Is there any biblical text or theme that should lead the Church to encourage mothers of young children to stay at home with their children while their husbands work? I realize that the Bible probably wasn't written directly to an audience where most work required heading to the office or factory, so maybe it would not have dealt with that issue specifically. Was the historic Western response to the industrial revolution where the husband generally headed to work and the wife generally worked at home with the children more based on unbiblical sexism or an application of biblical principles to the new way the workforce operated? Is the newer trend to send the kids to daycare and have both parents work unbiblical? And if so, would it be equally biblical for the mom to head to the office and the dad to stay at home raising the children?
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Andy Van Slyke Fan
|
Breadwinner and Homemaker model |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 85 03/24/04 03:27:14 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
rodkirby |
Re: Breadwinner and Homemaker model | #1 | ||
|
Posts: 490 03/24/04 08:30:43 |
This is another of those areas where conservative Christianity seems to look for hard-and-fast rules, but where the Bible doesn't give them. And this is especially a case where the Van Til/Frame "motive-goal-standard" triad is important.
Genesis 1-2 indicates that the task of dominion was given to Adam, and then that Eve was created to help him fulfill this task. That seems to be backed up by the general experience of most couples -- that the husband generally tends to focus on his job, on the world outside the home, while the wife tends to focus on the home, on the family, on nurture, etc. I see this in my own family. My wife and I balance each other out -- left to myself, I would focus almost entirely on my jobs, and let matters at home take care of themselves (let the roof fix itself, let the plumbing repair itself, let the kids raise themselves, etc.). Fortunately, God gave me a wife to keep me from doing that! She sees matters at home as front and center. However, sometimes that overrides concerns about work, so I balance her out. All that is to say that God has wired up husbands and wives with different emphases and matters of focus. That is not a hard-and-fast rule, but simply a general pattern. This is borne out in the famous Prov. 31 case. The wife is a diligent worker, including real estate investing, but her focus is at home, while the husband is thus freed up for his calling in the city gates. So that's the general pattern. In particular instances, I think the matters of "goal" and "motive" become crucial. For example, you have a mom who works outside the home, and a dad who stays at home (Mr. Mom). I would want to know why this is the case. Is Dad lazy and irresponsible, so he cannot hold down a job? Is Mom seeking to be a "liberated" woman who refuses to show submission? If so, those would be the problems -- not the mere fact she is working and he is at home. Or is Mom working outside the home (while neglecting the family) so the family can pay for their vacation home and their yacht? Then there is another problem involved. But maybe Mom is working outside the home to enable their 4 children to go to a Christian school. That is an entirely different motive, and would be treated differently. I'm just not one to think there is some rule here that says, "Wives are to stay at home and, at most, have home-bound businesses." I think that is probably the preferred pattern, but I don't think we can make it binding on all. Rod Kirby, Ph.D.
Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Matthew Gross |
excellent post! | #2 | ||
|
Posts: 283 03/24/04 11:23:23 Resident |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Matt |
Agreed- very good response. | #3 | ||
|
Posts: 675 03/25/04 12:43:56 Resident |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
kyriosity |
Some other things to throw into the equation. | #4 | ||
|
Posts: 272 03/25/04 18:32:51 Banned User |
1) The responsibility of parents to train their own children
Deuteronomy 6:6-7 -- "These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up." Ephesians 6:4 -- "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." What's the best way to go about that? I'm thinking probably not daycare. 2) The responsibility of women to be homekeepers Titus 2:3-5 -- "Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good,so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored." Two other responsibilities seen in that passage: 3) The responsiblity of older women to be training the younger women 4) The responsibility of women to be subject to their own husbands What's the best way to go about meeting those goals? I'm thinking probably not by working outside the home. A) You can't be home and not home at the same time. B) You can't be home, not home, and training other women at the same time. C) You can't be subject to your own husband and to a boss at the same time. (The Proverbs 31 woman, though engaged in profitable enterprise, is not in someone else's employ.) These aren't hills to die on, certainly, but I think the provider/homekeeper model is the ideal -- God's best. Why are we so quick to ditch the ideal or to find the first loophole to get out of it? Why are modern American evangelicals so afraid of it? Could it be just maybe possibly because we get our understanding of the ideal from the popular culture instead of from the Scripture? I don't want to get into any deep debates on the issue -- just though I'd throw these ideas out there. ~Valerie The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him. ~Proverbs 18:17 Kyriosity: That I May Know |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tbrainerd |
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | #5 | ||
|
Posts: 175 03/25/04 21:01:41 |
Wow. That was fabulous. I, and more importantly, the wife who my mother loves, could not agree with you more.
