Market Differences Between Christian and Secular Marriages

To Protect and Provide

I have an unfortunate tendency to forget to make notes or save links to blog posts and articles that engage my curiosity. Oftentimes I will be inspired to write something, but because I didn’t note that information I cannot credit whomever gave me the original idea. Sadly, such is the case with this post. While scanning some random blog out there I came across a post discussing the subject of Christians wives working outside the home. Now, this is a subject which comes up every so often among various Christian blogs, and its always good for a contentious debate. I decided to dedicate my next post to this particular subject for three reasons:

1) I haven’t covered it before on this blog, so its about time I explored the topic.

2) My last few posts have been about marriage, so this seems an appropriate segue.

3) The authoress of the blog post (I remember that it was female writer, and not much else) made an economic argument which used terms which would be familiar to readers of my last few posts.

To clarify that last point further, the authoress argued that as part of their end of the marriage contract men provided resources and protection for the woman, and that it was not part of the woman’s obligation of the marriage contract to provide resources. Interestingly enough, she was a Christian, and was also arguing that it was against Christian teaching for a wife to work outside of the home. In fact she went so far as to say that a wife should disobey her husband if he commanded her to work outside her home. Her basis for this was that women were obligated to God first, and their husband’s second. And in order to justify the argument that it was against God’s will that she  (which is what she meant when she referred to Christian wives in general, no doubt) work outside the home she drew up that secular economic argument.

Reading her commentary, my immediate impression was that the woman was being selfish and lazy. From what I could see, she was displaying a massive entitlement complex which is far from uncommon in many Christian circles these days. But as I read over her post again, I noticed that her argument made no sense from a rational perspective, which was unsurprising because it was never meant to. Rather, all of this was cover for the real purpose of the authoress: to attack wifely submission to a husband. Rebelliousness, no doubt originating in the Curse of Eve, was the motivating force at play here. She didn’t want to submit to her husband, and was looking for any kind of justification to escape that command.

Now, the depths of when submission is not required have been plumbed by others before, including those whose knowledge of scripture and theology is greater than mine. From them I have derived this way of approaching wifely submission: A Christian wife is required to subject herself to her husband’s authority, and obey all of his commands, save those which would require her to commit a mortal sin. Since a woman submits to her husband as a divine command, it does not comport with Christian teaching or reason derived natural law for her to commit a mortal sin as a means of pleasing God by her submission. Before anyone cares to argue the point, this isn’t the heart of this post. Rather, the next section, which covers the economic/transactional aspect of marriage from multiple perspectives, is the real subject of discussion.

Secular v. Christian Marriage: Whats for Sale?

The authoress whom inspired me made what was essentially a secular argument for marriage when she discussed its transactional nature. Under that kind of thinking, marriage is treated like a contract, and frankly this is an excellent way of examining the institution (something I have indicated before). So let us examine what each party in the secular marriage she described had to sell:

Husband: Protection, Provision, Genetic Material, plus in some cultures legitimacy and status

Wife: Sexual Access, Sexual Fidelity, Legitimate Children, Home-keeper

From this perspective marriage makes sense. Each party exchanges something of value which the other party doesn’t or can’t provide. Seemingly win-win. However, once human nature is considered, it becomes obvious that there is a problem with this approach. The purely transactional nature of the marriage makes it seem like some form of business partnership. Unfortunately, there is no clear line of authority in this partnership. Which means that each partner, driven by selfish human nature, will try and derive as much benefit from the partnership while minimizing his or her costs. There is no higher purpose behind the marriage, both partners entered into it only because they saw it as beneficial to themselves. This ensure that the marriage is a constant competition between the two partners, unless one can somehow clearly establish dominance. If the man achieves dominance (say through “Game”), then he can align matters more to his liking. If the woman takes control, then the marriage is probably doomed, at least in the long run when divorce is an option.

Lets’ compare this to the nature of the exchange involved in a Christian marriage:

Husband: Love wife like Christ loved the Church, honor and cherish wife, wash wife with the Word, be fruitful and do not deny spouse sex

Wife: Submit to husband’s authority, respect husband, be fruitful and do not deny spouse sex, be a helpmeet to husband

Note that the exchanges present in the secular marriage contract are still present in varying forms. The husband’s requirement to protect and provide all fall under the love your wife as Christ loved the Church command. The teaching of 1 Cor 7 accounts for his providing genetic material. And the command to love and cherish your wife would include the status and legitimacy part of the secular exchange. At the same time the wife’s exchange includes the same commodities as before: sexual access and fidelity fall under 1 Cor 7 (plus the commandment against adultery), as would legitimate children.

