bristol proteus
Lately, Diane has been reading an excellent book by Nancy Pearcey called Total Truth. Pearcey studied under Francis Schaeffer in the ’70s and early ’80s (before he died) and takes his ideas about the interface between Christianity and life and culture several steps further. It isn’t that his ideas were confined solely to the realm of theory, but Pearcey develops them further and fleshes out the historical context, dispelling many of the cries of generalization that critics leveled against Schaeffer.
That said, during a quiet Sunday evening reading together (interspersed with good conversation, the balance of which is becoming a hallmark of our relationship), I read a significant portion of the book devoted to the evolution of the male-female relationship with regard to the workplace. Pearcey explained that how before the Industrial Revolution, in America, work and home life were very integrated. Husband and wife combined their talents and resources to sustain themselves out of the home (even if they had a trade in a town, the living quarters were oftentimes connected directly with the workplace) and many activities that have since been separated–child-rearing, cooking, business management, etc–were shared much more evenly between the husband and wife. Husbands took a much more immediate, visible role in child-rearing and the management of the household (most cookbooks, for instance, were directed at men), and wives understood every intricacy of the family business, to the point where most could take over the business completely if the husband should pass away.
It has prompted me to reflect on the cultural changes that have arisen since, and how many things that I thought were good and right may not have been the best direction, for example: the change brought about by the Industrial Revolution of the man going to an external location for work every day and returning home in the evening. This is the traditional role, and without at all minimizing a woman’s right or desire to work, I had always held this activity of a man as the social ideal–going out in the morning, “fighting the good fight,” as it were, for his family by providing for them, and returning home to a place of rest and security in the evening. But after reading the sociological history in the book and reexamining the biblical position, I wonder if this “traditional social norm” is really the ideal way. It certainly doesn’t seem like it goes back as far as I thought it did. Not only that, but if the husband and wife truly are to be “one flesh,” should that not extend, in a real, practical way, to the unity of home and professional life? I am beginning to see that being one–having the same vision–really means that: having the same vision, not me having a vision for our life that corresponds with my personal ambitions and then her being a cheerleader. Taking into account our respective dispositions and talents, whatever we’re involved in, I want to be involved in together.
Like this?
http://www.labri.org/
Yeah, me too.
(Hey, don’t you just want to tear up that bookshelf behind the speaker on the Home page? Just noticed that. Gosh.)
Yes, yes I do (want to tear up that bookshelf, that is). Goodness. Would that I had hours and hours to read to my heart’s content… Maybe I need to find a job where I get paid to do this? :)
I love you. Will call you shortly.