What do you guys think about it? Here's a video from Mars Hill in Seattle where Mark Driscoll says that if a guy in his church were a SAHD, it would be an issue of church discipline:
http://theresurgence.com/should_husbands_be_stay_at_home_dads
And here's a couple of posts from a guy who is a complementarian and a SAHD asking whether or not it's a sin to be a SAHD:
Part 1
Part 2
Here are just a couple of my thoughts. I like Mark Driscoll. Sometimes I think he hits the nail right on the head. Other times, he seems to be more worried about being a foil for the girly-man culture that he sees in America than he cares about being careful with his words, gracious, and biblical. He and his wife's comments in that video made me sick just thinking about all of the young men he's influencing with those kinds of comments. Church discipline for being a SAHD?!? Are you kidding me? Maybe if a guy is just being lazy. Sure, I can see that it would be hard for a woman to respect a man who's not willing to provide, as Driscoll's wife says, but that's an interior issue, not an exterior one. If a guy isn't willing to provide that says something about his heart. But when we take a verse where, I think, Paul is trying to warn us against an inner condition by pointing out its outer consequences (the same as I think he is when he talks about how women dress and how men wear their hair) and then say "See, if you ever have these outer consequences, then you're not being a good Christian." Nevermind that we're living 2000 years later. Nevermind that we're living in a comletely different cultural context. Nevermind that, as the author of those posts points out, the Bible talks more about women's headcoverings than women staying at home.
There's my rant. I think I've got a sore spot for those kinds of teachings because I know that those are the types of "this is how a Christian has to act" shackles I used to put on guys I mentored, and I feel terrible about it. Praise God for his grace for those sins of mine and for his providence of other, wiser men to straighten out the rough edges I left some of those guys with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Chris i want you to know that i'm pondering this post. Unfortunately i won't get a chance to congeal those thoughts until probably mid next week. I'm interested to hear the rest of the council's take on it.
What say everyone?
Thanks Dave. I hope that my harsh words don't scare you guys off from commenting. I know I'm wrong a lot, and even if I feel strongly about this, I'm always up for being proven wrong or at least challenged. So if you disagree with me, please let me know.
i am with dave, i will watch, ponder, and study this and comment latter. i think its a good question. the first question that popped in my head while reading was, "have you ever meet a SAHD that was still truely the head of his house hold?"...pondering...
hey, just watched the video and will need to let that one settle in. he definitely maintains the strong language of manhood that is always associated with him. let me think on this a bit...
Here goes...
After careful speculation my thoughts on SAHD but first some foundational assumptions...
1. I believe scripture is absolute truth.
2. I'm 27 years old and have much to learn about said absolute truth.
3. I'm a complementarian.
I respect MD i think that with any teacher/preacher our job as the listeners/receivers is to weigh the words against the truth of scripture. As far as SAHDs go we can look at 1 Tim 5:8 "8But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." and say that if a man is lazy then the loving thing to do is to call him on his sin. If i was sitting on my ass letting my mortgage default, letting my pregnant wife worry about food all day i hope you guys would take me to task on it. That would be a failure "tantamount to a denial of the faith." (says my new ESV study Bible). What for me it boils down to is two issues and one concern.
First the concern. Chris i realize you were ranting. I do it often, which recently made me the owner of 200 stickers that say "I worship Jesus not organized spots." Your "2000 years later" argument for me personally is shaky. I could justify murdering someone and say well that whole do not murder thing was back then this is now. Or, God forbid, that grace thing was 2000 years ago you have to earn it now. I'm in a denomination where i have to be vigilant about the chronological snobbery that happens daily. I can't tell you how much crap is shoveled my way under the banner "God is doing a new thing..." that's my concern.
Issue one: The word "provide" has strong ties to serving προνοέω (www.regreek.com) like used in Romans 12:17 I don't see monetary tied to it. So in looking at provision I could stay home or Lisa and i both could work and i still would be fulfilling 1 Tim 5:8. We can get into household structure elsewhere and all you would need to do is look at the bathroom (which is my duty to clean) and see that it's not a good idea i do so. So the first thought is provision.
issue 2: monergism. I think that in these comments and others MD is leaning toward a view of synergism (The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual.) Namely that i play a role in my own sanctification. After justification it's my job to order my life to be more holy. Monergism says that it's the spirit's working in my that sanctifies me. So i don't look at porn not because the Holy Spirit has stirred in my soul not because under my own strength i make myself resist it. I provide for my family because I want to; not because i have to. Not calling MD a heretic I've learned much from him in the past and will in the future I'm sure but saying that i lean more to the monergistic side of this issue than the synergistic.
EDIT:
says...not because the Holy Spirit has stirred in my soul
should say...because the Holy Spirit has stirred in my soul
Post a Comment