# The wife at work



## Joseph Scibbe

What are your thoughts on a wife having a job (either part or full time) BEFORE the children are born?


----------



## Theognome

If she can work for her own business (or her husbands) from the home, fine. If she has to work for someone else outside of the home, I'm against it whether there are children or not.

Theognome


----------



## LadyFlynt

Not a problem. Particularly if there are times of necessity.


----------



## Tripel

I'm all for it. If she has talents that can be rewarded through a full-time job, great!


----------



## Josiah

My Wife and I are married with no children yet and she is working full time. We have agreed that once we start having children that she will become a stay at home Mom taking care of the kids. She also has mulled around the possibility of working part time on Saturdays.


----------



## Craig

Only in extreme circumstances would I think it wrong to have a wife working outside of the home when there are no children.

If one's wife has a tendency toward building a "career"...then that man is marrying off his wife to another man (i.e. her employer).


----------



## Scott1

Biblically, I don't think there is a prohibition. There is an ordinary pattern that tends to flow even from the creation order but there are lots of exceptions of circumstances.

It would be unwise to try and biblically preclude all those circumstances. Many of us have been blessed by women who were working outside the home (e.g. nurses, school teachers, etc.).

Of one thing I am sure- a woman must not violate biblical priorities in seeking employment and if married, the responsibility for setting the tone for this rests with the man, including, by faith, setting a lifestyle before God that will not presume on debt or pursuing materialism.


----------



## larryjf

There is wisdom in Proverbs 31

13 She seeks wool and flax,
and works with willing hands.
14 She is like the ships of the merchant;
she brings her food from afar.
15 She rises while it is yet night
and provides food for her household
and portions for her maidens.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
17 She dresses herself with strength
and makes her arms strong.
18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.
20 She opens her hand to the poor
and reaches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of snow for her household,
for all her household are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes bed coverings for herself;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates
when he sits among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them;
she delivers sashes to the merchant.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
and she laughs at the time to come.
26 She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looks well to the ways of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women have done excellently,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the gates.


----------



## ReformedChapin

I am all for it especially in this economy. Not to mention if there is no children in the picture it can be something that gives meaningful work to her rathern than just being a stay at home wife. I am certainly not saying that stay at home wives have meaningless work (especially with children in the picture) but I know that several woman want more and I respect that.


----------



## kvanlaan

I would avoid it at all costs beforehand. After children, no brainer.


----------



## ClayPot

It seems like the answer to this question is the same as, "Can a man's unwed daughter work outside the home?" 

Unless one believes that a woman should never work outside the home, I'm not sure what basis one would have for saying that a married woman shouldn't be able to work outside the home (assuming there is no are no children and that she can maintain the home) if an unwed woman is able to do so.


----------



## LawrenceU

kvanlaan said:


> I would avoid it at all costs beforehand. After children, no brainer.



Yup. 

I know, I know. I'm a Neanderthal.


----------



## LadyFlynt

LawrenceU said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would avoid it at all costs beforehand. After children, no brainer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> I know, I know. I'm a Neanderthal.
Click to expand...


Only if you aren't taking into account that not all situations are the same.


----------



## kvanlaan

I don't think anyone is recommending starvation as opposed to one's wife working outside the home (so maybe not at ALL costs). But let's remember that God has ordained that a woman's head be her husband; taking a job outside the home will put her under the authority of another man at some point...


----------



## historyb

Unashamed 116 said:


> What are your thoughts on a wife having a job (either part or full time) BEFORE the children are born?


My thoughts, sometimes with this economy it has to be done. Gone are the days of a one house wage unless you have a great wage, my wife worked until she was laid off.


----------



## Kevin

No problem.

I think that some people have placed a burden on women, that the scriptures do not require.

I do not agree at all with the "umbrella theory" of headship promoted by some fundamentalist cult leaders. And I consider it a great shame that many reformed men, out of a (no doubt) sincere desire to restor proper bibical sex roles have adopted it. 

This view is NOT the historic view in the Presbyterian tradition of the role of women. I know that some of the more anti-social (seperatist?) Dutch Reformed traditions hold this view, but it is an Anabaptist/radical reformation view, not mainstream reformed.

It is also requires a very tortured reading of history, & some serious "shoe-horning" to try to make a modern cash based wage economy adopt a (flawed in my opinion) view of sexual variation in the economic production of pre-modern households.


----------



## OPC'n

There's nothing wrong with it if that's what you decide is most helpful to you and the household.


----------



## Montanablue

I don't see a scriptural prohibition - as long as it isn't causing her to neglect her responsibilities as a wife. I would also point out that if a husband's job/career is causing him to neglect his responsibilities as a husband, he also needs to re-evaluate. I think that sometimes we forget that this road can be a two way street.


----------



## Grace Alone

Wow, this would have never occurred to us to even be an issue. I had a college degree and started teaching right before we got married. I would have been lonely and bored to tears if I had had to sit at home while my husband worked 10-12 hour days in those early years!


----------



## raekwon

kvanlaan said:


> I don't think anyone is recommending starvation as opposed to one's wife working outside the home (so maybe not at ALL costs). But let's remember that God has ordained that a woman's head be her husband; taking a job outside the home will put her under the authority of another man at some point...



Two things . . .

1) Why assume that she'd be under authority of a man? Would it then be okay if her boss was another woman?

2) If you're going to use this as a reason to prohibit it, you'd also have to prohibit women and girls from (among other things) . . .
- school (unless all of their teachers are women)
- church (unless all of their elders/pastors are women . . . uh oh!)

Just sayin'. That a married woman would be under the authority of a man in the realm of employment doesn't mean that she's no longer under the authority of her husband. This is like saying that a man shouldn't ever be under the authority of another man, because God has ordained that the head of man is Christ. Kind of silly.


----------



## he beholds

raekwon said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is recommending starvation as opposed to one's wife working outside the home (so maybe not at ALL costs). But let's remember that God has ordained that a woman's head be her husband; taking a job outside the home will put her under the authority of another man at some point...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things . . .
> 
> 1) Why assume that she'd be under authority of a man? Would it then be okay if her boss was another woman?
> 
> 2) If you're going to use this as a reason to prohibit it, you'd also have to prohibit women and girls from (among other things) . . .
> - school (unless all of their teachers are women)
> - church
> 
> Just sayin'. That a married woman would be under the authority of a man in the realm of employment doesn't mean that she's no longer under the authority of her husband. This is like saying that a man ever be under the authority of another man, because God has ordained that the head of man is Christ. Kind of silly.
Click to expand...


Wow!! I've never heard the logic of this played out and sort of blindly accepted this school of thought. Thanks for bringing it to its real logical conclusion! Very good points!


----------



## calgal

raekwon said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is recommending starvation as opposed to one's wife working outside the home (so maybe not at ALL costs). But let's remember that God has ordained that a woman's head be her husband; taking a job outside the home will put her under the authority of another man at some point...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things . . .
> 
> 1) Why assume that she'd be under authority of a man? Would it then be okay if her boss was another woman?
> 
> 2) If you're going to use this as a reason to prohibit it, you'd also have to prohibit women and girls from (among other things) . . .
> - school (unless all of their teachers are women)
> - church
> 
> Just sayin'. That a married woman would be under the authority of a man in the realm of employment doesn't mean that she's no longer under the authority of her husband. This is like saying that a man ever be under the authority of another man, because God has ordained that the head of man is Christ. Kind of silly.
Click to expand...


 And what about letting her drive a car alone? She might come under the authority of a male cop.......


----------



## Knoxienne

calgal said:


> And what about letting her drive a car alone? She might come under the authority of a male cop.......



I just make sure I don't get stopped.


----------



## ZackF

raekwon said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is recommending starvation as opposed to one's wife working outside the home (so maybe not at ALL costs). But let's remember that God has ordained that a woman's head be her husband; taking a job outside the home will put her under the authority of another man at some point...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things . . .
> 
> 1) Why assume that she'd be under authority of a man? Would it then be okay if her boss was another woman?
> 
> 2) If you're going to use this as a reason to prohibit it, you'd also have to prohibit women and girls from (among other things) . . .
> - school (unless all of their teachers are women)
> - church (unless all of their elders/pastors are women . . . uh oh!)
> 
> Just sayin'. That a married woman would be under the authority of a man in the realm of employment doesn't mean that she's no longer under the authority of her husband. This is like saying that a man shouldn't ever be under the authority of another man, because God has ordained that the head of man is Christ. Kind of silly.
Click to expand...


I agree. I don't even have a problem with the wife working outside of the home after children have came along for the same reasons. It has to do with whether or not her home obligations are being met. I find this wooden view of the "under the authority of" clause inconsistent with the treatment of anything related to the husband and his relationships. Should a man be allowed to work where he might be in authority over any other women other than his wife and daughters? Even before his marriage or kids come along?


----------



## BertMulder

Women are to be, with the words of Scripture, "keepers at home"


----------



## LadyFlynt

BertMulder said:


> Women are to be, with the words of Scripture, "keepers at home"



And many of us are. Many of us also have no choice other than to find work outside the home from time to time also though (and yes, I've worked from home as well).


----------



## ZackF

BertMulder said:


> Women are to be, with the words of Scripture, "keepers at home"



How does this advance the conversation? Nobody in this thread denies that.


----------



## kvanlaan

> 2) If you're going to use this as a reason to prohibit it, you'd also have to prohibit women and girls from (among other things) . . .
> - school (unless all of their teachers are women)
> - church (unless all of their elders/pastors are women . . . uh oh!)



Rubbish. 

At school, there is oversight of the church, and thus of the same (or some of the same) elders who sit in authority over me. If you are talking about public school, then you're right, and that's one of the bazillion reasons that I am *dead set* against it.

With regards to church, she would sit under the same authority that her husband sits under, so I don't see your point.

What I am more talking about is the sort of attitude set forth in this article by John Bunyan. I didn't want to quote the whole thing, but there are profitable bits scattered throughout.



