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!)
I think you can appreciate some things about Mars Hill and still call out the crazy. In fact, the reason I focus so much on Driscoll (as opposed to say, Marilyn Hickey or John Spong) is that I see the good in the guy and so hate the crazy monkey talk even more.
Truth: People get saved and get hurt at Mars Hill.
(Disclaimer- people get saved AND hurt in our community as well... as in yours)
The reason for posting this (at least mine) is not to warn people away from or shut down Mars Hill (as if) but is to (hopefully) shine a little light, get Mark to think twice, rethink/repent and restate (as has happened in the past when blogstorms erupted over his comments) and hopefully see a more mature and moderate Mark over the long term.
Unfortunately, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction...
Posted by: Bob | October 15, 2008 at 09:40 PM
Steve,
Fair question. I guess for me I just can't be silent when I think people are being spiritually abused. This quote sums it up for me:
If we had been holier people, we would have been angrier oftener.
- John Templeton
Posted by: Rose | October 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Wow, I am really surprised by the response here. I mean, I know you guys hate Driscoll and all (Ok, hate is a strong word, but you know if you weren't a Christian you would hate him).
Last year I hated Driscoll, and his church.
I love him, and his church now.
I disagree with some things, what he said in the video would be one of them.
Jim Krill, are you suggesting that if you are to embrace orthodox Christianity, dismiss perverse culture, that you also have to reject God glorifying objects like music, and art? That is ridiculous! You are completely throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I have to say, it is clear that none of you have ever met the man, or stepped foot inside Mar Hill Church. Picketing hasn't happened there in a long time.
What is funny, is I usually fall on the 'emerging' side (whatever the hell that means) or 'liberal' side. I am the furthest thing from Reformed you can get, but you know that feeling you guys have about Mark right now? You know how you want to 'strangle him' and sorta want to throw up? That's how I feel about some of you guys.
You guys have taken it way past Theological debate, into personal attacks that are extremely unnecessary. Again, I used to hate the guy myself, i don't know what the hell I am doing defending him, even when I disagree with him.
Posted by: Michael Walcher | October 15, 2008 at 11:00 PM
"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?"
Good question, Steve. However, as an aside, isn't that what we're doing here by disagreeing with Drisoll's "orthodoxy"?
I think we have to critique when it's warranted. I agree with Bob, the exegesis of that scripture is just plain awful. I think we have some kind of responsibility as members of the same body (that is the body of Christ) to say that as part of that "speaking the truth in love" thing. Same for the "health & wealth" folks - they've tied their interpretation to a consumerist culture.
But here's the problem: I think it was Brian above who said that he tried to call Mars Hill church to talk to Mark Driscoll about this. And not surprisingly he wasn't transferred right through to Mark. The problem is that there have been all these walls built up so that we really don't talk to disparate parts of the Church. We aren't allowed to have that conversation. Driscoll offered his utterances to a group of thousands and then probably left and went home without talking to more than about 10 of them on the way out. No discussion. No hashing out the scriptures. And of course, Driscoll isn't the only one who does this, that's generally what happens in most churches on a Sunday morning. Even small ones - I visited my parents on the coast this weekend and their pastor gave a sermon on "positive confessions of faith" and how you should never say you're coming down with something because the devil could use that against you to make you sick (he actually said that). There was no way I or anyone else could have confronted that scripturally just because of the way the system is set up - you're not supposed to question the pastor, it's the unwritten rule, the 11th commandment.
So here we are. Driscoll made his pronouncement and it got on YouTube and all we can do is converse about it here on another blog and offer our differing opinion. But there appears to be no way for us to actually talk to him directly and reason through the scriptures with him. Perhaps if we could do that, he'd move a bit. And who knows, maybe we'd move a bit as well. It's like the Jewish concept of midrash - the idea that we can actually arrive closer to truth through a vigorous discussion of the scriptures. But how often does it really happen? Each side has staked out their theological territory and they don't want to give an inch.
