In Pauls’ letter to Titus, he instructs him to instruct the older women to train younger women, among other things, to be “oikouros”: translated variously as “workers at home”[1], “working at home”[2], “busy at home”[3] and the like:

"Older women likewise are to be reverent in behaviour, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self- controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.”

Titus 2:3-5 ESV[4]

This essay attempts to understand the processes of interpretation of the term “workers at home” as it is discussed in the context of our surrounding culture- aiming to show how the interpretation of the term may therefore be coloured and shaped by it. The scope of this essay therefore is not so much the exegesis of Titus 2:3-5. It is primarily an exploration of the ways the passage often comes to be interpreted; in large part because of various pre-existing commitments, ideals and ways of seeing the world.

To clarify my usage of language throughout this article, I will usually be using the word women without specifying whether I’m referring to all women generally or more specifically to women who are wives and/or mothers- or more specifically mothers with young children. This is simply to follow the language of the passage itself without trying to communicate some particular conclusion about it’s interpretation or application in this regard. At other times, as the context seems fit, I will use the term wives or mothers in an attempt to follow the way the contemporary discussion occurs as it actually exists- among differing people and positions.

Current theological discussion around issues of gender generally tend to fall into two groups of views. An “egalitarian” view holds that men and women are equal in dignity and worth as made in the image of God and that God upholds no mandated difference of roles within the church, home or society. A “complementarian” view holds that men and women are equal in dignity and worth as made in the image of God as well having various God given roles and responsibilities that are unique to each sex- for example in marriage and in the church.[5]

Another way people look at these issues is in categories of conservative/traditional and liberal/progressive. Those that are seen as socially conservative typically want to conserve valuable traditions and ideals that have remained relatively stable over time. Women and men that are theologically conservative generally want to preserve what they see as the truth of God’s word as it has been faithfully preserved through the generations. There are men and women that see themselves as more socially progressive or liberal- that is they hold themselves to be progressing towards a better society with more individual freedom. It is therefore plausible for many that one can be theologically conservative and socially liberal in the political and ideological sense of the latter term. Throughout this essay the terms liberal, conservative, traditional and progressive will therefore be used with these meanings and are in no way meant as pejorative terms. For the purposes of this essay a theological liberalism is not an especially relevant category.

Typically, consistent complementarians do hold conservative views on this issue and egalitarians usually hold a more liberal or progressive view. Complementarians are usually more likely to interpret Titus 2:3-5 as encouraging or instructing women to forgo working in the workplace in favour of being a “Stay-At-Home Mum”, should the couple be blessed with children. Softer versions of this application exist, such as the mother working less by having a part time job when their infants are younger. Egalitarians are likely to see the same passage as not making any such authoritatively binding claim on women today. Such a view generally holds that mothers are free to choose their own work and career patterns that suit them and their families- according to their giftings and talents. These options might include working full time or deciding with their husbands that he himself will in fact stay home to care for their young children. However, it is worth noting that the above isn’t necessarily the case. It is possible for those who hold complementarian views generally (such as issues around male headship in marriage), can have progressive views on the issue of womens’ relationship to work and the home as it relates to Titus 2:3-5. In my experience those who have a socially liberal outlook are less likely to have theologically conservative views about the same issue. For the purposes of this essay, let us assume that I am discussing positions and their advocates that have women’s best interests at heart and want women to flourish and thrive.

When coming to Titus 2:3-5 various questions regarding interpretation may arise. For example, was Paul addressing women specifically apart from men? Was the phrase intended as command/law, wisdom, instruction or merely incidental? Is there anything here that still applies to us today? These are all important questions. It could be argued however, that our answers to these questions are often (unknowingly) heavily influenced by various factors external to the passage itself.

In our society many of us live in an environment that differs from much of history and indeed large parts of the word. For example our society is heavily capitalistic, modernised, industrialised (or often post-industrialised), technicised, bureaucratic, liberal and individualistic. These aspects are part of economic, social and cultural realities that form what may be seen as normal everyday experience for most.[6] What we often fail to recognise is the extent to which unconscious assumptions and sensibilities, drawn in large part from these realities, shape our interpretation of and application of scripture on this issue. It is some of these presuppositions that are the focus of this essay, as I believe a clearer awareness of these can help us to see where our interpretation is shaped more by culture than we perhaps realize- and help us to see God’s message through the scriptures more clearly.

***

When coming to the part in the passage rendered as the clause “workers at home”, the first thing perhaps that may be addressed is our preconceived notions and experience of work. How does our view of work shape how we read Titus 2:3-5? In our culture, when we talk about “work”[7] we often only or typically mean paid employed work- usually for a larger corporation, charity or for an arm of the state[8]. Well paid and glamorous jobs confer status on the individual. Low paid or voluntary work is often perceived as low status, having little value and/or of little importance. It is also felt that high paid work and leadership roles have more dignity. Those who are unemployed, or intentionally not employed, are liable to be looked down upon. In such an environment a conservative reading of Titus 2:3-5 is often rendered implausible- seeming to put women in danger of being low status. This undervaluing of some work often stretches to “childcare” both as a job and also towards those who spend significant amounts of time caring for their own children. The modern workplace also tends to work well in treating workers as individuals abstracted from their particular relationships and relational responsibilities. Work is organised in certain ways to achieve and maximise efficiency. It is the ideal that roles are filled based on who has the abilities and qualifications to perform certain tasks. It is important to pay much closer thought to what work is and where it’s value lies.

Individualism runs through many aspects of our society’s thinking and practice. To accurately think about individualism we must note that it isn’t always exactly equivalent to selfishness. It also includes the perceiving of and treating others (and ourselves) without regard to most of their relational contexts. Untethered individuals abstracted (as much as possible) from the bonds of dependency and responsibility.[9] Work is no exception and is often seen as a way of seeking self-fulfillment and self-actualisation. Much of modern feminism is based, in part, on the self-actualisation of women via the workplace. We are often blind to the way that men are also participating in this same orientation of work for and towards the self- this in fact being historically prior to the feminist trends around this focus. The modern mind perhaps sees a traditional interpretation of Titus 2:3-5 as referring to the individual woman at home with children- isolated and cut off from relationships and the rest of the social sphere. Perhaps this reality is a risk in a society where many more women do work outside the home and where mobility (especially amongst the educated and middle to upper classes) does tend to create larger distances between family members geographically. Conservative interpreters of Titus 2:3-5 therefore need to pay attention to the danger of isolation- perhaps to a much greater extent.

