The economy of Family Values

[pmcleanj]

I offer this thread as a continuation of a discussion which branches off from the Sentamu warns of 'cynical culture' (http://www.christianforums.com/t5122485-sentamu-warns-of-cynical-culture.html) thread, particularly

... What I was trying to get across with my "Patriarchal Family" was not meant to go back to Abraham's Time and treat Women like slaves and servants. You will remember that in the Women Pastors Thread, how much I stood up in favour of Women Pastors, and full equality of women in every way of life.

But the Church doesn't preach Family Values anymore! And this was my point I try to make. My example here is my own family: when we got married Elizabeth went to work in an office. When the first child arrived she stayed home, then come the second child. To make a long story short, Elizabeth stayed home for 15 years to be with my two boys. You must see the worth(?) in it: when a child comes home from School for example there was a snack ready, there was someone to listen to all the 'exiting' stories and so on. This can never be replaced in life, and today they still discuss their girlfriend with Mum. And after the time home, Elizabeth did a IT Degree at the Uni and is Library Manager today, just to proof it can be done. That's what I talk about Patriarchial Family Values.

And I know some of you will stone me for this, but I think that when you put two women together for job valuation, one with two Uni diplomas and one fulltime Mother, the Mother wins.

You must also think that to keep a job costs money in childcare, clothes, petrol and so on.
And this is were the Churches have to come in: to preach and promote true Family Values, and our Churches will grow....

Norbie

and

You have it right, both your single Mother and your Priest would be at home when the Children come home from School.
And this IS the whole point I try to make. Of course time have changed and the government policy is mostly directed at two money-earning persons in a family, so it is clear that when a women can climb the corporate ladder she will bring in the needed money.
But here arises my question: will a woman who is high up the corporate ladder and earns lots of money, and is married for example to a labourer, still look up to her man; will he have decisions to make for both of them? Or do we defy the natural way that a woman will gladly look up to her man?

This are interesting things to discuss from the Christian Point of view, and I mean lovingly discuss in a CF.
Norbie

My dear Higgs can say with complete calm that, as a stay-at-home mother for ten years she is an onlooker to many of the points that you bring up. I, however, am "high up the corporate ladder" and "earn lots of money"; and "my man" (how he would cringe to be referred to in that way! I think I will say rather, without any trace of sarcasm, "my beloved husband") has a rather less impressive business-card title than mine and a rather less shocking income-tax bill than mine.

And, as a counter-example to yours, equally anecdotal, I offer my family: when we got married I was a journeyman engineer. When Anne arrived I stayed home for the full benefit of Canada's socially-moral funded maternity leave (six months in those days; it is now a full year which I think is nearly optimal from the family perspective and still quite tolerable from the employer's perspective). Then I picked a delightful convent-run daycare while I went back to work for two and a half years. When Rachel arrived I took a second maternity leave, and then she joined Anne at the daycare. In the meantime we built a close and lasting relationship with the Sisters at the convent, who shared many of our family values and helped shape and strengthen others. Later I chose a small private school for the girls that shared our parenting philosophy and values, and that provided adequate out-of-school care, and that was located within a block of my work so that our travel too and from work and school was shared intimate time spent focussing on one another. You must see the worth in that -- strong lasting relationships with trusted people who have become friends, while still maintaining close intimate parent/child attachments and while still contributing my state-funded education and unique talents back to the people I serve in my highly-understaffed technical field.

And I, too, still have a close intimate relationship with my daughters whom I will hold up anytime (and frequently do, as posters here can attest) as examples of successful, modest, and sweetly-formed young Christian women.

Oddly enough, however, I do agree with Norbie that the Church needs to preach and promote true family values -- more than it does now, and certainly more effectively than it does now. And we can learn a great deal from Saint Paul's writings about how to do that, provided we look beyond a simplistic reading of "what new Law can we create about women's hats and who's allowed to teach whom" and look instead at the why Paul frequently references. All things to all people so that some might believe.

In a world where secular people often have a -- dare I say it -- godly passion for social justice, we must not be seen to be advocating for injustice or atavism. These are not what the Christian message is, and they will drive people away. The truth never changes, but our style and vocabulary in proclaiming the Truth must change any time we are misunderstood.

And, often, we must examine ourselves and our assumptions, rigourously and without mercy, to make sure that our own misunderstandings aren't the first thing that needs to change

[Simon_Templar]

Paul's statement has to be understood in context of culture and customs which do not bear on truth or righteousness. Paul did not become a sinner to reach sinners, nor a pagan to reach pagans.

Greeks can be reached by a greek, Jews can be reached by Jews, but sinners can only be reached by the righteous, and pagans can only be reached by Christians.

The point being, we can not mirror society's evils if we are to present them with truth and light. If we do, we may be more accepted, but we will have nothing worth while left to say or teach.

Now, I'm not saying thats what you are advocating. I'm offering up these comments as a counter balance to my suspicion that people will tend towards imbalance on the other side.

[Finella]

::taking a needed break from my PhD work::

::while growing a baby::

Oh, wow. It seems I missed a doozy of a discussion in the other thread.

Pamela, I wholeheartedly agree with you. And I wish the US was as family-friendly with its laws as Canada and Europe are -- and not only recognizing the importance of bringing children into the world for mothers, but also for fathers. It amazes me how many friends of mine who have had babies in the last several years could not manage to get more than the husband's vacation time for him to be at home with the new baby -- while the mother was allotted her "full" 12 weeks' leave (if that).

We all know about the "mommy wars" -- women who squabble over who has their children's interest most at heart, those who work or those who stay home. The truth being that our culture and society do not support a parent being at home very well, though many manage to make it work. If the mother happens to be the one bringing in the health insurance benefits for the family (as I was at one time, even though my salary was lower than my husband's), the mother may be forced to work in order for the family to have health care.

And why must it be the mother who stays at home? And why must it only be one parent who looks after the children, not a combination of mom and dad, or of close family and trusted friends in the church community or neighborhood? Is it not better that our children learn how to live among not only their family, but also among friends and neighbors who are also positive role models? We in Western society tend to live in isolation so much, which fosters our feelings of inadequacy when we cannot Do it All. I'm not really a parent yet, and I already know that I will need to call upon my friends, neighbors, and community for help as I embark on this amazing job of parenting our child.

I don't know if that fits Norbie's definition of Patriarchal parenting, but I sure don't want to limit my husband's role to working all day while I stay at home making snacks for my kids and awaiting their arrival from school. He, too, can be a confidant for our kids. He, too, can cook for them and cuddle them. He wants to. Is he less a man if he does so?

[karen freeinchristman]

Is he less a man if he does so?
Not in my book, he isn't! :)

[CSMR]

And I wish the US was as family-friendly with its laws as Canada and Europe are -- and not only recognizing the importance of bringing children into the world for mothers, but also for fathers. It amazes me how many friends of mine who have had babies in the last several years could not manage to get more than the husband's vacation time for him to be at home with the new baby -- while the mother was allotted her "full" 12 weeks' leave (if that).
Don't know if the UK is really a part of Europe or not but I can say fathers aren't much appreciated over here, at least not by the government or the courts.

[DeoJuvante]

Isn't 'family values' usually code for 'right-wing interpretations of what constitutes an appropriate family'? As someone who grew up in a sole-parent household, I do tend to cringe when I hear the expression.

[pmcleanj]

I did not post this discussion in the "Patriarchy and Egalitarianism" thread, because it seems to me that what norbie proposed in his original post was something quite different from a social system structured around vesting all rights and authority in male heads of families.

Quite the contrary, he is advocating a social system in which men and women enjoy ' full equality in every way of life' but where the system is structured around the principal that one parent should stay home to be with the children and the other parent provide the family's living.

