Friday, September 25, 2009

Introduction to the Stay-at-Home Daughterhood Article Series

*The following is the first installment in this series; a new article will be posted each Friday.

What was once so natural and almost universally accepted and practiced, has become an enigma. Today, it's even a fighting phrase for some and even a picture of enslavement. What is this hated and misunderstood topic I speak of? Nothing other than what we refer to as stay-at-home daughterhood. As we will discover through our study, this concept of Biblical daughterhood was one that was once widely popular and seen as perfectly normal, safe and wise. What changed, and why? How did we go from the mindset of full support of stay-at-home daughterhood to one of sincere hatred at the very thought of it? We will uncover the answers to these questions as well as many others throughout the course of this series.

In this brief introduction, I want to quickly address various issues pertaining to stay-at-home daughterhood. What I want to begin with is the question that I'm sure is on the minds of many, and that is-just what is stay-at-home daughterhood? For years, I had never heard of such an idea, and I know there must be countless other young ladies who are currently in the same boat I was. They have either never heard of stay-at-home daughterhood, or have heard the phrase but don't know what it's referring to. There are many misrepresentations alive today concerning this doctrine, so I want to shed some light upon stay-at-home daughterhood's true nature, thereby clearing away some of the chaos and confusion that abound when this topic is raised. Some entertain the thought in their minds that this belief is one that was specifically designed to enslave young women, and that a stay-at-home daughter is a mindless, wimpy, mousy young lady who is chained to and slaving over a hot stove all day long. They seem to think that this poor daughter never sees the light of day, but is instead locked away in a dungeon-like basement in the family home, ruled by an overbearing and abusive father. While this portrayal may seem rather humorous (and very outlandish!), there are some who truly believe this is what we are referring to when we speak of stay-at-home daughterhood. When you begin to fully grasp this fact, and realize that these people, because of their misunderstandings, are seeking to lead others away from the beauties of Biblical daughterhood, the above notion loses all its humor rather quickly. While this is one notion some have regarding this doctrine of daughterhood, others think that stay-at-home daughters are alike in all respects to stay-at-home wives and mothers, in that they take over and replace all aspects of their mother's work and influence in the home, and in so doing, become a sort of second wife to their fathers and mother to their siblings. Neither of these notions is based in reality or Biblical teaching. While some daughters may live in one of the two scenarios mentioned above while at the same time call themselves stay-at-home daughters, these portrayals are not faithful to the picture of stay-at-home daughterhood found in the Bible.

We must be careful when we newly discover a Biblical teaching on daughterhood (or any other subject, for that matter!), for we too often take passages and run with them, forming legalistic and unBiblical thought patterns. Stay-at-home daughterhood is a valid, Biblical and beautiful doctrine, but must not be taken so far as to morph the daughter into a wife and mother or to enslave the daughter by putting her into the status of a second class citizen. When followed and practiced Biblically, stay-at-home daughterhood is a wonderful blessing by which a daughter is able to fully exercise her God-given talents while remaining in the protective realm of her father's house and striving to do all within her power to bless her family and others who enter that home.

Simply put and Biblically speaking, stay-at-home daughterhood is the belief that an unmarried daughter is to remain in the home of her father until the time when she is given in marriage by him. I can already see some of you who have never before heard of this doctrine incredulously raising your eyebrows. This is a common reaction, but a sad one as well, for this practice used to be viewed as a "no-brainer", so to speak. It was once simply assumed that a grown, unmarried woman would enjoy life in her father's home, filling her days with hospitality, productivity, industry, projects dedicated to ministering to others, and various accomplishments in her God-given, womanly work. What a contrast this expectation is with the one all-too-common today that if you're a high school graduate you must immediately be ushered off to a college or full-time job somewhere! It is a relatively recent notion-and a sad and destructive one at that- which says that if a daughter is in her father's home until she's married, there must be something wrong with her, or her father must be a brute who wants absolute, totalitarian control over her. Neither could be further from Biblical truth, and it is high time that we as Christians become more Biblically literate when it comes to the question of what a young woman is to do between her high school graduation and her wedding day. Instead of succumbing to the world's teachings and today's cultural norm with unquestioning, blind obedience, we should be actively seeking to know the heart of Christ when it comes to issues pertaining to a daughter's life. We are to be in this world but not of it. However, too many Christians today are not actively seeking God's will on the subject of daughterhood, but are rather following after the world and its ways, visions and plans for today's daughters. Christians today aren't even bothering to second guess the world's expectations and priorities. So, it is time for God's people to step up and start discovering for themselves what God's Word teaches daughters to spend their valuable, God-given time doing. And second, once they discover God's thoughts and commands on this topic, must seek to proclaim these truths to others. Clearly, feminism has attempted to tarnish and obscure the shining, radiant truths of God's Word (which is the true liberator of women!) in the hopes of somehow giving females "a better life". It is beyond time that the dust and filth which feminism has showered on the beautiful portrait of daughterhood which the Scriptures present, be brushed off and that the ancient truths of Scripture be raised up once again! That is just what I'm seeking to do through this series.

To present to you, statistically, just how far we've regressed when it comes to what we believe an unmarried young woman's role is to be, consider these reports:

  • In 1946, more than 90% of young women ages 15-24 lived at home with their parents
  • According to a survey conducted in a bridal magazine c. 1970, 67% of young women lived at home until marriage
  • In 1995, 30% of young women remained at home until marriage
  • According to the 2000 census, 20% of young adult women lived with their parents
  • In Britain, during the second quarter of 2008, only 18% of women aged 20-34 still lived at home with their parents**

I read somewhere that during the first years of the 20th century only between 3 and 5 percent of unmarried young women lived away from their parents. Contrast that with the 2008 report from Britain, which says that 82% reside away from their parents! Do you see how far we've come? While feminists would see this downward spiral in the number of unmarried women living at home with their parents as progress, the Biblically-conscious Christian should view these statistics as tragic regression.