As well as this, our conception of the home is of vital importance to how we read this passage. For example, what is the home for? What is done there? Although there are many different experiences of the home depending on individual experience and family history, it can be shown to be the case that the modern home has many differences to its counterpart in ancient and biblical times. The home in modern times is often seen as a place of rest, recreation, leisure and recuperation. It is the place where all our possessions are and where our entertainment can be enjoyed through various media. This increase in leisure can exist, in part, because of the increased development of labour-saving devices in the 1900s. Many of these devices (such as dishwashers, washing machines, microwaves and tumble dryers etc.) have greatly changed the work women typically did- in both it’s kind and it’s degree- the implications of which are not often realized.[10] The home is also a place of emotional nurture and a springboard for launching off into the world, a base for our ventures into the ‘real’ world. It is largely a private sphere. Positively speaking the home can be a buffer against the highly performative expectations of the workplace. It is a place typically occupied by no more members than the traditional nuclear family- but often less than this. In society after the changes of the industrial revolution have reached maturity, typically little or no work of economic nature is done within the home.[11] The work that is done in the home is often of a limited nature and much of the language used to describe it (e.g. chores) can tend to evoke menial drudgery. Agrarian essayist Wendell Berry writes:

“The house is built, equipped, decorated and provisioned by other people, by strangers. In it, the married couple practice as few as possible of the disciplines of household or homestead. Their domestic labor consists principally of buying things, putting things away, and throwing things away... In such a “home”, a married couple are mates, sexually, legally, and socially, but they are not helpmates; they do nothing useful either together or for each other”[12]

Berry’s statements may be an exercise in hyberbole, but viewed on a broad social scale his points are arguably generally sound. Berry offers a description of the place of the contemporary ‘western’ home in contrast to what exists elsewhere and in previous times.

How does our conception and practice of the home effect our interpretation? Because of the above trends it’s easy to see why those with a modern more progressive view often see a complementarian view as an attempt to confine women to a narrow place- keeping them from economic contribution and the dignity of engaging with the world through human labour. For example, egalitarian Margeret Mowczko claims that "with some exceptions, being housebound and involved with domestic work was the only acceptable situation for respectable Roman matrons in many parts of the Greco-Roman world” and “nowhere does the Bible give any indication that girls or older women should be confined to the home or restricted to domestic duties.”[13] These statements have a large element of truth in them that many conservative interpreters would also agree with- themselves not arguing that women should be “confined”, “housebound” or “restricted”. However, notice that the assertions negatively frame a conservative position at the outset- subtly describing a complementarian position on Titus 2:3-5 in negative terms.

On the other side, many complementarian interpreters rightly question the reducing of such domestic tasks to low worth and status- wanting to show that such tasks that have historically been undertaken primarily by women have a dignity and value that are being devalued today. However positive this is, some conservatively minded Christians who interpret Titus 2:3-5 often hearken back to a 1950s model of the home that is historically novel and which already has many of its long held functions stripped away from it. Nancy Pearcy comments on this reality:

"The woman at home has suffered a massive loss in status and skill opportunities. Of course feminists propose to solve the problem by promoting more of the same-- by degrading the home yet further and exalting the public sphere as the true source of women's fulfilment. Yet traditionalists have offered no effective counterproposal, for they have found no solution to the decline of the home”[14]

Economics is a major focus of national[15] concern and government policies seek to encourage as many people as possible to participate in economic activity. However, this activity is usually perceived exclusively as that which involves the transfer of money. Economics is often seen as a descriptor of vast realities- both national and international. The place where economics is seen to meet the home is often household consumption or household income. Economic realities can tend to define the kind of social realities that are seen as ideal[16] and we are sometime unaware of the way economic realities and policies nudge us towards the kinds of financial and social decisions that we enact.[17] Furthermore, economic factors that show up on a metric like GDP are measurable and often discussed as positive- whereas activities whose benefits are unmeasurable are often not nearly as desirable[18]. Alastair Roberts’ description is insightful:

"The focus upon the growth of the economy as the measure of society’s well- being... leads us to marginalize and devalue all work that does not contribute to and prove its worth within the money economy. Domestic work, communal economies of interdependence and non-monetary charity, and practices of subsistence are all demeaned as a result. The maximization of the (money) economy requires that we push people out of such realms of activity into paid employment and get them to hire other paid workers to perform the work that once was their own."[19]

Trends such as feminism have obviously contributed to women working increasingly outside of the domestic sphere. One thing not often noted is the ways trends such as industrialisation had moved men more and more away from economic activity from the home prior to this. Another characteristic of the economy is the extent to which we outsource many things our ancestors didn’t. Many aspects such as food production to the production of clothing happen not only outside of the home but also outside of ones community and country. Commenting on his hometown of Port Royal, Berry claimed regretfully:

“The “standard of living” (determined evidently by how much money is spent) has increased, but community life has declined, economically and every other way. In the neighborhoods around Port Royal, we now have many modern conveniences, but we buy and pay for them farther and farther from home. And we have fewer and fewer people at home who know how to maintain these conveniences and keep them running.”[20]

Much of the above seems natural and commonplace to us but we can often fail to recognise that some aspects of our society are in fact novel. That is to say, they are relatively new in the history of things and they aren’t the status quo all over the world.[21] More importantly, the biblical texts although spanning various time periods and peoples are embedded in a different social and cultural framework in many ways to our own. There is much that we accept as normal- but what is normal shouldn’t necessarily be normative.

***

A large part of the desire for women to spend much of their time working outside the home, presupposes a capitalist foundation and takes it for granted. In fact, those who interpret (and offer applications) of Titus 2:3-5 progressively and conservatively usually do so through capitalistic lenses. As capitalism is in fact the dominant economic system in our society, in our daily lives we will want to deal with realities as they actually exist. However very good cases have been made that capitalism has been shown to be wanting in its’ ethics and justice in many respects. Flaws have been seen in both it’s theoretical exposition and its’ actual practice. Given that communism has also been guilty of similar, if not worse, failings it may seem that capitalism is the best we’ll have.

