Mark Driscoll: Should Husbands be Stay-at-home Dads?

I want to raise incisive questions on statements made by Mark Driscoll and his wife throughout this video. I will tag the quotes with the time the statement generally begins. My purpose is primarily to ask questions that undermine what they are both saying, and secondly, to challenge Mark's derision of hermeneutics (which is what it really is). Lastly, I will point out where I do agree with them on this issue.

"It's hard to respect a man that's not willing to provide." (0:49)

Did the question imply that the husband was not willing to provide? Is a mother not "providing" to her children by raising them? Are there other ways to "provide" for one's family? Would a father's emotional provision count in your view? Or are you limiting a husband's provision to the money he brings home?

"As women, we're built to be home with our kids." (1:38)

I'm not even sure what this means. Is she saying that women are "just wired that way" in a sense? Then I would agree, and I think that's what she means. There are other conservative women (and men), however, who would think of this literally. It may be tactful to say this in a different way next time.

"...the Titus 2 women were supposed to be...busy at home...so that we don't malign the word of God." (1:40)

Was this, or was this not, written to a patriarchial culture? What were the women expected to do in that culture? The men? What would have happened to the women if they outright enforced egalitarianism at that time? Would that not have caused rebellion and given the gospel a bad name? Could that be what it means to say, "so that the word of God may not be discredited" (2:5)?

Is not the greek word for "busy at home" a word that literally means "managers of the household"? How do you reconcile this with your Complementarian view of a woman's submission in the household? Is it not true that women actually were leaders in their household in many respects? Doesn't this word capture that nuance as well?

Is not the focus of this section that the church may not give outsiders a chance to defame the church for its rebellion of the common customs?

"Paul tells Timothy in the New Testament, 'if any man does not provide for the needs for his family, he has denied the faith, he is worse than an unbeliever.' Well, that's cultural! No, that's in the Bible." (2:37)

Mark is referring to 1 Timothy 5:8. I don't know if Mark knows Greek, but I can't seem to find the translation he is using. Either way, this is pretty sloppy exegesis.

This verse is found in a larger section that is about the honoring of widows (5:1-16). The Greek here is literally (crappy, makeshift transliteration): "ei de tis idion...ou pronoei" or "and if anyone, his [or one's] own...not cares for..." So the grammar here is indefinite in that it is referring to anyone that is able to care for family should do it. The gender of the indefinite pronoun (tis) and the adjective (idion) are determined by the larger use of language, so that's why they're masculine. This is just the case with "adelphos" which, though translated literally as "brother" in many Bible translations, would have been understood to refer to both the men and women in the audience. It doesn't seem to be the case that Paul has specifcally the leader of the whole household (could be quite large at that time) to solely provide for his relatives. What of the other men? Did they not have any responsibility of provision?

Furthermore, since Mark sees Paul speaking so literally here, let's keep in mind that Paul says that you must care for your own, especially one's own household. In this day and age, the broader family beyond the nuclear family can be quite big. Of course, Paul must have meant that we take care of them all, right? I know Mark wouldn't say that, but merely because he is being inconsistent with his own interpretation.

Most important here is Mark's disdain for the grammatico-historical method of hermeneutics. He rejects any appeal to the culture of the time. What else are we to appeal to? Is that not the goal of Biblical interpretation: to know what the author meant in his original culture and historical setting? The fact is that we must always look at the culture to understand what is being spoken about, especially when certain passages (and entire epistles) are written in an ad hoc fashion as all of Paul's letters were.

The Bible was not written in a vacuum as Mark appears to be implying. The logical conclusion of his statements is that we apply Scripture to our situation without reflection upon the contextualization of the commands of Scripture. Basically, his argument is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that because something is in the Bible that it is not cultural. The premise is false anyway.

"If you cannot provide for your family, you are not a man...if you're an able-bodied man, your job is to provide for the needs of your family...[it is an] act of worship." (3:12)

At least he qualifies this to say that you have to be an able-bodied man. Well, what if I have to go through seminary Mark? Do you expect me to take 12 graduate level units and work a full time job? Should there not be a time here where maybe my wife can bring home the money and I can study so that I can be a better provider later? Is this an "extenuating circumstance"? If it is, then what isn't? Is going to school itself not a provision of sorts?

Or what if there's a young married couple in which they both just graduated from a university, but only the wife has a job? What if the man has an unpaid internship that will land him an amazing job in 2 years? Surely this must be sin according to Mark Driscoll.

And not to belabor the point Mark, should I not allow my wife to receive more of an education than I? After all, she may make more money than me and God forbid that she's a better provider quantitatively. Does this apply to other senses of provision as well? Should I limit the extent of her imparting knowledge? Emotional provision?

The point is, there are so many exceptions to this that Mark will, sooner or later, be forced to argue that we must make the passage relevant to our culture. In doing so, he would explicitly contradict his previous statements. His statements here appear to betray a lack of deep thought on the subject.

"There is nothing in Scripture...I've read the whole book...[the egalitarian position] is not there. You have to go to the culture and find worldly wisdom and then try and sanctify it, but it's just not in the Scriptures." (5:30)

Actually, the Bible consists of 66 books, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. So let me see if I got this straight Mark Driscoll: if I try to interpret any portion of the Bible by appealing to culture, I am firmly entrenched in wordly wisdom and have denied the renewing of the mind (Rom. 12:1-2)? What to say of the Hammurabi Code in relation to the Sinaitic Covenant? How about the Ancient Near Eastern views of the origin and structure of the world and the similarity to Genesis? Maybe we shouldn't talk about how the Tower of Babel was probably a Ziggurat or appeal to the honor and shame culture of the New Testament. And I wouldn't dream of studying Greco-Roman religions and philosophies when dealing with Paul's sermon on Mars' Hill (pun intended) in Acts 17. What heresy am I contemplating!?

Whether or not Egalitarianism is taught in Scripture, Mark's treatment of the topic here is exceedingly ignorant. True, it was a short answer to a difficult question. Still, that does not justify the manner in which he said it through which he will influence countless Christians. This is sloppy thinking folks.

I do want to say, however, that it is true that "too many guys take too little responsibility." (3:58) My righteous anger rises when "Christian" guys are too lazy to do anything to provide for their families. There are countless men who live a life of excuses, causing pain not only to their spouses but to their children. To them we must restate the words of God, "he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."