Can I take an opportunity to make some random related comments, as long as the springboard is here? You said Quote: This is really something that should happen throughout our churches, and is sorely lacking. My wife and I looked for years for mentors in the faith, and just couldn't find them. The closest we got was what we got in BSF. Jean had a small group of women under her wing back in Houston, and the same is true here. We believe that is part of the ministry we have been given, and I support it wholeheartedly. You said Quote: So, why do these words appear in so many Christian Schools? (No offense intended, Rod.) You said Quote: On one level, no, they're not. On that level these don't look like salvation issues, or 'encouraging people to sin' issues (e.g., ordaining homosexuals). But if you look deeper, I think that you start to see deeper problems. Sociologically, it certainly appears that one of the most significant trends of the twentieth century was the entry of women into the workforce. It happened of necessity (I suppose) during the Second World War, but kept going thereafter. I have no doubt that I would find all kinds of folks shouting me down in many places, but I don't think that you can look at this country and see a lot of positive change in the intervening years, except maybe in the area of racial civil rights. As I look around me and see the coarsening of life, I cannot help but think that the breakdown of the family has something significant to do with it. To use some worn evangelical thoughts, I think that as we start to live out of step with the 'owner's manual' (the one written by the Owner) we expect to see things not work as well. I am not sure if the mom-outside-the-home thing is as much a cause as it is just another symptom, or maybe another domino falling in the line. You said Quote: The people in our old church mostly thought we were crazy when we started to homeschool. There was one woman who, when Jean asked her if she considered homeschooling, laughed at her and allowed as how she couldn't wait to get her son in kindergarten so she could do what she wanted to do. ************* Well, I have to go do bedtime with the kids, so I'll have to wrap up. Grace and peace, Tom |
|||
|
|
||||
|
kyriosity |
''so she could do what she wanted to do'' | #6 | ||
|
Posts: 272 03/25/04 22:08:45 Banned User |
I'm afraid that's the reason, more often than not. Before a dozen people yell at me about how their situation isn't like that, I'm sure there are exceptions. I just have a strong suspicion that like fish are unaware of the water, the church in America is unaware of the cultural milieu in which it is swimming. We've breathed it in and out for so long that it seems unquestionably normal. And the elements in our ocean are selfishness and consumerism and pragmatism.
My gills, by the way, are as exercised as anyone's in taking this stuff in, so I'm pointing at myself, too. ~Valerie The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him. ~Proverbs 18:17 Kyriosity: That I May Know |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tbrainerd |
Gills | #7 | ||
|
Posts: 175 03/25/04 22:36:36 |
I understand. Sometimes I am just amazed at how we (meaning me, not the all inclusive "we") seem to be faithful in one area and blind in another. You could easily freeze up, get the DIH (Deer in Headlights) look and be unwilling to say anything. We just have to realize that God is in control and that He will sanctify us in His time.
