A Christian response to the 'tradwife' movement

The tradwife phenomenon is far from the Biblical pattern of marriage

One of the most surprising things which has grown popular over the last few years is the ‘tradwife’ movement, which is about women who want to embrace the traditional feminine role of wife and mother. There are now several high-profile tradwife influencers on social media who have millions of followers, and the phenomenon has had plenty of coverage now from within the legacy and modern media. Not all have been supportive: the movement itself has had plenty of critics — not just from within feminist circles, which you might expect, but from many different quarters.

For example, Spiked recently produced this short (10-minute) piece, “The tragedy of the tradwives”. It’s punchy, informative, and in my opinion offers a fair critique of the tradwife movement. It’s worth watching. As always it comes with the caveat that you won’t agree with everything, but I think their thoughts are worth hearing — especially if you haven’t come across much about the tradwife phenomenon before:

I’ve been thinking about the tradwife movement for a while now. Given that fact that in my previous post I talked about reclaiming male and female roles, you might expect me to be supportive of the tradwife phenomenon. The truth is, I have mixed feelings about it. As with any popular movement like this, there will be positive elements and negative elements — truth mixed with error.

What I’m going to do here is look at what the Bible has to say about the dynamics of men and women within marriage, and then look at how the tradwife movement compares with it. We are going to finish by thinking about how the Bible would critique the tradwife movement.

The Bible on marriage: brief overview

We don’t have time to go through a whole overview of what the Bible says about marriage here, so let’s look at a few of the most important passages which directly addresses the question of godly women and wives.

Ephesians 5:22-33

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

— Ephesians 5:22-33, Legacy Standard Bible

This passage is hugely significant for our understanding of marriage. It teaches that marriage is not a mere human arrangement, but something which was given by God as a picture of Christ and the church. In other words, marriage is an earthly parable of a spiritual reality. There is something fundamental about the way that a husband and wife relate to one another which is meant to be a visual demonstration of Christ and the church.

One thing this teaches us unambiguously about marriage is that it is an asymmetric relationship: men and women are different, and this should be reflected within the marriage. According to this passage, wives should ‘be subject’ — also translated submit to — their husbands, as the church submits to Christ. Husbands are the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church.

What does that mean? It goes on to explain, husbands should love their wives, “just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her”. Think about that for a second: husbands are called to love their wives in the way that Christ loved us — self-sacrificially. The purpose of this love is for the benefit of the wife: Christ gave himself up for the church “to present to Himself the church in all her glory.” Husbands are to “nourish” and “cherish” their wives, and “to love his own wife even as himself”. In a nutshell, a husband should love his own wife sacrificially, should seek her good and her flourishing, and should care for her and look after her as if she were even his own body.

By contrast, there are actually very few injunctions addressed to wives. Wives should be subject to or submit to their husbands, and they should “respect” their husbands. That’s it.

When this passage is mentioned in debates today, it’s often in the context of the wife submitting to her husband. That’s the controversial thing which people don’t like nowadays. But what is often totally omitted is the fact that the model for a husband is Christ. I don’t know about you, but as a husband I find that a sobering thought: if I compare myself with Christ, I realise just how little I love others, and how far short I fall. I don’t love my wife as I should. Our culture today struggles today with the idea of a wife submitting to her husband. But, if anything, the husband has the harder task.

I think it’s fair to say that, according to this passage at least, God demands and expects more from husbands. This is because those who have been given authority will be held to account for how they used that authority. Men who use their status as the head of the family to lord it over their wives and families will be held to account for it. God will not hold them guiltless. Similarly, men who abdicate their responsibility as the head of the family will be held to account. Sadly, there are too many men in both categories today.

1 Timothy 2:9-15

This is a passage which has become very controversial in recent years as many of the debates around women’s ordination centre on these verses. I do not wish to make any comment on that particular issue here, but simply to draw attention to one or two points made in this passage:

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, with modesty and self-restraint, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly clothing, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women professing godliness. A woman must learn in quietness, in all submission. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first formed, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into trespass. But she will be saved through the bearing of children, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with self-restraint.