You may be thinking, just why did the percentage of women remaining at home until marriage drop so dramatically? Well, it is my goal to answer this as well as many other questions pertaining to stay-at-home daughterhood through the course of this article series. I believe it is imperative that we as Christians understand the history surrounding the decline in the number of stay-at-home daughters so that we may better know how to combat the lies and sly plans of those who oppose Christian family life. Throughout this study, we will be covering such topics as:

  • What is God's design for womanhood and how does stay-at-home daughterhood pertain to and correspond with it?
  • Where in the Scriptures is stay-at-home daughterhood taught and presented?
  • Why is stay-at-home daughterhood so important?
  • What effect did feministic philosophies have on stay-at-home daughterhood and why?
  • What about college and higher education?
  • What about a young woman taking a job outside the home?
  • What is a stay-at-home daughter to do with her time? What are her roles and responsibilities?
  • Can a stay-at-home daughter truly be productive and further Christ's kingdom while remaining at home?
  • What are some ways that a young woman can earn money without leaving the protection of her home?
  • What are some ministry ideas for a stay-at-home daughter?
  • What if a young woman has a father who no longer sees the importance of protecting her, and wishes to send her off on her own? What is she to do?
  • What if a young woman has an abusive father?

We will also be joined in our study by several young women who are committed to joyfully remaining at home under their father's authority and protection until the day they marry. I will be conducting several interviews with these various ladies over the next few weeks, in the hopes that they will serve to be an encouragement to you, and serve as a picture of just how happy, exciting and productive the life of a stay-at-home daughter can be!

So, whether you are a committed stay-at-home daughter who just needs a dose of encouragement, or someone who is passionately against stay-at-home daughterhood, or someone somewhere in between, this article series is for you!

I pray that the Lord would bless you richly through the reading of this series, and that He would open the eyes of those who need their eyes opened, and would encourage and strengthen those who need edifying. In order to see the impact of this series on those who read it, I put a poll on my blog a couple months ago, asking my readers to please vote in response to the simple question: What are your thoughts on stay-at-home daughterhood? The poll was responded to with 186 votes and the following are the results I received:

  • It's 100% Biblical and such a blessing--88 votes (47%)
  • I don't see it taught in the Scriptures--48 votes (25%)
  • It enslaves young women--39 votes (20%)
  • I don't fully understand what it is--20 votes (10%)
  • It's weird and wacky--11 votes (5%)
  • I've never heard of it--8 votes (4%)

At the end of the series I'm going to reopen this poll. While I understand that not all of those who voted in the poll the first time around will necessarily come to my blog and vote again, while at the same time new people who did not vote in the first will vote in the second, I still hope to attempt to see what effect the series has had on the way some of my readers view the subject of stay-at-home daughterhood.

Throughout the course of this series, I would appreciate your prayers! Please also spread the word as much as you can! Thank you all for the part you are having in making this project a success! May all glory, honor, and praise go now and forevermore to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

** Statistical Information courtesy of research conducted on Google


  1. Rebekah,

    I have a few questions/comments. Please don't consider these as challenges or negative criticism; they're simply things of which I thought while reading your piece.

    1. What were your sources (other than "Google")? U. S. Census data? Magazines found on Google? Precision is key here.

    2. 1946 may not be the best year to pick, simply because WWII had just ended and many daughters lived at home simply because women needed to contribute to the war effort - and living at home while working at a factory, for example, was the best way to do so.

    3. When you discuss "feminism," please know that feminism qua feminism isn't simply a monolithic entity. Feminism has had different goals in different eras. It would help if you cited specific feminists and/or feminist radings in order to bolster your argument.

    Lastly, I should say that I comment as a 23 year old woman who went to college - loved it! - and met my very-soon-to-be husband there. My parents encouraged me to go away to college; the one I attended was about 400 miles away from their house. I now live alone, although my parents are about 30 minutes away, and am busy working and preparing to be married. Looking back, I can honestly say that I have no regrets. Leaving my parents' house to go to college was the best thing I could have done. I'm sure that, if I had stayed home, I would have done just fine - but I'm now far better equipped to be a wife and mother (God willing) than if I'd stayed at home after graduating from high school.

    I don't doubt your sincerity; it's clear you have a deep love for the Lord. I very much enjoy reading your blog and agree with 99% of what you write! I simply wanted to add my perspective. I look forward to reading the next installment of your series.

  2. LHM,

    Thank you for your input and kind words. It was great to hear from you, and I so appreciate your kindness and sincerity. I'm also happy to hear you enjoy reading my blog; praise the Lord!

    If you look back at my stistics, I did mention that one was from a magazine, another was from the 2000 U.S. cencus, etc. Other statistics are ones that can be found reiterated on several websites. That's why I simply put Google-there isn't really just one website that I could point to. All, however, can be found on Google. Also, there were so many sites I visited, that it's hard to say precisely which ones said what, as most of the info can be found, as I said, on various sites.

    While I understand your position regarding 1946 and appreciate your good point, I don't think that's the only reason why the number of women remaining at home until marriage was so high. Rather, it was more of a sign of the times of that era, and the beliefs of those living at that time in history.

    I've studied the history of feminism, and while feminism used various methods at various times (and was more radical at some times than at other times), feminism's main teachings and goals remain the same down through the ages-it seeks to destroy Biblical womanhood and do away with the impact Christian women have on society.

    I've heard many women say precisely the same thing you did about college. However, something that tends to pop in my head is-why? Why is everybody so sure that going off to college rather than remaining in one's home will be better preparation for being a wife and mother, especially if one is planning to be a homemaker, as well, when married? Would it not seem more likely that remaining in a home would be better "real life preparation" than going off and spending 4 years in an institution, away from family? Now, please don't misunderstand me-I by no means am seeking to be disrepectful to you or doubting what you're saying. Perhaps there are lessons that you learned at college which will prove to serve you greatly during your life as a wife and mother, and if so-praise be to God! However, you're more of an exception to the rule, for with the anti-Christian family, anti-Biblical femininty, feministic minded culture of the vast majority of colleges, attending college is not helpful for those women who desire to be wives, mothers and homemakers one day.

    Again, I so appreciate your input, help, testimony and kindness, and pray that you are richly blessed through this series.