However to see the world through capitalistic eyes is not the only way to aim towards economic flourishing. For example distributism is an economic principle which has been advocated as a third way between capitalism and socialism- largely expounded by thinkers in the early 20th century such as Hillaire Belloc, GK Chesterton, and Cecil Chesterton. It’s core principle is that ownership of the means of production should be in hands of as many people as possible (whether agricultural land, tools, intellectual property, smaller businesses etc.) but not exclusively in the hands of the state- as in communism. It’s reasoning largely flowed from principles of subsidiarity[22] found in Roman catholic social teaching and more specifically the papal encyclical Rerum Nevorum.[23]

Some evangelicals or protestants will be skeptical of an approach that appears not to expressed explicitly with reference to scripture but a similar position can actually be argued from scripture itself.[24] God’s instructions in the law mandated a society that had a wide base of ownership of land and resources and which was to avoid the massive accumulation of wealth and property. The commands in the law worked together holistically to imagine a certain kind of society as a whole. Much of the picture of a healthy society is based on the flourishing of labour at a household and kinship level, such that the eschatological hope can also be portrayed in terms of every one under their own vine and fig tree.[25] This view of seeing Israelite ideals at a societal level is highly significant when aiming to think about the interplay of home and work in a Christian way.

The point relevant to us here is not political change from the state or economic change from employers- but the choices households may have agency voluntarily to make, with awareness of a widened set of parameters. The kinds of goods that distributism seeks to achieve aim to be conducive to the family and the home- including women who wish to be workers in the home. It also allows place for the economic productivity of women in a way that modernity (including capitalism) tends to downplay or leave out of the discussion. The concerns that distributists have and the kinds of questions asked are fruitful in this regard, as they bring to the foreground some of the elements such as local and household production that are often forgotten. This is not the place to discuss distributism in much detail, but suffice it to say that we should not be privileging capitalism as the only or best way of ordering the economic aspects of life. More importantly for our purposes here- basing our understanding of the passage on an economic reality that is relatively modern and has been shown to be wanting in various quarters is on shaky grounds. Paying much more attention to other voices like distributist thinkers therefore is helpful in assessing our own interpretation and application of Titus 2:3-5- especially in providing assistance for our own cultural situatedness when it comes to questions of work.

One social reality found in biblical times, which differs from our own society, is that of the household. Modern usage of the word household tends to mean a house and all it’s inhabitants- understood for statistical purposes- such as household income or a census. The household in biblical times has a different meaning and cultural reality. In ancient Israel the ‘father’s house’ is a multi-generational network of kinship relationships[26] living in close proximity (whether settled or nomadic) and having various responsibilities to each other. This household could be spread over various dwellings or exist within the same dwelling. It also included those such as servants/slaves[27] who were living in the household and those outside of ethnic and covenantal Israel. Its’ reality existed for the everyday person as well as for the wealthy and kings.[28]

The household was a context where work and productive activity took place- some of this would be for monetary income but much would be for the family’s direct use and consumption. One also found security in the household- receiving support against lifes’ calamities.

"The basic unit of society in scriptural times was the household, a household that differed greatly from households in modern technological society. First, Jewish or Greco-Roman households were more important to society than most contemporary households are to our society. More constructive activity went on within them. They were not just places where people rested and spent some of their leisure time, and where children were raised for the first years of their lives. First centaury households–both rural and urban–were economic units. The farm family worked together, caring for the family’s economic life as a unit.”[29]

The range of activities and labour that traditionally could have been (and usually were) undertaken in the home environment is large and rich. Extracting olive oil for food and fuel[30], spinning[31], weaving, horticulture[32], agriculture, making clothing[33], repairing of clothing[34], grinding flour[35], the making of bread[36], wine, butter and cheese, butchering[37], making soap, making jewelry and food preservation etc. Where the work wasn’t done in the house itself it was often structured in such a way that some portion of it (or its produce) was brought within the home to process or the near vicinity such as the fields of the homestead surrounding it.[38]

Family structures were much larger than our society with multigenerational kinship structures such as the tribe, clan and father's household of the Old Testament providing much more context for the cooperation of tasks and mutual support.[39] Relationship (i.e. the family) was therefore much more ‘co-located’ than it is in our context. That is to say, relationships were much more purposefully tied, closely over a smaller area in a certain location. Even in later times and other contexts cooperative work between a network of households has been prevalent such that the isolated mother at home is not a necessary condition of interpreting Titus 2:3-5 in a more traditional way.[40] Women who were unmarried or married without children therefore probably also had much more opportunity to spend time in the presence of children and participate in their upbringing than a modernised society- which has much more separate nuclear families. Kinship and extended family structures are therefore amenable to those very groups of people who in our modern western lives are perhaps more likely to feel more isolated.[41]

The household was not just a productive entity but a rich sphere of relationship and activity. Children were trained, instructed and educated.[42] Historically worship, praise and prayer were a part of household life and not just the domain of synagogue or church.[43] Not only are children cared for but also the elderly and infirm. The home was a source of hospitality for the poor, and needy as well as those travelling and spreading the gospel.[44]

The household as understood in biblical and ancient times is a reality that has largely been lost today- such that its’ reality in its’ biblical context is not often perceived by us. Some hold that the loss and atrophy of the ancient household are one major source of the breakdown and fragility of the modern family. These realities are affirmed in the structuring of Israel’s life as a people in the law and are also found in the New Testament. Many of them are also found in various forms in different nations and other pre-modern and traditional cultures before and after New Testament times.

Egalitarians have sometimes pointed to Proverbs 31 as an example of a businesswoman. For example, J. Lee Grady clams that “a careful reading reveals that the Proverbs 31 woman, in her ancient Middle Easter context, functioned as a real estate agent and ran a textile business."[45] A common claim after or along with such an assessment is that this fact thereby disproves that Paul is endorsing a particular domestic locus for women. However this interpretation, or certain forms of it, can tend towards anachronism- giving the impression that current realities and sensibilities are found in the ancient text. The reality is that the ancient Israelite wife wasn’t an entrepreneur in the modern sense. Institutions such as modern corporations, modern banks and the tax office cannot be found in the historical background of the passage. Neither can those things that usually accompany them such as: employment status, office hours, employment regulations, pensions, annual leave and modern taxation.