> THE DUTY OF WIVES.
> But passing the master of the family, I will speak a word or two to those that are under him. And, first, to the wife: The wife is bound by the law to her husband, so long as her husband lives (Rom. 7:2). Therefore she also has her work and place in the family, as well as the rest. Now there are these things considered in the carriage of a wife toward her husband, which she should conscientiously observe.
> 
> First, That she look upon him as her head and lord. 'The head of the woman is the man' (1 Cor. 11:3). And so Sarah called Abraham lord (1 Peter 3:6).
> 
> Second, She should therefore be subject to him, as is fit in the Lord. The apostle says, 'That the wife should submit herself to her husband, as to the Lord' (1 Peter 3:1; Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:22). I told you before, that if the husband does walk towards his wife as is fitting to him, he will therein be such an ordinance of God to her, besides the relation of a husband, that will preach to her the behavior of Christ to his church. And now I say also, that the wife, if she walk with her husband as is fitting to her, she shall preach the obedience of the church to her husband. 'Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything' (Eph. 5:24). Now for your performing of this work, you must first shun these evils.
> 
> 1. The evil of a wandering and a gossiping spirit; this is evil in the church, and is evil also in a wife, who is the figure of a church. Christ loves to have his spouse keep at home; that is, to be with him in the faith and practice of his things, not ranging and meddling with the things of Satan; no more should wives be given to wander and gossip abroad. You know that Proverbs 7:11 says, 'She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house.' Wives should be about their own husbands' business at home; as the apostle says, Let them 'be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands.' And why? Because otherwise 'the word of God will be blasphemed' (Titus 2:5).
> 
> 2. Take heed of an idle, talking, or contentious tongue. This also is odious, either in maids or wives, to be like parrots, not bridling their tongue; whereas the wife should know, as I said before, that her husband is her lord, and is over her, as Christ is over the church. Do you think it is seemly for the church to parrot it against her husband? Is she not to be silent before him, and to look to his laws, rather than her own fictions? Why so, says the apostle, should the wife so carry it towards her husband? 'Let the woman,' says Paul, 'learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence' (1 Tim. 2:11, 12). It is an unseemly thing to see a woman so much as once in all her lifetime to offer to overtop her husband; she should in everything be in subjection to him, and to do all she does, as having her warrant, license, and authority from him. And indeed here is her glory, even to be under him, as the church is under Christ: Now 'she openeth her mouth with wisdom, and in her tongue is the law of kindness' (Prov. 31:26).
> 
> 3. Do not wear immodest apparel, or walk in a seductive way; this will be evil both abroad and at home; abroad, it will not only give ill example, but also tend to tempt to lust and lasciviousness; and at home it will give an offence to a godly husband, and be infecting to ungodly children, etc. Therefore, as says the apostle, Let women's apparel be modest, as becomes women professing godliness, with good works, 'not with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array' (1 Tim. 2:9, 10). And as it is said again, 'Whose adorning, let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel: But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands' (1 Peter 3:3-5).
> 
> But yet, do not think that by the subjection I have here mentioned, that I do intend women should be their husbands' slaves. Women are their husbands' yoke-fellows, their flesh and their bones; and he is not a man that hates his own flesh, or that is bitter against it (Eph. 5:29). Wherefore, let every man 'love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband' (Eph. 5:33). The wife is master next her husband, and is to rule all in his absence; yes, in his presence she is to guide the house, to bring up the children, provided she does it, as the adversary has no occasion to speak reproachfully (1 Tim. 5:10, 13). 'Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. A gracious woman retaineth honour:' and guides her affairs with discretion (Prov 31:10; 11:16; 12:4).
> 
> Objection: But my husband is an unbeliever; what shall I do?
> 
> Answer: If so, then what I have said before lies upon you with an engagement so much the stronger. For, 1. Your husband being in this condition, he will be watchful to take your slips and infirmities, to throw them as dirt in the face of God and your Savior. 2. He will be apt to make the worst of every one of your words, actions, and gestures. 3. And all this does tend to the possessing his heart with more hardness, prejudice, and opposition to his own salvation; therefore, as Peter says, 'ye wives, be in subjection to your husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they may also without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation, coupled with fear' (1 Peter 3:1, 2). Your husband's salvation or damnation lies much in your good behavior before him; therefore, if there is in you any fear of God, or love to your husband, seek, by behavior full of meekness, modesty, and holiness, and a humbleness before him, to win him to the love of his own salvation; and by doing this, how 'knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?' (1 Cor. 7:16).
> 
> Objection: But my husband is not only an unbeliever, but one very contentious, peevish, and testy, yes, so contentious, etc., that I know not how to speak to him, or behave myself before him.
> 
> Answer: Indeed there are some wives in great slavery by reason of their ungodly husbands; and as such should be pitied, and prayed for; so they should be so much the more watchful and circumspect in all their ways.
> 
> 1. Therefore be very faithful to him in all the things of this life.
> 
> 2. Bear with patience his unruly and unconverted behavior; you are alive, he is dead; you are principled with grace, he with sin. Now, then, seeing grace is stronger than sin, and virtue than vice; be not overcome with his vileness, but overcome that with your virtues (Rom 12:21). It is a shame for those that are gracious to be as lavishing in their words, etc., as those that are graceless: They that are 'slow to wrath are of great understanding; but they that are hasty of spirit, exalteth folly' (Prov. 14:29).
> 
> 3. Your wisdom, therefore, if at any time you have a desire to speak to your husband for his conviction, concerning anything, either good or evil, it is to observe convenient times and seasons: There is 'a time to keep silence, and a time to speak' (Eccl. 3:7). Now for the right timing of your intentions,
> 
> (1.) Consider his disposition; and take him when he is farthest off of those filthy passions that are your afflictions. Abigail would not speak a word to her churlish husband till his wine was gone from him, and he in a sober temper (1 Sam. 25:36, 37). Not heeding this observation is the cause why so much is spoken, and so little effected.
> 
> (2.) Take him at those times when he has his heart taken with you, and when he shows tokens of love and delight in you. Thus did Esther with the king her husband, and prevailed (Esther 5:3, 6; 7:1, 2).
> 
> (3.) Observe when convictions seize his conscience, and then follow them with sound and grave sayings of the Scriptures. Somewhat like to this dealt Manoah's wife with her husband (Judges 13:22, 23). Yet then,
> 
> (a) Let your words be few.
> 
> (b) And none of them savoring of a lording it over him; but speak still as to your head and lord, by way of entreaty and beseeching.
> 
> (c) And that in such a spirit of sympathy, and a heart of affection after his good, that the manner of your speech and behavior in speaking may be to him an argument that you speak in love, as being sensible of his misery, and inflamed in your soul with desire after his conversion.
> 
> (d) And follow your words and behavior with prayers to God for his soul.
> 
> (e) Still keeping yourself in a holy, chaste, and modest behavior before him.
> 
> Objection: But my husband is stupid, a fool, and one that has not wit enough to follow his outward employment in the world.
> 
> Answer. 1. Though all this be true, yet you must know he is your head, your lord, and your husband.
> 
> 2. Therefore you must take heed of desiring to usurp authority over him. He was not made for you; that is, for you to have dominion over him, but to be your husband, and to rule over you (1 Tim. 2:12; 1 Cor. 11:3, 8).
> 
> 3. Therefore, though in truth you may have more discretion than he, yet you should know that you, and all that is yours, is to be used as under your husband; even 'every thing' (Eph 5:24). Take heed therefore, that what you do goes not in your name, but his; not to your exaltation, but his; doing all things so that by your dexterity and prudence, not one of your husband's weaknesses is discovered to others by you: 'A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed, is as rottenness in his bones.' For then, as the wise man says, 'she will do him good and not evil, all the days of her life' (Prov. 12:4; 31:12).
> 
> 4. Therefore act, and do still, as being under the power and authority of your husband. Now touching your behavior toward your children and servants. You are a parent, and a mistress, and so you should demean yourself. And besides, seeing the believing woman is a figure of the church, she should, as the church, nourish and instruct her children, and servants, as the church, that she may answer in that particular also; and truly, the wife being always at home, she has great advantage that way; therefore do it, and the Lord prosper your proceeding.



-----Added 5/26/2009 at 11:22:02 EST-----



> Many of us also have no choice other than to find work outside the home from time to time also though (and yes, I've worked from home as well).



And I don't think anyone is arguing that point either. But when it _is_ a choice, to do so out of anything other than absolute _need_ is where I have the problem.



> Women are to be, with the words of Scripture, "keepers at home"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does this advance the conversation? *Nobody in this thread denies that*.
Click to expand...


Perhaps they do not outrightly, but it's come pretty close.


----------



## satz

BertMulder said:


> Women are to be, with the words of Scripture, "keepers at home"



That is absolutely true, but the question still needs to be asked what is meant by "keepers at home".

If you have a method of bible interpretation that says a woman cannot work outside because she needs to be "at home", than a woman may not go to church, go shopping or go visit relatives and so on and so on. There is no biblical reason to limit the application of "keepers at home" to just employment, which is what seems to be typically done when the verse is used to rule out outside employment for women.


----------



## ZackF

kvanlaan said:


> 2) If you're going to use this as a reason to prohibit it, you'd also have to prohibit women and girls from (among other things) . . .
> - school (unless all of their teachers are women)
> - church (unless all of their elders/pastors are women . . . uh oh!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rubbish.
> 
> At school, there is oversight of the church, and thus of the same (or some of the same) elders who sit in authority over me. If you are talking about public school, then you're right, and that's one of the bazillion reasons that I am *dead set* against it.
> 
> With regards to church, she would sit under the same authority that her husband sits under, so I don't see your point.
> 
> What I am more talking about is the sort of attitude set forth in this article by John Bunyan. I didn't want to quote the whole thing, but there are profitable bits scattered throughout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE DUTY OF WIVES.
> But passing the master of the family, I will speak a word or two to those that are under him. And, first, to the wife: The wife is bound by the law to her husband, so long as her husband lives (Rom. 7:2). Therefore she also has her work and place in the family, as well as the rest. Now there are these things considered in the carriage of a wife toward her husband, which she should conscientiously observe.
> 
> First, That she look upon him as her head and lord. 'The head of the woman is the man' (1 Cor. 11:3). And so Sarah called Abraham lord (1 Peter 3:6).
> 
> Second, She should therefore be subject to him, as is fit in the Lord. The apostle says, 'That the wife should submit herself to her husband, as to the Lord' (1 Peter 3:1; Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:22). I told you before, that if the husband does walk towards his wife as is fitting to him, he will therein be such an ordinance of God to her, besides the relation of a husband, that will preach to her the behavior of Christ to his church. And now I say also, that the wife, if she walk with her husband as is fitting to her, she shall preach the obedience of the church to her husband. 'Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything' (Eph. 5:24). Now for your performing of this work, you must first shun these evils.
> 
> 1. The evil of a wandering and a gossiping spirit; this is evil in the church, and is evil also in a wife, who is the figure of a church. Christ loves to have his spouse keep at home; that is, to be with him in the faith and practice of his things, not ranging and meddling with the things of Satan; no more should wives be given to wander and gossip abroad. You know that Proverbs 7:11 says, 'She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house.' Wives should be about their own husbands' business at home; as the apostle says, Let them 'be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands.' And why? Because otherwise 'the word of God will be blasphemed' (Titus 2:5).
> 
> 2. Take heed of an idle, talking, or contentious tongue. This also is odious, either in maids or wives, to be like parrots, not bridling their tongue; whereas the wife should know, as I said before, that her husband is her lord, and is over her, as Christ is over the church. Do you think it is seemly for the church to parrot it against her husband? Is she not to be silent before him, and to look to his laws, rather than her own fictions? Why so, says the apostle, should the wife so carry it towards her husband? 'Let the woman,' says Paul, 'learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence' (1 Tim. 2:11, 12). It is an unseemly thing to see a woman so much as once in all her lifetime to offer to overtop her husband; she should in everything be in subjection to him, and to do all she does, as having her warrant, license, and authority from him. And indeed here is her glory, even to be under him, as the church is under Christ: Now 'she openeth her mouth with wisdom, and in her tongue is the law of kindness' (Prov. 31:26).
> 
> 3. Do not wear immodest apparel, or walk in a seductive way; this will be evil both abroad and at home; abroad, it will not only give ill example, but also tend to tempt to lust and lasciviousness; and at home it will give an offence to a godly husband, and be infecting to ungodly children, etc. Therefore, as says the apostle, Let women's apparel be modest, as becomes women professing godliness, with good works, 'not with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array' (1 Tim. 2:9, 10). And as it is said again, 'Whose adorning, let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel: But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands' (1 Peter 3:3-5).
> 
> But yet, do not think that by the subjection I have here mentioned, that I do intend women should be their husbands' slaves. Women are their husbands' yoke-fellows, their flesh and their bones; and he is not a man that hates his own flesh, or that is bitter against it (Eph. 5:29). Wherefore, let every man 'love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband' (Eph. 5:33). The wife is master next her husband, and is to rule all in his absence; yes, in his presence she is to guide the house, to bring up the children, provided she does it, as the adversary has no occasion to speak reproachfully (1 Tim. 5:10, 13). 'Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. A gracious woman retaineth honour:' and guides her affairs with discretion (Prov 31:10; 11:16; 12:4).
> 
> Objection: But my husband is an unbeliever; what shall I do?
> 
> Answer: If so, then what I have said before lies upon you with an engagement so much the stronger. For, 1. Your husband being in this condition, he will be watchful to take your slips and infirmities, to throw them as dirt in the face of God and your Savior. 2. He will be apt to make the worst of every one of your words, actions, and gestures. 3. And all this does tend to the possessing his heart with more hardness, prejudice, and opposition to his own salvation; therefore, as Peter says, 'ye wives, be in subjection to your husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they may also without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation, coupled with fear' (1 Peter 3:1, 2). Your husband's salvation or damnation lies much in your good behavior before him; therefore, if there is in you any fear of God, or love to your husband, seek, by behavior full of meekness, modesty, and holiness, and a humbleness before him, to win him to the love of his own salvation; and by doing this, how 'knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?' (1 Cor. 7:16).
> 
> Objection: But my husband is not only an unbeliever, but one very contentious, peevish, and testy, yes, so contentious, etc., that I know not how to speak to him, or behave myself before him.
> 
> Answer: Indeed there are some wives in great slavery by reason of their ungodly husbands; and as such should be pitied, and prayed for; so they should be so much the more watchful and circumspect in all their ways.
> 
> 1. Therefore be very faithful to him in all the things of this life.
> 
> 2. Bear with patience his unruly and unconverted behavior; you are alive, he is dead; you are principled with grace, he with sin. Now, then, seeing grace is stronger than sin, and virtue than vice; be not overcome with his vileness, but overcome that with your virtues (Rom 12:21). It is a shame for those that are gracious to be as lavishing in their words, etc., as those that are graceless: They that are 'slow to wrath are of great understanding; but they that are hasty of spirit, exalteth folly' (Prov. 14:29).
> 
> 3. Your wisdom, therefore, if at any time you have a desire to speak to your husband for his conviction, concerning anything, either good or evil, it is to observe convenient times and seasons: There is 'a time to keep silence, and a time to speak' (Eccl. 3:7). Now for the right timing of your intentions,
> 
> (1.) Consider his disposition; and take him when he is farthest off of those filthy passions that are your afflictions. Abigail would not speak a word to her churlish husband till his wine was gone from him, and he in a sober temper (1 Sam. 25:36, 37). Not heeding this observation is the cause why so much is spoken, and so little effected.
> 
> (2.) Take him at those times when he has his heart taken with you, and when he shows tokens of love and delight in you. Thus did Esther with the king her husband, and prevailed (Esther 5:3, 6; 7:1, 2).
> 
> (3.) Observe when convictions seize his conscience, and then follow them with sound and grave sayings of the Scriptures. Somewhat like to this dealt Manoah's wife with her husband (Judges 13:22, 23). Yet then,
> 
> (a) Let your words be few.
> 
> (b) And none of them savoring of a lording it over him; but speak still as to your head and lord, by way of entreaty and beseeching.
> 
> (c) And that in such a spirit of sympathy, and a heart of affection after his good, that the manner of your speech and behavior in speaking may be to him an argument that you speak in love, as being sensible of his misery, and inflamed in your soul with desire after his conversion.
> 
> (d) And follow your words and behavior with prayers to God for his soul.
> 
> (e) Still keeping yourself in a holy, chaste, and modest behavior before him.
> 
> Objection: But my husband is stupid, a fool, and one that has not wit enough to follow his outward employment in the world.
> 
> Answer. 1. Though all this be true, yet you must know he is your head, your lord, and your husband.
> 
> 2. Therefore you must take heed of desiring to usurp authority over him. He was not made for you; that is, for you to have dominion over him, but to be your husband, and to rule over you (1 Tim. 2:12; 1 Cor. 11:3, 8).
> 
> 3. Therefore, though in truth you may have more discretion than he, yet you should know that you, and all that is yours, is to be used as under your husband; even 'every thing' (Eph 5:24). Take heed therefore, that what you do goes not in your name, but his; not to your exaltation, but his; doing all things so that by your dexterity and prudence, not one of your husband's weaknesses is discovered to others by you: 'A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed, is as rottenness in his bones.' For then, as the wise man says, 'she will do him good and not evil, all the days of her life' (Prov. 12:4; 31:12).
> 
> 4. Therefore act, and do still, as being under the power and authority of your husband. Now touching your behavior toward your children and servants. You are a parent, and a mistress, and so you should demean yourself. And besides, seeing the believing woman is a figure of the church, she should, as the church, nourish and instruct her children, and servants, as the church, that she may answer in that particular also; and truly, the wife being always at home, she has great advantage that way; therefore do it, and the Lord prosper your proceeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I don't think most of the women on this board would have a problem with most of the above. Saying that I am sure Mrs. Bunyan got out and about more than usual and had to assume affairs discharged most often by men in those days given that he was incarcerated for a number of years.


