# So, uh, is Titus 2 still sound doctrine in your circles?



## lynnie

* 1You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.* 2Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance. 

3Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure,* to be busy at home*, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

Everywhere I go, women are having babies and going back to work within a few months.

I know a lot of things that used to be in the home have been taken out- care of the sick, teaching, economic activity- and I understand going back to work once the kids start school. But I just don't get it with preschoolers and toddlers. 

When I got married ('79) it was understood that Mom was home. You lived in a dump, a row house, a trailer, a fixer upper. But Mom was with little kids.

Now it seems like so many have a nice home and money and there is no problem with Mom going back to work. I find it hard to understand. I have wondered if it is just my geographic area or if the Reformed churches in general no longer consider Mom at home (or at least Mom with preschoolers) to be a scriptural mandate. Any thoughts? 

I know there are commands not to be in debt, and maybe a husband wants the wife to work, so it can be complicated. But do people still see Mom at home as ideal in your circles, even if it means a poor home and lifestyle?


----------



## TaylorOtwell

No. It's legalism around here. 

May the Lord revive passion for this passage amongst his churches.


----------



## Hamalas

This reminds me of a chapel message I heard recently. The speaker, (the president of the college) was telling us about a conversation he had with some egalitarian friends. He was pointing to this passage, among others, as he argued for the complementarian view. When he mentioned this clear teaching of Scripture his friends said, "Yeah, Paul _would_ say that."


----------



## Theognome

Yes, it is sound doctrine- even in the face of Feminist rebellion, it is sound doctrine.

Theognome


----------



## lynnie

AK and Kansas? 

I thought you people were the old fashioned conservative bible belt. 

Bummer...but I feel better knowing that it isn't just my part of the northeast.


----------



## OPC'n

It is not feminism for women to go back to work. My pastor taught a really good sermon on this. Women's first duty is to their husbands not their kids although their kids are not to be neglected obviously. If a husband requires the wife to get a job, then that is what she is to do. If he wants her to stay home, then that is what she is to do. Proverbs 31 talks about a woman who takes care of her home but also goes out of her home and runs business. All that the woman does should be done as a help to her husband. We cannot here on PB say that women working is feminism. Each married couple has to make their own decision according to their need.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

lynnie said:


> AK and Kansas?
> 
> I thought you people were the old fashioned conservative bible belt.
> 
> Bummer...but I feel better knowing that it isn't just my part of the northeast.



Around here, "old fashioned" means you only watch good television shows all night, don't drink, don't smoke, and know deep in your "heart of hearts" your a Christian. The reason for this is because we have utterly confused "Leave It To Beaver" style morals with Christianity.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Might jump in later.


----------



## uberkermit

You know, I find it ironic that women were pushed to take charge of their lives, and throw off the slavery of motherhood (Sarah, this is really not directed at your response above, but just general thoughts about women in the workforce) which over time caused economic change. Splitting household income duties served to raise prices on homes & cars, but at the same time served to make wages unsuitable in a very large way for men who want to have their wives stay at home and take care of the kids. The irony is this: Now women are often _forced_, due to economic constraints, to work full time. From one "slavery" right into another.

I would rather be dirt poor than have my kid be looked after by some daycare...


----------



## lynnie

_"If a husband requires the wife to get a job, then that is what she is to do."_

Well yes.....although most guys I know let the wife do whatever she wants in this area. If wife said she'd prefer to live in a dump and be home, hub would be OK with that. 

_"Each married couple has to make their own decision according to their need. " _


Well yes.....although as Ed Welch might say, "welcome to the word 'need' ". 30 years ago during revival days, nobody "needed" a nice house, trips to Florida, eating out, a good retirement plan, or all the stuff we have now. What we needed was Mom to be at home, with preschoolers at least. 

I know the economy has changed for the worse, but I still wonder if we give too much freedom, at the price of neglecting kids. I know in the old days extended familes lived together, and it is better and more natural when grandparents can step in and babysit, but even then, does Mom really need a 40 hour a week job out of the home?

I guess I can't help wondering if any men preach this as sound doctrine any more from the pulpit.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

[video=youtube;Q7mSdt0IZ7A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7mSdt0IZ7A[/video]


----------



## Davidius

sjonee said:


> It is not feminism for women to go back to work. My pastor taught a really good sermon on this. Women's first duty is to their husbands not their kids although their kids are not to be neglected obviously. If a husband requires the wife to get a job, then that is what she is to do. If he wants her to stay home, then that is what she is to do. Proverbs 31 talks about a woman who takes care of her home but also goes out of her home and runs business. All that the woman does should be done as a help to her husband. We cannot here on PB say that women working is feminism. Each married couple has to make their own decision according to their need.



It sounds like you're pitting Solomon against Paul. A women can "go to the marketplace" (whatever that means. We don't exactly live in 900 B.C. Jerusalem.) and still not have official employment outside of the home. Where in the text of Proverbs or Titus does it say that this decision is up to the husband?


----------



## Hamalas

Obviously the Proverbs 31 woman was engaged in business, but I fear that some have made her out to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. The text seems to imply more of a home-based type of commerce. She wasn't Bill Gates!


----------



## OPC'n

lynnie said:


> _"If a husband requires the wife to get a job, then that is what she is to do."_
> 
> Well yes.....although most guys I know let the wife do whatever she wants in this area. If wife said she'd prefer to live in a dump and be home, hub would be OK with that.
> 
> _"Each married couple has to make their own decision according to their need. " _
> 
> 
> Well yes.....although as Ed Welch might say, "welcome to the word 'need' ". 30 years ago during revival days, nobody "needed" a nice house, trips to Florida, eating out, a good retirement plan, or all the stuff we have now. What we needed was Mom to be at home, with preschoolers at least.
> 
> I know the economy has changed for the worse, but I still wonder if we give too much freedom, at the price of neglecting kids. I know in the old days extended familes lived together, and it is better and more natural when grandparents can step in and babysit, but even then, does Mom really need a 40 hour a week job out of the home?
> 
> I guess I can't help wondering if any men preach this as sound doctrine any more from the pulpit.



I'm not advocating neglecting the children. Schedules can be worked out which prevents this. Men are quite able to care for children as women are. Every woman in my church is a stay at home mom, but that is because each husband has decided this for their wife not the church.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Yes, the home should come FIRST for a woman. However, to simply state that wife would go back to work for "big houses, second cars, and trips to Florida" simply isn't reality for some people, though it might be for others. There are some families that simply wouldn't be able to survive if the wife didn't pick up a part time job, work from home, etc. NEED means putting food on the table, clothes on the kids' backs, necessities for school, and paying all of your basic bills and rent. Please don't lump all working mothers in together. And many times, those that do put the home first, will have the wife work one shift, while the husband works another so that one parent is ALWAYS home with the kids (I've even known homeschooling families that work it this way).


----------



## kvanlaan

> I would rather be dirt poor than have my kid be looked after by some daycare...









I would go so far to say that when a woman gets _married_ she should stop working. But that's just me.

And personally, I think the reason that we don't consider the return to work as 'feminism' is that we've been marinating in the media-fuelled feminist cesspool so long that we don't even notice it.


----------



## OPC'n

Davidius said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not feminism for women to go back to work. My pastor taught a really good sermon on this. Women's first duty is to their husbands not their kids although their kids are not to be neglected obviously. If a husband requires the wife to get a job, then that is what she is to do. If he wants her to stay home, then that is what she is to do. Proverbs 31 talks about a woman who takes care of her home but also goes out of her home and runs business. All that the woman does should be done as a help to her husband. We cannot here on PB say that women working is feminism. Each married couple has to make their own decision according to their need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you're pitting Solomon against Paul. A women can "go to the marketplace" (whatever that means. We don't exactly live in 900 B.C. Jerusalem.) and still not have official employment outside of the home. Where in the text of Proverbs or Titus does it say that this decision is up to the husband?
Click to expand...


The husband is over his own wife not the church. The husband is under the covering of the church. The church is under the covering of Christ...His Word directs the church. Proverbs 31 was written by King Lemuel not Solomon. She is a *homemaker* and a *business woman*...she makes linen garments and sells them (outside of the home), she delivers sashes to the merchants, she considers a field and buys it, etc. She is out of the home doing business. That is what Proverbs says not me. Now, let's look at Titus. It says that women are to work at home. Well, they certainly are to just as the Proverb 31 woman did, but it doesn't say they cannot work outside of the home. Also, this text goes hand in hand with 1Tim 5:13. Paul is trying to reign in the slough and silly behavior of men and women. 1Tim 5:13 tells the women to quite being busybodies and gossips and get to work managing their homes. The Proverbs 31 woman managed her home well *in *and *out* of her home.

-----Added 3/28/2009 at 02:03:45 EST-----



kvanlaan said:


> I would rather be dirt poor than have my kid be looked after by some daycare...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would go so far to say that when a woman gets _married_ she should stop working. But that's just me.
> 
> And personally, I think the reason that we don't consider the return to work as 'feminism' is that we've been marinating in the media-fuelled feminist cesspool so long that we don't even notice it.
Click to expand...


Well, that will be your decision for your wife, but it cannot be placed on other women otherwise you are usurping her husband's authority. I'm sure you are not advocating that I'm just saying...


----------



## Davidius

Sarah,

You keep talking about the husband's authority, but the wife is only to submit to her husband in matters of prudence that the bible does not address. The husband does not have the authority to make his wife seek employment outside the home if the bible forbids it.


----------



## OPC'n

Davidius said:


> Sarah,
> 
> You keep talking about the husband's authority, but the wife is only to submit to her husband in matters of prudence that the bible does not address. The husband does not have the authority to make his wife seek employment outside the home if the bible forbids it.



The Bible does not forbid the woman to work outside of the home. That is a false statement. Where does it forbid women to work outside of the home?

-----Added 3/28/2009 at 02:10:34 EST-----

Also, Lydia worked outside of the home. Paul didn't tell her to stop doing so.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Let's repeat some things...they do NOT contradict eachother:

1) the home should be PRIORITY

2) working outside the home is not forbidden

3) working outside the home can be done in such a manner that the kids aren't "farmed out"

4) not all women know how to sew, can, etc. I even had to learn to COOK on my own (thankfully I have an honest husband that doesn't claim everything I make is "wonderful", so I can learn by trial and error what works and what doesn't).

5) some women HAVE to work outside the home at least part time and a different shift. These women can have men that work their tail ends off on their jobs, they homeschool their children, they live as green and cheaply as possible (aka haven't seen the inside of a beauty salon or a bottle of nail polish for years and know where to buy the cheapest food, used clothes, etc), live in run down neighbourhoods or houses, AND STILL HAVE TO WORK! You want to say that it's wrong for the husband and wife to do what it takes to pay the bills, feed and clothe their kids, etc? Reality check people.


There is the IDEAL, then there are various people's REALITY. Not everyone lives a comfy, white collar, suburbanite existence.


----------



## ZackF

lynnie said:


> AK and Kansas?
> 
> I thought you people were the old fashioned conservative bible belt.
> 
> Bummer...but I feel better knowing that it isn't just my part of the northeast.