Notice that the woman in Proverbs 31 looked "well to the ways of her household” (v27 my emphasis added, see also v15 and v21). It is important to note the ways in which a household is not a corporation but generally speaking has many differences when comparing its’ nature, location, emphases and much more besides. We can also recognise how Proverbs 31 is in fact consistent with Pauls’ instructions to Titus. In the realm of activity and life that flows in and around the orbit of the household, she "does not eat the bread of idleness”, which resonates with Paul’s pattern for the women in Crete to be oikouros (workers at home). Commenting historically on the family in colonial America, Nancy Pearcey notes how "for the mother, the location of work within the home meant she was able to raise children while still participating in the family sustenance"[46]. Such a conception of the household in its’ historical perspective therefore, doesn’t create the tension between female economic productivity and childrearing in the domestic sphere as many tend to require.

The interpretation of the ancient Hebrew female entrepreneur also tends to isolate the woman as an individual agent without acknowledging the relational realities that would exist in such a context. For example, where are her children when she undertakes such activities? Although there are exceptions, the modern workplace doesn’t do very well at mothers (or fathers) having their children with them in the workplace for any extended length of time. If such a reality of the presence children were in fact allowed, would it be seen as consistent with ‘professional’ values for such a parent to be constantly available- to be interrupted to meet their child’s needs? This I think highlights just one of the differences in the nature of work in both cultures- and the problems of the reading the contemporary back into the ancient situation.

As well this, the vineyard[47] in ancient Israel was a somewhat domestic enterprise rather than a purely economic one:

“...A covered wooden structure, the watchtower was erected on an elevation overlooking the vineyard (Mk 12:1), where the householder and his family kept a watch throughout the vintage period (Job 27:18; Is 1:8).”[48]

This domestic aspect of the vineyard can also be seen in Jesus’ parables in the gospels. Luke records Jesus’ parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard killing the servants and then the son of the man who owns it.[49] The same parable in Matthew[50] and Mark[51] identifies the man as the master of the house. In these parables it is shown that the vineyard is not merely an economic enterprise in the modern sense. Some household and familial aspects are part of it’s structure- something which is easy to miss when we read from our vantage point.

In contrast, between the productive household of biblical and pre-industrial times and our current time, something of significant proportions has happened to radically affect the way we structure our lives together socially. Many authors would point to the industrial revolution as a key turning point incorporating capitalism with rapid technological and social innovation. These processes brought much of the labour of the household away from the home and into factories and other industrialised centres. Historian, Allan C. Carlson comments:

“...the family household was dethroned as the center of productive activity. The process usually began with the making of cloth, as the home spinning wheel and loom gave way to water or steam powered machines in the factory. But quickly, virtually everything once homemade followed: from shoes and furniture to vegetables, bread and meat”[52]

As a result the husband began to spend less time among his wife and children and instead entered a sphere of labour which is more disintegrated from the family home life. It’s widely recognized that in the 20th century women (including mothers) were increasingly ‘liberated’ from the home towards the ‘workplace’. Because any children are usually in some form of day care or at school, houses are now more often emptier during the day. More than a century after the industrial revolution the way we think, speak and deliberate about work and home have totally changed. We don’t always have the historical awareness to realize how novel our views are. Not only this but we aren’t often aware of how our theological views are shaped in large part by these sociological realities- which themselves are shaped in large part by technological realities.

Given that someone may agree on the points made above about the social realities the scriptures are embedded in, one may still argue that these aspects are just ‘local colour’. That is to say, they are claimed to be merely the backdrop to the moral, ethical and theological truths- which are themselves seen as the only important and authoritative aspects for the people of God.

In making any comment about the approach one should take regarding culture, one needs to be prepared to make finer distinctions about what is being referred to and why. Much of the bible is expressed in (or is embedded in) social and cultural realities. This is the logical consequence of a revelation this is inspired by God while at the same time using human authors who write consciously in their own words- rather than always writing pure propositions verbatim directly from God. When it comes to culture, a distinction can be seen between those aspects of culture that a people adopt and embody to express particular truths and values; to those which are fundamental to the whole way of life that people experience.

“Another important distinction in cultural matters or customs is between matters of little fundamental importance and those of greater importance. In considering the roles of men and women, people will often say, “that practice was just part of the culture of the day,” or “that was just the custom of the day,” or even “that was just traditional.”[53]

Clark uses the terminology of “social expression” and “social structure” to highlight this difference. Social expressions are those aspects of culture that a society enacts to communicate a deeper truth- such as bowing to elders as a sign of respect. The principle of respect for elders may be a cultural value also held in other cultures who express this in another way. Social structure is used as a term to refer to those cultural aspects which are basic, all encompassing patterns of human life. One can understand realities such as having large families or living near ones kin over a lifetime which fall into this category.

“To be sure, some customs, traditions, and cultural practices have less importance than others. Yet some customs, traditions, and matters of cultural distinctness are part of the fundamental practices of a people. They are so important that they are foundational to a people’s way of life, as well as of far-reaching consequences to the quality and success of that life. This is true of matters of both social expression and social structure, although it is normally more true for the latter.”[54]

The reality of women in the home therefore, cannot be so easily dismissed as ‘merely’ cultural. It seems clear that such an issue is not something that can be changed without quite significant effects in many areas of the life of a people or nation. It cannot be shown to be merely the way of expressing certain other values within a society.

