Malign the word of God? Really? What about taking the Word of God in context and understanding that it was given to us in a vastly different cultural context than our own? I would say that Mark and his wife are in fact the ones maligning the word of God by failing to take into account the context of the Word and further, by drawing implications from the text that simply aren't as readily accessible as they'd like to make them.

I have a hard time when Driscoll makes unequivocal statements such as this one and paints them as either implications of the Gospel and/or truths that are not disputable whatsoever. It is borderline arrogance and fails to contain sufficient nuance. Driscoll and his wife transpose their specific case as the paradigm for Christianity as a whole and fail to realize not all Christian men feel the need to act overly macho to compensate for some lack we may or not not perceive in our lives. I wouldn't want Mark Driscoll raising my children either!

Because being a stay at home dad is in no way providing for your family.

He defines "providing" by a modern Western perspective of monetary income for a home and car. But don't worry, used is okay. Talk about going to the culture to find your wisdom.

Why does Christianity Today (Out of Ur, etc) continue to highlight this man? Is it an endorsement? Or is it because controversy drives page views?

There are so many other pastors in our nation to highlight!

Who? Give us more Tim Keller! Give us more Robert Gelinas!

I think she meant, "Malign *our interpretation of* the word of God?"

It always drives me crazy to see Timothy taken that way when it is contextually speaking about a general principle of caring for the elderly (and like situations) w/in your family....

I'm all about good providers and good nurturers, but sometimes the roles are reversed (and ideally they would be far more mixed... our society does not allow dad's enough time w/ the kids and does not allow SAHM's enough time to explore other avenues of growth and giving to the community).

Wrong battle, Mr. Driscoll. It's a stretch to say this is a demographically significant issue in the American church. Unless I'm unaware of a massively shifting trend in the U.S. , the vast majority of churchgoing men work outside the home already. How about church discipline for working dads who don't lead spiritually in the home? That would be a more robust (and relevant) biblical position to fight for. Let's challenge dads to lead in the home as living models of Christ first, rather than checking out and hoping our wives do it for us.

and what does Pastor Driscoll think about the new national conversation about single pastors? Albert Mohler has a new post about it on his home page, as does Justin Taylor among many others.

I would like to see a panel discussion between Dr. Mohler, myself, Justin Taylor, and others in a similar format that they did with the Rob Bell book last week. I think that could be very helpful.

-the single Rev. Mark Almlie

I'm a big fan of stay at home moms, but does Mark realize that through is own argument he's denigrating their contribution? If a man does what a woman traditionally does that is defined as "not contributing" to the family? He then goes on to point out how much monetary value a stay-at-home mom provides (i.e. what it would cost if his wife didn't stay home). He plays fast and loose with the scriptures, clearly taking the 1 Timothy verse out of context (the context was a person who was allowing their elderly parents to be cared for by the church when they had the resources to do so themselves). If Mark really wants to be counter-cultural, let him preach that to our nursing home generation!

1 Timothy 5:8 isn't about gender roles and childrearing at all. It's about caring for one's widowed or aging parents, so that the burden of caring for them doesn't fall upon the church. But that doesn't fit the Driscolls' culturally-informed, Biblically-unsubstantiated assumption that "family" means "nuclear family."

At least the Driscolls pick up on the central thrust of the passage, which is that families should aspire to be self-sufficient and not reliant on the charity of others. But by reading gender roles into a text where they are simply not addressed, they prove that their understanding of the roles of women and men dictates how they read Scripture, rather than vice versa.

Why are his Reformed brothers so utterly complacent and silent in regards to such profoundly bad exegesis and mis-use of scripture?

When will they tend to their own sheep for once, instead of the constant back patting?

Does anyone think that this is a good idea?

Let's think about this. Between 30 and 40 percent of all married households the wife makes more than the husband. Women are graduating college at much higher rates than men. Minority households women are even more likely to make more than men, which some argue is a reason that rates of married are lower and rates of single parents households are higher (but that seems to be a correlation not causation issue.)

