I would like to offer my thoughts in the current discussion about the role of women in church, family and society.

I wonder how much time will pass before some enlightened person realizes that our Form for Marriage in the Book of Praise needs amendment by the churches. After all, it seems hopelessly outdated and needlessly judgmental toward those women who want to continue their outside jobs and careers after marriage and children. The Form instructs husbands to “work faithfully in your daily calling, that you may support your family and also help those in need”, while the corresponding exhortation for new brides is “take proper care of your family and household, and live modestly, in faith, love and holiness.”

Only a desperate revisionist could deny that these words presuppose clear role distinctions for wife and mother and husband and father, exactly the kind of role distinctions under which most of us were raised, but which now allegedly fail to meet the needs of our supposedly more complicated world.

Isn't it odd, by the way, how every one simply nods their heads to the thesis that life is more complicated today? Whenever I hear the “more complicated” theory about life, I mentally translate this to mean something like “less normatively directed.” As I see it, many of the “complications” of modern life are due to people's departure from creation structures for marriage and family.

Does the Form for Marriage reflect only a time-bound view of family? As we consider this question, we need to ask ourselves what Scripture teaches about family and marriage. The assumption of the previous contributors seems to be that God's Word has no wisdom for us on this question. In any case, I saw no evidence of searching the Word for answers. The only Scriptural reference I saw was a vague allusion to Christian “freedom.” Unfortunately, the lovely phrase “Christian freedom” often becomes a catch-all rationale which means: “End of discussion. Please don't bother me with your annoying questions.”

No Job Description⤒🔗

It is true, of course, that Scripture does not come with an exact job description for a wife and mother. Neither do I come with such a job description. You won't find any orders to bake whole-wheat-bread at home, nor to sew all your own clothes and grow your own vegetables or to be a Block Parent or leader of the Girls' Club.

However, Scripture does reveal to us the mind of God in terms of principles for life. Our society is doomed if there is no return to these principles. In secular journals, ironically, one can note of late a growing appreciation for the immense contributions made by stay-at-home wives and mothers to the well-being of our civilization. One writer in my local newspaper sees stay-at-home wives and mothers as the only sure defence against the forces of barbarism in society, which are manifested in problems such as violent teenagers and other juvenile and adult social pathologies. More and more people are realizing that allegedly traditionalistic and stifling stereotypes regarding role distinctions of men and women are actually the delightful evidence of creational archetypes. Ours would not be the first time in history that saw the children of light searching for supposed dainties which in the stomachs of the worldly had already proven their essential bitterness. Much is at stake in this debate, not just the private prejudices and lifestyle choices of a few, but the emotional, moral and spiritual wellbeing of a whole generation.

What then, does the Word of God reveal? Let me give just a bit of the evidence. Genesis 1 reveals the creation of male and female, both fully the image of God, and points to the calling of mankind, both male and female, to be busy within God's creation, subduing it and exercising priestly dominion.

A Helper for Her Husband←⤒🔗

We also learn from Genesis 2 that the woman was created to be a helper for her husband. He is the head and she is the helper. The sexes are spiritually equal before the LORD, but this does not mean an undifferentiated sameness in marriage. The roles of men and women in the unity of marriage are not interchangeable. Man was not created to be the woman's helper, but the woman was made to help the man. Nor was man made from woman, but woman from man. The order of creation does not mean, of course, that men should cease or fail to support, assist and cherish their wives. However, helping his wife is not a man's vocation in the same way that a married woman has the role of supporting her husband in his godly undertakings. It is hard to see how a fulltime job outside the home fits with such a role description.

In Genesis 3 we learn about the effects of sin. It brings separation from God and results in death. In addition we learn that sin has consequences for both male and female, precisely in the area of particular responsibility for each sex.

To the woman, God said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” To Adam, God said, “… cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread…”

It is evident that the wretched effects of sin strike home by God's decree in the particular life roles for husband and wife: for the wife, in her role in childbearing and mothering, and for the husband, in his task and responsibility as breadwinner and provider for his wife and family. Clearly, God's creational intention is for a wife to occupy herself primarily in her calling for the family as a homemaker. Nothing must be allowed to rob her freshest time and strongest energies from that task. This view is not just the cultural heritage of the pre-”complicated” world, but is the illuminating perspective of Genesis.

People sometimes point to Proverbs 31 as providing validation for a woman's professional or other pursuits outside the home. Again, such a reading is revisionist and tendentious, not natural and straightforward. Proverbs 31 provides a detailed portrait of a godly woman. The intent is not that each and every female reader of Scripture would try to model herself in detail on this portrait. Instead, each reader can relate her particular strengths and weaknesses to the overall thrust of this account. What is the overall direction of the energy and work of the woman of Proverbs 31? Clearly, it is not personal self-expression that motivates her, it is not the pursuit of a career, it is not development of talents, however brilliant, it is not the desire for fulfilment, but it is the wellbeing of her family and home that guides this lady (compare, e.g. verses 15, 21 and 27).

Busy at Home←⤒🔗

The direction of Genesis 1, 2 and 3 and of Proverbs 31 is maintained in the New Testament. In his letter to Titus, the apostle directs Titus to ensure that the young women are trained to “love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind and submissive to their husbands.” The word translated by “domestic” in the RSV means to be a “home-worker” or to “be busy at home” (NIV). 1 Timothy 5:14 stresses that wives are to “rule their households.” The NIV renders this as “to manage their households.” Again, it is evident that of prime importance for a married woman is the care and running of her household and family.

In summary, I believe there exists a God-given pattern of division of labour and roles in the functioning of a family. Role interchangeability and equality ideals are the baneful fruit of an anti-Creator philosophy which pretends that the differences between the sexes and their, roles within marriage and family are purely arbitrary, as if men and women. The reality is that God defines us and God gives us our roles. Our happiness and the well-being of our culture in learning to humbly accept what God has laid upon us.

Am I saying that women may never, under any circumstances, work outside the home? No, I am saying that when a woman does so, it must always be in the context of her primary task, which is the home. She needs to ask herself (and the church community needs to point her to these same questions): is my working outside the home helpful to my husband (and I don't mean because it satisfies a husband's desire for more income)? Does my work outside the home still allow me to give my strongest energies and best time and freshest emotions to the wellbeing of my husband and family? Am I doing it because of my supposed emotional or intellectual needs or because of the needs of my family? Does my work challenge my husband's necessary position as the chief bread-winner of the family? I have little doubt that honest answering of these questions will result in no women working full time out of the home and in curtailing even all part-time labour.

In addition to the preliminary Biblical arguments I've brought forward, I could marshal also a host of psychological, biological, economic and anthropological evidence detailing the natural, creational function of married women in the home and the deleterious effects of her leaving it. Maybe this could be done, with the editor's permission, in a future article.

If people differ from the viewpoint expressed in this article, I will endeavour to honour their opinion. However, I do ask that people not respond with all kinds of personal anecdotes. Everyone can tell stories about how they know Mrs. X. who works 8 hours a day out of her home and has a spotless house and well-adjusted children and a superbly happy marriage, or about Mrs. Y. who is a much nicer wife and mother if she is allowed to work outside the home and so forth, or about Mr. Z. who is a much better housekeeper and care-giver than his wife. Anecdotes will get us nowhere. We are all inclined to remember those which suit our own position. I, too, could tell a lot of stories in support of my own viewpoint. However, what we need are not stories and feelings, but Biblical principles and discussion thereof. Only in this way can the church be light and salt to a rapidly decaying society around us.