Our(Kansans) divorce rate is probably higher than yours. My mother stayed home with us until my parents divorce in 1981. That is no doubt a factor.


----------



## Davidius

sjonee said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah,
> 
> You keep talking about the husband's authority, but the wife is only to submit to her husband in matters of prudence that the bible does not address. The husband does not have the authority to make his wife seek employment outside the home if the bible forbids it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible does not forbid the woman to work outside of the home. That is a false statement. Where does it forbid women to work outside of the home?
> 
> -----Added 3/28/2009 at 02:10:34 EST-----
> 
> Also, Lydia worked outside of the home. Paul didn't tell her to stop doing so.
Click to expand...


You're twisting my words. I did not say that it's wrong for women to "work" outside the home. All I did was say that it's wrong for husbands to require their wives to seek EMPLOYMENT outside the home if the bible forbids it. The question raised by the OP is whether Titus 2 forbids women from being employed outside the home. If you don't think it does, just stay on topic and say so.




LadyFlynt said:


> Let's repeat some things...they do NOT contradict eachother:
> 
> 1) the home should be PRIORITY
> 
> 2) working outside the home is not forbidden
> 
> 3) working outside the home can be done in such a manner that the kids aren't "farmed out"
> 
> 4) not all women know how to sew, can, etc. I even had to learn to COOK on my own (thankfully I have an honest husband that doesn't claim everything I make is "wonderful", so I can learn by trial and error what works and what doesn't).
> 
> 5) some women HAVE to work outside the home at least part time and a different shift. These women can have men that work their tail ends off on their jobs, they homeschool their children, they live as green and cheaply as possible (aka haven't seen the inside of a beauty salon or a bottle of nail polish for years and know where to buy the cheapest food, used clothes, etc), live in run down neighbourhoods or houses, AND STILL HAVE TO WORK! You want to say that it's wrong for the husband and wife to do what it takes to pay the bills, feed and clothe their kids, etc? Reality check people.
> 
> 
> There is the IDEAL, then there are various people's REALITY. Not everyone lives a comfy, white collar, suburbanite existence.



What about being faithful to God's commands and then having faith? Isn't that the argument used around here against family planning? If the bible says it's wrong for a woman to be employed outside the home, emotional stories about dire circumstances don't really matter. Perhaps it's okay for a woman to be employed outside of the home, but that needs to be demonstrated exegetically if we are going to answer the OP.


----------



## QueenEsther

I just wanted to step in and say that my husband works two full time jobs right now so I can stay home and grow this baby. I have asked him several times if he would like me to go out and get a job and he says no, he just wants me to take care of myself and the baby and learn ways to save money from home. So I spend my time learning about gardening and doing various other things that will help us to 1. save money and 2. be able to bless others. Also, one of our thoughts on gardening is that I can do it and take the excess to a farmers market to sell, thus helping my family. Yeah, it would be out side the home but only for a few hours one or two days a week while providing an excellent learning opportunity for our children in more ways than one. So, Titus 2 is not lost on us, we do know people, Christians (some reformed) who think I should go out and get a job but we're not going to argue with them, we just smile and nod and live how we feel would most glorify Christ.


----------



## ZackF

LadyFlynt said:


> Let's repeat some things...they do NOT contradict eachother:
> 
> 1) the home should be PRIORITY
> 
> 2) working outside the home is not forbidden
> 
> 3) working outside the home can be done in such a manner that the kids aren't "farmed out"
> 
> 4) not all women know how to sew, can, etc. I even had to learn to COOK on my own (thankfully I have an honest husband that doesn't claim everything I make is "wonderful", so I can learn by trial and error what works and what doesn't).
> 
> 5) some women HAVE to work outside the home at least part time and a different shift. These women can have men that work their tail ends off on their jobs, they homeschool their children, they live as green and cheaply as possible (aka haven't seen the inside of a beauty salon or a bottle of nail polish for years and know where to buy the cheapest food, used clothes, etc), live in run down neighbourhoods or houses, AND STILL HAVE TO WORK! You want to say that it's wrong for the husband and wife to do what it takes to pay the bills, feed and clothe their kids, etc? Reality check people.
> 
> 
> There is the IDEAL, then there are various people's REALITY. Not everyone lives a comfy, white collar, suburbanite existence.




Exactly. It reminds of Christ rebuking those who were shreaking at gleaners on the Sabbath. It reminds me Donald Sutherland's version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" where the non-pod people were exposed by finger-pointing screeching pod-people. How many Reformed believers today are turned away one way or another from churches on the basis of the wife's working status or the childrens' means of education? I know this has happend to people, especially Elders, in the PCA (supposedly the more liberal of NAPARC denominations). It has to be a tragedy happening in other denominations as well.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Thank you, Josh. 

And many of those that do, reluctantly and under circumstances that cause them to, seek outside employment also do continue to keep their home and place their families first.

David, I can only state that you have no idea what you are talking about. Give yourself a couple of decades and some children. If you have a degree and are blessed enough to not be in a struggling job market, you may continue to be blessed with cluelessness of what other people in society deal with. 

As stated, outside employment is NOT forbidden by Scripture. A PRIORITY on the home is stated in Scripture, but not to the forbidding of the other. There are many the live in poverty level, that rely daily on the Lord, and still come to the point where the wife has to work just to hold their family together.



For clarification, I am STRONGLY for the wife staying home with the children and keeping the home. I always have been and still am. But I also am not so legalistic, nor clueless as to what reality is for many people on the bottom tiers of society. If they want to keep their children, provide for them, etc, they might not be able to live the IDEAL, but rather balance the two. You can tell them to pray and wait on the Lord all you want, that is not going to help them when they need heat in the winter and food in their fridge. And it's not always due to neglect on the husband's part. He can work his rear off, work more than one job, and still "it's the economy, stupid".


----------



## Jon 316

lynnie said:


> * 1You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.* 2Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.
> 
> 3Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure,* to be busy at home*, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
> 
> Everywhere I go, women are having babies and going back to work within a few months.
> 
> I know a lot of things that used to be in the home have been taken out- care of the sick, teaching, economic activity- and I understand going back to work once the kids start school. But I just don't get it with preschoolers and toddlers.
> 
> When I got married ('79) it was understood that Mom was home. You lived in a dump, a row house, a trailer, a fixer upper. But Mom was with little kids.
> 
> Now it seems like so many have a nice home and money and there is no problem with Mom going back to work. I find it hard to understand. I have wondered if it is just my geographic area or if the Reformed churches in general no longer consider Mom at home (or at least Mom with preschoolers) to be a scriptural mandate. Any thoughts?
> 
> I know there are commands not to be in debt, and maybe a husband wants the wife to work, so it can be complicated. But do people still see Mom at home as ideal in your circles, even if it means a poor home and lifestyle?



Hey, thanks for this post. My wife gave birth 6 months ago, her desire is to be at home with the baby developing and caring for him and looking after the home. Most people do not 'get her' as most folks do the two parents working thing and put the kids in child care.


----------



## OPC'n

Davidius said:


> You're twisting my words. I did not say that it's wrong for women to "work" outside the home. All I did was say that it's wrong for husbands to require their wives to seek EMPLOYMENT outside the home if the bible forbids it. The question raised by the OP is whether Titus 2 forbids women from being employed outside the home. If you don't think it does, just stay on topic and say so.



I don't see how I am twisting your words. You implied that the Bible forbids women to work outside the home and I asked you to show me where it says that women cannot work outside the home. How is it that I am off topic? The OP is talking about women working outside the home and speaks of Titus. I also am doing that. I think you are strongly instructing me on how to behave because you cannot answer my question of where you think the Bible is forbidding women to work outside the home.


----------



## OPC'n

Joshua said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how I am twisting your words. You implied that the Bible forbids women to work outside the home and I asked you to show me where it says that women cannot work outside the home.
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah,
> 
> David didn't say that the Bible does, in fact, forbid a woman to work outside the home. He was simply trying to address what you had said about a husband telling his wife to work outside the home. David was simply intimating, if I understood him correctly, that a wife need not obey her husband in something _*if*_ the Bible does, in fact, forbid it.
> 
> Is that correct, David?
Click to expand...


I don't see the point of him saying that if he didn't think the Bible forbade women to work outside the home. Really, what is the point? Wouldn't he agree that the husband has the final say in all things? If I were saying that wives had to be prostitutes if their husbands wanted them to be, then he would be right to say that women don't have to obey that command from their husbands because it goes against the Bible. But since the Bible doesn't forbid the wife to work outside the home, then him bringing up the matter that wives don't always have to obey their husbands is a mute subject in this instance. It's like saying the wife doesn't have to obey the husband concerning the Sabbath if the Bible forbids observing the Sabbath....why say that? See where I'm coming from concerning his statement?


----------



## OPC'n

QueenEsther said:


> I just wanted to step in and say that my husband works two full time jobs right now so I can stay home and grow this baby. I have asked him several times if he would like me to go out and get a job and he says no, he just wants me to take care of myself and the baby and learn ways to save money from home. So I spend my time learning about gardening and doing various other things that will help us to 1. save money and 2. be able to bless others. Also, one of our thoughts on gardening is that I can do it and take the excess to a farmers market to sell, thus helping my family. Yeah, it would be out side the home but only for a few hours one or two days a week while providing an excellent learning opportunity for our children in more ways than one. So, Titus 2 is not lost on us, we do know people, Christians (some reformed) who think I should go out and get a job but we're not going to argue with them, we just smile and nod and live how we feel would most glorify Christ.



Those reformed people should not be telling you and your husband what you should be doing. I really and seriously do not understand people who get into other people's business. Why do people think that they have the right to usurp a husband's authority over his household and then question the wife why she isn't doing what they think she ought to do? You are right to do as your husband instructs you. You are being the Proverbs wife and serving him with all your ability....keep up the good job!


----------



## DonP

I think the context was 
1 Tim 5:13 And besides they learn to be idle, *wandering about from house to house, *and not only idle but also *gossips and busybodies, saying things which they ought not.* 14 Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully. NKJV

2 Thess 3:11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. NKJV

But even if it isn't, I am not sure why, keeper at home would mean not working for pay or trade. 

It may mean more about keeping to their own home as opposed to not working for money, or staying in their own home all day. 

For sure they went to the market to buy food, fabric, etc. So what difference if they go to market to buy or sell?

Many would make bread, sell produce in the market, as Lydia sell fabric, and as our proverbs woman buy real estate and apparently would be an overseer of workers in a field possibly. Esp of other women harvesters. 

And what of the single woman, single mothers and those who are married without children. Do they only stay home and make food and knit for their own family but not for anyone else unless they donate it?

So though her priority is to her home, and she keeps under the authority of her home, she is free to make money. 

This is why I work with a company that helps women have full time incomes from part time work that can be done at home or in the normal course of daily duties, shopping etc. I do feel this is better than having them be in an office or other group work environment, or being an assistant to some man. 

So are there some jobs that men or women should not take, obviously. 

