There is one question that thrills kindergartners, paralyzes college freshmen, and may send the early retiree into a midlife crisis if it catches them by surprise: \u201cWhat do you want to be when you grow up?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With toddlers, the answers they toss back can split your sides. Knight! Policeman! Bear hunter! Godzilla! <\/em>Or my favorite: Cheese stick! <\/em>By high school, however, the question comes flying with greater precision, sobriety, and force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After serving in youth and college ministry for a decade, I can\u2019t tell you how many times I\u2019ve asked\u2014and answered\u2014such a query. Discovery, definition, trajectory\u2014these are fundamentally questions about vocation<\/em>: We like to know what people do<\/em>, and what they might <\/em>do in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, we mine for aspirations. When we ask, \u201cWhat do you want to be?\u201d if a youngster responds, \u201cI want to be kind,\u201d or \u201cloving,\u201d or \u201cgodly,\u201d or \u201cmature,\u201d we smile and clarify, \u201cNo, I mean what sort of job<\/em> would you like to have?\u201d We\u2019re scanning for their sense of calling, searching out any indication of the shape their future might take.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As well-intentioned as these conversations may be, the unbalanced emphasis on employment might display a disordered view of vocation. The kinds of questions we ask, and the types of answers we expect, train our children how to think about, frame, and prioritize their life decisions. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to get vocation <\/em>right and to get it in its proper place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Consider our cultural moment. As the bow goes, so too the quiver, and we are certainly stringing one another along. Men and women are not only getting married later, they are getting married less; further, their begetting of children follows that same poor trajectory.[1]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> This is no surprise, given that the standard plan most parents envision for their kids sounds something like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kids, here is what you ought to do. You should graduate high school at eighteen, college at twenty-two, and then pursue a career. Once your career is established (in five or six years), then <\/em>it might <\/em>be time to start thinking <\/em>about getting married. But, you should take your time getting to know your potential spouse; a two-to-three year on-ramp from dating to marriage is reasonable. Also, you\u2019ll want to enjoy<\/em> your marriage, so don\u2019t add any kids for the first few years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The compounding results of this vision have been disastrous. Generations are delaying milestones. The birth rate is plummeting. And one of the most bitter implications of this pattern affects aspiring mothers: Due to their more limited window of fertility, they have the most to lose.[2]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Could the delayed and truncated pursuit of family be partly because we are training <\/em>our kids to think about their future in terms of career <\/em>rather than in terms of vocation<\/em>? We teach them by word, example, and inquiry to pursue a career first and fit the family around that pursuit. We present the same vision to boys and girls alike. Even for self-avowed complementarians, we are often too squeamish and embarrassed to present any vision of eudaimonia<\/em>\u2014the happy life\u2014that differentiates between the sexes. So, we cut against the grain of creation and train our boys and girls to pursue the gender-neutral, career-centric vision of \u201cthe good life.\u201d And then we are surprised when our sons are hesitant to get married, and we wonder why our daughters are not hurrying up with the grandbabies already. We clip the wings, and watch for flight. We stomp on toes, and demand a dance. We castrate our vision of the future, and still expect the geldings to be fruitful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We don\u2019t realize we\u2019re seeing the fruit of seeds we\u2019ve been sowing for decades with thousands of \u201ctiny\u201d and \u201cinnocent\u201d actions like asking, \u201cWhat do you want to be when you grow up?\u201d What if a six-year-old girl answered that question by saying, \u201cWhen I grow up, I want to be a wife and mother. That\u2019s the main thing I want to do.