    Have a blessed day in the Lord,

  3. Hi Rebekah,

    I was plesantly suprised reading this article. I generally don't fully agree with what you say, but I completely agree with your definition of a stay-at-home daughter. The whole article had a gentler tone than others of yours I have read in the past.

    On another note, you really should cite your sources for your statistics, either in a works cited at the bottom of your article or just a link beside that particular stat. Saying "I found them on Google" is poor scholarship.

    Regardless, I'm looking forward to reading later articles, although I don't expect I will agree with them all.

    May God bless you,

  4. Hi, Lisa! It was great to hear from you, as well! :)

    Thank you for your kind words. I'm ashamed to say that in the past I took my Christian zeal a little too far and tended to be too immature when relating with those readers of mine who disagreed with me. The Lord is graciously mellowing me out a bit. :) I still have zeal for the truth, but hope I'm much more respectful and calm now!

    It was my intention to cite my sources in footnotes, but made the terrible mistake of failing to write down the URLs of the sites when I first got my info-all I wrote down at the time was the statistic itself. When I went back to find my specific sources, I could not, due to the fact that so many sites share the same info. I didn't want to go without a note at all, so I referenced Google-and shared the non-website sources (i.e. census and magazine) when I could.

    Thank you for your interest, and I hope you are blessed through the reading of this series!

    May God bless you, as well! :)


  5. Hi, Rebekah! I'm so excited that the series has finally started!
    I have one suggestion, and it isn't about your subject. It's just that I've found that when blog posts are broken up with many smaller paragraphs, they are quite a bit easier to read than fewer long paragraphs, and they are more convenient for those of us who are pretty busy and like to skim first so as to get the general idea of the article.

    God bless!
    ~Hannah L.

  6. Hi, Hannah! Thanks for that point; I hadn't thought of that. I'll try to put that into practice in the future.

    Thank you so much for your excitement! That's really encouraging. :)


  7. I must second another commentor and offer you a sincere compliment for the grace you have used in this post, Rebekah.

    If I may bring up one issue with regards as to why a woman may need a college education, I do have a few thoughts to share. H

    Homeschooling laws could be a very wise reason for a young woman to attend college before marriage. In many locales now a college degree is a requirement to homeschool. For some women, their husbands jobs may not allow them to have a real choice in where they live and thus may find such a law unavoidable but to be followed.

    Higher education can be a feasible options even while living home, which is what I did. I commuted to my university from my parents home and even attended school debt-free, thanks to a freelance business venture I was then involved in. I did not finish my degree at this point, as I left school to marry my husband and follow him to his next duty station, but am in the process of finishing my degree right now. We're currently stationed in an area where a degree is required to homeschool and this will likely be true at our next station as well, most likely overseas.

    Additionally, my husband encouraged me to go back to school as he felt I was too smart not to have the paper to prove it and wanted to be sure I have the means to support myself and our daughter should something terrible ever happen. He's entering a markedly more dangerous career field than the Army position he has currently been working in and can't help but want to prepare his family just in case a tragic what-if came to pass. He is far from alone in his thoughts, and there are many men who seek college educated wives for these and other reasons. While this may not be an ideal argument for college for unmarried women, I firmly believe attaining a degree can fall under the umbrella of submitting to one's husband if the circumstances require this.

  8. Hi, Rebekah!

    Thank you so much for your kind response to my comment. As soon as I posted, I went to make some bread and thought about what I'd written. And you're absolutely, positively correct - college isn't for everyone. And you weren't disrespectful at all :) Perhaps I am the exception - I've not thought about it that way. I did learn many, many things at college that will assist in my future career as a homemaker. Perhaps my college is different... my professors all supported traditional marriage, and I didn't even attend a well-known "conservative Christian" college. It was pretty secular, but, by God's grace, I was led in the right directions!! :)

    And a quick question, if you have the time. What resources did you use to study the history of feminism? I very much enjoyed Mary Kassian's "The Feminist Mistake" - in fact, I have that on my bookshelf right next to Betty Friedan's feminist tome "The Feminine Mystique." :) But, I'd love to know the resouces you used so I can look them up as well.

    Something I've noticed about your blog: whenever people comment to disagree with what you've written, you write back with kindness and gentleness. I'll be praying for you, and look forward to reading your next post :)

    (PS: I wasn't signed in last time. Apologies for the mix-up -- I posted as LHM instead of using my real account!)

  9. Hello! Just wanted to let you know that I linked to your series from my site. Can't wait to see the forthcoming articles!

    The address is:


  10. Amy,

    Thank you so much for your kindness (it was also great to see you commenting on here again!)-all praise goes to my Lord Who has, by His grace alone, begun a work on my to calm me down a bit. ;) I pray it continues, and am thankful His work is evidant.

    Unfortunately, you're right-many areas are now requiring a college degree to homeschool. It's not right, but it's "on the books" nonetheless. However, first of all, the Lord is on our side; whom shall we fear? This doesn't mean we are to be stupid, but He Who wants us to homeschool our children will give us the ability to do it. Secondly, physically attending a college campus is not required in order to get a degree-CollegePlus is available, as are many degree programs online. In fact, I read somewhere where online college is thought to be the future of college education. So, a daughter need not leave the comfort and protection of her home in order to get a degree.

    I understand your husband's concerns-as you said, many have those same concerns. However, I find it sad that so many Christians today-who know their God will provide-have been influenced by the world to be doubtful and cynical. I'm not saying that your husband and others aren't wise to see the possible problems and prepare for the future-they absolutely are, and more people today should prepare for the future! However, I think many people too often look at what crises could-but may very well not- arise, and then begin to think that they must prepare for the worst case scenario rather than the best one, and think that the roles God has designed for women have to be tweaked a bit in order to prepare for what could happen. I'd like to encourage you to read this really great article entitled "But What If.....?": It was very encouraging to me, and I'm sure would be to my readers as well!
    Also, a great point my mom just made recently, was why do we think that just because a woman gets a degree, she's guaranteed to find a job if her husband dies? Having a degree now doesn't guarantee that you'll have a job then, should you need it (however, we believe that it is the woman's family's responsibility to provide for her in that situation, and if there is no family, it is the Church's job! There is so reason whatsoever why she should be forced into the workforce! Also, there are many home business opportunities available to the industrious, creative woman!). Many college graduates today (this has been true for years, not just in our current economy) can't find jobs to use their degree in, and end up going into a field completely opposite from that which they got their degree. If that's the case right after a person gets a degree, what makes us think it would be any better years down the road when one's husband dies, leaves, etc.? Also, depending on how many years from getting that degree her husband is no longer in the picture (IF something happens to him, that is), the degree could very well be for all practical purposes, worthless, as technology, etc. is constantly changing!

