gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (10/21/90)
Before anyone decides to flame me (and I've got my asbestos underwear on anyway ;-)), let me say that I'm not proposing anyone view. I happened to hear part of a discussion on the Christian radio station coming to work this morning concerning this very topic. I thought that it might be interesting to see what sort of discussion develops on the net about this. Is there Biblical reason to believe that a woman should not work outside the home? If you believe so, please provide Biblical support by way of references so that others of us can check them out. And the same for those who don't believe so. And what about those sisters out there who are married, with or without children? How do you deal with this topic? My wife chose to stay home until the children were grown and in high school. Then she went to work. She is now talking about staying home again--for a couple of reasons, one that I am not at liberty to discuss yet at her request. Her reasons seem sound to me, and so we are working toward that end goal. But I would like to know how it is for other Christians. Thanks for responding--I prefer to keep this on the net, but I will respond to email as well. Because He lives, Gene Gross
arm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) (10/22/90)
In article <Oct.21.01.57.33.1990.25218@athos.rutgers.edu> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >Is there Biblical reason to believe that a woman should not work outside >the home? If you believe so, please provide Biblical support by way of >references so that others of us can check them out. And the same for >those who don't believe so. There are a couple of ways to interpret your question. First, in the ideal world, what role do women play? Second, is it a sin for a woman to work outside the home? Let me address the first interpretation. It seems clear to me that woman was created to be a companion for man. There is an implied complementarity and mutual respect. I see nothing in Genesis, though, to suggest that man and woman had fixed roles, i.e. that the woman's place was "in the home." As far as the second interpretation, I hope that the women's movement has been successful enough that most people see the folly in suggesting that women working outside the home are sinning against God. This leads me to wonder what the motivation is behind the question. Historically, keeping women in the home has been used to dominate and disempower women economically and otherwise. But I don't think that that is what your question is about. I think that your real question is this: What in the Bible can guide a woman in her decision to stay at home or work? To me this question is ultimately asking what is God calling me to do? This is a much more personal question, with each person receiving a different answer. One can look to the Bible to see the answers He has given to different women, but one can also look to the examples of women today and see how God works through them. I think that it is folly to suggest that God wants all women to stay at home. Women have made tremendous contributions outside the home. Mother Teresa is but one example. To chain women back at home would not only destroy the dignity of women, but also would rob society of the contribution of half of the population. This is not to say that women should not stay at home. All I am saying is that this is ultimately the woman's decision, and no one else's. Alex Macalalad
beatle@sentry.larc.nasa.gov (Teresa Nicholls) (10/23/90)
Well, I guess that to me "a woman is a help meet to her husband" means that I have to help him in any way I can. It so happens to be my belief that if I am lucky enough to be married some day, I want my husband to have a stable wife. I think I can help him best by earning my own way, and learning how to make a home and a life now. I would still want to work, but that is just personal opinion. I want to develop my mind and body to be strong for him. I think I can do it best by working outside of the home. Remember though, the choice is yours and your wife's to be made together. Teresa
lionti@ecs.umass.edu (10/23/90)
arm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) writes: > In article <Oct.21.01.57.33.1990.25218@athos.rutgers.edu> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >>Is there Biblical reason to believe that a woman should not work outside >>the home? [Most of Alex's excellent post cut for brevity] > I think that it is folly to suggest that God wants all women to stay at home. > Women have made tremendous contributions outside the home. Mother Teresa is > but one example. I certainly agree with this, but I have a problem with the next statement, the tone of which is often used by "women's rights" groups to distort the picture (as I see it, of course) > To chain women back at home would not only destroy the dignity > of women, but also would rob society of the contribution of half of the > population. "chain"??? women at home "destroy the