Does God want women to stay home?
September 26th, 2007Mary Zeiss Strange writes in USA Today about Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s new degree program with a concentration in homemaking. As you might expect, she doesn’t like it.
This isn’t to diminish the homemaker’s importance — Martha gets to play a prominent role in the Gospel of John’s story of the raising of Lazarus. And it must be noted that Southwestern’s program is specifically geared toward “women whose heart and calling is the home.” But surely the seminarians would be truer to women’s biblical roots were they to recognize, as their savior did, that there is more than one career path open to women.
Talk about some faulty logic. Because the seminary is offering a homemaking program in response to interest from potential students, that equates to the school telling women that homemaking is the only option for them?
If a university launched a law school, would Strange accuse the institution of suggesting that the only career option available for students is as an attorney? Of course not. And yet she doesn’t hesitate to make that same criticism when it comes to a homemaking program.
I discussed this here with a young lady a little over a month ago who is going to be marrying a good friend of mine from elementary, junior high and high school. See what you think.
j razz
The link didn’t show up, so here it is again.
j razz
What is ironic is that Ms. Strange overlooks the fact that this course is taught by women who have chosen teaching as a career path.
I have two concerns about this program. The first is that it seems to be an example of a seminary usurping (and charging for) the kind of training that can and should take place in the local church.
Second, if a woman’s intention is for homemaking to be her only career (which I have no problem with), I question whether spending four years and $25,000+ on a degree in homemaking is really wise. That amount of cash could go a long way toward purchasing, say, a home.
We should be careful about feeding our culture’s idea that your value is attached to whether or not you have a big enough degree.
$25,000+? At a Southern Baptist seminary? Perish the thought. Unless, of course, you’re counting living expenses in that figure. SBC seminary education is el cheapo.
“Talk about some faulty logic. Because the seminary is offering a homemaking program in response to interest from potential students, that equates to the school telling women that homemaking is the only option for them?”
It’s not faulty logic. Also, the author didn’t imply homemaking was their “only option.” What she said was,“But surely the seminarians would be truer to women’s biblical roots were they to recognize, as their savior did, that there is more than one career path open to women.” To read this in context consider her point…
“The Klouda case reflects the religious context for the establishment of the homemaking program. In rock-solid biblical literalism, a woman’s place is neither in the pulpit nor at the lectern, but in the home” and “In Luke’s Gospel, Martha is busy serving and cleaning up after dinner, while her sister Mary has joined the disciples to hear the teaching. When Martha complains, Jesus rebukes her: “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.” Mary, in other words, has chosen the same path as Sheri Klouda did. Homemaking isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be. And it certainly isn’t the only appropriate path for women.”
Why is this homemaking program open only to women? It seems as if Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is implying “home making” is only for women by making the class only for women.
I don’t know what the bible says about women’s social role and I don’t care. For me, the most telling point in the article was “It isn’t logical for someone with a master’s of divinity to teach you how to make a bundt cake. … I’d say the same thing if Emeril started teaching classes on systematic theology.”
$25,000+? At a Southern Baptist seminary? Perish the thought. Unless, of course, you’re counting living expenses in that figure. SBC seminary education is el cheapo.
According to Southwestern’s website, they charge $198 per credit hour for Southern Baptist students on scholarship. Assuming you stay in school for four years (8 semesters) at 16 credits per semester, that’s $25,344 for tuition, not including fees or living expenses. Certainly cheaper than many other private schools, but not an insignificant amount of money.
http://www.swbts.edu/index.cfm?pageid=419
Peter said, “I have two concerns about this program. The first is that it seems to be an example of a seminary usurping (and charging for) the kind of training that can and should take place in the local church. “
I understand your concern here. But couldn’t the same thing be said about a lot of things a seminary teaches? I mean, isn’t the local church supposed to be sufficient for preparing pastors, missionaries, etc. according to the N.T.?
Having said that, please don’t think I am bashing seminaries. I’m not. I just think that it may be an indication of the weakness of the church that seminaries are so necessary.
It’s not faulty logic. Also, the author didn’t imply homemaking was their “only option.”
Of course it’s faulty. I didn’t say that she implied that homemaking was their only option. I said that she’s accusing the seminary leaders of suggesting that. It’s abundantly clear.