It's not likely that Driscoll will be encouraged to re-examine his view. Those he has surrounded himself with will likely not question what he's said. And again, this is common in the Church today. It's not like Driscoll is the only one delivering driveby sermons without any opportunity for discussion.
Posted by: Phil | October 15, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Steve Lewis: Which Jesus are these students now following? The real one, or Driscoll's straw one? And how many others are convinced that this Jesus of whom he speaks is an evil tyrant? I appreciate your position, but I agree with Goff: "It seems to me that all-goofy or all-good is less dangerous than 1/2 and 1/2 (or some combination)."
Bob: I have to disagree with you here. Jesus' criticisms of the Pharisees in Matthew 23 could have been written about Mark Driscoll: "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger... You.. have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness... You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!" How long can this man be allowed to present himself as a representative of Christ? I would suggest that it's way past time for the rest the Church to throw him under the bus.
Michael Walcher: Jim Krill's point was that Mars Hill wants to be "counter-cultural" on the status of women while trying to be culturally relevant in every other way.
Posted by: Dan Brown | October 16, 2008 at 01:05 AM
Michael... "I have to say, it is clear that none of you have ever met the man, or stepped foot inside Mar Hill Church. Picketing hasn't happened there in a long time."
Not true on every count. I've met and talked to Mark on numerous occasions, been to Mars Hill, and picketing was happening less than a year ago. Not that any of that has anything to do with anything... We'll let you go back to hating on James Dobson while we discuss what Mark has said...
Look all- do I think this is important? Yes and no. Mark is being Mark, and it's extremely unlikely he'll change from the polarizing figure he is. Like I said- the hope is for a more moderate Mark, but we seem to be moving in the wrong direction.
But- they put this stuff out there. This isn't a cell-phone video (not that it would matter), but they say and release this stuff publicly.
And honestly- if there's one person who loves conversations like this, guess who it it probably is... Mark. He's not crying himself to sleep on his huge pillow because a bunch bloggers disagree with him. He takes pride in being so opposed.
But every once in awhile, it actually gets through to him.
Phil- Interestingly enough, Mars Hill was one of the first churches I ever came across that had an online forum. They called it "Midrash." The elders and others would moderate discussions on everything. That was a place where you could disagree with Mark.
They eventually shut it down...
Dan- I'd suggest that as egregious as his statements often are, the line for pharisaism be drawn where it really lies- at redefining the grace of God into something you earn. I don't think Mark is doing that... There may be other parallels, but for now, he can still ride in (not under) my bus.
Posted by: Bob | October 16, 2008 at 05:34 AM
As a stay at home dad, I find this message ridiculous. He says we live in a hook up shack up society, and we act like Peter Pan, so if we stay at home instead of our wife, we're not a man.
In my situation, my wife is in her final year of residency, she's going to be a doctor next year. Before we were even married we talked about that career option, and how our kids would be raised. As a Christian schoolteacher, I knew my salary would be so small compared to hers, and we both agreed to have me stay home while she worked during the pre-school years. We are now blessed with twins, and I feel that I'm doing just fine taking care of them.
I'm not staying home because I'm lazy. I would actually prefer to work some days than stay home with the twins. However, it is my way of PROVIDING for my family to take care of the twins while my wife fulfills her goal of medical training. My wife wants this, I want this, we're both fine with it.
Now, that being said, am I no longer the head of the household? By no means. She is still my "help mate", although her help comes in the form of a salary, friendship, and parental duty sharing when she can. If ever she wanted to stop working, I would pick up a full-time job in a heartbeat.
It isn't that I'm lazy, stubborn, unskilled, rebellious, or wanting to be like Peter Pan. It is the best decision for my family for me to stay home with the kids while my wife works.
Sure there are cases where the men are those things above and the woman has to unwillingly step up to become the main worker. However, at that point, she is acting as the manager of the household, and that does seem to be unbiblical. But to lump everyone into that category when the husband stays home is just plain legalistic.
But of course, he doesn't want to be legalistic.