dignity" of women "rob society of the contribution of half of the population" These kinds of terms are inflammitory and I belive denigrate the "contribution" of half of the population. Does caring for children and making a good home destroy someones dignity? Is caring for children a useless "contribution to society"? I believe that these are THE MOST IMPORTANT contributions that a person can make to society. Society has twisted things such that it better rewards materialism and hedonism, but to correct the problem, you don't make things better by having women be just as materialistic and power hungry as men. Granted, I'm being idealistic, but I think we can allow women to be "full members of society" without putting down the main occupation women have held throughout time. Instead we should lift it up to the level of recognition it deserves. NOT mean as a flame on Alex, as I thought the rest of his post was very good. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric C. McClure | "Equal Rights for Unborn Women" | lionti@umaecs.bitnet | | Standard Disclaimer | -seen on bumper sticker | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) (10/23/90)
>Is there Biblical reason to believe that a woman should not work outside >the home? If you believe so, please provide Biblical support by way of >references so that others of us can check them out. And the same for >those who don't believe so. This one should provide some interaction for quite some time. The most quoted Biblical support will most probably come from Titus 2:5. "...to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored." NASB. Much to the regret of the feminists, the Bible has distinct roles and authority lines for men and women. The difficulty lies with the subjective aspect of the woman's role which is usually contrasted against the responsibility of the man's role. The intention is that it is to work together as one, not apart individually. For the ladies who take offense, remember, there is more power in influence than there is in authority. --Gary Hipp
brownp@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Peter Brown) (10/25/90)
In article <Oct.21.01.57.33.1990.25218@athos.rutgers.edu> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: > >Is there Biblical reason to believe that a woman should not work outside >the home? If you believe so, please provide Biblical support by way of >references so that others of us can check them out. And the same for >those who don't believe so. I have never entirely understood the idea that it is un-Biblical for a woman to work outside the home. (Perhaps I haven't pushed my fundamentalist friends hard enough :-).) The separation of work into "inside the home" and "outside the home" is largely a product of the Industrial Revolution. In the agrarian societies I've seen (I'm an ex-Peace Corps volunteer, so this isn't just theoretical), the location of work is determined by what needs to be done; artisans, for example, may work in their homes, and domestic chores often take people quite far from home (e.g., to get water). We certainly see these same things in the Bible. I have a much easier time understanding the folks who say that there is "men's work" and "women's work", and men should do men's work and women should do women's work. To some extent I can agree with this (to cite a ridiculous extreme, breast-feeding is obviously women's work, because men just don't have the equipment) but I'm not sure how scriptural it is to draw the line in the economic terms that seem to be the usual ones proposed. The perfect wife of Proverbs 31 is clearly playing an economic role apart from her husband; she buys land and plants it (31:16) and has profitable merchandise (31:18). Her husband's economic contribution to the family is not mentioned, so we can't draw any conclusions (from this passage, at least) on who was the primary provider. We do certainly see women playing independent economic roles in the New Testament also (e.g., Lydia, the seller of purple goods in Acts 16:14), although there is not the level of specific approval that we see in Proverbs. It seems to me that the division of economic labor was not of tremendous concern to Biblical writers, which leads me to wonder how much importance we should be attaching to it as a matter of faith. Within a family, it's obviously important in practical terms, and we are clearly called not to advance our careers at the cost of neglecting our families (I see that as following directly from the call to husbands in Ephesians 5, for example; since I am a husband, that's the passage that hits closest to the bone for me). I do not see any hard-and-fast rules laid down anywhere in the Bible for the relative economic roles of husband and wife, however. Other folks may see more than I, of course. Peace, --Peter brownp@cs.unc.edu ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "What the Truth has spoken, that for truth I hold." - St. Thomas Aquinas UNC couldn't possibly hold these opinions; it's a secular university.
tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) (10/25/90)
[This continues the discussion of whether a wife should work outside the home, in particular some comments from Alexander Macalalad: >> To chain women back at home would not only destroy the dignity >> of women, but also would rob society of the contribution of half of the >> population. and Eric McClure's response: >"chain"??? women at home >"destroy the dignity" of women >"rob society of the contribution of half of the population" --clh] That is exactly what it becomes if that is the only option given to women. If a woman (or a man!) freely and without coercion chooses to stay home, that should be no problem. Unfortunately, we still have two more things to learn: 1) That the CHOICE of staying home is to be respected (for either sex) 2) That the indignity of being forced to stay home is not saying that staying home is in of itself "bad." 2a) the delegation of this task (raising children, etc) to the portion of the population generally considered to be unfit for anything else illustrates the lamentable attitude toward these tasks; if they were considered vitally important, they would have been reserved for the important & powerholding members of society... Being forced to do anything, just because you're a man or a woman, robs you of your dignity and chains you against your will. And it robs society of your contribution if your talents lie elsewhere. Now, whether or not the Bible sanctions this or not, I'll leave that to the rest of you. --Cindy -- There is no king who has not had a | ARPA: tittle@ics.uci.edu slave among his ancestors, and no slave | BITNET: tittle@uci.bitnet who has not had a king among his. __ | UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucivax!tittle -- Hellen Keller \/ | USNAIL: POB 4188, Irvine CA 92716
farkas%qual@sun.com (Frank Farkas) (10/25/90)
[Another response to the discussion of a woman's place, responding particularly to Eric McClure >Does caring for children and making a good home >destroy someones dignity? Is caring for children a useless "contribution to >society"? >I believe that these are THE MOST IMPORTANT contributions that a person can >make to society. Society has twisted things such that it better rewards >materialism and hedonism, but to correct the problem, you don't make things >better by having women be just as materialistic and power hungry as men. --clh] I agree to a great extent with the things you have said. I have a scenerio how satan planned and suceeded to a great extent to destroy the relationship between men and the women. In the garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve were married, God said the following: Genesis 2:24 ============ "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flash." So here it goes! At first, satan impressed upon men how important he was and how much more value he had compared to the women. His work and contribution was much more valuable then his wife. He went farther, and told men that what his wife done, like taking care of children, cleaning, cooking, was a degrading thing to do. This appealed to men's ego and pride and he believed it. As a result, he started treating his wife as a second class citizen, someboby who was bellow his importance, instead of part of him. Satan didn't stop here. He proceded to tell the women the same thing, and he told her that she needs to become just like the men, if she is to be important, and if she is to do something worth while. The women believed him, and started to demand, not only that she be treated as an equal, which she should have been, but also that she be no longer do the degrading work associated with bringing up children and taking care of her household. She believed satan, and she is striving to become and to do the things which men does. Thus succeded satan to destroy the relationship between men and women, contrary to the plan and design of God. Paul said the following: I Corint 11:11 ============== "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." The fact is that there is no exaltation for man without the woman, and for the woman without the man. The commandment that "they shall be one flash" has not been done away with. It is still a standing commandment today. So what does this mean? Should my wife work outside the home or not? I can't answer this question without taking into consideration my wifes needs. Some time she may have a need to do things outside the home. I need to recognize her needs, and no arbitrary, phony righteousness can replace sensetivity and genuine love towards her. I love my wife, and we together preside over our family. Every one's need has to be taken into consideration. There are times when great sacrifices are needed. We need to make sure that we do recharge each other betteries, the man his wifes and the wife her husband's. >Granted, I'm being idealistic, but I think we can allow women to be "full >members of society" without putting down the main occupation women have >held throughout time. Instead we should lift it up to the level of >recognition it deserves. > >NOT mean as a flame on Alex, as I thought the rest of his post was very >good. Thanks. >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Eric C. McClure | "Equal Rights for Unborn Women" | >lionti@umaecs.bitnet | | >Standard Disclaimer | -seen on bumper sticker | >------------------------------------------------------------------------- With brotherly love, Frank
gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu (SILVERT,STANLEY DAVID JR) (10/25/90)
[Gary Hipp quotes Titus 2:5, which says that women should be workers at home, subject to their husbands. From this he concludes that the Bible has distinct roles for mena women. >The difficulty lies with the >subjective aspect of the woman's role which is usually contrasted >against the responsibility of the man's role. The intention is that >it is to work together as one, not apart individually. --clh] I am extrememly dismayed at how Gary fails to take into account the culture at the time that Paul's letter to Titus was written. I believe that the point Paul is trying to make in this letter is that everyone should accept who he/she is and try to glorify God in the course of their lives. This passage also instructs men to be "temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance." Titus 2:2 (NIV) It is interesting to note that the chapter goes on to talk about how slaves should "subject themselves to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive." (Titus 2:9-10) Because the Bible tells slaves to be submissive, does this mean that slavery is just? Of course not!! We must examine the message that Paul is trying to convey and not get lost in the cultural practices of the time. In my opinion, women must decide how they can best serve God and others. We should remember as Paul says in Galations 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Christ does not care about what role you try to conform to, but that "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:26) -- Stan Silvert Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt1104c ARPA: gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu
jygabler@ucdavis.edu (Jason Gabler) (10/25/90)
In article <Oct.23.04.25.02.1990.11929@athos.rutgers.edu> garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) writes: >This one should provide some interaction for quite some time. The >most quoted Biblical support will most probably come from Titus 2:5. >"...to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to >their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored." >NASB. > >Much to the regret of the feminists, the Bible has distinct roles and >authority lines for men and women. The difficulty lies with the >subjective aspect of the woman's role which is usually contrasted >against the responsibility of the man's role. The intention is that >it is to work together as one, not apart individually. An old argument from me: social context. Today's society is turning from wife/home husband/job ideal. It is not socially 'wrong' for a woman to be alone and work, or be with a man and both work, or be with a man and have him stay while and while she works! The context of you quote, IMHO, is that it was socially unacceptable for women to work in Pual's day. Just as today certain 4 letter words are 'bad'. Some day that may change. Today you would not say certain 4 letter words because it is a bad witness ( as well against various biblical commands ). But when the connotation of a word changes, it is fine to say it bein that it is no longer socially offensive in meaning. Likewise with women working. It is socially acceptable for women to work now, and for women to teach men ( unlike in Paul's day, esp. when many women were Christian/GNostics warping the gospel ). Remember, love is our goal, not 'pharisee-ism'. >For the ladies who take offense, remember, there is more power in >influence than there is in authority. >--Gary Hipp I wasn't gonna respond to the.. but why not ;) For the women who take offense, remember who has all the influence in our patriarchal society. Well, men make the religion, the politics, the media, the government. Reworded, there is more power in authority, for those in authority have the influence! jase Jason Gabler UCD Computing Services, Data Communications Group *cable grunt* ccjason@aggie.ucdavis.edu jygabler@ucdavis.bitnet gods-tale-request@ucdavis.edu
correll@brahms.udel.edu (Sharon J Correll) (10/25/90)
My biggest question about working mothers is this: Who is going to raise the kids? Now I'm pretty open-minded about "radical" arrangements like house husbands or maybe something where both parents work part-time and share the house-keeping and childcare. I really don't see anything unscriptural about that. But the Bible says that parents are to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, teach the scripture, etc. To me, putting kids in day-care 8-10 hours a day 5 days a week is essentially hiring someone to raise your kids. There's just no way that you can have the input into your child's character in those formative years that you need to have when you aren't the primary care-taker. And I could no more hire someone to raise my kids for me than I could hire someone to go to church for me. It's MY job, MY duty before God. NOBODY else can do it, no matter how fine and loving a person they are. Now I'm talking about parents of young children working full-time. Mothers working part-time doesn't seem so bad to me if they have good child care that is consistent with the family's principles, etc. For instance, I think child-care by family members (grandmothers, aunts, etc.) is ideal because that's what the extended family is all about. But not even that full-time. Also as kids get older I would see it as less of a problem, although I've heard people say that young teenagers need supervision and access to Mom and Dad as much as the little ones. Also a part-time business at home is sort of a nice idea. -- ---\ Sharon Correll \--------------- ----\ University of Delaware \-------------- -----\ Academic Computing and Instructional Technology \------------- ------\ correll@sun.acs.udel.edu \------------
