Driscoll on Stay at Home Dads

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!) 

Comments

[Aaron Stewart]

Hmmmm.. maybe that's why they use ESV since it uses 'he' and 'his' so much?

[Goff]

If I said everything I want to say - really really want to say - instead of all the stay-at-home work I have to do right now, I would not be providing for my family.

I WILL have more to say on this when time allows, but I have SO MUCH trouble with some of the things that were said (e.g., "Peter Pan", "Boys"), assumptions made (e.g., "Different roles and tasks", "statistically, it's better for kids", "we (women) are built to stay home with our kids"), etc.

There were a few things I agreed with: (1) It is best for their kids that Mark doesn't stay home. (2) If I were at Mars Hill, there would be church discipline, but not in the way Mark thinks of it.

One lie he told. He said "you can debate me all day". I called Mars Hill Church just now and there is no way to reach Mark directly, either by phone or email. I can't get to talk with him, so I guess I actually can't debate him all day.

Bob, can you put this on the Evergreen Forum, we can light it up for a while, and then send it to life@marshillchurch.org?

-Brian "Peter Pan", Ph.D.

[david]

ironically, the ESV says "if anyone" on this one, not "if a man"...

this is just sad. i hope this isn't the beginning of a long trip down a dark road for mark and mars.

[eugene]

are you baiting me? i must resist...i must resist...

[ryan]

Hey Bob wrote about this on my blog a week or so ago and could not agree with you more. Even as a complementarian I am appalled by Driscoll and his wife so terribly abusing a verse that no commentary supports, for a personal value. Here was my take on the situation.

My main concern here is actually very pastoral. I am troubled with the idea of a well known pastor and his wife, putting forth a biblical command that is not supported by the text. You see people take the biblical commands from the pastor and then feel the weight to live them. This is usually a good thing and just means they are experiencing conviction. But if the command is not found in the text it is cruel and wrong, and is imposing unfounded guilt.

Preaching that the Bible says that a guy has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever is a very serious thing. If the text does say that then preach it but do so with a call to repentance. But if the text does not really say that and yet you so strongly declare that it does than God help you. You have read into the text something that it does not say, to support your beliefs. Now someone could argue here, “well the Bible does teach that men should be providers” that is not the point, it is still wrong to try and harvest a biblical truth from the wrong text. Especially when it involves you having to unfairly call people “unbelievers.”

[Jim Krill]

Bob,

Thanks for the anger-food. It did calm me down a bit to read Brian's comment (Brian if you read this, we need to meet, I'm a stay-at-home dad too - new to Evergreen).

Haha, I wanted to call Mars Hill and do the same thing... try and talk to the guy - figured he wouldn't be taking calls.

What bothers me the most about people like this, is that you couldn't even really have a conversation with him - or disagree with him. He'd probably just say how it just proves his point that there is opposition and he's some kind of prophet who no one will want to listen to because it's hard (try because you're freakin' wrong), and people like this just aren't into openly discussing their viewpoints.

It's frustrating... I want to ring his neck - he has no idea what he's talking about - and I 100% agree with Brian, he's right when he says HE shouldn't stay at home with his kids. What is he - a pastor? Please... depending on how much he actually "Pastors" his job is probably half the amount of work of taking care of 5 kids and despite the "work" part of it, it's probably something he ENJOYS doing (making horrible interpretations of the bible)... and his poor wife! AHH!!!

You got me so riled up with this Bob, I wish I had never seen it. I can't stand arrogant people like this guy making these broad statements - and it's all a show, it's all an act. AHHH!

Sorry for the rant... I'll calm down soon.

[Jim Krill]

PS - I just checked out Mars Hill's website... and it looks pretty CULTURALLY relevant... not to mention the clothes the guy is wearing in the video. If this is such a "perverted, stupid" world and culture - why are they buying into it's fashion and art? If they really lived by the bible, they would be wearing much different clothing and they would NOT have a website by all means... So stupid these people who try to live WORD for WORD what the bible says... they take things from parts of the bible that work for them and ignore others!

Sorry... still mad.

[matt]

As he stated before, Ryan and I are card carrying members of the Driscoll fan club, but even we were shocked at this one.

Here is a great warning for all of us at how easy it is to read meaning into a text. And as preachers we must always remember, how we preach will inevitably form the hermeneutic that our listeners use in reading the Bible.

From a hermeneutical standpoint, I often find Mark's teaching to be such a mixed bag. On the one hand he teaches such a strong Christ-centered hermeneutic that his listeners will undoubtably be very gospel-centered in both reading and application. On the other hand he makes rash generalizations that often eisegete meaning into the text (ie. The wife dressing you is an excuse for you to own 50 pairs of shoes. John Piper and his "wartime mentality" approach to living would gasp!). This is not that big of a deal when it comes to having a nickname for your wife, but as shown in this post, it can lend to a very slippery slope.