    Thank you again for your input; it's always nice to hear from you!


    P.S. I'll be praying for your husband's safety; it must be difficult to be in that situation!

  11. Hi, Luci! :) I'm so glad you came back. It was so encouraging to hear that I wasn't disrespectful or unkind. I sincerely didn't want to be, and was afraid that I perhaps had been. Thank you for your assurance. And, as a side note, I have to say I was thrilled to hear that you made bread. That is becoming a lost art today, but it's just so fun and domestic, isn't it? :)

    Thank you also so much for your prayers for and interest in this series! I appreciate them very much.

    If you attended a college that supported you in your desires to be a wife, mother and homemaker, then count your blessings, because that was a rare exception!! I'm happy to hear that you learned valuable skills for your life as a homemaker. That's a blessing. However, that is extremely rare in the college culture! I've heard many testimonies from women who went away to college with the desire to be homemakers and came away (even from small, "conservative Christian collges"!) as die hard feminists who wouldn't be caught dead being homemakers! It's a sad truth, but is very common nonetheless. Many Christians go to college and come out happy that they've survived with their Christian view intact. However, there are two sad problems I see with this notion-too often, their Christian worldview is anything but intact! And secondly, our role as Christians is not to survive! It's rather to thrive and to impact the world for Jesus Christ! So, as I said, be thankful for the experience you were given at college-it's an extremely rare one!!

    I've been meaning to get a copy of Mrs. Kassian's book! It sounds wonderful, but I have yet to get a copy. The first book I ever read which covered feminism's history (and was a major eye opener for me!!) was So Much More by the Botkin sisters. It was then that I discovered that feminism was not something that began in the 1960s, as I had thought. Rather, it goes way back (really to the Garden of Eden!)-as a philosophy-to the 1800s and had its foundation in socialism. I have then gone on to read books by various socialist leaders such as Lenin (On the Emancipation of Women-you should be able to find this on Ebay or, Marx ( and a book I have with select writings from Lenin, Stalin, Engels and Marx-you should be able to find this on the sites listed above as well). I also read a book entitled Feminist Ferment, which gave the history of the suffrage movement. I've also been greatly helped in my research by John MacArthur, reading his sermons on Titus 2:4-5 (available on, I believe it is), where he gives an extensive history of feminism, and even goes all the way back to show its roots in gnosticism! His book Devine Design also gave this history. Lastly, another book that I can think of right off the top of my head is Feminism: Mystique or Mistake?. I don't remember the author's name at the moment, but I believe it was published by Focus on the Family. I do not agree with everything she presents in this book, nor with her interpretation of feminism's history-there are, for example, many things she left out-but there are nonetheless some helpful things in that book, as well. I've also read a lot of Betty Friedan's book as well (which was not fun reading, I might add! ;) ). I hope this helps you! I'm delighted to hear that you're interested in studying feminism's history-far too many Christians are not, but are rather content to just remain believing feminism started in the 60s. May the Lord bless you richly in your important study!

    Thank you so much for your kind words. I always try to be kind to those who disagree with me, but don't know how good a job I do of it. :) If I do answer in a kind way, then all glory goes to my Lord and Savior!

    Have a blessed day, Luci!!


    Thank you so much for linking to me; I appreciate that very much! Thank you, as well, for your interest in the series. I pray it proves to be a great blessing to you! :)

    Have a blessed day in our Lord,

  12. Something else about being required to have a degree to homeschool-here in Tennessee, you have to have a degree to teach high school. However, if you're a part of a Christian school (such as with us, we're incorporated into a school in Memphis, where we have to send in our grades, etc.), then that's not necessary. So, I would encourage all who want to homeschool but may be in an area which claims that you have to have a degree to do so, to really do some research and see if that's the whole story.

  13. Rebekah, I ask my next question in the most respectful way possible and sincerely hope it does not come across as rude or unkind. With the idea of the patriarchy you claim to support in mind, how is is that you, your mother, or any other woman dares to tell a man how to run his family, to question his sincerity of faith, or assume one self's to know better than a man where God is leading his family? You, your mother, myself, and the other women reading here would all be unqualified to offer any thoughts on a man's leadership--other than encouraging women to submit to a man's authority--in biblical patriarchy. In essence, by offering ideas on how a man should lead his family, whether this be his wife or his daughters, it could easily be argued that you have stepped into the territory of leading a man.

    I offer this comment not to be cruel or dismissive, but simply as different perspective. I've been a wife for over five years and a mother for three. Submitting to my husband, homeschooling, keeping my home, and the other ideas supported by the patriarchy movement are not just ideals for me or issues to debate about online, but real life.

    To argue against the choices a man has made for his family, to put the idea in the heads of women that the men in their life or wrong or failing, could be very damaging to a woman's marriage. In light of this, humility is of the utmost importance when professing to know how precisely life should be lived. All of us need to understand our weaknesses in such debate, including young ages that do not afford us life experience; something both you and I suffer with, myself being a young wife and mother and you being a daughter at home.

    Before I end this comment, I must offer a defense of my husband as the picture you have painted of men like himself, of not trusting God, is quite cruel and unsettling. My husband survived a car bombing in Baghdad. He provided medical aid to those who made it and cleaned up the remains of those who did not. He packed coffins of fallen soldiers into planes at the airport, to help return his fallen comrades to their grieving families in the States. He's served on funeral detail, in a a few instances during which the flag was presented to a very young while her young children saluted their father's coffin. He watched a dear friend of our die while they were away on a training exercise. I witnessed the casualty alert team pull up and inform his wife of his death; she was twenty one years old and six months pregnant. None of this is for the faith of heart or the faithless. To question a man's sincerity to prepare his family for the what-ifs, ones that aren't mere thoughts but realities of which he has been apart is incredibly unfair and shows quite a bit of contempt for brothers in faith who are trying to handle and process a very frightening reality.