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (10/28/90)
The following was emailed to me with a request that I post it. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gene writes: > Before anyone decides to flame me (and I've got my asbestos underwear on > anyway ;-)), cute :) > Is there Biblical reason to believe that a woman should not work outside > the home? Women are praised for their skill and wisdom in keeping a home in the Bible. The final chapter of Proverbs is very interesting. It praises women for keeping a home in such a way that (I think) is inclusive of having a job other than housework. I plan to get married soon and my soon-to-be-wife has expressed her desire to work. I have no principle that objects. I think it may not be possible at times, but I have no problem doing my best to make it possible for her at all times. I certainly would not mind spending more time with our children (if God so blesses us). I'd like to raise a similar question. Is it somehow un-Biblical for a man to stay at home with the children when they are old enough to not have mom around? Is it un-manly (according to the Bible)? All for Jesus! Andrew Springman Andrew William Springman of Heaven. Temporary residence: Wesleyan University Middletown, CT 06457 Aspringman@Wesleyan.Bitnet or @Eagle.Wesleyan.Edu USA, Earth
tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) (10/28/90)
In <Oct.25.03.18.56.1990.29769@athos.rutgers.edu> correll@brahms.udel.edu (Sharon J Correll) writes: >[...] And I could no more hire someone to raise my kids for me >than I could hire someone to go to church for me. It's MY job, MY duty >before God. NOBODY else can do it, no matter how fine and loving a >person they are. Not even your husband? >[...] >Mothers working part-time doesn't seem so bad to me if they have good >child care that is consistent with the family's principles, etc. I would have thought that it was the job of BOTH of you. How come he gets off? --Cindy -- \ | ARPA: tittle%ics@orion.cf.uci.edu "Travel is fatal to prejudice, /\ | UUCP: {sdcsvax|ucbvax}!ucivax!tittle bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." | BITNET: cltittle@uci.bitnet --Mark Twain | USnail: PO Box 4188, Irvine CA, 92716
David.Anderson@cs.cmu.edu (10/28/90)
Lynn (wife of David), here. > Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 23-Oct-90 Re: Should a > wife work outs.. Gary Hipp@crash.cts.com (969) > This one should provide some interaction for quite some time. The > most quoted Biblical support will most probably come from Titus 2:5. > "...to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to > their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored." > NASB. > Much to the regret of the feminists, the Bible has distinct roles and > authority lines for men and women. The difficulty lies with the > subjective aspect of the woman's role which is usually contrasted > against the responsibility of the man's role. The intention is that > it is to work together as one, not apart individually. I don't think the "workers at home" phrase is definitive by any stretch of the imagination. Women working outside the home *are also* "workers at home"--carrying the brunt of responsibility for all household chores, child-rearing, etc. "Working together as one" is an ideal to which we aspire, but consistently fail to attain, IMHO. > For the ladies who take offense, remember, there is more power in > influence than there is in authority. That's a nice-sounding thought, but it seems to have very little grounding in reality. Women's "influence" (as opposed to having direct access to authority or power) has been unable to stop wars, pass much family-supportive legislation, etc. The only time in recent history that women have had "influence" has been when they have utilized *power* through grass-roots organizing and other non-traditional means.
jmoon@lehi3b15.csee.lehigh.edu (Jonggu Moon [890911]) (10/29/90)
Only females give birth to things. Men just supply HALF the idea. The Bible referrs to God the father because it was written in a patriarchal society. If the Iroqois Indians ( who I believe are matriarchal ) had been God's chosen people instead of the Jews, then God would be called "our Mother". And if Jesus Christ had appeared to the Chinese, then instead of saying "I am the bread of life", He would have said "I am the rice ball of life" or was it "I am the noodle of life" ^>*<^ jon ////\ -o-o- ( o ) / \ i hunger
jow@pacbell.com (Jeff Westman) (10/29/90)