As a wise pastor asked his son who came home asking permission to work for a dairy where he explained he would have to milk the cows on the Lord's day because it was a necessity, the father said, well it is for the owner of the cows, but is that your calling of God to be a dairyman? If not you may want to seek employment that doesn't require you to miss the sabbath.


----------



## Idelette

As a side note, I just wanted to share with you all a certain situation of a woman that I know. 

She is a divorced reformed christian mother of four children......and felt commanded by Scripture that her place is in the home with her children. She does receive some child support (but it is very little) and she lives in a trialer home, and lives _INCREDIBLY_ simply. While many people have criticized her for not having a full-time job ,including believers, she truly felt that she honored God more by being a good steward of the children that HE has entrusted into her care. She felt it was _HER_ responsibility in bringing them up in the fear of the Lord, rather than having someone else care for or teach them. She was convinced that if she worked outside the home...that it would be at the spiritual expense of her children. She truly felt that she needed to honor God and His Word regardless of how grim her circumstances may have seemed at times! And I have to tell you that she has had some incredibly desperate times....times where she wasn't sure if she would have food on the table tomorrow, or gas for her car, or shoes for her children when they began outgrowing their old ones. But God has _ALWAYS_ been faithful to provide for her!! I have seen _Him_ put food on her table exactly when her children needed it, and I have seen _Him_ bring shoes exactly when she prayed for them, and I have seen _Him_ provide for her over and over and over again!! Honestly, I have been so blessed to see her strong convictions....her faithfulness and reliance upon the Lord...and to witness God's provision in her life when times seemed so hopeless!


----------



## Brian Withnell

Theognome said:


> Yes, it is sound doctrine- even in the face of Feminist rebellion, it is sound doctrine.
> 
> Theognome





It is sound doctrine because it is the word of God! So while I understand the question and what you are asking, I agree with Bill on this one.


----------



## Scott Shahan




----------



## kvanlaan

> Well, that will be your decision for your wife, but it cannot be placed on other women otherwise you are usurping her husband's authority. I'm sure you are not advocating that I'm just saying...



Sarah, that's why I added this.



> But that's just me.



I do have one question for those who think that Prov 31 is a slam dunk for women working as they please. Would the fact that her husband sits with the elders of the land not suggest that they are, in fact, older, and no longer have children in the home? I know it is speculation and that the age gap in marriage at the time was greater, but does that not carry some weight in the argument?


----------



## OPC'n

kvanlaan said:


> Well, that will be your decision for your wife, but it cannot be placed on other women otherwise you are usurping her husband's authority. I'm sure you are not advocating that I'm just saying...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's just me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sarah, that's why I added this.
> 
> I do have one question for those who think that Prov 31 is a slam dunk for women working as they please. Would the fact that her husband sits with the elders of the land not suggest that they are, in fact, older, and no longer have children in the home? I know it is speculation and that the age gap in marriage at the time was greater, but does that not carry some weight in the argument?
Click to expand...


12 She does him good, and not harm,
*all the days of her life*. This verse isn't talking about just old men and women. It's about a woman throughout her life

28Her *children* rise up and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her: I think this shows that her children are still with her.

Someone can correct me, but I don't believe that it was only old men who sat at the gaits of city.


----------



## lynnie

Lady Flynt, I do not mean that in any way we can fail to have compassion on the legitimately poor. I know people right now who are laid off, lost overtime, or developed a physical disability. Their economic woes are not spiritual sins or laziness or anything like that! Things are bad, and I know the awful struggles people have. We've lived in a trailer and few fixer uppers/handyman delight type houses, and I've known what it is to have the toaster die and you don't have 10 bucks for another one.

But in a perfect and ideal world, I think God's answer is diaconal ministry or caring friends and relatives supporting the Mom of preschoolers being at home. Not Mom going back to work. In the end of Acts Ch 2 & 4 the holy spirit fell and they started sharing with the needy and nobody had a need. I would love to see that happen. On the not too common occasions when we could give away substantial money, we usually gave to struggling families. 

At the very least, I wish this was seen as a goal to at least pray for in our churches, and not as something outdated and no longer applicable. We will never be perfect in this life and we all struggle, but I wish this was at least presented as God's will for Mom's today if possible, and the best thing for the children.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

lynnie said:


> Lady Flynt, I do not mean that in any way we can fail to have compassion on the legitimately poor. I know people right now who are laid off, lost overtime, or developed a physical disability. Their economic woes are not spiritual sins or laziness or anything like that! Things are bad, and I know the awful struggles people have. We've lived in a trailer and few fixer uppers/handyman delight type houses, and I've known what it is to have the toaster die and you don't have 10 bucks for another one.
> 
> But in a perfect and ideal world, I think God's answer is diaconal ministry or caring friends and relatives supporting the Mom of preschoolers being at home. Not Mom going back to work. In the end of Acts Ch 2 & 4 the holy spirit fell and they started sharing with the needy and nobody had a need. I would love to see that happen. On the not too common occasions when we could give away substantial money, we usually gave to struggling families.
> 
> At the very least, I wish this was seen as a goal to at least pray for in our churches, and not as something outdated and no longer applicable. We will never be perfect in this life and we all struggle, but I wish this was at least presented as God's will for Mom's today if possible, and the best thing for the children.



Good points.


----------



## DonP

Scott Shahan said:


>



So Scott what do you think of all of this so far since you have been taking it in? 

In response to a couple previous comments 1 Tim 5:14 Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 15 For some have already turned aside after Satan. 16 If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and *do not let the church be burdened, *that it may relieve those who are really widows. NKJV

It seems this would indicate the general rule for most younger women as well as widows. They are to marry and bear children, manage the house so that they are not tempted to sin by the greater temptations out in the world. 

Also note that the church is not socialist and that families are to relieve their widows not the church, unless they have no family at all or who can relieve them. 
Only in times of extreme persecution or famine etc. would we all do as was done in acts with giving all we had in common. And hey that day may be coming on us.


----------



## Grace Alone

Lynnie, I got married just a couple of years before you did, and it was common for mothers to stay home or work part-time at that time. I am a teacher, so I see what a lot of young women do now. The vast majority take from 6 weeks to 3 months maternity leave and come right back to teaching full-time. I honestly can't remember the last time one resigned to stay home. I am sure that some are living simply and need the money to put food on the table, and others may have to work for various reasons such as for health insurance. But there are plenty of others in their late 20's living in $200-300,000 homes with 2 cars, membership to the health club, etc. who "cannot afford" to stay home with their babies.

I did teach part-time occasionally when my kids were small, but in retrospect, I did not have the worldview I do now. Our oldest daughter wants to be a fulltime, stay-at-home mother, and I pray that she is able to do it.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Lynnie, I understand and agree to an extent. But some churches cannot sustain these families, have an over abundance of these families, etc. Others don't want to have to continually keep relying on the church everytime things go south and some churches have people in them that resent those that need assistance.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Lynnie, I understand and agree to an extent. But some churches cannot sustain these families, have an over abundance of these families, etc. Others don't want to have to continually keep relying on the church everytime things go south and *some churches have people in them that resent those that need assistance.*



That may be true, and those people need to learn different.

My suggestion would be that even the URCNA (as a denomintion) is a big place, and I don't think there is any sort of problem with a URC church in PA, USA supporting those in need in a URC church in Ontario, Canada or vice versa (or other believers outside of this denomination).


----------



## OPC'n

kvanlaan said:


> Lynnie, I understand and agree to an extent. But some churches cannot sustain these families, have an over abundance of these families, etc. Others don't want to have to continually keep relying on the church everytime things go south and *some churches have people in them that resent those that need assistance.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true, and those people need to learn different.
> 
> My suggestion would be that even the URCNA (as a denomintion) is a big place, and I don't think there is any sort of problem with a URC church in PA, USA supporting those in need in a URC church in Ontario, Canada or vice versa (or other believers outside of this denomination).
Click to expand...


I'm stealing Peacemaker's verse:



> 1 Tim 5:16 *If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows*. NKJV



While the church should be able to help the needy it isn't to be used as a source of income. Each household is responsible their needs and should work to meet those needs.


----------



## DonP

Most pastors wives do not have jobs. Does anyone think this is improper or they are a burden on the church and she should be working to help support their family like many of the others?
Then why should it be different for others? 
We are so overly critical when we shouldn't be and loose when we should be critical.  I just did it too didn't I. 
Forgive me. 
In His Service,


----------



## OPC'n

PeaceMaker said:


> Most pastors wives do not have jobs. Does anyone think this is improper or they are a burden on the church and she should be working to help support their family like many of the others?
> Then why should it be different for others?
> We are so overly critical when we shouldn't be and loose when we should be critical.  I just did it too didn't I.
> Forgive me.
> In His Service,



My pastor is very clear that if he needed his wife to go out and get a job he would have her do that. He is able to meet his family's needs on the income he gets as being a pastor and so not be a burden to the church.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

sjonee said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most pastors wives do not have jobs. Does anyone think this is improper or they are a burden on the church and she should be working to help support their family like many of the others?
> Then why should it be different for others?
> We are so overly critical when we shouldn't be and loose when we should be critical.  I just did it too didn't I.
> Forgive me.
> In His Service,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My pastor is very clear that if he needed his wife to go out and get a job he would have her do that. He is able to meet his family's needs on the income he gets as being a pastor and so not be a burden to the church.
Click to expand...



Even if she has small children?


----------



## OPC'n

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most pastors wives do not have jobs. Does anyone think this is improper or they are a burden on the church and she should be working to help support their family like many of the others?
> Then why should it be different for others?
> We are so overly critical when we shouldn't be and loose when we should be critical.  I just did it too didn't I.
> Forgive me.
> In His Service,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My pastor is very clear that if he needed his wife to go out and get a job he would have her do that. He is able to meet his family's needs on the income he gets as being a pastor and so not be a burden to the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Even if she has small children?
Click to expand...


Yes


----------



## Hebrew Student

Hey Everyone!

First of all, there is some question as to whether or not the Proverbs 31 woman actually exists, or if she is an ideal. For example, it was mentioned that her husband was an elder, but the same text says that she plants a vineyard, and girds up her strength [v.16-17]. It is hard to imagine an elderly woman doing that kind of work. Also, not only does she plant this garden, but she also weaves clothes for herself and in order to make money [v.22, 24]. On top of that she works late into the night [v.18], and then gets up early in the morning to make breakfast [v.15]. I don't think it is possible for an elderly woman to do all of that in a 24 hour period day after day without eventually running herself into the ground.

Also, it is difficult to avoid the parallel of the vineyard to what we call a "carrier" today. The reason is because, not only were vineyards a major crop in the ANE, but also, because all of this was done by hand. The entire field had to be planted, weeded, watered, and harvested all by hand. That is hardly easy work. In fact, it is likely, for such a task, that she would have had to hire servants. Hence, the amount of time and effort required to keep something like this up would certainly be parallel to a "carrier" today.