The real differences are found in the wife’s duty to submit to her husband’s authority and her role as a “home-maker.” The “home-maker” aspect of the secular marriage contract is folded into the role of helpmeet. What does this mean exactly? The example of the woman from Proverbs 31 provides us with an idea of what is expected of a Christian wife:

10 A capable wife who can find?
She is far more precious than jewels.
11 The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will have no lack of gain.
12 She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She seeks wool and flax,
and works with willing hands.
14 She is like the ships of the merchant,
she brings her food from far away.
15 She rises while it is still night
and provides food for her household
and tasks for her servant-girls.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
17 She girds herself with strength,
and makes her arms strong.
18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.
20 She opens her hand to the poor,
and reaches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid for her household when it snows,
for all her household are clothed in crimson.
22 She makes herself coverings;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the city gates,
taking his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them;
she supplies the merchant with sashes.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
and she laughs at the time to come.
26 She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looks well to the ways of her household,
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up and call her happy;
her husband too, and he praises her:
29 “Many women have done excellently,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Give her a share in the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the city gates.

What we can see from this example is a woman who is diligent and very much active outside the home. She is essentially acting as both a sales agent and a merchant, not to mention a real estate agent on the side. If that isn’t working outside the home, I don’t know what is. What we see in Proverbs 31 is a woman who is a clear benefit to her husband. She adds a huge amount of value to his life, and lets him rise to his maximum potential. And for this she is to be lauded. Clearly working outside the home is not considered  a sin, much less a mortal one. Nor is there anything dishonorable about it either; as long as the woman is acting diligently in her role as helpmeet than she is to be praised for her works.

Also, it is important to remember that a lot of work and manufacturing back then could be accomplished inside the household. That isn’t really the case these days, a considerable amount of jobs which used to be done from home are no longer economically feasible on a small scale. So if there is work to be done, much of it has to be done outside of the home.

Now what about wifely submission? The requirement that wives submit to their husbands serves several purposes. One of them, which I have covered before, is to provide an example of proper authority to children. But I suspect the principal reason is to try and combat the competition which would otherwise engulf a marriage without a clear leader or single head.

Whatever the Lord’s purposes, it is clear that when the wife is commanded to carry out something which isn’t a mortal sin that she is to obey her husband. And that can include working outside the home, if need be. I should mention that I for one think that it isn’t an ideal situation, especially when there are children. But before children enter the picture, a wife working is something that might be advantageous to the household. The extra resources might prove essential in helping offset the future costs of children. It is up to each individual family, with the husband as the head, to decide what best works for them at any given time.

With this in mind, we can see that Christian marriage is a more complicated and extensive affair than a purely secular approach to marriage. The additional requirements shift the nature of the marriage from a business partnership with two partners vying for power to something else entirely: a family or household with clear lines of authority, duty and responsibility. In a way the marriage becomes much like the ship which the Captain/First Officer model analogizes. The husband acts as Captain of a ship (family) which he leads in order to carry out the ship’s mission (to serve God), and he is aided in this task by his wife, who acts as First Officer. While the marriage is still transactional and contract based in its formation, the final product which emerges is one that exists not to cater to selfish human needs, but instead serve a higher cause.

 

[Sorry for any typos, I will fix them in the morning]

Advertisements

71 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Churchianity, Feminism, Marriage, Men, Red Pill, Sex, Women

71 responses to “Market Differences Between Christian and Secular Marriages

  1. You’re not getting the point here.

    I get your point. I agree with the “should”. I don’t agree with proceeding as if “should” and “is” are synonymous–which is the mistake so many men make!

    Like I said AGAIN, men aren’t mind readers.

    No, you’re not, and that’s why you get in so much trouble:

    “There won’t be a problem. And if there is, we’re a team; she’ll tell me everything. Men and women aren’t all that different. I’d tell her, so she’d tell me. And she’s a good and honest person, she’d never let me down; I’ve been good to her, and she understands that. She hasn’t said anything, so there must be no probl–WTF why is she divorcing me?! Where did this even come from?!”

    You’ve heard and seen that before, I’m sure. It doesn’t just happen, and it doesn’t come out of nowhere.

