A short response to the Dallas Morning News- Bap

Status
Not open for further replies.

PastorFaulk

Puritan Board Freshman
A short response to the Dallas Morning News- Baptist seminary launching homemaking program

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...ories/081107dnmetseminaryhomeec.1e08bb7c.html

I am a proud Southwesterner. Recently in the Dallas Morning News there was an article written about a new homemaking degree which they are creating to equip ministers' wives. It had a feminist slant and to a large degree mocked the institution for lowering women to the pointless job of keeping the home and raising the children.

Before I begin, though, let me say at the beginning that my wife has a Masters in Missiology from Southwestern. The president’s wife has a Doctorate in Theology. I say this to show that SW is not kicking women out of the theology department. When McDonalds began to serve salads as a choice on their menu, it did not mean that the BigMac was being outsourced. It meant that they were widening their wares to meet the demands of the customer. Southwestern is creating an opportunity for women to learn a lost art.

Second prefix, this concentration is fixed on top of one of the most challenging liberal arts degrees in the country. http://college.swbts.edu/academics/degree.cfm?id=18 The article portrays the degree as just sewing, but the concentration on home skills is built upon a strong humanities degree.


The home has been at the center of attack since the rise of feminism in the 60s and 70s. Where children were seen as a blessing, the feminist movement has moved them to being a curse. Do you disagree, what is your first thought when you see a family with more than 3 kids? The pill has destroyed the family. It has made children an option in the family, not a natural result. This is important because what has often stopped women from advancing in workforce is children. They are the curse of the working mom. Not only this, one can see the cultural shift to cursed children by one's attitude toward abortion. When a woman’s choice is seen above a human life, then children have become a curse. When one regulates when, how many and if children exist, they are able to control their body, leaving themselves open to pursue career and personal advancement, leaving the home in ruin.

Not only this, but in building the career path for women, gender roles have been attacked. I have often said that equality is not measured in what one does, but who one is. At the heart of the feminist argument is the idea that there is no distinction between men and women. The idea of complete equality in both person and function opens the door to all sorts of immorality. If women are in no way different from men, then what’s the big deal with homosexuality? Biblically, women are equal to men. Gal 3:28. That said, Biblically women are different in function than men. God has created man to work in the field, and woman to work in the house. Gen 3. Is one greater, no, both are necessary functions in life. One can hardly look at the dilapidation of the family and not connect the loss of gender roles in society. When did divorce skyrocket, when did woman leave the home?

Southewestern has not sought to enslave women or devalue them, but has sought to restore the value and necessity of the Mom in the house. Saying that a Homemaking concentration is worthless is saying that a homemaker is worthless. Which side is truly devaluing women? The feminist woman says that if one does not have a career (outside of the home) they are worthless. Hogwash. What greater value can one have than raising one's children? If a man works his entire life in a factory, what has he truly done? If a woman gives her life to her children, is not her work greater than a lifetime of factory parts?

Psalm 127 is key to understanding the theology of Children.



1 Unless the Lord builds the house,
They labor in vain who build it;
Unless the Lord guards the city,
The watchman keeps awake in vain.
2 It is vain for you to rise up early,
To retire late,
To eat the bread of painful labors;
For He gives to His beloved even in his sleep.
3 Behold, children are a gift of the Lord,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.
5 How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them;
They will not be ashamed
When they speak with their enemies in the gate.

Family belongs to the Lord, and a husband must submit to God, and lovingly lead his family in the fear of the Lord. Dt 5, Eph 5,6. As the husband lovingly leads the family spiritually, the wife in gracious submission must follow the man's leadership and also both serve the husband and the children. Side note- one's theology of the family drives one's theology of the trinity. All members of the trinity are equal, but not all are equal in authority. One would hardly say that Jesus is any less God than the Father. That said, Jesus submits to the Father, and the Holy Spirit submits to Christ. Does a police officer have any more votes on Election Day than a teacher? Does the teacher submit to the authority of the police officer? Authority is not equality.