However, more pertinent to our discussion is the fact that the Proverbs were probably given in the context of a royal court. We have several proverbs from the ANE, especially in Egyptian and Sumerian, and they are all royal in character. Hence, it is likely that the family would not just have consisted of, not just the husband and wife, but also servants, maids, and all kinds of royal officers. Hence, the mother could still see that the children were taken care of during the day if she embarked on such a task as farming in a vineyard.

Also, with regards to Titus 2, I have never been convinced of the interpretation that says that this is giving the woman a gender role to work in the home. Notice some of the other things in the context:

*Titus 2:4-5* so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, _*to love their children*_, 5 to be _*sensible, pure*_, workers at home, _*kind*_, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored. 

Notice how, logically if you take "workers at home" to be a gender role, you are caught taking everything else to be a gender role as well. It then becomes the wife's primary responsibility to love the children. Hence, while the husband may love the children too, he could conceivably hate the children, and nothing would be wrong because it is the woman's primary responsibility to love the children. Could we also say this for purity? kindness? sensibility? It really doesn't make any sense.

Paul's context here is not to set up gender roles. It appears that he is laying down what Christian behavior is to look like, regardless of whether those behaviors are the primary responsibilities of the individual sexes. He is simply saying that women do have a responsibility to be involved in the affairs of the home, and, I would say that men do too. Imagine a man who gets home, and then just puts his feet up, and does nothing every day after he comes home from work. Most people would be upset with him, and rightfully so.

Hence, I don't think that any of these are gender roles. However, I do have sympathy for those who have concerns about the children simply being neglected. Hence, while I would say it is not wrong for a woman to have a carrier, she cannot do so if it means compromising her children. The same thing for the man. It is not wrong for a man to have a carrier, but he cannot do so if it will compromise the security of his children. Whatever the arrangement, one must make sure that the children are taken care of and raised properly in the training and admonition of the Lord.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

sjonee said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> My pastor is very clear that if he needed his wife to go out and get a job he would have her do that. He is able to meet his family's needs on the income he gets as being a pastor and so not be a burden to the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if she has small children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes
Click to expand...


Well, still reflecting on this but my first reaction is...


----------



## Hamalas

Adam, if Paul is not talking about gender roles here, then why does he carefully mention "older men" & "younger men", "older women" & "younger women"? 

Obviously *both* parents are to love their children and provide for them. No Christian is exempt from the commands to show kindness, purity, or sensibility. However, there are clearly specific roles that God establishes.


----------



## DonP

It was common for the students to have guardians, and servants to care for them. So there is nothing wrong with that if you can afford it. And if the parents also oversee the religious education and worship and show love to the children. 

So the wife could be out working her part of the business overseeing the servants work that she rose early to feed. 

If you can't afford servants then you better make sure you get it done. Much preferable than handing the kids over to the state to brainwash  then say at least I am a stay at home mom here fore them when they get home from school. 

Acknowledging that some moms or dads may not be equipped to educate their children, so hopefully Christians friends would help do this or a Christian school could be used and funded by the church if necessary.  And I know for physical conditions there are exceptions.


----------



## refbaptdude

Below are some helpful comments concerning Titus 2:5. It is an excerpt from the book *“Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood – A Response to Evangelical Feminism”* edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. The selection is from chapter 20, page 348. 




> *B. What About the Wife and Mother Working Outside the Home?*
> Some Christians have interpreted Titus 2:5 (“workers at home,” NASB)4 to mean that any work outside the home is inappropriate for the wife and mother. But the fact that wives should care for their home does not necessarily imply that they should not work outside the home, any more than the statement that a “overseer” in the church should “manage his own household” (1 Timothy 3:4-5) means that he cannot work outside the home. In neither case does the text say that! The dynamic equivalent translation of Titus 2:5 by the niv, “to be busy at home,” catches the force of Paul’s admonition, namely, that a wife should be a diligent homemaker. Moreover, Proverbs 31:10-31 depicts a wife and mother whose support for the family extends well beyond ordinary domestic chores (cf. e.g., verses 16 and 24: “She considers a field and buys it . . . she plants a vineyard. . . . She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies belts to the tradesmen,” NASB). Since Scripture interprets Scripture and its teaching is consistent and unified, we realize that the picture of Proverbs is not contradicted by the Apostle Paul. Furthermore, we must realize that the emphasis on the home is the very point of the Proverbs passage. The woman in Proverbs works to care for her family and to fulfill her responsibility to her family (cf., e.g., verses 21 and 27). She does this not only for her children but also to support her husband’s leadership role in the community (verse 23). She is seeking the good of her family. Furthermore, she seeks to aid the poor and needy by her labors (verse 20).
> 
> Here, then, are keys to the question of a wife and mother working outside the home: Is it really beneficial to her family, does it aid her husband in his calling, and does it, in correlation with these first two, bring good to others? Can she do it while still being faithful to her primary calling to be wife and mother and to care for her home? It must be noted that even though the woman in Proverbs has not sought to “find herself” or to make her own career, but rather to serve her family, in the end she receives praise from her
> family (verses 28, 29) and recognition for her labors (verse 31) because she has conducted the whole endeavor in obedience to the Lord she reverences (verse 30). The decision in this realm must not be unilateral on the part of the woman but made under the leadership of her husband as the head of the marriage and the family.


----------



## OPC'n

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if she has small children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, still reflecting on this but my first reaction is...
Click to expand...


Why? Their children would not be left at a daycare. They could work it out where either he or she is there to raise them in a Godly atmosphere. Even if this was completely impossible, the church members could be their daycare. I have more time than money and others do too. We would be happy to care for them for a few hours if it came to that. They wouldn't be with church members 8 hours out of the day or anything like that. They are godly people with sense and are creative. She especially is creative. She could easily set up a website and sell the things she makes or she could work part time outside of the home when he is done with his studies. This gives him time with the children alone which isn't a bad thing. There's all sorts of things that can be done. I wife doesn't have to only clean house, cook, and take care of children. There's so much more she can do to ease the load of her husband. We must also remember that it is only lately that people make their children the center of their universe. There is a balance to be had. We shouldn't neglect them nor should they run every aspect of our lives.


----------



## DonP

OK lets really get hairy here. Can the woman make more money than the man? 
Can she be the main provider? 
What if her father was wealthy and left her lots of land etc. they can live off of?

What if the husband is unable to find work and she has training and can?? I am thinking for a period of time not their entire life.


----------



## OPC'n

refbaptdude said:


> Below are some helpful comments concerning Titus 2:5. It is an excerpt from the book *“Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood – A Response to Evangelical Feminism”* edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. The selection is from chapter 20, page 348.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *B. What About the Wife and Mother Working Outside the Home?*
> Some Christians have interpreted Titus 2:5 (“workers at home,” NASB)4 to mean that any work outside the home is inappropriate for the wife and mother. But the fact that wives should care for their home does not necessarily imply that they should not work outside the home, any more than the statement that a “overseer” in the church should “manage his own household” (1 Timothy 3:4-5) means that he cannot work outside the home. In neither case does the text say that! The dynamic equivalent translation of Titus 2:5 by the niv, “to be busy at home,” catches the force of Paul’s admonition, namely, that a wife should be a diligent homemaker. Moreover, Proverbs 31:10-31 depicts a wife and mother whose support for the family extends well beyond ordinary domestic chores (cf. e.g., verses 16 and 24: “She considers a field and buys it . . . she plants a vineyard. . . . She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies belts to the tradesmen,” NASB). Since Scripture interprets Scripture and its teaching is consistent and unified, we realize that the picture of Proverbs is not contradicted by the Apostle Paul. Furthermore, we must realize that the emphasis on the home is the very point of the Proverbs passage. The woman in Proverbs works to care for her family and to fulfill her responsibility to her family (cf., e.g., verses 21 and 27). She does this not only for her children but also to support her husband’s leadership role in the community (verse 23). She is seeking the good of her family. Furthermore, she seeks to aid the poor and needy by her labors (verse 20).
> 
> Here, then, are keys to the question of a wife and mother working outside the home: Is it really beneficial to her family, does it aid her husband in his calling, and does it, in correlation with these first two, bring good to others? Can she do it while still being faithful to her primary calling to be wife and mother and to care for her home? It must be noted that even though the woman in Proverbs has not sought to “find herself” or to make her own career, but rather to serve her family, in the end she receives praise from her
> family (verses 28, 29) and recognition for her labors (verse 31) because she has conducted the whole endeavor in obedience to the Lord she reverences (verse 30). The decision in this realm must not be unilateral on the part of the woman but made under the leadership of her husband as the head of the marriage and the family.
Click to expand...


*AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *I couldn't say this well! Thank you for saying what I've been trying to say!


----------



## lynnie

_Can she do it while still being faithful to her primary calling to be wife and mother and to care for her home?_

When the kids are away to school from 8:00 to 3:00, maybe. 

When they are babies and toddlers I have to say no- which was clear in my initial post. I try to cut more slack on this subject when kids start school, especially if you need tuition money for Christian school.

Frankly, even when the kids get older, all the working Moms I have ever known are stressed out of their minds. No time to get a daily walk, no time to read the bible and pray every day adequately. Throw in soccer and softball and all the rest and they are walking messes. And I have been shocked!!! at how crappy their sex lives are when they talk about it.


----------



## DonP

Can't we talk about a doctrine where I can have some simple answer that settles it all? This practical application is intricate stuff! 

We are a mess !! 

Please Come Lord Jesus!!


----------



## OPC'n

lynnie said:


> _Can she do it while still being faithful to her primary calling to be wife and mother and to care for her home?_
> 
> When the kids are away to school from 8:00 to 3:00, maybe.
> 
> When they are babies and toddlers I have to say no- which was clear in my initial post. I try to cut more slack on this subject when kids start school, especially if you need tuition money for Christian school.
> 
> Frankly, even when the kids get older, all the working Moms I have ever known are stressed out of their minds. No time to get a daily walk, no time to read the bible and pray every day adequately. Throw in soccer and softball and all the rest and they are walking messes. And I have been shocked!!! at how crappy their sex lives are when they talk about it.



Have you read everything the Proverbs woman did? That's enough to stress the strongest woman out, but the Bible calls us to be just that type of woman. Strong in constitution because they are strong in Christ. I know stress and anxiety! They were my constant companions until Christ threw them out. Being constantly stressed out is wrong and is no excuse for having a crappy sex life with their husbands. Something else is wrong.


----------



## forgivenmuch

As has already been stated, I think the wife's main responsibility is to her household. She is to support her husband, help raise her children, and keep her home in order. If she is able to do all of that well, and still have time left over, then I believe it is o.k. for her to work, but only if these things are taken care of first. My opinion is that if the family is struggling financially then the husband should go out and get a second, or even third, job to provide for the family. That is his responsibility, not the wife's.


----------



## LadyFlynt

kvanlaan said:


> Lynnie, I understand and agree to an extent. But some churches cannot sustain these families, have an over abundance of these families, etc. Others don't want to have to continually keep relying on the church everytime things go south and *some churches have people in them that resent those that need assistance.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true, and those people need to learn different.
> 
> My suggestion would be that even the URCNA (as a denomintion) is a big place, and I don't think there is any sort of problem with a URC church in PA, USA supporting those in need in a URC church in Ontario, Canada or vice versa (or other believers outside of this denomination).
Click to expand...