When she says, “But surely the seminarians would be truer to women’s biblical roots were they to recognize, as their savior did, that there is more than one career path open to women,” she is certainly accusing them of believing that there is only one career path open to women — namely, homemaking.
But nowhere have they said or indicated that. And the number of women at the seminary enrolled in other degree programs provides plenty of proof that the seminary leaders are not guilty of what she is accusing them.
“But nowhere have they said or indicated that.”
Yes, they did. I pointed it out. “Why is this homemaking program open only to women? It seems as if Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is implying “home making” is only for women by making the class only for women.”
Saying that the program is only open to women is not the same thing as saying that homemaking is the only career path open to women. Not even close.
It’s saying homemaker is the traditional biblical role of women. So when the author backs it up with…
“The Klouda case reflects the religious context for the establishment of the homemaking program. In rock-solid biblical literalism, a woman’s place is neither in the pulpit nor at the lectern, but in the home”
and
“In Luke’s Gospel, Martha is busy serving and cleaning up after dinner, while her sister Mary has joined the disciples to hear the teaching. When Martha complains, Jesus rebukes her: “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.” Mary, in other words, has chosen the same path as Sheri Klouda did. Homemaking isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be. And it certainly isn’t the only appropriate path for women.”
The bold part is makes the same assertion you do, correct? So, how can you contend the author of saying the opposite. I think we are interpreting her words differently, Tim. She is not accusing Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary of making only one class available to women. She is accusing them of pigeonholing women as homemakers by making the class available only to women. At the same time, women becoming Pastors is frowned upon, severely restricting that particular career path for women.
These are minor points to me though. What swayed me to most was how illogical this whole thing is…
“It isn’t logical for someone with a master’s of divinity to teach you how to make a bundt cake. … I’d say the same thing if Emeril started teaching classes on systematic theology.”
It makes no sense from a logical perspective though it may make perfect sense from the biblical perspective.
Why ARE only women allowed to take courses in the homemaking program?
Heck, at my high school, girls AND boys were able to take Home Ec! (I never took it, though. I was enrolled in all the “college prep” classes. What a fool I was!)
I asked the same question, Di. I don’t understand it either.
But couldn’t the same thing be said about a lot of things a seminary teaches? I mean, isn’t the local church supposed to be sufficient for preparing pastors, missionaries, etc. according to the N.T.?
Yes, and yes.
Cineaste,
Putting your thoughts of scripture aside, look at it this way: The Bible is the source through which Christians view the world (whether you agree with that world view or not, that is how it is). So, does the Bible ever cast a man in the role of stay-at-home dad or housedad? On the contrary, the Bible does portray the man as the provider; the one who goes out and works.
I believe they are working from this understanding and that is why the courses are not offered to males.
j razz
The bold part is makes the same assertion you do, correct?
Yes. She believes that homemaking isn’t the only career path available to women. The seminary leaders most likely believe the same thing.
But she also asserts –erroneously — in the last paragraph, that the leaders of the seminary think otherwise. That’s where her logic is faulty. Just because the seminary offers a degree in homemaking does not mean that seminary leaders believe it is the only career path available to women. That’s where her logic fails.
They are offering the option for those women who do believe it is the path for them. They are not making a statement that homemaking is the only career path for women. Thus my example of the law school in the original post. It’s the same concept at work.
Then, is Mary Zeiss Strange mistaken when she says, “But surely the seminarians would be truer to women’s biblical roots were they to recognize, as their savior did, that there is more than one career path open to women?” More than just homemaker? I don’t know the Christian answer to this. But I think Di is a Christian. I’d be interested in her response. Does God want women to stay home or not, Di?
If I were a Christian, I would still think women and men should have equal rights. I would say, God DOES NOT want women to stay at home. God, would want women to have the opportunity to hold any job they are capable of, including Pastor. Since the Bible is beyond me, can anyone provide a logical, not biblical, argument as to why women can’t be Pastors and should “stay at home?”
Yes, she is mistaken in suggesting that the seminary leaders don’t recognize “that there is more than one career path open to women.”
Cineaste, I mentioned this earlier, but what Ms. Strange is failing to take into consideration is that the class is being taught by women who are not “stay-at-home moms”, they are full-time teachers. There are a number of ladies on the staff and faculty at SWBTS. So obviously they don’t believe that staying at home is the only option for women.
She is mistaken in suggesting that the seminary leaders don’t recognize “that there is more than one career path open to women.”