Another problematic aspect of the view that these social aspects are just local colour, is that it tends to limit the range of truth that God, by His word, communicates. For example it fails to notice the way that Torah (that is, law code and narrative combined) includes social as well as theological truths and implications- both then and now. One cannot so easily abstract what is seen as a timeless moral principle out of the concrete and particular institutions and social instructions found in the Old Testament- and indeed in scripture as a whole. On the topic of the Old Testament law as given to Israel[55], Christopher Wright explains:

“...far from the social life of Israel being immaterial or incidental to their theological significance, it is actually through observant study of that social life that a major part of God’s self revelation is to be discerned” [56]

“The social shape of Israel was not an incidental freak of ancient history. Nor was it just a temporary, material by-product of their spiritual message. We cannot set aide the social dimension of the Old Testament as a kind of husk, out of which we claim to extract a kernel of spiritual timeless truths. Rather, the social reality of Israel was an integral part of what God had called them into existence for. Theologically, the purpose of Israel’s existence was to be a vehicle both for God’s revelation and for the blessing of humanity” [57]

Israel as a people were to be substantially shaped by God’s law given to them. It’s important to note that various social aspects of the way Israel were to live were in continuity with the surrounding nations while other aspects were to make Israel radically different from them. However, whether an aspect of the law had continuity or discontinuity with other nations had no bearing on whether the law was from God- all was from Him, divine and authoritative.

Granted that Titus 2:6-7 is not Torah, it is still important to notice at least two points. The first point of note is the way the section seems to be structured grammatically as instruction from Paul[58]- rather than merely descriptive. Some would want to say that the context of the instruction to be busy at home (“oikouros”) is just that- mere context of the location women would find themselves in the society of Crete. However, this doesn’t take account of a second point of note. Namely, the clauses’ continuity with Old Testament social reality as mentioned previously. This shows that the instruction is not merely embedded in Cretan and Greco-Roman cultural context but is also consistent with Old Testament realities. Much more consideration is needed therefore to the social purposes of God’s people.

Conclusion

To hold that Titus 2:3-5 taught and teaches that women are to be workers at home is an unfavourable position in our society- shaped as it has been by many modernist realities. Not only is it perceived to be an affront to freedom of choice and the worth of women, seemingly deprived of the status of valuable work, but economic, social and other factors also strongly impede against such a choice.

Therefore such a view may even be dismissed out hand as a valid application of scripture simply out of pragmatism. We live in a world that is in many ways discouraging, if not hostile, to such a way of structuring relationships. There are of course many situations where a woman cannot pursue a primary domestic role within home and household- whether or not she actually wanted to. Anyone who advocates for a more complementarian reading of Titus 2:3-5 needs to be sensitive to these difficulties.[59] However, while practical considerations are important, putting pragmatism itself front and centre is in danger of succumbing to one of the very problems of a particularly modernist approach. There are probably much better questions to start with than whether such a view is currently easy to enact. To know what situation is ideal from a biblical point of view is helpful even if one does not or will not have the ability to live it out.

Positions that hold that women are still to be workers at home cannot be dismissed on the basis of those arguments mentioned above against the social and cultural aspects of the instruction to Titus. An egalitarian position that advocates not only for freedom of choice but also the desirability of men and women’s identical share in the market economy is also culturally embedded. Christians must therefore return back to the same point. Which cultural aspects are revealed in scripture? Which of these are a part of God’s revelation?[60] The question whether women are particularly to be workers at home is no minor form of cultural expression- which can be adjusted or dropped without major ramifications for children, families and many aspects of society. While individual circumstances will differ, Christians must not succumb to individualism in their observations- even on behalf of others. The effects of truth and error cannot always be seen in the lives of an individual or a snapshot in time of a single nuclear family- the picture over many generations could be quite different.

The very categories used in discussions on this issue to defend one position or repudiate the other can often tend to framing the questions asked- in ways that miss keys aspects of the historical situation the bible was written in. Categories such as salary, income, jobs, employment [61], housework, career and who ‘goes out to work’ get foregrounded while other categories such as household economics and family centred production often get forgotten. The way scripture is interpreted in an egalitarian position is therefore set along a certain path from the outset. However complementarian positions are often by no means immune to this danger either.

Many positive aspects of life have been disintegrated from each other. The home is no exception to this problem. Many aspects of the household have been separated from an integrated whole and distributed outside of the home- away from the relationships of husband/father, mother/wife, children and older parents/grandparents. To attempt to be faithful to scripture in a way that also offers women who want to be workers at home extra options for economic contribution to the family, some effort needs to be made to reintegrate many of these aspects of life towards the home again. Carlson claims that a strategy for “renewing the home economy is to bring important family functions, lost in the past to outside agency, back within the family circle”[62] There are various people advocating a recovery of such functions under a constellation of different descriptions and emphases such as: household economy, subsistence economy, cottage industry, home economics, homesteading, urban homesteading, radical homemaking, self sufficiency, domestic arts and family economy. Although some elements of the ancient household mentality exist in particular homes, it has to be said that this is uncommon and largely hidden from common consciousness. What is needed is a restoration of elements not altogether lacking, to something of their former vitality and strength.[63]

Cooking, cleaning and changing nappies are all important work and full of dignity. However, the activities of the home need not be limited to these. All sorts of labour can be done by women in and from the home. These might include: upcycling furniture, jewelry making, home education, raising chickens, ducks or quail (for eggs or meat), growing fruit and vegetables, growing and drying herbs, preserving food (e.g. fermentation, making jam, canning), repairing computers and phones, welcoming the homeless, making things with leather, making music and art, reupholstery, making wine, beer and cider, sharing the gospel, making soap and skincare products, making candles, discipling younger women, making green cleaning products, foraging, composting, private tutoring, knitting, embroidery, sewing, and writing [64] - perhaps with children in tow.