I'm not discussing any particular denomination. I've seen it in more than one. I'm mentioning possible issues that can come up an any variety of church.


----------



## refbaptdude

This is how women work around the world and have since the beginning. Let’s not read into the text the rich American way of life. 

Women working in the mines of India






A woman selling her goods at the market in Israel


----------



## forgivenmuch

refbaptdude said:


> This is how women work around the world and have since the beginning. Let’s not read into the text the rich American way of life.
> 
> Women working in the mines of India
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A woman selling her goods at the market in Israel



But this is not necessarily ideal though, is it?


----------



## refbaptdude

Aaron this is what the world of the bible was like. Think about this as you are reading certain passages.


----------



## DonP

Now there is a good theological and exegetical answer. I have a picture of women working so that settles it. 

So then Steve what does it mean, keepers at home? Would you answer that for us so it is consistent with your pictures.
In His Service.


----------



## Scott Shahan

PeaceMaker said:


> Scott Shahan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Scott what do you think of all of this so far since you have been taking it in?
> 
> In response to a couple previous comments 1 Tim 5:14 Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 15 For some have already turned aside after Satan. 16 If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and *do not let the church be burdened, *that it may relieve those who are really widows. NKJV
> 
> It seems this would indicate the general rule for most younger women as well as widows. They are to marry and bear children, manage the house so that they are not tempted to sin by the greater temptations out in the world.
> 
> Also note that the church is not socialist and that families are to relieve their widows not the church, unless they have no family at all or who can relieve them.
> Only in times of extreme persecution or famine etc. would we all do as was done in acts with giving all we had in common. And hey that day may be coming on us.
Click to expand...



I agree with Sarah.


----------



## forgivenmuch

refbaptdude said:


> Aaron this is what the world of the bible was like. Think about this as you are reading certain passages.



That doesn't mean that was ideal either, though. Just because it happened in biblical times does not justify the practice. I think when we look at New Testament teaching we can come to no other conclusion.


----------



## refbaptdude

Peacemaker,



> So then Steve what does it mean, keepers at home?



I answered this in a previous post - scroll up the page.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Hamalas,



> Adam, if Paul is not talking about gender roles here, then why does he carefully mention "older men" & "younger men", "older women" & "younger women"?
> 
> Obviously both parents are to love their children and provide for them. No Christian is exempt from the commands to show kindness, purity, or sensibility. However, there are clearly specific roles that God establishes.



I agree that there are roles that God has established. I just don't agree that you can say that "working in the home" is one of them. Otherwise, you end up with, to be consistent, the woman having the gender role of loving the children.

I agree that no Christian is exempt from loving their children, showing kindness and purity. The problem is that an exegesis of Titus 2:5 that makes "working at home" a gender role must, out of consistency, make everything else a gender role, or explain why it is that they are arbitrarly making "working at home" a gender role and not everything else in the context. The fact that those things are obvious, in essence, proves my point.

Also, the reason why Paul is going through group by group is not to address gender roles, but, rather, *Godly behavior.* Paul is telling each group how they are to behave in a manner that is honoring to God, not what their roles are as individual genders.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Hamalas

> I agree that no Christian is exempt from loving their children, showing kindness and purity. The problem is that an exegesis of Titus 2:5 that makes "working at home" a gender role must, out of consistency, make everything else a gender role, or explain why it is that they are arbitrarly making "working at home" a gender role and not everything else in the context. The fact that those things are obvious, in essence, proves my point.



I'm not sure I'm understanding you completely here. Why exactly does that, out of consistency, make everything else in the passage a gender role as well? That seems like a jump in logic, what am I missing?


----------



## refbaptdude

> I think when we look at New Testament teaching we can come to no other conclusion.



Aaron,

Is this what you would teach if you were on the mission field? Would you tell the women they must stop working in the fields, selling their goods at the market or they are disobeying God?


----------



## kvanlaan

> I'm not discussing any particular denomination. I've seen it in more than one. I'm mentioning possible issues that can come up an any variety of church.



I know, that's why I added the bit about other denominations (and the need for people to learn different).


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

sjonee said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, still reflecting on this but my first reaction is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Their children would not be left at a daycare. They could work it out where either he or she is there to raise them in a Godly atmosphere. Even if this was completely impossible, the church members could be their daycare. I have more time than money and others do too. We would be happy to care for them for a few hours if it came to that. They wouldn't be with church members 8 hours out of the day or anything like that. They are godly people with sense and are creative. She especially is creative. She could easily set up a website and sell the things she makes or she could work part time outside of the home when he is done with his studies. This gives him time with the children alone which isn't a bad thing. There's all sorts of things that can be done. I wife doesn't have to only clean house, cook, and take care of children. There's so much more she can do to ease the load of her husband. We must also remember that it is only lately that people make their children the center of their universe. There is a balance to be had. We shouldn't neglect them nor should they run every aspect of our lives.
Click to expand...



Sorry, I realize this is a serious discussion for you. Or at least it seems to be. I should not have used that face. I am still processing this for myself. I for one could not leave my child with others unless it was absolutely necessary but I know my husband would step up and get more work if it was necessary but as I have mentioned to you in some of our chats that I do try to seek ways to use my gifts in ways that could be profitable to our family. It is not what drives my gifts mind you but if I am able to profit (like the Proverbs woman) then I will. Especially as what I am gifted in is not easy to be profitable at unless you are really, really talented.  Anyways, I am teachable. I am not trying to speak as though I have everything down pat in my understanding and certainly didn't mean to give airs that I do. I am still wrestling with it all. I think both sides have good points. I am not here to win an argument.

Ps..I should qualify "absolute necessity" but no time.


----------



## forgivenmuch

refbaptdude said:


> I think when we look at New Testament teaching we can come to no other conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aaron,
> 
> Is this what you would teach if you were on the mission field? Would you tell the women they must stop working in the fields, selling their goods at the market or they are disobeying God?
Click to expand...


It would depend on the situation. Are they single women? Are they single mothers? Remember, I said that this is not the ideal situation, however, there may be seasons of life where the woman may have to work to support her family if there is no man in the picture. On the other hand, are they married? I would encourage them to stay at home and take care of the family and house. Let the husband provide for his family.


----------



## DonP

refbaptdude said:


> Peacemaker,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then Steve what does it mean, keepers at home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered this in a previous post - scroll up the page.
Click to expand...


You mean the piper quote you posted? 
The dynamic equivalent translation of Titus 2:5 by the niv, “to be busy at home,” catches the force of Paul’s admonition, namely, that a wife should be a diligent homemaker.


Besides I don't see how they made that consistent with the prov 31 woman they go one to say was out of the home buying a field etc. 

Not being mean here just looking for clarity and consistency


----------



## satz

forgivenmuch said:


> refbaptdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aaron this is what the world of the bible was like. Think about this as you are reading certain passages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean that was ideal either, though. Just because it happened in biblical times does not justify the practice. I think when we look at New Testament teaching we can come to no other conclusion.
Click to expand...


But if you read about OT Israel, the bible is full of references to men having maidservants who served them. This was a society whose laws were designed by the God. In writing the fourth and seventh commandment he even presumed that men would have maidservant because he told them how to treat their maidservants on the sabbath, and not to covet their neighbours'.

Exodus 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.


----------



## DonP

forgivenmuch said:


> refbaptdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think when we look at New Testament teaching we can come to no other conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aaron,
> 
> Is this what you would teach if you were on the mission field? Would you tell the women they must stop working in the fields, selling their goods at the market or they are disobeying God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation. Are they single women? Are they single mothers? Remember, I said that this is not the ideal situation, however, there may be seasons of life where the woman may have to work to support her family if there is no man in the picture. On the other hand, are they married? I would encourage them to stay at home and take care of the family and house. Let the husband provide for his family.
Click to expand...


In an agrarian society she may be out in the fields with the kids. They would not be sitting around the house playing video games and on the computer so she may be outside the home with the kids training them, not in algebra and Latin, but how to grow corn.


----------



## forgivenmuch

PeaceMaker said:


> forgivenmuch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> refbaptdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aaron,
> 
> Is this what you would teach if you were on the mission field? Would you tell the women they must stop working in the fields, selling their goods at the market or they are disobeying God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation. Are they single women? Are they single mothers? Remember, I said that this is not the ideal situation, however, there may be seasons of life where the woman may have to work to support her family if there is no man in the picture. On the other hand, are they married? I would encourage them to stay at home and take care of the family and house. Let the husband provide for his family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In an agrarian society she may be out in the fields with the kids. They would not be sitting around the house playing video games and on the computer so she may be outside the home with the kids training them, not in algebra and Latin, but how to grow corn.
Click to expand...


You are right, but she is still raising her kids while doing this isn't she? She is still involved in "household affairs."


----------



## PresbyDane

Who allowed you women to have an opinion anyway?

You are to think and do what we tell you remember.


----------



## OPC'n

Re4mdant said:


> Who allowed you women to have an opinion anyway?
> 
> You are to think and do what we tell you remember.



But can you think of anything to tell me?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Re4mdant said:


> Who allowed you women to have an opinion anyway?
> 
> You are to think and do what we tell you remember.



 Good luck with that!


----------



## PresbyDane

Stay at home be a good wife/woman and raise your kids.
If more women did that there would not be all these trouble with teenagers.


----------



## OPC'n

Re4mdant said:


> Stay at home be a good wife/woman and raise your kids.
> If more women did that there would not be all these trouble with teenagers.



LOL! OK, but you still haven't told *ME* anything.


----------



## PresbyDane

Okay cover up and be quiet


----------



## OPC'n

But you haven't bought me my Packer hat yet so still.....


----------



## Hamalas




----------



## Hebrew Student

Hamalas,



> I'm not sure I'm understanding you completely here. Why exactly does that, out of consistency, make everything else in the passage a gender role as well? That seems like a jump in logic, what am I missing?



Because, you cannot change your interpretation of a passage between one word and the word directly following it without some kind of justification, or your exegesis becomes arbitrary. Imagine if someone wanted to make the work in Proverbs 31 a gender role, but then ignored the working at home. That would be arbitrary. When you do exegesis, you have to be consistent from word to word, phrase to phrase, sentence to sentence, paragraph to paragraph, and narrative to narrative. If you take one word to be referring to a gender role, and then, without any justification, take the word next to it to not be referring to a gender role, then the appropriate question to ask is why it is that you take one word to be a gender role, but, the very next word in the list, you will not take to be a gender role.

I am not saying that there isn't a reason. It is just that the burden of proof is on the person who wants to use this passage as defining a gender role. I have not been convinced that this not arbitrary.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## satz

forgivenmuch said:


> My opinion is that if the family is struggling financially then the husband should go out and get a second, or even third, job to provide for the family. That is his responsibility, not the wife's.



