Alastair Roberts aptly highlights the dizzying array of influences on the rejection of the bibles’ teaching for man and woman.[1] What it means to live as male and female is based on God’s own purposes, shown to us by His word. Human bodily realities indeed correspond to God’s purposes and such order is what one would expect from God who is most wise. However, the current economic order tends to try and to reduce us down to individuals who are interchangeable. In one sense it matters not whether the employee is 20 or 60, a man or a woman. The main thing is whether one has the requisite skills to do the job in hand, to improve the success of the business and increase it’s profitability. This brings opportunities for mobility. But it also allows for the replaceability of the worker- with the next employee, with cheaper labour or with some form of mechanical or digital machinery. Working for the state isn’t immune from similar concerns. Charities likewise are legal entities that have to conform to certain regulations, which mean bureaucracy and abstract reproducible policies are never very far away. But God’s word tells us a different story about man and woman.
In my original article I focused primarily on economic, historical and cultural aspects of the home. In this essay I will begin by further exploring home as a location of work. I previously noted that the single Greek work oikouros is translated as “workers at home”[2], “working at home”[3], “busy at home”[4] etc. As such the location “at home” cannot be neatly separated from the English: “workers at” or “busy at” etc. It can also be seen that experientially, the location of ones labour in the home is not merely circumstantial.
The home itself is a dwelling where husband, wife and children can ideally have place of safety and security- able to come in and go out at leisure. In many cultures, elderly relatives are also a part of the household[5] The home is generally a place of familiarity[6] and protection for the young and possibly for the infirm and the elderly[7]. However in many contexts today the functions of raising and educating children, care of the elderly, work and many others aspects of life can occur in disparate locations. However, with adjustments, the home is a location where these multiple relationships and concerns can be integrated. No one can be in two places at once. But bringing certain functions and relationships closer to home can offer coherence for women[8] wanting to embrace these. This is significant, in part, because such women might otherwise be overstretched in many different directions.
It’s perhaps tempting to find one single thing or another to contrast the womanly vision with, which is cast by Paul in Titus 2:5. Roberts is certainly right to contrast her against those who are idle busybodies in 1 Timothy 5:13. Vice is indeed portrayed there which is necessary to avoid. But the passage in Titus 2:5 isn’t merely a solution- or a solution which is arbitrary. The instruction itself is positive rather than merely ‘anti-negative’. [9]
I think there can be a danger here of viewing the women’s busyness at home as only:excellence of competence in some form of house-based work. Whether or not it is possible to discern an “accent” in Paul’s instructions here, the immediate textual context provides us with initial aspects to focus upon. In the passage, womanly work is contextualized with relation to the woman’s husband and any children they have. As such, the tasks of the home are directly felt by those to whom she is intended to have a lifelong bond. As Roberts rightly notes, such work cannot be fungible. If we try to quantify the monetary value of the outsourcing (or insourcing) of such work we lose our bearings in the process. But it’s not just that such labour isn’t fungible. It’s also that bodily presence itself isn’t really exchangeable- even though our technological society likes to act as though it can be.
Let us notice the biblical realities which are associated with the joint bodily presence and activity of the saints. Among many other things the bible talks of laying on of hands[10], anointing with oil[11] and the gathering together of the church for the breaking of bread[12]. We can tend to want to extract some abstract principle from any given instruction or practice. But such principles required bodily presence to enact- such as the gathering of the saints and the warmth of physical touch. Being up close and personal. In his second epistle, the apostle John writes with “paper and ink” yet still longs to be there present “face to face”[13].
As well as this, the relationship of God with His people is one in which presence is precious. Mankind originally experienced God’s presence in the garden of Eden[14]. Moses petitions God to go up to the promised land with the people of Israel[15]. God dwelt with His people in tabernacle and temple[16]. Christ came to be God with us[17]. At death the believer is absent from the body but present with the Lord[18]. At the consummation of all things, God will dwell among all His people[19].
While the presence of God is not the same as any human presence, presence is nevertheless of great importance in home and household.[20] It’s fairly common in more traditional readings of Titus 2:5 to talk of a woman’s “priority” being in the home, as if this can be a substitute for her personal presence there. But however much they overlap, priority and presence are not equivalent categories. The ownership of work that is involved in the ancient reality of the household is of value[21] for many reasons. But it’s not just the ownership of a mother’s work which is of value, but it’s her children’s possession of her presence which is invaluable. It seems to me that infants are not especially aware of the extent of their mother’s ownership of her work.[22] What they do know is how much of their mothers presence they experience. Although the model epitomized by the 1950s housewife had its limitations, it did in some ways have strengths in this regard.
