Mark Driscoll on Stay-at-Home Dads by Motte Brown on 10/07/2008 at 4:11 PM

Is it ever OK for the husband/father to stay at home with the kids while the wife/mother provides for the family? Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll says that unless there are extreme circumstances that would prevent a man from providing for his family, being a stay-at-home-dad could be a matter of church discipline.

In an interview segment of a sermon series he's doing on Song of Songs, both Mark and his wife, Grace, condemn the idea of stay-at-home dads directly and without hesitation by pointing to 1 Timothy 5:8, "But 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."

I admire Mark and Grace for boldly proclaiming what they believe Scripture says about the different roles God has given men and women in family. Check out the video in it's entirety for the full context and tell us what you think.

Mark Driscoll on Stay-at-Home Dads by Motte Brown on 10/07/2008 at 4:11 PM

Is it ever OK for the husband/father to stay at home with the kids while the wife/mother provides for the family? Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll says that unless there are extreme circumstances that would prevent a man from providing for his family, being a stay-at-home-dad could be a matter of church discipline.

In an interview segment of a sermon series he's doing on Song of Songs, both Mark and his wife, Grace, condemn the idea of stay-at-home dads directly and without hesitation by pointing to 1 Timothy 5:8, "But 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."

I admire Mark and Grace for boldly proclaiming what they believe Scripture says about the different roles God has given men and women in family. Check out the video in it's entirety for the full context and tell us what you think.

Comments

[1. Barb said the following at 4:51 PM on Oct 7:]

1

If the family is destitute and the father is sitting on the couch eating potato chips all day, by all means, condemn him.

But while I think stay-at-home dadhood is a less-than-ideal situation, I don't see it as a matter of church discipline.

My former college pastor is now a stay-at-home dad whose wife is in biomedical tech. They are amply provided for by her job, and he takes care of their two sons.

Should his church tell him to go get a job and his wife to start staying home?

[2. Jerry said the following at 4:55 PM on Oct 7:]

2

Kudos to the Driscolls for having the guts to say what the Bible does even though it's gotta be EXTREMELY unpopular, especially in their beloved Seattle.

[3. Kellie said the following at 5:07 PM on Oct 7:]

3

Might a SAHD be providing what his family needs? Isn't a SAHD better than two working parents? Or is it mom or nobody? I think Driscoll's interpretation of scripture is simply that...his interpretation.

[4. farmer Tom said the following at 5:09 PM on Oct 7:]

4

the father is sitting on the couch eating potato chips all day,

and what's wrong with that???

I hope he has the decency to wash them down with lots of soda? pop? soda pop? !!

After all one can not achieve couch potato status with out all the necessities.

[5. Charity said the following at 5:10 PM on Oct 7:]

5

I thought that, viewed in context of the surrounding verses, 1 Timothy 5:8 was referring to providing for the widows in one's own family? I do agree that mom at home is generally the best choice, but I do not see how that specific verse makes any case for a dad-as-sole-provider doctrine.

[6. Ricky said the following at 5:24 PM on Oct 7:]

6

Whenever someone quotes a Bible verse to support thier agenda, I check the context from which that verse originated to ensure that the verse really does support what they are arguing for.

This chapter has nothing to do with the role of husbands and fathers. It is a chapter addressing widows. The verse quoted (verse 8) was clearly a written instruction for widows to provide for thier family and not live selfishly, as is described in the verse before it.

Men need to be strong providers for thier family, but that provision does not need to be financial. It can be intellectual (by teaching children), emotional, spiritual (teaching children to follow Christ), and practical also. My father generally provided for me well financially, but while he was unemployed and my mom was working, he kept giving in other ways.

I watched the video and I believe that the frustration expressed is in regard to men who are just purely lazy. But it is a leap in logic to go from condemning a lazy person to saying that stay at home dads are sinning and need church discipline. There is simply nothing in the Bible (that I am aware of and I have read the Bible an endless number of times) that supports that viewpoint.

[7. DannieA said the following at 5:28 PM on Oct 7:]

7

Condemned in every situation? Absolutely not.

Every family dynamic is different and while 95% of families would be great on the mom staying home with the kids, there is that 5% who would do better if the roles were reversed.

Plus what are we saying when we say that "stay at home dads" don't provide for their family...I guess I perceive it as saying that if the roles were reversed that means that basically stay at home moms don't do anything...and we all know that this is not true of them.

I had a friend once who's dream was to be able to stay at home with his kids and cook for the family...whether or not that would happen for him, that was his dream...a lot of us thought that was great....he got laughed at for being gayish.

I'd rather lift up a male by encouraging his big heart for the family side of things than to scoff him and say he is gay....way to support people in Christ guys!

so yeah I DISAGREE wholeheartedly

[8. S said the following at 5:31 PM on Oct 7:]

8

Any indication of what the definition of "provide" is in the original text? The interpretation of this verse would, to me, hinge on that definition.

[9. Kellie said the following at 5:37 PM on Oct 7:]

9

Why does providing/protecting = bringing home a paycheck? Couldn't that merely be our western/modern day interpretation?

[10. Gina said the following at 5:49 PM on Oct 7:]

10

Church discipline? Good grief! I've never seen that verse taken so out of context. If the family is being provided for, there is no reason why the dad can't be the stay-at-home parent. It's different, and it's not what I would choose personally, but it's not unbiblical.

[11. Chris H. said the following at 5:57 PM on Oct 7:]

11

"Should his church tell him to go get a job and his wife to start staying home?"

Scripture is fairly clear that the husband's primary responsibility is provision, while his wife's primary responsibility is her children and home.

1 Tim. 5:8 has already been quoted, and the picture gets clearer when you put that alongside of Titus 2:5.

Titus 2:5 may not be commanding a woman to stay at home full time, but it does establish priorities, and it's pretty specific on whose priority the children/home/husband is.

If I ever was tempted to stay at home and let my wife go out to work each day, I hope my pastor would be man enough to tell me to man up.

[12. Rose said the following at 6:13 PM on Oct 7:]

12

It doesn't seem to me that the Driscoll's point of view is necessarily Biblical. The verse doesn't stipulate the means of provision. Perhaps the way the man provides for his family is by looking after the kids while his wife works. There are just so many exceptions to the rule: damaged(by disease, depression and disability) people who can't work, those unemployed through no fault of their own, missionaries who are wholly supported by donations, men studying to provide their family with a better life in the future, etc. I can also well imagine God putting a man in a situation where he is not able to provide in order to teach him dependence on Him(God).

I'd also like to know about the "anyone" and "he" mentioned in that verse...whether they relate specifically to men or they relate to everyone. That's how I would have previously interpreted the verse, that everyone(men and women) has a responsibility to provide for their family, including parents and extended family...rather than spending their money on selfish pleasures etc. The chapter is in the context of provision for widows and the emphasis is not so much on who earns the "provision" or how, but that those with the means to take care of their families do so, not leaving them as a burden to the church.

In my personal opinion, men who are not contributing to the needs of their family and are able to do so, should be held accountable. However, I don't think this necessarily means, biblically, that they must be the biggest direct financial contributers to the household.

[13. JB said the following at 6:17 PM on Oct 7:]

13

So, my question is, don't we need to make allowances for the fact that providing for one's family is a very different endeavor today than it was in the primarily agricultural economies of the ancient world? It's no longer the case that men are necessarily more economically productive than women, as would have been the case when Paul was writing his letters. Isn't there some room for recognizing that the world we are in (though not of) has dramatically changed in the intervening two millennia?

[14. Adam said the following at 6:46 PM on Oct 7:]

14

Motte,

Why is it that this text is in the context of women?

1 Timothy 5:4-10 but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. 5 Now she who is a widow indeed and who has been left alone, has fixed her hope on God and continues in entreaties and prayers night and day. 6 But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7 Prescribe these things as well, so that they may be above reproach. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 9 A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man, 10 having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints' feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work.

Why is it that the whole surrounding context is about widows, and yet, we somehow have Mark Driscoll saying that it refers to men? Yes, everyone in the family needs to contribute something. Women and men. Yes, both women and men need to work in the home. Hence, I would likewise condemn the behavior of anyone who sits on the couch all day and watches TV. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with someone who is going about the daily duties of the household, and working together with his wife to take care of the household.