While this might sometimes be necesary, as a general principle I disagree with the idea that is biblical to say a man _must_ to work 12...14...16 hours just so the wife can stay home. 

Proverbs 31 is clear that earning income is one of the ways a godly wife helps her husband. There might be some debate as to how much of it was done away from home etc, but I think the principle is clear that that is one of God's approved ways for a woman to be a helper to her husband, and as such there is no compromise of his role as provider if he is doing his reasonable best in his own profession/trade/business.

Also, it is primarily fathers whom God has tasked with training children. Both Eph 6:4 and Col 3:21 explicitly single out _fathers_, not "parents". As such, there is nothing inherently godly about a man working 12+ hours and never being around for his children just to prevent the wife from having to work. The father needs time with his children, wife, church and a myriad of other duties so as long as he is doing his reasonable best and work hard at earning money, I see nothing biblically wrong with him wanting his wife to help him in earning income.


----------



## calgal

satz said:


> forgivenmuch said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is that if the family is struggling financially then the husband should go out and get a second, or even third, job to provide for the family. That is his responsibility, not the wife's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While this might sometimes be necesary, as a general principle I disagree with the idea that is biblical to say a man _must_ to work 12...14...16 hours just so the wife can stay home.
> 
> Proverbs 31 is clear that earning income is one of the ways a godly wife helps her husband. There might be some debate as to how much of it was done away from home etc, but I think the principle is clear that that is one of God's approved ways for a woman to be a helper to her husband, and as such there is no compromise of his role as provider if he is doing his reasonable best in his own profession/trade/business.
> 
> Also, it is primarily fathers whom God has tasked with training children. Both Eph 6:4 and Col 3:21 explicitly single out _fathers_, not "parents". As such, there is nothing inherently godly about a man working 12+ hours and never being around for his children just to prevent the wife from having to work. The father needs time with his children, wife, church and a myriad of other duties so as long as he is doing his reasonable best and work hard at earning money, I see nothing biblically wrong with him wanting his wife to help him in earning income.
Click to expand...


I was discussing this exact scenario with a friend of ours. His comment was that when dad is working two and three jobs *for an extended period of time *that "The father is in sin at that point. How can he be head of the household when dad is NEVER home?"


----------



## LadyFlynt

Re4mdant said:


> Stay at home be a good wife/woman and raise your kids.
> If more women did that there would not be all these trouble with teenagers.



Again, there are ways to do this and still work *part time* (I'm currently looking for a job that is a different shift than my husband's...simply because I *have* to). It's also not good for the husband to be gone entirely (on the road, 2 jobs if it keeps him totally away from home), as the kids need the male influence as well as the female influence. A major problem with kids is in not having a father around. I've seen this both with kids raised by single parents and with kids who have a father on the road.


----------



## PresbyDane

Agree, over here if you are a guy you do not even need an education to take care of children, they will pay you 22$ an hour just to play and simply be there, for just that reason of needing more male figures


----------



## kvanlaan

> While this might sometimes be necesary, as a general principle I disagree with the idea that is biblical to say a man *must to work 12...14...16 hours just so the wife can stay home*.



To support what *sort* of lifestyle? I know those couples who both work and can 'barely make ends meet' in their 3,400 sq ft home with 2 SUV's in the driveway, kids in music lessons, soccer, etc. and cable TV on the big screen. 

Don't get me wrong, lifestyle is a 'liberty' issue to a point, and I realize that most are not in excess, but I see a lot of idiocy in my business.


----------



## DonP

Re4mdant said:


> Agree, over here if you are a guy you do not even need an education to take care of children, they will pay you 22$ an hour just to play and simply be there, for just that reason of needing more male figures



Where do you get that pay and for doing what?

And these are all interesting opinions on how much time a father needs to be available for his family. But do you have any scripture mandating this? 
Some men have to leave their homes for months or years at a time to find work and provide for them and send money back home. I also would agree this is not ideal but can we say it is Biblically wrong and sin?


----------



## PresbyDane

Just playing, like climbing trees or playing catch or playing soccer, reading stories etc. In every daycare institution in the country


----------



## LadyFlynt

kvanlaan said:


> While this might sometimes be necesary, as a general principle I disagree with the idea that is biblical to say a man *must to work 12...14...16 hours just so the wife can stay home*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To support what *sort* of lifestyle? I know those couples who both work and can 'barely make ends meet' in their 3,400 sq ft home with 2 SUV's in the driveway, kids in music lessons, soccer, etc. and cable TV on the big screen.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, lifestyle is a 'liberty' issue to a point, and I realize that most are not in excess, but I see a lot of idiocy in my business.
Click to expand...


True that there are some like that. But definitely not all.


----------



## lshepler412

Yvonne, thank you for sharing this. I think this is a very good example of a woman who feels her duty before God is to care for these children. Over and over she is seeing God's faithfulness to her and so are her children. They will be old in no time and she will have years to work. Please everyone, I'm not making a case either way.


----------



## lshepler412

Sarah, you've mentioned several times that the husband makes the decision on the wife working and she must obey. I think if her conscience before the Lord tells her that she should not abandon her infant or small children for the workplace then it is permissable for her to tell her husband that she can not work. They would need to work together to find creative ways perhaps to bring in more money. A godly husband is not suppose to be a tyrant over his wife. What kind of man would disrespect her wishes if she felt strongly about caring for the children God gave her. I believe a wise man does not just make the decisions for his wife. Her beliefs, feelings, and thoughts should be of the utmost concern to him. I don't believe that the husband being the head of his wife means he is to make every single decision for her.


----------



## calgal

lshepler412 said:


> Sarah, you've mentioned several times that the husband makes the decision on the wife working and she must obey. I think if her conscience before the Lord tells her that she should not abandon her infant or small children for the workplace then it is permissable for her to tell her husband that she can not work. They would need to work together to find creative ways perhaps to bring in more money. A godly husband is not suppose to be a tyrant over his wife. What kind of man would disrespect her wishes if she felt strongly about caring for the children God gave her. I believe a wise man does not just make the decisions for his wife. Her beliefs, feelings, and thoughts should be of the utmost concern to him. I don't believe that the husband being the head of his wife means he is to make every single decision for her.



And when hubby is not.able.to.work. then what can wife do? Let the babies starve?


----------



## Scottish Lass

calgal said:


> lshepler412 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah, you've mentioned several times that the husband makes the decision on the wife working and she must obey. I think if her conscience before the Lord tells her that she should not abandon her infant or small children for the workplace then it is permissable for her to tell her husband that she can not work. They would need to work together to find creative ways perhaps to bring in more money. A godly husband is not suppose to be a tyrant over his wife. What kind of man would disrespect her wishes if she felt strongly about caring for the children God gave her. I believe a wise man does not just make the decisions for his wife. Her beliefs, feelings, and thoughts should be of the utmost concern to him. I don't believe that the husband being the head of his wife means he is to make every single decision for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when hubby is not.able.to.work. then what can wife do?
Click to expand...


Is the husband able to care for the children?


----------



## Theognome

What is the point of arguing over cases when principle is not agreed upon? As this thread demonstrates, folks can ramble on and on about, 'What if this... and What if that...'. It's the principle behind the what if's that answer them, not the cases themselves.

If the principle behind the teaching of a woman being designed as the helper for the man she is married to and her duty is towards the home; if this principle is agreed upon, then most of this thread is superfluous. If some here feel the principle is flawed, then argue against the principle and not the case- for cases do not nor cannot define principle- Truth defines principle.

Theognome


----------



## lshepler412

Perhaps wife can go to work knowing her children are in capable hands of hubby. I am not saying a wife can't work.


----------



## calgal

Scottish Lass said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lshepler412 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah, you've mentioned several times that the husband makes the decision on the wife working and she must obey. I think if her conscience before the Lord tells her that she should not abandon her infant or small children for the workplace then it is permissable for her to tell her husband that she can not work. They would need to work together to find creative ways perhaps to bring in more money. A godly husband is not suppose to be a tyrant over his wife. What kind of man would disrespect her wishes if she felt strongly about caring for the children God gave her. I believe a wise man does not just make the decisions for his wife. Her beliefs, feelings, and thoughts should be of the utmost concern to him. I don't believe that the husband being the head of his wife means he is to make every single decision for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when hubby is not.able.to.work. then what can wife do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the husband able to care for the children?
Click to expand...


Most of the time he could. If Hubby is in bad enough physical or mental condition then no. If he is incarcerated then no. Prisons will reunite mother and child but not father


----------



## Scottish Lass

Aren't single mothers (for whatever the reason) a separate issue?


----------



## calgal

Scottish Lass said:


> Aren't single mothers (for whatever the reason) a separate issue?



Well, that would depend. Single mothers out of choice certainly but a wife with a husband that may be physically unable to care for a baby or small child may be in a temporary situation (work accident) or have a long term medical issue to contend with (progressive disease like MS or certain cancers).


----------



## Hamalas

Theognome said:


> What is the point of arguing over cases when principle is not agreed upon? As this thread demonstrates, folks can ramble on and on about, 'What if this... and What if that...'. It's the principle behind the what if's that answer them, not the cases themselves.
> 
> If the principle behind the teaching of a woman being designed as the helper for the man she is married to and her duty is towards the home; if this principle is agreed upon, then most of this thread is superfluous. If some here feel the principle is flawed, then argue against the principle and not the case- for cases do not nor cannot define principle- Truth defines principle.
> 
> Theognome





Yet again, you've nailed it!


----------



## OPC'n

lshepler412 said:


> Sarah, you've mentioned several times that the husband makes the decision on the wife working and she must obey. I think if her conscience before the Lord tells her that she should not abandon her infant or small children for the workplace then it is permissable for her to tell her husband that she can not work. They would need to work together to find creative ways perhaps to bring in more money. A godly husband is not suppose to be a tyrant over his wife. What kind of man would disrespect her wishes if she felt strongly about caring for the children God gave her. I believe a wise man does not just make the decisions for his wife. Her beliefs, feelings, and thoughts should be of the utmost concern to him. I don't believe that the husband being the head of his wife means he is to make every single decision for her.



I'm quite sure that husbands take their wives' opinions to heart and go before God about it....but ultimately they do have the final say and the wife is commanded to obey.


----------



## forgivenmuch

satz said:


> forgivenmuch said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is that if the family is struggling financially then the husband should go out and get a second, or even third, job to provide for the family. That is his responsibility, not the wife's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While this might sometimes be necesary, as a general principle I disagree with the idea that is biblical to say a man _must_ to work 12...14...16 hours just so the wife can stay home.
> 
> Proverbs 31 is clear that earning income is one of the ways a godly wife helps her husband. There might be some debate as to how much of it was done away from home etc, but I think the principle is clear that that is one of God's approved ways for a woman to be a helper to her husband, and as such there is no compromise of his role as provider if he is doing his reasonable best in his own profession/trade/business.
> 
> Also, it is primarily fathers whom God has tasked with training children. Both Eph 6:4 and Col 3:21 explicitly single out _fathers_, not "parents". As such, there is nothing inherently godly about a man working 12+ hours and never being around for his children just to prevent the wife from having to work. The father needs time with his children, wife, church and a myriad of other duties so as long as he is doing his reasonable best and work hard at earning money, I see nothing biblically wrong with him wanting his wife to help him in earning income.
Click to expand...