All this talk about the wife staying at home got me thinking a bit. Perhaps what I have to say has already been stated, so I'll make it brief. Paul, talking to Timothy, said, "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8, NAS). Although some have sited verses from Proverbs 31 and also Lydia in the New Testament as providing economic support, I do not see anything wrong with this. My point is this: no where in the Bible do I see the woman __COMMANDED__ to work outside the home, just the man (above quoted, plus MANY others). While I think it is okay for a woman to work outside the home, her __PRIMARY__ responsibility __IS__ the home (I'll expand on that in a second). I think part of the problem with today's marriages -- including MANY Christians', is that there is a tremendous amount of pressure put on the wife for economic support. I understand it is hard to buy that first house, etc. -- I am in the same boat as you! My wife works occasionally outside the home. I support her on this. She has told me that because there is no pressure on her, she actually enjoys her "time out". Besides, she needs a break from the "cabin fever" (and two kids!). 1 Tim 5:14: "Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear child- ren, keep house*, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach..." The word used for 'keep house' means to keep control of the household, manage it and keep it together. I recall part of my wife's wedding vow: "...to keep our home together and create an atmosphere of love and serenity...". I'm sure I've stepped on a few toes and have probably been misunderstood by more than just a few. Don't get me wrong -- I do not consider myself a liberal, conservative, chauvinist or Fundamentalist (whatever that is!) -- just a Bible-believing- trusting Christian. -- Jeff
JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) (10/29/90)
In article <Oct.21.01.57.33.1990.25218@athos.rutgers.edu> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >Is there Biblical reason to believe that a woman should not work outside >the home? Hm. I don't have a lot of scriptural evidence to offer, but I *have* done a lot of thinking about it (seeing as it's bound to be important to me someday... I hope! =) ). There are many angles that one can look at this from. (from which one can look at this?) Anyway, the first one has been mentioned by others already - there is nothing denigrating about having a great influence on members of the next generation, nor is there anything wrong with serving your husband by cooking/cleaning/managing finances/whatever. We are *all* called to be servants, and this is but one way to do so. This brings me to another point... If it is indeed difficult or unpleasant to stay at home (and from what I've seen, this is only true if you expect it to be and not always even then) then hasn't God given women a blessing by making that our customary occupation? We are given a daily opportunity to serve Him, in a way that men seldom are able. (And, no, I am *not* advocating the "lie still, close your eyes, and think of England" method of marital relations in any way shape or form. We should *always* go about our business, pleasant or unpleasant, in gladness because God is giving us ways to serve Him - not determined resignation!). And as is the case whenever God gives us work to do, we could be gladdened by His confidence in our abilities, because He knows more about us than we do. Another point is daycare. While I think daycare may sometimes be good and useful, few daycare centers include examples of Christian living, or daily walks with Christ as a part of their usual activities. Obviously, these are some of the most important things we can share with our children. Also, it is my personal opinion that daycare could be harmful in a way that hasn't been researched yet, and this has a special significance for Christians. I think that it is quite possible that children raised in daycare will be more different from their parents than children raised at home. This would probably not cause many problems while the child was young, but when the child became, say, a teenager, and was experimenting with new autonomy... well, I'm sure you can see why having a very different value system from the people who were enforcing the rules would be a potential problem. All of this is not to say that Christian women should be *forced* to do anything. If God doesn't force people to do things, then it is very presumptuous of men to do so. And I'm sure that many married women are called to do work outside of the home. But I would really ask women whether they are working outside of the home for the glory of God, or for the glory of themselves. (Really! I'm not saying that all, or even most, women who work outside the home are doing so for selfish reasons! I'm just asking you to pray about it, I'm not judging!) Also, *please* do not judge the women who stay at home! I have gotten more flak from people because I am *contemplating* staying at home once my children are born, than I have ever heard women get for working. (I'm sure that that's just because I'm too young to remember the 60's though. But then so are the people I talk to.) God calls us to work for Him in many ways. In this, as in all things, we need only make sure that we are doing His will, not our own. It seems useless to make a "rule" about this. How can I determine whether God wants another woman to work outside the home? Since it is not explicitly forbidden... --Jenni /-------------------------------------\ ******************************** | JMS111@PSUVM - Bitnet | * Show me thy ways, O LORD; * | JMS111@PSUVM.psu.edu - Internet | * teach me thy paths. * | These opinions are not the property | * * | or responsibility of Penn State or | * Psalm 25:4 * | the Center for Academic Computing. | * * \-------------------------------------/ ********************************
watson@uunet.uu.net (Steve Watson) (11/05/90)