The family arrangement so described was the norm for the majority of families in the western world from the 1930's through the 1970's, and is what modern commentors, looking back on their parents' and grandparents' childhoods, usually refer to as "the traditional family". But as Anglicans, we recognize that Tradition goes back a good deal farther than forty years or even eighty years. Throughout most of Anglican history from the year 43 to the Industrial revolution, the notion that anyone could expect not to work, was as alien as the notion that "work" was something you left your home to do.

In most of human history, men and women alike have worked to produce the family's living, and have lived together in the place where their work was done: on the farms that provided their culture's sustenance, or over the shops where they worked at their craft or manufacturing, or in the servants halls of great houses where they served. In this traditional culture, children grew up essentially inside their parents' workplace. A woman would take a break from tying sheaves to suckle her baby, certainly; but so would a man wielding the sickle be diverted from his task by the needs of a nearby child, if they were needs that he could meet. Since both nurturing the children AND gathering the crop were critical to the people's future, BOTH activities were enabled and applauded as moral behaviour for BOTH men and women.

Mutual work and mutual family responsibility then, was the traditional norm for most of Anglican history. It was not until the Industrial Revolution that home life and work life were alienated from one another and became separate spheres. Even then, of course, children were a large part of work life: as in the Sarah Cleghorn poem
"The golf links lie so near the mill
That almost every day
The labouring children can look out
And see the men at play."

But the children labouring in the mills were not the capitalists' own children. The wealth created by the industrial revolution allowed the development of a small leisured middle class, in which the children could expect to be entitled to a childhood of play, and the women to a separate sphere of domestic activity in which they were supported by their husbands' earning power (and by the hired efforts of their cooks, housemaids, and sculleries, all of whom were working women and many of whom were wives and mothers).

It seems to be human nature to associate our own humble selves with idealized visions of what we could be. So, we look at this wealthy minority of propertied households to describe what the lot of women and children was in those "good old days", instead of looking at the majority of women and children in the mills, mines, villages and service industries.

If we were to compare today's families with working mothers, to those less privileged families of two or three hundred years ago, the changes that would stand out would be that where those families suffered because their mothers had neither property rights nor franchise, todays mothers enjoy both and are thus able to provide for their families and influence policy on behalf of their families. Today's children benefit from schooling and are protected from exploitative work instead of having to join their parents on the mill floor.

Inasmuch as it was often Christian workers who advocated for the reforms that protect women and children from exploitation, the Church should have some of the credit for having done much to create the current superior status quo with respect to family values. But it has been a process of continuous change, not the attainment of, and subsequent abandonment of, an ideal single-working-parent nuclear family. There were flaws with that lovely 1950's model too -- empirically history shows that it was a transitional model, not a stable social norm.

So our challenge is not to figure out how we, as a Church, can revert back to a mythical consensus on "family values" that never really existed. Our challenge is to ask, in what way can we best live out our call to care for God's little ones, to NOT be the cause of their stumbling, to feed God's lambs.

[Naomi4Christ]

One of the factors that is often overlooked in this topic is the value of having Christian women in the workplace, as a witness to colleagues, clients etc.

Personally, I've been on both sides (not that it was a debate for me, it was just what was the right thing at the time). I was probably a bit like Pamela when I had my first two - on the corporate ladder. I run into difficulties with my commitment to breastfeeding and the need to do lots of travelling. The company created new job for me that didn't require travel, but it didn't have the prospects, respect or challenge of what I was use to, so I decided to give up that job. I did not feel that I could turn my back on my education, so turned to teaching.

When my third child came along, there was no way my salary would have covered the cost of three children in childcare, so I gave up. I absolutely loved SAHM, and was just as busy as I was when I worked. I got heavily involved in the community and church, and this absorbed me perhaps even more than WOH did. It's not like my kids had my undivided.

In the last few years, I was becoming very unproductive at home - I wasn't being a great housewife. With the pressures of privately educating five children, I decided to RTW.

Although my job isn't particularly high paying, I think it is a good compromise. I get long school holidays - 19 weeks off a year! - so I am there when my children need me the most.

Bottom line is that you can't generalise, and say that all women should do this, or all women should do that. We are all doing our best, and some of us will have found our comfort zone, and others will always feel that they are missing out on whatever they are not doing. And outsiders will always find something to pick at.

We need Christian women in the workplace, but we also need educated women in the community. For most women, there is a right season for making these contributions, as I have found personally.

[norbie]

I think here we have two very wonderful Posts from Dear Pamela and Dear Naomi. A Blessing that Dear Pamela found Nuns for her Girls and Dear Naomi a teaching job to be together with her Children during Holiday.
But it doesn't work always this way and the Government is not realy Family friendly. (Not in Australia anyway).
But what I am always try to discuss and promote is the sometime missing Rolemodel of the Father. The "wrong" Women's Liberation under Chermain Greer and the totally irresponsible 'Feminissmus" of the past. This People tell us that we don't need the Father anymore, we don't respect the man anymore, we woman can manage ourself. So what happened, Women went to work, come home started cooking or fast Food, bath Children and got exhausted to bed - this was their Liberation.
So let's see God's plan, the true Womens Lib:
It was the Woman, but now time have changed, well I think Man can do the same, ONE Partner to be Homemaker, cook healthy Food, have a lovely clean House to come home to for the other Partner. And when he/she comes home Food is ready to eat, Children are bathed and soon ready for bed. Now this means that BOTH Partners can spend some quality time now, first with the together with the Children and then which each other. And this is what I try to get across. And I also feel very sad about the Children of single Mothers miss the Roll Model of the Father. I don't say that I don't appreciate what this Ladies doing: a great job on their own. But Children NEED BOTH Parents for Role Models, and I do believe single Mothers should try to find a Partner again.
Also if both Partners are not climbing on the corporate Ladder and have small income the home economic works out better with one Partner home, but this in next Post, sorry it's so long,
Norbie

[Iosias]

he is advocating a social system in which men and women enjoy ' full equality in every way of life' but where the system is structured around the principal that one parent should stay home to be with the children and the other parent provide the family's living.

The place of the mother is with her child/children and the husdand is to be the bread winner as far as I can find in Scripture. It is the world that tells women that the home is beneath them, God states otherwise!

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

[DeoJuvante]

I think here we have two very wonderful Posts from Dear Pamela and Dear Naomi. A Blessing that Dear Pamela found Nuns for her Girls and Dear Naomi a teaching job to be together with her Children during Holiday.
But it doesn't work always this way and the Government is not realy Family friendly. (Not in Australia anyway).
But what I am always try to discuss and promote is the sometime missing Rolemodel of the Father. The "wrong" Women's Liberation under Chermain Greer and the totally irresponsible 'Feminissmus" of the past. This People tell us that we don't need the Father anymore, we don't respect the man anymore, we woman can manage ourself. So what happened, Women went to work, come home started cooking or fast Food, bath Children and got exhausted to bed - this was their Liberation.
So let's see God's plan, the true Womens Lib:
It was the Woman, but now time have changed, well I think Man can do the same, ONE Partner to be Homemaker, cook healthy Food, have a lovely clean House to come home to for the other Partner. And when he/she comes home Food is ready to eat, Children are bathed and soon ready for bed. Now this means that BOTH Partners can spend some quality time now, first with the together with the Children and then which each other. And this is what I try to get across. And I also feel very sad about the Children of single Mothers miss the Roll Model of the Father. I don't say that I don't appreciate what this Ladies doing: a great job on their own. But Children NEED BOTH Parents for Role Models, and I do believe single Mothers should try to find a Partner again.
Also if both Partners are not climbing on the corporate Ladder and have small income the home economic works out better with one Partner home, but this in next Post, sorry it's so long,
Norbie
Well, as someone who grew up in a sole-parent household, I am deeply offended.

[pmcleanj]

Well, as someone who grew up in a sole-parent household, I am deeply offended.

:hug: First of all, please accept my apologies for a thread which is personally offensive to you. I assure you that no disrespect is intended to your parent. I am an alternate-weekend foster-mother to two children, whose single mother is a role-model of heroic persistance and effort. What she has acheived without a partner and despite the additional handicaps she suffers is awe-inspiring.