----------



## kvanlaan

> If you have a method of bible interpretation that says a woman cannot work outside because she needs to be "at home", than a woman may not go to church, go shopping or go visit relatives and so on and so on. There is no biblical reason to limit the application of "keepers at home" to just employment, which is what seems to be typically done when the verse is used to rule out outside employment for women.



We are talking about about a noble biblical concept and it is being brought low by _reductio ad absurdum _.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

raekwon said:


> Just sayin'. That a married woman would be under the authority of a man in the realm of employment doesn't mean that she's no longer under the authority of her husband. This is like saying that a man shouldn't ever be under the authority of another man, because God has ordained that the head of man is Christ. Kind of silly.



Or that the church can't submit to Caesar, because Christ is her head. 

Yet Christ, as our head, has commanded us to submit to Caesar. 

_But_ there are many cases when it would be imprudent for a man to ask his wife to work outside the home. When he does, however, he's still her head: he's exercising his headship by allowing her to be directed by someone else. As long as the husband retains the ultimate authority to decide whether she continues in the job or not, his headship hasn't been supplanted.


----------



## Zenas

My wife and I work in the same office.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Yet Christ, as our head, has commanded us to submit to Caesar.



Insofar as that does not trespass God's law, yes.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

kvanlaan said:


> Yet Christ, as our head, has commanded us to submit to Caesar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insofar as that does not trespass God's law, yes.
Click to expand...


An important and relevant qualification.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> We are talking about about a noble biblical concept and it is being brought low by _reductio ad absurdum _.



Kevin,

I really had no intention of doing so. If something is really the truth, it can stand being pushed to extremes of argumentation and any result will still make sense. If something can be brought low by reductio ad absurdum, maybe it is not really the truth.

How would you define "keepers at home" then, and how would you reconcile your definition with a wife leaving the house for necessary reasons?


----------



## Theognome

I think it's important to keep in mind that this issue is not one of explicit command in Scripture; and thus is not one that can be addressed in a 'blanket' fashion. Both liberty and conviction are paramount in this. My household does feel very strongly on this issue and for biblical reasons we can readily defend, but it would be very wrong for either Toni or I to pass judgment on those households that do not hold to our convictions. Likewise, the opposite is true. 

Therefore, let all of us plainly state our convictions and, if desired, the biblical reason why or why not workforce wives are appropriate for _your_ household, but at the same time not pass judgment on the households of others who may not feel as you do but none the less love the same Savior and trust in the same resurrection as any and all confessional Christians do.

Theognome


----------



## LadyFlynt

Theognome said:


> I think it's important to keep in mind that this issue is not one of explicit command in Scripture; and thus is not one that can be addressed in a 'blanket' fashion. Both liberty and conviction are paramount in this. My household does feel very strongly on this issue and for biblical reasons we can readily defend, but it would be very wrong for either Toni or I to pass judgment on those households that do not hold to our convictions. Likewise, the opposite is true.
> 
> Therefore, let all of us plainly state our convictions and, if desired, the biblical reason why or why not workforce wives are appropriate for _your_ household, but at the same time not pass judgment on the households of others who may not feel as you do but none the less love the same Savior and trust in the same resurrection as any and all confessional Christians do.
> 
> Theognome



Bill, there are those that hold the same conviction, have done everything possible to keep the wife at home while avoiding dependence on the state, but still find themselves at a point where the wife has to work. Her work and her hours can be decided by her husband as to when she is available. Hours and such can be worked around the family. Unfortunately, home business is not always possible or viable.

There is the ideal that we strive for, but it is not a cut and dry "this is forbidden".


----------



## Theognome

LadyFlynt said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important to keep in mind that this issue is not one of explicit command in Scripture; and thus is not one that can be addressed in a 'blanket' fashion. Both liberty and conviction are paramount in this. My household does feel very strongly on this issue and for biblical reasons we can readily defend, but it would be very wrong for either Toni or I to pass judgment on those households that do not hold to our convictions. Likewise, the opposite is true.
> 
> Therefore, let all of us plainly state our convictions and, if desired, the biblical reason why or why not workforce wives are appropriate for _your_ household, but at the same time not pass judgment on the households of others who may not feel as you do but none the less love the same Savior and trust in the same resurrection as any and all confessional Christians do.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, there are those that hold the same conviction, have done everything possible to keep the wife at home while avoiding dependence on the state, but still find themselves at a point where the wife has to work. Her work and her hours can be decided by her husband as to when she is available. Hours and such can be worked around the family. Unfortunately, home business is not always possible or viable.
Click to expand...


In my household, it came down to a question of faith. We were both committed to the principles of covenant theology and coverture marriage, yet my employment problems after 9-11 became dire- for three years I made less than $30,000 combined- that's less than ten grand a year. My annual mortgage alone was more than this, much less any other bills, food, etc. So I do understand dire straights.

I was told by my elders that if I didn't have Toni go get a job, I would be disciplined. I in turn, in writing, gave my biblical reasons (several pages of exegesis) why I did not feel that even under these extreme circumstances I should do so. Toni also wrote to them, exegeting the situation from her perspective. The session did not agree with us, but also could not give a single biblical reason for their position- pragmatism reigned supreme.

Toni and I both believed that, as bad as we thought the situation was, if we remained faithful to the convictions that the Lord placed in us and worked hard within the confines He presented, He would eventually bless this work and heal or finances. And he has done so. We did lose that house, but we now live with a very good income and are closing in on being debt-free- something unthinkable five years ago. 

We both trusted in His promises as we understood them despite the pressures from elsewhere. This is not an easy thing to do. This is not something everyone can or will do. Not everyone has the same strength of conviction on this issue or the same circumstance. But circumstances do not dictate faith, but rather they reveal it.

Theognome


----------



## satz

Theognome said:


> We both trusted in His promises as we understood them despite the pressures from elsewhere. This is not an easy thing to do. This is not something everyone can or will do. Not everyone has the same strength of conviction on this issue or the same circumstance. But circumstances do not dictate faith, but rather they reveal it.
> Theognome



Bill

Thanks for sharing that... while I respect your faith and willingness to stick to your convictions, your taking such an uncompromising stand seems to conflict with your earlier statement that it would be wrong for you to pass judgment on those who do not hold your convictions. If something is truly so important from the bible surely it would be a matter of obedience/sin, and not one left to the convictions of each family?


----------



## raekwon

kvanlaan said:


> If you have a method of bible interpretation that says a woman cannot work outside because she needs to be "at home", than a woman may not go to church, go shopping or go visit relatives and so on and so on. There is no biblical reason to limit the application of "keepers at home" to just employment, which is what seems to be typically done when the verse is used to rule out outside employment for women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about about a noble biblical concept and it is being brought low by _reductio ad absurdum _.
Click to expand...


I wasn't bringing the concept low -- only a particular argumentation used to arrive at that conclusion. We'd probably come to at least somewhat similar conclusions on this issue, to be honest, but the "she might be under the authority of another man at some point" route doesn't seem to hold together under either logical or biblical scrutiny.


----------



## kvanlaan

Bill, that's exactly the sort of thing that I was going for - what a blessing.

I've seen more than one woman get involved with a male boss, and I just can't imagine why it was worth the money to have her in that position. I'm not trying to be hyper-sensitive here, I just think that we've come SO far from what _was_ the norm to what we have today.

Another article that can perhaps articulate better than I what I am trying to get at:



> Exegetical Defense of the Woman as Keeper At Home
> 
> by William Einwechter, February 9, 2004
> 
> In Titus 2:3-5 the apostle Paul charges the older women in the church to teach the younger women “to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” The instruction for women to be “keepers at home” generally has been understood by the church as teaching that the sphere of a married woman’s work is her home. This understanding is reflected by the Puritan commentator Matthew Poole, who interpreted the phrase to mean: “housewives, not spending their time gadding abroad, but in looking to the affairs of their own families.” ([1]) The Christian woman as a housewife, looking diligently to the affairs of her family, was the standard in Puritan New England:
> 
> In seventeenth century New England no respectable person questioned that a woman’s place was in the home. By the laws of Massachusetts as by those of England a married woman could hold no property of her own. When she became a wife, she gave up everything to her husband and devoted herself exclusively to managing his household. Henceforth her duty was to “keep at home, educating her children, keeping and improving what is got by the industry of the man.”([2])
> 
> However, this view went beyond the Puritans and was the perspective of all branches of the church and a central aspect of Western Christian culture. For example, Lenski, the eminent Lutheran commentator, stated that the phrase “keepers at home” indicates domestic responsibility and that the home is the place of a married woman’s work; she is a “housekeeper” who dispenses “all good things in this domain.” ([3])
> 
> Nonetheless, in accord with the spirit of our age that looks in disdain upon the notion that the sphere of a married woman’s work is her home, many in the church have rejected the earlier consensus understanding of “keepers at home.” Instead, to be “keepers at home” is interpreted to mean that a wife and mother is “to be busy at home” (NIV), i.e., she “should not be idle or derelict in fulfilling home duties.” ([4]) In other words, “keepers at home” does not define the married woman’s calling or the sphere of her work, but is simply an admonition not to neglect her domestic duties. Therefore, a wife and mother may pursue a career outside of the home — as a lawyer, teacher, sales clerk, etc. — as long as she fulfills her responsibilities in the home.
> 
> The difference between the traditional interpretation of “keepers at home” and the modern version is considerable. While the traditional interpretation established the home as the sphere of a married woman’s work and calling, the modern understanding says that the term does nothing of the kind. While the traditional interpretation defined a married woman’s “career” as homemaking, the modern view teaches that a married woman may pursue a career outside of the home as long as she does not neglect homemaking. While the traditional interpretation calls the woman to focus her energy, time, and talents in the home in the service of her family, the modern view says that she is not so “restricted” and may go outside the home for her employment. Which is the correct understanding? It is our belief that the traditional interpretation is the correct one. We base this opinion on the meaning of the Greek word translated “keepers at home,” and on the wider Biblical teaching on the roles of the wife and mother.
> The Meaning of “Keepers at Home”
> 
> The Greek word translated “keepers at home” is oikourous. This word is derived from two Greek words. The first, oikos, means a house, a dwelling, or, by metonymy, a household or family. The second, ouros, refers to a keeper, watcher or guardian, i.e., one who has the oversight and responsibility for something. Thus, the basic significance of oikourous is that of a “housekeeper,” that is, one who watches over a household and family, seeing to it that all members are cared for, and all things maintained in good order. Oikourous is used only in the New Testament in Titus 2:5; therefore, in seeking to accurately discern its meaning we must look to the Greek literature of the New Testament era. There, the word oikourous meant watching or keeping the house. It was employed in reference to a watchdog and to a rooster, but more germane to the context of Titus 2:5, oikourous also meant keeping at home, and was employed as a substantive, “housekeeper,” to indicate the mistress of the house. Furthermore, it was specifically used in praise of a good wife. Interestingly, oikourous is utilized contemptuously of a man who refused to go out to war, designating him a “stay-at-home” man. ([5]) The verbal form, oikoureo, meant to watch or keep the house. It was used of women to indicate those who were at home to watch over the affairs of a household, and of men to designate those who stayed at home to avoid military service. ([6]) Other closely related words such as 1) oikourema, meant keeping the house and staying at home, and was used to refer to women as the “stay-at-homes”; 2) oikouria, referred to women as those employed in the work of housekeeping; 3) oikourios, meant the wages or rewards for the work of keeping the house, but also designated, significantly, keeping children within the doors of the house, i.e., keeping them at home. ([7])
> 
> On the basis of this word study, it is concluded that oikourous was primarily used in the positive sense to indicate both the nature and sphere of a married woman’s work. The nature of her work is to manage the affairs of her household, and the sphere of her work is the home. It is important to note that oikourous and its cognates all included the idea of staying at home. Therefore, we believe that the “keepers at home” are those who stay at home for the purpose of managing their households. Paul’s admonition is definite: Let the older women teach the younger women to remain within the sphere of their own households so that they might properly attend to their duties of caring for their family and managing its everyday affairs.
> The Biblical Roles of a Wife and Mother
> 
> The fact that “keepers at home” refers to the married woman’s responsibility to stay at home to care for her family is confirmed when the Biblical teaching on the roles of a wife and mother are considered. Her role is so vital to the well-being of her husband and children, her responsibilities in keeping the home so demanding, that it would not be possible to properly fulfill them unless she devotes herself entirely to them. She cannot do what God has called her to do unless she abides at home.
> 
> God assigns three specific roles to the wife and mother. First, she is to be the helper of her husband. “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him” (Gen. 2:18). Here is revealed the primary purpose of the woman in relation to her husband. The Hebrew word “help” (ezer) comes from two roots: the first meaning to rescue or save, and the second meaning to be strong. It indicates one who is able (has what it takes) to come to the aid of someone who is in need. Thus, God created the woman so that she would be able to come to the aid of the man and be his support and help. The word “meet” means corresponding to, suitable, or comparable to. The woman will be man’s counterpart equal to him mentally, spiritually, and physically. Note carefully that “meet” is a word of essence or nature, while “help” is a word of function. This means that in essence the woman is equal to man, but in function she is subordinate to the man — she is to assist and support him in his calling; or, her calling is to help enable him to be successful in his calling. As Calvin states: “Now, since God assigns the woman as a help to the man, he not only prescribes to wives the rule of their vocation, to instruct them in their duty, but he also pronounces that marriage will really prove to men the best support in life. We may therefore conclude, that the order of nature implies that the woman should be the helper of man.” [8]) Other important Scriptures indicate that the woman was made for the man to be his helper, and that his success in due measure is dependent on her love and support (1 Cor. 11:7-9; Tit. 2:4; Pr. 12:4; 18:22; 31:10-12, 23).
> 
> Second, the wife is to bear and nurture the children. The bearing and raising of children is one of the central purposes of marriage (Gen. 1:28). By God’s creative design, the woman is the primary caregiver for a child; she is called and equipped by him to nurture the life and soul of a child. She was created with the marvelous capacity of conceiving and carrying life within her. After birth, she is prepared by God to nurse the child and provide the tender love and affection the child so greatly needs. In conjunction with her duty to help her husband, the wife has the great privilege and high calling to nurture the children of the marriage. The English word “nurture” is a beautiful word to describe a mother’s role. It means to nourish both body and soul. It refers to the tasks of feeding and educating a child.
> 
> The Scripture is definite in regard to the motherly responsibilities of the woman. When Paul discusses the qualifications for those widows who will receive support from the church, he gives a list of “good works” that should be present in the report concerning her. The first good work on the list is “if she has brought up children” (1 Tim. 5:10). The Greek word translated “brought up” (tropheo) is extremely important. It means not only to raise, but also carries with it the idea of personal attendance, that of being with the child to care for and to train. Furthermore, the word “brought up” indicates that the rearing takes place in the home. The noun form of “brought up,” trophia, means “brought up in the house, reared at home.” In other words, the good work of the widow in view is that she stayed at home to raise her children! In Paul’s instructions to younger women, he admonishes them to marry and “bear children” (1 Tim. 5:14). To “bear children” means to bring them into the world, but also to nurture and train them. In another text, where Paul discusses the public ministry of the church, he says that women are not to teach but be in silence. However, he quickly points them to the place of ministry God has called them to — “childbearing” (1 Tim. 2:15). This word is a comprehensive term that comprehends all the duties of a mother — physical care, training, etc. — and could be translated as “motherhood.” Hiebert states:
> 
> “Childbearing” denotes the proper sphere in which woman finds the true fulfillment of her destiny. It speaks of the highest ideal of Christian womanhood. It brings out that which is noblest and best within her being. Paul’s thought naturally includes the training of children in a Christian home. It stands in opposition to the sphere of public teaching closed to her. ([9])
> 
> The motherly nurture of children in their physical and spiritual development is of utmost importance to the kingdom of God. The next generation of God’s servants is largely in her hands. If she is faithful in fulfilling her calling, God will highly honor her, and she shall be counted as one of the true heroes of the Faith.
> 
> Third, the wife is to manage the home. In Paul’s charge to the younger women, he exhorts them to “marry, bear children, guide the house . . .” (1 Tim. 5:14). The verb “guide” (oikodespotein) is an expressive term meaning to rule the household, to manage family affairs. It indicates that the sphere of a woman’s authority is the home (as opposed to the spheres of church and state). Furthermore, “guide” is a present infinitive indicating that managing the home is the wife’s constant occupation, her full-time job. In the Biblical description of the virtuous woman, we are told that “she looketh well to the ways of her household” (Pr. 31:27), meaning that she is a wise and diligent manager, supervising all aspects of family life. Additionally, the Scripture says that through her skill as a manager a wise woman secures the well-being of her household, while a foolish woman neglects her managerial responsibilities and her house comes to ruin (Pr. 14:1).
> 
> Thus the roles assigned to the married woman by God confirms that “keepers at home” refers to those who remain at home so that they might properly attend to their duties of caring for their family and managing its everyday affairs. When her duties are understood in all their scope and significance, it becomes clear that only by being “keepers at home” can a wife and mother fulfill her high calling from God to be a helper to her husband, a mother to her children, and a manager of her household.
> What About the Virtuous Woman?
> 
> A common objection to the interpretation that to be “keepers at home” requires a married woman to confine her work, her “career,” to that of her home, is that the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 did not so confine herself. We are told that she was a “business woman” engaged in pursuits beyond the sphere of her own household, thus justifying the claim that a wife and mother is free to pursue employment and a career outside of the home. But the picture of Proverbs 31 is that of a woman managing her own household, not of a woman leaving the home for employment elsewhere. Actually, the portrayal of the virtuous woman provides strong support for the traditional interpretation of “keepers at home.” She is a wise manager of the resources her husband commits to her care (vv. 14, 16, 24). She is a true helper to her husband enabling him to rise to prominence (v. 11, 12, 23). She cares for the needs of her children and husband, assuring that they are well fed and well clothed (v. 15, 21). She sees that all their property is put to good use (v. 16). ([10]) She even engages in “cottage industry” by using any available time and strength to make fine linen and sashes to be sold to the merchants. ([r:>11])
> Conclusion
> 
> May God be pleased to restore to the church the proper understanding of “keepers at home” so that the Christian family and the Christian church might once again benefit from having the wife and mother in the home filling it with her presence, love, care, and wisdom. We often speak of the home as being the foundational unit of both church and state. We often say, “As goes the family, so goes all else.” So let us give it the priority it deserves, and return the wife to her indispensable role of helping her husband, nurturing her children, and managing her household. We know that a well-ordered home is one of life’s greatest treasures. So let us act accordingly, and return the jewel that truly makes the home a treasure. Let us obey God’s law when he commands the wife and mother to stay at home so that she can properly care for her family and manage her household. Let us give honor to “keepers at home” for to such much honor is due. Our hope for the future of the church and society rests, in large measure, with the virtuous women who are “keepers at home.”
> 
> 1. Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 3 vols. (Edinburgh, [1685] 1990), 3:803.
> 
> 2. Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Family (New York, 1944), 42.
> 
> 3. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (Minneapolis, 1937), 912.
> 
> 4. Richard A. Taylor, “Who Are ‘Keepers at Home’?” Reflections (Spring 1982), 17.
> 
> 5. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. (Oxford, 1940), 1205.
> 
> 6. ibid.
> 
> 7. ibid.
> 
> 8. John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis, trans. John King (Grand Rapids, reprint ed. 1989), 129.
> 
> 9. D. Edmond Hiebert, First Timothy (Chicago, 1957), 62.
> 
> 10. The true sense of Proverbs 16:31 is not that she purchases real estate, but that she puts the family’s property to good use. The virtuous woman sees a field belonging to her husband that is either sitting idle or is not being used in the most profitable way. So she, literally, “takes” it (not “buys” it; see Hebrew text, and the center column reference of KJV), and sets it to good use by planting a vineyard there.
> 
> 11. But she herself is not a merchant moving in the marketplace. She is a woman working out of her home under the authority of her husband (not some other man) to provide extra income for the family as she is able.
> 
> Used With Permission - Chalcedon Foundation
> About the Author
> 
> William Einwechter (Th.M.) is an ordained minister and an elder at Immanuel Free Reformed Church in Ephrata, Pennsylvania. He and his wife, Linda, are the homeschooling parents of ten children.
> 
> “The fact that ‘keepers at home’ refers to the married woman’s responsibility to stay at home to care for her family is confirmed when the Biblical teaching on the roles of a wife and mother are considered.”


----------



## TimV

> In seventeenth century New England no respectable person questioned that a woman’s place was in the home. By the laws of Massachusetts as by those of England a married woman could hold no property of her own. When she became a wife, she gave up everything to her husband and devoted herself exclusively to managing his household. Henceforth her duty was to “keep at home, educating her children, keeping and improving what is got by the industry of the man.”([2])
> 
> *However, this view went beyond the Puritans and was the perspective of all branches of the church and a central aspect of Western Christian culture*



That just simply isn't true. I agree that a woman working outside the home is not optimal, but we've had these conversations before, and the Bible just doesn't forbid it. It's easier to make a case for not eating pork than for a wife to never work outside the home.

As to the statement bolded, it is the sort of sweeping generalisation that some of our Baptist brethren are inclined to make, and it weakens their argument. Reference has already been made to the Proverbs 31 woman who buys a piece of land, and it boggles my mind that someone thinks there was anything universal about a woman not having property rights in an area of the world where women were regularly queens, duchesses etc...and had huge family holdings.

Biblical examples of women working outside the home tend to be servants, and there are plenty of verses dealing which encourage the accumulation of wealth so that a family can be free of such work. But not everyone gets there at the same time, or at all. For example to look down on a woman who has to go back to work when her husband is injured is petty and cruel.