Some of this may have been said already: our news feed has been having trouble and I think a few inbound postings got lost. In <Oct.25.03.18.56.1990.29769@athos.rutgers.edu> correll@brahms.udel.edu (Sharon J Correll) writes: >[...] And I could no more hire someone to raise my kids for me >than I could hire someone to go to church for me. It's MY job, MY duty >before God. NOBODY else can do it, no matter how fine and loving a >person they are. And Cindy Tittle replies <Oct.28.03.17.44.1990.24536@athos.rutgers.edu>: >Not even your husband? >I would have thought that it was the job of BOTH of you. How come he >gets off? Amen, Cindy! Where did the idea come from that only mothers know how to look after children? Since the arrival of Baby #1 (now 5yrs.) we have both worked part-time to minimize the need for day-care: they would go in the morning, and then Mummy or Daddy pick them up and take them home for the afternoon (we take turns). When our Baby #2 (now 3yrs.) arrived, guess who took 5 months off to look after him? (well, she did it the 1st time, so it was my turn, right?). (I should perhaps add that we are both EE's with very understanding employers.) I'm glad to see that the old kids-are-women's-work attitudes are changing, but I get the feeling that some Christians are dragging their heels for (misguided, IMHO) theological reasons. Some rather conservative friends came for a weekend visit a few years ago: I was impressed (in a negative sense) with just how LITTLE the husband actually did with or for their kids. In conversation, he talked about 'babysitting' when his wife went out of an evening for a church activity. I thought babysitting meant getting someone (paid or volunteer) to look after someone ELSE's children. When my wife goes out, I'm not 'babysitting', I'm just looking after MY kids. Anyways, guys: if you aren't involved with YOUR children, AS MUCH AS you can be, right from Day 1 (including the night feedings, dirty diapers, the baths, the floor-walking, etc.), not only are you free-loading on your poor wife, AND ripping off your kids, you are also DENYING YOURSELF one of the most wonderful and growing experiences you will ever have. I would counter Titus 2:5 (which I think refers to a specific problem situation in that church) with Proverbs 31, in which a wife is praised when she operates her own business which includes: a market garden, a vineyard, weaving, and sewing. Certainly she did not stay meekly barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen! (Of course this is not a COMMAND to work, as one or two posters seem to fear). But it happens to lead nicely into my main point, which is that the woman-at-home, man-as-bread-winner model of the family is historically very rare until this century. For MOST of history, in most families EVERYONE, of both sexes, from the toddlers to the grandparents, worked VERY HARD to make the family economy run. They were either tending their kitchen garden, making their own clothes, or doing something which would bring in some cash for things which had to be purchased. And they usually did it fairly close to home: the distinction between home and workplace is largely a product of the Industrial Revolution. Our mostly agrarian forebears knew nothing of it. It was only the urban upper classes who could AFFORD to have non-productive (in the strictly monetary sense) wives. The Epistles (pls. confirm/correct me on this) are mostly addressed to urban congregations. The problem in Titus (and elsewhere in the Epistles) seems to be, not that these women were working outside the home, but that they were IDLE. Paul's message to them is not "Go home and sweep the floor!" so much as "Find something useful to do with yourself!". And there are many ways of being useful (Not, I hasten to add, that sweeping the floor is useless! As it happens, it is among my assigned chores) It was not until this century (and only in the prosperous West) that most families could afford to live on one person's wage. And the economics which made that possible seem to be changing: many families (and not necessarily the high-flyers either) find it very difficult to get by on just the husband's paycheck. And before someone replies "Oh we're doing just fine on my salary!", remember: if you're like most people on the net, your income is *well above* the average (well, unless you're a grad student ;-). Would you be as well off if you were say, a factory worker? Or the cleaner who does your office? I doubt it. So, to sum up, do whatever makes most sense to the kind of home and family you have, or are trying to have. But please, let's not take some cultural stereotype out of the 1950's and try and claim that it represents God's eternal will for the family. -- ====================== disclaimer =============================== "Blame me, not the Company I keep..." - Steve Watson UseNet: mitel!spock!watson@uunet.uu.net
garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) (11/06/90)
In article <Oct.29.00.45.36.1990.11386@athos.rutgers.edu> jow@pacbell.com (Jeff Westman) writes:
Since this subject usually is followed by a discussion on submission
and the role of the husband and wife in the home, there is a program
on the radio which is studying IPet.3 today. Insight for Living with
Chuck Swindoll. You will have to call your local Christian radio
station to find out the broadcast time. The program will continue all
week.
Gary Hipp