    You’re talking in vague terms about what should and what shouldn’t happen and what if from a woman’s perspective.

    I thought I was fairly direct about probabilities; you’re the one talking about what a woman SHOULD do, almost as if this absolved men of a leader’s responsibility to assign tasks based on his crew’s strengths and weaknesses. (Obligatory exculpatory note here about how men don’t get a proper education, Blue Pills, ignorance of the law, etc.)

    And yes, of course I’m going to come at it from a woman’s perspective because “a woman’s perspective” is precisely what was being criticized here. I’m also, in case you didn’t notice, not a man. Consider it me trying to help you around that “can’t read women’s minds” thing.

    Yes, that’s all well and great, but know that the majority of men will not understand it simply because they don’t think like a woman.

    And that’s why the Red Pill is so critical–and why I’m trying to show you how it DOES apply here. You don’t have to think like a woman to understand how we think (and don’t think) and what to expect in general.

  2. Deep Strength

    I thought I was fairly direct about probabilities; you’re the one talking about what a woman SHOULD do, almost as if this absolved men of a leader’s responsibility to assign tasks based on his crew’s strengths and weaknesses. (Obligatory exculpatory note here about how men don’t get a proper education, Blue Pills, ignorance of the law, etc.)

    How does he know her weakness to temptation if she doesn’t tell him?

    A man can only do what he can with the information available to him.

    And yes, of course I’m going to come at it from a woman’s perspective because “a woman’s perspective” is precisely what was being criticized here. I’m also, in case you didn’t notice, not a man. Consider it me trying to help you around that “can’t read women’s minds” thing.

    Most husbands if they are making a major decision will say… “do you have any other concerns?”

    This is what being considerate is — he is considering the wife’s opinion in the decision. The husband is acting as a leader and being considerate of the weaker vessel here. If she does not speak up, then the responsibility is on her because she did not voice an opinion.

    This is exactly what you are saying:

    A wife cannot seemingly communicate with her husband — the most important man in her life — about a decision that directly affects her.

    It’s ridiculous how far you are willing to go to justify not acting responsibly just because of the wife’s feelings. You are saying that a wife is slave to her feelings.

    Color me unimpressed.

  3. Deep Strength

    Also, for any men reading this conversation it is the same exact analogy as the married couple going out to eat, which also directly proves which Sigyn is incorrect in her analysis.

    The husband, being considerate of his wife, asks her if there’s anywhere in particular she wants to go. The wife says no. The husband then picks Outback Steakhouse.

    Once they get there the wife starts to pout. The husband asks her what’s wrong. The wife says… “Well, I didn’t want to come to the steakhouse… I really wanted to go to Olive Garden instead” (aka “well, you should’ve read my mind about where I wanted to go”).

    The husband should not respond to her shit / fitness test here. He should not cave to her demands and placate his wife and take her to a different place or say sorry.

    He is to hold her to accountability and responsibility — “You had your chance to offer your opinion on where we wanted to go. Stop whining and act like an adult.”

    In both cases, the man is acting as a responsible and considerate through leading and making a decision. It is the wife’s duty to provide her input as a responsible party if she disagrees or has a differing opinion to her husband’s decision.

    Moral of the story: Wives need to be held accountable for their actions by their husbands, especially if they don’t speak up when there is an decision that directly affects them.

  4. Oh, dear, DS. I’ll try again, but I’m afraid I’ll have to quote myself:

    Now, you see, you see it that way, but a woman doesn’t–and honestly, I really have a hard time buying [that her husband wouldn’t be hurt by an admission of lost respect or temptation to adultery], even knowing you have no reason to lie to me. You see how it goes.

    And that goes to prove my point: You may say it’s not going to break his heart, but she will think so–because solipsism dictates that SHE would feel hurt if he said something like that to HER–and that will cause her to hold her tongue when she shouldn’t. It’s just how we are. You can say “should” and “shouldn’t” all day, but that doesn’t change it.

    Now, in answer to this of yours:

    How does he know her weakness to temptation if she doesn’t tell him?

    A man can only do what he can with the information available to him.

    That’s what the Red Pill is about: Getting the information on how women REALLY are so you don’t wind up as a statistic! You don’t have to understand our motivations; you just have to acknowledge our inclinations.

    Stop pedestalizing us, please. We’re not usually rational, certainly no more rational than the men who expect us to be.

    You are saying that a wife is slave to her feelings.

    Most are. What did you expect?