The question necessary to this discussion is not whether a homemaking degree is valid. Just look at other colleges to see what degrees are offered, and one can see that is far more practical than a dance degree. How many professional moms are there, and how many professional dancers are there? The question necessary is whether homemaking is a valid profession. I guess it depends on your view of children. In a day where Hollywood sees children as fashion accessories no different than toy Chihuahuas, and the average person has children for the experience of it, not the necessity of it, you could see how children are given no value. My children are my arrows. My wife is my helper. I support her fully in her decision to make Ana and Emma her greatest priority. If children are a blessing, then homemaking is a valid degree. If children are a curse, then let’s just lock them up in daycares so that a minimum wage worker can watch over them. I don’t know about you, but I only trust the most qualified helper in the raising of my greatest resource -- my wife.
 
Last edited:

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Wes,

First, let me say to all that everyone should lift up Wes and his wife, Jen, up in prayer. I've had two kids in diapers before but never 1 year apart.

Second, let me wholeheartedly agree that the work of a mother is completely devalued in modern society. It is one of the examples I regularly think of about how men are given over to debased minds. Everything that is good is seen as bad in the fallen Zeitgeist of American society. Could there be any more profound judgment upon a society than mothers who wantonly kill their unborn children and call it "choice"?

I was just noting to a friend the other day that the reason why more and more school districts are being pushed for year-round schooling has more to do with parents who don't want to raise their kids but let the schools do it for them. Three months is simply impractical for a Mom who, after all, wants to be "fulfilled".

American society hates children. Of course, the irony is that they really say that they love them.

That all said, let me make one simple observation regarding a "degree" in home-making.

There used to be a time in society when, if you had problems with your marriage, you went to an old, wise couple that had been married for many years and asked them for advice. Now, society says that the best people to "counsel" people on their marriage is a person with a degree. Doesn't matter that he (she) has never been married or maybe is in a failed marriage themselves. What matters is that they have the degree, can place the relationship in the proper scientific category, and provide the medical model that will solve the problem. In a world where down is up this makes perfect sense.

I do hope, that if they're providing a "degree" in home-making that it's being taught by women who have successfully raised well-discipline children that love their parents and are happy about the home they grew up in. I hope they are taught by men and women that understand the Proverbs and how to provide a household that not only keeps hearth and home clean but have experience providing a home that had the aroma of faith in it and taught children to call on the name of the Lord.

I fear, however, that some will see in their "degree" on home-making a presumption that this degree is a substitute for having done the hard work of pursuing wisdom in the home. I'd rather the experience of my children be such that they can skip over the degree in home-making because they learned much more from their mom and dad in 18 years than 60 hours of Graduate study can provide.

Blessings!

Rich
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
My mother has a bachelors in Home Ec. She taught HS Home Ec. She has forgotten more stuff than young girls today will ever know about Home Ec. At our church we are toying with the idea of a 'program' where the older ladies would teach the younger because the younger don't know the first thing about a sewing machine, or a recipe, or even coupon shopping! And they want to know! They ask my wife, "Will you show me how to make bread?" C'mon... even I know how to follow a recipe and make bread! It is amazing how the feminists have brainwashed women.

I think a Home Ec degree program is awesome. And its not like every woman must take it. And think about the other types of degrees that are out there. I graduated with a BM in Music Performance (trombone). Now that's a worthless degree!
 

etexas

Puritan Board Doctor
Sadly north Texas papers used to be conservative (I am old enough to remember) it is sad they are resorting to these snarky little attacks.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
The newspaper ought to publish that piece in its entirety as a response.

One (of several) powerful sentences: If women are in no way different from men, then what’s the big deal with homosexuality?

Why is it such a good line? I doubt the line will "change anyone's mind," but that's not it's purpose. Rather, it begins with the premise that homosexuality is worth opposing--a feeling shared by a good many of the readers, but which same group is filled with people who are ambivalent (at best) about feminism. Then, it challenges them to defend their deeply held conviction about homosexuality, if humanity is simply androgyny (a fundamental premise of feminism). BUT, that fundamental premise is a mystical denial of natural order. Something has to give. Our writer is banking on the strong opposition to obvious sin coupled with an obvious (easily noted) natural distinction.