\u201d What if she said that when she was sixteen? A college senior? What if her five-year plan was \u201cto have better care of the home, and a better instruction of my children in the knowledge of the Lord\u201d? Odds are the adult who asked the question will steer the little girl toward a \u201cbackup plan\u201d that looks strangely similar to the career path of a young man who wants to be a breadwinner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My concern is not only to say that \u201chomemaker\u201d is a valid career choice. It is. In fact, I would say it\u2019s the default <\/em>career choice we should commend to our daughters. But more than this, we will not have the boldness or clarity to commend a truly <\/em>complementarian vision of vocations unless we first <\/em>understand the relation of the vocation to the household. Therefore, my main concern is that many believers are prioritizing a career in their future above the development of a family. This is a biblically disordered doctrine of vocation; no wonder women are reluctant to enter the home; no wonder men are passive once inside it\u2014all because we have pitched them such an upside-down framework. A proper understanding of vocation for both men and <\/em>women will see\u2014and plan, prepare for, and pursue\u2014careers in subservient <\/em>relation to their family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We can offer our kids a better picture of flourishing: When we travel downstream from a biblically orthodox understanding of family and work, we don\u2019t find \u201cstay-at-home moms\u201d or <\/em>\u201cstay-at-work dads\u201d\u2014as if their employment (or lack thereof) encompassed the sum of their vocation. Rather, we find heads and helpers who fulfill their particular responsibilities in every sphere in service of their household\u2014and we\u2019ll find a culture where young people dream of pursuing the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But I have assumed the conclusion thus far. Where lies this supposed difference between career <\/em>and vocation<\/em>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cVocation\u201d ultimately comes from the Latin verb voco <\/em>(and its noun form, vocatio<\/em>), <\/em>which in the Vulgate corresponds to the Greek kaleo\u0304\/kle\u0304sis<\/em>. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7:20, the ESV reads, \u201cEach one should remain in the condition <\/em>in which he was called<\/em>.\u201d The English could be clearer on the relationship of \u201ccondition\u201d to \u201ccalled\u201d; it could well be translated \u201ceach should remain in the calling<\/em> [kle\u0304sis<\/em>, implied from 1 Cor. 7:20] in which he was called<\/em> [kaleo\u0304<\/em>].\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Today, just as \u201cWhat do you do<\/em>?\u201d usually means \u201cWhat is your job<\/em>?\u201d, so too vocation <\/em>is used synonymously with employment<\/em>\u2014it\u2019s \u201cwhat you get paid for.\u201d But the biblical idea in 1 Corinthians 7 has a much broader meaning: it is \u201cwhat you do according to God\u2019s providential assignment of responsibility.<\/em>\u201d This includes work paid and unpaid. Paul was called to be an apostle <\/em>(1 Cor. 1:1). Christians are called to mutual holiness<\/em> (1 Cor. 1:2) and to fellowship with Christ (1 Cor. 1:9). Believers are called to God, even though they have many weaknesses (1 Cor. 1:26).[3]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> \u201cCalling\u201d has nothing to do with the subjective or the self-expressive, and it has everything to do with being obedient and honoring God in the providential circumstances in which you find yourself. Hence, if we ask, \u201cWhat is the biblical concept of vocation<\/em>?\u201d we would be well within the bounds to use the ESV heading from 1 Corinthians 7: \u201cLive as you are called.\u201d It is faithfulness to God through <\/em>fulfillment of our responsibilities to others in <\/em>the circumstances to which we are sovereignly assigned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cCalling\u201d is a prescription drawn from a description. Direction is derived from duty, and not the other way around. I was <\/em>called to singleness while I was single. And for twenty-three years, I happily honored God as a single man, fighting to be satisfied in Christ and to maximize the strengths of my life situation for the sake of his kingdom. Then I married my wife. I was no longer called to singleness; I was called to marriage. How did I discover this new calling? Well, the wedding band on my finger offered at least a suggestion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBut Andrew, doesn\u2019t this argument undercut <\/em>your point, and suggest we shouldn’t change our circumstances, since that would be like trying to change our calling?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n No. Paul is not being fatalistic here, and clearly, he has a category for godly aspiration. A little later, he tells the slave to honor God in his vocation <\/em>of slavery, but to emancipate himself if possible. The application, then, is not \u201cdon\u2019t change your circumstances,\u201d but to be faithful in your circumstances while you are in them. Though we might read 1 Corinthians 7:27 and think Paul is against single people getting married, we have to balance his comments (e.g., \u201cAre you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.\u201d) with context. For immediate context, it is enough to observe that Paul was concerned with \u201cundivided attention to the Lord\u201d (1 Cor. 7:35), against which, for some, marriage might be a hindrance. He was considering the reality of persecution and social instability (1 Cor. 7:26, 28), and he was battling the idea that either marriage or singleness necessarily brought one closer to God (1 Cor. 7:40). As for the broader context, fruitful marriages that yield godly offspring is God\u2019s blueprint for humanity on earth (see Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 7; Mal. 2:14\u201315; cf. Heb. 13:4). Single-minded devotion to God is Paul\u2019s goal in 1 Corinthians 7, and the hardwiring of humanity guarantees our average aspiration should be to marry and raise godly kids.