Evangelicals: A follow-up to my previous question?

Question

I am really not trying to offend you, I am trying to understand. I have always thought you believed a woman's place was at home, raising her children. That matters like running countries should be left to men. That seems to be the message I have heard your leaders preach for many years now. Did I hear it wrong? I am directing this question specifically to evangelicals as I know there are millions of other Christians who don't think this way. But I thought evangelicals did. Help me understand.

Answer 1

The truth is, liberal feminist dogma invaded everyone's thought to the extent that there was a conservative back-lash which brought many women back to the home.

But if you analyze US history, you will see that this "home-maker" notion of woman-hood was relatively brief.  

Women worked in the fields, at looms, in factories, in classrooms and in hospitals.  

I find it highly ironic that feminism is the loudest opposition to the first female Republican candidate for VP.

Edit:  I am unaware of what female evangelicals (other than myself) are saying, actually.  But speaking for myself, I have been a single mother since law school and I have a really wonderful child and a good relationship with him.  PLUS, his teachers all report that he is a "hard worker."  I wonder...

My guess is that any female with a voice has already reconciled herself to the matter.

Edit (again):  You aren't getting consensus because half of the people answering are not evangelicals, they are superimposing their projection of evangelicalism onto us.

Answer 2

A woman- and a man for that matter, is to see that his family is "taken care of "  first.  

In the book of Proverbs, the godly woman was described as a merchant!  She had servants, or slaves as they had back then, and oversaw them, too.  She was in charge of being sure the children were well taken care of- this doesn't mean she did it all- but made sure of everything, supervised.  The words in the book says a wife is "the home's despot".  That's not a slave, herself.  But an helpmeet, a partner with her husband.

There is nothing wrong with a woman being a involved outside her home, if everything is "seen to".  If one can afford GOOD care- the woman could be free to do more out of the home.   The welfare of her family always must come first. So it would be up to the individual to know what was best.

For the majority of "ordinary" folks who can't afford nannies and tutors- there is no better substitute for a mother in the early years.

Sarah Palin's kids are all older and sure as shooting- as VP there will be plenty of extremely competant nannies and tutors, etc, for any of the kids who still need such.

Answer 3

I think that you do misunderstand.  I consider my self an evangelical but I do not consider myself in anyway superior to a woman.  I depen on my wife for a great many of things and she depends on me.  That is how I believe it should be.

There is one particular phrase in your question that shows you and I think very differently on this point.

The phrase was "raising her children".  Her children?  My wife's children are just as much my children and they are her children.  They are our children and I am just as much responsible for raising them as she is.

On a side note.  One of the biggest problems in American family life today is the concept of "his and hers" amongst man and wife.  "Her money and his money" cripple so many families, it is no wonder the divorce rate is so high with such an ingrained lack of trust.  I know a man that will leave his children with his wife but he would never dream of allowing his wife to even peek at his checkbook.  He is deathly afraid of his wife finding out how much wealth he has manged to attain. This is not the way things were meant to be.

A man and wife are supposed to be one flesh, a union that takes precedence even over the bonds of parent and child.  If you do not have that then you do not have a marriage, you have a temporary arrangement.

Back to the question though.  Raising a child requires both parents, but since men and women are different,  I hope we can all agree that they are.  It comes as no surprise that children often get different aspects of nurturing from father and mother.

And so both men and women have always had to make sacrifices to ensure that the children get everything that they need.  The quesiton is do we sacrifice for our children or do we sacrifice for our careers?

I could work 80-90 hours a week and probably make a lot more money,  but I would not be able to spend as much time with my children as I do.  So what is more valuable the time or the money?

Now if a mother enters the workforce she is not exempt from this balancing act. Just like a man, she has to choose.  I would advice that both men and women should be very careful not to care too much for their careers and too little for your children.  This is happening too much in our society.

