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

[cindy]

yeah rose!
...how sad so many gravitate towards this type of fear-based preaching... It appears that a system of rules and regulations give more security to some than living in the freedom of abandonment to Jesus. Submitting gratefully to the Holy Spirit's leading is too frightening to them, I guess.
grace...
cindy

[chad m]

wow...i have a good friend, the manliest man i know, former Marine, backpacking and mountain climbing extraordinaire, who stays at home with his 3 girls because his wife's job is great...in this situation, wouldn't it be a greater sin in driscoll's "provision for family is everything" world, to tell her to stay home while he tries to find work that isn't as profitable? wouldn't that be poor stewardship of talents and resources? wouldn't that be irresponsible to their children?

i'm appalled. i guess in driscoll's world i should tell my friend he needs to leave the church because he's a sinner. i should tell him he is living for the world while he fathers his 3 beautiful children. i should tell him God would rather have his family struggle financially than have him stay at home. i'm disgusted that so many people in my area think driscoll is so great...

[j]

As a child I was well provided for financially but there were other things missing. My dad is a good dad...we are all deficient in some way as earthly fathers. I think the thing in our culture that we too often forget is the importance of tenderness and nurturing in fathering our children.

[Michael Walcher]

Well I see that I am a week late to reply to Bob about James Dobson, but maybe you will see it.

Common though, did you watch the video?!! It was hilarious! Pray for rain?

I don't hate Dobson, I just thought that video was hilarious.

Anyways, in regard to the topic... I will admit I don't know a many people turned off from Mars Hill, simply because thats where I went to church. Naturally, if someone were turned off, they wouldn't keep going, so I wouldn't meet them. Granted, I went to nearby Seattle Pacific University where there was discussion about him. Of the Theology majors, I don't know of anyone that really liked him, which was telling.

I don't know, maybe I am just way too naive. I think Driscoll does some terrible things, but I still love much of what he says, his sermons, his teaching...etc.

Rose- A lot of his teaching is divisive, of course, but a lot of it is truth as well. And don't worry, I am not that guy who would say 'Well the truth hurts so take this in your face.' I just see the value, and the people being hugely influenced in a great way by his ministry.

[Alastair]

I'm also a card-carrying Driscoll fan, and was almost fooled by this, until I remembered that all modern bible translations of this verse have "anyone", not "a man". Driscoll is a clever man and surely knows this? So have to admit I am a bit stumped here. Its a reminder to us all that its so easy to depart from what the word of God is actually saying.

I have been following this sermon series along with a few friends and this comment seemed to be a bit "out". Apart from that, we've been loving the Peasant Princess sermon series, even if it is about 50% eisegesis!

[justin]

I think it might be going a bit too far to say his exegesis is awful and that he' ripping it out of context. All scripture is in the context of all of scripture. If we let Bible teach us how to read Bible, then when we put 1 Timothy 5:8 with 1 Corinthians 11:3 & Ephesians 5:23, it doesn't seem like Mark's reaching too far.

1Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for l members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

If you're the head of your wife and therefore your household, then it seems that 1Timothy 5:8 would be talking to you when it says "his household".

In regards to whether it means a man should stay home or not, a mans should carefully consider texts like these as well as 1Peter 3, etc...but if the Holy Spirit does not convict of sin, then the Bible doesn't say "husbands work and wives stay home" and I believe that Mark would agree we are gloriously free in Christ to obey the conviction of the Holy Spirit in accordance with the Scripture. On the other hand, if you asked him for advice (like sending him a text message during Q & A) he would tell you it is ideal for the guy to provide for his household based on 1 Timothy 5:8 interpreted in the context of the entire Bible.

[matt]

Justin,

Proper exegesis starts with local context and then with broad context we develop systematic theology.

One could definitely make an argument for male headship with an emphasis on provision as you stated (I even believe that is the prominent teaching in scripture), but one would have a hard time saying that is what 1 Timothy teaches in local context.

Scripture can sometimes interpret scripture, but not always. For example, did Timothy have the text of 1 Corinthians to put together with what Paul wrote to him? What you did speaks more to a systematic theology of male headship than helping interpret 1 Tim. 5:8.

When speaking of scripture interpreting scripture we must remember that that is in respect to forming good systematic theology. It gives us a clear understanding of what God thinks about something, not necessarily what a specific passage means.

Therefore we interpret 1 Timothy 5:8 in context of the whole Bible only after we have gleaned the clear meaning of the text in its local context. And even then, we are not determining the meaning of the passage as much as how that passages meaning fits into and helps shape our broader understanding of what that passage is talking about.