God Bless,
Adam

[15. Rachel Ballisty said the following at 7:04 PM on Oct 7:]

15

I'm not sure how a man isn't providing for his family if he is a stay-at-home dad? We're not talking about a lazy bum here, we're talking about a guy who is dedicated to his family and has found that the best way to provide for his family's greatest possible well-being is by him taking an unpopular role.

If a man knows that his wife loves her job and the only way she can work is full-time, should he work full-time also and deprive the kids of their time and put them in day care? Or is he supposed to tell his wife that she can't work in her profession? If the wife loves her job and makes better money than the man but he still demands to be the only one working full-time because that is "biblical," isn't he actually denying his family better provision? It seems more like a power play rather than sound biblical guidance.

I know these are just a few of the options and I do think it's best to have mom home with the kids, sometimes the best fit really is mom at work with dad at home. I particularly do not believe that a stay-at-home dad should be cause for church discipline!

In my example, I plan on working full-time as a Nurse Practitioner, taking nearly a year off for each child I have. My fiance plans on working from home almost full-time as a consultant while I take time off from my practice and then when I return to work he'll cut back the jobs he takes considerably to be a mostly stay-at-home dad. Obviously this is a unique situation and it's amazing that it is flexible enough to actually work but I don't see any biblical problem with it because my fiance knows that I absolutely love my profession. He is much happier to provide for me by allowing me to continue in it at very little cost to our children since they will still have a full-time parent. I just don't see how this is considered him not providing for me and our children!

[16. Al said the following at 7:17 PM on Oct 7:]

16

I love Mark Driscoll, his preaching and teaching, and for the most part agree that males should be the wage earners. I also love how Mark and Grace are an example to believers and to those in their church of the beauty of marriage. However, I do have to say that I disagree with Grace Driscoll's use of (and I suppose Motte's promotion of) the verse in 1 Timothy here in this context.

The verse seems to be addressing laziness and irresponsibility in believers and the refusal to provide for the family's needs. While it's possible that a man is choosing to stay at home out of sheer laziness, in which case the verse may apply, this might not always be the case. Trading a traditional job for the task of raising children isn't necessarily choosing to do less work, unless we're ready to proclaim that child-raising mothers really don't work and provide as much as wage-earning fathers do.

Furthermore, the verse applies to "anyone", and not just men, and therefore I'm lead to think the provision described may include those duties to family and home that are traditionally associated with women, especially as the verse lies smack dab in the middle of a passage dealing with worthy widows who are faithful to their families, and exhorting their children, then explicitly their female relatives, to take care of them. In our vernacular, we tend to associate "provide for" as only referring to material and monetary provision, but in context, I think it's reasonable to conclude the provision mentioned includes the nurturing and often backbreaking duties needed at home.

So looking at the scriptures in context, I'm lead to conclude that a man doing work traditionally assigned to women is still very much doing the work that provides for his familiy. Now, for various reasions, it's probably not a good idea for most-- perhaps all-- men to take on the duties of raising the family at home alone, but I believe it is somewhat poor use of scripture to imply that his doing so renders him "worse than an unbeliever".

I do think as Christians who value the Word and its careful use, we need to use the right verses to support the right doctrines and avoid the mistake of using the wrong verses to support even the right theology. Else, we allow our positions (even if they are correct) to shade particular words of scripture instead of allowing them to speak for itself.

[17. Elizabeth said the following at 7:21 PM on Oct 7:]

17

It seems like a bit of stretch to say that being a stay-at-home dad is unbiblical. Stay-at-home dads are not lazy any more than stay-at-home moms are. They can provide for their families in many ways, such as fixing meals for the kids, home improvements, tending the garden. I really don't understand why a pastor would make this a church platform issue, when it could be divisive and alienate people otherwise seeking to grow in Jesus. In fact, in an agricultural community both mom and dad "stay at home" working on the farm all day. So is this actually a dialogue about family roles, or is just about culture?

Apologies in advance if this comment is short-sighted, as I am not able to watch the video.

[18. Courtney said the following at 7:35 PM on Oct 7:]

18

Wow. I'm speechless. I am very conservative and always have been, but I don't believe that the church has any business discipling a stay-at-home dad. The family is a unit, whose head is God not the church. If the man is living a life of adultery or pornography or something of that nature, then yes there is a call for church discipline. But, in the case of where the family has decided that the woman has more of an opportunity to make more money and it is important for that family to have the child not in daycare or whatever, than by all means the dad can stay at home. In that case, he is taking care of his family and he is providing, just not in the traditional sense. I would leave that church and never walk through the doors again if I had been in that service. That is the case of the church overstepping its bounds drastically.

Just a side note, generally speaking I agree with Focus on the Family and Boundless.

[19. Lindsay said the following at 7:56 PM on Oct 7:]

19

Sometimes it makes more sense for the man to stay at home. His work may have a more lenient time off schedule, or the wife may earn more. If the man earns less money, there is more money for the family if he stays home.

It blows my mind that you see it as not being faithful for a man to be the one who stays home. Both parents should be close enough with their children to take care of the home effectively. What is wrong with a woman being the one who earns a higher salary? Perhaps she is more educated or works in an industry that pays more.

I believe if women and men truly are ONE, as long as one of them is providing, there is no reason the male can't stay at home. Who works and who stays is not important.

[20. Walter Stiffler said the following at 8:03 PM on Oct 7:]

20

So what do I do while I am in seminary full time and my wife is providing for my family? Is that wrong?

[21. Julia K. said the following at 8:07 PM on Oct 7:]

21

"If I ever was tempted to stay at home and let my wife go to work each day, I hope my pastor would be man enough to tell me to man up."

What exactly do you mean by this?

While I agree that there is a lot to be said for men going to work and women staying at home, it is important to realize that what women do at home every day IS work. In fact, it is work that demands great gifts to be well done. You seem to speak scornfully of staying home, as if it is the domain of the lazy, or the weak.

I for one, am not motivated to "stay home" if the work I do there is not appreciated by the Christian men and community I am surrounded by.

[22. Steve said the following at 8:18 PM on Oct 7:]

22

Really we are talking about worldviews here. If we adhere to Scripture (and I think we should) we are talking about returning to a different way of life that does not fit with today's fast-paced culture. Far more is at stake than stay at home moms or dads. This is something the Church at large is going to have to hash-out. The alternative is "situational ethics." In this situation it may be o.k., in that situation, though, it is condemnable. We should seek to avoid situational ethics and set up worldviews that are as compatible with Scripture as possible. That will not be easy or popular.

[23. Justin said the following at 8:26 PM on Oct 7:]

23

Another pastor taking a verse out of context and making his own opinion to be The Body's doctrine.

[24. Katie said the following at 8:28 PM on Oct 7:]

24

I know a mom that is a MD. She works while her husband stays home. She has a strong desire for children so she gets pregnant, gives birth and then goes back to work. Her husband resents her so much. They have four kids. It is so sad!

[25. Texas Craig said the following at 8:34 PM on Oct 7:]

25

Wow! The basis of church discipline? Really? On what scriptural basis? The 1 Timothy 5:8 passage comes right in the middle of instructions about the church caring for widows. It is clearly and obviously directed to a situation where believers are not taking care of their family AND the CHURCH IS BEING REQUIRED TO PICK UP THE SLACK. Read the passages right before and right after it. So, sure, if a churchmember is not working and that is causing the church to have to care for that person's family, then it needs to be addressed. But, if the wife is voluntarily providing for the family and the church or other believers are not having to do so, then 1 Timothy 5:8 does not appear relevant.

As for church discipline, I would suggest that Mark and his church focus on the things scripture tells us are to be disciplined. 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 tells us to deal with the following categories of people in the body of Christ: "sexually immoral, greedy, idolators, slanderers, drunkards, swindlers." When Mark is disciplining people who are not giving generously to the kingdom (i.e., being greedy), or who party too much on the weekend (including college students who may be getting drunk frequently), then maybe he can consider discipline for other areas that are not clearly addressed in scripture.

Having said that, let me say that I agree that it is generally best for a man to be the breadwinner in the family. But I do not know that I can say that is an absolute, inviolate scriptural command. If so, I need more than 1 Timothy 5:8 or Titus 2:5 to conclude that.