A very good article.
 

kvanlaan

Puritan Board Doctor
At our church we are toying with the idea of a 'program' where the older ladies would teach the younger because the younger don't know the first thing about a sewing machine, or a recipe, or even coupon shopping! And they want to know! They ask my wife, "Will you show me how to make bread?" C'mon... even I know how to follow a recipe and make bread! It is amazing how the feminists have brainwashed women.
See, this sounds like it has value - take women who have shown competence in these arts (raising a family, cooking, thriving in marriage, etc.) back it up with one of their own (your mom) who additionally has the degree, and train young women to be homemakers in this context. Now that would be something to write up in a paper! Not that this degree is without value (Pastor Faulk, it beats about 80% of what's out there, hands down!), but the need to stamp and seal every scrap of 'learning' these days and thus somehow make it legit is something I just don't understand.

Whatever happened to just watching mom and learning from her?
 

PastorFaulk

Puritan Board Freshman
Gentelmen,

I do agree with you about education of skills being learned in the home. THe problem is, this current generation starting at about my age has grown up without mom at home. If we were to talk in ideals, then education about the home should take place in the home. Since this is not hapening, then you have to look somewhere else. I took several of the classes (male side) on the family and the home from SWBTS. They are both counter culteral, and biblical. Men's classes are taught by men whos kids are godly, and womens are taught by women who have raised their families and are now free to educate other younger women.
 

Ivan

Pastor
I certainly like the idea of the older women teaching the younger women in the church. I think it's rather biblical, don't you? I have two female saints in our church that I would feel comfortable in taking the reins and teaching the young women. Something to mull over.
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Gentelmen,

I do agree with you about education of skills being learned in the home. THe problem is, this current generation starting at about my age has grown up without mom at home. If we were to talk in ideals, then education about the home should take place in the home. Since this is not hapening, then you have to look somewhere else. I took several of the classes (male side) on the family and the home from SWBTS. They are both counter culteral, and biblical. Men's classes are taught by men whos kids are godly, and womens are taught by women who have raised their families and are now free to educate other younger women.
Wes,

I hope you noted in my response more agreement with the idea than disagreement. Here's how the degree is described:

Coursework will include seven hours of nutrition and meal preparation, seven hours of textile design and "clothing construction," three hours of general homemaking, three hours on "the value of a child," and three hours on the "biblical model for the home and family."
I agree that some of the Home Ec stuff is really nice. Nevertheless, the last 6 hours of study is what I'm interested in.

For the record, one of the first study series Wes did when he joined the Church was on the Biblical model for the family and he used a great resource for it. Yet, that kind of instruction is generally lacking in the Church at large where, throughout Churches, the older women are not training the younger women because, in large measure, older women might have some Home Ec skills to impart these days but some of the older women are still products of a society that trained them to be independent. Men, as well, are increasingly ignorant of their roles.

I'm just concerned that a 6 hour course of study would have the effect of "baptizing the expert" and suddenly the instant expert to address the complex character of wisdom is anointed by the degree in our modern thinking. The pursuit of a Godly home requires the pursuit of wisdom from many different facets and needs to be the focus of the mother and, especially, the father in the home.

Like many other Churches, we have very active women who get together to discuss such things but few men who are stepping out as desirously as the women.

I can conceive of the typical scenario now. Women get together and learn all about being Godly wives and how to train their kids. The Church now has the expert to do this. Dad's not interested though. Wife gets home and tries to implement this but her command from the Scriptures is to submit quietly in Godliness to her husband and win him over by this. Thus, she is constantly frustrated because nothing is impelling the husband from the Church to pursue leadership in the home.

Do you see what I'm saying? It's not that I dislike the degree but I know the human heart and how many Churches are trying to patch their neglect of men in the Church with the experts that are going to fill in for them.

Finally, I reiterate that, for those 6 hours of instruction, they find professors that are not just good at home ec. and have just done a bit of research on nurturing children Biblically or the importance thereof but have actually raised Godly children themselves. I would rather be trained by a woman who catechized and loved her children from the knee and produced responsible and Godly men and women than by somebody with a PhD whose home life is a disaster.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Let me say, just to be clear, that I have nothing wrong with a degree in Home Ec. Degrees are what they are. I think a Home Ec degree would be as valuable as anything else. I just find it interesting how feminists have made it obsolete with their nonstop messages about how it is somehow demeaning for a woman to bake a loaf of bread or make her own dress. I don't go to extremes in evaluating college degrees. They aren't everything, nor are they nothing. How many of us ended up in a career within our degree?

