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

Status
Not open for further replies.

DonP

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

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

PresbyDane

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

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
While this might sometimes be necesary, as a general principle I disagree with the idea that is biblical to say a man must to work 12...14...16 hours just so the wife can stay home.
To support what sort of lifestyle? I know those couples who both work and can 'barely make ends meet' in their 3,400 sq ft home with 2 SUV's in the driveway, kids in music lessons, soccer, etc. and cable TV on the big screen.

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

lshepler412

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

lshepler412

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

calgal

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

Scottish Lass

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

Theognome

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

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

Theognome
 

lshepler412

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

calgal

Puritan Board Graduate
Sarah, you've mentioned several times that the husband makes the decision on the wife working and she must obey. I think if her conscience before the Lord tells her that she should not abandon her infant or small children for the workplace then it is permissable for her to tell her husband that she can not work. They would need to work together to find creative ways perhaps to bring in more money. A godly husband is not suppose to be a tyrant over his wife. What kind of man would disrespect her wishes if she felt strongly about caring for the children God gave her. I believe a wise man does not just make the decisions for his wife. Her beliefs, feelings, and thoughts should be of the utmost concern to him. I don't believe that the husband being the head of his wife means he is to make every single decision for her.
And when hubby is not.able.to.work. then what can wife do?
Is the husband able to care for the children?
Most of the time he could. If Hubby is in bad enough physical or mental condition then no. If he is incarcerated then no. Prisons will reunite mother and child but not father :(
 

calgal

Puritan Board Graduate
Aren't single mothers (for whatever the reason) a separate issue?
Well, that would depend. Single mothers out of choice certainly but a wife with a husband that may be physically unable to care for a baby or small child may be in a temporary situation (work accident) or have a long term medical issue to contend with (progressive disease like MS or certain cancers). :worms:
 

Hamalas

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

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

Theognome
:agree:

Yet again, you've nailed it! :applause::applause::applause:
 

OPC'n

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

forgivenmuch

Puritan Board Freshman
My opinion is that if the family is struggling financially then the husband should go out and get a second, or even third, job to provide for the family. That is his responsibility, not the wife's.
While this might sometimes be necesary, as a general principle I disagree with the idea that is biblical to say a man must to work 12...14...16 hours just so the wife can stay home.

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

Also, it is primarily fathers whom God has tasked with training children. Both Eph 6:4 and Col 3:21 explicitly single out fathers, not "parents". As such, there is nothing inherently godly about a man working 12+ hours and never being around for his children just to prevent the wife from having to work. The father needs time with his children, wife, church and a myriad of other duties so as long as he is doing his reasonable best and work hard at earning money, I see nothing biblically wrong with him wanting his wife to help him in earning income.
I did not say that it is always avoidable that a wife work. I specifically said that there may be seasons of life in which the wife may have to work. What I did say, though, was that I believe this is not ideal. The wife's main responsibility is to her husband, children, and home. Now if the husband is working 16 hours a day like you said, maybe some things would have to change.
 

satz

Puritan Board Senior
While this might sometimes be necesary, as a general principle I disagree with the idea that is biblical to say a man must to work 12...14...16 hours just so the wife can stay home.
To support what sort of lifestyle? I know those couples who both work and can 'barely make ends meet' in their 3,400 sq ft home with 2 SUV's in the driveway, kids in music lessons, soccer, etc. and cable TV on the big screen.

Don't get me wrong, lifestyle is a 'liberty' issue to a point, and I realize that most are not in excess, but I see a lot of idiocy in my business.
To clarify, I was, in that post, referring to whatever is necessary to make ends meet. And yes, I know even that phrase is open to interpretation, but I wasn't talking about supporting a high-end lifestyle.
 

Exiled_2_God

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

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

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

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

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

I know there are commands not to be in debt, and maybe a husband wants the wife to work, so it can be complicated. But do people still see Mom at home as ideal in your circles, even if it means a poor home and lifestyle?
Thought this video of Voddie Baucham on CNN was interesting. It starts about a minute or so into the video.

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

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
Proverbs 31 talks about a woman who takes care of her home but also goes out of her home and runs business. All that the woman does should be done as a help to her husband. We cannot here on PB say that women working is feminism.
I believe the Proverbs 31 describes the various stages of the woman's life, too, and thus doesn't necessarily imply that she is always working outside the home when her children are young, etc. And she definitely did not work at the neglect or expense of her home, but rather for the benefits of her own family.

Having been raised as the youngest daughter in my family, though, I've observed that it would seem very difficult for a mother to add another job (yes, being a wife and mother is a full-time job/career :) ) and excel (not merely perform) at both. Also, I've noticed this family-focused attitude tends to differ from the reason which many wives/mothers today decide to work outside the home (e.g. status, independence, extra car, etc.)

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

Knoxienne

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

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

TimV

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

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

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

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

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

LadyFlynt

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

Isn't it easier if it's her husband who's her boss - easier and a whole lot more fun? :)
I have no comment other than to advise that you spend some time in an inner city church with families that are literally just trying to survive. There are those same people outside of the city, but many won't go to church because of clueless suburbanites that think EVERYONE should be able to have what they have, buy what they buy, and do things the way they do.
 

OPC'n

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

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

he beholds

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

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

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

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

satz

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know there are commands not to be in debt, and maybe a husband wants the wife to work, so it can be complicated. But do people still see Mom at home as ideal in your circles, even if it means a poor home and lifestyle?
Titus 2 is obviously still sound doctrine, and women are to be “busy at home” or “keepers at home”. However, we need to understand the meaning, rather than just the sound of those words.

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

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

1 Timothy 5:13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
There is a reason why Paul wants younger women to “guide the house”… because it will keep them busy and prevent them from being idle and busybodies. So the opposite of being “busy at home” is, in the bible’s thought, to be an idler and a gossip. There is no indication that Paul even intended to address the idea of employment. Titus 2 condemns women being busybodies and wandering away from their homes, but has nothing to say about women leaving their homes for legitimate purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LadyFlynt

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

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

Knoxienne

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

Isn't it easier if it's her husband who's her boss - easier and a whole lot more fun? :)
I submit to a woman director concerning the things of work. She has no desire to tell me how to run my household. She would never think of usurping your husband's authority in you life. If your husband told you that you needed to call in to work for that day for some reason, all you have to do is call and say that you won't be there and no questions are asked.
Yes, I do see where that can present a different type of situation. Working for a woman and various work contexts do allow for other variables.
 

JBaldwin

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

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

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

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

Hebrew Student

Puritan Board Freshman
JBaldwin,

It seems to me that Scripture is pretty plain about women caring for their children and being keepers at home and being supportive of their husbands. That is the principle. How that plays out in each family will look different.
I would say the reverse too. I would say that the scripture is pretty plain that men are to care for their children, be keepers at home, and be supportive of their wives.

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

God Bless,
Adam
 

OPC'n

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

DonP

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

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

I know women who do more than her.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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