Among the arguments advanced to support the positions of some in the patriarchy movement is what we might call, “the husband only helper.” It goes something like this: the Bible says a wife is her husband’s helper to take dominion over the earth; therefore, if her boss in the workplace is someone other than her husband, then she is really helping another man to achieve dominion and not her husband. She shouldn’t be helping her boss reach his dominion goals when she is called to do that for her husband, and so she sins by serving two masters, and we know Jesus said a person can only serve one. Some contend that since it is the man’s role to support his family and take dominion, if she enters the work force, then she’s trying to be like a man.

Added to this is this position’s classic passage to quote: Titus 2:1-5, in which Paul tells older women to encourage younger women to be keepers at home, or homemakers. It is concluded that this can only mean that women are to stay at home and concentrate their attention on their husbands and children. Accompanying this is that to not do this is to act against “sound doctrine” and “blaspheme” the Word of God.

The other argument is what could be called, the “double curse” theory. It goes something like this: because of the Fall, women came under the curse of pain in child bearing, and men the curse of having to work to support the family. God told Eve she would have pain in child birth and be under her husband, and told Adam that the ground would be cursed, which would make his work difficult to obtain food for his family. The double curse, as I understand it, is that if a woman works outside the home, then pain in child bearing constitutes one curse, and the struggle to earn an income constitutes another.

In answering these positions, I am not making a case for any woman entering the work force outside the home. This is a decision under the loving leadership of the husband; elsewhere is counsel as to how to go about making such decisions. In my personal experience, I am glad that my mom did not work outside the home. I grew up in a family-owned business; sometimes Mom helped with things, but mostly her time was taken up with our family, her aged parents and single sisters, and church ministry. When my wife and I married, there was seldom a thought given to her working outside the home; only when our youngest was in junior high school did she work some part-time. This was our experience and what we thought we needed to do before the Lord; it isn’t for us to dictate to other couples what they need to determine before the Lord.

In considering Titus 2:1-5, it is certainly to be affirmed that it is good for women to be keepers at home, but is this the only place they can be or work? Titus 2:3 says that older women are not to be enslaved to much wine; does that mean they have to be drinking some wine, or are they free not to drink any?

Certainly young women could blaspheme or cause God’s Word to be denounced, as Titus 2:5 says, but consider this whole passage. Paul wants Timothy to remind various groups in the church as to how they are to act, so that others would not witness a bad testimony from the church, so that opponents of the gospel would have nothing bad to say against God’s people (Titus 2:8), and that the doctrine of God would be adorned in every way (Titus 2:10). Paul’s chief concern is not that women are at home working, but that they are godly, and one way this can best be done is for them to get married, have children, occupy themselves in such profitable ways and stay out of trouble.

This is comparable to the advice Paul gives in I Timothy 5:14, where he says he wants younger widows to get married. In the verses preceding this, he mentions the reality of sensual desires and the evil associated with idleness; therefore, it is good for them to do the constructive thing of pursuing marriage and family, and again mentioning that this would not give those who were enemies of the gospel a cause to bring any reproach against it or the church. Other examples of eliminating reasons for reproach would be that husbands provide for their households, and relatives care for relatives financially, so as not to be a burden on the church.

It isn’t as though the world around these Christians had such a high view of the family that it was a great sin for a daughter or woman or widow to have employment, but that the world did recognize laziness and being busybodies and irresponsibility and other such things as opposing Christianity, with its emphasis on love, self-control, etc.

The fact is, that being at home still would not be protection enough. Many in the world today who work alongside Christian women would testify to their good character, and know others who stay at home who might be lazy or wasting time on the computer or telephone. Employment doesn’t wear horns, and halos don’t automatically appear over homes. Granted, there are many godly women who stay at home, and other professing Christian women in the work place who are a reproach to the gospel; my point is that the person needs to be godly, and the place they are is not what makes them such nor contaminates them.

Additionally, in I Timothy 5:16, Paul acknowledges that some widows may have financial means, which could be inheritance, or, as Lydia, a business to manage.

What about the “double curse” theory of a woman having to suffer the pains of childbirth and work outside the home obtaining income? It should be remembered that Eve suffered pain in childbirth, but the effects of the Fall are seen in everything else as well. Living out her life with dirty diapers, potty training, meals, etc., the Fall’s curse wasn’t simply on childbirth; it was upon all work in life, whether a person is receiving monetary wages or not. Every good wife and mother will tell you that all work, not just the husband’s, has come under the curse.

Sometimes, I Timothy 5 is referenced in regard to the man providing for his house, which we all agree on; but it isn’t true that women don’t work to provide for the household. Here’s a disconnect with some in the patriarchy movement: on one hand, the woman must not work to provide for the household; on the other hand, her work in a home-based business, which monies help provide for the household, are most welcomed. Whether the Proverbs 31 woman was working in or outside the home is often disputed; but there can be no dispute that her work provided income for the family; indeed, it seems it probably accounted for a large portion of it, maybe more than her husband earned.

What about the “husband-only helper” theory? Again, the first impression it that this is a very good position, but not, if we examine it.

As for the authority issue, a loving husband, in consultation with his wife, can always say to her, “Honey, the hours, the people you have to work with, this unreasonable boss, etc.; it’s time to quit.” Men and women both should try to live so that they could either one walk away from their jobs if need be; this means, not accumulating debt, so as to be slaves to a particular employer.

Nevertheless, a woman in the work place is always under the authority of her husband. I have had a few secretaries in over 30 years in the pastorate, and never once considered myself as the head of my secretary, but always considered her husband as her head. Some of the secretaries had me as their pastor, but I knew I had a relationship to them as employer and as pastor, which was of separate spheres from the family; but that ultimately her husband was her head.

As for a woman helping a male boss fulfill his dominion mandate, what about her husband? Isn’t her husband in violation of working for a male boss, because he’s helping that guy fulfill his dominion mandate instead of working on his own? Maybe it is even more serious---by working for the male boss, he is replacing the boss’s wife, because she is the only one who is to be a helper to the boss.

Consider the wage issue: if a woman works for another man and is thus being his helper, as patriarchy proponents argue, then she ought to be turning her salary over to her boss, but she doesn’t; instead, she takes it home, and under her husband’s loving leadership, they put it to good use as they work together for dominion, as God has called them to do.

The “double curse” and “husband-only helper” theories sound okay until they are examined. They must not be accepted as neat little rules for righteousness to regulate the conduct of everyone, but recognized as theories that only muddy the water of trying to do the difficult work of determining God’s will.

Some in the patriarchy movement are big on stories and personal experiences. Let me share one. I remember a godly lady who used to be a member of the congregation I pastored. She was a physician. She was very active in the Right-to-Life movement, promoted this in her medical practice, and was instrumental in finding homes for unwanted children to be adopted. She and her husband, who was also a physician, adopted children, and had some by their own union. They loved children, and their children loved them, and this continues to this day in another city where they live. They always prioritized family. They were faithful in the life of the church, and she had a good testimony of being a submissive wife to her husband. Their home was always open for hospitality to church members, visitors to our congregation, and missionaries; why, she even taught some women in the church how to bake bread. This lady was a good keeper of her home. She and her husband had money, so they could pay other people to clean the house or help with various things. They employed Christian young ladies to travel with them and help with their six children; they had enough wealth and delegation of responsibility to resemble the household of Proverbs 31. I thank God for this godly woman and her family, for the Christian faith and practice they can pass on to their children, and for the wonderful testimony they have before the world, where the gospel of Christ is honored and does not bear reproach and is not blasphemed.