I also think that answering that "hey, it's cool if she's smart" it flippant, and misses the point that a married woman working outside the home isn't optimum, but something Scripture allows in recognition of the Fall.


----------



## BertMulder

A piece I once wrote on the issue:

_God, right after the fall, judged the man to earn his and his family's bread in the sweat of his face. To the woman God said that in sorrow she shall bring forth children (Gen 3:16-19). It is this present world's folly, especially of the women, that in addition to their own sorrow they want to take upon themselves the curse placed on man. God commanded the man, not the woman, to work to sustain his family.

While this is not censurable sin, and in that sense it is a matter of Christian liberty, yet God's commandments do have a bearing on this issue. The effect of ignoring it can and does lead to discipline issues, because of the effect and results of not being a keeper at home—on marriage and on the family in the generations.

I believe that Scripture plainly teaches that the woman must be a keeper at home, not merely a keeper of the home. It is so often the worldly woman's discontent with the position in which God has placed her that causes her to seek work outside the home. Thus she scorns the authority of her husband (sin against the 5th commandment), and desires what the world has to offer (sin against the 8th commandment), in her coveting that which is not hers (the 10th commandment). This is one of the great curses of today's society. It is gradually taking away any remnants of a Christian family life. And it is very hard for anyone, man or woman, to hold down two jobs and do justice to both_.

You can read the whole piece here:

The Standard Bearer


----------



## AltogetherLovely

**Edit: Posted by AltogetherLovely's husband (smhbbag) accidentally under her name 

Theognome (and others of his conviction), I am genuinely curious how you would respond to my situation.

We both work full-time, with us both freshly out of college while the Lord has not yet given us children. We live like college students in a cheap, small apartment with 10+ year old cars, and plan to live that way the rest of our lives only because a simple life is more enjoyable. 

Because of this, we are able to live entirely off of my (very average) income and still have room to save a good bit. Everything she makes goes straight into the bank, and to pay down student-loan debts (at a furious pace that will, Lord-willing, have us debt free in < 1 year).

That's the background. My wife is an unbelievably perfect helpmeet for me in every possible way. I eat like a king and she's a coupon-queen - breakfast, lunch, and dinner of home-cooked goodness. Our small place is neat and tidy. In short, if someone put a gun to my head and demanded I tell them how Rachel could be a better wife for me - I genuinely could not come up with a single thing. She teaches individual art lessons as a side job once a week or so, and we are heavily involved in a whole lot of places at church.

My question: how exactly would she be a better wife for me if she were not working? There are precisely zero needs of mine she is not meeting. Shoot, there are no wants of mine she's not meeting. 

Once we are free of student debt that, very recently, was more than our combined annual income, we are both wanting for her to quit her day job. She looks forward to this to be a better servant of the church - able to offer free day-time babysitting to church members who need it, and other such works of mercy if the Lord tarries in giving us children. 

But, as far as the home is concerned, it seems like folly to assume that there is something lacking in her keeping of it. I've been pondering it for a long time wondering if she should come home - and I still can't think of a single thing we would gain from it as a married couple. We do know the church could use her extra ability to minister, and so we are striving for that. But, strictly in the home, I'm not missing out on a thing.


----------



## Theognome

satz said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> We both trusted in His promises as we understood them despite the pressures from elsewhere. This is not an easy thing to do. This is not something everyone can or will do. Not everyone has the same strength of conviction on this issue or the same circumstance. But circumstances do not dictate faith, but rather they reveal it.
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill
> 
> Thanks for sharing that... while I respect your faith and willingness to stick to your convictions, your taking such an uncompromising stand seems to conflict with your earlier statement that it would be wrong for you to pass judgment on those who do not hold your convictions. If something is truly so important from the bible surely it would be a matter of obedience/sin, and not one left to the convictions of each family?
Click to expand...


My post was concerning the convictions of my family, and not a judgment on other families. As I mentioned, not everyone has the same circumstances or convictions, nor does everyone hold to their convictions in the same manner. The post, in it's entirety, was regarding my family and nothing more.

Theognome


----------



## Knoxienne

BertMulder said:


> A piece I once wrote on the issue:
> 
> _God, right after the fall, judged the man to earn his and his family's bread in the sweat of his face. To the woman God said that in sorrow she shall bring forth children (Gen 3:16-19). It is this present world's folly, especially of the women, that in addition to their own sorrow they want to take upon themselves the curse placed on man. God commanded the man, not the woman, to work to sustain his family.
> 
> While this is not censurable sin, and in that sense it is a matter of Christian liberty, yet God's commandments do have a bearing on this issue. The effect of ignoring it can and does lead to discipline issues, because of the effect and results of not being a keeper at home—on marriage and on the family in the generations.
> 
> I believe that Scripture plainly teaches that the woman must be a keeper at home, not merely a keeper of the home. It is so often the worldly woman's discontent with the position in which God has placed her that causes her to seek work outside the home. Thus she scorns the authority of her husband (sin against the 5th commandment), and desires what the world has to offer (sin against the 8th commandment), in her coveting that which is not hers (the 10th commandment). This is one of the great curses of today's society. It is gradually taking away any remnants of a Christian family life. And it is very hard for anyone, man or woman, to hold down two jobs and do justice to both_.
> 
> You can read the whole piece here:
> 
> The Standard Bearer



I agree with how you fleshed this out with the 10 commandments, especially the 8th - Thou shalt not steal. I personally believe it is wrong for women to take jobs away from men that those men need in order to support their families.  An unpopular belief, I know, but alas... 

The real reason women were encouraged to enter the workforce in the first place was not to grant women liberation, but to tax the other half of the population, and thus this gave the woman the _additional_ curse that the man has. 

If everyone's working and no one's guarding the property, the state is free to seize it. And voila. Try buying your home outright and not paying property taxes and see who really owns your home. _That's _the key to the whole issue, IMNSHO - who owns women and their _labor _- their husbands and fathers... or anyone and everyone.


----------



## Theognome

AltogetherLovely said:


> **Edit: Posted by AltogetherLovely's husband (smhbbag) accidentally under her name
> 
> Theognome (and others of his conviction), I am genuinely curious how you would respond to my situation.
> 
> We both work full-time, with us both freshly out of college while the Lord has not yet given us children. We live like college students in a cheap, small apartment with 10+ year old cars, and plan to live that way the rest of our lives only because a simple life is more enjoyable.
> 
> Because of this, we are able to live entirely off of my (very average) income and still have room to save a good bit. Everything she makes goes straight into the bank, and to pay down student-loan debts (at a furious pace that will, Lord-willing, have us debt free in < 1 year).
> 
> That's the background. My wife is an unbelievably perfect helpmeet for me in every possible way. I eat like a king and she's a coupon-queen - breakfast, lunch, and dinner of home-cooked goodness. Our small place is neat and tidy. In short, if someone put a gun to my head and demanded I tell them how Rachel could be a better wife for me - I genuinely could not come up with a single thing. She teaches individual art lessons as a side job once a week or so, and we are heavily involved in a whole lot of places at church.
> 
> My question: how exactly would she be a better wife for me if she were not working? There are precisely zero needs of mine she is not meeting. Shoot, there are no wants of mine she's not meeting.
> 
> Once we are free of student debt that, very recently, was more than our combined annual income, we are both wanting for her to quit her day job. She looks forward to this to be a better servant of the church - able to offer free day-time babysitting to church members who need it, and other such works of mercy if the Lord tarries in giving us children.
> 
> But, as far as the home is concerned, it seems like folly to assume that there is something lacking in her keeping of it. I've been pondering it for a long time wondering if she should come home - and I still can't think of a single thing we would gain from it as a married couple. We do know the church could use her extra ability to minister, and so we are striving for that. But, strictly in the home, I'm not missing out on a thing.



Actually, you already answered that question- with a gun to your head you yourself couldn't come up with anything. I don't see how I or anyone else could do better than you.

My (and Toni's) understanding of scripture and convictions concerning biblical principles of marriage are what drives our decisions, and it should be likewise for you. We shouldn't interpret Scripture to fit our situations, but rather strive to make our situations align with Scripture. If, in your own study, you have no biblical conviction at this time that your wife should not work outside the home, then be at liberty. If you agree with the biblical principle but are making excuses instead of change, then there would be a problem. 

Theognome

Theognome


----------



## he beholds

historyb said:


> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on a wife having a job (either part or full time) BEFORE the children are born?
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts, sometimes with this economy it has to be done. Gone are the days of a one house wage unless you have a great wage, my wife worked until she was laid off.
Click to expand...


Although I am on the side that thinks a woman may work, I just want to say that even without a great wage, a single-income family can work. My husband has a decent wage--it might be good even, if we lived where housing was more affordable. Our desire is for me to be home with the kids and to hopefully school them at home, so our "plan" is for me to be home basically until the kids are all in college/married. In deciding this, we have accepted that we may never own a house and that we may never have a savings and we may never pay off my school loans (thankfully he doesn't have any, thanks to the generosity of his parents...another thing we are accepting as unlikely for us to have for our own children). I am not saying that my anecdotal evidence is evidence at all, but merely that we sometimes do forget that savings aren't supreme, nor is a mortgage. 



BertMulder said:


> A piece I once wrote on the issue:
> 
> _God, right after the fall, judged the man to earn his and his family's bread in the sweat of his face. To the woman God said that in sorrow she shall bring forth children (Gen 3:16-19). It is this present world's folly, especially of the women, that in addition to their own sorrow they want to take upon themselves the curse placed on man. God commanded the man, not the woman, to work to sustain his family.
> 
> While this is not censurable sin, and in that sense it is a matter of Christian liberty, yet God's commandments do have a bearing on this issue. The effect of ignoring it can and does lead to discipline issues, because of the effect and results of not being a keeper at home—on marriage and on the family in the generations.
> 
> I believe that Scripture plainly teaches that the woman must be a keeper at home, not merely a keeper of the home. It is so often the worldly woman's discontent with the position in which God has placed her that causes her to seek work outside the home. Thus she scorns the authority of her husband (sin against the 5th commandment), and desires what the world has to offer (sin against the 8th commandment), in her coveting that which is not hers (the 10th commandment). This is one of the great curses of today's society. It is gradually taking away any remnants of a Christian family life. And it is very hard for anyone, man or woman, to hold down two jobs and do justice to both_.
> 
> You can read the whole piece here:
> 
> The Standard Bearer



Thank you, that was well-thought out! We used to get the Standard Bearer.



Knoxienne said:


> I agree with how you fleshed this out with the 10 commandments, especially the 8th - Thou shalt not steal. I personally believe it is wrong for women to take jobs away from men that those men need in order to support their families.  An unpopular belief, I know, but alas...
> 
> The real reason women were encouraged to enter the workforce in the first place was not to grant women liberation, but to tax the other half of the population, and thus this gave the woman the _additional_ curse of toiling the ground.
> 
> If everyone's working and no one's guarding the property, the state is free to seize it. And voila. Try buying your home outright and not paying property taxes and see who really owns your home. _That's _the key to the whole issue, IMNSHO - who owns women and their _labor _- their husbands and fathers... or anyone and everyone.



Toni, I agree with the why women have begun to work and will add that it was an employment of communism to get everyone working and put the children with the least effective workers, either grandparents who were tired or daycare with 30 kids to one young woman. 

I do not think, however, that a woman working means that she is stealing. 
If there is dishonesty in hiring her, that is on the boss or the gov't, but not on the individual (unless she did somehow cheat).


----------



## Knoxienne

he beholds said:


> I do not think, however, that a woman working means that she is stealing.
> If there is dishonesty in hiring her, that is on the boss or the gov't, but not on the individual (unless she did somehow cheat).



True, Jessi, it's not stealing in the same sense as going into a department store and shoplifting or stealing money out of someone's purse. Just like the murder of hatred in your heart isn't legally the same as taking someone's life. However, I've spoken to men who've stood in unemployment lines and have seen women's employment be a first priority, because of feminism, etc. As Christian women, we should be especially sensitive to our brothers, and not increase their burden and make it more difficult for them to work than it already is. That's all I'm saying. We are to lighten others' burdens. 

It's not so much the women who are stealing as it's the state that is stealing. And just as Jereboam (sp?) seduced the Israelites, telling them it's too much trouble to go down to Jerusalem to worship, our government and our society is seducing women into believing it's too much trouble to work from home. It's a seduction that women and men are buying into. 

In no way do I think the women here who work outside the home are in sin or are thieves. No way.