I have been married for almost 14 years. Not once have I made more than my wife. She is a teacher and I have been in ministry jobs. Now I am a stay at home uncle for my two nieces. I can continue doing a good part of my ministry work and have someone stay with a 2 and 3 year old.

But that all could be considered cultural adaptations that I have made but are not biblical. But has Mars Hill created a widows list that the church supports all their needs? I am sure there are widows in the Seattle area that meet the qualifications.

I assume that he has stopped drinking only water. And is taking a little wine for his stomach.

I just don't get where "provide" means solely provide and I don't get where 'provide' means wife should stay at home with kids.

By the way, I wonder if he is blowing smoke about church discipline. Have they ever removed a family for having a stay at home Dad?

this is the problem with thinking you need a bible verse for everything.

There's a good and right desire to do God's will riding the train of bad hermeneutics and ham-handed cultural engagement.

The bible gives us sufficient revelation for salvation and to equip us to do good works.

It's not a rule book for importing particular issues of 1st century occasional epistolary through Victorian middle class gender construction.

But do we really need to rehash all this?

No one is going to agree on this issue.

I just don't get why certain streams of evangelicalism seem so hellbent on demanding uniformity on matters of opinion and persuasion.

Couldn't we just leave well enough alone?

Farewell, mark driscoll...

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??

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 responsibility 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 Mars Hill! Pretty cool!)

This is what happens when people turn the Bible into a manual on 'how to' assemble a lawnmower.

I shudder to hear Mark Driscoll interpret any biblical text.

New Testament professor, Ben Witherington, did a wonderful job addressing precisely this video on his blog:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2010/10/husbands-as-stay-at-home-dads.html

That's a great link to the Witherington piece. Bravo Casey!

I guess it's been a slow week at outofur for web hits so I guess it's time for the obligatory Driscoll vid bump. Sad to see it here, there are more important things to be talking about.

Mark Driscoll makes my head hurt, a lot. His exegesis is outstandingly bad. His placing women's contribution as second-class is disgusting.

Mark claims in this video to have read the whole book (the bible), he seems to have missed proverbs 31 where the woman not only runs her home well and raises her kids but also does a tremendous amount of work and business dealings. While i do think that Mark is saying a man should provided for his family to stretch that to say a woman should always be at home is not biblical.

I think the more times you say, "We're not legalists, we're not legalists, we're not legalists," the more you are trying to convince yourselves of something that you know to be true. Avoiding "wisdom of the world" and expressing the "it's in the Bible" so matter-of-factly to stymie any arguments would pretty much describe a legalist, at least in my book.

Istm, Ben Witherington and John Stackhouse both have excellent commentaries/critiques of Driscoll's bad exegesis here.

Even more dangerous than the bad exegesis, though, is the unteachable and arrogant posture that appears to be emerging of Driscoll, where he seems not to be open to correction, and instead in delusion perceives a critique of his interpretive position or style of leadership as an attack on Christ and the Bible. Unfortunately, I've encountered this more than once in men self-identifying as Christian pastors/teachers (and who have ended up with much more resemblance to abusive cult leaders than Christ, their presumed "Head"), so I'm not targeting Driscoll per se, but rather the pattern and attitude. It is a very common snare of the Enemy for anyone in a position of spiritual leadership or influence. What a spiritual train wreck is this! I pray the Holy Spirit will get this man back on the rails (if he was ever on them to begin with).

uh-boy...:::drums fingers on bench top:::

What to say...:::thinking:::

Mark...your contradictions...and in the same video...perhaps...just perhaps you could benefit from a critical thinking class.

I'm not asking for much, in fact, I think this is a quite reasonable request...I'm not going to agree with everything you say, but it would be nice for establishing a baseline of understanding if you didn't contravene yourself while making a positional statement.

Like I said, I'm not asking for much, just for some continuity in your thinking processes.

Too much. You can keep your church discipline to yourself, Mark. I'll leave on my own.

After considering Mark Driscoll's observations (but only briefly), I have several of my own, most specifically in regards to the full-time Christian worker.