  5. I like how you resort to the Red Pill over little spats, DS, but absolutely resist it when it comes to marriage-destroying temptations.

  6. As a final thought, because I missed this (and I apologize for the comment spam):

    It’s ridiculous how far you are willing to go to justify not acting responsibly just because of the wife’s feelings.

    I’d say the ridiculous bit is how far you’re willing to go to justify not acting responsibly because a woman doesn’t think or react like a man. But fortunately, “ridiculous” is one of those subjective words, so we can stop using it in a polite discussion.

  7. Its not comment spam when it is substantive Sigyn.

    As for this discussion, I have been paying attention to it. I haven’t commented much because of time constraints and because I have been trying to determine my own thoughts on the subject. I think that there is a major disconnect going on here, and a lot of it has to do with the male commenters not realizing how important/powerful being a situational Alpha is when it comes to women. Worth a blog post in the near future, I should think.

  8. Deep Strength

    That’s what the Red Pill is about: Getting the information on how women REALLY are so you don’t wind up as a statistic! You don’t have to understand our motivations; you just have to acknowledge our inclinations.

    Stop pedestalizing us, please. We’re not usually rational, certainly no more rational than the men who expect us to be.

    I like how you resort to the Red Pill over little spats, DS, but absolutely resist it when it comes to marriage-destroying temptations.

    Incorrect, I’ve been saying all along husbands need to hold their wives accountable for their actions. That is the opposite of pedastalization.

    If he does not, he fails her fitness testing. The problem is that she is fitness testing in the first place (she expects him to read her mind) and therefore is failing to have respect for him.

    Communication is not easy — not for many man to stand up to fitness testing, nor for the woman to overcome her feelings. But we are called to a higher standard than that.

    I’d say the ridiculous bit is how far you’re willing to go to justify not acting responsibly because a woman doesn’t think or react like a man. But fortunately, “ridiculous” is one of those subjective words, so we can stop using it in a polite discussion.

    As anyone else here can see, the husband in these situations is acting responsibly — he is being a leader by making a decision and being considerate by asking his wife for her opinions. I’ve already stated the Scriptural support for this.

    I’m not claiming a woman should act like a man. This is not a man or woman issue. Christians are called to be responsible for what they have been given which is their lives (see parable of talents & minas).

    This is what you continue to say:

    A wife cannot seemingly communicate with her husband — the most important man in her life — about a decision that directly affects her.

    It’s completely irresponsible from the wife’s perspective and not in line with Scripture. Therefore, it should be rebuked harshly.

    I get that men should attempt to understand woman’s feelings to understand their actions. HOWEVER, that is not mutually exclusive with holding her to being a responsible Christian. This is what you are failing to understand.

  9. Thanks, Donal.

    Yes, I think DS and I are kind of at an impasse. It’s starting to be something like this:

    DS: SHOULD!
    S: ISN’T!
    DS: BUT SHOULD!
    S: BUT ISN’T!
    DS: *manly roar* AAAARRRR!
    S: *pathetic girly roar* RAWR!

    And neither of us is really wrong; we’re both just stubborn and want the last word. (At least, I know I am.)

  10. I think that I have the advantage of understanding both of you, to a degree. Without spoiling my own post too much, I have some experience with being a Situational Alpha, both before and after taking the Red Pill. And I know that it can have a huge impact.

    Plus, and this is not meant to disrespect you Deep Strength, but I think you are really failing to grasp that what and how women communicate is completely unlike how a man communicates. It is almost like we are speaking a different language at times.

  11. Deep Strength

    @ Donal,

    There is no disconnect.

    Sigyn is talking about reality as it is. She is referring to most blue pill or Churchian husbands and their wives.

    I am referring to the same thing; however, we are talking about different solutions to the same problem.

    There are sex things at play here:

    1. Husbands need to understand that women are not men, and that they think and act different based on emotions and relationships (Genesis).

    2. Husbands need to hold their wives to a higher standard in line with Scripture. He must hold her responsible for her actions. This shows her he loves her (love her as Christ loved the Church).

    3. Husbands need to know that they need to give the opportunity to their wives to express themselves on their concerns on major decisions (being considerate). I do not believe this is a major problem for most men though.

    4. Wives need to understand that men count the cost, and rely on her for input into decision making. If she does not express her concerns, her husband will often not know.