[26. Claire said the following at 8:40 PM on Oct 7:]

26

While I agree that a man should provide for his family (and not be a couch potato eating chips all day while the wife is working) I find it hard to say that he's not providing for his family by taking care of his children. This is the only argument/logic used so far, and it falls short. Taking care of children during the day is providing for the family, just a different role, which seems to be the problem the pastor has with the situation. I guess what I'm saying is that the wife working inside or outside the home are both provisional duties, as they would be with the husband, but rather than saying working outside the home (wife) and inside the home (husband) isn't providing, the role issue is the concern. Am I making sense?

[27. Lynne said the following at 8:43 PM on Oct 7:]

27

To Barb:
"Should his church tell him to go get a job and his wife to start staying home?"
Based on the video, I believe Marc Driscoll would say yes.

While it is clear the Driscolls are speaking in love and out of a genuine desire to shepherd their families as they believe scripture indicates, their interpretation is not the default for those who hold scripture to be infallible and inerrant. This interpretation is also completely consistent with their previous sermons on gender roles/stay at home moms, etc.

That said, I don't buy it. I'm not going to argue scripture here, as I've found that generally doesn't get me anywhere. However, based on my work with families, couples, and engaged couples, I can say this:
Most families don't struggle with dad being home "too much," rather they struggle with dad being away too much (perhaps working multiple jobs if they don't believe the woman should), or too uninvolved in their kids lives, or seeing the child-raising as "woman's work" in a perjorative sense. Yet, I seldom, if ever see church discipline extended there.

Just my thoughts...let the disagreement begin : )

[28. Krystal said the following at 8:49 PM on Oct 7:]

28

I would love to be a stay at home mom someday and am not married so admittedly that may skew my view on this slightly. However, I think this idea is simply horrendous. Admittedly, I would rather have someone staying home than no one; but I think it should be about picking the best, God honoring choice, not the lesser of two evils. I hope that I can find a God loving man who understands it is his responsibility, not his choice, but his responsibility to provide for his family. Not because I think he should, but because God says he should. I hope I can find a man who will have planned ahead for his family and chooses a career where he can do so. I would love to be a supportive wife and mother who cares for my children, husband, and household. I think this idea is so abhorrent to me simply because I think it has shown how far things have gone. Not only do so many men plan so poorly that the women are the ones making enough money to support the family, but men are taking on what is supposed to be primarily a woman’s role. I want to use the gifts God’s graced me with to serve as he intended me and I want to encourage the men and women around me to do the same. I guess I have what are often seen as “old fashioned” ideas, but I really think that is how God intended it.

[29. Mike said the following at 8:52 PM on Oct 7:]

29

I do not see how that Timothy 5:8 passage relates to stay at home dads. It seems to me to be a call to both fathers and mothers to put their family before themselves. That said, the reason mothers typically stay at home is that is the most effective arrangement for rearing children. I could envision exceptions, however. For example, maybe dad is a gifted teacher and wants to homeschool the children. Providing for the family entails a lot more than just earning money.

[30. kaj said the following at 8:55 PM on Oct 7:]

30

I watched the video, as suggested, to get the full context, and my conclusion is that Driscoll's use of 1 Timothy 5:8 was taken out of context.

From what I read, the context of the verse is about caring for Christian widows, not about the so-called "proper" roles for married couples.

1 Timothy 5 says relatives are to aid widows first, then the church, only when no relatives are available (verses 5,9 and 16). Thus the church is not unduly distracted from "the Word of God" (see Acts 6:1-4).

Strong's Greek translation, (courtesy of Blue Letter Bible), uses the terms idios [#2398] (not to be confused with the word "idiot!") and oikeios [#3609] is translated as "one's own" and "one's own house." Both Greek words appear to be gender-neutral. (Any seasoned Biblical Greek students out there, feel free to clarify or set me straight on this).

I read into this passage the principle that both husband and wife should "provide" for their families. "Provision" is not limited to earning wages in order to put food on the proverbial table. Sometimes "providing" for a household could also mean spending "quality time" with family members, giving respite so whomever cared for the kids all day can rest, making sure bills are paid, educating and training children, offering a shoulder to cry on, or helping with various repairs.

I agree with Barb's assessment in Comment #1. With the recent economic uncertainties, there is no guarantee the husband will be able to find another job soon after he loses one (would Driscoll consider that an "extreme emergency?). My father went through bouts of unemployment, and he cared for us kids while mother worked.

Perhaps a better application of this Scripture in regards to church discipline is to discipline those who leave their aged parents in a nursing home, instead of the few stay-at-home dads who do provide genuine care for children (as opposed to "sitting on the couch eating potato chips all day") while the mother works.

[31. Gina said the following at 9:01 PM on Oct 7:]

31

Chris H., are you saying that a stay-at-home dad isn't doing a tough job? I'd be very careful with that "man up" talk. You make it sound as if being a stay-at-home parent is easy, and there's an awful lot of parents -- moms AND dads -- who won't like that.

[32. Lauren said the following at 9:16 PM on Oct 7:]

32

I'm not sure what I think about this - I really want to be a stay at home mom so it's not something I've thought a lot about. My initial reaction, though, is "Why can't providing for his household mean staying home and supporting his children and wife in a hands-on way? Why does it have to mean providing a paycheck every two weeks?"

[33. brx said the following at 9:52 PM on Oct 7:]

33

Let's be careful not to drop the qualifications Driscoll is clearly stating (and repeating):

+ provide for the "NEEDS" of his family. - not wants, and needs can look different for different families/spouses. Too often, we discount people's uniqueness and think 'everyone should be like me.'

+ "we're not legalistic here." - Driscoll seems to recognize there are many different situations and marriage is a covenant partnership, not a contract.

+ "statistically" - Driscoll seems to recognize there are plenty of healthy situations that may not look like the 70% norm.

I think a better way for Driscoll to say it would be to simply point out that a man should be willing to humble himself and put in serious effort to meet the important needs of his family. A man should not let his family's needs go unmet for his own pleasure or refuse to work because he hasn't found his ideal job in the field he would prefer. The way Driscoll did say it, I think there's a danger of encouraging men to spend too much time trying to make mere money. Many a marriage has broken up because the husband became convinced that he needed to work more (too much) feeling that he's not providing enough money.

Grace, peace, humility & balance

[34. brx said the following at 10:04 PM on Oct 7:]

34

While I agree with Driscoll's comment regarding a husband's lack of willingness to work being a church discipline issue,

I think the church has an equal responsibility to provide healthy encouragement and career mentoring to men - helping them to become succesful, upstanding members in the business community. I'm not advocating another church program, but suggesting this guidance should be a natural part of Christian discipleship.

Grace, peace, humility & balance

[35. Rachael said the following at 10:05 PM on Oct 7:]

35

"1 Timothy 5:8, "But 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."

->I am not attracted to verses like this. Even though in my head I believe faith is not through works and that is through grace, I want to better understand the role of works/sanctification and I wish I could understand how work-ish looking verses fit into the big picture.

Other troubling verses:

"For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (Matthew 6:14-15)."

-->Forgiving others seems like a work to me, and perhaps an unforgiving spirit could be at the root of things when it isn't always clear that a lack of forgiveness might be the issue or one of the issues at the bottom of another sin(s).

I suppose the above points are a huge digression from the topic of stay-at-home dads. I feel like in Christianity salvation can be considered in different ways. While the key ideas might be considered important by all/many Christians, I wonder if the presentation of salvation can have different emphases and points that are brought up or neglected. I know this post isn't focusing on salvation, but I do want to think about salvation, sanctification, and so-called 'easy-believism', repentance, and forgiveness more. Maybe over time I'll consider and look into those issues.

Book idea for someone: look through the Bible and find instances of conversion and ways salvation is explained. Write those down and put them in a book...

Maybe one day...