Evangelicals particularly will be sensitive to preserving the centrality of the gospel and ordering priorities in a proper orbit to Christ and the salvation He offers to all people. Yes and amen! Surely this focus of ours is a good one. Perhaps one result of this though can be an undue reticence not to make too big an issue of the matter of determining whether or not women are to have a particularly domestic role in the interpretation of Titus 2:3-5. It’s worth remembering here that the language and realities of household are very important. They are included in New Testament realities bound up in salvation. Jesus goes to prepare a place for His disciples in the Fathers’ “house”.[65] The church is “the household of God”.[66] The Son is “faithful over God’s house”[67]. The New Testament household is an environment for hospitality[68], the care of the poor and needy and the spread of the gospel[69]. Women had key roles to play in these areas and presumably including within the household setting. Paul doesn’t shrink back from declaring the whole counsel of God. Presumably the church is to live out this whole counsel to the extent that it is able- with God’s grace. Paul’s instruction for Titus to appoint elders is part of putting “what remained into order”.[70] His instructions for slaves are so that they “adorn the doctrine of God” their saviour.[71] The question needs to be asked whether these aspects were specific to the issues of elders or slaves in Crete exclusively- or whether they also characterize the tone and intention of the whole letter. We have to attempt to understand whether Paul’s instruction for the women to be workers at home are part of “what accords with sound doctrine”.[72]

This article has only touched relatively briefly on the actual interpretation of the term “workers at home” (“oikouros”) in Titus 2:3-5. Instead it has focused on what factors are likely to influence us before and during the process of interpretation. There are those who make a very strong case for the benefit of mothers’ presence in the home in terms of the psychological, mental and emotional wellbeing of children[73]- babies and infants in particular. If this is indeed the case then this would be an uncomfortable truth in our society that evokes some response. This essay has not discussed these aspects, recognizing the primacy of God’s word, while at the same time acknowledging that God’s truth revealed in scripture does in fact correspond to aspects of order that we see in nature.

Perhaps a question that could be asked is: do we as men and women aspire for women to be workers in the home, to the extent that they will be able to? Is our answer based on the interpretation of scripture or on cultural and social sensibilities such as those discussed above?

Aston Fearon lives in the Midlands, UK with his wife. With a particular focus on public theology, he thinks and writes about theology and culture.