    5. Wives need to understand that they are called to live to a higher standard and not be a slave to her emotions.

    6. Wives need to respect their husbands. Love is an action, just as respect is an action. If you respect your husband’s decision making you will want to provide him with all necessary information to make a proper decision not being a slave to your own desires for placating him. When you fail to present an opinion to your husband that may put you in a poor situation you are disrespecting your husband’s ability to make proper informed decisions.

    All of these things point back to the roles and responsibilities that husbands and wives are called to in marriage.

    What I am proposing throughout my posts are Biblical solutions for both the husband and the wife in each of their unique roles and responsibilities.

    The big problem is that Sigyn wants to drop all of the responsibility on the men to understand women fully (aka step up and lead her), while I am saying that both the husband and wife need to properly understand how to respond in a conflicting position.

  12. Deep Strength

    Oops… sex = six.

    Donal,

    Plus, and this is not meant to disrespect you Deep Strength, but I think you are really failing to grasp that what and how women communicate is completely unlike how a man communicates. It is almost like we are speaking a different language at times.

    No, I fully understand. See the above post, especially 1 and 6.

  13. The big problem is that Sigyn wants to drop all of the responsibility on the men to understand women fully (aka step up and lead her),

    Now I see where we’re having a problem.

    No, I don’t “want” to drop all of the responsibility on men. It simply is that a man may have to rely on knowledge of his wife that he can’t and won’t get from her, but can be had elsewhere (a.k.a. the Red Pill). He can’t count on her to fess up to every negative quality in her hamstery soul, because not even men are that honest with themselves, much less others.

    If men are going to insist on leading (which you should) because women are irrational, emotionally-driven, or hypergamous (which are the reasons given even when someone is citing Scripture), then you’re going to have to realize you’re leading an irrational, emotionally-driven, hypergamous person, and account for it.

    You can only work with what you have, and most women are immature and hamstery. It won’t change overnight, because hamsters are habit-forming. Your ideas are possibly good in theory, but difficult to impossible in practice.

    Therefore, most men sending their wives out to work for other men is a bad idea, because women are women. Snowflake Exception applies.

    *end credits spool with awesome music*

  14. Deep Strength

    No, I don’t “want” to drop all of the responsibility on men. It simply is that a man may have to rely on knowledge of his wife that he can’t and won’t get from her, but can be had elsewhere (a.k.a. the Red Pill). He can’t count on her to fess up to every negative quality in her hamstery soul, because not even men are that honest with themselves, much less others.

    If men are going to insist on leading (which you should) because women are irrational, emotionally-driven, or hypergamous (which are the reasons given even when someone is citing Scripture), then you’re going to have to realize you’re leading an irrational, emotionally-driven, hypergamous person, and account for it.

    I agree with this with the caveat that men must insist on leading, and women must insist on submitting.

    It doesn’t really work well without both sexes living in what God has called them.

    You can only work with what you have, and most women are immature and hamstery. It won’t change overnight, because hamsters are habit-forming. Your ideas are possibly good in theory, but difficult to impossible in practice.

    I disagree that it’s difficult to impossible in practice. The manosphere has dozens of great relationships IF both the husband and wife are willing to submit to the roles and responsibilities that God has for them.

    I will, however, agree that it is very rare in the western world.

    Therefore, most men sending their wives out to work for other men is a bad idea, because women are women. Snowflake Exception applies.

    I still don’t agree with this if the men and women are practicing godly Christians. It’s up to the husband and wife to have the discussion about pros and cons. A workplace with a male boss may be a strong con with big warning signs, but as I said earlier it depends heavily on the occupation.

    If they’re churchians, sure I agree completely, because they are thoroughly feminized. But I have no clue why you want to talk about what churchians should or should not be doing because we already know what they should be doing.

  15. Deep Strength

    This is the type of anecdote that kind of exemplifies everything here in this thread:

    https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/looking-for-the-one-questions-which-need-answering/comment-page-1/#comment-1881

    Just wanted to speak a little about married women working outside the home. I think you had mentioned that it wasn’t the best idea because of those women submitting to men at their workplace. As a single woman & a teacher, even I would prefer not working alongside men. I only speak to the men at my job if they speak to me first, & I try not to hold long conversations with them, or be alone in a classroom with a man.