[36. Becky said the following at 10:43 PM on Oct 7:]

36

Actually the "his" in 1 TIm. 5:8 is a gender neutral "his". There was no implied he/she, husband/wife, man/women in the original. Not to mention the passage itself is about taking care of each other not about roles.
As for Titus 2:5 it says a women should take care of, nothing about priority, and one could ague that providing the money to fed, cloth, and house your family is taking care of your family,

[37. bean said the following at 11:00 PM on Oct 7:]

37

I think that a dad can stay at home while still providing for his family. I'm thinking of a couple who are close family friends, the wife is a very high ranking, highly paid businesswoman. The husband has worked at various professions, such as landscaping and plowing, but for large periods of time was responsible for most of the "home" roles. While he spent time at home, he turned a small, mediocre backyard into a beautiful series of gardens, with ponds, and shelters made of climbing vines. He's constantly improving the house, inside and out. He was able to cook dinner before his wife got home, and do general home related tasks, so their house always felt like a welcoming, calm haven when you walked in. There is never a feeling of chaos or disorganization. Most importantly, he still maintains his position as spiritual leader in the family, and is an excellent husband and father, with firm leadership but also a lot of tenderness towards his family. I feel like, although his wife may be the primary earner, HE is still the source of provision because of the way he defines the tone of the family's day to day life with his skills and hard work.

I think more things need to be considered than just money when you talk about providing. By that logic, an immensely wealthy husband who doesn't need to work, and watches tv all day would be a better provider than a hard working man with a meager paycheck. And I think that men who work but do not invest their time and emotions in their family can hardly be providing what is really needed.

So, with those thoughts in mind, I would say that perhaps a better definition of providing would be "meeting the needs of the family" as opposed to merely "financing the family."

[38. Gordon said the following at 11:19 PM on Oct 7:]

38

I think with a discussion like this, we need to keep in mind the original historical-cultural context of which the quoted Biblical books were written.

In addition we need to not take verses out of context...

As for my opinion, I guess I agree with Barb. Or at the very least, I see the validity of the argument.

I feel like if a family is loving/respecting each other, and loving/obeying God, then the Spirit will guide and direct.

[39. Sarah said the following at 11:26 PM on Oct 7:]

39

I agree with Barb (#1), and I find it absurd to say that this would be a matter of church discipline.

I feel like there is more to these verses than meets the eye. Don't sell the Bible too short...

[40. Bertha said the following at 1:03 AM on Oct 8:]

40

I would understand from Driscoll's comments that he would possibly be willing to kick a man out of the church for taking care of his children. There seems to be something wrong with that. A stay at home dad may be unconventional, but it's not unbiblical.

[41. obewan said the following at 6:12 AM on Oct 8:]

41

Gee. If a woman were running for a high political office that if won would turn her husband into a stay at home dad, I don't think the same "conservatives" would be so critical if she was with "their" party.

[42. Stephanie said the following at 6:52 AM on Oct 8:]

42

Is it not possible that a man may be providing for his family by being willing to stay at home while his wife works? By taking care of the children while his wife works, a man is insuring that his family is provided for.

Also, I think it's important here, as always, to read the surrounding verses. 1 Timothy 5:8 does not fall in a passage talking about the roles of husbands and wives; it falls in a passage about the treatment of widows. Earlier in the passage, it talks about children and grandchildren caring for their widowed grandparent with no reference to whether the children and grandchildren are male or female. Caring for family members is a responsibility placed on all descendents.

[43. NAB said the following at 6:57 AM on Oct 8:]

43

Uh, this is assuming a pretty narrow definition of the word "provision". Any Greek scholars want to weigh in on it?

[44. cn said the following at 7:17 AM on Oct 8:]

44

what if a man is staying at home because... lets say... his wife holds a political office?

[45. Ben said the following at 7:40 AM on Oct 8:]

45

While I certainly agree that the principle is Scriptural, I wonder whether there might be Biblically-acceptable exceptions made even without "extreme circumstances" (I am assuming this refers to incapacitating illness or injury or the like.) For instance, I know a devout Christian family in which the husband is 15 years older than the wife. He had a long and productive career as a PhD chemist, and she left her work as a schoolteacher to raise their children. However, when the kids (whom he fathered relatively late in life) were in their elementary-school years, his job was eliminated by the company only a couple of years before he was due to retire anyway. At that point, a school was opening nearby, and the wife applied and was offered a position teaching inner-city middle-schoolers, which she considers to be a work of ministry. The husband, being of retirement age anyway (and, for that reason, having poor prospects for re-employment), has since stayed home taking care of the kids and the house. I have witnessed this couple being accused of living in sin for this very reason, and I personally wonder whether such an application of Paul's (unquestionably valid) instructions may smack of legalism (especially since this man, now in his eighth decade, did provide for his family through a long career) and do more to create division in the body of Christ than to strengthen it. Which is not at all to impugn Rev. Driscoll or his praiseworthy stand: I mention this only to draw attention to the question of whether or not the issue permits nuance.

[46. Brantley said the following at 7:42 AM on Oct 8:]

46

While I agree man has been given the task of toil and work in Genesis, the passage quoted seems to be taken out of context. That means giving of what you have to take care of your family and not only looking out for number one if I remember correctly. Didn't Jesus quote the same verse in Matthew and give an explanation? That was giving to the temple so they didn't have to give to the inlaws.

Providing for the family can mean swallowing pride when a wife's skills are more marketable then the husbands (might be more common in our current economy - what if wife has PhD & husband has a BA?) therefore providing the family a better lifestyle by allowing her to work. Granted that case is far and few between and most would be dads who refuse to take a perceived "lesser" job then they are worth. In that case, the husband is putting his pride and interest above his families and therefore should be subject to church discipline.

I'm not set on this opinion however in my limited reading, I've not seen evidence supporting "man = money maker or he is sinning".

[47. Angelin said the following at 7:43 AM on Oct 8:]

47

If the woman has a career that brings in significantly more than the man, it doesn't seem to make sense that she should stay home - I do think it's beneficial for children at times to have one adult stay home...but doesn't it make more sense for it to be the one who would be making less (especially when the disparity is large)? It's a smaller opportunity cost.

[48. Nick said the following at 8:04 AM on Oct 8:]

48

wow :)
Thank you guys for not being afraid of posing unpopular questions either!
Encouraging to see the Bible being held as the standard while also understanding there can be exceptions.

[49. Brenna Kate Simonds said the following at 8:21 AM on Oct 8:]

49

He & his wife have some interesting thoughts on this topic. And I actually agree with a lot of what they said - to a point.

Some quotes that bothered me:
"If you cannot provide for your family, you're not a man."
"This would actually be, at Mars Hill Church, if there were not extreme, extenuating circumstances, a case for church discipline."
"If they want to safeguard their home from divorce, they need to organize their home like that." (about semi-traditional gender roles)

My first concern is whether or not they are considering the entirety of 1 Timothy 5 when drawing such a hard line. The chapter is actually about caring and providing for widows. Later in the chapter, Paul also commands that women take care of the widows in their families.

I'm just not sure I see a precedent set in Scripture, especially in 1 Timothy 5:8, that says spouses can't make an intentional decision to have the wife work outside the home and the man be the primary caretaker. I'm not saying it's ideal, but I can think of many situations where a couple may choose to do that. While I do think there is timeless truth in 1 Timothy 5:8, Paul seems to be addressing people who refused to care for their families, rather than people who are providing for their families in a non-traditional way. It seems to me that the Driscolls have a very narrow view of what provision looks like.

[50. Jacob Arminius said the following at 8:34 AM on Oct 8:]

50

How do we know he is talking to husbands, since it says "anyone".

[51. Liz said the following at 9:34 AM on Oct 8:]

51

I definitely respect the Driscolls for sharing their belief and opinion without apology. I think too often, people sugarcoat opinions that they think will be unpopular. That said, in today's rapidly tanking economy, the traditional man-breadwinner/woman-homemaker family is quickly becoming very difficult for most families to attain.

I also don't think it is my job to judge the structure of other people's families when it comes to who takes care of the kids and who brings home the money. The way I see it, both parents "provide" for their families: Love, nurturing, guidance, discipline and yes, financial stability, are all just different types of currency. I deeply respect the man who realizes, for his family's sake, that being a stay-at-home dad might make more sense for the time being.

The concept of "church discipline" is pretty foreign to me--I'm Episcopalian, a decidedly not-Evangelical denomination, so it's doubtful that anyone in church leadership would ever comment on a "non-traditional" stay-at-home-dad family. And I like it that way.

[52. Dan Gill said the following at 9:38 AM on Oct 8:]

52

Let's see. The passage in 1 Timothy is about relatives of widows caring for them. So, is this not written to women as well as to men? Are we really that hung up on the pronoun "he"? Likewise, the Titus 2 passage isn't about work. It's about being busy at home instead of being a busybody.