----------



## asc

kvanlaan said:


> Bill, that's exactly the sort of thing that I was going for - what a blessing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exegetical Defense of the Woman as Keeper At Home
> 
> by William Einwechter, February 9, 2004
> 
> In Titus 2:3-5 the apostle Paul charges the older women in the church to teach the younger women “to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” ...
Click to expand...


In my humble opinion, by going beyond Scripture in believing married women should
not be allowed work outside the home and are limited to being "keepers 
at home" (and then by broader implication: cannot own property, cannot
vote, etc), you're actually inviting blasphemy of unbelievers; which ironically
is what Paul was trying to avoid in the Titus 2 passage.

Not that some Biblical conduct isn't going to offend non-Christians,
but why make it unnecessarily offensive with your man-made rules?


----------



## Montanablue

I don't mean to stir the pot more...but I think that one thing we may have lost sight of is that some women _love_ their jobs. I, personally, love love love the field I am in. I know that I glorify God in the work I do and in the love I have for my work. Many other women feel the same. I plan on working after I marry not so much for practical reasons, but because God has gifted me with a talent and a love for what I do. Of course, as its been noted, a career (both the husband and the wife's) shouldn't have an ill effect on the home and family. If that happens, the situation needs to be carefully and prayerfully re-evaluated. But barring a situation like that, I don't think that its Biblical to insist that a woman must leave behind her talents and her education if she wants to get married.


----------



## LawrenceU

To say that a wife being a keeper at home denies her the right to own property or conduct business is absurd by definition. How does one define the phrase that Paul uses? By Scripture alone. In Scripture we see Godly women owning property and conducting business - from their homes. This is what is going in on Proverbs 31. We cannot understand this issue properly if we ignore the examples from Scripture. In Scripture we see the home as a place of productivity. This concept is almost completely foreign to Westerners today. Now, the home is a place of consumption. Much of this happened when women went into the workplace. I've sat in the office with multitudes of couples in financial counseling. Most of the time the family would have been better off if they downsized to a more moderate house and the women left the job / career she was pursuing. I'm not talking about living in squalour, but modestly. Rarely did the woman's income outweigh the added expenses required by her job: second wardrobe, child care, transportation, more expensive meals, etc. Many times it was not even necessary for them to change housing.

Regrettably, all too often families 'require' large combined incomes because they desire stuff. They want a lifestyle that matches what American 'success' seems to entail. We have fallen prey to Madison Avenue. We like our toys. We like our sweet rides. We enjoy a lifestyle that was not even available to royalty all that long ago. (If you are a modest middle income family you already do anyway, but that is not enough. . . )

I fear that we are losing the rich reward of a productive home, a well discipled offspring, a family and church that has time and resources to serve the truly needy in the name of Christ, and so much more all in the pursuit of stuff. 

Add to that the fact that most husbands and wives are chronically exhausted because of their work and home schedules and it is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Knoxienne

Montanablue said:


> I don't mean to stir the pot more...but I think that one thing we may have lost sight of is that some women _love_ their jobs. I, personally, love love love the field I am in. I know that I glorify God in the work I do and in the love I have for my work. Many other women feel the same. I plan on working after I marry not so much for practical reasons, but because God has gifted me with a talent and a love for what I do. Of course, as its been noted, a career (both the husband and the wife's) shouldn't have an ill effect on the home and family. If that happens, the situation needs to be carefully and prayerfully re-evaluated. But barring a situation like that, I don't think that its Biblical to insist that a woman must leave behind her talents and her education if she wants to get married.



Never should a woman leave behind her talents and education. The question is _how _she should use it and for whom and in what capacity.


----------



## Montanablue

Knoxienne said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to stir the pot more...but I think that one thing we may have lost sight of is that some women _love_ their jobs. I, personally, love love love the field I am in. I know that I glorify God in the work I do and in the love I have for my work. Many other women feel the same. I plan on working after I marry not so much for practical reasons, but because God has gifted me with a talent and a love for what I do. Of course, as its been noted, a career (both the husband and the wife's) shouldn't have an ill effect on the home and family. If that happens, the situation needs to be carefully and prayerfully re-evaluated. But barring a situation like that, I don't think that its Biblical to insist that a woman must leave behind her talents and her education if she wants to get married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never should a woman leave behind her talents and education. The question is _how _she should use it and for whom and in what capacity.
Click to expand...


This is a very good point and I am all for women working out of home businesses or using their talents in other ways at home. However, there are some talents/education that almost have to be used outside of the home. I am an archivist and there really isn't a way for me to turn that into a home business. I will always have to be working for the state, a university, or a library. My mother was a physical therapist and starting her own physical therapy business _would_ have been taxing on our home. Her working 15-20 hrs/week doing home health was a way for her to continue to stay in the field while still "keeping the home." (I should add that my father encouraged her to work outside the house if that was her desire. He knew how dedicated she was to her field when he married her) 

Let me be clear that I'm not trying to criticize anyone else's decisions or convictions on this matter. I just wanted to point out that there are also non-practical reasons for women to work - its not always about having to provide money for the family, sometimes women love their field.


----------



## bug

kvanlaan said:


> I don't think anyone is recommending starvation as opposed to one's wife working outside the home (so maybe not at ALL costs). But let's remember that God has ordained that a woman's head be her husband; taking a job outside the home will put her under the authority of another man at some point...



I think we have to be a little careful here, for does that mean she shouldn't be in a church, under the authority of an eldership either? Nowhere do I read in my bible that the only person a woman can have in authority over her is her husband. Woman, just like men, are sugject to different authorities, church, government, as well as husbands. It is only when that authority stands in direct opposition to God that such an authority is wrong. Now this is not reductio ad absurdum, as some would suggest, it is the logical conclusion that must be reached when someone takes an arguemnet out of context. A wife is to be subject to her husband, yes, but she she is subject to her husband alone. 

I know many pastors whose churches cannot afford to pay them enough to support their families, there wives are forced to work part time, many with children (at school). Should we reduce the number of reformed pastors still more so that their wives can stay at home whilst they go out and earn enough money to keep their familes. For many this is a sacrifice the wife chooses to make so that her husband can continue to serve in the church, personnaly I believe that is a sacrifice that should be commended. Most local churches in this country are in middleclass areas, to be able to afford to live near to your church you will need to earn more then twice the average salary to be able to secure a mortgage. It is a necessity for most christain couples for the wife to work. I am sad to say she usually has little choice in the matter. 

Have you noticed, that in the story of Ruth, it is naomi who nurses the the child, was that so Ruth could continue her work I wonder? Perhaps, just perhaps, it is worth thinking about just hoew influenced by the modern nuclear family our view of family has become. Too often these issues are viewed through a lense of victorian lifestyles, rather then a strictly biblical teaching on the matter I feel. Did woman work in the bible? Was that work always based in their husband's (or fathers business) - where woman ever condemend for such enterpise?

Yes, a woman who becomes so career focussed that she neglects her responsibilities of being a wife is sinning, but then a husband is sinning if his career is such that he neglects his responsibility to be a husband as well is he not? I see nowhere in my bible that says woman must stay at home, and cannot have a job at all. I feel sure if it was displeasing to God, that he would have made it clear in his word. Perhaps the ideal is that the man works, and the wife stays home to raise the children, but how often is life ideal, just like every other aspect of our lives there is balance that needs to be struck in these matters, to my mind as long at that balance is right, and the woman is being a wife, and an active church member, as well as a homemaker, she can work.


----------



## Knoxienne

Montanablue said:


> Let me be clear that I'm not trying to criticize anyone else's decisions or convictions on this matter. I just wanted to point out that there are also non-practical reasons for women to work - its not always about having to provide money for the family, sometimes women love their field.



True - being a keeper at home doesn't mean being in the house all the time. I love helping out with homeschooling, tutoring a variety of subjects, piano lessons, etc and often these things have to take place in lots of other places!

BTW, , but glad to have another hot topic-type dialogue with you and Jessi. I think we're almost ready for a Crossfire or similiar type news show - but not so fast - not until I'm completely rehabilitated!


----------



## kvanlaan

> I don't mean to stir the pot more...but I think that one thing we may have lost sight of is that some women love their jobs. I, personally, love love love the field I am in. I know that I glorify God in the work I do and in the love I have for my work. Many other women feel the same. I plan on working after I marry not so much for practical reasons, but because God has gifted me with a talent and a love for what I do. Of course, as its been noted, a career (both the husband and the wife's) shouldn't have an ill effect on the home and family. If that happens, the situation needs to be carefully and prayerfully re-evaluated. But barring a situation like that, I don't think that its Biblical to insist that a woman must leave behind her talents and her education if she wants to get married.



Talents should not be thrown out the window, I wholeheartedly agree. That being said, I have a friend who is an MIT grad (holds a doctorate in engineering) and she homeschools her children because there is no more valuable expression or avenue for her skills than in the home. Their legacy is their children. That being said, she does help her husband with the family business, but it is under his headship and still with children in tow.

The other issue is that few in the situation you describe see the ill effects on the children because it is just business as usual. When you're in the rat race, these things happen. We've gone through this exact issue. I tried to do my Master's degree while working a very demanding job and saw no ill effects. It was only when I switched jobs that I saw the incredible damage I had done.

As an addition to all this, I simply cannot conceive how a woman can leave her children in day care to work. That's me. I just don't see an upshot to it. My mom worked in the family business and we stayed with grandparents during the day when we were young. I look back on that time with them fondly. I think I would look back on things with resentment if I were in day care, and that seems to be the new norm. I don't see that as a cure-all to the issue, but it made the best of a less-than-ideal situation in my case. 

I'm not trying to get off-topic with the whole day-care thing, I'm just saying that there are _so many _detrimental aspects to this sort of action.


----------



## Kevin

I know many smart, competent, well educated women (my wife is one) that stay at home and care for their families.

I respect & admire them. They have made a God honouring choice, in my opinion.

However, they are not REQUIRED by scripture to follow this path. I can see many circumstances that could result in an other, just as God honouring choice.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I'm not up to reading the last few replies, but here are my comments on what I see at a glance.

Bill: at this moment, I'm not going to comment, because anything I say would eventually turn not so nice.

on the other side

To whomever equated women staying at home with not being allowed to own property, etc: that is just plain ignorance.


*removing herself from the conversation*


----------



## Knoxienne

LadyFlynt said:


> To whomever equated women staying at home with not being allowed to own property, etc: that is just plain ignorance.



I agree. The Bible is clear that women can own property.


----------



## Montanablue

> Talents should not be thrown out the window, I wholeheartedly agree. That being said, I have a friend who is an MIT grad (holds a doctorate in engineering) and she homeschools her children because there is no more valuable expression or avenue for her skills than in the home. Their legacy is their children. That being said, she does help her husband with the family business, but it is under his headship and still with children in tow.



I completely agree with you here (on the topic of children and homeschooling). My mother largely left work (she did fill in work for people who were out sick) to homeschool us. Her knowledge of science and math was invaluable to my education. I think it was absolutely the right thing for her to do to do this for us and I'm extremely grateful for her and my father's decision in this matter. A woman's talents _can_ often be used in the home for the betterment of her family and I think this is a wonderful and godly use of her talent. 




> As an addition to all this, I simply cannot conceive how a woman can leave her children in day care to work. That's me. I just don't see an upshot to it. My mom worked in the family business and we stayed with grandparents during the day when we were young. I look back on that time with them fondly. I think I would look back on things with resentment if I were in day care, and that seems to be the new norm. I don't see that as a cure-all to the issue, but it made the best of a less-than-ideal situation in my case.



And I completely agree with you here too. Daycare is not something that I would put my children in unless there was absolutely no other choice. (For example, if I was a single mother and had to work to support my family) My mother left us for about 10 hours a week with a woman from our church and the rest of the time she worked my father took care of us. (He was a teacher and thus could be home in the afternoons.) I remember both of these times fondly too - I am still close with the woman that used to take care of us and it also gave us an opportunity to spend time with our Dad. 

When you add children into the equation, the situation become entirely different. I was speaking more of a situation in which there were no children to consider. 



> BTW, , but glad to have another hot topic-type dialogue with you and Jessi. I think we're almost ready for a Crossfire or similiar type news show - but not so fast - not until I'm completely rehabilitated!



PB Crossfire - I like it! Except, I'm not sure any of us are actually nasty/caustic enough to be truly entertaining!  At least I hope not!


----------



## Knoxienne

Montanablue said:


> PB Crossfire - I like it! Except, I'm not sure any of us are actually nasty/caustic enough to be truly entertaining!  At least I hope not!