Society has tried to minimise the natural differentiation of men and women. But this is not the only aspect of nature that it’s tried to flatten out. The natural human realities which infants and children possess, have also been untethered from a solid foundation. As just one example, nursing babies naturally require the physical presence of their mother.[23] At first glance, the need for the presence of the mother has been overcome by the widespread availability of baby formula milk. However it is debatable whether such a change is of equivalent health to the baby.[24]
Even in extreme cases where children have to be removed from the family home, the presence, love and care of others is vital to help them flourish. In these cases, a new home (either temporary or permanent) is a haven- which shows afresh the value of the home. In such a case, an adoptive mother’s presence can fulfill many of the child’s needs.
Much of the feminist rhetoric I read with regards to career opportunities, focuses on the perceived rights of women. But babies and young children are often left out of the equation with regards to their instinctive needs- which if fulfilled, would tend towards to their holistic flourishing. Government policies and societal practices which are truly humane, should particularly factor in the needs of children. Especially as they are usually perhaps the most vulnerable and dependent members of all in the family.
As well as industrialism, capitalism and feminism combining to increase women’s proximity away from the home, they also increase young children and infant’s proximity from the home. Such removal from the home environment is far from incidental. The common alternative to a mother’s presence in the home is day care. Political programs in various nations[25] have been underway to ‘encourage’ children into day care and women into extensive paid employment outside the home. Historian Allan C. Carlson documents the historical events in the US including the following:
“Government-funded, collective, gender-neutral child care was seen as necessary… At NOW’s 1970 annual conference the organization declared that “Child care must become a political priority” and it called for the building of an action coalition “to exert pressure on the power structure in labor, industry and government … and to grant tax deductions for quality child care”[26]
Many repudiate the idea that day care is better than (or comparable) to a mother’s presence in the home. Some do this from a purely secular standpoint- through empirical methods, sociological studies and the like. For example, Erica Komisar claims:
“It is abundantly clear that day care is not an ideal environment for children ages zero to three. During these early years, children need a primary caregiver who is consistent, focused on their emotional needs, and able to both buffer them from stress and soothe their distress. If children are forced to prematurely separate from their main source of emotional security, and placed into a relatively chaotic and over-stimulating day care environment, they will become stressed. Among other things, psychological stress is associated with elevated cortisol levels, attachment disorders, and other behavioural issues.”[27]
One compromise within the current economic model that some may propose, is to bring babies and young children to their mother’s workplace. More common, is the bringing of employed work home in the form of “work from home” polices and arrangements. While both of these approaches have laudable aspects, one shortcoming is that of how (in general) children are limited in their ability to ‘interrupt’ their mother’s work. The modern mother working as a doctor or teacher can’t be allowed to be ‘interrupted’ by her infants while at work. It’s worth saying here, that a traditional view of women in the home doesn’t necessarily limit the home to the ‘four walls’ of the dwelling. For example, complementarian pastor John Piper notes[28] that in traditional agrarian societies, the farm or the garden surrounding a house, which supports the family, can also be classified as the home. In scenarios like these, the mother sowing beans in her garden can be ‘interrupted’ more easily. This is partly because the domestic work in the home is generally much more interruptible. Some of it is even amenable to involving children as a part of that work. These realities are a reminder that babies and young children need access from their parents while they are in the home. The proximity of the husband’s location of work also makes a huge difference in the life of children. But the key aspect of note here is the woman’s proximity to her children at home.[29]
To be clear then, it’s not just the “network of relationships” between each of the members of the household which is important. It’s also their spatial relationship- the proximity of members one to another. A vibrant common life is surely to be sought after- within the church, local communities and in families. But of all networks, perhaps the household is among the least amenable to being stretched further apart in terms of distance.
Roberts mentions the car as being among the transformative technologies affecting society. Indeed car ownership and car travel is widespread. Choices are therefore available to us, which were not so readily available in times past. One effect on sociality is that it makes it easier to live further away from one’s relatives and significant relationships. Because of this and many other factors, modern life has tended to increase the distance, for example, between adult children and their parents. Such a distance is often felt keenly when children are born- if none of a couple’s parents or extended family live close by. The close proximity between members of the family, can therefore have various positive effects on it’s common life.