This teaching smells of legalism. I've had a bit of experience with that, and it's a killer.

The whole Dad-at-work, Mom-at-home idea is a product of the industrial revolution. In an agrarian society Mom and Dad worked in or near home. If you look at child-rearing books from the U.S. Colonial period, you'll see that they are written to fathers, not mothers.

I think that mothers are better equipped by God to care for small children than are fathers. But fathers are just as important, especially as the children age.

[53. Peter said the following at 10:13 AM on Oct 8:]

53

I have to disagree, and not in a "yeah . . . but" kind of way; I completely disagree.
Let's say a young women who recently graduated from med school falls in love with a male orderly at the hospital where she gets her first job. They get married and decide to start a family. After their first child is born and her maternity leave has ended, a decision needs to be made. After reading 1 Tim 5:8 the young man asks himself 'How would I best be providing for my household, by returning to work and my modest pay, or by allowing my wife to return to her substantial doctor's salary?'
I think the answer is obvious.
And as for the passage in Titus, I suggest you re-read Titus 2:1-7. The gist of it is that older women should act as examples for younger women just as older men for younger men. Claiming that it demands all women always stay homemakers loses sight of message this passage conveys.

[54. EKB said the following at 10:24 AM on Oct 8:]

54

Let me preface this by saying that I am very conservative and I think stay at home moms are awesome. I think it is going way too far, however, to claim that stay at home dads are a "matter of church discipline" from one Bible verse. If a father can better provide for his family by staying at home with the children, I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

I know several devout Christian families who have this arrangement. For example, in one the mom is a physician, and has a much greater earning potential than her husband, who stays home with their school-age children. We know that fathers are extremely important to children's developments, and this dad gets to be very involved in the kids' lives. Meanwhile, the mom is providing for the family financially and ministering to her patients. I don't see what's un-Biblical about this situation. The children's physical, spiritual, and emotional needs are being met, and the parents are happy. I think what's most important is that both parents are involved in the kids' lives, not which parent brings home the paycheck.

[55. J. Tucker said the following at 11:14 AM on Oct 8:]

55

Thank you for the provocative post, Motte.

Long story short, I disagree with the Driscolls (shocker). I believe that this is a classic example of inventing sin where there is none to conform people to pre-conceived notions of how society should be.

I don't have time to write the response I wanted to write, because there are too many things that should be said about the Discoll's viewpoint. However, I will say that these verses are not about stay-at-home dads (hereinafter "SAHD"). These verses are about deadbeat dads, layabouts, and lazy couch potatoes. By suggesting that a SAHD is condemned by these verses, the Driscolls implicitly suggest that housework and raising children are somehow less valuable and less difficult compared to work outside the home. This is not true, and it is demeaning to housewives.

By all means, condemn the lazy. But do not condemn the hardworking man that, for whatever reason, takes care of the home and raises children.

[56. Saidah said the following at 11:24 AM on Oct 8:]

56

Amen! Frankly, I can't wait to be at home with our kids. With all the nonsense going on in schools these days, we plan on homeschooling and frankly, I'm glad I'M going to be the one doing it and not my husband. He's brilliant of course, but I think our kids might not make it past elementary school alive if I left them with him every day! It doesn't even occur to the man to eat food other than hot dogs... if he eats! They would surely die.... hahahaha.
I'm very glad he works to provide for his family and I'm ecstatic that I get to do dishes, make dinner, and write up lesson plans! It would be terribly strange if he didn't work. Men without jobs have a tendency of making a nuisance of themselves if you know what I mean.... = )

[57. Mark said the following at 11:52 AM on Oct 8:]

57

As much of a defender of traditional family and gender roles as I am, I find this one a bit tought to take. It's one matter, as Barb mentioned above, if the guy won't work. But what if the woman can earn a higher salary and put the family in a better situation to pay off a mortgage and student loans and save for their retirement and children's college education?

Also if the children are still nursing or school-age makes a big difference. Do children benefit from having one parent at home all the time, or just the wife and mother at home?

One more question: in the reference to 1 Tim 5:8, what type of pronoun is "his" translated from? Many modern translations, up until the last few years, always used masculine pronouns when it's generally accepted that the writer was referring to both men and women.

Just some food for though.

Peace.

[58. Mark Williams said the following at 12:16 PM on Oct 8:]

58

Okay, I think this is one of the worst reasons for church discipline I have ever heard of. It hurts me to think about any family being disciplined for this. The implication of most is in these situations the father is lazy, the mother is a feminist, or both. Unfortunately, if provision is being supplied and the church is not responsible for the care-taking of the family, the man is off the hook. What I mean is that in the context of Timothy Paul is talking about taking care of widows, but not to take care of them if a relative (man) is able, and if he refuses to take care of them he is worse than an unbeliever. This really has no implication for men staying home, working for the family: providing food, cooking, cleaning, and general care-taking. If there is an able bodied man in the home, and the elders of that man are not taken care of, he should be disciplined.
If "busy at home" means the woman should be home always, how much more should the "manager of the home" have his priorities and presence at home!?

Shame on the Driscoll's for placing undue burden on members of their congregation. He has changed the meaning of the bible to fit into what he thinks is right. He instead should not take verses out of context and ask all those disciplined in his church for this for their forgiveness.

[59. Nobody imparticular said the following at 12:31 PM on Oct 8:]

59

I graduated 2 years ago with a doctoral degree (and a significant student debt load). My husband is a pastor by training and has nowhere near the earning potential that I do. When we have kids, I will need to continue working at least part time to handle my financial obligations (much as I would like to stay at home). Is it a sin for my husband to work part time and stay at home more than me? I think if both parents are committed to doing what is best in their situation for their family, dad being at home more should not be an issue. It sure beats day care!

[60. Ashley said the following at 12:55 PM on Oct 8:]

60

"The verse quoted (verse 8) was clearly a written instruction for widows to provide for their family and not live selfishly, as is described in the verse before it."

Ricky, I would disagree with your interpretation of this verse. I don't think Paul is instructing widows to provide, but rather instructing the family of the widows to care for them.

Taking the conversation away from SAHDs, I think this instruction is one of great compassion and reason. How shameful it would be for a man or a woman to let a an elder relative depend on the church when he or she is able to help.

Concerning v. 8 Matthew Henry said, "If any men or women do not maintain their own poor relations who belong to them, they do in effect deny the faith.."

I understand Paul to be commanding individuals to care for their relations so that the church can care for those who are truly destitute. And even though this verse is in the context of Paul talking about widows, I think there is a principle to be applied to the immediate family. In which case you mentioned, men being "lazy" and not caring for their own.

[61. Nicole said the following at 1:06 PM on Oct 8:]

61

Mark Driscoll is awesome. As a Seattle native who attends his church, it is wonderful to hear the Bible proclaimed with such courage.

However, I'm not sure that I agree with Mark on this one. It seems that there are some situations where dads would be better primary caretakers than moms especially if the alternative for the kids is public school and/or daycare. Although I understand the scripture, I would say this is a matter of Christian liberty.

[62. Tami said the following at 1:27 PM on Oct 8:]

62

Thoughts --

* By all means, I agree that the man is the head of the home and, as such, should take primary responsibility for providing for his family *as that is defined for his family.*

* I agree with Brenna Kate Simonds -- the Driscolls' definition of "provision" seemed narrow to me. Perhaps in certain seasons, "provision" for a certain man does indeed involve looking after the kids (along with other contributions). *I* might not like it or agree with their particular setup -- but I'm not his wife!

* Making this a matter of *church discipline* does indeed seem harsh and (despite their statements to the contrary) legalistic. As stated above - how does one define "provision"? Is it a certain ratio of how much the husband works compared to the wife? Or how much time is spent at home? How do we decide whose "season of life" issue is biblical and whose isn't? The whole matter gets super-tangled in no time.

By all means, if the husband is an irresponsible loafer, his brothers in Christ (and maybe his pastor, depending on the relationship) need to get after him. However, if he has worked something out in his family, and it does not go against principles that are *clearly* outlined in the Bible, who are we to say that the Lord hasn't led him there, and he must be disciplined?

[63. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:53 PM on Oct 8:]

63

Bleh.

