Men, Women and Equality in the Household

There is a common misconception in the wider community that there is an inherent inequality between males and females in the traditional roles of women being at home raising the children and doing the housework, and the males as the breadwinners.

While I certainly take exception to certain minor parts of this model, on a whole it is the most viable and accurate mode of conjugal living.



I certainly abhor the extreme end of this model of the still-common practice in lower socio-economic households of the female doing all the cooking, cleaning, maintenance of the children and general running of the house for all the hours that she isn’t sleeping, while the man simply parks his obese arse on the couch drinking himself into a stupor after a mere 8 hour shift at work.

While there is no doubt that these conjugal roles are egregiously wrong, I personally believe that the traditional role of the 'stay at home mum' is basically right, and despite common thought, it is by no means an inferior lifestyle.





The current trend in Western society is for women to strive for a career as the most important goal in life, ahead, and sometimes instead of, child bearing. This ostensibly labelled 'emancipatory' vision of woman in modern society often manifests in significant peer pressure on women who genuinely want to devote their energy and time to their children rather than a superficial career.

The role of the stay at home mum is often vociferously frowned upon as a vastly inferior and antiquated mode of existence.



But is this really so? While it is certainly beneficial for women to participate in the work-place to various degrees, I challenge anybody to explain how the 24hr attentive role of carefully raising and instructing your delicate and intellectually burgeoning children in the moral code and beliefs that you value is in any way less important than the perfunctory and mundane duties of a run-of-the-mill job.



In fact, I would go as far as saying that the traditional role of the woman running the household is actually more important than the mere 8hr shift at work of so many males. While this may even sound a touch patronising to women, you really have to look past the petty and superficial cultural aspersions that are cast upon the traditional roles of men and woman in the household. Surely getting the conjugal mix right is far more important than just thoughtlessly adhering to popular social conjugal trends.





I contend that the roles of both the breadwinning and head-of-the-household male, and the pedagogy and house running of the female are certainly different- in fact they are just as different and polarized as males and females themselves- but these differences are complementary, but most important are EQUAL!

Noah's Ark

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/thinking-outside-the-box

Noah’s Ark, the Bible records this giant boat as being over 135 meters long, 22 wide and 13 meters high! People baulk at the idea of Noah’s Ark being real. They automatically think that such a prodigious structure couldn’t possibly have been built in such an ancient culture.


It is certainly easy to question the veracity of the Ark narrative when we have no physical evidence left of such a structure, but we can’t legitimately discard the narrative on these grounds alone. After all, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



What we need to do is to look back at ancient history and look for other prodigious structures to see what ancient people really were capable of.

For example, surely the Great Pyramid of Giza could be considered a structure of similar magnitude to the Ark. The biggest of the Giza pyramids originally measured over 145 meters tall and each side 230 meters long. Such a structure required over 2.3 million blocks of stone. Still to this day- when we have the technology to send people to the moon and genetically engineer organisms- nobody knows how these giant pyramids were constructed.

Ask yourself, would anyone seriously believe historical accounts of immensely giant pyramidal structures the size of the Great Pyramid if the structure didn’t still exist? Certainly not. Scholars would certainly claim that the stories were either entirely myth or highly exaggerated accounts of much smaller structures.



I’m sure most people would agree that the Great Pyramid of Giza is considerably more sophisticated and a substantially more of a monumental achievement than Noah’s wooden Ark.

When we look at some of the amazing structures that the ancient people of history were able to achieve- giant structures which still stand many thousands of years later- then suddenly the task that Noah had in building the Ark seems quite reasonable in comparison.

Communism, Islam, Atheism, Christianity and

When it comes to proselytising, Christianity sets itself apart from these other three in one very important way.



The first three of these belief systems all use subjugation, ridicule and peer-pressure to gain and maintain acceptance.

Those who lived in a Communist State had to forever be looking over their shoulder in a perpetual state of suspicion that their neighbours and even their own children may denounce them to the State authorities as ‘counter-revolutionaries’. Severe beatings and even death was a constant fear.



