Is a tradwife a biblical expression of complementarianism?

I’m new to TikTok. I’m only on it because my son is and the deal is that if he is on it then I have to be able to follow him to make sure he is sharing healthy and generally not-despicable things. But in this vast chasm of momfluencers and menfluencers I have discovered (probably later than everyone else in the known universe) the ‘tradwife’.

Tradwives – a concept so established it has its own Wikipedia page – are women who have chosen to embrace a traditional wife model. That is, not just a stay-at-home-mum model but embracing ‘old ways’, making things from scratch, radical homemaking (ie having small farm animals and growing a million different fruits and veggies), along with raising the children. Wikipedia says that “The tradwife subculture is based on advocating for traditional values, and, in particular, a ‘traditional’ view of wives as mothers and homemakers.”

There is so much to unpack in that. Firstly, what is it about a tradwife that makes it a subculture? What are the traditional values that need advocating for? And what is the traditional view that is different to the choice to be a stay at home mum? And, most importantly for our purposes, is it biblical?

What is the ‘traditional view’?

I’ll take them in reverse order because they are all linked. The ‘traditional view’ that is linked to the tradwife subculture is the post-war 1950s and also Christian traditional values (the two often being conflated) among other value systems.

Why are they conflated in people’s minds? This is an interesting phenomena that reached its zenith in the post-war economic boom which turned good old fashioned homemaking and child rearing into an advertiser’s dream. The 1950s traditional values are about the perfect home, the prettiest pink-cheeked and perfectly behaved children. While those might be aspirational, they are largely driven by marketing ploys, not biblical values. So let’s put aside the 1950s Mad Men ‘values’ and turn to the Bible to see examples of tradwives.

Eve, pre-Fall, was the original wife. Interestingly, before the Fall, we do not see gendered spaces but we do see gendered difference. God created both Adam and Eve with equal value and dignity and with different skills and functions to which no moral judgement or value was ascribed. Adam was called to lead and teach and work the ground. Eve was created with the ability to bear children and nurture. Now obviously this is the bumper sticker version but it’s important to note the key difference in created good, which is borne out in the Fall’s curse in which Adam will find working the land hard and bitter, and Eve will experience pain in childbirth. The key (bumper sticker) function was that which was cursed. But both before the Fall and after, God did not ascribe a moral value to either function. Just because Adam was to lead did not mean he was superior and should dominate. Just because Eve was nurturing, did not mean she was in any way inferior or sub-male.

After the Fall, we start to see gendered space and gendered restrictions. For example, in the tabernacle, there were restrictions for all people based on who could go where and do what, but women were restricted by basic biology. When having their period, they couldn’t approach God because blood is unclean (noting that men were restricted by biology too but in different ways and which did not overall keep them for long from sacred spaces) (see Leviticus 15). We see this solidified in the temple in Jerusalem which included a Women’s Court, further than which a woman was not permitted to go.

This kept women separated from God. But Jesus famously wanted women to approach him and be part of his fellowship. In Luke 10 Jesus visits the home of Mary and Martha. They are not tradwives as they seem to live with their brother Lazarus rather than husbands. But as dependants on him, appear to take the role of keeping house. Or at least Martha does. Mary sits at Jesus’ feet to learn and Jesus tells Martha that Mary has chosen better. Now, this is not a prescriptive comment on the role of women in the home but it does say something. He doesn’t tell Martha that her place is not in making preparations in the home, just that she is too preoccupied with them at the expense of learning at his feet. Similarly, he doesn’t tell Mary that her place is in the kitchen. The suggestion in this vignette is that women can have both. They can fulfill a nurturing function (without it being prescribed as tied to the kitchen) and so re-affirms God’s created good, but amplifies that role beyond the restrictions placed on women by humans by opening the way for them to be disciples, followers and witnesses in the direct presence of God.