BTW, who is 'Wes'?
 

kvanlaan

Puritan Board Doctor
I agree that there is value in the degree, I just think it's a band-aid on the bloody stump of an amputated limb.

When I was young, we had huisbezoek (house visitation) by the elders. Those visits would normally pick up on these sorts of issues. Not that anything was necessarily materially done about it by the elders, but it alerted the consistory to a family in which the 'head' was not leading in a godly manner (from which many of these other symptoms issue forth.) But church discipline (perhaps guidance is a better word) now seems to be dealing with (symptoms) adultery, drug abuse, and the like instead of (fundamentals) family workings, headship, etc. It's no longer whether or not little Johnny (14 years of age) is growing in faith. It is more that little Johnny never darkens the door of the church and mom and dad can't get him to go because he won't leave his ipod or xbox. In such a case, the consistory should have stepped in long ago, taken the father to task, and seen that things were set right.

That, in my opinion, would make the degree an odd redundancy instead of a fresh pillow for a cancer patient.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
Rich - you're right. Colleges and seminaries are poor substitutes for the real thing. But here is the rub, liberalism and feminism are entering their second generation (or third, depending on who you ask). This means that there are fewer mothers who are able to teach these skills to their daughters. The battle for the soul of the American family is insidious. It has been waged on the front lines for over forty years and shows no signs of abating. That a prominent seminary is willing to tackle the issue is commendable.

The church has bought into the cultural view that the "American Dream" is only possible if both spouses work. Actually that probably is correct. In order to buy that house, own the minivan and acquire the requisite possessions to join the club it takes an income that fewer one-income families can produce. Truly the scripture is right when is says:

Psalm 106:15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.
Pator Faulk, fight for the souls of the families under your charge by lifting up the family in your teaching and counseling. Stem the tide where you can. It is our responsibility to do the same in our own churches. For some of us that means starting first in our own homes.
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
Let me say, just to be clear, that I have nothing wrong with a degree in Home Ec. Degrees are what they are. I think a Home Ec degree would be as valuable as anything else. I just find it interesting how feminists have made it obsolete with their nonstop messages about how it is somehow demeaning for a woman to bake a loaf of bread or make her own dress. I don't go to extremes in evaluating college degrees. They aren't everything, nor are they nothing. How many of us ended up in a career within our degree?
Um, well...me?

ok, I guess I'm an exception to the norm ;)

Unfortunately the fact of the matter with regard to college degrees is that the most demeaning degrees that women take at college are those that dehumanize them by slamming them into a feminist mold and help them to demean and ridicule others (i.e. "women's and gender studies"). It is also a sad fact that many women, years down the road, will find that their college degree program and career-focus, in the end, was demeaning to them in that it made very difficult the achievement of their desires to have a pleasant and harmonious home.
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Todd,

I assume you mean exception to the norm of society.

I quite agree with you by the way.

I just find so much of what is supposed to be the "academic" understanding of home and happiness completely undermines it. It is very disconcerting that this mindset infiltrates the Church as many uncritically accept humanistic philosophies of education.

I think this degree at SWBTS could, in fact, be very fulfilling and useful by contrast.

Can you imagine the Cosmic irony of a young woman and her parents going into over $100K in debt just so she can get a worthless degree that makes her miserable for the rest of her life? We've gotten to the point in this society where people are so detached from thinking critically that they actually have degrees in "women studies" that teach women precisely what women are not. I just laugh to myself that some of these Professors are so respected and tenured. Garbage men have much more esteem in my estimation for what they do as their service is actually useful to society.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
The church has bought into the cultural view that the "American Dream" is only possible if both spouses work. Actually that probably is correct. In order to buy that house, own the minivan and acquire the requisite possessions to join the club it takes an income that fewer one-income families can produce.
:amen: And some people actually get angry when they find out my wife does not work. Why would they have this reaction, I wonder? Could it be that deep down they are convicted? The same people react with disdain when they find out we have 4 children and want to adopt more.

It drives me crazy when I hear people say, "You are so fortunate that your wife does not have to work." Fortunate? Deut 8:18 says that it is the Lord who gives the power to get wealth. Most of these people are living in some kind of dream world. They never stop to figure the expense of things like day care, clothing, gas, fast food, taxes, union dues etc. If they would stop and crunch the numbers they would see that they aren't making any extra with that second job! :rant: Sorry, for the rant... I don't even remember what the OP was about anymore.