Three of us: norbie, Naomi and I; have given anecdotal evidence in this thread of how very different family economies have worked well for us to create strong nurturing environments for children to grow in. I believe we could benefit from hearing your anecdote too, which would expand our set of functional family models for the purpose of this discussion.

Norbie's stated opinion, that growing children need the role model of both father and mother, is a common opinion; and one that has some (but not unanimous) support from the psychological and sociological sciences. But all science is based on empiricism: looking at real evidence of real situations. One thing that you could contribute to the discussion would be your experience of how missing one primary role model affected you if at all, and how alternate role models if any contributed to your formation.

It is also true that any person holding down a modern full-time job and caring for children in isolation from other adult support and companionship is more burdened than one who has less responsibility. Children accept their parents' role as normal, but looking back as an adult what do you observe of your parent's experience: what challenges were overcome, and how did he or she cope with the challenge of sole parenting?

Remember, none of us can change our opinions or broaden our minds beyond our own experience, without the help of our fellowmen and women to let us see through their eyes. I can understand that you may not trust the internet with too much personal information, but I do believe we need whatever perspective you can contribute.

[karen freeinchristman]

This is how it works for us: My husband works about 45 hours per week, M-F, 7:30am - 5:00pm. I work 22 hours per week, T,W,Th, 9:30am - 6:00pm. I am able to be with the two children in the morning before school, and see them off (school is about 30 seconds walk away). On the days that I work, my wonderful in-laws (who live on the same road) pick up the kids from school and keep them until DH picks them up at about 5:45pm on the way home from his job. They will have already had their dinner at their grandparents house - a nourishing home-cooked meal. Meanwhile, I get home from work at about 6:15 pm. At that time, I cook dinner for DH and me. On Mondays and Fridays when I don't work, I pick the kids up from school. Monday nights is course-night for me, so again, I drop the kids off at the in-laws at about 4:30pm. Honestly, what we would do without my DH's parents, I don't know. They have enriched our children's lives immensely.

My DH, me, and my in-laws are a team. We are all raising the kids together. We don't all agree 100% on approaches, but in the end, the children have a broadened foundation. Many older people at church are also 'grandparents' to our kids. Our next door neighbour's have kids as well, and we frequently take turns having all the children at one or the other's houses for the day, allowing the other parents some free time and space.

[norbie]

Well, as someone who grew up in a sole-parent household, I am deeply offended.
So sorry about this, but this is a Forum and should be a joyful discussen. And there is nothing personal to anyone.
Norbie

[norbie]

And now we got Dear Karen's great Family input, how wonderful. All are different and all have a great common Message: the Family and how it works in todays Christian World.
May I now ask your Opinium about 'Home Economic'?
Myself as Example again what I mean. Before Elizabeth had her IT Degree and was a 'Home Maker' (the 'Housewife' name I find silly and not justyfied), and stayed home with my 2 Boys, we had as our single Income just me as a Fitter &.Turner. Also not the biggest money. But here is were Home Economic came in: Elizabeth is a perfect cook and can stretch a simple Meal a long way, she did saw all our Clothes, we only had one car and if she needed the car for shopping she gave me a lift to work.
Now as savings beside the above we did not need to much Petrol, no childcare expensis and all the things what holding a job cost. And our Boys missed out on nothing, growing up happy playing Soccer, went swimming and Bush walking with Dad.
Mum walked with them to the Bus Station and was waiting for them after School.
Today the first one got his own Family the second is still studying, they never smoked or have any other Drugs, they don't drink.
So this Example can maybe explain that a one earning Family still can work and be happy.
Norbie

[Finella]

I think, Norbie, that no one disputes that a one-income family can work and be happy. The question is: must the family do so in order to be living out God's will for them?

I am in agreement that it would be wonderful if one parent could be at home with the kids most of the time. I am fortunate in that I plan to do my last years of PhD work at home, and financially I have grants and my husband's income which would allow me to do so. My husband also wouldn't mind finding work he could do at home while I was out working if this arrangement was necessary. So I am with you there! And it seems you're not saying that the parent who stays home must be the mother (though your quoted posts from the OP might hint otherwise). My question is, what makes this arrangement particularly "patriarchal", if either the man or the woman could be the caregiver?

[norbie]

I think, Norbie, that no one disputes that a one-income family can work and be happy. The question is: must the family do so in order to be living out God's will for them?

I am in agreement that it would be wonderful if one parent could be at home with the kids most of the time. I am fortunate in that I plan to do my last years of PhD work at home, and financially I have grants and my husband's income which would allow me to do so. My husband also wouldn't mind finding work he could do at home while I was out working if this arrangement was necessary. So I am with you there! And it seems you're not saying that the parent who stays home must be the mother (though your quoted posts from the OP might hint otherwise). My question is, what makes this arrangement particularly "patriarchal", if either the man or the woman could be the caregiver?
Your question answered, it does not fit into Patriachial and I am very sad about it. I think it is the Government of todays economic: first it is based on a two income Family and we will just have to take it, whoever earn more Money have to do it, go out to work.
This is also an other reason that Churches have to speak out more in Government, like increase the Child Alluance by 50% or free medical for Children with one Income in the Family and so on. The Government is there to guide the Country and to uphold the Family. Sadly it is not so.
I am happy that you can do the rest of your PHD at Home and wish you all sucess and 'happy study',
Norbie

[Simon_Templar]

Well, as someone who grew up in a sole-parent household, I am deeply offended.
I'm sorry, but this kind of thing makes no sense to me at all.

It reminds me of the parents I saw on TV a couple years back who were blind, and either had, or were planning to try and geneticly manipulate a baby to be blind.

Its like a person who grows up in poverty and lives a good life, so they try to impoverish their children as well.

People, by the grace and mercy of God, are able to do well in all sorts of adverse and less than optimum conditions. The fact that you are proud of your up-bringing doesn't mean that its not better, in most cases, for a child to have both parents.

[norbie]

"The question is: must the family do so in order to be living out God's will for them?"

This my Dear Lady is the Spiritual Part of it, and I think that I have not enough Study done to answer this, we will need the Forum Members to help.
My believe is that Paul tells us so - but then it was an other Culture, but I think we will get plenty responds from our CF Members and I will wait.
Norbie

[erin74]

Your question answered, it does not fit into Patriachial and I am very sad about it. I think it is the Government of todays economic: first it is based on a two income Family and we will just have to take it, whoever earn more Money have to do it, go out to work.
This is also an other reason that Churches have to speak out more in Government, like increase the Child Alluance by 50% or free medical for Children with one Income in the Family and so on. The Government is there to guide the Country and to uphold the Family. Sadly it is not so.
I am happy that you can do the rest of your PHD at Home and wish you all sucess and 'happy study',
Norbie
The problem with our government is that it is sending mixed messages. They give you a stack of money for having a child, and then make it kind of possible to stay home for a few years (if you're happy to forgo home ownership for a bit), and then make it so that you can't continue on this path once they hit school. It's like saying that a school age child has no need for a parent to be at home for them. Parenting ends when they turn 6 apparently.

And add to that the virtual impossibility of home ownership whilever you only have one income, and it makes it very difficult to stay at home.

I am a SAHM. I hope to remain that way for some time. I live in a small town. The chances of my finding a part time job that allows me to work in school hours once my boys are both at school is very very unlikely.
So I guess I will cross that bridge when we come to it. As to ever affording a house. We are fortunate that we have accommodation provided for us, but we are not exactly raking in the cash! Not that I begrudge what my husband receives as a minister. But I will have to work if we are ever to own a home.

Still I am trusting God that we have made the right decision for me to be at home while our children are young. And will continue to trust that he will enable me to find a suitable job, or to stay at home once the children are a little older, and somehow afford retirement one day. It's not like there isn't plenty to do as a ministers wife if I don't got back to paid work.