Let’s look at two other biblical ‘tradwives’ who are linked by a single phrase. In Proverbs 31 we see the wife of noble character. She keeps the home, and the family, but she also buys and sells land and runs a business. But the complementarity of the married relationship is seen in their character, not their activities. Aside from his wife, the husband is respected in the community and “takes his seat among the elders of the land” (v23) which implies that he is wise and discerning in leadership. She similarly speaks with wisdom, with faithful instruction on her tongue (v26), and he honors her (v28). Proverbs itself, the word of God, exhorts the people to aspire to this: “Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised. Honor her for all that her hands have done, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.” (v30-31). Again, it’s not what she does and where but how she does what she does, including relating to those around her, because of who she is in God and how that shapes her heart.

The only other person who is called a woman of noble character is Ruth (Ruth 3:11), so called by Boaz. Ruth is a foreigner and penniless which is not a great start for the story. But she is faithful, compassionate, gentle in manner and wise. We might read ‘gentle’ as meek and submissive, but Ruth is not. She, by gentle means and under the guidance of Naomi, brings herself to Boaz’s attention to push forward an outcome. Boaz takes the cue and, also by gentle and honorable means, concludes the story.

How do the biblical and modern pictures relate?

The ‘traditional view’ of the tradwife movement seems to be (in my opinion) a mish-mash of 1950s traditional homemaking, assumptions around cultural positioning of women in the home which have been retrofitted onto a biblical view, and a modern resurgence of sustainability and radical homemaking.

That doesn’t make it wrong.

If anything is ‘wrong’ it would be pushing the tradwife role as something that is prescriptively biblical when clearly it isn’t. Biblically, it could be that, but it doesn’t have to be. It would also be wrong if it was not a free choice. For example, if it was assumed to be a prescriptive biblical role and then enforced on a wife on that basis. That would be a gross misuse of scripture.

I look to a friend of mine, who is a minister’s wife. They have 4 kids and she keeps the home and kids, but he is fully involved in both even though he works full time. They truly complement each other. She is also really into radical homemaking and has a kitchen garden and chickens. They are really good at it too. Frankly, if the zombie apocalypse ever occurs, I am heading for their house because they know how to survive and I would last all of 5 minutes. Hardcore feminists though might say my friend was wasting herself and her potential and was restricted and oppressed by allowing her husband to lead and she is limited in her potential by only focussing on homemaking and childrearing.

Another friend of mine, also a minister’s wife, has 6 children with her husband. She works part time while he works full time and the household is largely shared with the time left over. The last time I went over, he was cooking dinner. Hardcore Christians might say that my friend was subverting the created order of things and that she wasn’t allowing him to lead because he was making dinner.

Biblically speaking, are either of these scenarios wrong? No.

Are either of these scenarios biblical? Yes. They both are. For a specific reason.

Both scenarios are built on prayerful and intentional application of biblical convictions. Both married couples are complementarians. The application of that theology doesn’t mean they have a prescriptive list of do’s and don’t’s. It means they shape their domestic world on the basis of their created good, their gospel-shaped views, the demeanour of their hearts in relationship with Jesus and how that shapes what they do and how they behave. Again, it’s the how of the application, not the what.

Just because my friends husband was cooking dinner, doesn’t mean he isn’t the leader of the household. Really what it means is that dinner needed cooking and my friend was busy. Just because my other friend doesn’t work (in paid employment) doesn’t mean she is not realising her potential. She thrives in her family and in the role they have shaped – and so does her family.

The Bible tells us that men and women are equal and different and that means we complement each other. That complementarity can express itself as Abraham’s Sarah (who is only spoken about in a domestic sense) or as a Proverbs 31 wife (who has a domestic and commercial sphere).

What are the traditional values that need advocating for and what makes it a subculture?

Modern tradwives are advocating for traditional values which can include stay-at-home parenting, sustainability, home-schooling, slow fashion, submission to the husband, home building (literally) and animal rearing – basically old school.

It’s perhaps not surprising these values (which are really more choices than values per se) need advocacy in an age when fast fashion and planned obsolescence in a disposable world meets a feminist rallying-cry of full equality.