I don’t believe the author is suggesting this. I’m sure she is quite aware the seminary offers other classes to women. Knowing this, why would she intimate otherwise? No, I think we are interpreting her differently. Take a look at the context, my quotes of her.
I agree with the author’s view that the seminary leaders believe that a woman’s place is in the home. They don’t seem to come off a liberals at all and the conservative position is that a women’s role is in the home, not as a money earner. Bread winner is the man’s traditional role.
I think the seminary’s position is similar to j razz’s explanation (for once, I agree with him:), it’s a “biblical” position they are taking, not necessarily a logical one. The seminary’s position on women becoming Pastors supports her contention. The seminary allows women to take different classes but Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is implying “home making” is only for women by making the class ONLY for women.
My impression is that if you interviewed the Seminary leaders and asked, “Which class do you counsel women to take more, the home making class or Pastor class (not sure what the proper term is for that) they would answer the former.” That’s the point the article makes.
I can’t help acknowledging the situation is exactly as j razz says. The author’s piece is in opposition to that mindset. She accuses the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary of taking the position that the proper, the biblical role of women is, wife, child bearer, and home maker. And, she’s right. In this context, she makes perfect sense when she says the seminary should recognize, “that there is more than one career path open to women.”
Tim, Gordon, I think our point of contention is that you are taking her quote literally. You take it as if she is actually arguing that the seminary literally believes there is only one career path available to women. But, I’m confident the author realizes that the seminary leaders are aware of occupations like nurses, secretaries, and teachers.
The seminary leaders know of these occupations and she knows, they know about them too. But the mindset of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is that the proper role of women is in the home. In context, her point “But surely the seminarians would be truer to women’s biblical roots were they to recognize, as their savior did, that there is more than one career path open to women” is completely coherent.
P.S. sorry for the long posts. It’s just my style, especially when I’m interested in a topic.
I have to agree with Cineaste here. What message are they sending by opening up the program to women only.
And also, if you’re going to be biblical about it, the Bible outlines the roles of a virtuous woman clearly in Proverbs 31. In that passage the virtuous woman is involved in trade (vs 18), real estate and farming (vs 16), social work (vs 20), and fashion merchandising (vs 24). I wonder how many of these skills will be taught in the new degree program.
Okay, let’s look for a moment at where this course is being taught. It is not at a liberal arts university but at a seminary. The men who attend seminary are attending for a very specific reason, to prepare for the ministry. In my experience, most ladies who attend Bible college/seminary are there either to prepare for missions work, Christian education or as I have heard many facetiously call it, working for their “Mrs.” degree.
I will just about guarantee you that there is not one male student at SWBTS that would be interested in taking the course were it open for them. On the other hand, is not the seminary enhancing the ministries of all concerned if they are taking the time and effort to prepare those who wish to marry a pastor/missionary to be the best help-meet possible for their husbands?
This entire article is nothing more than a member of the liberal elite looking to take a shot at a biblically conservative institution.
Gordon, you beat me to it. I was getting ready to say the same thing.
Cineaste, I believe that she knows that the seminary leaders don’t believe homemaking is the only option for women — but I believe she’s deliberately misrepresenting them in an attempt, as Gordon said, to take a shot at the seminary.
Joel, yes, I’d guess that several of those skills will be addressed in the program.
As for why the program is open only to women, in addition to what Gordon already said, let me add a couple more.
Is it possible that topics will come up where women want to talk only with other women? Highly likely. I know there are times when I don’t want to discuss certain issues in the presence of women.
Also, is it possible that some single guys would try to take the classes — not for the content, but to interact with the single young ladies in the classes? Maybe not highly likely, but certainly possible. Making the classes available only to women eliminates this possibility.
The fact is, the seminary is offering this program to meet a demand. If women hadn’t asked for this type of program, the seminary wouldn’t be providing it.
“And also, if you’re going to be biblical about it, the Bible outlines the roles of a virtuous woman clearly in Proverbs 31. In that passage the virtuous woman is involved in trade (vs 18), real estate and farming (vs 16), social work (vs 20), and fashion merchandising (vs 24). I wonder how many of these skills will be taught in the new degree program.”
Well said!
I just wanted to say hi to Tim. I happened across your blog this a.m. What a small world! Hope all is well!