Is that faith or stupidity. I don't know. I do think we have made the right decision for now, and I will trust God that he will open and close doors in the future, as he has done in the past.

[pmcleanj]

It might deepen this discussion somewhat, to reconsider the term “climbing the corporate ladder” as a description for doing paid work. It is a stereotyping phrase associating work with big business and implies a goal of achieving managerial promotions and prestige, generally by beating out other corporate employees for whose goal is achieving that same promotion for themselves.

Now, while it that describes my career path fairly well (if not my goals), it’s a poor fit for the careers of most people. Over half of the GDP in the U.S. is attributable to small business; and the proportion in Canada and the UK is somewhat higher. In small business there is very little ladder to climb: sometimes the [I]janitor is on the top rung -- because the CEO mops up before she goes home at night.

Some of these small businesses are the most family-friendly, precisely because they are so small that an otherwise stay-at-home spouse finds himself or herself on payroll to answer phones or help load shipments; and the baby’s playpen is beside the draughting table because that’s what works for both business and family. Others have small-scale on-site daycare arrangements, or have employees who share both a job and child-care responsibilities. In a similar light, our city has the very successful experiment of “The Workplace School” – a public elementary school hosted in a major corporation’s downtown office building so that parents are not cut off from their children by the urban/suburban dichotomy – one way the corporate giants can emulate a fraction of the flexibility so many small businesses offer .

One way that we can promote family values, may be to celebrate such businesses rather than condemning the presence of children in the workplace as “unprofessional”. Let’s encourage fellow churchmembers to offer their custom preferentially to family-friendly businesses. Children help wait tables in family restaurants and label or box product in small family manufacturies; play behind the counter in small groceries. As long as the children have adequate time to play and attend school and are not placed in hazardous situations, I’d be delighted to see their presence more and more closely integrated into the workplace.

They certainly can’t make more noise than my senior engineer teaching my co-op student how to play “office chair soccer” during their coffee break.

[Finella]

Your question answered, it does not fit into Patriachial and I am very sad about it. I think it is the Government of todays economic: first it is based on a two income Family and we will just have to take it, whoever earn more Money have to do it, go out to work.
This is also an other reason that Churches have to speak out more in Government, like increase the Child Alluance by 50% or free medical for Children with one Income in the Family and so on. The Government is there to guide the Country and to uphold the Family. Sadly it is not so.
I am happy that you can do the rest of your PHD at Home and wish you all sucess and 'happy study',
Norbie
I'm still a bit confused, so help me understand what you mean.

Because our economy is geared toward two-income households, it is not patriarchal. Okay, I see that.

But when families choose to send the mother out so that the father can stay home, which you seem to advocate as part of your preference that one parent stay at home, this is not patriarchal either, correct?

So does a patriarchal economy -- one which you favor -- only exist when the woman stays at home and the man goes out to work?

Again, I echo Pamela's historical review -- that in the past, families lived in agrarian or smaller industrialized situations where the children and parents lived and worked side-by-side. Permit me a tangent -- but one of my television Secret Shames was the PBS reality show Frontier House -- modeled on the the BBC reality shows Victorian House and the like. Three families -- two with children, one newlywed couple -- had to live on the Montana frontier for five months as if it was 1883. One of the conclusions the families came to in the end was the great disconnect they have with their children when they returned to their modern lifestyles -- on the frontier, they worked side-by-side with their children to feed the animals, build their homes, plant their gardens, etc. But in the modern world, they went long hours without seeing their kids and their kids had no idea what the parents did all day, and vice-versa. In some ways, my upbringing was similar to the Frontier House situation in that my mom, a writer, worked out of the home and we also grew a lot of our own produce and stored it for the winter. While I don't advocate child slavery :) (and sometimes weeding the garden as a kid, I felt a bit exploited!), I do now appreciate the closeness I had with my mother at that time.

I guess I bristle at the term "patriarchal" in terms of such an arrangement because my mother was a staunch feminist and would have argued that she and my father were quite egalitarian in roles. I also don't think that wanting to be at home with the children necessarily places the mother in a subordinate position to the father. Whether at home or out working, both roles are incredibly important, as everyone argues. So why is the home a subordinate place?

[erin74]

I am not sure that I look at it as subordinate. Well not the staying home bit. It's more the helper thing. I don't think that staying at home and submission are one and the same. I can be a SAHM and not submit to my husband. And visa versa.

I do know that there are huge links between self esteem in men and the ability to provide. And that does not exist in the same way for women. In that respect I don't think that it is an ideal situation for every, or even many, families for the husband to stay at home. I think it can have a negative impact on some men's self esteem, and, in turn, on the relationship between husband and wife. I think it can have a flow on result in some families in the woman finding it difficult to submit to her husband, and for the husband to feel like a leader.

I do not say this is the case for every man and every family. I certainly can name friends where this arrangement works for them, but they are exceptional I believe. The links are there though, and it is worth consideration.

It is much easier for a woman to have a 'choice' in one sense than it is a man.

I know I am guilty of not regularly expressing my thankfulness to my husband for providing financially for our family. It is a huge burden for anyone. It's easy to feel like I never get thanked for what I do, but I think it's often the other way around. I think he is far more openly grateful for what I do than I am for what he does. I really must remedy that.

[norbie]

You got it right, a Patriarchal Family is were the Woman is Mother and Home maker. And as Dear Erin also said, this is deffently NOT a subordinate Role. There is no such a thing as subordinate role in a Family. In fact every Man will praise and lift up his Lady when he can come Home to a lovely Place, warm and homely. He will have time to play with the Children and later on give full attention to his Wife.
So you see that both, Man and Woman are fully equal, but have different roles in life. And this is also my interpretion of the Bible.
But I did like the TV Show 'Frontier House'. It was great how the Families worked together. And there were happy Children. You can see the reality, how seperated our Children are now. And I think Dear Pamela got it right in saying Children can and should be in the Workplace near Mum. Would be a perfect solution and strenghten our Families. So lets lobby our Politican and big Companies to have Children near Mum's Workplace. BTW someone remember the Movie 9 to 5? Not only was it good Fun, but it did have the Childcare Solution in the End. LOL
Norbie

[brightmorningstar]

I agree with erin74, staying at home isnt necessarily subordinate. The eye cant say to the hand it doesnt need it. But the practicalities of nature in God's creation makes the man rather more the hunter gatherer and the woman the bearer and carer of children.

I am somewhat annoyed, in the light of recent debates, that the roles of a same-sex couple havent been discussed here, allowing for the fact that such a couple cannot bear children between themeselves.

[karen freeinchristman]

I agree with erin74, staying at home isnt necessarily subordinate. The eye cant say to the hand it doesnt need it. But the practicalities of nature in God's creation makes the man rather more the hunter gatherer and the woman the bearer and carer of children.

I also agree that staying at home isn't necessarily subordinate. But I question your post, brightmorningstar, because honestly, what man in this day and age actually goes out and hunts to provide for their family? The reason why the division was man=hunter : woman=gatherer was precisely because men are generally stronger and could wrestle a wild boar to its death more efficiently than a woman could. Women could do 'gathering' with a baby strapped to her back much easier than she could wrestle a wild boar with a baby strapped to her back. Things have changed, now, and people don't actually have to obtain their dinner in that manner.

[norbie]

I also agree that staying at home isn't necessarily subordinate. But I question your post, brightmorningstar, because honestly, what man in this day and age actually goes out and hunts to provide for their family? The reason why the division was man=hunter : woman=gatherer was precisely because men are generally stronger and could wrestle a wild boar to its death more efficiently than a woman could. Women could do 'gathering' with a baby strapped to her back much easier than she could wrestle a wild boar with a baby strapped to her back. Things have changed, now, and people don't actually have to obtain their dinner in that manner.
Isn't it just the Way 'we hunt' are changed? If we don't have to fight a wild Animal we still have to put up with a Boss.
So you think Pauls teaching is not valid anymore, because 'Time have changed?'
Norbie

[Fantine]

Don't have much time to look at this right now, but the one thought that occurred to me is that mothers have WORKED from the beginning of recorded history.