Footnotes

1. e.g. NASB
2. e.g. ESV
3. e.g. NIV
4. All bible quotations from this point are from the ESV bible® (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®) Copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
5. I am aware that there are more nuances of views than these two terms imply. Some would claim to follow neither a complementarian or egalitarian position. Others favour a more traditional view of the sexes yet wouldn’t see themselves as complementarians because of emphases that they deem unhelpful or misleading. Some who have a traditional view of the sexes want to reclaim the term patriarchy in a positive sense. For the purposes of this essay, the terms complementarian and egalitarian still suffice as a general description to look at common ways of interpreting and applying Titus 2:3-5.
6. Even for those people or areas of society for which it may be claimed don’t fall under certain of these aspects, their thinking is still arguably influenced heavily by them. Or they find their lives are still unescapably influenced by them. For example on the subject of technological production Berger et. al write: “There can be no doubt not only that scientists and engineers have a specific view of the world but also that this view has decisively influenced the present shape of technological society, and thus the consciousness of all its members.” Berger, Peter Ludwig, Brigitte Berger, and Hansfried Kellner. “The Homeless Mind”. (Middlesex: Pelican Books,1974), 29. Those who live in rural areas are therefore still substantially effected by urbanisation and industrialisation.
7. Consider some of the language we use as a society such as: “does your wife work?”, “what do you do for work”, “are you in work?”, “when do you think you’ll go back to work?” also the way “stay at home mums” are compared with “working mums” and the focus on women leaving “the workforce” when they bear children.
8. E.g. the NHS, local authority, education, tax office etc.
9. Olmstead, Gracy. 2020. “Markets and the Strangulation of the American Family”. Mere Orthodoxy. November 24, 2020. https://mereorthodoxy.com/markets-strangulation-american-family/.
10. A similar trend occurs towards work that men have typically done. Manual work and heavy industry has been increasingly outsourced to foreign markets, with a national increase in knowledge-based and service- based work compared with ‘pre-industrial’ life.
11. Lockdown periods of 2020-2021 were a somewhat notable exception to this. See: Pauling, Josh. 2020. “Economics Turn Homeward.” Mere Orthodoxy. May 28, 2020. https://mereorthodoxy.com/economics- turn-homeward/. It still remains to be seen what lasting effects will result from these trends.
12. Wendell Berry, “Home Economics”: 14 Essays (San Francisco, California: North Point Pr., 1987), 119.
13. Mowczko, Margaret. “Busy at Home?” CBE International, October 11, 2013. https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/busy-home/.
14. Pearcey, Nancy. “Is Love Enough? Recreating the Economic Base of the Family.” The Family in America 4, no. 1 (January 1990). https://doi.org/http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_familyinamerica.htm.
15. By national I mean the modern nation-state rather than a nation as a people group such as might be present in biblical times. Noticing the way economics plays out in a modern nation-state in particular is an important distinction to be aware of.
16. For example the living wage presupposes a certain family size (2 children) with both parents working in paid employment. Social values can also likewise define the economic realities that become normative.
17. For example, the tax system currently penalises single income households by taxing the individual rather than the household. The take home pay of two people in a couple is more than the same combined amount earned by only one of these people. See: “Tax and the Family.” n.d. Accessed January 17, 2023. https://www.taxandthefamily.org/. For an example in another European country (Sweden) see: Carlson, Allan C. 2007. Third Ways. Delaware: ISI Books, 129-132.
18. e.g. unpaid labour especially that of caring for the young and the care of elderly relatives.
19. Roberts, Alastair. “The Strangeness of the Modern Mind.” Alastair's Adversaria, December 8, 2017. https://alastairadversaria.com/2017/12/07/the-strangeness-of-the-modern-mind/
20. Wendell Berry, Home Economics: 14 Essays (San Francisco, California: North Point Pr., 1987), 185.
21. One way of interpreting men’s and women’s roles is to conclude that the Holy Spirit is now leadingGod’s people to new ethics superseding the instruction in the New Testament. It seems striking that the very ethics and new forms of freedom the Holy Spirit is proposed to lead the church into corresponds almost exactly with the rest of secular culture in the setting in which this approach is being advocated. This reasoning is problematic for a number of reasons. This article isn’t intended to address this approach.
22. Subsidiarity is the principle that wherever possible decision making and authority should reside at the smaller, more local level before being taken on by larger more centralised/national/international institutions.
23. Carlson, Allan C. 2007. Third Ways. Delaware: ISI Books, 1-34
24. “In Israel the land was divided up as widely as possible into multiple ownership by extended families. The division of the land in the book of Joshua clearly intends that the possession and use of the land should be distributed as widely as possible throughout the whole kinship system... the economic system also was geared institutionally and in principle towards the preservation of a broadly based equality and self sufficiency of families on the land, and to the protection of the weakest, the poorest and the threatened - and not to the interests of a wealthy, landowning elite minority” Christopher J.H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People Of God (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006), 56.
25. 1 Kings 4:25, Micah 4:4, Zechariah 3:10
26. Gen 35:2, 36:6, 46:31, 47:12, Exodus 1:1
27. Notice the extent of Abraham’s household in Genesis 14:14 when as yet he and Sarah had no children. See also Genesis 17:12-27, 24:2.
28. Genesis 50:4, Deut 6:22, 1 Kings 4:7, 2 Samuel 6:20
29. Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ: An Examination of the Roles of Men and Women in Light of Scripture and the Social Sciences (Bloomington, Indiana: Warhorn Media, 2021), 48.
30. Exodus 27:20, Deuteronomy 12:17, Matthew 25:1-13 See: Harrison, R K. “Oil.” In New Bible Dictionary, 843-844. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996.
31. Proverbs 31:19
32. Matthew 23:23
33. Proverbs 31:24, Acts 9:36-43
34. Matthew 9:16 = Mark 2:21 = Luke 5:36
35. Deuteronomy 24:6, Matthew 24:41. See: Millard, A R. “Mill, Millstone.” In New Bible Dictionary, 765– 766. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996.
36. 1 Kings 17:10-13, Matthew 13:33 = Luke 13-21
37. Luke 15:23-27
38. “We are so thoroughly accustomed to the idea that people work in a different place from where they live that we tend to project this modern model into our view of the past. However, in past societies, most people worked at home: on a family farm, at a craftsman's workshop, or in a shop attached to a craftsman’s or merchant’s house.... People normally worked with members of their families or with members of other families as servants or apprentices...”. Clark, Ibid, 492.
39. The nuclear family as it exists is more of a modern phenomenon See: Brooks, David. 2020. Review of The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake. The Atlantic. March 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake/605536/. Even when marriage meant the creation of a new residence separate to the parents of the couple, the cooperative reality of and responsibilities to the extended family still often persisted.
40. Commenting on Loyce and Owen Flood who married in the late 1930s in Kentucky USA, Berry writes: “...they were living in a neighborhood of households closely bound together by family ties or friendships and by well established patterns of work and pleasure. This neighborhood included, in varying degrees of intimacy and interdependence, nine households, all more or less within walking distance. The women kept house individually, but all the big jobs they did together: housecleaning, wallpapering, quilting, canning, cooking for field crews...” Berry, Ibid, 180-181
41. In the church’s focus on the (nuclear) family, singles can perhaps feel left out in a way that is distinctive in contrast to the world- especially as individuals do not usually make the same sacrifices in terms of purity and dating.
42. See Deut 6:6-9. “...the family was the primary educational unit. Most young people received their basic and technical education from their parents, older brothers and sisters, uncles, aunts and older cousins. In Western traditional society, a young person’s technical education would often be supplemented by apprenticeship to an unrelated adult, but even in the new setting the young person would become part of the masters household.” Clark, Ibid, 504.
43. See Deut 6:6-9 and Hanson, Brian. 2020. “The Reformed Home: Learning from Family Worship in Protestant England.” Desiring God. October 6, 2020. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-reformed- home.
44. See 2 John 9-11, Acts 16:15
45. Grady, J. Lee. “Ten Lies the Church Tells Women.” CBE International, June 15, 2022. https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/ten-lies-church-tells-women. Another writer claims “Verse 13 tells us that she succeeds in business. Look at all the businesses this woman is engaged in. Verse 13 tells us she’s involved in the textile business, specifically clothing manufacturing. Verse 15 tells us she is the executive manager of her staff. Verse 16a tells us she’s involved in the real estate business.” Spencer, William David. “Diamond or Diamond Mine?” Priscilla Papers 16, no. 2 (April 30, 2002). https://doi.org/https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/diamond-or-diamond-mine/.
46. Pearcey, Nancy. “Is Love Enough? Recreating the Economic Base of the Family.” The Family in America 4, no. 1 (January 1990). https://doi.org/http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_familyinamerica.htm.
47. Proverbs 31:16
48. Harrison, R K. and Hepper, N F, “Vine, Vineyard” In New Bible Dictionary, 1224-1225. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996.
49. Luke 20:9-18
50. Matthew 21:33-46
51. Mark 12:1-12
52. Allan C Carlson, “Fractured Generations” (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2005), 108-109.
53. Clark, Ibid, 278.
54. Clark, Ibid, 278.
55. In the section The Social Angle, (Christopher J.H. Wright, “The Social Angle,” in “Old Testament Ethics for the People Of God” (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006), 48-74.) Wright spells out in much detail what a helpful approach in terms of hermeneutics and application would look like for Christians and modern society which he describe as “paradigmatic”. It is beyond the scope of this article to go into extensive detail about this.
56. Christopher J.H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People Of God (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006), 61.
57. Wright, Ibid, 62.
58. It’s worth noting that Torah overlaps with instruction and is a term for much more than just legal code: “’...the law’ meant more for an Israelite than the word normally means for us. First of all, the term for all this material in the first five books of the Old Testament is tōrā, which means, not just law in the sense of legislation or statue law, but ‘Guidance’, ‘Instruction’...” Wright, Ibid, 283
59. e.g. mens’ declining wages over the past 40 years, the increase in the cost of housing compared to annual salary and various economic crises.
60. Clark, Ibid, 284-285
61. It’s not often considered for women to work under a different employment structure than the dominant one. For example a wife might choose to: be self employed, work in a partnership with her husband or with other women, work as part of a cooperative, operate as a limited company or as part of her husbands limited company.
62. Allan C. Carlson, “Fractured Generations” (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2005), 115
63. Clark, Ibid, 619
64. 64 Hayes, Shannon. 2010a. Radical Homemakers. New York: Left To Write Press; www.lowimpact.org. Accessed January 14, 2023. https://www.lowimpact.org/categories/main; Seymour, John. 2019. The New Complete Book of Self-Sufficiency. 2nd ed. London: Dorling Kindersley.
65. John 14:1-4
66. Timothy 3:15
67. Hebrews 3:3-6
68. e.g. Hebrews 13:2
69. 2 John 9-11
70. Titus 1:5
71. Titus 2:9-10
72. Titus 2:1
73. e.g Komisar, Erica. (2019, April 1). Mothers and Guilt (Claire Paye, Interviewer; season 1, episode 5). http://mothersmatter.libsyn.com/; “What about the Children?” n.d. What about the Children? Accessed January 14, 2023. https://www.whataboutthechildren.org.uk/.