Posted by: Ryan Battles - Stay at Home Dad | October 16, 2008 at 07:04 AM
What really gets me is the "well yes this guys a jerk, yes he's really hurt people, and yes he has some serious issues but golly gee, we should just give him time to grow up and do nothing more than smile. shake our heads and mutter, 'that Driscoll, boy I tell you...'" attitude I keep hearing...
If he had any other job besides Pastor (like school teacher, doctor...) he would be long gone by now.
Posted by: Julie Clawson | October 16, 2008 at 07:44 AM
I can't help but give thanks to you Bob, and our evergreen community. Occasionally Brian and I will opine that we couldn't have taken on three kids at once without our evergreen community. But to be specific - we wouldn't have felt the support for Brian staying home to give stability to these three kids if we stayed at our former church. Though I'm pretty sure that none of the pastors would have been as bold as Mark - I'm pretty sure many harbor the same beliefs. It's been amazing to watch the men and women in our community come along side us and love while we live this "alternative" lifestyle.
It probably doesn't hurt that Brian has a terrific sense of humor...and is 100 percent comfortable in his identity as a man while sporting a diaper bag.
Posted by: starla | October 16, 2008 at 07:51 AM
Thanks Starla... And I have to give a hat tip to Brian and Jonathan C for giving me the boldness to ditch the wallet and embrace the "European Carryall" :)
Julie- Well, if you think that constantly highlighting and calling out his ridiculousness is just smiling, shaking our heads and muttering...
What specifically are you proposing?
btw-I can think of a number of other jobs where he would be more rewarded for this behavior, not less... but that aside-
I honestly can't think of anything to be done about a large church pastor with the support of his board who's so influential AND who often makes inane statements like this other than highlight the inanity and call it out publicly.
YOU and I can't call Driscoll and have a heart to heart with him. But trust me when I say that people who can call him and talk to him read this blog. What gets said here occasionally makes its way to where it needs to be.
Posted by: Bob | October 16, 2008 at 07:59 AM
Hey Michael I would encourage you to go back and read the entire thread. I actually think Driscoll is great and have been immensely blessed by his ministry. I even find it ironic that many of the people who claim to be "critiquing" him here sound just as dogmatic and extreme as the caricature of Driscoll they so dislike. Its absurd to claim that the Jesus Driscoll preaches is a straw one, and that the one I teach is right, its statements like that that make me shudder just as much as Driscoll making Jesus sound like an ultimate fighter.
The truth is we all wound and hurt people in ministry, its just the reality of sinners trying to shepherd and lead other people. I think all of us who are pastors should be much more careful in throwing rocks at Driscoll for the "damage" he has done when I am sure we might have a few failures that have deeply hurt people in our ministry resumes.
But my point still remains the same. It is always wrong to take scripture and tell people it says something that it clearly does not. Especially, when this leads to you unfairly calling people "unbelievers" and your words have a life changing (for good or bad) influence on so many. I think that Driscoll loves Jesus. And I have been to Mars Hill a few times, but that does not mean that Driscoll has the right to take scripture and bend it to support his cultural values.
Posted by: ryan | October 16, 2008 at 08:17 AM
Thanks for the feedback all.
Bob, your comments are spot-on.
Dan Brown: which Jesus are my students following as a result of Driscoll/Mars Hill? Good question, but I think we've all got some tweaked conceptions of who Jesus is. The Jesus I came to follow was the white, middle-class, Republican one, but eventually I found a Jesus I think is better than that.
Michael, with all due respect, your comments are out-to-lunch. I've met Driscoll multiple times, have had personal e-mail correspondence with him, have followed Mars Hill from very early in their history, actually attended an Acts 29 church planting bootcamp, have been to the church, and read one of his books. Bob mentioned his history with Mark/Mars Hill, and I know some of the other commenters and can tell you that they're NOT speaking out of ignorance. And by the way - "hate" is a HORRIBLE word to describe my feelings toward Mark. There is much I respect and admire about him, but I'm deeply disturbed at the damage he creates - especially since I'm one of many who work in the same city as him and have to clean up after his messes.