In an agrarian society, they brought their children to the fields with them.

Maintaining a home was much more backbreaking labor years ago without modern conveniences. Just getting water from the well for cooking and bathing was probably a few hours' work....

[pmcleanj]

...I am somewhat annoyed, in the light of recent debates, that the roles of a same-sex couple havent been discussed here....
Why be annoyed?

Nearly everyone I know -- with the exception perhaps of one or two persons for whom the subject has become their sole focus -- make it through hundreds or thousands of conversations without mentioning either homosexuality or same-sex couples. The subject really isn't that relevant to most issues.

That being said, if you do have something to say about same-sex couples relevant to the topic of this thread -- the economy of family values -- why don't you say it? Not, of course, a reiteration of the generic comments you have already made so thoroughly in the Homosexuals are not born that way thread, but specific to the topic of this thread.

Otherwise, we risk derailing not only the thread, but the board. The moderators are busy dealing with the last thread to be derailed by that "hot topic", and the one thread in twenty that we already have focussing on the subject you propose is already a larger proportion than the subject really merits.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear all,
Well as the issue of same-sex couples comes into marriage and adoption, I fail to see why it doesnt come into a discussion on family. Why? :)
Indeed in the Opening Posts it mentions the churches teaching on family values, marriage and children and the role of mother and father, husband and wife and man and woman. Are we saying agreeing that same-sex couples now dont come into family life? ... I dont think so, so I am very happy not to discuss it.
I shall make no further comment on it on this thread after this post.
My apologies

[Finella]

You got it right, a Patriarchal Family is were the Woman is Mother and Home maker. And as Dear Erin also said, this is deffently NOT a subordinate Role. There is no such a thing as subordinate role in a Family. In fact every Man will praise and lift up his Lady when he can come Home to a lovely Place, warm and homely. He will have time to play with the Children and later on give full attention to his Wife.
So you see that both, Man and Woman are fully equal, but have different roles in life. And this is also my interpretion of the Bible.
But I did like the TV Show 'Frontier House'. It was great how the Families worked together. And there were happy Children. You can see the reality, how seperated our Children are now. And I think Dear Pamela got it right in saying Children can and should be in the Workplace near Mum. Would be a perfect solution and strenghten our Families. So lets lobby our Politican and big Companies to have Children near Mum's Workplace. BTW someone remember the Movie 9 to 5? Not only was it good Fun, but it did have the Childcare Solution in the End. LOL
Norbie
So why call it "Patriarchal"? Does that not mean that the Man (as you capitalize it) is the "head" of the family? But you keep saying the roles of father and mother are equal.

What was also interesting in Frontier House, however, was how despondent the women became. Having to be limited to certain prescribed roles with little sense of accomplishment in them left them feeling depressed at times -- do you remember? the men, however, relished their ability to build and make great accomplishments, they had clear results at the end of the day for their work. But the women often were stuck in a cycle of repetitive, neverending work (cooking, cleaning) that always got undone and needed to be redone every day. But the demands of the Frontier, as the show also explained, showed how women took on more "masculine" roles because they had to in order to survive the harsh conditions they lived in (as Fantine points out). Women demanded the right to vote and hold property, and some states also granted them the right to divorce.

And it was the women in the movie "9 to 5" that initiated the childcare program at the office -- and the flex scheduling. Sadly, most workplaces still haven't initiated such programs (for instance, I have a doctor friend who works at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia -- they don't provide childcare to their employees!! A children's hospital!). It seems that only when women get into positions of power in business do businesses institute family-friendly policies and practices. The men are not doing it.

I agree with Karen, too, that in these times women may indeed be more successful at "bringing home the hunt" than some men. And men can be fantastic homemakers, too. Some women are not skilled homemakers, either. Should women be forced to do things that they are not skilled to do, and men forced to work and support a family when they are better skilled at caring for the family at home? Why ignore our God-given talents?

brightmorningstar, you know I would head down the derailment with you, but I agree with Pamela that this topic has enough meat on it without adding that hornet's nest.

[pmcleanj]

Isn't it just the Way 'we hunt' are changed? If we don't have to fight a wild Animal we still have to put up with a Boss.
Did you mean this as a joke, norbie? Or are you really contending that putting up with a Boss is analogous to fighting a wild Animal? Because that is not at all my experience with the kind of mutually-respectful interactions I've enjoyed in a modern office environment.

Although;) ... there have been times when there have been clear analogies between dealing with some co-workers, and dealing with toddlers :cool:

[brightmorningstar]

I agree with norbie. What I think the NT speaks of is the husband is like the spokesperson for the committe or team where the team is made up of husband and wife and maybe children, not really subordinate.

[erin74]

So why call it "Patriarchal"? Does that not mean that the Man (as you capitalize it) is the "head" of the family? But you keep saying the roles of father and mother are equal.

What was also interesting in Frontier House, however, was how despondent the women became. Having to be limited to certain prescribed roles with little sense of accomplishment in them left them feeling depressed at times -- do you remember? the men, however, relished their ability to build and make great accomplishments, they had clear results at the end of the day for their work. But the women often were stuck in a cycle of repetitive, neverending work (cooking, cleaning) that always got undone and needed to be redone every day. But the demands of the Frontier, as the show also explained, showed how women took on more "masculine" roles because they had to in order to survive the harsh conditions they lived in (as Fantine points out). Women demanded the right to vote and hold property, and some states also granted them the right to divorce.

And it was the women in the movie "9 to 5" that initiated the childcare program at the office -- and the flex scheduling. Sadly, most workplaces still haven't initiated such programs (for instance, I have a doctor friend who works at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia -- they don't provide childcare to their employees!! A children's hospital!). It seems that only when women get into positions of power in business do businesses institute family-friendly policies and practices. The men are not doing it.

I agree with Karen, too, that in these times women may indeed be more successful at "bringing home the hunt" than some men. And men can be fantastic homemakers, too. Some women are not skilled homemakers, either. Should women be forced to do things that they are not skilled to do, and men forced to work and support a family when they are better skilled at caring for the family at home? Why ignore our God-given talents?

brightmorningstar, you know I would head down the derailment with you, but I agree with Pamela that this topic has enough meat on it without adding that hornet's nest.
What that Frontier House thing also shows then is that if the men were so satisfied, perhaps their normal lifestyle doesn't give them such satisfaction.
ie the changes that have occured in the last x number of years have made it so that men have a lower sense of completion and pride in their work, highlighted by the increase in that by revisiting a different era.

I find the repetitive tasks of home life a little unsatisfying, but I try and balance them with more satisfying tasks - maybe that's what women of that era did too.... I am certian that feminism has won some victories for women, but that it has also enslaved them in a new way, as well as taking out men in the process.

[erin74]

I agree with norbie. What I think the NT speaks of is the husband is like the spokesperson for the committe or team where the team is made up of husband and wife and maybe children, not really subordinate.
I only see the women's role as subordinate in the same way that Christ's role compared to the Father is subordinate. His role means he submits to his Father's will, but he does so willingly, and certainly doesn't lose face, status, etc by doing so. He is still fully God and equally God in the godhead.

So too are women in a marriage equal in salvation and humanity, status, etc, but with a different role and in submission to the husband.

I find it amazing to think that we relate in the same way that God relates to himself within the Godhead - talk about made in God's image.

[pmcleanj]

What was also interesting in Frontier House, however, was how despondent the women became. ... the women often were stuck in a cycle of repetitive, neverending work that always got undone and needed to be redone every day.