What’s interesting about the feminist view of tradwives, is that some feminists support the position because it exemplifies women truly being able to choose without being forced into that position for want of power or economic stability. Other feminists deplore the position because it seems (to them) to not actually be a choice (brave face and all that for the sake of the camera) and actually be about self-restriction, sacrifice and oppression.

This is why it’s a subculture. Because the choices involved clearly buck the trend of the modern world. In bucking the trend though, those choices are worth advocating for. First, because they are choices. Second, because they are choices that are healthy for our world. Third, because our world increasingly pushes us to be agree or be damned. We are intolerant of difference.

Is the tradwife a biblical role?

Sort of and not really is the annoying answer.

On the ‘sort of’ side, my friend, if a camera was shoved in her face for a “Day in the life of…” people might think was a tradwife. She does not think she’s a tradwife. She and her husband made decisions that were right for their family and which are the outward expression of their biblical convictions. He leads the family. She keeps the children and the home. But she is not inferior and he never makes her feel like she is. He is not dominating or controlling and she never treats him as though he is. They are partners. They complement each other.

On the ‘not really’ side, while the Bible describes the created goodness and differing role and function of men and women, it is not prescriptive. It doesn’t say that a woman must be chained to the kitchen. It doesn’t say that a woman can’t be in paid employment. It re-affirms God’s created goodness without limiting men and women in the expression of it. My part-time working minister’s wife friend is expressing that biblical conviction just as much as my zombie apocalypse safe-zone friend.

My concern with the tradwife phenomenon is that it poses a prescriptive role that masquerades as biblical truth. Our world pushes us to be the bumper sticker version of everything for the sake of a 6-second attention span before we scroll on by. Which means the nuance is lost. The context is lost. And when that happens, all sorts of assumptions can be made about the role of the wife and mother being suppressive.

It also means that the biblical nuance is lost. The focus becomes on the things instead of the relationship with Jesus, God’s created good, the reason he created us the way he did and the demeanor of our hearts as we sit in humility under his sovereignty. There are elements of the tradwife role and the values therein that are strongly biblical. For example, sacrifice. Sacrifice and voluntary self-limitation for the good of others is something that, as Christians, we are familiar with because our living God already did it for our sake. Any kind of sacrifice in our world though is seen as inherently bad. If we are too influenced by the world, we can forget that biblical and beautiful truth.

If you are reading this and making snap judgements about tradwives (as social media invites us to do), let’s think about that role with more nuance.

If you are considering what your role in the married relationship should be, and whether tradwife life is for you, let’s be more thoughtful, prayerful and discerning. Whatever your relationship looks like, it should come from a relationship with the living God first. The complementarity of the husband and wife should be expressed freely and securely. I am aware that the relationship that God communicates is how it is meant to be, not how it is since the Fall. Husbands can dominate and suppress and use their strength to abuse their power. Wives can seek to subvert the relationship. This is the reality of a broken world. So we need to work extra hard to express our biblical convictions in a way that is wise and compassionate and loving.

Most of all, we must guard our hearts against being influenced by social media. Social media forces us to make quick judgements. It forces us to make assumptions about choices, roles and people. It forces us, on the basis of a judgement about one tradwife, to make judgements about whole people groups. It means that stay at home motherhood can be looked down because it is not (paid) work or because they have allowed themselves to be repressed – even collaborated with some kind of enemy in capitualing to such a subordinate role. The whole role of wife and mother become inferior, ironically, not at the hands of husbands, but at the hands of the world. Let us remember, it is not God that ascribed any value judgement to differing roles. We do that.

We need to slow down our thinking and refocus on he who made us. It is from him that we gain our understanding of the world and our relationships. Complementarianism is not a capitulation. All married relationships can involve voluntary self-limitation in some form or other for both husband and wife. But the way we express our convictions comes not from TikTok but from thoughtful prayer under God.

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)