Posted by: steve lewis | October 16, 2008 at 08:47 AM
Bob: I forgot that it was Mars Hill that had the midrash site. I guess when they took it down it was a signal that everyone had to join ranks. That's too bad. I think they started well and that's why many of us here are discussing this. If it had been Pat Robertson who said what Driscoll said, we wouldn't give it a moment's thought.
As for midrash, I wonder how well us Americans could do it. Back around "the turn of the century" I attended a bible study composed primarily of Russian Jewish Christians. One evening the "discussion" between two of the men became rather heated (you didn't even need to understand Russian to know this). I retreated to the kitchen for a drink and the wife of one of the men happened to be there preparing some food. I asked her if it would be OK between the two men and I'll never forget her reply: "Oh, you Americans, you're always trying to be so nice. In our culture this is how they respect each other." That's the culture where Paul could oppose Peter to his face.
Posted by: Phil | October 16, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Goff and everyone else, thanks for your replies to me.
I struggle with the issue of how to publicly respond when well-known pastors say something you disagree with, while honoring that pastor as a brother in the Lord and honoring your own church.
We have a tendency in the church to dismiss or embrace people because of their views (and overlook completely those we perceive have nothing to say nor contribute); or, because Driscoll said this, he's worthless.
What should our proper response be? Damn him because of his complementarian views, and put him on the black list? Praise him because of his Christ-centeredness, and look to him as a Great Prophet of the American Church? Is the answer in between those two extremes, and if so, where?
I want to support and learn from a pastor or author's good and Biblical views, while rejecting any views he or she has that either violate Scripture, or put people into unnecessary, unBiblical bondage. Am I on the right path? Or am I somehow obligated to either take or reject Mark Driscoll, and every other pastor, preacher and teacher, completely as is?
Posted by: BrianD | October 16, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I stand by my "straw Jesus" comment. If Driscoll claims that Jesus is the enforcer of "gender roles", who requires men to be breadwinners and women to stay home with their children, then he has a seriously twisted idea of what the Gospel is all about. And yes, arguably we all believe in a straw Jesus of sorts. The reason I suggest he should be anathematized is that I suspect he drives more away from Christ than he brings to a lasting commitment to Christ. Frankly, I see him as a fifth column in the Church. "[W]hoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!"
Posted by: Dan Brown | October 16, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Good comments. I can't add anything without sliding into the deep end of the sarcastic pool. Wow.
Posted by: chris | October 16, 2008 at 01:10 PM
hey bob, isn't this more enjoyable than the Obama-watch stuff. ;)
Posted by: goff | October 16, 2008 at 04:18 PM
BrianD is a much nicer stay at home dad than me. Well said Brian.
Posted by: andy | October 16, 2008 at 08:08 PM
I'm currently a stay-at-home dad. My wife works during the day while I watch our son. In the evenings I attend school for a masters degree in counseling. The counseling program requires me to do an unpaid counseling intership as part of the practicum (which I am currently doing at night as well).
So as a stay-at-home father who is not bringing any income home at this time I feel personally qualified to say that Mark Driscoll is an ASS.
Posted by: John | October 17, 2008 at 07:40 AM
Alright, so I pulled a Hillary Clinton and misspoke, a few of you have met him.
Bob- I never said anything about James Dobson, I don't know where you got that. When was there picketing there in the last year? I had been going from about September of last year, until June of this year, when I moved away from Seattle. Most of the time I was attending that church, I didn't like him, or the church, but there was never picketing. So it must have happened in the last few months, or it was very insignificant.
Ryan- I have read the thread and entirely agree with you.
Of course I disagree with him on some key aspects, but I still think his ministry does more good than bad. Maybe I have a warped view because I know several people that have become Christians through the Church. Granted, I disagree with most of them now, Theologically, but I would rather have them love Jesus (which they do) and disagree on gender roles, then have them not love Jesus.