Caneel
Great to hear from you, Caneel. Thanks for stopping by.
“I believe she’s deliberately misrepresenting them in an attempt, as Gordon said, to take a shot at the seminary.”
We’ll just have to disagree. I don’t think she is misrepresenting the seminary at all. I think the author nailed it with her contention that the seminary leader’s have a “biblical” mindset where a woman’s role is that of wife, child bearer and home maker, not bread winner.
“This entire article is nothing more than a member of the liberal elite looking to take a shot at a biblically conservative institution.”
That’s an ad hominem attack.
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).
Can Christians answer her question, the question of this post, “Does God want women to stay at home?”
Reading j razz’s comments I get the impression his answer is, yes. The seminary seems to say, yes. I’m not sure about Di’s opinion though since she is a Christian woman, her response would be the most pertinent. Joel and Caneel seem to say no, judging by the context of scripture they quoted.
“Does God want women to stay at home?”
I’ve been answering it the whole time. The answer is the same thing that the seminary is saying by offering this degree — yes, He does want some women to stay at home, and so the seminary is trying to provide a service to those women to help them in that task.
The seminary leaders also believe, as I do, that other women are not necessarily called to be full-time homemakers and are called to be nurses, teachers, doctors, etc. That’s why the author of the article is wrong to accuse the seminary leaders of saying that homemaking is the only option for women.
“The answer is the same thing that the seminary is saying by offering this degree — yes, He does want some women to stay at home… other women are not necessarily called to be full-time homemakers and are called to be nurses, teachers, doctors, etc.”
Wait. How can you say your answer is “Yes, God wants women to stay home” when your answer is really “God wants some women to stay home and some women to work?” This makes it sound like you are really sitting on the fence and by fiat and, ipso facto, the seminary leaders as well.
Can you point me to a place where I’ve said that God wants all women to be full-time homemakers? I’ve said no such thing.
I feel like I’m beating my head up against the wall. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
Can anyone else tell me whether I’m making sense here? It seems pretty simple to me.
By the definition of ad hominem that you so generously (and a bit patronizingly, I might add) provided you have either misunderstood or misconstrued this entire discussion.
I did not refer to Ms. Strange as a liberal elitist until I first pointed out the fallacies of her statements. She is attempting, as it seems you are, to draw conclusions from the seminary’s actions that simply are not true. Her statements are filled with the same rhetoric that we consistently hear from those in the realm of religion who classify themselves as liberal. She is using this rhetoric in an attempt to smear an institution that holds a belief that differs from hers.
Given these facts, I do not feel that my assessment of the situation is off-base.
Tim, your argument is crystal clear. There is none so blind as he who will not see.
Cineaste,
I do not think that all women were meant to be stay-at-home moms. On the other hand, I do not see in scripture where men are the ones that are to stay at home while the wives works. I could be missing it but I have not seen it.
j razz
“Can you point me to a place where I’ve said that God wants all women to be full-time homemakers?”
When I asked, “Does God want women to stay at home?” and you said, “Yes.” In this question “women” refers to all women in general. Then you added He wants some women to stay at home and some to work.
“I feel like I’m beating my head up against the wall.”
I apologize. I don’t mean to distress you. I should have read your answer as, “No, God does not want women to stay at home, He wants some women to work as well.” The “Yes” confused me.
Gordon, your statement “This entire article is nothing more than a member of the liberal elite looking to take a shot at a biblically conservative institution.” is by definition, an Ad hominem attack. It’s just a fact.
In addition, if by the phrase “There is none so blind as he who will not see” you are referring to me, that’s also an ad hominem attack. First, it attacks my character by labeling me “blind.” Second, my “blindness” is taken as evidence against my arguments. There is no need for ad hominem attacks in this discussion. I’m really enjoying hearing what you have to say but calling me “blind” kind of spoils it. Were you referring to someone else?
Here’s something much more pressing in my life right now: Does God want me in a beard?
Check it out & vote below:
http://ruanole2.blogspot.com/
“Joel and Caneel seem to say no, judging by the context of scripture they quoted.”