Thanks be to God! |
|||
|
|
||||
|
rodkirby |
Wives in submission | #8 | ||
|
Posts: 490 03/26/04 08:57:58 |
I agree with all of your points, except possibly #4
Quote: There is an area of truth here, which happens with women who have more career-oriented jobs as opposed to more local jobs -- the difference between being a mid-level manager for IBM and being a teacher in a local school. What happens when the career-type woman is told she is being moved to another city? Does she just have to quit her job, if her husband is not also going to move? Do they live in separate cities (which happens frequently)? That does make the concept of being subject to someone else a problem. However, I don't think the idea is a problem in itself, apart from such career-oriented jobs. For the wife to be subject to her husband AND to submit to her boss is no different than the fact that all of us have multiple authorities in our lives -- civil magistrates (multiple levels there), spouses (be subject to one another), church leaders, etc. For all of us (not just wives), we have to balance our submission to multiple authority structures, all under the authority of Christ. So the fact that my wife teaches at a different Christian school than I am at, and is thus subject to the administration there, does not conflict with her duty to be in submission to me. Rod Kirby, Ph.D.
Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tbrainerd |
Re: Wives in submission | #9 | ||
|
Posts: 175 03/26/04 13:59:39 |
I think that this departs from the 'federal' element of covenant. I find it difficult to read Scripture and find that we are to operate other than as FAMILIES. Scripture instructs us regarding the economics (the Greek base of "economy" refers to households ) of the family. The family is federal in Scripture. Unfortunately, we have become a society of individuals, instead of a society of families - Democracy, as opposed to federalism.
I think that we need to remove the presupposition of current culture as a given before we start to analyze whether a wife submitting to a male boss is an invalid submission. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
ramclaughlin |
Re: Wives in submission | #10 | ||
|
Posts: 1455 03/26/04 14:23:51 |
Rod seems merely to be pointing out that submission to husbands is not exclusive. One can and must submit to multiple authorities. This is pretty clear in Scripture. We are to submit to God, to government, to other believers, to church leaders, to parents, to spouses, to masters, etc. We render submission to each in an appropriate way according to the authority that person has over us. When they conflict, the higher authority takes priority. Whatever federal/covenant/family model you prefer as your lens, if you don't make room for multiple authorities within that framework, you have not done justice to Scripture. An in no case of which I am aware does Scripture state or demonstrate that the husband is the highest authority apart from God.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
rodkirby |
Primary Covenant Relationship | #11 | ||
|
Posts: 490 03/26/04 14:44:49 |
I agree with Ra's comments. In addition, I think we need to consider that, in the New Covenant, our primary "family" is the family of God -- the Church. Jesus said we are to "hate" father, brother, etc. (hyperbole, to be sure, but still meaningful). We must be willing to leave family to follow Him. Who are Jesus' brothers, sisters, etc? Those who follow Him. We are baptized into the family of God.
Actually, I tend to see our primary covenantal relationship as being the Church, with other covenantal relationships (family, government) as secondary, or as flowing from that primary relationship. Rod Kirby, Ph.D.
Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org |
|||
|
|
||||
|
kyriosity |
I think the "appropriate way" bit is the key. | #12 | ||
|
Posts: 272 03/26/04 18:15:35 Banned User |
A woman is not to be a helper to these other authorities the way she is to be a helper to her husband. I'm thinking that an outside-the-home job will likely put her in that very position.
~Valerie The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him. ~Proverbs 18:17 Kyriosity: That I May Know |
|||
|
|
||||
|
rodkirby |
Re: I think the "appropriate way" bit is the key. | #13 | ||
|
Posts: 490 03/26/04 19:01:41 |
I think that may depend on the job, and the relationship with her boss. Some jobs require a close working relationship with the boss, and that could lead to some problems for a woman, who is wired up by God to be a helper. However, other jobs don't involve that type of close tie. For example, an executive secretary type of position might be more difficult in this regard than a sales clerk in a department store. But I do agree that it could present a problem in some situations.
Rod Kirby, Ph.D.
Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tbrainerd |
Re: Wives in submission | #14 | ||
|
Posts: 175 03/26/04 23:01:22 |
Ra said
Quote: In OT, a woman (other than a widow) could not bind herself without consent of husband (if married) or father (if not married). A new husband was put in the position of confirming his new wife's commitments. Albeit, husband or father could fail to say anything, in which case the commitments would be considered effective. (Fair is fair, and there had to be some equitable estoppel.) If this is not a case of husband/father standing in line 'after God,' then what is it? Following in NT, women are instructed to " submit to... husbands as to the Lord." Eph 5:22 (NIV) I have a fair amount of trouble seeing this as indicating much other than the husband being the next in line of authority. I think that it is probably more strenuous to submit (hupotasso) than to obey (hupakouo, understanding that with the dative the force is somewhat like hupotasso), as the slave is instructed to do with the master. Submission is a matter of the whole will, while obedience is in many ways a matter apart from will, considered on a holistic basis. If marriage is, as stated in NT, to be an earthly reflection of the relationship of Christ to His church, which I hope everybody here agrees is supposed to be submitted to Him before any other authority, I again have trouble comprehending that there might be an authority that would stand beside or in front of the husband, vis a vis the wife. I think that these are fairly compelling. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tbrainerd |
Re: Primary Covenant Relationship | #15 | ||
|
Posts: 175 03/26/04 23:18:18 |
In a theological context, the church is an economic entity (the Household of Christ) which is itself composed of economic entities (families). Unless we are to throw Paul out with the bathwater, we are pretty well instructed as to how those constituent households are supposed to work. The husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church. The Greek looks pretty clear.
Hating father, mother, sister and brother aren't at issue here. If a believer were married to an unbeliever, husband asking or demanding wife to do that which is offensive to God, that would be one thing, but I don't think that is the question we are really addressing here, is it? Wife submitting to husband in accord with Scripture doesn't really violate that, does it? As for the 'who are my mother and brothers' issue, yes, the family of Christ comprises those who obey. |
|||
|
|
||||
 Goldberry of Withywindle |
How about the elders of the church? | #16 | ||
|
Posts: 435 03/29/04 10:54:10 |
A simple example would seem to overthrow your model:
the wife is engaged in public sin. The husband approves of it, ignores it, or otherwise does not wish any action to be taken concerning it. The elders of the church do not share this view, to put it mildly. It seems to me that according to the concept you espouse here: Quote: the elders would not be able to be "between" the husband and wife or "beside" the husband in enforcing discipline; they could only do it with the permission of the husband. There's no way that's biblical. ~Jane, a Bonsai Ent
Words couldn't express it. They wouldn't express it; they'd mutiny first and become babble. -- James Blaylock, The Last Coin |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Goldberry of Withywindle |
Agreed. | #17 | ||
|
Posts: 435 03/29/04 10:58:03 |
Actually I think you could come up with more jobs in which a woman's submission to her husband was not compromised, than ones where it would be. Though I have a lot of sympathy for some of the ideas informing those who say married women should never work outside the home, I think they've loaded the debate a bit by presuming going in that all, or most, outside jobs involve a woman acting as a "handmaiden" to some man. The exceptions are so numerous as to require that we not treat all jobs that way, but rather make a healthy distinction between those that create that situation, and those that do not. It's not merely a matter of "exceptions to the rule;" it's more a matter of there not being a unifying "rule" in this respect.
~Jane, a Bonsai Ent
Words couldn't express it. They wouldn't express it; they'd mutiny first and become babble. -- James Blaylock, The Last Coin |
|||
|
|
||||
|
kyriosity |
Mark your calendars! | #18 | ||
|
Posts: 272 03/29/04 12:36:39 Banned User |
Jane and I disagree on something! How often has that happened in the past four years?
