I'll try to be careful here... but there really isn't a way to balance this out. I think I need to just come right out and say: The exegesis displayed here is just plain awful.
Someone who claims to value the text as highly as Driscoll shouldn't have such a hard time getting that 1 Tim 5:8 has little to do with the role of men vis a vis women and everything to do with believers in general taking care of relatives in need.
How do I know?
Read the context.
Read the Greek- the word "man" or "male" is nowhere found. It's "If anyone..."
To wrench a verse out of context so blatantly, and to use it to proof-text a concept like stay at home dads is more than silly- it's poor handling of Scripture, plain and simple. I'm sad to see that advocating Mark/Mars Hill's take particular take on the roles of men and women supersedes the responsibility to handle Scripture responsibly. And to threaten church discipline for stay-at-home dads?!?! Are you kidding??
(I'm sure Brian and/or Starla might want to weigh in here... or maybe not.)
Yes- If I saw a guy who refused to provide for his family, to the detriment of a wife and kids that's one issue. But the broad brush here catches families who choose to have dad stay at home and mom work because it's what they've decided is best for their family at that time and makes a matter of sin and discipline what is essentially a pragmatic question that should get resolved in individual families taking into consideration the personalities, people and professions involved.
If you want to call men to take more responsibilities for their lives and families, fine. You can do that without descending down into hierarchicalism.
And saying "we don't want to be legalistic" followed directly by legalism really doesn't get you off the hook.
(Hey... and lookit Mrs. Driscoll teaching the men of the Church Scripture! Pretty cool!)