I'm in favor of men working and women staying home with the kids (because it makes biological sense in a "breeding" family) but something that EVERYONE who commented as well as Motte and Mr. Driscoll has COMPLETELY forgotten is the historical context that is in play here, as well.

Adam, the entire passage refers to the widows as she. Did you just blatantly ignore the gender switch in pronouns when it got to provision?

Anyway, in the era this was written, women were groomed for childbearing and the expectation was they'd be bearing children more often than not - how inconvenient if you are also trying to provide for your family =/

The MEN needed to actually WORK TO PROVIDE FINANCIALLY for their families because their wives were NOT ABLE TO while bearing and weaning children (weaning? what's that?)

Everyone seemed to completely forget that little bit.

So YES, the verse is talking about MONETARY PROVISION for families. Then, it was important for a widow's family to support her (because hes typically didn't need to be supported - unless he's ancient beyond belief). If her family (her sons and sons-in-law) didn't support her, then it was a matter of church discipline.

However, given the historical context, i sincerely think this verse is not supportive enough of this position and does not have anything to say about SAHDs - only lazy men AND women.

[64. Al said the following at 2:16 PM on Oct 8:]

64

Oof, I just noticed that the pronoun "his" is attached to the verse. If the male pronoun "his" is in the original manuscript it lessens the strength of my argument. However, in context, it still seems to speak about general responsibility of all members, and "provide" in the greek apparently as a connotation of "forsee" rather than the connotation of material provision that we associate with the word. It's also possible that the male indefinite pronoun is used by default in order to agree with the more general "anyone", so the verse might not exclude women. So I still don't see it as a weighty enough verse by itself for the position of male-as-material-provider.

This is when I wish I knew greek instead of google.

[65. Al said the following at 2:21 PM on Oct 8:]

65

Triple oops. Turns out my post was accepted and I didn't need to write up another. I just didn't see it. Now it just looks like I like to hear myself talk. Which is true.

[66. BDB said the following at 2:25 PM on Oct 8:]

66

Well, I'm only going to speak to economic history.

The farmer always needed a wife - and she had to work, work, work. She did not just entertain the kids and decorate the house. She - and the kids - had chores outside the house. Tht might mean milking the cows, growing the garden, cutting off the heads of chickens for dinner, collecting eggs. And frankly, if mom was a widow, she'd live with the family, and she'd have chores, too. In previous generations, wars had a lot more casualties than we've seen in Iraq, resulting in far more war widows. Make no mistake, women throughout history have worked.

The real question is - if you're not raising your children, who is?

[67. Lucie said the following at 2:27 PM on Oct 8:]

67

If "church discipline" was to be carried out in such a situation as Driscoll describes, I'm curious to know exactly how it would be done. And if the offending party - the SAHD - refused to comply, would he be "shunned," as in the Amish practice, or "disfellowshipped" as in my own church? ("Disfellowshipping" being basically the same thing as Amish shunning, with a different name.)

And if the offending SAHD ended up leaving the church in question because he was himself offended, no matter whether he was actually "providing" for his family in other ways, what would Driscoll have really accomplished?

[68. BDB said the following at 3:23 PM on Oct 8:]

68

Brenna (#44) noted the quote:

>>"If you cannot provide for your family, you're not a man."<<

Most men already know this. It leads to different things:

1) Some men decide they should not purue marriage until they are confident they'll be able to provide for a family - usually they get there about age 35.

2) I've known men who lost their jobs in some kind of reorganization, then divorced their wives (or ther wives divorced them) because their field was gone, and they couldn't cut it anymore. Seems like the church ought to think of something more practical than disciplining him for not being a man. Like a job referral board?

3) From an economic history perspective, I'm reminded of the men who jumped out of windows in the 1929 stock market crash. Windows on Wall Street don't open any more. But in the current economic climate, it seems likely that there will be significant economic dislocation. Does someone cease to be a man because he can no longer find work in construction or as a mortgage broker?

[69. Adam said the following at 3:25 PM on Oct 8:]

69

At the very least there is support for the wife bringing in income as well as the husband (Proverbs 31).

[70. Mark said the following at 3:26 PM on Oct 8:]

70

The idea of work and home life being completely separate is a recent (say last 150 years) notion. If anything, biblically, the man has more responsibility (manager, training and instruction in the Lord) at home than the wife. Being a wise and good manager, he needs to best decide who fills what needs best and act appropriately. If it is seen he is acting selfishly or sending his wife to work while he does nothing at home, discipline him. Again, these are issues of the heart that one must carefully judge before the church says unless you have cancer or no arms you cannot be a stay at home dad. Seriously, there are countless situations where our society's roles being switched would be appropriate and better.
I find it so sad that by Driscoll and his wife's admission his kids would be worse off if he was home more. If you aren't changing diapers, getting up in the night, letting your wife relax while you cook dinner and keep the kids busy, you are not a real man.
I stayed at home for two years while my wife built her business, and we actually took a pay cut and sacrificed so she could do this. In the end, with her full clientele, she can now work less and spend more time with the kids. If you are a man and not fully engaged in the ongoing, day to day details of your home, and not willing to step in and do the dirty work to love and support your wife, you should be disciplined.
When I went back to work, it was like a break. Every man should have the opportunity of stepping into his wife's shoes and see the actual selfless work involved in raising a family.
Being a SAHD is lonely and hard. Personal time is hard to come by and real fellowship is difficult enough without Christ's church condemning you for not "being a man".
The tragedy is that Driscoll is causing his people to see sin where God doesn't. This is more than a "men should work" issue. The real issue is a prominent sought after pastor is requiring of his people more than Christ requires. The "traditional" or "old-fashioned" way is actually the husband and wife being one, the wife submitting to her husband, and the husband dying for his wife. Rearing children, cleaning, cooking, car maintenance, mowing the lawn, ironing, laundry, budgeting, etc, is the primary responsibility of both, but the man's ultimate responsibility as a good manager.

[71. Scott said the following at 3:47 PM on Oct 8:]

71

Good discussion. One thing that bothers me in reading quite a few of these comments is that it contains the following logic:

Assumptions:
1. Wife has more earning potential than husband.
2. It is possible for the family to meet its basic needs with the wife working and the husband not working. (Note that the statement with husband and wife reversed need not be true, although in most cases it probably is.)

Conclusion: It is logically better that the wife should be working.

There needs to be more in this discussion than just "who earns more". The family dynamic needs to be considered- and sacrifices need to be made by both the wife and the husband regardless of what decision is made with respect to the primary breadwinner.

They need to consider not only their own needs, but the needs of the marital "unit" as a whole. It should not be something done without signifcant thought and prayer, since you're basically dicating a direction for the family, and the man should be the one ultimately making the decision on the dynamic. (and responsible for the consequences, the two sides of being the head, the man's role as described in Ephesians).

I do disagree with the "anti-SAHD" interpretation of the given verses for reasons stated by other commentors, although I personally am in favor of the traditional family.

[72. Leeandra said the following at 4:29 PM on Oct 8:]

72

Pre-industrialization, nearly ALL dads were "stay-at-home" dads. (Family farmers still are.)

This "Daddy goes out to work and brings home a paycheck while Mommy stays home and tends the children" idea is pretty recent--it only came about in the past three hundred years, and didn't become commonplace in America until the 20th century. In the past, BOTH parents worked both inside and outside the house on the family farm, and tending to children beyond infancy was something that was done by both parents while working.

Women may have done more of the indoor chores and less of the "heavy lifting" than the men, but that has more to do with basic biology (women were usually pregnant, nursing, or both, besides generally being of smaller build) than with any Biblical mandate that said washing dishes was women's work and plowing the fields was men's.

And, given the high rate of death in childbirth in the past, it was not at all uncommon for a man to have to take on the day-to-day nitty-gritty physical care of his young children. (The first Father's Day, BTW, was founded by a woman wishing to honor her father, who had been widowed as a young man and raised several children without help.)

It's probably true that more women than men are "naturally" good at caring for small children--but there is always the opposite situation. My grandfather could literally play with small children for hours without becoming bored, whereas my grandmother would be driven out of her skull within ten minutes. My grandfather couldn't balance a checkbook or remember to pay the light bill to save his life--my grandmother was a whiz at bookkeeping. They were both wonderful, loving people. Should they have divvied up things according to their gifts, or according to their gender?