    As I said, this comment was not intended to be unkind, but simply a different perspective based on different life experiences and paths on which the Lord has led us.

    I do sincerely thank you for your prayers as well, Rebekah. Sean returned home from his most recent year long deployment just about two months ago. He has at least ten months in the States before he'll likely deploy back to the Middle East again, unless something terrible happens in the meantime.

  14. Rebekah,

    I must echo everyone's words about the kind, gentle spirit that came across in this post -what a blessing to read, and what a gentle reminder for all of us, my friend.

    I'm so looking forward to seeing this series unfold!


  15. Hello, Amy!

    I have to say I'm sort of confused by your comment. Perhaps my response to you came across as saying something I never intended. If so, I'm terribly sorry. I meant no disrespect to your husband whatsoever-he is a hero-and I in fact said that he was very wise to prepare for the future, and that more people should do so. Therefore, I was shocked to read this comment, as I in no way meant to come across as speaking out against your husband. More than anything, I was speaking out against the mindset that permeates the minds of many Christians today. I'm so sorry if I disrespected your husband in what I said. Please do forgive me; I suppose I should go back and look over my comment to see where I mistakenly dishonored your husband.

    I agree with you completely that we women don't have the right to be lecturing men on their leadership-that is meant for other mature, godly men to do. You're exactly right, and it is not my intention on this blog to coach men on how to Biblically lead their families; I don't have the right nor the responsibility to do that!

    I will keep him in my prayers, and would be happy to mention him in our church's prayer request time if you'd like me to. I'm happy to hear he should be home for a while now-I know that must be quite a relief. The brother of a friend of mine was overseas for about 6 months earlier this year. He thankfully shouldn't have to go again any time soon.

    Thank you for your comment, Amy, and for bringing my attention to something which I had not even noticed in my prior comment.



    Hello, Jasmine; how wonderful to receive this comment from you! :) I appreciate your kind words, interest and encouragement so much!

    God bless you, dear friend!


  16. Rebekah, The reason I offered the comment I did is largely because your comment mentions that such an attitude is cynical, not trusting of the Lord, and the result of planning for events that likely will not come to pass. Such words do seem to question the sincerity of faith of those who feel college to be an appropriate way to prepare their families for the unthinkable. If this was not your intention, I so sincerely apologize for misunderstanding your words.

    There are *many* men who work in career fields where statiscally speaking they are FAR more likely to be injured, or-God forbid-even killed. For such a man to look at his reality, the danger of the calling he feels the Lord has placed him in, is not a result of cynicism but simply making wise leadership decisions for the future. Many of these men may know from experience that these what-ifs are real. They've seen them happen and see how other families fare and they understand they want their families prepared, just in case.

    Bad stuff happens all of the time and anybody could be at risk, but certain people may be at more risk than others. I don't think it's fair to imply that such a man is cynical or denying the power of God for considering this reality. A college degree is hardly the only way to prepare, but it doesn't show any less faith than the other preps do. Take insurance of all kinds. Be the insurance for life, disability, property, or a car, to purchase insurance acknolwedges the potential risk of life and provides means to protect one's family from a financial blow when, and if, something happens. There are some Christians who would even classify this as cynicism or an ill trust in God, yet *most* Christian families in America have several different insurance policies, just in case, for the same reason some families feel a college degree to be prudent. If one is to argue against college as a means of a more secure future in the event of tragedy, for the reasons you seem to be doing, isn't the logical conclusion to argue against all plans for the future?

    I hope I have cleared up any confusion and do apologize for hijacking the comments towards topics other than stay-at-home-daughterhood.

  17. Hello, Amy!

    First off, please don't apologize for the comments! I love receiving comments, and while yours may not technically be on stay-at-home daughterhood, they do pertain to college, which always comes up when speaking about stay-at-home daughterhood! :)

    I can certainly see why what I wrote came across as dishonoring your husband. I should have worded what I said better. I wasn't intending to question his trust in the Lord. Rather, I was trying to point out the folly I see in the worldview of many Christians, when it comes to how to prepare daughters for what may lie ahead. I've heard many Christians oppose training daughters only in their God-giving roles, for the sole reason that their husbands may leave them or die, and so they must go out and get a degree in case they have to get a job. It's almost as if they're saying we can't have our daughters obey God's roles for them, because we don't know what may happen, and we have to have them be prepared to fend for themselves-as if our Lord won't provide for them when they continue on in obedience to His commands! That was the point I was trying to make. I don't see why so many see having their daughters get degrees as preparing for the future, due to the many reasons listed in a prior comment of mine. Why not have one's daughters develop their God-given talents, seek to begin home businesses, etc., rather than sending them off to get degrees that may be of no help when the crisis possibly comes. Why have a daughter waste time in a college getting a degree that may very well not be guaranteeing her anything when she can be actively beginning a home business to make and save money for the future? She could begin to make money now, rather than having to wait 4 years down the road. This would allow the daughter to remain in the safe realm of the family home while still preparing for what may or may not happen.

    Again, in saying all this, I'm not trying to question your husband's ways! I'm just addressing a way of thinking that I see in many Christian circles.

    Thank you for all your input!


  18. Hi Rebekah,

    Thank you so much for your gracious responses to those that comment on your blog. I particularly appreciate that because I am going to have to say that I am deeply saddened by what you are presenting here. I do not think that it is Biblical at all. I have to look no further than my own life – which has been very clearly guided by God to where I am, despite my often kicking and screaming – to see that the lifestyle you are presenting as God’s special plan is much too narrow for God. Then I look around at the great majority of my female friends and see the same situation in their lives. God has led them to do amazing things – things you seem to say would be clearly something God would never want them to do. I am not talking just one or two people, either, but lots of people.

    I was troubled by a number of points in your first article and I have been debating whether to put all my comments in one long post, which would be quite long, or to break them down into several smaller posts, which would mean I would tend to dominate your comment section. Both options have disadvantages, but I think for clarity’s sake the second option is the lesser of two evils.