Roberts is surely right in desiring to focus on the reality of household that “spreads life into the neighbourhoods, communities, and societies in which it grows”. Just as woman is undeniably linked to man and to children, the household is connected to the public realm. Problems which occur in society at large, are often found in our own households. To aim to change the world without putting our own house in order is incongruous and liable to futility. On the flipside, as we aim to address the difficulties we face in society, perhaps women will increasingly feel supported to make choices oriented towards the home.
Let us briefly consider one avenue for the public activity of the home. It’s clear in scripture that all Christians are to do “good works”.[30] In Paul’s first letter to Timothy he lists certain commendable attributes and activities that women would have performed in the early church:
“Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.” 1 Timothy 5:9-10[31]
It’s of note that the activities specifically listed by Paul here, could have been and were performed in and from the home. One example of a woman highlighted for good works was Tabitha in Acts 9:36-41[32]. Stephen B. Clark highlights the importance of the household in the early church for acts of service to others:
“…descriptions of the life of the early church indicate that charitable service demanded more time and energy from the Christian people than anything else except raising families… Much charitable service among early Christians flowed directly from the life of the family… the household would serve the needy through the distribution of alms and through taking in guests and orphans”[33]
The economic functions of the home therefore, are not the only aspects which could be restored to the home. Acts of charitable public service or “ministry”, which are typically done away from the home, can be done in and from the home. As such, although they can be done in the church body, much of this can be done in households- rather than through public church programs alone. A woman need not feel like she must have some form of ‘public ministry’ or ‘platform’ therefore, in order to do good works.
For Clark, a restoration of the strength of the contemporary household is an opportunity for blessing the church community and those in difficulty and need:
“…the household will provide community service by receiving guests, helping the needy, supporting community activities, evangelizing people outside the Christian community, and welcoming brothers and sisters in the Lord… the woman’s domestic role will become more significant in the community as the responsibilities of the household increase.”[34]
Of course, such works can never be a means of becoming right with God. We are justified through faith alone, in Christ’s work on the cross. But good works are to be a response of faith and gratitude to God. Such good works done in the home are private because they are often done “in secret”. Yet in one sense they are public- because they influence society for good and welcome others within the warmth and care of the home. For Christ, even giving someone a cup of cold water because they are His disciple[35] can be a worthy act.
The woman at home in Titus 2:5 need not be alone. As well as any children she has, her husband is a key player in the life of the household- including for the woman’s role within it. Andreas and Margaret Köstenberger highlight the value of the husband “investing in household tools and all that is necessary to make the house a haven of support and ministry to their family and those to whom God calls them to minister”[36]. As well as this, he can endeavour to “build and protect this environment in whatever way possible”.[37]
The positive vision that Paul lays out also looks backwards, to the previous generation, and forwards, to the next. The older Christian women are invaluable in passing on the various aspects of godliness he mentions- some of which are common to all Christians and some of which are gendered. The erosion of the woman’s domestic role has occurred over many years and also over many generations. It may take many generations to reverse such trends back to optimal levels of flourishing. Such older women who are willing to embody the aspects of Titus 2; and train younger women to fulfill them, are invaluable.
Roberts notes that “financial necessity will nowadays force many women into the workforce”. Current economics certainly make it more difficult for women to pursue a domestic calling. But some might draw the conclusion that an approach which encourages women to be “workers at home” is wrong-footed, because it praises a naive luxury that is only realistic for the upper and middle classes. However, it seems to me that those nations which most jettison a traditional domestic sphere for women, are those which are highly modernized and industrialised. In various times and places it seems that the poor, despite their relative poverty in terms of cash, have still valued a domestic role for women- with a gendered division of labour.[38]
The curse on the ground because of the fall affects all area of life- including the economic sphere in the world at large. Those who have sought to encourage women into extensive employment outside the home need to reckon with this curse. Many times however, it is ignored or overshadowed, in the pursuit of the perceived glory which a dream career in the marketplace promises. But a return homewards is not a return to Eden. The effects of the fall exist in the home too. Crops in the garden get eaten by pests, mould grows on walls, the relationships within the home have their ups and downs. Just as the curse affects the task of dominion over the exterior realm of the earth, so the effects of the fall also disturb the interior domain of the home. Yet there is still work to be done there, before the disciples of Christ reach their heavenly home.