I hope not too!


----------



## satz

LawrenceU said:


> How does one define the phrase that Paul uses? By Scripture alone.



I would say respectfully (and in all sincerity I have the greatest respect for the men with whom I have disagreed on this thread) that it is when we look at scripture alone to define "keeper at home" that it becomes impossible to support some of the "conservative" interpretations that are put forward.

The bible no where condemns a woman for leaving her home to work. No, an argument from silence is not by any means conclusive, but since we say we are going from scripture alone, we should note that the closest thing we have to a scriptural explanation for "keepers at home" is in 1 Tim 5:13-14 where Paul tells us that the "opposite" to being a good domestic wife is to be an idler and a busybody. When we let the bible interpret the bible, that is the sin that is being condemned when the bible tells women to keep at home. 

Those who say women may work outside are sometimes accused of having been influenced by the evil age in which we live, but with respect, I think there is an equal element of contextualisation being performed by the "conservative" camp, because they are reading the dilemma of our day ("career women" vs homemakers) into Paul's words when there is no indication in the bible Paul even wanted to address that point.

There are more points that could be made... it is sometimes said that our society has departed greatly from what it used to be in the old days. But OT Israel, where God wrote and dictated all the laws was a society where many women were employed or owned by other men as maidservants. God even assumed this was going to be the state of affairs because he regulated it in the fourth and tenth commandments. 

I agree that there are many times when a wife working outside may be unwise, and it is completely within a husband's rights to decide against it in his own home. But to say it is something that is always unwise or undesirable is without biblical warrant.


----------



## he beholds

Knoxienne said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> PB Crossfire - I like it! Except, I'm not sure any of us are actually nasty/caustic enough to be truly entertaining!  At least I hope not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope not too!
Click to expand...


Well, if we all agreed to be, and no hard feelings, I would be able to be truly entertaining for the masses. 
I would only take it personally for the half hour we were on the show. Afterward, I'd be able to go out for a beer with you both! 
But I have a very quick temper, and forgiving often comes easy (or forgetting), but if the person I'm arguing with doesn't and is sensitive, I would be able to restrain myself♥


----------



## LawrenceU

he beholds said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> PB Crossfire - I like it! Except, I'm not sure any of us are actually nasty/caustic enough to be truly entertaining!  At least I hope not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope not too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if we all agreed to be, and no hard feelings, I would be able to be truly entertaining for the masses.
> I would only take it personally for the half hour we were on the show. Afterward, I'd be able to go out for a beer with you both!
> But I have a very quick temper, and forgiving often comes easy (or forgetting), but if the person I'm arguing with doesn't and is sensitive, I would be able to restrain myself♥
Click to expand...


{Butting In}

I enjoy watching y'all banter.

{Bowing Out}


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> *She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.*
> (Pro 31:16)
> 
> She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
> (Pro 31:17)
> 
> She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.
> (Pro 31:18)
> 
> She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
> (Pro 31:19)
> 
> She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
> (Pro 31:20)
> 
> She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
> (Pro 31:21)
> 
> She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
> (Pro 31:22)
> 
> Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
> (Pro 31:23)
> 
> *She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant*.
> (Pro 31:24)
> 
> 
> Sounds like a working woman to me.



Just an observation.... This sounds like one tireless woman who works inside and outside the confines of her home.


----------



## Knoxienne

he beholds said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> PB Crossfire - I like it! Except, I'm not sure any of us are actually nasty/caustic enough to be truly entertaining!  At least I hope not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope not too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if we all agreed to be, and no hard feelings, I would be able to be truly entertaining for the masses.
> I would only take it personally for the half hour we were on the show. Afterward, I'd be able to go out for a beer with you both!
> But I have a very quick temper, and forgiving often comes easy (or forgetting), but if the person I'm arguing with doesn't and is sensitive, I would be able to restrain myself♥
Click to expand...


Okay, I'll make sure to curb my temper then. Sometimes it just comes out.   It wouldn't be good for us to go off at the same time.  You haven't lost your temper with me yet, so I guess I've been pretty sensitive!


----------



## Scott1

Ex Nihilo said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just sayin'. That a married woman would be under the authority of a man in the realm of employment doesn't mean that she's no longer under the authority of her husband. This is like saying that a man shouldn't ever be under the authority of another man, because God has ordained that the head of man is Christ. Kind of silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or that the church can't submit to Caesar, because Christ is her head.
> 
> Yet Christ, as our head, has commanded us to submit to Caesar.
> 
> _But_ there are many cases when it would be imprudent for a man to ask his wife to work outside the home. When he does, however, he's still her head: he's exercising his headship by allowing her to be directed by someone else. As long as the husband retains the ultimate authority to decide whether she continues in the job or not, his headship hasn't been supplanted.
Click to expand...


These kinds of biblical life issues are difficult enough.

This exchange above hits one important aspect of this, and does so, I think in light of biblical commands and principles.

All of us are under various levels of authority, all the time. The man is given responsibility (and with that goes the needed authority) before God, ordinarily, to lead and set the tone for his family. He is not "free" (in the moral sense before God) to disregard that responsibility as much as a woman is not "free" (again, in the moral sense) to have a career, or place herself under or over employment authority without his permission.

Both of these require a lot of humility. It ought not surprise us that, as sinners, we chaffe at these God given responsibilities. We don't want to do what God wants us to do- we want we want. And society is reflecting the complete mess of that rebellion.

But what a glorious thing it is when both man and woman submit to God! God blesses in ways that really count and often, it seems even gives us our wants and desires. Women who have a real talent, interest or skill can use that- and even make money at it. There's real freedom in this obedience, including circumstances which allow women to work in and outside the home and even prosper in so doing.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I apologise for stomping off. I was getting hurt and angry, not things I like to be, so I had to go and chill for a bit. I care a lot about the people here. I also care a lot about my family. My family comes first in every way.

Grace, peace, and my last say on it


----------



## Knoxienne

LadyFlynt said:


> I apologise for stomping off. I was getting hurt and angry, not things I like to be, so I had to go and chill for a bit. I care a lot about the people here. I also care a lot about my family. My family comes first in every way.
> 
> Grace, peace, and my last say on it



I _know _you love your family.  

Sigh. It's threads like this that make me glad we've got the tea parlor and can just discuss girl stuff, have a fun chat and pray for one another.


----------



## Montanablue

Knoxienne said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologise for stomping off. I was getting hurt and angry, not things I like to be, so I had to go and chill for a bit. I care a lot about the people here. I also care a lot about my family. My family comes first in every way.
> 
> Grace, peace, and my last say on it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I _know _you love your family.
> 
> Sigh. It's threads like this that make me glad we've got the tea parlor and can just discuss girl stuff, have a fun chat and pray for one another.
Click to expand...


----------



## kvanlaan

One thing my wife always comments on this sort of thing: "I want my children and my husband to get my best, I don't want my best to be done at work, and then my family gets what's left." 

That's the 9,845,346,231st reason I love her.


----------



## Knoxienne

kvanlaan said:


> One thing my wife always comments on this sort of thing: "I want my children and my husband to get my best, I don't want my best to be done at work, and then my family gets what's left."
> 
> That's the 9,845,346,231st reason I love her.



Amen, what a blessing! May your tribe increase unto 1000 generations.


----------



## LadyFlynt

kvanlaan said:


> One thing my wife always comments on this sort of thing: "I want my children and my husband to get my best, I don't want my best to be done at work, and then my family gets what's left."
> 
> That's the 9,845,346,231st reason I love her.



I could agree with that IF we are talking about someone that is outsourcing their children's care and mom is working full time.


----------



## he beholds

kvanlaan said:


> One thing my wife always comments on this sort of thing: "I want my children and my husband to get my best, I don't want my best to be done at work, and then my family gets what's left."
> 
> That's the 9,845,346,231st reason I love her.



I think it is sweet of your wife to feel this way and sweet of you to recognize it. I even agree with her, as she is probably right having ten kids!!!

I know I'd be unable to do both well, and I've only got two with another on the way. Especially that I am a teacher which would mean all day long was spent with other people's kids. But for me, I honestly consider this a preference, and count it as a blessing that we are able to survive with me at home. But the question is, I think, is it WRONG for a woman to work outside of the home. In my opinion, I don't think my preferences, or my limited ability to give my best in two spheres, can make a law. 

I know you aren't saying that, but we have to remember to love our neighbors who are feeling pressed to work and those happy to work. If it is possibly a liberty issue, then give me liberty or give me death...oh wait, wrong forum...where'd politics and gov't go again?


----------



## Knoxienne

he beholds said:


> oh wait, wrong forum...where'd politics and gov't go again?



Don't get me started!


----------



## kvanlaan

> But the question is, I think, is it WRONG for a woman to work outside of the home.



No, no. The OP was "what are your thoughts on a woman working BEFORE she has children". Then things got a little sidetracked...


----------



## he beholds

kvanlaan said:


> But the question is, I think, is it WRONG for a woman to work outside of the home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no. The OP was "what are your thoughts on a woman working BEFORE she has children". Then things got a little sidetracked...
Click to expand...


I didn't quote the OP because you obviously weren't responding to that : )
I think the sidetrack became about women working in various seasons of their lives, and I think the question was still, may she do it?


----------



## OPC'n

kvanlaan said:


> I don't think anyone is recommending starvation as opposed to one's wife working outside the home (so maybe not at ALL costs). But let's remember that God has ordained that a woman's head be her husband; taking a job outside the home will put her under the authority of another man at some point...



This is not a true statement. If the husband has decided that his wife is to work outside the home, then none of us who are not apart of that family can say he cannot do so, otherwise, you are now taking that husband's place of head over his wife. I will never consider my director (a woman, btw) head over me. She can tell me what to do concerning the work place but that never interferes with my home life. If a husband states that he wants his wife to work outside the home but puts limits on it (don't work Sundays) then the wife can be hired with that stipulation. So he is exercising his authority over his wife above the wife's manager. Just because a manager tells an employee to sweep the floor or clean this or that, manage the desk, etc, doesn't mean that manager has done away with the husband's authority any more than the government telling that same said wife to drive no faster than 65 miles an hour.


----------



## kvanlaan

Take it as you will. I put it as a can of worms because it seemed intriguing to me - I've seen the same thing in other threads, but haven't looked to see how it was responded to.

I guess I just can't relate to those who advocate this as a norm. I have previously stated that I am not telling anyone to starve and keep their wife at home. If others wish to take it that way, so be it, I can't help that. I can't understand why we seek loopholes when God has given this marvelous gift to women to be keepers of the home. I just don't get it.



> She can tell me what to do concerning the work place but that never interferes with my home life.



This is not a true statement. She sure can. "Work overtime tonight or you're fired." It just so happens to be your son's birthday. Fired (lack of income) or work (absence at birthday). Either way, it has interfered with your home life, don't kid yourself. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## calgal

kvanlaan said:


> Take it as you will. I put it as a can of worms because it seemed intriguing to me - I've seen the same thing in other threads, but haven't looked to see how it was responded to.
> 
> I guess I just can't relate to those who advocate this as a norm. I have previously stated that I am not telling anyone to starve and keep their wife at home. If others wish to take it that way, so be it, I can't help that. I can't understand why we seek loopholes when God has given this marvelous gift to women to be keepers of the home. I just don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She can tell me what to do concerning the work place but that never interferes with my home life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a true statement. She sure can. "Work overtime tonight or you're fired." It just so happens to be your son's birthday. Fired (lack of income) or work (absence at birthday). Either way, it has interfered with your home life, don't kid yourself. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...

How many times does this happen? And how many times do you guys stay really really late at work or work a second job? How many of you guys put your work life ahead of your home life? And how does that work with being head of the household when you are barely home?


----------



## Kevin

What she said.


----------



## kvanlaan

> How many of you guys put your work life ahead of your home life?



It can happen - I've done it before and will do my utmost to never make that mistake again. And if I do, I will drop to my knees and repent of the vile sin I have just committed in neglecting the pinnacle of God's blessings in my earthly life.

-----Added 5/27/2009 at 11:34:47 EST-----



> How many times does this happen?



That _particular_ type of incident? I can't actually quote a statistic on that for you, sorry. But whether it is a birthday or a soccer game or a school event or whatever, it _will_ happen. If you had paid me for this post, I could put a money-back guarantee on it.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> I can't understand why we seek loopholes when God has given this marvelous gift to women to be keepers of the home. I just don't get it.