    First, let me tell you a little about myself. My name is Elisabeth and I am an English and history teacher at a small secondary school for missionary children located in Kenya. I can look back over the past twenty or more years of my life and see how clearly God has led me from place to place – and job to job. I have two children and I am homescholing them in addition to my work. I would love, love, love to stay home full-time with them and have cried out to God over and over to be allowed to do that. He has very patiently stressed to me that right now I am where he wants me to be – driving home the verse “I have learned to be content in all circumstances” – and slowly I am finding some peace in accepting where he has put me in life, even though I want to accuse him of making a mistake because I feel terribly unqualified to be doing what I am doing.

    My post is apparently too long so I am breaking it down into segments. -- Elisabeth

  19. Here's Part 2

    As I mentioned, I teach English at this school and part of my job is to prepare students to do research responsibly and to present what research they have gained responsibly. I have by no means reached all knowledge in this area, but my background in it does lead me to see a glaring problem with the statistics you have presented.

    First, I want to make it very clear that I in no way believe you intended to deceive anyone – my students make the same sort of mistakes -- however, I would not accept your paper if you turned it in this way – because you have been deceptive in it, whether you intended to or not.

    Let me explain. Near the bottom of your article you include some statistics. My impression, and I assume the impression of the average reader, was that these statistics were meant to provide evidence for your claim that over time fewer and fewer young women are living at home. At first glance they do appear to provide evidence – quite dramatic evidence in fact. We seem to go from nearly everyone living at home to almost no one.

    Or do we?

    If we look closer again (and probably many people won’t because our society – particularly advertising uses such techniques so often that we have been trained to miss nuances such as this) we see that the first and last statistic are not comparing the same thing at all. The 1946 statistic looks at young women aged 15 to 20. I am aware that women did tend to marry at an earlier age then, but probably not that many 15 to 18 year-olds were married. There is nothing surprising about the fact that so many of these young women were living at home.

    So, how many 15 to 24 year-olds are still living at home in 2008 so that we can compare? Wait, we can’t compare, because we aren’t given that number. Instead, we are told how many 20 to 34 year-olds are living at home. It is very understandable that many of these people will be out of the home – many of them will be married! I suspect that if the figure for the same age group had been provided for 1946 we would see that there wasn’t that much of a change. Oh, yes, I agree that there probably is a change – though I wouldn’t let my English students write about one without evidence – true evidence – to back it up. However, the change would hardly be as dramatic as from 90% to 18%.

  20. Part 3

    Carelessness like this – and again, I think this is just your inexperience rather than any intention to deceive – weakens the credibility of what you are saying. As I tell my students, if you make one sloppy mistake, you can’t blame people for being wiling to ignore the rest of your research paper, even if you are sure your research is valid.

    Handling statistics is a tricky matter if one wants to do it honestly. Statistics is usually a college-level course, though our math teacher here did mention to me just yesterday that she had taken it her senior year in high-school, after she took Calculus, so I suspect you haven’t studied it yet. So a few more comments about the statistics you use.

    In addition to the fact that you didn’t compare the same set of years, you also don’t seem to have compared the same countries – or at least we don’t have the evidence to determine that both statistics come from Britain – we know one set does. Nor do we know that the same criteria were used to get the results. Did they both define “staying at home” the same way? Does it mean living at home all year round, or does it include those who went away to college but their home address was still their parents? I would have considered myself still living at home even when I was away in England at college.

  21. Part 4

    For my students, I would point out that a poll taken by any kind of magazine, while fun and possibly able to shed a tiny bit of light on a topic, isn’t really one to be taken seriously because it only reflects the interests of the readers of that magazine – and then even only the ones who took the time to respond to it. It is very possible that those who were likely to work outside the home might have preferred a different type of bridal magazine or even none at all – or maybe not. The important thing is we can’t know for sure. I think you can see, though, what I’m trying to explain. If a particular bridal magazine marketed itself to a certain section of society – as most magazines tend to do – and their focus was the young woman just finishing high school and preparing to get married – it might be very understandable that the respondents would all be living at home. When I was preparing for my wedding, without even thinking about it I was naturally drawn to only one of the numerous bridal magazines available, and now that I think about it, I realize that it assumed most of its readers were professionals.

    I still remember to this day a teacher I had warning us that even those polls that try the hardest to be unbiased can unexpectedly be biased. He gave an example of a poll taken in a neighborhood. To get a representative sample, since they couldn’t interview everyone, they decided to just talk to the people at the house on the corner of each block. However, it turned out that for some reason the sort of people who were drawn to Republican (I think – it was many years ago and one of the political parties, doesn’t honestly matter which for this illustration) ideas also preferred living on a corner of the block, so the results were skewed towards Republicans.

    Anyway, I hope that what you can draw from what I’ve been saying – and I realize I have been going on and on – is that we have to be very, very careful when presenting evidence to back up what we say, if we want to be taken seriously. I will comment on some other, more personal aspects of your post, at a later time.

    All the best.


  22. Hi Again,

    My second point – and I’ll really try to make it shorter than my last one – has to do with the idea of what a new thing it is for women to work outside of the home. I realize that personal experience isn’t really strong evidence for proving a point – it is only that, the personal experience of my family. However, for what it is worth, all my female ancestors that I know anything about – up to my great-grandmother and her sisters on one side and another great grandmother on the other, they all worked outside the home. They had to. Some of them even lived in the homes of the families for which they worked. I’m talking about the first two decades of the twentieth century here. The first person female I am aware of to have not worked outside of the home was my mother, who got married in the late sixties and was a stay-at-home mother in the seventies.

    And yet even she was ultimately forced to go to work, even though she longed to be nothing more than a mother. Incidentally, she went to college – loved it so much that she took six years rather than the usual four to get her degree because she found so many fascinating classes (primarily science classes although at that time pretty much all women studied to be at that time were teachers, nurses, or secretaries). She now looks back and wonders why she didn’t get a double major rather than her simple major in teaching. She taught one year and then gladly retired when she heard she was having me. So all this talk about how going to college makes women not desiring to stay at home with their families – I simply don’t see it. I didn’t see it happening in my mother’s case and I didn’t see it happening in the case of my friends. My best friend who one would probably have picked as most likely to have a career is the one who quit her very profitable job to be with her children.