In america today having both the father and the mother in the work force is pratically a requirement and a father or a mother being able stay home with her children is somewhat of a luxery that many mistakenly believe they cannot afford.  The mistake is not putting the time and effort into the children.  They are worth it.

Answer 4

Certainly if you follow the doctrine given in the forgeries of Paul.  

If you look at the authentic works of Paul you seem women having a role in the ministry and not really mentioning anything about them being relegated to the home.

Really, the fundies make fun of the clothes that some Islamic sects make their women where, yet you have the German baptists, Mennonite, Amish, etc. that make their women cover their heads and wear these unappealing dresses all the time.

I think the early church fathers liked the power they had and didn't want to share it with females...

Answer 5

The apostle Paul had Jesus' support [ from heaven] and this is what Paul said.

1 Timothy 2; 9 Likewise I desire the women to adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb, 10 but in the way that befits women professing to reverence God, namely, through good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression. 15 However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mind.

Their role is to nurture...not lead.

Answer 6

I am one of them crazy "evangelicals", a "fanatic", to say the least, totally sold out to God and Jesus Christ.  Here is my OWN take on this issue:

Raising our children is the most vital and important job that anybody can do, and somehow, I feel that a loving, caring woman is the most qualified person to do this.  It's not that a woman can't run a country, it's just that raising someone to run the country in the future could be more important than running the country right now.

Anybody can bake a cake or pie, even a key lime pie, but not just ANY body can give birth.  Only women have that ability.  I think it's the highest honor one can have, because with out THAT, there would be no human race.

It's all a question of perspective.

Answer 7

The flaw in your thought process is that you are lumping everyone together, when in fact there is diversity of thought even among those you label "evangelical."  Another flaw is that you presume that evangelical "leaders" lead all evangelicals.  

Answer 8

As long as she doesn't let foreign policy and c**p like that keep her from the bake-sale, I guess it's okay.

Answer 9

It is ideal, as I said..If both mom and dad are out in the workforce who is raising that child. However, reality does not allow for this ideal in most cases. Therefore the husband and wife both participate in balancing the need to work with the demands of raising a child. This does not cancel out their belief that it would be better if mum could be home exclusively..

Answer 10

You'll have noticed by now then that Christians avoid the questions they can't answer. They hate my ones!

Your assumptions are correct but they just do not sit well in this day and age. Suddenly we have 'moderates' in our lives as a result.

Answer 11

Phebe, Priscilla, Lydia, Lois, Cloe - there are a lot of women in the New Testament that have very important jobs.  Some are very noble, and others run large ministries from their homes.

However, we as women should be encouraged and feel honored that the next generation of Christians is so important, God saw fit to entrust us with their training and preparation.  There couldn't possibly be a higher calling.

If you're going to have kids, would you rather some day-care worker be your kid's practical mother, or would you rather mother your own child for yourself.  After all, it's your child, and you're the only mother that kid will ever have.  If mother's don't fill their responsibility to their kids, then who should?

Answer 12

That's not true.  Now get back in the kitchen and make me some pie.

Answer 13

Let me get this straight - You want the religious to walk away from old ideas, except if it might hurt the chances for Obama?  

The truth is, if McCain really picked a loser, or if he picked an old rich white guy with loads of experience, the dems would be indifferent, and as elated as they've been since before the convention.  

The dems don't seem all that indifferent, nor all that elated.  They seem worried.  Panicked, in fact.

I thought Chris Matthews head was going to explode the day after the convention.  He sure didn't seem like his happy, Obama leg-humping self like he always is, and like he was the night before McCains announcement during the convention.  

McCain's choice was great, and the reaction from the left proves that fact.

Answer 14

A woman's place in the family is running the home and raising children, yes, but if she is able to have a career without ignoring those responsibilities, then she should feel free to go ahead, just like the husband is free to help raise the kids or clean the house so long as he is the primary money-earner.

Answer 15

Seems your assumptions are wrong somehow.

It is the 21st century you know.