1. Not all Christian workers make hefty salaries, nor do they live at posh addresses, or have fancy vehicles parked in a multi-car garage. Many men who are pastors, Christian school teachers, and workers at Christ-centered organizations are there because of the call of God on their lives. They labor in small, struggling ministries with low salaries, making a pittance compared to what they could make in the secular workplace.

2. Christ-honoring moms and dads who end up bringing their kids to day care do so with many tears in their eyes. This is not what they would have chosen and is certainly not a decision made lightly. But family members who might be able to help live far away, and other stay-at-home moms are busy with their own children. They have no other recourse.

3. In speaking with a condemning, judgemental spirit, Mark, and sadly his wife, hurt and offend many of their fellow ministry workers, who are simply being obedient to God's call on their lives, who struggle to pay their bills, put food on their tables, and love their families well.

4. I'm no biblical scholar, but Mark's compassion-less, over-reaching comments are unedifying and do nothing to unite the body of Christ.

re: Mark's physical communication....
his hand placed on his wife's knee for the entire video is just plain creepy.

This just reaffirms, for me, the notion that the submissive wife doctrine is a flesh dweller. "See, she is under my domination"
A weaker man, I've not seen in a while.

btw, re: the wife working... is the household being taken care of? is the wife working by force? then it's something they both agreed on, in an egalitarian setting, they are both in agreement. Partners.
wow, what a concept.

and yes, this is an important conversation. thank you

I thought Driscoll was not really that off when he quoted from 1 Timothy 5, after all the Apostle Paul in context was speaking about taking care of widows (women) not widowers (men). Also since the Apostle Paul does say "especially for those of HIS household", and not "especially for those of her household" or "especially for those of their household" infers that the primary responsibility of providing financial support for family members belongs to the men not to the women.

The responsibility for the man to provide for his family goes all the way back to Genesis where God told Adam that he would have to toil the cursed land, notice that God did not tell Eve she would have to toil the cursed land. The toiling the land was to provide food for him and his family. Toiling the land today is now equivalant to toiling at an outside job, earning money so as to buy food and shelter for your family.

This was the start of a tipping point for me in understanding that this guy is not somebody to follow online or otherwise. When he posted an article alleging that Gandhi was a bi-sexual self promoter as justification for Gandhi being (as Driscoll supposes) in hell, I knew not only was his judgment bad, but his theology is worse. How did this guy get a platform?

I love this video. It's so cool to see Grace Discoll teaching Christen men.

actually, the hebrew text from Genesis describes that pain in child birth would be added to the woman's work.

Both the man and woman worked in the garden.

There is nothing in the hebrew text that intimates that the woman is now relegated to "the home".

furthermore, the curse of the man is NOT that he would have to toil (i.e. work). it's that his toil will be difficult and that the previously cooperative creation would itself be disordered and a source of frustration.

These curses point to some kind of contrast with the condition of Eden and the whole of blessed creation before the Fall.

Out of Ur and Leadership...Can you PLEASE stop posting anything from Mark Driscoll? He is not solid with his exegesis, and he really is quite arrogant. Maybe he once had some fresh ideas, but this is no longer the case. I am at least glad to see that the commenters do not buy into his malarky. But there are those who do, no doubt. So please, do not be a part of it. Just leave him out of everything you do. There is nothing wrong with discussion, but he is not about discussion. He is about being "right." And the thing is, he seldom is. So, please have the courage to just go silent on anything from Mark Driscoll. You may think you will gain more hits, but I am about to stop reading Out of Ur because I am sick of seeing his stuff - even ads for his books. Ugh.

In biblical times most parents of both genders worked in the fields all day. Neither were "home" in the 1950's American mom sense of the word.

And if the gospel went to a people-group that culturally had the women do the farming while the men raised the (post-nursing) children in crafts, would the missionaries want to reverse that arrangement? Cultural imperialism with no biblical basis is bad for the witness of the gospel. Get it right, Mr. Driscoll. Or get off this page (but I suppose that's OoU's responsibility.