Similarly Islamic States use cruel punishment techniques for those who dare to question the status-quo. Women are kept on a horrifyingly short leash, being cudgelled by their husbands, brothers or fathers at the slightest whim. All this is not just condoned, but promoted by Islamic scripture.



Atheism fits right in with these two, only differing in the degree of chastisement. The primary tool in use by atheism to gain and sustain social and intellectual prominence is ridicule and scorn. Even the slightest mention of secular dissent is immediately countered with a pillory of public humiliation and castigation.









And this is where Christianity differs markedly. Christianity seeks to convince and cajole rather than use the atheist tactic of criticism and castigation. Christianity does not wish for domination and subjugation like Communism, Islam and Atheism. But instead endeavours to show the love and compassion shown to us by Christ.

We let our actions do the talking. Rather than force people to outwardly conform, we would much rather it to come from their hearts in an honest and willing display of acceptance.



I’m sure many people would object and point to various Christianised governments and institutions in the past who didn’t act this way, but rather adopted the methods of the other three worldviews.

Yes it is true that medieval rulers used Christianity to subjugate and even terrorize their peoples. And yes it is true that even this previous century saw Christianised governments enforce Christianity on the population through things such as Christian prayer in State run institutions, and the prohibition of teaching evolution in schools. But my point is that this is not what the teachings of Christ teach us as I will demonstrate.



Christ led the way, giving us an example of how we are to approach the heathen world around us.

A prime example is found in John 8:2-11. After answering the Pharisees in their challenge over a women caught in the act of adultery, He did not chastise and condemn the woman. He did not arrogantly pronounce the law that she must adhere to. And He did not ridicule and shame her into submission:

Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”



No, instead He showed her complete love and compassion, with only a gentle reminder of what she new to be wrong anyway.



A firm hand only serves to harden the heart against your rules, and guarantees hostile rebellion.

Conversely, a gentle and loving hand cajoles and convinces, and ensures honest devotion.

Should Christians Follow the Old Testament Law?

Mathew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”



A superficial reading of this passage seems to say that Jesus is affirming the validity of the Old Testament Law which would make them still binding for Christ’s followers.



But what did Jesus truly mean by this statement? One point is certainly true, Christ did not come to totally eliminate all the Old Testament laws and start from a blank canvass, we can certainly rule this out.

In this quote Jesus was really stressing the point that His mission wasn’t to invalidate all of God’s prior teachings and render them obsolete and defunct. He was making the point that the Law and prophecies of old were setting the stage for Christ’s arrival to fulfil them! God’s interactions with the Israelites of the Old Testament were only ‘Part 1’ of God’s ultimate plan. Jesus was explaining that He was here to instigate ‘Part 2’; the salvation.



So having pointed out that Jesus wasn’t going to scrap the Old Law, what then was his plan for the Old Law? Well, we know that Jesus did abolish many aspects of the old Law. For instance Mathew 5:38-39 states:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

Here Jesus is quoting Exodus 21:23-24 which says ”But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,”

So we can see that Jesus is definitely abolishing at least parts of the Old Law. So this begs the question as to what He really meant when He said that he did not come to abolish the Old Law.







The second part of Mathew 5:17 explains what He did come to do; fulfil the Law and the Prophets.

The whole of the Old Testament is full of prophecies of the Messiah’s coming and what He was to achieve. This would make sense if we look at the Old Testament as being a prelude, or setting the stage, for Christ’s arrival.

Jesus further fulfilled the Old Testament by taking the Ten Commandments and further refining them:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.” Mathew 5:21-22

Also:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Mathew 5:27-28

So knowing what we now know, we see that when Jesus said “I have not come to abolish“, He meant that He had no intention of totally wiping away the Old Law and starting fresh, but instead He used it as the foundation of the God’s new Covenant, and built upon it. The Old Law served as a vital basis for Jesus’ new message. He verified parts, trimmed parts and embellished other parts.

So to answer the original question; “Should Christians Follow the Old Testament Law?”

No. We are not to follow the Old Law, but we are to follow Christ’s fulfilment of it. We are to follow Jesus’ new teachings over the superseded Old Law:

My Photos

 I just uploaded a collection of my favorite photos. Have a peek!