Home and household offer many opportunities which we have forgotten as a society. A recovery of the household could encourage men and women to own some of the means of production. But it isn’t just that the reintegration of home and work allows for women (and men) to own their own work. Significantly, it could allow for the woman to situate her personal presence in and from the vibrancy of the home. Is it possible to put a price on such a reality?
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.
NOTES
[1] I am indebted to Roberts’ work on such issues for the writing of my original article.
[2] e.g. NASB.
[3] e.g. ESV.
[4] e.g. NIV.
[5] In fact as in biblical times, it’s the younger generations that a part of their fathers household rather than the other way round. See Luke 15:31.
[6] Indeed it was strange that the son of Man had nowhere to lay his head. Luke 9:58
[7] See 1 Timothy 5:16.
[8] To clarify my usage of language throughout this article, I will often 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. At other times, as the context seems fit, I will use the term wives or mothers in an attempt to trace practical considerations and follow the way the contemporary discussion occurs as it actually exists.
[9] Multiple deviations, heresies and ungodly practices occur in the centuries following the completion of the scriptures. By their nature, these stand in contrast to scriptural truth so that the bible addresses more than it’s original context. The disciplines of exegesis and biblical theology deal with realities closer to the biblical text and context. Systematic theology legitimately aims to apply the texts to modern concerns. Things could be contrasted in multiple ways. One could contrast sound with light as well contrasting sound with silence; just as one could contrast mankind with God, with animals or with angels.
[10] 1 Timothy 5:22, 2 Timothy 1:6, Act 8:14-17.
[11] Leviticus 8:12, 2 Kings 9:3-6, James 5:14-15.
[12] 1 Corinthians 11:18-26.
[13] 2 John 12.
[14] Genesis 3:8.
[15] Exodus 33:1-17.
[16] Exodus 40:34, Leviticus 26:11-12, 1 Kings 8:1-30.
[17] Matthew 1:23.
[18] 2 Corinthians 5:8.
[19] Revelation 21:3.
[20] The theme of the presence of God doesn’t prove any connection with women’s presence in the home- but it does illuminate the importance of presence.
[21] Although not for all- e.g. servants/slaves.
[22] A Christian mother could own a company that she works in. Or she could be part of a worker’s cooperative. In these scenarios she could work away from the home for 40 hours a week while owning her own work. Yet there would still usually be significant differences with that of the ancient household.
[23] Although many women cannot breast feed even if they wanted to, this doesn’t negate the value of their personal presence with their infants. The existence of ‘wet nurses’ through history still has some applicability to the value of personal presence.
[24] It’s also debatable whether the act of nursing offers nutrition alone- or whether there are other important aspects that are involved which are missing with bottle milk feeding.
[25] e.g. USA, UK, Sweden.
[26] Carlson, Allan C. (1988). Family Questions. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, p.9.
[27] https://ifstudies.org/blog/universal-child-care-is-not-what-most-parents-want-or-what-children-need
[28] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDx3_ttZtu4
[29] While men also worked in the home for much of history, there seems to be some differences to women. There is the fact that women are instructed to be “workers at home” (oikouros) wheras men are not. Men, are often much more further afield from home whether fighting for the nation during war (Numbers 1:30, Deut 24:5), dealing with public affairs in the city gates (Proverbs 31:23), or building the city wall (Nehemiah 3). However notice a small minority of women (daughters) in the latter case- in verse 12. See also the adulteress woman negatively portrayed in Proverbs 7:11-12 and contrasted with her husband in 7:19. Although the context shows that her wandering about away from home is of the least concern.
[30] Matthew 5:16, Ephesians 2:9, 1 Timothy 5:25, 6:18, Titus 2:14, 3:1, 8, 14, Hebrews 10:24. See also Titus 2:7.
[31] See also 1 Timothy 2:10.
[32] She made tunics and other clothes.
[33] Clark, Stephen B. 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), 110.
[34] Clark, Ibid, 617.
[35] Matthew 10:42.
[36] Köstenberger, A.J. and Margaret Elizabeth Köstenberger (2014). God’s Design for Man and Woman. Crossway, p.234.
[37] Köstenberger, Ibid, 234.
[38] See https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.5501024.5?seq=9. On a gendered division of labour men have tended to do the tasks which require more physical strength. In medieval England, there was the opportunity for cottage industries which were based in the home. Household service employment was often in other people’s homes.