    It is difficult to not recognize the manly traits in some men at work, or even admiring their teaching styles. With me being introverted, there is one married male teacher who would flirt with me to get me to “come out of my shell.” One day he playfully bumped his chest into my shoulder (like how men do chest bumps). I was so uncomfortable, but laughed it off. The next day, I nervously spoke to him while no one was around & told him , as a Christian woman, I am not comfortable with him touching me & I wanted to keep my thoughts pure & not have to smell his cologne because of him getting close to me. He felt bad & apologized. The other women at work have no problem interacting with men. Some even hug each other closely at work, eat lunch together & ride in cars together… just the woman & the man alone. Most of them are married too & some claim to be Christian. Some married women dress inappropriately for work. As a woman, I am embarrassed to see cleavage, tight dresses or too much thigh from co-workers. Only God knows what the men are thinking.

    In my opinion, the line is crossed a lot of times between male & female co-workers.

    Basically, same things we’ve rehashed here:

    1. Agreed completely it may be a con or strong con or really big red flag con to have a wife or single woman work with men, depending on the business/occupation. Teaching might be tough because there’s preselection and leadership shown with teaching children.

    It’s up for discussion depending on how badly the financial situation is. Personally, I’d like a pure SAHM + homeschool, but I wouldn’t mind part time work, depending on career.

    2. if you tell most men that you’re feel uncomfortable or don’t want to flirt with them then they’ll acquiesce and back off. Most men can take a hint and don’t want women feeling uncomfortable in the workplace. This can shut down tons of issues.

    3. Churchian foks don’t get it, obviously. We aren’t churchians but if you’re talking about churchians that has never been a question it’s a horrible idea.

  16. Deep Strength

    Alright I’m moving on to the next thread. Bring it another good donal. 😀

  17. She is essentially acting as both a sales agent and a merchant, not to mention a real estate agent on the side.

    Yes, but the question is, who is she working for, outside the home? In the Proverbs 31 example, she’s working for the household, thus, her husband. In a “job” or a “career” she is working for a man who is not her husband. So she’s going to spend all day working for some man not her husband, then come home and work for her husband? They won’t do it.

    This issue is why I started the whole series about the movie Secretary. She works for her man, he is the boss, he signs her paycheck. Think of it as a CEO/COO relationship managing the family corporation.

    Yes, that’s difficult if not impossible for many couples to do these days. Hence, your problem.

    How harmonious can a relationship be and how much submission can be expected in a relationship where a man ostensibly listens to “his woman” come home and talk about her boss and all the orders he gave her, how she obeyed the orders, and how he judged her work. She is submitting alright, but to her boss, not her husband. Because he’s the one signing her paycheck. She’s working for him.

    Hence, it’s now considered sexual harassment and exploitation to have economic power over a woman you are in a sexual relationship with. That’s taboo. It might be illegal to various degrees. The domestic violence people say that if your wife has to ask you for money, that’s abuse. You can fire a woman you are not having sex with, but you cannot fire a woman you are having sex with – that’s either sexual harassment, or it’s divorce, and the courts take 50% of the assets as severance. See how it works? It’s a very simple power thing, and it’s exactly what your opponents don’t want. I’m sure everyone understands the psychological and emotional ramifications for a woman in that kind of arrangement.

  18. Carlotta

    “What we can see from this example is a woman who is diligent and very much active outside the home. She is essentially acting as both a sales agent and a merchant, not to mention a real estate agent on the side. If that isn’t working outside the home, I don’t know what is. What we see in Proverbs 31 is a woman who is a clear benefit to her husband.”

    Again I use a quote.
    Like I said, please back this up with scripture or I “work outside the home” as a taxi driver, teacher, banker, personel shopper and more on a daily basis.
    The Proverbs 31 women does not exist. She is not a command. She is an example and a prayer. The COMMANDS are clear that Christian women are to guard and guide the home and raise the children. You are beyond reaching here.

  19. The COMMANDS are clear that Christian women are to guard and guide the home and raise the children. You are beyond reaching here.

    The commands? Where? Provide scripture (or are you Catholic/Orthodox?) which justifies this over this clear command from scripture:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:1-2&version=ESV

    Or this one:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%205:22-24&version=ESV

    Now, in case it hasn’t been clear, I am not advocating a man sending his wife out to work. But I am saying that it doesn’t appear impermissible.

  20. Pingback: 100th Post Blogapalooza | Donal Graeme

  21. Shibboleth

    I think the Orthodox Jews have the right idea for diffusing temptation: married women wear head coverings and frumpy clothing when in public. (Alone with their husbands is a different matter. )

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s