Steve- Of course there is damage done when you are a pastor of a 7k member church. Of course people are going to dislike, argue, whatever else. Especially when the Church happens to be run by a group of sinners. We thank you for 'cleaning up the damage' that he does, which I know is significant for some people. Now this isn't a personal attack against you, just a part of doing ministry: someone, somewhere is cleaning up the damage you have done to them. Not because you intentionally hurt them or anything, but that is just how it works. Somebody somewhere is cleaning up the damage I have created, thankfully.
Bob, is it terrible of me if I happen to love and enjoy BOTH your Church (which, I would attend regularly if I were actually staying in Portland, but I am moving to Minneapolis in a week), and Mars Hill?
Dan Brown- Really? Really? You really think he is driving more people away from the church? Obviously I have an entire different opinion, as I would apparently fall into the minority of people that have grown in Jesus through his ministry.
Posted by: Michael Walcher | October 17, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Bob--to me, this video is just a sad commentary on the reality of the re-occurring tide of opinions preached that actually result in a diminishing of the clarity and the freedom of the New Covenant way of living inaugurated in Christ Jesus.
The new way of living by the Holy Spirit is radically different than the old law-based way of ordering ones' life and relationships!
There is a sanity in being Spirit-led that I relish, especially having grown up in a religion that tried to blend the old covenant with the new wine of the gospel of Jesus' finished work.
I would never want to go back to that type of thinking/living and I think it is important to speak out (in love) when anyone tries to put people back under any type of yoke but Christ's.
grace always,
cindy
Posted by: cindy | October 17, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Michael- no, it's not terrible at all. Not in the least. I don't want you to hate on Mars Hill or Mark... I just want him to tone down the crazy monkey talk.
And actually, you are right... my memory is so bad/time's flying so fast. It was December of 2006, not 2007...
But your comment on Dobson is here: Im getting political (why I can’t stand James Dobson)
Posted by: Bob | October 17, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Thanks, andy, but I'm not a stay-at-home dad. I do want them to be fairly treated though by their church's leaders.
Posted by: BrianD | October 17, 2008 at 03:22 PM
Michael, to the extent that Mark Driscoll has helped you grow as a Christian, I'm happy for you. And it certainly could be that I'm wrong about the relative frequency of helping versus hurting. However, I've heard enough stories of ill treatment and spiritual abuse that I'm confident in saying that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, even if the necessary remedy is not as drastic as I fear. If nothing else, his using an artifact of an archaic English translation to enforce his cultural prejudice when he knows better (or certainly ought to) constitutes IMO rather strong evidence of unfitness for his position.
Posted by: Dan Brown | October 17, 2008 at 06:36 PM
Bob,
This is an important discussion. Tens of thousands of people listen to the Mars Hill podcasts. Mars Hill is getting more and more influence.
We have to discuss these issues. My critique of Mars Hill is that if you listen to the sermons such as this one, not only is it bad exegesis, it is spiritual abuse. When a person with that much power uses his power to control people by shaming them and convincing people that if you don't do what he says, in this case provide for your family, or you are rebelling against God is flat out wrong. I have listened to many of the sermons coming out of Mars Hill and there is an underlying message that is fear-based that comes from very black and white thinking. I have heard many first hand stories that remind me of the same issues that were raised during the "shepherding movement" in the 70's and 80's. Bob you are a pastor, do you motivate out of fear or motivate out of love? Do you shame your congregation in order to maintain control of their thinking? Shame is a powerful tool and used within the church by leaders does incredible harm and damage to people that have internalized the message.
I think it was Mike in this thread that asked if you have ever damaged people in your church -- because we are all human it happens...but listen to the underlying message in most of the sermons preached at Mars Hill and you will see a tone of very fear-based, black and white, either/or constructs that is not healthy.
We have to be able to critique for the sake of energizing towards God's dream for his creation...(Brueggemann-Prophetic Imagination).
I am glad you are willing to have this discussion and I would hope that Mark would publicly acknowledge his mistake in using the Scripture out of context to shame men and women who disagree with his take on gender roles.
Posted by: Rose | October 18, 2008 at 09:30 AM