This picture is disturbing on so many levels, I hardly know where to start. The placement of these umbrellas is suggestive of Sharia Law to me and has no place in the Christian world.
One observation is that it claims the husband is to be the provider for the family. If this is true, then the Proverbs 31 woman was totally out of God's will because she provided for her family by making deals with merchants, buying real estate and allowing her family enough wealth to be clothed with purple. There is no mention that her husband provided these things and she just managed them. She provided them! She was a family provider.
Maybe that should be taught.
Another observation is that the husband is set up to be the protector of the family. How is that supposed to work while he's out earning all those provisions? How is he supposed to protect the family when he's not there? I have been a stay-at-home-mom, by choice, for 34 years. I have protected myself, my children and my home all those years in a very pro-active way. I did not sit back and expect my husband to protect me or our kids. That was both our jobs and I was right in there doing all I could to make sure my family was safe. The idea that the husband is to be the sole protector of the family is erroneous.
Another problem with this erroneous teaching is that it sets the husband up for sure failure. If he travels for business or does not work from home and something happens to his family while he's out of town or at his place of employment, he will feel guilty because he was not there to protect them. But, his guilt would have no place to go because, at the same time, he knows he has to be out there being the sole provider, so he can't win. He either has to stop working, work from home, or leave his family vulnerable to all the evils he's supposed to be protecting them from.
This erroneous teaching has to stop.
A third observation is that the wife is under the husband's umbrella, effectively putting him between her and Christ. What evangelical would support this teaching? There is nothing between a woman and her Savior. Nothing. Not a husband. Not a child. Not one thing. I would never think I have to communicate with my Savior through my husband. Jesus is mine. There is no mediator between God and man except Jesus.
My fourth observation is that the children are placed under the wife's umbrella. This suggests that husbands don't have to be as involved in the rearing of the children; that it's primarily the wife's responsibility. What God-fearing husband would want or support that? What God-fearing man does not think he has a responsibility to his children?
What happens to the couple who has no children for one reason or another? This leaves no room for a couple to choose to have no children. However, that's a perfectly legitimate choice. There are also many couples who aren't able to have children.
My fifth observation is that the wife is tasked with managing the home. That could stem from Titus 2:5 where Paul instructs Titus to have the older women teach the younger women to be, among other things, "keepers at home, "(working at home, managing their home). This does not mean this is an exclusive activity, that women can't work elsewhere. If that were true, then those of us who do not have slaves better be getting some because later in the chapter, it tells slaves how to respond to their masters. Surely, Paul did not condone slavery.
There are some who believe this passage teaches that women are not to have careers at all, but to just be home, managing their home. This is erroneous. This sets young wives up to be vulnerable to financial ruin if anything should happen to their husband. If women are to never have careers, then the Proverbs 31 woman was way out of line because she was a real estate investor, a tradeswoman, an astute business woman and a farmer, among other things. How do people justify teaching about her in the context of women not working?
There are so many women in the Bible who had careers, it's not possible to list them all in one blog post. Rachel was a shepherd; Lydia was a seller of purple; Priscilla was a tentmaker; Sapphira was a real estate investor; Deborah was a judge; Miriam was a co-leader of Israel with her brothers....the list goes on and on. When people take Titus 2:5 out of context and apply it like a blanket, it spells disaster for women. Spelling disaster for women is the only way some men can feel in control. I have news for men like that: They were never meant to be in control of another human being. They need to get over that. God is in control, not men.
My last observation for this blog post is the phrase at the bottom of the picture: "Natural Order of the Household." Says who? That is not the natural order of anything. The natural order was Eden, where Adam and Eve were equal amd were equally charged with dominion over everything on the planet. God did not give them roles to fill. Eve was created as part of God's original, natural plan; she was not an afterthought. She was created as a "suitable companion" who, from the start, equally co-existed with Adam in complete harmony. THAT is the "natural order" of things. Equal co-existence. Equal access to the Savior. Equal responsibility for the dominion of the earth and all that that entails.
Young wives, do not be fooled or taken in by the erroneous teaching portrayed in this graphic.
Do not fall for this idea because it is man-made. It is a form of spiritual abuse that people use to try to subdue other people....people who are equal to them.
Young women, let nothing......not a pastor.....not a child.....and certainly not a husband.....get between you and your Savior. Like Mary, sit at His feet and learn from Him....let no one tell you to get up and do the dishes, clean up the house or make the coffee. You stay with your Savior without apology. You can still take care of all your responsibilities, along with a husband who should help carry the load of raising a family, and not compromise your relationship with your Savior.
A Biblical graphic would have the wife and husband in the same umbrella, equally sharing the responsibilities of a family while equally respecting each other's relationship with the Savior, neither one dominating in any way.
I am deeply disturbed and burdened that this graphic is being so positively promoted among evangelical leadership. I will have no part in this evil and I will speak out against it whenever I can.