Okay, I’m trying not to get into this debate too much but I do have to clarify my position. Given the Proverbs 31 woman, along with numerous other women in the Bible, it is obvious to me that God doesn’t limit women to the home. There are way too many examples of virtuous women who did work outside the home as well. Based on scripture, however, it is obvious to me that (in answer to Tim’s question) God does desire women to be what I prefer to call family managers but they aren’t limited to that. I don’t believe God limits women to the home. I think he wants women, if they have a family, to have family prioritzed before career, but that career isn’t a bad thing. So I wouldn’t say my answer is “no,” but rather “to be at home but not limited there.”
And I do agree with what was stated earlier, and I wonder if other life application/job skills will be taught in these courses.
As for whether men should be in the home, I also haven’t seen evidence that there would be disapproval. Scripture definitely doesn’t lean toward a man being “head of household” in an “I’m the BOSS” kind of way but instead by being a loving, nurturing and sacrificial husband and father. Household chores and childcare? These fall under loving, nurturing and sacrificial in my opinion. What person, man or woman, wouldn’t benefit from a course or two in those areas?
Do I personally support mothers staying at home? Yes. But I also think it’s great when dads do the same. I feel so strongly about supporting this that I created a website for stay-at-home and work-at-home parents. It’s called SAHMsnWAHMs (stay-at-home moms and work-at-home moms) just because WAHP said out loud sounds like a derogatory term that is used for a group of people, but the site is for both moms and dads.
“I do not think that all women were meant to be stay-at-home moms.”
Fair enough, j razz. So, what I’ve gathered so far is that the Biblical position to the question, “Should women stay at home” is neither a definitive “Yes” or “No” but rather “Some women should stay at home and some women should work.” Now, for me this is not a conclusive answer. If I were to convert to Christianity, and if I were a woman, and I wanted to consult the Bible on this matter, it really wouldn’t provide me with new information. I already know, that “Some women stay at home and some women work.” I may as well go with my own desires and pursue a career because the Bible doesn’t tell me “yes” or “no.” It’s rather ambiguous.
“Here’s something much more pressing in my life right now: Does God want me in a beard?”
Klay, I’d say, yes.
‘You must not shave or cut the corners of the hairs of your head and you are not to trim (mar or clip off) the edge (corners) of your beard.’
Lev. 19:27
Don’t forget the context- you can’t get a tattoo either!
j razz
However, we are no longer under Mosaic law.
Sorry to spoil your fun Cineaste. I was simply answering Tim’s question. It seemed to me that his answers were very clear and yet you persisted in pressing the issue. Given that I know you are a person of intelligence I could only assume that you were ignoring what he was saying. Thus, the blindness I mentioned is not a character flaw but is a description of one’s unwillingness to acknowledge what is before him.
If you felt hurt by this, I apologize. Really.
Well, at least you admit it was an aspersion or you wouldn’t be apologizing to me for it. Peace be with you you, bro.
If I were to convert to Christianity, and if I were a woman, and I wanted to consult the Bible on this matter, it really wouldn’t provide me with new information. I already know, that “Some women stay at home and some women work.” I may as well go with my own desires and pursue a career because the Bible doesn’t tell me “yes” or “no.” It’s rather ambiguous.
Cineaste, the Bible doesn’t answer in detail every question about our lives. For example, when I had the opportunity to move from Illinois to Tennessee for my current job, I wasn’t going to open up the Bible and find chapter and verse where God was telling me to take the job.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t scriptural principles I didn’t apply. I considered what the Bible said about the responsibility of men in providing for their families. I considered the talents and interests God had given me. I prayed and asked for guidance. I sought counsel from wise friends. Then, taking all of that into consideration, I took the job because I wanted to and because I thought it was the right thing to do.
In the same way, my wife and I have chosen for her to stay home full-time with our family. The Bible doesn’t tell us that we have to do that. Nor will I go so far as to say that every Christian family has to do that. But the Bible does give us principles about how to raise our children — and for us, we think we can best follow those principles by the path we’ve chosen.
That doesn’t mean everybody has to do what we’ve done. I know plenty of faithful Christians who don’t. But it should mean that Christians who claim obedience to God consider the teachings of Scripture about raising godly children, and then do whatever is necessary to obey those principles.
Yes, I am a Christian.
I don’t necessarily think my response to the question “Does God want women to stay home?” is any more (or less) pertinent than a man’s response. And I don’t consider myself qualified, in terms of my knowledge (or lack thereof) of Scripture, to give a Bible-based answer.
My initial reaction to the question was something along the lines of this:
No, God doesn’t want women to stay home, or else there never would have been a second World War.