Nice to meet ya, Wes.
 

kvanlaan

Puritan Board Doctor
Pastor Klein, I've actually read an article stating that the economic marvels of the last couple of decades were no thanks to women who stayed at home and didn't participate in the economy. They were admonishing them to come out of the home (like a Harold Camping for the family) and get to work like the rest of the crew.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Pastor Klein, I've actually read an article stating that the economic marvels of the last couple of decades were no thanks to women who stayed at home and didn't participate in the economy. They were admonishing them to come out of the home (like a Harold Camping for the family) and get to work like the rest of the crew.
They would like to turn all of our wives into good little 'statists' wouldn't they! And for what reasons do these people want my wife to work? To make more for their precious economy so they can use more tax dollars to take children away from their mothers and put them in before and after school programs?

1 Sam 8:10-13 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint [them] for himself, for his chariots, and [to be] his horsemen; and [some] shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and [will set them] to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters [to be] confectionaries, and [to be] cooks, and [to be] bakers.
The state would like nothing more than for children to spend less time with their mothers.

My apologies to Wes for furthering the apostacy from the OP. :lol:
 

kvanlaan

Puritan Board Doctor
1 Sam 8:10-13 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint [them] for himself, for his chariots, and [to be] his horsemen; and [some] shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and [will set them] to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters [to be] confectionaries, and [to be] cooks, and [to be] bakers.
Nice - :up: I've never thought about it in this context. (It's actually very damning in its commentary on the way we live and the path society has taken, but very applicable in Babylon today.)

And yes, apologies Pastor Faulk! (But you've opened up an obviously very interesting :worms:). Too engaging not to comment...sorry!
 

satz

Puritan Board Senior
It drives me crazy when I hear people say, "You are so fortunate that your wife does not have to work." Fortunate? Deut 8:18 says that it is the Lord who gives the power to get wealth. Most of these people are living in some kind of dream world. They never stop to figure the expense of things like day care, clothing, gas, fast food, taxes, union dues etc. If they would stop and crunch the numbers they would see that they aren't making any extra with that second job! :rant: Sorry, for the rant... I don't even remember what the OP was about anymore.
Pastor Ken,

Just a little comment:

While I am not sure in what manner of spirit those who make such comments to you do so, I think we do need to be a little careful. Unless it is meant in a sarcastic or otherwise insincere way, I do not see any wrong is saying that one is fortunate to have their wife able to stay at home. God has not said it is a sin for women to work outside the home, and as such we cannot trust that he will always provide a way to avoid the necessity, even when there are children. I noted in another thread how in OT theocratic Israel, a significant number of women were maidservants working for other men.

I do believe that if a husband has difficulty in making ends meet (not in buying another widescreen plasma TV) than the wife not only can but should help out financially. A wife is first and foremost a helper to her husband, and he should be the one who designates where and when he needs help. For the wife to go out and work is to my mind both logically and biblically preferable to the husband having to overwork through double shifts or what not.

Do not get me wrong, I think I would agree with the general tenure of your post, but I think we need to be wary of putting excessive burdens on men in a world where their professional and financial pursuits will not always go as they wish.
 

PastorFaulk

Puritan Board Freshman
Mark,

Before jumping on KMK, look at the context. In today’s world it is not the working mom who is attacked, but instead the mother who devotes her life to her kids. That is why a step to restore the validity of the job of mother is seen as archaic. I do agree that women are able to pursue careers while unmarried, and to some degree childless. Lydia sold purple. On the opposite hand children completely change things. (Which is why a cornerstone of the feminist movement is to control when, how many and if children exist.) When there are children in the home, the mother's first priority is them, not a job. THe burden of work in today’s world is immensely lighter than in generations past. Not only that, people’s perceived standard of needs is much greater than in generations past. We can all live with less. In fact work for men was never supposed to be easy. God’s punishment for man's sin was that the ground would be labor. For woman it was pain in childbirth. God punished both man and woman in their respective areas of life. Here’s the theological premise, do not let experience drive your biblical truth. Instead let biblical truth drive experience and action.
 