I agree with what was said in the opening comment " I would say that Mark and his wife are in fact the ones maligning the word of God by failing to take into account the context of the Word and further, by drawing implications from the text that simply aren't as readily accessible as they'd like to make them."

Just be glad you don't live in Seattle

I am a pastor AND a stay-at-home dad, (yes, it's possible), so I guess I'm in need of some ecclesiastical discipline. Right? (Sarcasm aside, I must agree that slothfulness may actually call for church discipline, if that's truly the problem.)

On a more serious note, if one is going to argue this point (as others have already commented), it might make a stronger argument to use a Scripture other than 1 Timothy 5:8. And it also might prove more helpful to actually address the cultural issues head on rather than just dismiss them by saying, "It's in the Bible." There are a lot of things in the Bible; understanding culture helps us understand them.

The only thing I want to add to all these excellent comments above is that this teaching by Driscoll is consistent with his belief that singleness is NOT a valid life-choice.

His Van Til calvinism...this over-reaching commitment to the Cultural Mandate...is 100 years too late and sadly grounded in post World War 2 realities more than in Great Recession callings and challenges.

I agree with the questions about why Mark Driscoll is given a voice here at Out of Ur. But maybe there is value in remembering that most family's have one crazy uncle.

True, this dialogue depicts the worst of what my friend's see in conservative christianity. It is condemnation, shame, and narrrow legalism with just a shade of "Leave it to Beaver."

I also think this little clip is best described as that "one crazy uncle" who faithfully shows up and spews his opinions as facts -- and embarrasses the whole family -- at the Thanksgiving dinner table, year after year. Uncles like that teach us about how to stretch and extend love with unconditional grace, in spite of how crazy and embarrassing Christ Following people may behave.

Mark Driscoll's presence in the family of God, well ... ummm ... maybe in spite of what he thinks, that's his true role in the Body of Christ.

Poor Mark Driscoll.
Maybe he really believes he is contributing.

Maybe he doesn't realize he just said that his church would discipline stay-at-home-dads as people who don't measure up to scripture and don't provide for their families.

Maybe he forgot the original question.

Maybe he just lost his train of thought.

One thing for sure, I'm done listening to Mark Driscoll. This was also a tipping point for me. 'Will go check out the suggested links by Casey.

Alright Url, perhaps my wish list for Mark to be consisten was not contributing to the discussion, but perhaps this will.

at the time point 4:47 on till the end, Mr. Driscoll essentially hangs himself out to dry, clearly undercutting his beginning statement with the imperative, albeit oblique single source reference that the man should provide for the family, which when you get to the that time point...he supports.
After the time point, he talks about "Worldly wisdom being sanctified" post hoc...which comes down to this:

If a pastor hangs his whole point a on single verse of scripture, and cannot support his interperatation with at least three other scriptures...but instead defaults to "santifying worldly wisdom" he is promoting a false doctrine.
There I said it...Mr. Driscoll, and unfortunately his wife, are promoting a false doctrine.
He needs to either be corrected by the churches elders, and then made to go back on stage with the correction, or he is to be removed from further teaching.
As it stands...considering other teachings of his I feel comfortable saying that the likelyhood of him being corrected is zero since no one has corrected him on some of his more outrageous teachings.

I have two thoughts: (1) I have not been impressed by ANYTHING Mark Driscoll has said or written, I've never seen a hint of kindness from him, and I'm surprised that so many people are clueless in that regard; (2) I think Mark Driscoll saw Rob Bell getting some attention so he had to say something shocking and reckless to get the edge back.

@allison -- Actually this video is from at least 2008, so I think CT is more likely the one looking for something "shocking" from Driscoll, rather than him trying to garner attention in light of the Rob Bell discussion.

I like Mark Driscoll from time to time, but on this issue, I disagree. Overall, I think providing for the family can include raising children. I go into more detail here

I expect more from someone whose name is as big as Mark's.

He has a few things right. Men should work. Women should work. But who takes care of what? This is the place where he goes way off into the weeds.

In a committed relationship, if the man can best get a minimum wage job and the woman can get a decent salaried job, how does this work? Does God really expect some rigid gender role adherence to the financial detriment of the family? Who can live on minimum wage?