Answer 16

Hi,

Evangelical Christians are those who believe in the authority of the Bible as the inspired Word of God, the doctrine of Atonement and personal conversion. I would class myself in that category so I'll attempt to answer your question.

You are right - for many years many Evangelical leaders did say that a woman's place was in the home. They based this on some poorly interpreted scriptures in the New Testament which seem to place women in a place lower than men - women should be silent, they should submit to their husbands, they must wear coverings, they will be saved through child-birth etc etc etc.

More recently Evangelical leaders have been examining these scriptures and considering whether they have been misinterpreted with a cultural bias on placing women in a lower place in society as existed when many of the earlier translations of the Bible were written and doctrines were formed. They have been realising that the 'super-woman' of Proverbs 31 was indeed a business woman - albeit a woman within the home running the household, but a woman with great authority nonetheless. They have noted that there are problems with the translations of certain scriptures and interpretations within the context of the passage have often been poor.

As evangelical Christians we must constantly reevaluate my beliefs in accordance with the Bible and considering the modern trends in society. Recently (last 50 years) there has been a trend of women desiring to have successful careers so it has been important for evangelicals to reevaluate the beliefs that were held in this area. And reevaluated they have been. While there is still some continuing debate over whether a woman can act as an elder of a church (indeed this is causing great problems in the Anglican church at the moment) it seems that evangelicals have realised that there is no doctrine that exists to say women must unequivocably stay in the home and run the household. Accordingly, such a position must be dropped.

There will be many old school Evangelicals who haven't reexamined their beliefs and who will therefore teach that women belong in the home. The problem is that they risk being called bigoted and sexist and indeed, it would seem, perhaps for good reason for they unfortunately have little Biblical justicifcation for their stance.

Does this help? We are constantly reevaluating our beliefs as demanded by society and as fits with scripture. This is why we can reevaluate and change our stance on women in the workplace but unfortunately find it much harder to change our stance on other modern issues also requiring our attention...

EDIT...

Just seen your previous question. I see where you are coming from now...

Actually all Evangelical Christians should see inherent value in the upbringing of their children - we only need to look to the wisdom of Proverbs to see why. Leaving a child without his or her parents is not wise and nor is it necessary for most people (there will probably be some exceptions and difficult circumstances but these will be few and far between). Everyone must make a choice between time with family and time earning money (having posessions/holidays etc) and this choice should be made by both the mother and the father of the child. Having both parents around as often as possible is good and healthy for the child and that isn't jsut a Christian view by a psychological view as well.

I cannot pass judgment on the specifics of this woman's life because I don't know her but I imagine that this is a very testing time for her and her family. Personally I do wonder if the stresses and demands of high profile politics are suitable for either a man or a woman with a young child who needs love and attention... Older teenage children (probably 15-16+) are obviously different.

But that opinion is just that - an opinion. It comes from my personal values regarding the importance of family and is not something that I would declare another person to be wrong because they disagree with me on it or see it slightly differently.

Answer 17

My evangelical relatives (I have a ton of them; I'm the only Catholic in the bunch) do feel that if a woman has children, nurturing and raising them is her number-one priority -- or, more properly, her highest calling.  But that doesn't rule out having a career.  It just comes down to making those many job-related decisions, large and small, that any parent must make with the impact on her family always the deciding factor.

Sometimes that means staying at home and even home-schooling her children.  Sometimes that means having no choice but to hold down a job.  And sometimes that means having a career with a positive impact on the community which sets an example of service to one's children.  The evangelical women in my family have done, and are doing, all three based upon their circumstances.  And none of them have been made to feel that their choices are wrong or even less than ideal by their churches.

Edit: You're not seeing consensus because there's a difference between evangelicals and fundamentalists -- not to mention "reformationist" groups.  The more fundamentalist/dominionist or legalistic they are, the more they subscribe to the notion that a woman's place is in the home, period.

Answer 18

The women who don't end up with problem children, you know, like daughters that get pregnant as teenagers.