[73. Novagirl in VA said the following at 4:48 PM on Oct 8:]

73

On the larger subject of church discipline, can anyone recommend a book on this? I come from a church background that basically doesn't really do discipline, and lately I seem to be running into it more and more. I am wondering how it can be done without being excessively overbearing or intrusive.

[74. Jo said the following at 5:05 PM on Oct 8:]

74

I agree with all those who've said the Timothy verse is being taken out of context and has nothing to do with SAHDs, although I also agree that in a majority of situations (but not all), it is more practical and better for a father to work.

Two further points:

1) When a preacher says "You're not going to like this and some of you are going to leave the church because I said this", it immediately annoys me. Don't put words in the mouths of your listeners before they even have a chance to respond positively. It's patronising and is hardly the best way to open them up to what you're about to say.

2) It's all very well for Driscoll to acknowledge that there are 'exceptions', but but then how are disabled men etc supposed to hear his message? If you tie someone's manhood too closely to specific actions (which not everyone can perform) rather than heart attitudes, you alienate huge numbers of men who can't fit into your 'real man' criteria. If xyz is what makes you a man, then what makes you a man if you can't do those things?

[75. Adam said the following at 7:14 PM on Oct 8:]

75

Christina,

The reason is very simple for the switch in translation. In Greek, there is no gender to the verb [something different with Hebrew]. The reason why translations translate this as "he" here is because the subject is the indefinite pronoun "anyone." However, you cannot create a singular that is inclusive to both genders in this construction in Greek in the singular when you translate to English.

Hence, this is an example of what is called a "generic masculine" in English. The masculine here is universal in its scope, that is, it is referring to both a female and a male who refuses to provide for their own. Both are condemned in this passage. However, if you are going to use this passage to say that a man must go out and work, then you are caught believing that a woman must also.

Also, let us take your logic, and apply it to other uses of the indefinite pronoun:

Matthew 12:29 Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.

Is Jesus here saying that a man cannot enter a strong man's house, and plunder his goods, unless he first binds him, but a woman can?

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Is Jesus here saying that only men who come after him must deny themselves?

1 Timothy 6:3-4 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,

Does that mean that only men who teach contrary to sound doctrine are conceited?

In fact, all languages have a use of the masculine in this fashion, including the New Testament. In fact, there are adjectives and participles in all of these counterexamples that are masculine that are very clearly referring to anyone, not just males.

In fact, this interpretation is supported by the context. Note the following section:

1 Timothy 5:4-6 but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. 5 Now she who is a widow indeed and who has been left alone, has fixed her hope on God and continues in entreaties and prayers night and day. 6 But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives.

Notice how we have a contrast here between a woman who provides for her own family, and engages in prayer night and day with the woman who gives herself to wanton pleasure. Hence, what Paul seems to be saying by this verse is that, not just widows must provide for their own, but all genders, that is, any person must do so.

My point is not to say that this passage refers to females alone, but that it is referring to both genders, given that it is put in the context of widows. If either gender does not provide for their own, they are worse then an unbeliever.

God Bless,
Adam

[76. Morgan said the following at 7:56 PM on Oct 8:]

76

He says in the beginning of the video "we did this in the last one." I went to the service he's referring to, and when he answered it then ("Can I be a SAHD") the first thing he said was "Not at Mars Hill Church." He recognizes that there are Jesus loving Bible believing Christians that disagree about issues like this. Mars Hill, however, believes that the Bible lays out gender roles that say the mother should be the stay at home parent.

[77. Chris H. said the following at 8:07 PM on Oct 8:]

77

In regards to a comment (#11) I made earlier, by telling a stay-at-home-dad to "man up" I am in no way insinuating that working at home is easy. My mother was a stay-at-home-single-mom for many years, a fact I praise God for, and I know first-hand that the home is no place for the lazy, "weak", or those afraid of tough work.

So that's not the issue. The issus is that Scripture instructs women-not just "at least one parent-" to "love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled." (Titus 2:4,5).

Men and women are different, and God has given them different priorities and responsibilities.

If I chose to be a stay-at-home-dad, I would probably be working extremely hard, all day, every day. I would still, however, need to be told to "man up"- not because I was being lazy, but because I wasn't acting like a man, biblically defined.

[78. .j said the following at 9:46 PM on Oct 8:]

78

Everyone (for the most part) seems really interested in the biblical context of the passage, but not the cultural or historical context. I'm a bit on the fence about this, but I do agree that the context of 1 Tim seems to be gender neutral. Still, this chrono-bias is the same thing that leads people like Rob Bell to suggest that Mary may have just been a "young woman" instead of a virgin.

What then, are we to say about the curse in Genesis? (I only seemed to see this mentioned one or two times in this discussion.) Men are to subdue the earth in order to eat, and women are cursed to have pain in childbirth and to desire their husband (while he's off toiling)?

[79. Shannon said the following at 6:20 AM on Oct 9:]

79

Teaching like Driscoll's is exactly why I've started turning away from churches who espouse these beliefs. I've not seen one single accounting made for husbands who are sick and can't work. I hate that my husband had to quit his job five years ago (he had already lost two others due to this same medical condition), but I am very glad it resulted in our daughter having a stay-at-home parent with her. His health has improved in the past few years and with our daughter in kindergarten he's been applying for jobs, but of course after a five-year absence that's not so easy. I watch how it eats him alive every day not to be able to help take care of us.

Driscoll, Piper, Mahaney, et al simply do not understand the damage they inflict on fragile, hopeless souls - moms like me who once had the dream of being stay-at-home parents and have watched that dream die, all the while believing God's church has no place for them because they don't fit into a traditional woman's role. I decided if the "church" wasn't going to let me lay down this burden of guilt and sadness I've been carrying for having to work, I'd just have to lay it down myself.

[80. obewan said the following at 9:59 AM on Oct 9:]

80

Gee, if he puts stay at home dads and working moms under church discipline, I wonder how he views their tithes? Does that mean he only takes tithe money from men? I mean, it would seem that if he kicks people out of his church for having a stay at home dad that he would lose their tithe money. I think many churches are afraid of taking on controversial positions if they impact the cash flow.

[81. florida_grl said the following at 10:10 AM on Oct 9:]

81

"Stay-at-home-wife" what exactly does that mean? Because the Proverbs 31 woman is not exactly the typical stay-at-home.

[82. .j said the following at 10:32 AM on Oct 9:]

82

@Shannon 79 -- Driscoll has actually covered that before in many of the videos I've watched. He's stated their goal is to go after the lazy guys who loaf around and let wives/girlfriends provide for them. Coming down on guys who obviously are not in a condition to work, or who have medical issues is not their purpose or their heart. If I can track down/remember a better instance of Driscoll discussing this then I'll post a link.

[83. IMO said the following at 12:21 PM on Oct 9:]

83

"I think many churches are afraid of taking on controversial positions if they impact the cash flow."

Oh Obewan, when did you go so cynical? ;-)

I"m just happy my church isn't afraid.

Fear God, not man.

[84. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:37 PM on Oct 9:]

84

#81 said
"Stay-at-home-wife" what exactly does that mean? Because the Proverbs 31 woman is not exactly the typical stay-at-home.

She's not exactly your typical modern working woman, either.

So where are you going to find the balance?

[85. Leeandra said the following at 3:47 PM on Oct 9:]

85

@Christina (in green): Consider that the "typical modern working woman" in the United States works in a low-paying pink-collar job with no or minimal fringe benefits and little chance for advancement, and she does so to supplement or provide in full her family's income.

(Check the U.S. Dept. of Commerce statistics if you don't believe me. Far, far more women are working as Wal-Mart cashiers, waitresses, day-care attendants, secretaries, and nurses' aides than are building high-powered careers.)

[86. Eric C said the following at 4:26 PM on Oct 9:]

86

I agree with Pastor Driscoll for the most part; however, it's somewhat ironic that he makes a living off the tithes of people. People in ministry deserve to be paid (it's in the Bible), but they lack an understanding of everyman economics sometimes.

[87. Leah said the following at 6:14 PM on Oct 9:]

87

Barb- your "reasoning" is based on popular culture and not what the bible teaches.

