Laura, thank you for your remarks. You took me aback with your confession! I’m glad to be in conversation with you. There are many points worth careful consideration in your thoughtful post. Now, this self-professed “Dad Dad” will respond.
First, let me say that I have no problem doing dishes and helping my wife in different ways. An example: For nearly three years my wife and I had no dishwasher at our Highland Park rental. Loving my wife in a Christocentric, self-sacrificial way meant rolling up my sleeves multiple times a week to attack hard-bitten lasagna pans and ramekins formerly consecrated to delicious ends. I would venture that I do a good sight more of this kind of work than did my grandfather. Manhood must not be determined by the culture, but it does look a bit different in diverse times and places. That’s not biblically problematic in my view.
The question, though, is whether I am to take on the burden of such work as a man. My read of numerous scriptural texts is that I am not. I try to help out where I can, but I am called of God to break my back to provide for my family so that my wife can care for my children and also my home in order that they and it might flourish. The pattern for such a life comes from texts both obvious and less expected. Genesis 3:16 shows that the Fall brings the curse to bear on the woman’s sphere of cultivation: children. Verse 18 shows that the Fall brings the curse to bear on the man’s sphere of cultivation: provision, whether located in the four walls of the house or outside it. We are redeemed from the curse, but not from God’s wise plan—and childbearing and provision are not effects of the Fall.
It is men who are out in the fields and tending the sheep in the Old Testament, not women; that seems so plain as to be obvious. The proverbial husband is outside the home in Proverbs 31, providing and leading, while the proverbial wife cares for and nourishes the home and family. Titus 2:5 upholds exactly this kind of arrangement. Women, not men, are to work at home.
God’s design is simple, sensible, and honoring to himself. It is coded into the very physical and compositional form of men and women. Men cannot nourish children naturally; women can. Men are generally stronger; women are more emotionally attuned. This is why Christians have practiced these gender roles for millennia. The Industrial Revolution came many years after the Reformers, the Puritans, and the Edwardseans all practiced and preached what is called “complementarianism,” as Stephen Ozment, Elizabeth Dodds, Leland Ryken, and others have shown. I’ve heard the IR argument several times since I posted on “Dad Moms,” and I wish to gently but firmly suggest that it is a historical pot that does not hold water.
God gives gifts to all his children. But those gifts must be stewarded in accordance with his design according to texts like 1 Timothy 2:11-12. A woman is not hindered by the domestic call; she is set free to pour out her talents for the flourishing of her children and home. The gospel frees us to serve. My tiny 3-year-old girl is far better served by the loving, wise care of my wife than anyone else. Too often in this discussion, we ignore one of the most crucial matters: the health of our kids. My wife and I used to live across the street from a daycare and were always sad observing the overwhelmed worker trying to care for several screaming babies at once. God’s plan is better than this. He has gifted my wife to lavish love and thoughtful attention on my two kids. This work requires sacrifice and is often hard, but it is powerfully calibrated to bless my children and strengthen our home.
I appreciate the dialogue, Laura. Now, if you will excuse me, I must be off. I have a full day ahead: from 9-5 I need to provide, from 5-8:30 I must plug in with my wife as a Christ-shaped, self-sacrificial leader, and then I must rest in order to, if I may steal the words of Tide, be awesome, if only in the most gospel-driven sense.
Read Laura Ortberg Turner’s critique here.