This corresponds to something else that Fantine pointed out: that modern conveniences have very much changed the homemaker role -- and as a result, have changed the skills that modern homemakers have at their disposal. Often, I'm afraid, the change in skillset has limited our adaptability.

At the same time that Frontier House aired, Canada's History Channel was airing "Pioneer Quest: a Year in the Real West". I found the stylistic differences between the production values of the two series rather jarring, and its unsurprising that my cultural biases made me prefer the latter show. The homesteads used for Pioneer Quest were near a Mennonite settlement, and the show participants had the advantage of advice and teaching from their Mennonite neighbours who live an authentic agrarian life on an ongoing basis. So the participants were able to add the crafts of needlework and carving to their daily routine, which are things that do endure and don't need to be redone. Looking back on American frontier history, is it any wonder that piecework quilting became such a high artform?

I have the advantage over many modern women of having been raised with largely Victorian standards: I can sew a neat seam by hand or machine, make lace, knit, embroider, bake bread from scratch, eke three dinners out of one chicken or a small ham-butt, turn an old garment to make a new one from the fabric, cut my own patterns without recourse to Simplicity or Vogue, spin a smooth thread and weave cloth on a treadle loom or a frame loom, and so on.

What a waste! I'm also employed at a level where my time is valuable enough that all of those thrifty options are irrelevant except to the degree that they give me pleasure! They're no more useful than taking shorthand, operating a teletype or cleaning a manual typewriter (which I also learned in the past).

But the young single mothers who bring their children to our daycare or to whom our congregation is reaching out, are struggling to feed and clothe children on welfare or on minimum wage. They are feeding their children Kraft Dinner :shudder: and dressing them in third-world manufacture "clothes for children made by children" because they can't afford anything else. If only they had the sewing and cooking skills that Isabella Beeton extolls so highly in her "Book of Household Management" they could provide a balanced diet and durable quality clothes, and still have money to set aside.

I've wondered whether the church might have a ministry in passing along some of these skills to such struggling families. Many of our older members, especially those who lived through the depression and war years, have similar knowledge. But my sense is that the force of television culture is overwhelming this aspect of family values: with its message that everyone should be able to go out and buy whatever they think they need: that no-one should have to sit on the commuter-bus sewing or knitting their children's play-clothes and that every child should be able to expect a commercial logo on their jeans.

This is the one subject on which I find myself becoming discouraged about the church's ability to change the world: that the materialism taught by television is SO overwhelming.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear erin74,
I cant disagree with you thats what scripture says. :)
I tend to see it as both the husband and wife subordinate to Christ rather than the wife subordinate to the husband as the husband's body belongs to the wife and vice versa and the husand has to take his wife's best interests into account.
:)

[karen freeinchristman]

I've wondered whether the church might have a ministry in passing along some of these skills to such struggling families. Many of our older members, especially those who lived through the depression and war years, have similar knowledge. But my sense is that the force of television culture is overwhelming this aspect of family values: with its message that everyone should be able to go out and buy whatever they think they need: that no-one should have to sit on the commuter-bus sewing or knitting their children's play-clothes and that every child should be able to expect a commercial logo on their jeans.

This is the one subject on which I find myself becoming discouraged about the church's ability to change the world: that the materialism taught by television is SO overwhelming.

This is really interesting and so true. I'm sure that many older people in the church would be happy to teach their skills to the younger members and/or the community, but not many of the latter two groups would perceive it as valuable. :sigh:

[Naomi4Christ]

This is really interesting and so true. I'm sure that many older people in the church would be happy to teach their skills to the younger members and/or the community, but not many of the latter two groups would perceive it as valuable. :sigh:
We have a knitting ministry in our church, with mostly old and the very young taking part.

I keep donating all my wool from unfinished projects. :)

[SirTimothy]

Oddly enough, I would make a better SAHH than most girls my age I know. I cook, clean, wash, and do all that stuff, and love it to bits. I could very easily see myself as a non-stipendary priest in a parish, staying at home with my kids mostly, with my wife working full time. Admittedly, that's a long way off (I still need to find a girl that will go out with me first...)

Timothy

[pmcleanj]

Oddly enough, I would make a better SAHH than most girls my age ...

Not, actually, all that odd.

Again, with oblique reference to "Frontier House" and "Pioneer Quest", the nineteenth-century tales of Australia's outback, of the Raj, of Africa and of Canada's North are replete with accounts of competent men creating comfort and order in the wilderness from the basic skills that are necessary to any civilized human being.

Baden Powell, for example, writes about how many ill-cooked rabbit stews he was forced by his brothers and sisters to eat himself, until he could turn out something that they would deign to share. A Royal Canadian Mounted Police constable who couldn't keep his own uniform clean and pressed, or a private soldier who couldn't wax and polish a barracks floor, would find his sergeant arranging lots of practice time for him to improve those skills. And frontiersman, RCMP officer, explorer, army scout, bushman, and so on are all very "manly" occupations.

We were sitting around the dining table at Easter: me, Dean, Anne, Rachel, my sister and brother-in-law, and Dean's parents, when the talk turned to preparing a decent meal. I said something to the effect of "well, we all of us know what's involved in putting a meal on the table, having all done it", and Dean's mother said "all of us, except Grandpa". It struck me as a terrible indictment, that Grandpa has avoided a basic human mutual-care skill at which even the children are compent. It's a family joke -- put also sadly true -- that Grandpa won't even turn off the stove: he just calls Grandma to do it.

Dean, in contrast, was deeply embarrassed when he got married that he hadn't been taught to do his own laundry. He hates being non-competent at a necessary skill. You have cause to be grateful to your parents, for never having to apologize for such a lack.

[Naomi4Christ]

I can safely say that my boys know how to do their own laundry.

They are also reasonably competent cooks, in that they wouldn't starve if I suddenly dropped dead.

[karen freeinchristman]

How about the economy of family values with regards to looking after elderly relatives. I seem to know a lot of old people who are in care homes rather than with their families. As far as I can tell, one of the main reasons for this is the prevalence of the full-time job or career on the part of the old people's offspring. This is a pretty big change from centuries gone by.

[pmcleanj]

This is how it works for us: ... Many older people at church are also 'grandparents' to our kids. ....

This comment from Karen’s anecdote illustrates one important way that the Church can and should support family values: by providing the resources of an extended family that, hundreds of years ago, were provided in multi-generational extended households by the non-parental adults in a family: grandparents, elder siblings, aunts and uncles.

I have heard the complaints of adult parishioners who feel that parents should take responsibility for running children’s church and Sunday School, staff the nursery, and generally provide the support necessary for keeping the children occupied away from worship so that the non-parents can enjoy the anthems and sermon undistracted. That opinion – that children should be kept away and that parents should be the ones doing it – is an opinion that undermines family values tremendously. How are we to nurture children in the faith and spiritually strengthen their parents for the tremendous task of parenting, if we are scheduling Sunday School during worship and expecting their parents to staff the Sunday School?

In contrast I have seen other childfree adult parishioners volunteer for Sunday School and help keep children focused, cared-for and quiet during worship. I know of one man who has done nothing but steadfastly maintain that children are welcome at his bible study, who has had the pleasure of a fatherless little girl’s describing him as “He’s like a Dad to me”. I have the greatest gratitude to these generous people, who do not take the attitude that “I raised my children: I’m done” or that “I chose not to have children for a reason: let the parents who chose them do the work”. I am grateful on behalf of the struggling families who have come to church among them after feeling rejected and condemned in other congregations.

But, grateful as I feel, I feel deeply reluctant to ask any of these generous people for any support or to accept offers from them. I’ve heard too many condemnations during the Mommy Wars: asking for help or accepting it from any but a very few trusted friends seems like an invitation to further condemnation. I believe intellectually that accepting help is as much a grace as is serving others. At my wedding many years ago we sang “Sister, let me be your servant; let me be as Christ to you. Pray that I may have the grace to let you be my servant, too.” I can’t get beyond the intellectual acceptance of the idea. Some of that is sinful pride. More of it is spiritual scar tissue. And anyway, the issue is largely moot: the condemnation and shunning happened when my children were small and I was most in need of help. Increasingly now, when I need help, I’m able to turn to the girls themselves.