I did not say that it is always avoidable that a wife work. I specifically said that there may be seasons of life in which the wife may have to work. What I did say, though, was that I believe this is not ideal. The wife's main responsibility is to her husband, children, and home. Now if the husband is working 16 hours a day like you said, maybe some things would have to change.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> While this might sometimes be necesary, as a general principle I disagree with the idea that is biblical to say a man *must to work 12...14...16 hours just so the wife can stay home*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To support what *sort* of lifestyle? I know those couples who both work and can 'barely make ends meet' in their 3,400 sq ft home with 2 SUV's in the driveway, kids in music lessons, soccer, etc. and cable TV on the big screen.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, lifestyle is a 'liberty' issue to a point, and I realize that most are not in excess, but I see a lot of idiocy in my business.
Click to expand...


To clarify, I was, in that post, referring to whatever is necessary to make ends meet. And yes, I know even that phrase is open to interpretation, but I wasn't talking about supporting a high-end lifestyle.


----------



## Exiled_2_God

lynnie said:


> * 1You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.* 2Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.
> 
> Everywhere I go, women are having babies and going back to work within a few months.
> 
> I know a lot of things that used to be in the home have been taken out- care of the sick, teaching, economic activity- and I understand going back to work once the kids start school. But I just don't get it with preschoolers and toddlers.
> 
> When I got married ('79) it was understood that Mom was home. You lived in a dump, a row house, a trailer, a fixer upper. But Mom was with little kids.
> 
> Now it seems like so many have a nice home and money and there is no problem with Mom going back to work. I find it hard to understand. I have wondered if it is just my geographic area or if the Reformed churches in general no longer consider Mom at home (or at least Mom with preschoolers) to be a scriptural mandate. Any thoughts?
> 
> I know there are commands not to be in debt, and maybe a husband wants the wife to work, so it can be complicated. But do people still see Mom at home as ideal in your circles, even if it means a poor home and lifestyle?



Thought this video of Voddie Baucham on CNN was interesting. It starts about a minute or so into the video. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f14z3cnNzzo&feature=related]YouTube - Voddie Baucham and Sarah Palin[/ame]


----------



## OPC'n

Jessica said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proverbs 31 talks about a woman who takes care of her home but also goes out of her home and runs business. All that the woman does should be done as a help to her husband. We cannot here on PB say that women working is feminism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Proverbs 31 describes the various stages of the woman's life, too, and thus doesn't necessarily imply that she is always working outside the home when her children are young, etc. And she definitely did not work at the neglect or expense of her home, but rather for the _benefits_ of her own family.
> 
> Having been raised as the youngest daughter in my family, though, I've observed that it would seem very difficult for a mother to add another job (yes, being a wife and mother is a full-time job/career  ) and _excel_ (not merely perform) at both. Also, I've noticed this family-focused attitude tends to differ from the reason which many wives/mothers today decide to work outside the home (e.g. status, independence, extra car, etc.)
> 
> I wish everyone a wonderful day of worship this Lord's Day!
Click to expand...


Jessica,
it would seem that you haven't read all of the comments otherwise you wouldn't be assuming that I advocate neglecting the children so that a woman can work outside of the home. A woman should work outside the home if that is what her husband decides is best for the family. Please read posts 14 and 38 of mine but especially post 54 from someone who said it much better than I did. Also, nothing about Proverbs 31 implies that she waited till her children were grown before going outside of the home to do business actually we see just the opposite and you're very right that she didn't work outside of the home at the expense of her children but instead as a helpmate to her husband and a provider to her children. However, this is what I've been saying throughout my comments which you will have to read instead of just picking parts out of one comment and placing on me some doctrine to which I don't hold.


----------



## Knoxienne

If the Bible tells a woman to submit to her husband in all things, I don't know how she can do that faithfully if she's submitting to some boss on a job. 

Isn't it easier if it's her husband who's her boss - easier and a whole lot more fun?


----------



## TimV

> Sarah, you've mentioned several times that the husband makes the decision on the wife working and she must obey. I think if her conscience before the Lord tells her that she should not abandon her infant or small children for the workplace then it is permissable for her to tell her husband that she can not work.



The Bible allows for bad decisions.

When it comes to a husband's authority, some things are easy, like if he says "don't shop there" then no one here would disagree that she shouldn't shop there. And if he says "don't let the children eat until I get back next week" no one here would disagree that she needs to ignore him.

But if every time the woman thinks the best interests of her kids trumps the husband's authority, then the husband doesn't have any authority, really.

Ask yourself if you, in that situation, would ask for the intervention of the church. In other words, if you saw a woman who wanted to be at home with her kids 24/7, and the husband asked her to take a part time job, would you expect the church to force him to back down under penalty of censure?

I personally think it a lack of faith and simply foolish behavior for any couple to postpone having kids, or having the woman work unless the circumstances are extreme, and for 23 year I put my money where my mouth is. But the Scriptural concept of authority isn't such that the decisions always have to be perfect for that authority to be valid.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Knoxienne said:


> If the Bible tells a woman to submit to her husband in all things, I don't know how she can do that faithfully if she's submitting to some boss on a job.
> 
> Isn't it easier if it's her husband who's her boss - easier and a whole lot more fun?



I have no comment other than to advise that you spend some time in an inner city church with families that are literally just trying to survive. There are those same people outside of the city, but many won't go to church because of clueless suburbanites that think EVERYONE should be able to have what they have, buy what they buy, and do things the way they do.


----------



## OPC'n

Knoxienne said:


> If the Bible tells a woman to submit to her husband in all things, I don't know how she can do that faithfully if she's submitting to some boss on a job.
> 
> Isn't it easier if it's her husband who's her boss - easier and a whole lot more fun?



I submit to a woman director concerning the things of work. She has no desire to tell me how to run my household. She would never think of usurping your husband's authority in you life. If your husband told you that you needed to call in to work for that day for some reason, all you have to do is call and say that you won't be there and no questions are asked.


----------



## he beholds

I think that in redeeming our roles as women, we should work toward staying home and being effective there. However, in this imperfect world, necessity or desire may call you outside of the home. 

What happens is not necessarily what is truly God's prescription for a family.
That would be resulted by sin. Sin in ourselves, not being content at home, sin in our husbands, not being hard workers, or sin in the world, not being able to live on one income, or sin in general, husbands not being able to work because OF the falleness of the world: sickness, death, etc. 

Don't we want to determine what a redeemed marriage _should_ look like? If we determine that it SHOULD have the woman being available at all times to be her husband's helpmeet, we should wish for that, or wish to wish for that. Though it still may not work out because of sin.

I will say, just because I do stay at home does not mean that I'm automatically a good helpmeet. I am definitely lacking sometimes in self-discipline to do everything that my husband wants me to do. So I need the lessons of Titus 2 just as much as does a woman who chooses (or is forced) to work.


----------



## satz

lynnie said:


> * 1You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.* 2Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.
> 
> 3Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure,* to be busy at home*, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
> 
> Everywhere I go, women are having babies and going back to work within a few months.
> 
> I know a lot of things that used to be in the home have been taken out- care of the sick, teaching, economic activity- and I understand going back to work once the kids start school. But I just don't get it with preschoolers and toddlers.
> 
> When I got married ('79) it was understood that Mom was home. You lived in a dump, a row house, a trailer, a fixer upper. But Mom was with little kids.
> 
> Now it seems like so many have a nice home and money and there is no problem with Mom going back to work. I find it hard to understand. I have wondered if it is just my geographic area or if the Reformed churches in general no longer consider Mom at home (or at least Mom with preschoolers) to be a scriptural mandate. Any thoughts?
> 
> I know there are commands not to be in debt, and maybe a husband wants the wife to work, so it can be complicated. But do people still see Mom at home as ideal in your circles, even if it means a poor home and lifestyle?



Titus 2 is obviously still sound doctrine, and women are to be “busy at home” or “keepers at home”. However, we need to understand the meaning, rather than just the sound of those words.

There is nothing in the bible that indicates that Paul had employment in mind when he penned those words. Thus, if we have a method of bible interpretation that says a woman can’t work because she must be _at home_, than to be consistent women shouldn’t be leaving the house for any reason, not just employment. For there is nothing in the bible to limit the interpretation of those words to just working.

Some on this thread have already mentioned 1 Timothy 5:13-14. 



> 1 Timothy 5:13 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.
> 14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.



There is a reason why Paul wants younger women to “guide the house”… because it will keep them busy and prevent them from being idle and busybodies. So the opposite of being “busy at home” is, in the bible’s thought, to be an idler and a gossip. There is no indication that Paul even intended to address the idea of employment. Titus 2 condemns women being busybodies and wandering away from their homes, but has nothing to say about women leaving their homes for legitimate purposes.

Proverbs 31 is the most detailed description we have of a woman’s domestic role, and even that description shows that a virtuous wife had outside pursuits. Whether what the virtuous woman did was completely akin to a modern day job, she had pursuits that took away her time and energy from strictly focusing on just her home. So it cannot be said that just because a wife today has a job that takes her away from the home for a time she is neglecting her home. Also, these pursuits are _part_ of what made her a great wife, not something opposed (necessarily) to her duties as a wife.

So yes, Titus 2 is indeed sound doctrine today. But it cannot be used as a one sentence answer to determine if a woman may return to work after giving birth, because that is not how Paul intended it to be used.

Now, this does not mean, in anyway, that a wife is absolutely free to work however and how much she likes. I am just saying the question needs to be reasoned through biblically, instead of using Titus 2 as a soundbite in a way Paul never intended.

The bible firstly says a wife is to submit to her husband, so no matter what a wife many prefer, the husband has the final say in how much, if any, she is to work outside. And the fact that he simply prefers her to stay home is enough.

The bible never says a woman must stay at home “fulltime”. But it does say she must keep the home. And primarily it will be up to her husband to decide what is necessary for the keeping of the home, and if the family can afford the wife being away.

Again, the bible does not say a woman must be at home all the time with her children. It does say she is to love her children and, together with her husband, bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. There are many areas of the life where the bible is not black and white up rather gives principles by which Christians are to live. A couple has to, in sincerity, decide if they are able to meet God’s demands for child training with the wife working. 

Again, in this respect, we must ask who is taking care of the children while the wife works. Daycare is questionable not because the children happen to be with someone else other than their mother for some hours in the day – which I don’t see can be proven to be wrong from the bible – but rather because it involves exposing the children to evil communications would may corrupt them (1 Cor 15:33). If a couple has a God fearing servant like Abraham’s servant, whom Abraham would trust to find a wife for Issac – when Issac was already a grown man – then to leave the children in such care is closer to a matter of liberty.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Toni, I'm sorry...we've walked this road, as have others, and have dealt with "attitudes" from certain kinds of people within churches. I didn't mean to presume that you were one of them.

