in which it is being read as much as the context in which it was written. Considered together are the biblical text, church history and contemporary culture. Modern philosophy often makes discoveries about human existence that creates more questions than it can answer. Theology attempts to answer many of those questions from a faith-based perspective. Nevertheless, theology as a model of reality must not attempt to replace reality. When theology becomes about lofty concepts which have no practical application, it renders itself useless.⁹

America is a culture which thrives on controversy. Needless to say, this writing will likely draw opposition from Christians whose traditions and cultural biases resist being challenged. It was never intended to self-affirm existing biblical interpretations in 21st Century Christian America. Quite the reverse, actually. Nonetheless, my hope is to open a dialogue with contemporary Christians, while at the same time finding a way to agree to disagree on the finer points of Scripture without wrangling over words, which does no good but only ruins those who are listening (2 Tim. 2:14 NRSV).¹⁰

Arguably, a battle is being waged here. The Bible was used as a catalyst to end my marriage. Do I have an axe to grind? Yes, of course. Nevertheless, I desire to seek the truth about what the Bible really says, how it is applied, and how it should or should not have been used to break up a marriage and a family.

CHAPTER ONE

Women, Men & Conflicts in Scripture

I grew up in a household where my father was Episcopalian and my mother was Catholic. Their arrangement was very much that of the traditional American family. My father taught political science at a prestigious liberal arts college and my mother was the primary caregiver for me and my younger si ster.

Needless to say, my father was most certainly the primary breadwinner of the family. In retrospect, however, I did not observe my father taking a strong position of authority by lording over the family the way someone who thought of himself as head of the household might. Although he was often the problem solver of the family, important decisions were usually made collaboratively between him and my mother. Rarely did I see my father take a stand against my mother’s wishes. The most important things were negotiated and most everything else was deferred to my mother’s preferences. The relationship seemed more about two people trying to manage their lives and their problems together than one person taking command and demanding compliance. My mother was almost never submissive and my father was almost never insistent. Clearly, they did something right, because they stayed married for thirty-eight years, until cancer claimed my mother’s life in May 2006.

This was the example of how husbands and wives lived together for me and my sister. There was an example of complementarianism, that my father was the sole breadwinner of the family. But, there was also an example of egalitarianism, the way my mother and father collaborated and negotiated in order to make important decisions.

Complementarianism embraced the belief that gender distinctions existed regarding functional roles in society, especially in the context of church leadership and the hierarchical order of authority in the home. Ordination and church offices could only be held by men, and the husband had full authority over his wife and children.¹¹

Of course, having the privilege of being in a position of authority demanded great responsibility. Tradition demanded that men be the breadwinner of the family. There was room for dual income families if absolutely necessary, however, the primary financial provider was supposed to be the husband.

The biblical justification for men’s position of authority over women was because of the sin of eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden by God’s first created people (Gen. 3:1-7). The Apostle Paul said to protégé Timothy, For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (1 Tim. 2:13-14 TNIV). Paul was writing in reference to the Genesis story, where the gender roles were defined for both the first man and the first woman, after the Fall of humanity from grace. The role of breadwinner for Adam had been decided by God as a curse. Scripture recorded, So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken (Gen. 3:23 TNIV).

In contrast, those who embraced an egalitarian theology believed that all were one in Christ. Therefore, functional roles in society were interchangeable between women and men. As a result, women should have an equal opportunity to serve in leadership roles in the church, including ordination, and the husband is to submit to his wife, with love and respect, as the wife is to her husband.¹² The Apostle Paul wrote to the church in Galatia, There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28 TNIV).

Arguably, Paul was speaking more about salvation than gender roles. Nevertheless, his words brought to the forefront the concepts of biblical egalitarianism. For example, Scripture recorded, In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 7:12 TNIV), This is my command: Love each other (John 15:17 TNIV), and For God does not show favoritism (Rom. 2:11 TNIV).

Certainly, biblical egalitarianism opens doors which would otherwise not be possible within the context of theological complementarianism. Women who believed they were called by God to serve in ministry leadership roles would have the opportunity to do so. Moreover, congregations would benefit from an alternative feminine viewpoint rather than always hearing Scripture taught from a male perspective.

Egalitarianism can also extend beyond gender. If people called to ministry truly had an equal opportunity to be appointed roles in leadership, people who had suffered the pain of divorce could also serve. Often churches do not allow men who are divorced to serve in leadership roles because it is assumed that their failure in marriage is a reflection of their personal failure to lead and command their own families. Ironically, a pastor or church leader who understood the emotional, relational and financial catastrophe that is often the result of divorce, could arguably be a benefit to a congregation where more than half of those marriages are also likely to fail.

For my former wife and I, egalitarianism offered an opportunity for her to be the breadwinner of the family, while I served as the primary caregiver of our six children. Not that we thought about it in the context of egalitarianism versus complementarianism. It was more an issue of survival. It just so happened that her career as a corporate trainer took off while my career in law enforcement stagnated. Once I gave up becoming a police officer, I embraced being a stay-at-home dad and learned to love it.

Also, I had an amateur video production business, based out of our home, which was flexible enough to make caring for the children manageable. My wife was a career woman, and at least for a time, she was advancing in her career. I hoped to provide her the opportunity to thrive in her vocation by taking care of the children. We would eventually have five girls and a boy, all of whom I embraced whole heartedly as their caregiver. However, there were many in her family and our church community who did not approve of this arrangement.

My wife’s parents and brother were telling us that we were doing it wrong and that God was not pleased. Not only her family, but our church pastors were telling us that we had