"Being a wife and mother are not valued in this culture, no, not even among many Christians. They teach their daughters to pursue higher education and careers which often keep them far from God's will for them."
Lori bases her opinion that the Bible forbids wives from having careers and commands them to be homemakers on a single verse:
Titus 2:3-5:
Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
This is especially ironic given her warning in another recent blog ("Let's Stop Exalting Singleness") against basing our theology on only a few verses! Apparently it's okay to make an exception if a particular verse appears to affirm our prior opinions?
She complains about those who "do all types of gymnastics with words to get around this." In other words, don't think too hard about what you read, and especially don't study. Studying the Bible involves considering things like textual and cultural context as well as translational nuances and difficulties. What happens if we take the easy way out and simply take each isolated verse at face value? We come away from Luke 14:26 thinking that God commands us to hate our families, or from Matthew 19:21 thinking that salvation is not by grace, but by selling everything you have and giving it to the poor!
No, we can't simply dismiss objections to the supposedly "plain" meaning of such verses by accusing those who attempt to understand their original intent as simply looking for an excuse to disobey God. I could just as easily present Lori with one of the verses above and accuse her of being in rebellion against God because she doesn't hate her family. Any time someone is hard on you for studying further and attempting to understand something as best as you can, there is good reason to be suspicious.
So does this verse command all wives to remain at home? We cannot read the Bible as if it were written directly to us in the 21st century. It was written to real people in a real (different) environment and time period. Learning what we can about the people to whom it was written can only help us understand the intent behind it.
In other words, Lori takes this verse as if it were written in a culture in which women having careers is normal. But it wasn't. It was written at a time when no one would have thought of women doing anything other than staying home. Therefore, the obvious question is why did Paul even feel the need to command such a thing?
One hint is found by comparing the word used in different Bible translations. While many say "workers at home" or "keepers at home", other say "busy at home." This paints a slightly different picture. Instead of telling women to remain at home, it would appear Paul was telling them to be productive and not idle (which, unlike the idea of women being confined to the home, actually does find much support throughout the Bible). In other words, Paul was already assuming they would be at home, and was simply telling them not to be lazy.
Another interesting point is that Paul gives this instruction "so that the word of God will not be dishonored." What does he mean by this? The Gospel has nothing to do with household chores, so obviously Paul isn't saying that somehow God is upset if someone other than the wife is cleaning and cooking. Rather, Paul's concern is that believers do their best to follow the customs of the time and place in which they live, to avoid turning people away from the Gospel for reasons that had nothing to do with the Gospel itself. This theme is found throughout the New Testament. Christianity was a new religion and would have had a harder time growing if people confused it for a movement for social change.
One example to support my point above is found just a few verses later in Titus 2:9-10:
Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.
This presents us with a dilemma: if we take each of these verses at face value and refuse to consider their context, we must conclude that God approves of slavery. If, instead, we admit that this verse commanding slaves to obey their masters exists for the reasons I mentioned above (to distinguish Christianity as being primarily about internal rather than social change, and obeying authorities to the extent possible so that there would be no distraction from the Gospel), how do we justify insisting that just a few verses earlier, the command to be keepers at home must be for all women at all times and in all places?
I have no doubt having a parent at home is great for kids (although there's no reason it couldn't be Dad instead of Mom if that works out better in some cases!). But it would be ignorant to pass judgement on every family in which both parents work. Lori can have this opinion if she likes, but she should not so hastily declare the Bible to be on her side when, in fact, the biblical support for such an idea is at best extremely thin. As I mentioned above, Lori would do well to take her own advice and avoid basing an entire doctrine on a single verse.
Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/few-teach-women-to-be-keepers-at-home/
No comments:
Post a Comment