There are so many flaws in his message, his approach to the message, and his representation of God's desires for couples.

He is so heavy handed. Church discipline? OK, if the dude is not doing anything but eating chips in front of Sportscenter? Sure. It's a problem. If he is taking on the lion share of house and parenting duties, is this not work?

I agree that Driscoll completely overreaches here.

But to alison's point about this being some sort of grab for attention from Rob Bell? No. this video is from 2008.

Anne, thanks for the clarification. It is helpful to know the date because that is before the job market crashed and many former wager-earners were thrust into the position of being stay-at-home dads. I wonder if Driscoll would say the same thing in our current economy.

It would be interesting to compare the (almost entirely) negative comments here with what the comments were when this was originally posted (was it here? I dont know...)

It seems to me that a couple years ago Driscoll had many many people supporting him in these kind of things....and that has mostly gone away.

Anyone have a link to its original posting?

Well, Jennifer, tbph, my first encounter with Mr. Driscoll was few years ago where, iirc, my thoughts were, "wow, this guy is gritty, powerful, confident, and has some terrible biblical and historical scholarly skills."
And, since then...my opinion hasn't changed much...so...yeah. He is a good talker, though, I'll give him props for that.

I was a stay-at-home, work-at-home dad for out two adopted kids for years, owning and operating a one-man business and often toting the two of them with me to clients' businesses. For a few of those years, I worked nights and tended the kids in the daytime. Later, I took a position at our church, whose building also houses their Christian school.

My wife out-earns me 3-to-1, dollarwise. I could not be more proud of her, the contribution she makes to higher education and our community and our church.

Our kids are teens now. I have baptized one of them. I could not be more proud of them, either. And if they were ever caught by the sweep of a TV camera in a crowd, they would still wave and mouth the words, "Hi, Mom!"

I wouldn't want it any other way.

So I disagree with Mr. Driscoll. I don't believe I am the exception which proves his rule or that any of the other hundreds of thousands of stay-at-home, work-at-home dads - by their choice or the economy - need fear that they are inferior beings, spiritually.

This is taking scripture to the leglistic extreme. This is just one couple's opinion. PLEASE do not take this as gospel.

We have a stay at home father - he lovingly leads the family, he is the spiritual headship of our family. Our Father in Heaven provides for our family through the paycheck that is direct deposited into our account. My husband provides for our family in ways that cannot be measured - he is our educator. You want to talk about providing for a family - let's measure the sacrafice he has made - giving up his career, laying down his pride, to provide our children with a 1:1 private education - $20k x 3... do the math. Is that not providing?

The Bible calls for the woman to care for her family - tell me that sitting at a desk in my upstairs office and hearing the laughter as my children learn from their father is not sacraficing of self.

You are very narrow minded individuals who twist scripture to fit your own opinions. You are exactly the example that sets the public opinion of "Holier than thou" Christians.

To tell me that God has not blessed our family abundantly is spitting in the face of my Father Provider.

Someday we will all stand before our creator in judgement... you will be held accountable for leading His people with your words.

Providing for a family... the bible does not state "bring home a paycheck"...

Sad small minded individuals.

Joelle, I totally agree with almost everything you said, and I think that it's really important that one parent be at home with the children it at all possible. If it happens to be the father, I think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. I was the one that happened to stay at home, because my husband loved his work and was the bigger breadwinner. It was, and is important for me to be home with them all through their high school years. I was needed to drive them to and from their sports and to take them to appts, and to just be home with them and spend time with them.

The only thing I disagree with is hoping that the other Christians will really pay for how they have been treating you. Every time that thought comes to my mind, which it does, when I feel like I've been badly mistreated or whatever, I remind myself about my sins, and how grateful I am that I will not receive the punishment that my own sins deserve. It reminds me that Jesus paid the price for our sins on the cross, and I am thankful that I will not receive the punishment that I should be receiving, and it really helps me to get rid of the anger that I have when I have been wronged by someone else. And we all are at times, but by the same token, we all sin too.