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is God\u2019s good design; it should be an \u201copt-out\u201d feature rather than an \u201copt-in.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> So the unmarried college student should be faithful in her current <\/em>calling to singleness, and<\/em> she would do well to prepare for a potential future <\/em>calling to marriage<\/a>, barring exceptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Too often, the complementarian effort to define gender roles is an exercise in question-begging. I have argued here that we should not only <\/em>right-size our view of vocation to fit the biblical view of gender, but also <\/em>to fit the biblical view of the household. If that foundation is set, we would do well to clarify those household roles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When we embrace a biblical vision of vocation, we will enculturate the next generation so that young women prioritize pursuing a vocation in the form of <\/em>being a \u201chome-worker\u201d (Titus 2:5) and raising her children. The way I help my daughters think about their future education, job experience, skill acquisition, and life decisions will assume the calling of marriage and motherhood as the norm <\/em>and the priority<\/em>. This does not deny the place for education, job skills, or employment, but it retains Paul\u2019s definition of \u201cgood works\u201d for women in 1 Timothy 5:10 (e.g., bringing up children, showing hospitality (in the home), washing the feet of saints, caring for the afflicted, etc.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n As we see in Proverbs 31, the biblical ideal of a home-worker and child-raiser is a robust vision of work<\/em>–from<\/em>-home moms, not merely stay<\/em>–at<\/em>-home moms. The distinction may seem subtle, but words reinforce our conception of reality. \u201cStay-at-home\u201d does nothing to posit the actual occupation and labor<\/em> my wife is called to. The garden stays at home; our Mediterranean gecko \u201cJorge\u201d stays at home; the water filter stays at home. My wife, however, is an active, mobile-yet-home-based, creative, social, adventurous source of responsible productivity who may travel to more places on any given day than her office-bound husband! When people see a woman clearly stepping into her God-given calling as a domestic manager, they will not pity her and look on her husband with scorn. Rather, \u201cher works [will] praise her in the gates\u201d (Prov. 31:31), she will be her husband\u2019s crown (Prov. 12:4), and he will be known by a good reputation in the community (Prov. 31:23).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conversely, we must encourage men to pursue a vocation for the sake of <\/em>providing for a family. This simply means that work is not mainly about us. It is not mainly about us advancing as far as we can in a career; if moving up the corporate ladder, or starting a local business, or pulling three or four jobs at once means you provide financially but don\u2019t lead your family well spiritually, you\u2019re missing it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And, on the other side, if work is mainly a means of self-expression, a way for dad to spend more time on his hobbies and interests, to the point that he starts putting the burden to provide (even just in part) on his wife, that\u2019s missing it too. I have plenty of hobbies I love, and plenty of interests I could invest in. And until the point that I am providing for my family in all the ways God has required, they are all dead to me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We could run off either side of the road, idolizing either job or pleasure. Do you want to stay on track? Embrace your household as your most important work, unto the Lord. No man can read the commands of Deuteronomy 6:4\u20138 and Ephesians 6:4 and conclude that their paid work or their hobbies are their highest calling. We don\u2019t need \u201cstay-at-work dads\u201d any more than we want \u201cstay-at-home moms.\u201d Rather, if the helper\u2019s calling is to work from<\/em> home, then the head\u2019s calling is to work for <\/em>home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We need to frame conversations about the future for both <\/em>young men and <\/em>women so that they know that (1) God\u2019s good and default design is for men and women to get married and raise children together, and (2) the father\u2019s primary vocational aim is to protect and provide for his family financially, while the mother\u2019s is to nurture and raise the children. This perspective sees familial responsibility as <\/em>the main <\/em>vocation of both <\/em>mother and <\/em>father, because it is their providentially arranged calling from the Lord.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the mother, this homemaking and child-rearing is her primary career.<\/em> Let it never be said of a homemaking mom that \u201cShe doesn\u2019t work!