To Jim's speculation about how Mark would respond: I have never seen Mark handle a conversation the way you assume. In fact, I have never been at an event that he did not gracefully engage each person that approached him. I think he keeps himself unavailable because, well, he probably gets hundreds of those emails weekly. Mars Hill, however, does have a "theology team" that answers weekly questions and engages people. And perhaps using terms like "people like this" doesn't exactly show a generous tone from yourself.

[Pat]

Good post, Bob.
I am aiming to never speak publicly against a brother or sister in Christ. Driscoll makes it really hard...

[ryan]

Jim I do not think trying to live the Bible "word for word" (not sure what that means) requires you not to have a website and wear a tunic.

[ryan]

Jim I do not think trying to live the Bible "word for word" (not sure what that means) requires you not to have a website and wear a tunic.

[BrianD]

In my tiny corner of the body of Christ, I've been confronted with the more outrageous statements of Mark Driscoll. I eventually came to the conclusion that I could support his ministry and teachings where they agree with Scripture without having to agree with him on everything. There are things the man has said or done (or said to have done) that some believers simply can't get past, and I understand and respect that.

My question is how do you pastors deal with this issue, especially after hearing a directive like this? Do you agree to disagree while praising his hermeneutics? Can you read his books and listen to his sermons and be edified, or do you decide to toss them out?

[Goff]

BrainD, I'm not a pastor, and so the question isn't really directed to me, but I do have one thought in response to your question. I know some folks/pastors who are pretty educated and learned when it comes to the Bible and such, and have the ability to parse out the "baby from the bath water." But what of all those who don't check the greek, know how to see if he's making something up or getting a little nutty. It seems to me that all-goofy or all-good is less dangerous than 1/2 and 1/2 (or some combination). The occasional baby in the mix probably leads to the ingestion of a good deal of bath water.

I probably should let the pastors reply.

[Jim Krill]

As an ex-pastor, I'm done with this theological rhetoric. I guess it's more personal than anything else, and that is why when I see this video I assume this guy is a certain way... because I've dealt with people who speak like this (it's Driscoll's tone, the words he chooses to use, his attitude) so I assume he is probably the same way. Sure it's an assumption and I make an ass out of myself, but as a stay-at-home dad who is trying to figure out purpose and meaning for my life - this video cut deep and left me feeling very hurt, once again, by a Pastoral figure who speaks as if he is right, and anyone else is wrong and, well, stupid.

As to Ryan's comments about my comment of living the bible word for word, I didn't so much mean that it doesn't say in the bible "do not have a website" I was referencing the guy Driscoll's comments about how messed up this culture is (and I assume he's only referring to this cultures views on marriage, families, sexuality, and things of that nature) and how it just doesn't seem to jive with the look and feel of the church itself who seems to be mirroring culture in all ways except actions (but can you separate the two?).

All in all, I don't want to waste any more time thinking about this guy and his "ministry" and his "church" and whether or not they are right or wrong... I'm sick of all the infighting within Christianity... it solves nothing.

So good luck to that Driscoll guy and his opinions... hope he changes some lives or something.

[Kester]

Agreed. This really makes me angry. As one who works as a pastor as well as a bookseller as well as sharing the duties of stay-at-home parent (Rach and I split the week) I am offended not only by the bad exegesis that would say men should work and women not, but by the implication that when I work I provide something for my family and when I stay at home, I don't. I believe that my family's life is blessed by our shared work and parenting responsibilities. If I didn't, I wouldn't do it.

Echo the first response, it is better for Mark's kids that he be at work and mom be at home. And I think that would be better for other families where dad's being at home comes from laziness and not from shared responsibility.

I'm not saying anything new, just intensely irritated.

[Julie Clawson]

ugh... I so didn't want to get sick to my stomach today, but this just did it. Honestly, it's so horrible it hurts.

[Dan Brown]

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits." — Matthew 7:15-20

[Sarah McGuire]

Wow...so much I am feeling right now...I actually kind of want to scream.

My husband and I have switched work roles within the last 6 months for reasons that have nothing to do with me trying to get away from my kids or him being lazy. If he wanted to be lazy I don't think he would have chose to stay home with three kids under three. I was previously at home with the kids for 3 years and he worked away from home. I just always think it is very laughable (though understandable I guess) that people try to place these post industrial revolution "roles and tasks" definitions on EVERYONE. It wasn't so long ago in history when men did not necessarily leave their homes to work and that women were often the ones to go out to the marketplace and have a say in business dealings. Men often took a great role in educating their children and bringing them up in the world.

Who decides what is a male task and female task? In all parts of the world this looks very different. I can understand as a couple feeling convicted or led in a certain direction, but why act so certain that anyone else who doesn't follow that is sinning and shirking their responsibilities? I guess it is his certainty in his shady interpretation of a verse that alarms me...especially when he and his wife are making serious charges against those of us who don't fit that mold.