 I'm going to stick with the helper role. Adam the Prototypical Husband was given Eve the Prototypical Wife as his very own personal helper meet for him. Thus is each wife's role. While a working wife may not be a "handmaiden" to her boss in the same way she is to her husband, her time and energies will be diverted from helping her husband fulfill his purpose/vision/calling to helping her employer fulfill his (or her) purpose/vision/calling. This is different from relationships with church or state. I'm not sure, in those spheres, whether she is supposed to be under him or beside him. I lean toward under, but even if it's beside, he is at least submitted to the same authority. In the case of employment, however, he has no relationship whatsoever to her employer. She is no longer ordered beneath him nor beside him, but is completely separated from him in an alien authority structure. I'm thinking that's not the way it ought to be. ~Valerie P.S. I am totally making this up as I go along...filling in the gaps in my intuitive understanding of these things. Thanks for the challenge, sis!  The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him. ~Proverbs 18:17 Kyriosity: That I May Know |
|||
|
|
||||
|
kyriosity |
Maybe the elders need to start with the husband, though. | #19 | ||
|
Posts: 272 03/29/04 12:43:25 Banned User |
'Cuz it sure looks like he's falling down on the job as far as leading his wife is concerned. If he has not been diligent in sanctifying her (and being callous regarding her sin would be a strong indicator of such) he is as culpable for her sin as she is. If it was a teen-age child that was engaged in public sin, and his dad approves or ignores it, would it be appropriate for the elders go straight for the kid, or should they deal first with the slacker dad?
~Valerie The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him. ~Proverbs 18:17 Kyriosity: That I May Know |
|||
|
|
||||
|
ramclaughlin |
Re: Wives in submission | #20 | ||
|
Posts: 1455 03/29/04 14:08:13 |
Jane's example is a good one, and many similar ones could be found in addition to it. If the husband is under an authority, and that authority rightly bears on his marital/family life and/or on his wife directly, then that authority is often a greater authority than the husband over the wife with regard to its sphere of authority.
The civil government, for instance, is usually a greater authority than the husband with regard to the wife's obligations to the civil government. Within the family structure, insofar as the husband may not be the head of the household (which was often the case in the Bible), the actual head of the household may have certain authorities over the wife that exceed those of the husband over the wife (cf. Exod. 21:4). Simply put, that the husband is the next in line after God in some instances does not imply that the husband is next in line after God in all instances. Quote:We are worlds apart on this one. First, obedience is not true obedience if it is not from the heart (cf. Col. 3:22, where the verb is hupakouo and "masters" is in the dative). Just as with submission, it is a matter of the whole will. Second, in most cases "submit" (hupotasso) is not as strong a word as "obey" (hupakouo). I am not willing to stipulate that the dative indirect object makes the two equivalent, but please feel free to prove it. I think it is significant that Paul prefers "submit" when speaking of wives and "obey" when speaking of children and slaves (cf. Eph. 5; Col. 3). At any rate, there is at least some inherent reciprocity in the "submission" authority relationship between spouses (e.g., 1 Cor. 7), but there is no such inherent reciprocity in "obedience" relationships of master-slave and parent-child. Reciprocity can be introduced into these relationships only be other means (e.g., both are believers, child is the president, etc.). Consider, for example, that in Ephesians 5 (where the wife is to submit, while slaves and children are to obey in Eph. 6), the big finish of Paul's argument that wives submit to their husbands is "the wife must respect her husband." For Paul, at least in this passage, submission is primarily a matter of respect and deference. Quote:That marriage is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church does not necessarily imply a similar authority structure, just as it does not imply that the husband is divine. Whenever an illustration or metaphor like this is introduced, we are safe in our application/interpretation only insofar as draw from the illustration only those points the author himself uses. To point to Ephesians 5 again, where this illustration is used, Paul does not emphasize authority but respect/deference. In fact, the husband/wife application is only one application of the broader command in Ephesians 5:21 that all believers be subject to one another. The main model is clearly reciprocal, but the emphasis of the application in marriage is that wives have a greater obligation to submit than do husbands. In any event, believers in general are not to obey each another as we would obey Christ. But we are to respect, love and show deference toward one another as those who have been purchased by his blood (cf. 1 Cor. 8-10). |
|||
|
| ||||