I don't think the issue is seeking loopholes. God has said that a woman is to put her family first. He has not said she may not under take other pursuits (although, as has been said many times before, sometimes practically speaking this will not be possible). 

A woman needs to be properly caring for her family but if that is being done, the fact is God has chosen not to dictate anything further, and so neither be we. The woman of proverbs 31 under took financial activities to bring money into the household (v16,24). Whether or not those activities are similar to a modern "job" that was time and effort not spent on domestic affairs. So there is no biblical basis to say that just because a woman has outside committments, the family _must_ be being neglected in some form.

We may not understand why another christian choses to exercise his liberty in a particular manner, but the very nature of liberty is that everyone is different.



> She can tell me what to do concerning the work place but that never interferes with my home life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a true statement. She sure can. "Work overtime tonight or you're fired." It just so happens to be your son's birthday. Fired (lack of income) or work (absence at birthday). Either way, it has interfered with your home life, don't kid yourself. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...

[/quote]

I don't think the fact work may on occasion interfere with home life means that the family is being neglected. Again, these are all matters of wisdom for a family to decide based on the circumstances, not something that can be made into a general rule for christians. The husband has to decide whether the family can afford for the wife to be away for whatever period of time a particular job may require. It is the same principle as in numbers 30, where a husband may chose to annul his wife's vows, or hold his peace and allow them to stand, thus binding the family to a commitment.


----------



## kalawine

he beholds said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is recommending starvation as opposed to one's wife working outside the home (so maybe not at ALL costs). But let's remember that God has ordained that a woman's head be her husband; taking a job outside the home will put her under the authority of another man at some point...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things . . .
> 
> 1) Why assume that she'd be under authority of a man? Would it then be okay if her boss was another woman?
> 
> 2) If you're going to use this as a reason to prohibit it, you'd also have to prohibit women and girls from (among other things) . . .
> - school (unless all of their teachers are women)
> - church
> 
> Just sayin'. That a married woman would be under the authority of a man in the realm of employment doesn't mean that she's no longer under the authority of her husband. This is like saying that a man ever be under the authority of another man, because God has ordained that the head of man is Christ. Kind of silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!! I've never heard the logic of this played out and sort of blindly accepted this school of thought. Thanks for bringing it to its real logical conclusion! Very good points!
Click to expand...


 VERY well put!


----------



## Theognome

For me, how I understand the biblical spheres of influence of governmental bodies has much to do with my position. I hold to a three-kingdom view; that being Church, family and civil governments. Although almost every person is under the authority of each one of these forms at all times; thus how this authority in the workforce plays out- and in which sphere of law, becomes paramount. Someone (I don't remember who) mentioned a woman being pulled over by a cop and how this would 'interfere' with headship. If we understand the issue of wives working outside of the Familial government as a particular aspect of law, then this situation is obviously not in question- as these are two distinct and separate governing bodies with their distinct responsibilities, and thus a false dilemma is given. 

If a consistent covenantal understanding of the issue is to be given, it must be given under the auspice of sphere law. This, of course, begs the question- Is a corporate entity (or sole proprietorship, for that matter) a form of government that fits within these three spheres, or is it a form of government beyond the three stated? My opinion is that a company is a form of familial government and not a fourth governmental structure.

Note that although a few folks have tossed Proverbs 31 about as a Frisbee, nowhere does this proverb suggest that the wife is working for someone other than her husband- only that at times her support of the household takes her outside of the home and into the marketplace. A wife can most certainly do these same things without ever having to be under the employ of another family government.

Nor can, in my opinion, a wife serve two families- any more than we can faithfully attend two churches or serve two nations- we cannot serve two masters. The company structure, as I see it, follows (in authority and support) very well into the Familial government structure through the husband in the same way that individual families fit into a clan which fit into a tribe- the structure of familial authority is through singular familial heads as is the support of same. The only breaching of this (that I am aware of) is when the civil government seizes servants from families and forces them to labors of the civil sphere's choosing. Note that this action is through curse caused of disobedience, and not a blessing.

I am very aware that there are some theologians that claim four or even five governmental spheres in order to justify some of these issues- however, I personally have not found their evidences or exegesis convincing.

Theognome


----------



## calgal

The question remains unanswered: is a man's supervisor his "head" and how is it worse if the wife works part time or full time rather than have the husband working 2 or more jobs?


----------



## OPC'n

kvanlaan said:


> Take it as you will. I put it as a can of worms because it seemed intriguing to me - I've seen the same thing in other threads, but haven't looked to see how it was responded to.
> 
> I guess I just can't relate to those who advocate this as a norm. I have previously stated that I am not telling anyone to starve and keep their wife at home. If others wish to take it that way, so be it, I can't help that. I can't understand why we seek loopholes when God has given this marvelous gift to women to be keepers of the home. I just don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She can tell me what to do concerning the work place but that never interferes with my home life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a true statement. She sure can. "Work overtime tonight or you're fired." It just so happens to be your son's birthday. Fired (lack of income) or work (absence at birthday). Either way, it has interfered with your home life, don't kid yourself. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...


Nope, this has never happened at my work place. We do not have required overtime. And you can take a vacation day for your special days you want off....that's not a problem either. Also, it isn't biblical for a woman to *just* stay at home. What *is* biblical is for a woman to be a readied helpmate for her husband and to do as he decides is appropriate for his household. So no one is looking for loopholes. What I'm trying to get across is that neither you nor I can tell other husbands what their wives can and cannot do and the husbands are not disobeying God by sending their wives out to work. Proverbs 31 is proof that woman are allowed to work both in the home and outside the home as long as it is helping their husband and their husband has decided this for *his* household.


----------



## JBaldwin

To make a blanket statement that a woman is under a man's authority because she works outside the home is an overgeneralization. 

The fact is there are plenty of jobs outside the home which do not require a woman to be under the headship of a man. My sister owns and runs a shop in town, and she is the boss. She started this business when her children were grown and out of the home. Her husband is very supportive of what she is doing. 

I don't have a problem with a woman working outside the home before children. When I met my husband, we were already in our 30s, and though both of us were in debt felt like we should go ahead and get married rather than dely marriage any longer. I worked for 3 years before God gave us children. It was always the understanding that as soon as children came along I would quit working which I did. We lived in a tiny house, and it took less than two hours to do all the housework (except the cooking) for the entire week. During those three years, my husband and I drove to work together (we worked at the same place), we ate lunch together and road home together. If my boss (a woman by the way) asked me to stay late, or my husband's boss asked him to work late, we waited on the other went out to eat together and made a date of it. The fact is, this was the best thing for our married life. It solidified our relationship. If I had stayed home during those years, I probably would have gone nuts. As it turned out the $10,000 we saved while I worked that last year covered the surprise cost of our first child's birth which turned out to be an emergency. 

As we look back, I think my working for those years without children was a blessing.


----------



## LadyFlynt

kvanlaan said:


> Take it as you will. I put it as a can of worms because it seemed intriguing to me - I've seen the same thing in other threads, but haven't looked to see how it was responded to.
> 
> I guess I just can't relate to those who advocate this as a norm. I have previously stated that I am not telling anyone to starve and keep their wife at home. If others wish to take it that way, so be it, I can't help that. I can't understand why we seek loopholes when God has given this marvelous gift to women to be keepers of the home. I just don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She can tell me what to do concerning the work place but that never interferes with my home life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a true statement. She sure can. "Work overtime tonight or you're fired." It just so happens to be your son's birthday. Fired (lack of income) or work (absence at birthday). Either way, it has interfered with your home life, don't kid yourself. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...


1) No one is advocating it as a norm...certain circumstances have been mentioned throughout various posts.

2) No, they can't MAKE us do xyz. Some of us are willing to accept the consequences of a boss overstepping the originally agreed work hours when they interfere with our family life. I've said, "No" to a boss many times.


----------



## David'sBeloved

Theognome said:


> In my household, it came down to a question of faith. We were both committed to the principles of covenant theology and coverture marriage, yet my employment problems after 9-11 became dire- for three years I made less than $30,000 combined- that's less than ten grand a year. My annual mortgage alone was more than this, much less any other bills, food, etc. So I do understand dire straights.
> 
> I was told by my elders that if I didn't have Toni go get a job, I would be disciplined. I in turn, in writing, gave my biblical reasons (several pages of exegesis) why I did not feel that even under these extreme circumstances I should do so. Toni also wrote to them, exegeting the situation from her perspective. The session did not agree with us, but also could not give a single biblical reason for their position- pragmatism reigned supreme.
> 
> Toni and I both believed that, as bad as we thought the situation was, if we remained faithful to the convictions that the Lord placed in us and worked hard within the confines He presented, He would eventually bless this work and heal or finances. And he has done so. We did lose that house, but we now live with a very good income and are closing in on being debt-free- something unthinkable five years ago.
> 
> We both trusted in His promises as we understood them despite the pressures from elsewhere. This is not an easy thing to do. This is not something everyone can or will do. Not everyone has the same strength of conviction on this issue or the same circumstance. But circumstances do not dictate faith, but rather they reveal it.
> 
> Theognome



What an awesome testimony!


----------



## Sven

There is a remarkable lack of appeal to Scripture in this discussion. Thank you to those few who actually took time to reference Scripture. Theognome's statement should throw up some cautionary red flags: "I think it's important to keep in mind that this issue is not one of explicit command in Scripture; and thus is not one that can be addressed in a 'blanket' fashion. Both liberty and conviction are paramount in this." 

Remember, folks, Scripture is out guide; if the issue isn't so cut and dry in Scripture, neither should our convictions be.


----------



## HokieAirman

From personal experience:

My wife worked outside the home for two years while I finished my bachelors degree. We found it difficult to make the transition from work to home and keeping proper roles in the home. I would not do it again if I had the chance to do it over. If a stay-at-home wife is bored for 10-12 hours while hubby is at work, why can't she bless her community or church after she is finished preparing blessing for her household? I can't offer scriptural proof for my position, just what we experienced.

That said, if you do decide to allow your wife to work outside the home, I would strongly recommend that you put one of your paychecks directly into a savings account, lest you get used to a higher income than you can afford when children arrive and she returns home to nurture her family.


----------



## nasa30

The original question was is it ok for the wife to work before children. If we look to the principals set by the bible, we will see that children play no part in this decision.

Eve was created to be a helpmeet to Adam. They had no kids yet. Also we see that God had given Adam a job, tending the garden, and Eve was created to help him with that. The principal is that the role of the wife (who is equal in value but under headship) is to further the vision of the husband. If we understand this principal, we will not get sidetracked on pragmatic issues. 

The issue of the wife working outside the home is that she will be promoting someone else's vision. Not her husbands. This also clears up the headship "what if her boss is a woman" decisions. Now some will determine that "promoting the husbands vision" will be making some money and working outside the home. That is a case by case basis for each family to decide but you must be willing to make the compromise in principle.

All the issues of obeying traffic laws and such are a non-issue. That is obeying the civil government that God has put over us. Obeying the speed limit or being pulled over by a male policeman is not promoting their vision. If she takes a job at the police department, then it is the same thing.

The Proverbs 31 woman shows that a keeper at home is no slouch. She is a woman of MANY talents and her works are known.
"31Give her the product of her hands, And let her works praise her in the gates." Verse 31 says that her works are praised in the gates. But we see in verse 23 that her husband is at the gate so she is still promoting her husbands vision.
"23Her husband is known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land"

This also brings up the point of husbands that work all kinds of hours. I also believe this is wrong. We as husbands are commanded to lead at home. Bringing home the bacon is not the same as leading. We are to shepherd, disciple and train our family (wife or wife and children) daily. If we are not doing that, then we are not qualified to hold any church office or duties per 2nd Timothy and we need to repent for our failure to lead properly at home.

Also, if the needs of the day require us to work 10-12 hours a day for some time, it is still our job to lay out the vision for the family and lead. We must also determing what is the cause of this. If it is to afford our lifestyle, then we need to sell everything that is not nailed down and make it our life mission to get ourselves in a position to be a home more. Better to be in a smaller house then to lose the hearts of our children and fail to lead at home.

One other point that was mentioned is what about our unmarried daughters working. While my daughters are not my wife and so not my helpmeet, they are helpmeets in training so the same principal goes. They learn how to promote their future husbands vision by first promoting their fathers vision. This is proper since they are under the headship and protection of their father until they are married. Once they are married, they will no longer be under my authority, but the sole authority of their husband. That is why it is critical and my job to interview and approve who my girls marry. It is my job to protect their interests and to provide for them.


----------