[erin74]

But, grateful as I feel, I feel deeply reluctant to ask any of these generous people for any support or to accept offers from them. I’ve heard too many condemnations during the Mommy Wars: asking for help or accepting it from any but a very few trusted friends seems like an invitation to further condemnation. I believe intellectually that accepting help is as much a grace as is serving others. At my wedding many years ago we sang “Sister, let me be your servant; let me be as Christ to you. Pray that I may have the grace to let you be my servant, too.” I can’t get beyond the intellectual acceptance of the idea. Some of that is sinful pride. More of it is spiritual scar tissue. And anyway, the issue is largely moot: the condemnation and shunning happened when my children were small and I was most in need of help. Increasingly now, when I need help, I’m able to turn to the girls themselves


I agree completely. It takes a lot of grace to accept help.

[Iosias]

So why call it "Patriarchal"? Does that not mean that the Man (as you capitalize it) is the "head" of the family? But you keep saying the roles of father and mother are equal.

Ephesians 5:22-33 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."

From the BCP:

Husband: "I N take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth."

Wife: "I N. take thee N. to my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth."

Priest states later: "O GOD, who by thy mighty power hast made all things of nothing; who also (after other things set in order) didst appoint, that out of man (created after thine own image and similitude) woman should take her beginning; and, knitting them together, didst teach that it should never be lawful to put asunder those whom thou by Matrimony hadst made one: O God, who hast consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent mystery, that in it is signified and represented the spiritual marriage and unity betwixt Christ and his Church: Look mercifully upon these thy servants, that both this man may love his wife, according to thy Word, (as Christ did love his spouse the Church, who gave himself for it, loving and cherishing it even as his own flesh,) and also that this woman may be loving and amiable, faithful and obedient to her husband; and in all quietness, sobriety, and peace, be a follower of holy and godly matrons. O Lord, bless them both, and grant them to inherit thy everlasting kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

It really is not that difficult to find out what God thinks!

[erin74]

Bizarrely enough I just prepared for bible study (after about 3-4 weeks off due to holidays, etc), and it was on this topic exactly.

Titus 2:1-10

The entire passage is interesting, but there is one bit about women that I really had not noticed so much before.


4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children,
5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.


I got my dh to check the greek, and it was definitely refering to home duties here.

I don't think the passage precludes women working, but it does seem to be saying that women shouldn't neglect it. And that there is a purpose - "that the word may not be reviled."

I know that some will say this is just cultural, or write off Paul, if the other discussions on women's roles is anything to go buy. But humour for me a bit and consider the implications if it is for now also.

[Finella]

Ephesians 5:22-33 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."

From the BCP:

Husband: "I N take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth."

Wife: "I N. take thee N. to my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth."

Priest states later: "O GOD, who by thy mighty power hast made all things of nothing; who also (after other things set in order) didst appoint, that out of man (created after thine own image and similitude) woman should take her beginning; and, knitting them together, didst teach that it should never be lawful to put asunder those whom thou by Matrimony hadst made one: O God, who hast consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent mystery, that in it is signified and represented the spiritual marriage and unity betwixt Christ and his Church: Look mercifully upon these thy servants, that both this man may love his wife, according to thy Word, (as Christ did love his spouse the Church, who gave himself for it, loving and cherishing it even as his own flesh,) and also that this woman may be loving and amiable, faithful and obedient to her husband; and in all quietness, sobriety, and peace, be a follower of holy and godly matrons. O Lord, bless them both, and grant them to inherit thy everlasting kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

It really is not that difficult to find out what God thinks!
I wasn't challenging scripture, I was challenging norbie. :) He was saying that egalitarian roles are "patriarchal," which wasn't making sense to me.

But if we are going to scripture, there it is everyone, "wives, submit to your husbands." But everyone is saying that working in the home is not a subordinate postition. But working in the home is the position of the wife. Apparently. Does the logic not follow that working in the home is a subordinate position to working out of the home?

I do write it (Paul's commandment prescribing these roles) off as a cultural phenomenon, yes. That doesn't mean I don't respect my husband, and he does not respect me. It doesn't mean that I don't care for my home, or that he doesn't care for the home. The home is cared for. And we are caring for each other. Isn't the point that the relationship is mutually supportive and respectful?

More later on the economy of home craft and modern manufacturing -- both good points Pamela brought up earlier. And I couldn't agree more, Pamela, about how the church can provide an extended family for children.

[karen freeinchristman]

I do write it (Paul's commandment prescribing these roles) off as a cultural phenomenon, yes. I, too, think that it was cultural, but not only that, I strongly believe that Paul had the purpose of it uppermost in his mind - so that the gospel would be heard and not reviled. Things are SO different now, that for Christians to be promoting anything other than egalitarianism in western culture would actually hinder the spread of the gospel.

[norbie]

My Dear Finella, thank you for your Challenge. It realy is the hardest Subject ever.
I don't know, maybe we have to "split" it - the spiritual Part of Pauls writing and todays Culture.
I still believe and stick to it: Paul was teaching the Patriachial Houshold, I think we all agreed on this as the Posts show, and I am in Favour of this.:thumbsup:
Now interesting for me is that todays Theology Students believe in the change of Culture. :) PLease Dear Karen this is NOT PERSONAL to you! ;)
But Dear Karen writes that if we don't acept equality we would even hinder the spread of the Gospel today??
Sorry my Dear Lady, I strongly have to protest against this. The Opposite I think is the Fact of NOT spreading the Gospel. And this is why I believe that nearly every were in the Western World the Islam IS the FASTEST growing Religion: young People , especially Woman looking for a true Family Value, a security in their Home, a 'lean-on' to their Husbands, and maybe don't have to go to work and can enjoy Children and a homely Home.
It is not in the Nature of Woman - our poor Woman got "brainwashed" by a very wrong Feminist Movement. And it will be hard to go back to Nature. (even Germaine Greer said she was wrong).
This is just my thinking - and I could be wrong.
Norbie

[karen freeinchristman]

My Dear Finella, thank you for your Challenge. It realy is the hardest Subject ever.
I don't know, maybe we have to "split" it - the spiritual Part of Pauls writing and todays Culture.
I still believe and stick to it: Paul was teaching the Patriachial Houshold, I think we all agreed on this as the Posts show, and I am in Favour of this.:thumbsup:
Now interesting for me is that todays Theology Students believe in the change of Culture. :) PLease Dear Karen this is NOT PERSONAL to you! ;)
But Dear Karen writes that if we don't acept equality we would even hinder the spread of the Gospel today??
Sorry my Dear Lady, I strongly have to protest against this. The Opposite I think is the Fact of NOT spreading the Gospel. And this is why I believe that nearly every were in the Western World the Islam IS the FASTEST growing Religion: young People , especially Woman looking for a true Family Value, a security in their Home, a 'lean-on' to their Husbands, and maybe don't have to go to work and can enjoy Children and a homely Home.
It is not in the Nature of Woman - our poor Woman got "brainwashed" by a very wrong Feminist Movement. And it will be hard to go back to Nature. (even Germaine Greer said she was wrong).
This is just my thinking - and I could be wrong.
Norbie
Norbie, I think that it's great that we can all share our views here in such a respectful way, even when we disagree. :)

In my view, the Gospel does not include patriarchy and women staying at home. Spreading the Gospel today has to do with 2 things: helping people to recognise their sin and telling them of God's loving grace in Jesus Christ.

If you feel that it is sinful for women to work outside the home, then I can see how you arrive at your view. We can just agree to disagree. Of course, people can take things to extremes and something not inherently sinful can become a sin if it begins to break God's commandments.