\u201d Therefore, wives and moms, strive to support your husband\u2019s work in his career and <\/em>his vocation as a father. Make your home-working your craft, and seek to make progress in managing resources and raising children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And for the father, his income-earning career is undertaken in service <\/em>to his primary<\/em> vocation: the patriarchal duty of provision, protection, discipleship, and leadership in the home. There is no place for passive men in God\u2019s households. So, husbands, strive to provide so your wife can fulfill her domestic responsibilities. Give her the tools, supplies, and biblical clarity she needs to fulfill her vocation well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you are the parent of a young person, put more thought and effort into what sort of spouse your child is preparing to become than what kind of career they are preparing to pursue. Encourage them to think about jobs, college degrees, careers, income, and financial goals in relation to their aspiration to raise a family as a faithful father or mother. Encourage them to acquire skills, earn wages, and embark on career trajectories that will best serve the establishment of a godly household. In your child-rearing, give your children a compelling vision of pursuing the vocation of husband <\/em>and wife <\/em>and father <\/em>and mother<\/em>. Help them order such things as education, finances, and jobs in the proper relation to that <\/em>vocation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lastly, to young people: Make plans and aspire, under God, to marry and to raise a family. Put more thought into this than you put into developing a career. Think about your pursuit of education and a career in proper relation to <\/em>the biblical vision for a family. And don\u2019t be too put off when someone asks you what you want to be when you grow up. Some of us are still figuring that out ourselves.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When little Sally is asked, “what do you want to be when you grow up?” we need to have categories that go beyond a nine-to-five job. We need to think in the Bible’s categories about vocation. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":23939,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"Stay-at-home Moms, Stay-at-work Dads? A Plea for Better Thinking on Vocation by Andrew Ballard","_seopress_titles_desc":"When little Sally is asked, \"what do you want to be when you grow up?\" we need to have categories that go beyond a nine-to-five job. We need to think in the Bible's categories about vocation.","_seopress_robots_index":"","inline_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"[]","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[32,12,1975,38],"tags":[543,114,2317,540,2355,717,196,550,622,2319,2315,2356,758,2321],"scripture-reference":[],"post_folder":[],"ppma_author":[2096],"class_list":["post-23936","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-article","category-concise","category-september-2025","category-theme","tag-children","tag-church","tag-faithful","tag-family","tag-husband","tag-life","tag-local-church","tag-men","tag-ministry","tag-practical-theology","tag-vocation","tag-wife","tag-work","tag-work-ethic"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/pexels-vidalbalielojrfotografia-1682497-scaled.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-01-13 11:22:51","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"authors":[{"term_id":2096,"user_id":14,"is_guest":0,"slug":"andrew-ballard","display_name":"Andrew Ballard","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Andrew-Ballard-e1747184685978.png","url2x":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Andrew-Ballard-e1747184685978.png"},"author_category":"1","job_title":"","church_city_state":"","last_name":"","first_name":"","church_site":"","user_url":"","description":"Vocation and Households<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1. In 1970, 67% of Americans ages 25 to 49 were living with their spouse and one or more children younger than 18. Over the past five decades, that share has dropped to 37% (according to data from 2023<\/a>). See also John Schweiker Shelton, \u201cDon\u2019t Wait to Have Kids: If You\u2019re Married, You\u2019re Ready to Start Having Children\u2014and Waiting Is Risky<\/a>,\u201d WORLD Opinions<\/em>, 8 April 2025.
<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
2. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists<\/a>, \u201cA woman’s peak reproductive years are between the late teens and late 20s. By age 30, fertility (the ability to get pregnant) starts to decline. This decline happens faster once you reach your mid-30s. By 45, fertility has declined so much that getting pregnant naturally is unlikely.\u201d<\/h6>\n\n\n\nVocations and Careers<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
3. Many thanks to my friend and fellow churchman, Nathan Moore, for his confirmation on the Latin and for his clarifying thoughts on \u201ccalling\u201d in 1 Corinthians.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
4. It is of course fine if someone does<\/em> decide to opt out, if they are \u201cmade eunuchs\u201d by birth (a biological effect of the Fall), by man (an effect of sin), or by themselves for the sake of the kingdom. But this is rarely the case. My argument still holds relevance to those in this condition if one substitutes \u201cthe household of faith\u201d where I refer to one\u2019s natural family.<\/h6>\n\n\n\nVocation and Gender<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n