1 Timothy 2:9-15, LSB

Once again, we see that the relationship of men and women is asymmetric. How exactly this works out in the church is subject to debate, and — as I said — I’m not going to wade into that particular controversy here. However, one thing which I would like to highlight is Paul’s words in the last verse: “she will be saved through the bearing of children.”

One theory to explain this is that there was a movement in Ephesus (where Timothy was when this letter was written) of ‘Alpha females’. It might have been something like the 20th century feminist movement, where women were saying they didn’t need men and effectively wanted to usurp them. To this, Paul gives a straightforward answer: God has made men and women different, and being a godly woman means embracing femininity — symbolised here by the bearing of children.

Please note that Paul doesn’t spell out what exactly that looks like! The overall message is that being a wife and mother is not an undesirable goal which only lesser women want, but is a good and godly thing for women to aspire to.

1 Peter 3:1-7

The final passage I want to look at is from the book of 1 Peter.

In the same way, you wives, be subject to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, as they observe your pure conduct with fear. Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on garments; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible quality of a lowly and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being subject to their own husbands, just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You have become her children if you do good, not fearing any intimidation.

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

1 Peter 3:1-7, LSB

This passage, similarly to Ephesians, speaks of wives being ‘subject’ to their husbands. But it also goes further and speaks of more practical matters: their beauty is to come from inside, from godly character, rather than simply external adornment.

Then Peter goes on to address husbands, and speaks of how husbands should be “understanding”, knowing that wives are a “weaker vessel”. Wives should be shown honour as “a fellow heir of the grace of life”. In a world where women were often treated as second-class citizens, this is an astonishing statement: Peter says that women are “fellow heirs” — Christians equally with their male counterparts. And they should be honoured and treated well. A wife may be called to submit to her husband, but a husband is called to love and honour his wife.

Without getting into the ins and outs of this passage — and I am fully aware of the fact that modern feminists would have an absolute field day with any of these passages — it’s notable that this passage, like Ephesians, does not simply speak to wives but speaks to husbands as well. In fact, I believe that there is no teaching in the New Testament about men and women which does not address both men and women in some way.

Let’s pause before we move on to the tradwife movement to summarise what we’ve learned so far.

Summary

One of the things which comes across in every passage is that men and women have an asymmetric relationship: men are to be the head of the family; women are to submit. However, men are to use their headship in love — their model is Christ. Men have been, in a sense, given a greater responsibility, and God will hold them to account for it.

Women and men are Christians together equally. Godliness for women involves “child bearing”, that is, embracing the unique place that God has given to women, to be wives and mothers.

However, beyond that, the Bible nowhere specifies exactly what that looks like in any given marriage. It is for each couple, given the general pattern, to work out the specifics of how this teaching is to be put into practice in every relationship. There is no ‘one size fits all’ solution, and I have seen evidence of many different godly marriages which embody a variety of roles for the husband and wife. People such as Mary Harrington have pointed out how the idea of wives doing nothing but housework and raising children all day is a recent (post industrial revolution) invention. Prior to this, often households worked as a kind of small business — where both husband and wife contributed, and the wife was able to work around raising children. This seems to fit well with the biblical ideal — see the wife described in Proverbs 31, for example.

One very important point to make is that teaching is never addressed to wives without also addressing husbands. Any responsibilities from wives to husbands are matched by corresponding responsibilities from husbands to wives, and these must be held together.

With all this in mind, let’s turn to analyse the tradwife movement.

Biblical critique of the tradwife movement

Being a wife is not a vehicle for self-fulfilment

It seems to me the tradwife movement is not about loving your husband and your children for their sake, but rather as a vehicle for your own self-fulfilment: ‘This is how you achieve happiness as a woman’. This is completely the wrong motivation!

What God wants from us — all of us — is to love others. Love is about putting the needs of others before ourselves. This is something that both husbands and wives should do — even if that love looks a bit different for husband and wife. The point of being a wife is to love your husband and family — NOT in order to achieve self-fulfilment, but because loving them is the right thing to do.