    So, in conclusion, I simply don’t see this working outside the home as a very new thing. In fact, my study of history – I mentioned I also teach history out our school – suggests very much otherwise. But I will put that – and another related point – in separate posts.


  23. I mentioned in a previous post that my mother was the one female family member I knew who did not work outside the home. I just realized that I should clarify – while she was in her Christian academy and college she did work to pay her school bills. Though she would still say today that all she ever wanted to be was an at-home mother, she felt that that work time was very beneficial. As soon as she knew I was coming she quit her teaching job of one year and was at home with her children until I was thirteen years old. She did have a bit of a home-business herself, if you want to call it that. She wrote short stories and books for Christian magazines and publishing houses. Of course, writing for Christian publications doesn’t exactly earn you any real money.

    However, when I was thirteen, my father’s business – a Christian organization – transferred him from one city to another. The new city had a much higher cost-of-living, and although my parents found a tiny home in a not-very good neighborhood, it was still way more than they could afford and other expenses were such that they could not live on my father’s income alone. And here is where I am very troubled by the messages you appear to be sending out. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but what I’m taking from you is that if a woman just trusts God than he will provide a way out that will allow them to stay at home. You have a quote where you say “as if our Lord won’t provide for them when they continue on in obedience to His commands”. This is part of a larger sentence that seems to be implying that those who seek to plan for the future don’t trust God (which could lead me to a whole other post on why males should do any kind of preparation at all, including any basic studying, since God will just provide for them).

    Elisabeth -- Comment too long so continued

  24. Part 2

    Well, my mother wanted nothing more than to stay at home with her children. That was her great prayer – and God did answer it. However, he answered it by sending my grandfather to care for us and having her get a job – a job that she absolutely hated at first and one for which her personality and temperament did not really suit her (though I suspect that having a college degree did make it possible).

    And here is where God showed he had a great sense of humor. Not long after taking this job that she hated, God gave her the position of editor for the children’s magazine for our church and that position led her to many other opportunities to serve God as a writer and an editor. She is still an editor today with all children out of the home except one (who should not be living at home but that is another, very sad story).

    So it may very well be that for many people, perhaps even someone such as Amy, God does provide just as you said – but by calling for parents to encourage their daughters to get a degree. My husband is from an Eastern-European country – I met him there when God very clearly led me through a series of miraculous events to teach English there. When he first moved to the states because he was a new immigrant he was not able to get work easily and it was to me that God gave the job and it was through me that opportunities were opened for him. I am absolutely convinced of the fact that God does – and very many times – call women, even young women to work for him outside their homes. I can be open to the fact that God may very well call a young woman to stay at home. I’m not going to go around telling everyone that God’s plan for their lives is the same as it was for mine or that of my friends. I wish that others could do the same. I know you believe that the Bible supports what you are saying but please be open to the fact that there are many people with much-longer life-time relationships with God (and I’m not putting myself into this category) who firmly believe that what you are trying to tell people is not Biblical.

    I believe that the most important thing is to turn one’s life over to God, asking him to lead, and trusting him as he does, and being open to the surprising directions in which he might take one. The longer I am alive the more testimonies I hear of how people have been totally taken in surprise by God’s leading – and they then acknowledge that he was absolutely right. If he leads one young woman to stay at home, fine. If he lead another to leave the home, equally fine.


  25. Hello, Elisabeth! Please forgive me for just now responding!

    What an opportunity to be able to minister in Kenya!

    I've received comments like yours before on the two issues about to be addressed, and a couple things come to my mind. Please understand before I proceed that I am not saying the following to disrespect you or attempt to rise above you and teach you. Rather, I'm just striving to defend what I believe to be gospel truth. I hope you understand my heart in this, and where I'm coming from! :)

    You said that what I'm writing in my series is too small for God. However, if I can support my beliefs on stay-at-home daughterhood with Scripture, then I don't believe that I'm making things too small for God, but rather proclaiming what God Himself has set forth in His Word.

    You also mentioned that you've tried to be a full time homemaker, but feel that God is not allowing you to do that. I'm praying that what I'm about to say in response doesn't come across as doubting you or calling you a liar, or anything like that!! I do not want to disrespect you whatsoever! I would simply say that you may want to be very careful, as the resistance to your attempts to go home full time may not be from God but from the Adversary. God has proclaimed in His Word that He has given women the glorious calling of being homemakers. This is a job which has a great impact on the world, and Satan knows this. The last thing that he wants is for Christian women to remain in the home, and he will do anything to keep them from doing so!

    I would like to point out in reference to my statistics, that the first one I presented and the last do overlap to a degree. Women ages 20-24 are included in both. Also, I do not believe the low number in the last statistic is due to those women being married. The average age for women to marry is now hovering around 25-27. Also, the statistics have all apparently come from people answering mostly in the West-which would include Britain.

  26. You said, "Nor do we know that the same criteria were used to get the results. Did they both define “staying at home” the same way? Does it mean living at home all year round, or does it include those who went away to college but their home address was still their parents? I would have considered myself still living at home even when I was away in England at college." I found it surprising that you would have considered yourself to be living at home when you were living at college. I mean no disrespect in saying that-I say this simply to show that I don't think many would answer the question in this fashion. Of course, that's just an opinion and guess on my part! :) Also, while doing my research I came across statistics (from tax returns, I believe it was) which stated plainly that they may be unclear due to the fact that those answering may just be living at home part time, etc. I purposefully left these statistics out, because I didn't want to use ones that could be misleading. So, I appreciate your knowing that I never intentionally would mislead anyone. I'm actually going to be studying statistics this year (I have a college level mathbook I'm using for my senior year). You make some really great points which I really appreciate(such as the one regarding bridal magazines), and it was very kind of you to share your expertise with me! I don't fully agree in some areas, however. While the statistics may not be perfectly helpful, we need only look around and study history to see the dramatic decline in young women staying at home with their parents until marriage. Today, stay-at-home daughters are viewed as quite odd. They are also extremely rare-the vast majority of young women live on their own and go away to college prior to marriage. This was not the case years ago. There was a shift in the 1800s, which became a dramatic shift in the 1900s. It was once normal (and expected) that a young woman would remain with their parents until she was given in marriage (take the novels and lifetime of Jane Austen, for example). So much has changed! There has been a considerable decline in stay-at-home daughters, and I believe that, though unperfect, the statistics do show this to be the case.