satz

Puritan Board Senior
Mark,

Before jumping on KMK, look at the context. In today’s world it is not the working mom who is attacked, but instead the mother who devotes her life to her kids. That is why a step to restore the validity of the job of mother is seen as archaic. I do agree that women are able to pursue careers while unmarried, and to some degree childless. Lydia sold purple. On the opposite hand children completely change things. (Which is why a cornerstone of the feminist movement is to control when, how many and if children exist.) When there are children in the home, the mother's first priority is them, not a job. THe burden of work in today’s world is immensely lighter than in generations past. Not only that, people’s perceived standard of needs is much greater than in generations past. We can all live with less. In fact work for men was never supposed to be easy. God’s punishment for man's sin was that the ground would be labor. For woman it was pain in childbirth. God punished both man and woman in their respective areas of life. Here’s the theological premise, do not let experience drive your biblical truth. Instead let biblical truth drive experience and action.
Pastor Faulk,

I certainly did not intend to jump on KMK, and I tried to take pains in my post to show that was not the case. I did try to convey that I was not primarily ‘attacking’ his post but rather simply using it to voice some thoughts of my own.

I certainly agree that in the world at large it is the woman who stays home with her children who is attacked and made to feel marginalized. However, on a board such as this I assumed that would not be the case. I certainly agree that a woman’s first priority is her children, before any other pursuits. I tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) in my post to emphasize I was talking about a situation where the issue was making ends meet not luxuries.

However, I would, at this moment in time, stand by my point that a man has not capitulated on his responsibilities if his wife is helping him meet the financial needs of the family. True, God cursed the woman in child bearing, but it is still the father who has the primary responsibility to ensure the proper raising of the children (Eph 6:4).

I think (and hope) that practically our application of these principles would not differ too much. However, I have seen some writings that imply (or perhaps I just read them poorly) that a man should work two jobs or day shift and night shift rather than have his wife work. I do not believe that view is biblically sound.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
It drives me crazy when I hear people say, "You are so fortunate that your wife does not have to work." Fortunate? Deut 8:18 says that it is the Lord who gives the power to get wealth. Most of these people are living in some kind of dream world. They never stop to figure the expense of things like day care, clothing, gas, fast food, taxes, union dues etc. If they would stop and crunch the numbers they would see that they aren't making any extra with that second job! :rant: Sorry, for the rant... I don't even remember what the OP was about anymore.
Pastor Ken,

Just a little comment:

While I am not sure in what manner of spirit those who make such comments to you do so, I think we do need to be a little careful. Unless it is meant in a sarcastic or otherwise insincere way, I do not see any wrong is saying that one is fortunate to have their wife able to stay at home.
I understand your concern but I chose the word 'fortunate' for a reason. Webster's 1828 says 'fortunate' means "coming by good luck or favorable chance". I think that Deut 8 teaches clearly that God gives the power to get wealth not luck or chance. My beef is with those who opperate from a presupposition that the fact that my wife does not have to work is a matter of 'luck' or 'chance'. God holds the pursestrings and if a couple wants to honor the Lord by allowing the wife to be a full-time mother, then God will provide.

God has not said it is a sin for women to work outside the home, and as such we cannot trust that he will always provide a way to avoid the necessity, even when there are children. I noted in another thread how in OT theocratic Israel, a significant number of women were maidservants working for other men.
I was not talking about 'women', I was talking about 'mothers of young children'.

I do believe that if a husband has difficulty in making ends meet (not in buying another widescreen plasma TV) than the wife not only can but should help out financially. A wife is first and foremost a helper to her husband, and he should be the one who designates where and when he needs help. For the wife to go out and work is to my mind both logically and biblically preferable to the husband having to overwork through double shifts or what not.
Once again, my statements were focused on 'mothers of young children' and not 'wives' in general.

Do not get me wrong, I think I would agree with the general tenure of your post, but I think we need to be wary of putting excessive burdens on men in a world where their professional and financial pursuits will not always go as they wish.
:handshake: Yet they always go as the Lord wishes. The important thing is to get the husbands 'wishes' aligned with the Lord's 'wishes'.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
BTW, the Bible may not explicitly state that it is a sin for a mother of young children to work outside the home, but it does not state that it is good for her to do so either.

Pro 31 lists several things that wives and mothers could do to earn an income without leaving the children. (making linen, considering fields etc.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top