Bibliography

- Berger, Peter Ludwig, Brigitte Berger, and Hansfried Kellner. The Homeless Mind. (Middlesex: Pelican Books,1974),

- Berry, Wendell. Home Economics: 14 Essays. San Francisco, California: North Point Pr., 1987.

- Jeff Bethke et al., “The War On Motherhood,” 2020, accessed May 3, 2021, https://open.spotify.com/episode/2iThHwiLhQvQcnm8KVmj5E.

- Jeff Bethke et al., “Economy Of The Household,” 2020, accessed May 3, 2021, https://open.spotify.com/episode/4YawGN67nkPdkfGflbcK9W?si=PieEbE4lQsW4j6d- k8-hAg

• -  Brooks, David. 2020. The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake. The Atlantic. March 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuclear-family-was-a- mistake/605536/.
• -  Carlson, Allan C. 1988. Family Questions. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
• -  Carlson, Allan C. 2011. The Family-Centered Economy. Front Porch Republic. August 1, 2011. https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2011/08/the-family-centered-economy/.
  - Carlson, Allan C. 2000. “The Domestic Workplace.” Touchstone. May 2000. https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-04-017-f.
  - Carlson, Allan C. 2007. Third Ways. Delaware: ISI Books.
  - Clark, Stephen B. Man and Woman in Christ. Bloomington, Indiana: Warhorn Media, 2021.
  - Connor, Harriet. 2020. “Treasuring the Immeasurable Work of Mothers.” The Gospel Coalition | Australia. January 14, 2020. https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/treasuring-immeasurable-work-mothers/. - Connor, Harriet. 2020. “Treasuring the Immeasurable Work of Mothers— a Surprising Postscript.” The Gospel Coalition | Australia. March 25, 2020. https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/treasuring-the-polychronic-work-of- mothers-a-surprising-postscript/.

• -  Connor, Harriet. 2020. “When Work Comes Back Home: Children as Apprentices.” The Gospel Coalition | Australia. April 28, 2020. https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/when-work-comes-back-home-children- as-apprentices/.
• -  Cuddeback, John. Reclaiming the Household. First Things, November 2018. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/11/reclaiming-the-household.
• -  Ellul, Jacques. 1964. The Technological Society. New York: Vintage Books.
• -  Jalsevac, John. 2018. “A Man’s Place Is in the Home.” The Gospel Coalition. February 26, 2018. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/mans-place-home/.
• -  Köstenberger Andreas J., and Margarat E. Köstenberger . God's Design For Man And Woman: A Biblical-Theological Survey. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2014.
• -  Schluter, Michael, and Roy Clements. 1986. Reactivating the Extended Family. Cambridge: Jubilee Centre Publications.
• -  Hayes, Shannon. 2010. “Homemade Prosperity.” Yes Magazine. December 11, 2010. https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/happy-families-know/2010/12/11/homemade- prosperity.
• -  Hayes, Shannon. 2010a. Radical Homemakers. New York: Left To Write Press.
• -  Herrington, Mary. “Why Tradwives Aren't Trad Enough.” Unherd, January 30, 2020. https://unherd.com/2020/01/why-tradwife-just-isnt-trad-enough/.
• -  Laslett, Peter. (1965) 1983. The World We Have Lost: Further Explored. 3rd ed. London: Methuen.
• -  Meador, Jake. 2016. “Gender, Home Economies, and the Church, Ctd.” Mere Orthodoxy. July 15, 2016. https://mereorthodoxy.com/home-economies-church- ctd/.
• -  Meador, Jake. 2019. “Will Complementarianism Die with the Baby Boomers?” Mere Orthodoxy. March 5, 2019. https://mereorthodoxy.com/complementarianism/.
• -  Meador, Jake. 2016a. “The Evangelical Gender Crack-Up.” Mere Orthodoxy. July 14, 2016. https://mereorthodoxy.com/evangelical-gender-crack-up/.
• -  Spencer, Nick. n.d. Where Do We Go from Here? Cambridge: The Jubilee Centre.
• -  Pauling, Josh. 2020. “Economics Turn Homeward.” Mere Orthodoxy. May 28, 2020. https://mereorthodoxy.com/economics-turn-homeward/.

- Pearcey, Nancy. “Is Love Enough? Recreating the Economic Base of the Family.” The Family in America 4, no. 1 (January 1990). https://doi.org/http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_familyinamerica.htm.
- Renn, Aaron, and C.R. Wiley. 2021. “Building a 21st Century Household.” May 18,

2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA8_H2x5Nzk.
- Renn, Aaron. 2018. “The Fall of the Household.” Masculinist. October 10, 2018.

https://aaronrenn.substack.com/p/newsletter-26-the-fall-of-the-household. Roberts, Alastair, and Harriet Connor. 2020. “Creating a Society More Hospitable to

Motherhood.” January 30, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvG9Y5Zi9yk.

- Roberts, Alastair, and C.R. Wiley. 2019. “Pastor C.R. Wiley on Recovering the Household.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ3TTea7zl0.

- Roberts, Alastair. 2017. “The Revolutionary Work of Motherhood”. Alastair’s Adversaria. May 15, 2017. https://alastairadversaria.com/2017/05/15/the-revolutionary- work-of-motherhood/.

- Roberts, Alastair. 2016. “The De-Condensation Of Humanity”. Alastair’s Adversaria. November 29, 2016. https://alastairadversaria.com/2016/11/29/the-de-condensation-of- humanity/

- Seymour, John. 2019. The New Complete Book of Self-Sufficiency. 2nd ed. London: Dorling Kindersley.

- Wiley, C R. 2017. “Man of the House.” Eugene, Oregon: Resource Publications.

- Wright, Christopher J.H. “The Social Angle.” Essay. In “Old Testament Ethics for the People Of God.” Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006.