Thanks Mrs. D for reminding me in such a loving way that I have abandoned my homeward focus by working at a job that gives me a %20 discount on groceries and health insurance for all of us. I just love cleaning up chicken guts so much more than spending that time with my family. It's a homeward focus that gives me confidence that I am doing the right thing by giving my children precious time with their father and letting them benefit by gaining trust in him and his ability to take care of them in a very tangible way at this point in their lives. Right now, to them, filling up their sippies and changing their diapers is protecting and providing. Way to diss men all over the world and implying incompetence on their part in raising their children. I guess Zach needs to teach the kids how to smash beer cans on their heads while out cutting firewood in the monster truck to assure them he is a man and can protect and provide for them.

Really I don't even know why I am writing all of this because what difference does it make? I feel so much anger at the things said by this couple. "I can't respect a man who doesn't provide for his family." I certainly respect my husband for being able to juggle three small children and all that goes along with that. He has taught me so much over these past 6 months and I am happy and blessed that I have a husband that isn't constrained by other's expectations of what it means to be a father and a man and doesn't impose his views on others is a condemning way. Sounds like they are doing the best thing for their family..we'll keep doing what is best for ours, however that looks. The End.

[Rose]

Honestly Bob, I try so hard to not care about so much I disagree with that goes on at Mars Hill Church really I try not to care...however, pastorally, I care deeply you see I have sat in the room with many a Mars Hill 'refugee' people that almost act like folks that have been brainwashed. It is more than tragic. This entire series is a bit crazy making to me and as much as I agree with Pat, I know too much from people that have been on the inside of this and my sense, please hear "my sense" is he is "acting out in public" but to say that I know I set myself up for a whole barrage of criticism. I hope, more than hope that I am wrong about Mark, that is my prayer.

[zach]

I am concerned that while she's on stage preaching with her husband, who's watching the kids? Hopefully the babysitter isn't reading them "Velvet Elvis."

[Julie]

This past weekend, at a conference just a few blocks from Mars Hill (no picketing - I was mildly suprised), Laruen Winner spoke about what is problematic about churches embracing the idea that men's "place" is in the outside-the-home-workforce and women's "place" is lazing around in pajamas with the kiddos. She noted that the concept of men and women having these roles is entirely based in a capitalistic culture - and that it's something the church has wrongfully adopted. For most of human history, average folk were all agricultural - men and women alike worked "at home", on the farm. The home was the center of work, even if the goods produced were occasionally taken to the market. Men and women may have had different roles as farming couples, but what they all did was considered "work" and they worked together. The men-work-outside-the-house-and-women-stay-at-home-with-the-kids idea only became the norm when capitalism and the Industrial Revolution became the norm.

We've gathered a story from capitalism and brought it into the Church, rather than taking our story from the narrative of God's Kingdom and bringing THAT story into the wider world.

Winner asked, "How do we 'Christianize' secular stories of gender in ways that are destructive to the Church?"

Here's the answer...

[Julie]

(Edit to the above: I don't mean to imply at all that parents who stay home "laze around in pajamas with the kiddos" - though apparently that's what Driscoll thinks that stay-at-home-dads do - I'm fully aware that nothing about spending all day with young children is lazy!!)

[john chandler]

So...um...if a woman is working in a job at Mars Hill Church (of course, as a receptionist or something like that), what happens if she gets pregnant? Is she summarily dismissed so she can be home with the child?

[Tina Lips]

I would love to see Mark challenge Tom's masculinity as we transition into him taking a more prominent role at home with the kids :)

I almost got angry when I saw this video but it is so absolutely absurd I just laughed. There are somethings said that just can't be engaged because it would give it more credibility than it deserves.

It was interesting to read some of the comments on the Youtube site by people who are possibly not Jesus followers and let's just say Mark isn't winning over any converts with this rhetoric.

[steve lewis]

Man, this is a tough one. Despite the fact that I do ministry in the same city as Driscoll, I really try to avoid interacting with things related to him, mainly because of things like this. Unfortunately, like Rose, when you work in the same city, you're inevitably going to have to deal with some of the wreckage.

I'm really at a loss here - I work with college students, several of whom are members (enthusiastically so) of Mars Hill. I struggle with not wanting to blast their pastor, but also wanting to rescue them from the damage. In at least a couple of these cases, the students started following Jesus directly as a result of Mars Hill's ministry. Am I supposed to blast that? Trust me, I constantly have to restrain myself from doing just that. But where's the middle ground? The truth is, some of my other students have attended "health and wealth" churches - if I critique Driscoll, shouldn't I also critique them? At what point do I make the same mistake Driscoll makes in setting myself up as some arbiter of orthodoxy?