Then I considered that women had duties outside the home long before the 1940s and especially before the 1950s through 1970s, as referenced by Mary Zeiss Strange in her article. (Women may have been burning their bras in the 1960s, but they were working for women’s rights way before all that.)
I can’t speak for God. And I know how Scriptures tend to work: For one point that is made in the Old Testament, there is sometimes a point that seems to contradict it to be found in the New Testament, and vice-versa. Which leads me to believe that sometimes, there is no definitive answer; sometimes, we have to figure things out for ourselves.
So, anyway, I’ll tell you MY “final answer” to the question, with some explanations:
I believe God wants every person to live up to his or her potential and make the most of the skills and talents with which he or she has been blessed. In many instances, this calls for working “outside the home,” in various professions — most of which can no longer be regarded as gender-specific because they simply aren’t. I believe, too, that God wants us to look out for one another, but he also wants us to take care of ourselves — which, to me, in the world/society we live in, means that if we are able, we have to work in order to “pay our way.”
Families have to make decisions: Should the husband or the wife or both work outside the home? I happen to believe that, if you decide to have children, arrangements/sacrifices should be made in order to ensure that one or both parents are with the children as much as possible. In many instances, this would require one parent to work outside the home and one to be a stay-at-home parent; it could necessitate parents working different shifts; it might bring about other options. The children should be the parents’ No. 1 priority.
Does it matter which parent works and which one stays at home? Not necessarily. I do think that women, IN GENERAL, are better nurturers, and in many professions, men still are able to make more money for the same jobs than their female counterparts. On the other hand, I know plenty of women who are making great salaries in their chosen professions — and many men who are absolutely wonderful dads, and would be perfectly suited for stay-at-home duties.
Di, thank you so much for answering. I had a feeling your answer would be one of the best and I was right. You had a lot to say! As a woman, your perspective is unique on this topic and very insightful. You are the one who, pardon the expression Mike Vick, “Had a dog in this fight.” I was interested in hearing your opinion most of all because your perspective, as a woman, is more similar to Mary Zeiss Strange’s than anyone else’s here. But know I know I was wrong. I should have been interested because of your plain spoken honesty and common sense about this topic.
This part made the most sense to me…
“I can’t speak for God. And I know how Scriptures tend to work: For one point that is made in the Old Testament, there is sometimes a point that seems to contradict it to be found in the New Testament, and vice-versa. Which leads me to believe that sometimes, there is no definitive answer; sometimes, we have to figure things out for ourselves.”
Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my question, Di.
I’m not a Christian but, “God bless you.”
Cineaste - I know you are the one who voted “You’re ugly regardless”
You rascal!
Cineaste hits on something here that has always given me fits with conservative Christians (like myself). We have often looked for rigid patterns of practice or behavior where there simply is none. In some parts of the world, it is the tradition for men to care for the home while the women work. Should we force our cultural and religious traditions on these people when they are converted? Parsing out what we think is biblical teaching and what is just tradition is often more difficult than we realize. Personally, I agree with Di that each couple has to make decisions based on biblical principles. We need to give families the freedom to apply the teachings in a way that makes sense to them. This may mean that we don’t have cookie cutter families but that doesn’t mean that those that are not normative are necessarily wrong.
I think that non-Christians see our drive to make everyone conform to a set standard of behavior that is extra-biblical and they shake their heads. I know that I did before I became a Chirstian and I still do.
In some parts of the world, it is the tradition for men to care for the home while the women work. Should we force our cultural and religious traditions on these people when they are converted?
Point understood, but a caution. The world is fallen and depraved, as was I. Just because they have traditions and customs does not mean that they are in accordance with scripture. When conversion takes place and we are being sanctified by the grace of God, things will change; they must change. It would be an injustice for Christians to allow fellow Christians to live in sin instead of confronting them with scriptural truths concerning customs or traditions.
Now, with that being said, I understand you are speaking to extra-biblical traditions and customs. But, let’s be careful not to fall of the horse on either side of the argument. You cannot force extra-biblical requirements on someone without that being sin and you cannot neglect to confront with biblical commands without it being sin.
j razz
I totally echo everything that Tim wrote, as we are doing the exact same thing.
Excellent explanation Tim. And frankly, we all know who has the more important job. Hint: not me.