    Thank you for your help! :)

  27. Elisabth,

    Women working outside the home has occured since the fall. John MacArthur writes (speaking of women living in Corinth at the time of the New Testament) in his book Different by Design: Discovering God's Will for Today's Man and Woman, "In Corinth, women demanded the same treatment as men. Similar to many today, they regarded marriage and the raising of children as unjust restrictions of their rights. They resented bearing children for fear it would spoil their looks. Asserting their independence, they left their husbands and homes, refused to care for the children they did have, lived with other man, demanded jobs traditionally held by men, wore men's clothing and hairstyles, and discarded all signs of femininity." I'm not comparing your ancestors to these women, of course!! I'm simply showing that women working outside the home is indeed not a new thing. What is a relatively new thing, however, is the extremely small number of female homemakers and stay-at-home daughters.

    You mentioned that your ancestors had to work outside the home. My own great-grandmother was widowed at the age of 31 with 8 children ages 12-2. She went to work outside her home. However, it's a sad thing when women feel that they must do this. It's first of all the Church's responsibility to care for abandoned women (1 Tim. 5). Also, if one is obeying God's command to be a homemaker, He will no doubt care for her even in the worst of circumstances! This doesn't mean we should be irresponsible, though, and say it doesn't matter what we do-God will provide. Rather, we must rise up and be as the Prov. 31 woman and be industrious, forming various home businesses. The Lord will provide! He will never leave us nor forsake us. I by no means mean you or your mother any disrespect in saying this!! I'm simply wanting to reveal more of where I'm coming from. We are absolutely to provide for the future-it is highly unwise and unBiblical not to. In fact, I and many friends of mine are already making money for the future through home businesses. We are being industrious and preparing for the future, but are still remaining at home at the same time. What I have a problem with is the idea that the only way a woman can successfully prepare for the future is by going off to college or getting a job outside her home. Why do so many think this? Would we expect a man who wants to be a doctor to go off to "prepare" for this calling by studying to be an engineer? Of course not. So, why do we expect this sort of thing from a woman?

    Too often today we expect worst case scenario. Instead we should indeed be preparing for the future-a future of obedience to God's commands, but at the same time a future of industry and further preparation, as well.

  28. Praise God that you have family members who attended college but are homemakers or desire to be. That's great-and rare! The average college campus today-including "Chrisian" ones are not encouraging their female pupils to be homemakers! They are instead telling them strongly that that is a waste of time and not something that they should spend their time doing. I've heard testimonies on this very topic from many women. It's sad, but very true.

    I will simply close be reiterating what I said above-if stay-at-home daughterhood is commanded, then that is what young women are to be. Likewise, women are called to be homemakers-that's what they are to be. However, God often does bring much good out of one's disobedience. He's an awesome God!! I don't mean this as a slight against you and your lifestyle, of course.

    Polygamy is outlawed in the Bible, but there are nonetheless those (Mormons, for example) who firmly believe that God has called them to a life of polygamy. You and I both know that isn't the case, but they feel otherwise. As you know, we can't base our lifestyles on our feelings or circumstances. We must base them on the sure, solid, unchanging foundation of God's holy Word.

    Please know again that I mean you no disrespect, and pray wholeheartedly that I have not disrespected you in any way by presenting my beliefs. I know where you're coming from and can read your love of the Lord and desire to obey Him, and I thank God for that and for your input and help.

    In closing, I want to say that these words of yours were so beautiful and I agree wholeheartedly: "I believe that the most important thing is to turn one’s life over to God, asking him to lead, and trusting him as he does"

    May God bless you,

    P.S. Please always feel welcome to offer your input! That's what the comment section is for.

  29. Elisabeth,

    Another point I failed to make (and one that I believe we would both agree upon) is that whether some movement is new or old doesn't make it Biblical or unBiblical. Only God's Word dictates what is Bibical, and it is only by studying this standard that we will know how to view certain movements of history.

    God bless!

  30. Hey Rebekah,
    I just want to start off by saying this is my first comment on your blog, so I hope it comes through to you in tact.
    In any case, I have just found your blog after much prayer for God to lead me to a community of likeminded young ladies. I was so happy when I found you and your blogroll!

    Of course, while we agree on a lot, there are some things we may disagree on. The reason I wanted you to know that is because I also wanted to thank you for creating a place that is welcoming and warm. I find that to be a blessing on par with the subject matter.
    In closing, God Bless! :-)Amanda

    P.S. I am intrested in knowing what college Luci attended as it seems rare to find a school such as the one she discribed. Would you mind asking her for me, if you know of some way to that? In not, I understand. I was only hoping to pray on such places myself, as I believe such colleges are the exception these days and the word should get out so people know a Godly college is still around, if they are Led by God to attend one. Blessings! A.

  31. I'm curious as to your opinion on working outside the home but as a helper..let me explain more.

    I plan on joining the Amish after I graduate from high school this June ( ) and they follow God's precious command for women to be Keepers At Home, which I love and am glad for! But they also allow daughters to be "maid' for another family if that family needs help. Mostly this will be after a woman has a baby and will be out for a few days this girl will come in and help and will get a paid a little bit of money. I see nothing wrong in this as this is Christian chairty and I don't think God would want us to ignore neighbors need for help. I'm just curious how you see this. I see nothing wrong with this as they are still working in womanly jobs, helping others and staying in Christian enviroments. Just curious on your take :-) Thanks,


Hi!! Thank you so much for visiting my blog! Please come back often. Thank you for your comment as well; your input is always most welcome! Even if you disagree with something, I encourage you to leave a comment; I just ask that you do so in a loving and Christ-like manner.

God bless you!

~Rebekah S.