You can see how self-fulfilment is really the goal of the tradwives, the influencers least, because of the way it’s done for the benefit of the cameras. It’s a bit like virtue signalling. They’re not trying to love their husband and children for their good; they want to get everyone’s applause for being a good tradwife. It’s classic social media. In a nutshell: if you’re self-consciously trying to be a ‘tradwife’ for your own benefit, you are not being a godly wife.

Before we move on, please don’t misunderstand me here. On my videos on Understand the Bible, I often try to make the point that serving God is the most fulfilling thing we can do. However, our goal is not to be fulfilled, but to love God and love others. If we do that, the fulfilment will come afterwards. It should not be our goal, however. Tim Keller talks about this in his short book, The Freedom of Self-Forgetfulness.

A tradwife is not a traditional wife

As discussed in the previous section, the Bible is remarkably open about the specifics about the relationships between men and women. There are certain things which should be the same, but within those boundaries we have freedom. God made men and women different, and part of the joy of relationships is discovering the differences in how God made us.

One of the things I don’t like about the tradwife phenomenon is that it seems to take a very particular view of being a wife — a view which is not mandated by the Bible. Being a wife does not necessarily mean having eight children and living on a farm, for example. As I mentioned before, people such as Mary Harrington have demonstrated that this vision of marriage and motherhood were very much coined post industrial revolution. This is not to say that it’s a bad thing per se, just that it’s simply one option for being a wife and mother.

Plus, I don’t really know how traditional it is to cook dinner wearing … a ballgown?! I mean, seriously? As I was talking to my wife about this the other night, she asked me if I’d like her to cook dinner wearing a ballgown. I said that I’d rather she was comfortable!

Where are the ‘tradhusbands’?

I think this is probably the biggest failing of the tradwife movement. Something which is conspicuously absent is the talk of ‘tradhusbands’. One of the things which I found most heartbreaking about the Spiked documentary was how many tradwives end up in abusive marriages. Lauren Southern, for example, was quoted as saying she felt if she submitted more and prayed more her husband would love her. Her husband ended up leaving her and their child.

Needless to say, a husband who was living in accordance with the Biblical pattern of marriage shouldn’t abandon his wife and child under any circumstances!

But this does raise the question, does being a ‘tradwife’ mean simply putting up and shutting up? Because I don’t believe that is the biblical pattern of marriage. As I have argued in a previous piece here, love does not enable abuse:

If wives didn’t try to be ‘tradwives’, but actually loved their husbands, I hope they would stand up against mistreatment. I’m not trying to ‘victim blame’ here, but just making the point that one cannot try to be a tradwife without wanting one’s husband to be a ‘tradhusband’. It takes two to make a marriage, God requires both the husband and wife to commit to loving one another.

Conclusion

Although there are aspects of the tradwife movement which to some extent overlap with Biblical femininity, I believe that the tradwife movement itself is subchristian:

1. Being a wife and mother should not be seen as a vehicle for self-fulfilment. Rather, they are opportunities to love others by putting their needs above one’s own;

2. The Bible is not prescriptive in terms of what a marriage should look like in practice. There are many different ways of having a godly marriage;

3. The tradwife movement is bound to fail unless it address both partners in the marriage and encourages them to love one another. The fact that so many tradwives have experienced abuse is tragic but an indictment of the tradwife ideology.

At the end of the day, there is only one way to have a godly marriage — that is for both husband and wife to walk in step with the Spirit. Perhaps rather than a tradwife movement, we need a godly families movement — encouraging whole families to seek the Lord together. That would lead to far more happiness and satisfaction for everyone in the long run.

If you appreciate Sacred Musings, you can help me out in a few ways: 1. Becoming a subscriber - free or paid; 2. Sharing Sacred Musings on social media or with anyone you think might like it; 3. If you’d like to contribute to help keep this running but becoming a paid subscriber is not the right option for you right now, you can give one-off via PayPal. Thank you so much!