[norbie]

Norbie, I think that it's great that we can all share our views here in such a respectful way, even when we disagree. :)

In my view, the Gospel does not include patriarchy and women staying at home. Spreading the Gospel today has to do with 2 things: helping people to recognise their sin and telling them of God's loving grace in Jesus Christ.

If you feel that it is sinful for women to work outside the home, then I can see how you arrive at your view. We can just agree to disagree. Of course, people can take things to extremes and something not inherently sinful can become a sin if it begins to break God's commandments.
No it's Not sinful, it has nothing to do with sin, I think. It's just the way Paul describes the Marriage.
It would be better if we could aford moneywise a Family after Pauls teaching. But I don't think it will happened anymore.
I give up on this and I pray that I haven't offended anyone of you working Ladies.
Norbie

[Finella]

Thank you norbie for your answer.

I don't think the fact of Islam's worldwide growth is necessarily due to the desire for a more traditional set of family values. I suspect it has more to do with an overall desire for people to be told what to do in a prescriptive set of scriptures and in a prescriptive religious culture. Sometimes people prefer a more institutionalized (religion-wise) lifestyle with clear-cut rules and regs.

Christianity, however, has such a broad lifestyle across cultures that we are often required to define our own ways of living out our Christianity. One can't necessarily tell a Christian from just walking past one on the street, for a simple example.

Whether this is good or bad isn't really the point, it's just the way Christianity is. But we also need to recognize that, in Christianity, we have the freedom to find ways for our families to live in a way that fits our understanding of God's will for us.

And the church can help us do that, with many of the suggestions in this thread. Can the church be our wider family, providing strength and guidance to our children and support to families caring for elders? Can the church help families learn skills that will enable them to both provide for their families and also come closer together in relationship? I think these are great ideas.

[SirTimothy]

If you take Islam's growth purely on birth rate alone, yes, it is the fastest growing religion. If you take it on convert rates... well, no, it's not even approaching.

[erin74]

I, too, think that it was cultural, but not only that, I strongly believe that Paul had the purpose of it uppermost in his mind - so that the gospel would be heard and not reviled. Things are SO different now, that for Christians to be promoting anything other than egalitarianism in western culture would actually hinder the spread of the gospel.
There is more than one purpose listed in that passage - it says a lot about good doctrine too.

Also - how can you apply such a blanket statement. Where is the proof that the world reviles God because women choose to stay at home? And how do you determine when to change the application to exactly opposite to what it states - 51% of popular opinion?

We cannot decide what bits of the bible to follow based on what the world thinks we should do. And I for one do not believe that the world reviles God because women choose to stay at home.

I also don't think this passage precludes work. It does say that we should not neglect home duties. It doesn't say that we shouldn't work at all. And the Proverbs 31 woman does show us that God is not against women working (although not sure if she is a young woman, and not sure that isn't just about Israel... but that's for another post).

But I do think that when we look at the package we actually come out with something that is quite attractive. A women who loves and submits to her husband, who loves her children, is kind, pure, self controlled, looks after her children. People may ridicule, but I don't believe it would turn them against God - in fact I think they would see it as admirable. So while in principle they might find it hard to swallow, when they look at someone who is like that, and are a witness to her life and her marriage, it is something attractive, not the opposite.

It is like the gospel - some draw near to the word and others fight back and flee - it is what we are to expect. It's not a popularity contest, where the world gets to decide what Christianity looks like.

[norbie]

If you take Islam's growth purely on birth rate alone, yes, it is the fastest growing religion. If you take it on convert rates... well, no, it's not even approaching.
A very good point, remember the Beginn of the Mormons? They were allowed 2 or 3 Wifes so to have many Children and grow faster.
Norbie

[norbie]

"But I do think that when we look at the package we actually come out with something that is quite attractive. A women who loves and submits to her husband, who loves her children, is kind, pure, self controlled, looks after her children. People may ridicule, but I don't believe it would turn them against God - in fact I think they would see it as admirable. So while in principle they might find it hard to swallow, when they look at someone who is like that, and are a witness to her life and her marriage, it is something attractive, not the opposite"

Oh Dear Erin you realy gave me great Joy with your most wonderful words. This is it what's all about I think. And this is what I tried to get across in all my Post Replays.:thumbsup:
The Woman in Proverb 31 is to respect, she organised the whole household, was very strong, commanded her Slaves, was a great Business Woman invested wisely and so on. It was a Person People looked up to - and jet she submitted lovingly to her Husband.
That what I think is the true Christian Role of our Woman, and I strongly believe if the Church can promote this Woman and so this type of Family - our Churches will be overflowing.
The negative side of course is the Governments which are not so Family friendly. And I do understand a lot of Woman are going out to work for shortcoming of Money. It's sad but true.
So what solution can we suggest? The Canadian Way were Children can be at Mums Workplace - the Chinese Way were Parents live together with the young ones and help - The Governments in doubling the Child Allowance - Home Industry?
The Church have to find a way and lobby it with the Government, especially at Election Time. I strongly believe that even in the 21st Century the Woman of Proverb 31 can still be there and very happy.
Norbie

[erin74]

At the moment our government sends a mixed message. Mothers are apparently very important to children to start with - hence stacks of $$ to have a baby. Then they support you a smidgen to stay at home. But should your child turn 6, they apparently have no need for you anymore. All bets are off - go and get a job.

Not that they are doing anything to encourage work places to make it easy for mums to work in school hours. No the Industrial Relations package means that it is more difficult than ever to find jobs that suit the employees circumstances.

So if ever you want to own a home you need both parents to work, except for the short space of time it takes for you to have a baby. Apparently mums are good for having babies, but unnecessary for raising them - according to our govt anyway.

[karen freeinchristman]

Where is the proof that the world reviles God because women choose to stay at home? :scratch: hmm... did I say that the world reviles God because women choose to stay at home? No, I don't think so. I think the choice of whether to stay at home or not should be made by the couple and their individual situation. I think that the decision of who stays home and who works should not be made soley on the basis of gender. That's what I meant by egalitarianism in this situation. Sorry if my post was confusing.

And I for one do not believe that the world reviles God because women choose to stay at home. Neither do I.

I also don't think this passage precludes work. It does say that we should not neglect home duties. It doesn't say that we shouldn't work at all. And the Proverbs 31 woman does show us that God is not against women working I agree.

But I do think that when we look at the package we actually come out with something that is quite attractive. A women who loves and submits to her husband, who loves her children, is kind, pure, self controlled, looks after her children. People may ridicule, but I don't believe it would turn them against God - in fact I think they would see it as admirable. So while in principle they might find it hard to swallow, when they look at someone who is like that, and are a witness to her life and her marriage, it is something attractive, not the opposite. I also agree here, Erin. But I think that the word 'submit' is where we might have some differences of opinion. I would say that I do submit to my husband quite a lot of the time, but not always. And I don't think that a wife has to always submit to whatever her husband says/wants. There are too many differing circumstances to give examples here, but anyway, that is my view.

[norbie]

Norbie, I think that it's great that we can all share our views here in such a respectful way, even when we disagree. :)

In my view, the Gospel does not include patriarchy and women staying at home. Spreading the Gospel today has to do with 2 things: helping people to recognise their sin and telling them of God's loving grace in Jesus Christ.

If you feel that it is sinful for women to work outside the home, then I can see how you arrive at your view. We can just agree to disagree. Of course, people can take things to extremes and something not inherently sinful can become a sin if it begins to break God's commandments.
You are right the Gospel doesn't say anything about patriarchy - but Paul does in his teaching, and this I have learned in Sunday School, is through the Holy Spirit, all Pauls writing.
It has nothing to do with sin - but it would improve on a more relaxed, happy Family Life.
Don't stone me - I understand it's nearly impossible in todays life: the Government Policy is build on a two income Family.
May I suggest to our CF Members to Google:
L.A.F.
I fully agree with them,
Norbie