I'm dropping out of the thread, because I think many of us are talking past eachother. I believe we all agree on the IDEAL situation. There are many reasons that it doesn't work 100% in reality for many people. We can't presume that person's situation or sit and blame them when we may not know their situation. And the truth is, the church isn't perfect either. And to be honest, some would rather deal with a few hours, on a different shift, out of the home, than to keep being subjected to attitudes within the church.


----------



## Knoxienne

sjonee said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Bible tells a woman to submit to her husband in all things, I don't know how she can do that faithfully if she's submitting to some boss on a job.
> 
> Isn't it easier if it's her husband who's her boss - easier and a whole lot more fun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I submit to a woman director concerning the things of work. She has no desire to tell me how to run my household. She would never think of usurping your husband's authority in you life. If your husband told you that you needed to call in to work for that day for some reason, all you have to do is call and say that you won't be there and no questions are asked.
Click to expand...


Yes, I do see where that can present a different type of situation. Working for a woman and various work contexts do allow for other variables.


----------



## JBaldwin

I appreciate Jessica's comments about the Proverbs 31 woman. I've had a similar thought as I've read through this thread. When children are small, mothers have little time for anything else. Once their children are grown, they have a lot more time on their hands and can be busy with other things. 

It seems to me that Scripture is pretty plain about women caring for their children and being keepers at home and being supportive of their husbands. That is the principle. How that plays out in each family will look different. 

I told my husband flat out when we got married that when and if God brought children along, I planned to stay home and raise them, and if he didn't like that he should go marry someone else. That doesn't mean I haven't contributed financially to our family over the years, and I still do. As a practice, however, family comes first. When I have let work (or anything else for that matter) come first, we've had problems at home. 

As Forrest Gump said, "that's all I have to say about that."


----------



## Hebrew Student

JBaldwin,



> It seems to me that Scripture is pretty plain about women caring for their children and being keepers at home and being supportive of their husbands. That is the principle. How that plays out in each family will look different.



I would say the reverse too. I would say that the scripture is pretty plain that men are to care for their children, be keepers at home, and be supportive of their wives. 

The question is how this is going to be worked out so that all of these things can be done. If the man is already working a full time job, then that is going to severly limit your options.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## OPC'n

Proverbs 31 is clear that she does these things while she has her children. Her children rise up and call her blessed because she is so versatile. The Proverbs 31 woman isn't praised because she only takes care of her children and does nothing else until they leave the home and then after they leave the home she decides to manage her household. My sister took care of her children, cleaned house, cooked all her meals from scratch, bought and sold their homes each time they moved, handles the money in paying the bills etc, planted flower gardens, did her own landscaping, had a part time job for a little while, home schooled all four of her children, sowed, did all the shopping, did all the planning and packing for vacations, etc, etc,... and did all of that the whole time they were growing up. She might be the exception to the rule concerning a woman's capabilities... who knows but she doesn't surpass the Proverbs 31 woman. She is the Probverbs 31 woman and she submits to her husband and works her tail off to decrease his load. She does it!!!! The Proverbs 31 woman isn't a pie in the sky and her many tasks are not examples of things that are done separately throughout life. Those things are done constantly throughout many women's lives and they do them well.


----------



## DonP

I know women who do all of what Prov 31 says and all at one time in their life and it doesn't take a super woman, just an average, godly, responsible woman. 

Sadly today our worldly culture tends to breed women who think that Prov 31 would be some amazing feat. God meant it as definite clear instruction of how all women should be, not as some unattainable ideal?? 

I know women who do more than her. 

But the point of the passage and question is can a women work outside the home, it is definitely yes and the how much time, for whom, under what circumstances, is all a matter for her and her head, father, elder etc to discuss. 

I do think there are plenty of opportunities for women to work basically from home where they can be their own boss instead of being under another and this is preferable. 

I think the scripture tells us it is preferable for a man as well. 

If he is able he should be his own boss and not be under the authority of another. This way God can bless Him without having to bless his boss with extra income to serve the kingdom. 

See 1 Cor 7:21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but *if you can* be made free, rather use it. NKJV

For those who are able being in control of your income is much preferable if you you choose wisely what you can control and not get into something that will control you and your time. 

It is an areas I specialize in, helping people to get out of debt, become financial independent so they have more freedom to be used by the Lord. 
Note I am not saying this makes you a better person or more spiritual, just more opportunity from a point of human responsibility to serve the church.


----------



## lshepler412

sjonee said:


> lshepler412 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah, you've mentioned several times that the husband makes the decision on the wife working and she must obey. I think if her conscience before the Lord tells her that she should not abandon her infant or small children for the workplace then it is permissable for her to tell her husband that she can not work. They would need to work together to find creative ways perhaps to bring in more money. A godly husband is not suppose to be a tyrant over his wife. What kind of man would disrespect her wishes if she felt strongly about caring for the children God gave her. I believe a wise man does not just make the decisions for his wife. Her beliefs, feelings, and thoughts should be of the utmost concern to him. I don't believe that the husband being the head of his wife means he is to make every single decision for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure that husbands take their wives' opinions to heart and go before God about it....but ultimately they do have the final say and the wife is commanded to obey.
Click to expand...


Submissive does not mean being a doormat. There are some Christian men who do not take their wives opinions to heart and there are some men who's motives for having their wives work are sinful and impure. I realize that there are all kinds of situations that can propel a woman into the workplace and we need to respect the decisions people make. Truthfully, the church has fallen into the same mindset in some ways that secular society has indevaluing the role of mother/homemaker. I think a married woman should make every effort to remain in the home particularly before the children are school age. The needs of children are great at all ages though, even teens. Obviously because we live in a sinful world, reality is such that a woman may have to work for example if her husband has a debilitating condition that prohibits him from working. The husband and wife together need to arrive at a mutual decision, not just the husband lording it over his wife and making the decision for her.


----------



## LadyFlynt

PeaceMaker said:


> For those who are able being in control of your income is much preferable if you you choose wisely what you can control and not get into something that will control you and your time.
> 
> It is an areas I specialize in, helping people to get out of debt, become financial independent so they have more freedom to be used by the Lord.
> Note I am not saying this makes you a better person or more spiritual, just more opportunity from a point of human responsibility to serve the church.



Before we moved to PA for better employment, we sat down with several people that do exactly what you do and their response is, "we don't know how you do it...there is no way we can tell you how to pinch any tighter". We've pinched that tightly before.


----------



## OPC'n

lshepler412 said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lshepler412 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah, you've mentioned several times that the husband makes the decision on the wife working and she must obey. I think if her conscience before the Lord tells her that she should not abandon her infant or small children for the workplace then it is permissable for her to tell her husband that she can not work. They would need to work together to find creative ways perhaps to bring in more money. A godly husband is not suppose to be a tyrant over his wife. What kind of man would disrespect her wishes if she felt strongly about caring for the children God gave her. I believe a wise man does not just make the decisions for his wife. Her beliefs, feelings, and thoughts should be of the utmost concern to him. I don't believe that the husband being the head of his wife means he is to make every single decision for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure that husbands take their wives' opinions to heart and go before God about it....but ultimately they do have the final say and the wife is commanded to obey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Submissive does not mean being a doormat. There are some Christian men who do not take their wives opinions to heart and there are some men who's motives for having their wives work are sinful and impure. I realize that there are all kinds of situations that can propel a woman into the workplace and we need to respect the decisions people make. Truthfully, the church has fallen into the same mindset in some ways that secular society has indevaluing the role of mother/homemaker. I think a married woman should make every effort to remain in the home particularly before the children are school age. The needs of children are great at all ages though, even teens. Obviously because we live in a sinful world, reality is such that a woman may have to work for example if her husband has a debilitating condition that prohibits him from working. The husband and wife together need to arrive at a mutual decision, not just the husband lording it over his wife and making the decision for her.
Click to expand...


Yes it does mean being a doormat! And your husband can beat you too if he wants. The other thing he is allowed to do is throw you overboard if you go on a cruise. All those things are very biblical.  

Seriously, though, I've already answered this statement from you and said that I'm quite sure that husbands take their wives' opinions to heart and go before God to pray. In the end, the husband has the final say whether you like it or not. And even if a husband isn't living up to "loving you as Christ loves the church" the wife is still commanded by God to obey him...even if he is "lording" in his dealings with his wife.


----------



## lshepler412

Sarah, it is not a matter of me liking it or not. The husband being the head of his wife does not mean that he makes every decision for her. I stand by what I said that some decisions need to be mutual and this doesn't violate the husband being the head of his wife.


----------



## calgal

LadyFlynt said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who are able being in control of your income is much preferable if you you choose wisely what you can control and not get into something that will control you and your time.
> 
> It is an areas I specialize in, helping people to get out of debt, become financial independent so they have more freedom to be used by the Lord.
> Note I am not saying this makes you a better person or more spiritual, just more opportunity from a point of human responsibility to serve the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before we moved to PA for better employment, we sat down with several people that do exactly what you do and their response is, "we don't know how you do it...there is no way we can tell you how to pinch any tighter". We've pinched that tightly before.
Click to expand...


to answer Don, thank you for sharing but my husband IS head of MY household and My Husband has stated that we need 2 incomes to keep a roof over our heads (a 1100 SF roof) and to handle emergencies (like one of our old cars breaking down) without having to lose the house. If or when God decides to give us an adopted child we will revisit that. Until then the head of MY household has spoken and his decision is final. 

Now as for a Titus 2 relationship, they sometimes happen without the title being used. And this particular verse is being overused in my opinion in churches without understanding of how women mentor women and men mentor men (hint: it is organic, not a created system forcing "friendships"). 

That is my final foray into this thread.


----------



## DonP

LadyFlynt said:


> Before we moved to PA for better employment, we sat down with several people that do exactly what you do and their response is, "we don't know how you do it...there is no way we can tell you how to pinch any tighter". We've pinched that tightly before.



Nope they don't do what I do. I don't tell people to pinch tighter. Esp. when they are by God's providence already pinched to death. 

I show them how to get out of debt by creating extra income. So I am not opposed to women working, I just think IF THEY CAN it is nice to be able to do this in their own business or income stream mainly from home, rather than work for someone else or in a 9-5 job under a boss or out of the home. 

So we show them ways to do this. But I wouldn't legislate they should never take a job outside the home. 

Not saying for sure, but maybe we need to repent over some weak decisions that got us into that state, but not necessarily. It could be from a hurricane, or fire, or famine etc. 

Just some fiery trial God has us going through where even if we had a real healthy church so many are in the same boat at the same time they couldn't help each other out financially if they wanted to. 

And I think we should have a denominational deaconal fund for such purposes as well, for the covenant members as well as an outreach to the unregenerate. But we have allowed the state to take over our responsibility to one another. Paul asked other churches to send money to Jerusalem to care for the poor. But so many today are allowed to stay members even though they may be shirking their responsibilities to obedience, like, if any does not work neither should he eat, that we have lost trust int he church and do not freely provide for all in need like yourself or in a calamity. 
Sad. 
Even so Come Lord Jesus


----------