Shannon, I think you missed part of the original post. "Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll says that unless there are extreme circumstances that would prevent a man from providing for his family". I feel for your husband. Obviously I can't know exactly what it's like, but I know what the burden to provide is like upon my husband, and he's doing it pretty successfully for only a wife at the moment. It must be torment for a husband who can't work and has a wife and daughter to provide for.
But you have to look beyond your own feelings and what you THINK Driscoll is saying to what he's really saying. He took into consideration that some men simply physically can't work for some periods, perhaps all, of their life. He's simply saying that outside of those circumstances- if there's no reason that he can't work- then he should be the main provider.

Leeandra- some of the "gender roles" you suggest are SOCIALLY defined gender roles, not biblically defined. Balancing checkbooks? Paying bills? Where does the bible say that's man's work? Yes, the man should be earning the money, but when it comes to actually paying for bills and balancing checkbooks, where does the bible talk about that? No, it's society in the past who has given those standards. Nobody is suggesting it's biblically wrong for a woman to do those sorts of things. I know a family who is very down-the-line on the biblical standards for male and female; they have three sons and another on the way, mum stays at home, dad works (and is in ministry), but mum balances the books because she used to be an accountant by profession. Her husband readily admits he's hopeless when it comes to that type of thing.

BDB- nobody is suggesting that if a man CAN'T work, then he's not a man. Where does Motte suggest that? Where?

Come on people, start reading properly. The post concedes there are times when it's out of a man's control whether he works or not. The post isn't about that.

[88. Alexis said the following at 8:09 PM on Oct 9:]

88

My mother is an attorney by education; my father is a behavioral scientist and elementary education teacher by education. They did not want kids at first, but God changed their hearts. At church, they heard the story of their pastor adopting a little boy. Their hearts broke, and they adopted me. They have raised me to love the Lord, but they decided that my mom would work and my dad would stay at home with me. My parents are both very outgoing, but my dad prefers staying in our city while my mom loves traveling for her job. My dad home-schooled me and my sisters. He takes care of the finances, and my mom cooks for our family after work. She hangs out with us as a family at 6 pm (chose not to live far from work) and on the weekends. Our family is traditional in the fact that my father is the spiritual leader; my dad is not passive! My dad has final decisions. He just takes care of the domestic things around the house and things outside like yardwork/painting as well as running errands. He loves children and loves working around the house. It is what works for our family. I am in college right now, but I desire to stay at home when I am married. My mom is not a feminist! :) I just wanted to say that if at all possible, the mother should stay at home. But it is not necessarily bad if the dad stays at home. In fact, I can't imagine it any other way. I love my parents so much.

[89. Cicely said the following at 8:23 PM on Oct 9:]

89

Why do why assume women aren't expected to provide for their families? I think "anyone" means men and women.

Daughters are biblically obligated to honor their parents, and that includes financial support if necessary. I have no brothers, so that responsibility would fall on my sister and I.

And considering Mark Driscoll's tendency to use vulgar language, I hardly think stay-at-home fathers are the ones who need church discipline.

[90. Stacy said the following at 9:51 PM on Oct 9:]

90

I wonder if the statistics Mark uses take into account the differences of socio-economic roles playing out in families. Because while those in the middle and upper classes would have many different reasons for needing the mother to work and father to stay at home, anyone working with the lower socio-economic class can tell you those men do need a kick in the pants. But - here's the thing, a lot of those men, might not have the education, experience, example or ambition to get a decent job, I'm sure many factors play into this, so, why would a guy go flip burgers at McD's for $6.00 an hour, when his girlfriend is allowing him to live with her for free, mooch, etc etc. I do think Mark took the verse out of context as well, but something tells me the lazy stay at home dads he refers to would not be at a wealthy middle class church to hear his sermon to challenge them to step up anyway. But consider the population you get the statistics from, and tackle the problems there... like helping lift our neighbors out of the pit of poverty/hopelessness/despair and into a life of hope/meaning/purpose/opportunity in Christ... the church should be INTENSELY involved in helping these men pull their lives together, not kicking them to the curb in condemnation. The church elevating a gray issue of cultural differences (traditional roles of men and women in society) into something black and white... that bothers me.

[91. Stacy said the following at 11:15 PM on Oct 9:]

91

Hmmm should have watched the video before I wrote that otehr post... he doesn't talk about statistics so much, but yeah, he's still made something legalistic, black and white, that shouldn't be... some families it will work for the dad to stay at home, many families it will be the mother to stay at home, and while I do agree that families should cut back standards of living before using child care, he implies that all stay at home mothers are innately better than stay at home fathers... but there are certainly moms at home who, well, the child is behind when they enter kindergarden, let's leave it at that... and I do think still socio-economic factors play into this, because most upper and middle class men want to work. They are depressed when they are laid off, jobs go overseas, etc etc. The lower socio-economic class, the poverty stricken, those trapped in welfare mentalities... they need more church involvement and help... they tend to not want to work, or not want to work jobs beneath them... (so let's help teach them skills to get jobs they can work honestly and provide for their family with...) the passage is about caring for widows, though, and families should take care of their widows, I agree with that... and if the mother is gifted and skilled and makes more money, and her family includes not only her husband and children but added responsibility of caring for her mom... or both her parents when they are too old to care for themselves... if their family will survive much better financially with the mother working, it seems she should work... aren't finances behind the problems of many failed marriages anyway? I would say though, marry someone who agrees with your financial views, flesh these debates out while dating/courting, because if you are not on the same page, that's when the real problems will come (men resenting their wives working while they are at home with the kids)... plus it seems like circumstances for families change constantly. I don't know... if the father is all about being with his kids, helping prepare their minds for school and grow in the Lord, who is okay staying home for however long he feels led while his wife works... his providing for the family is just as great of value than if he was doing the traditional "bringing home the bacon..." PS I appreciate Adam and Scott's posts, pulling in historical contexts...

[92. Mark said the following at 12:15 AM on Oct 10:]

92

The curse is not what defined our marraige roles. God defined it before creation to show the Christ/church relationship. Also,the curse is not a command. It is not a "you must", but more telling what we are now, what we will do, whether we want to or not.
A biblical man is the spiritual leader in the home, a good manager of the home, and is the one responsible for the provision of the family. It is unfortunate that we live in a time where at least one parent needs to be seperated from the rest of the family for most of the day, but this is modern, and cultural, and not "traditional" nor biblical. I am bad at taking care of my kids, cooking, and cleaning at the same time, and my wife is good at it. This is not a call for me to pawn it off on her. It is a call for me grow and improve. Some men I know are better than their wives at juggling the stresses of home. They should "man up" and determine what duties each partner should have.
"Love your husband and children" and "working at home", has nothing to do with not making more money, or being in the home more than, the man. there are just too many scenarios where this cannot be the case, for every reason.

[93. mark said the following at 12:23 AM on Oct 10:]

93

When Driscoll draws a line like this, no matter how many times he denies it, it is legalism, plain and simple.

It seems everyone in this post who says Driscoll is wrong, in the end say, but I think the traditional way is best. I don't. I don't think the "traditional" way is best nor biblical. I am a complementarian, who believe men and women have different roles in the home and at church, but those roles have less to do with actions and more to do with attitudes and heart. some actions are required by Scripture, but where Scripture does not specify, wisdom is necessary.

[94. Loris said the following at 8:21 AM on Oct 10:]

94

On a personal note, my outgoing husband would be crazy pretty quickly if he had to work at/from/stay at home. On the other hand, I'd be perfectly happy to do chores and crafts all day.

[95. jared said the following at 10:36 AM on Oct 10:]

95

Getting a job as a man in this environment is frustrating, depressing, and sometimes impossible. We are not only competing with women who compliment the position even better than we do, but we are also in competition with your men who have had the opportunity to receive a more advanced education.

Men never used to have to compete against women for their jobs, but now those days are gone. As soon as women back out of corporate america and let men provide for their family then yes, i'll be on mark's side on this one.

I wonder if mark actually has ever had to find a job in corporate america? No, being a pastor, or a youth leader, or working at a fast food restaurant is not a qualification for working in corporate america. Maybe Mark had a corporate job once. Maybe he knows what men are up against. If he doesn't know what we're up against, then he should jut pipe down a bit.

By the way I own my own business, and have had jobs in corporate america. I know what it's like. Does Mark?

[96. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:36 PM on Oct 10:]

96

#85 Leeandra

Check the U.S. Dept. of Commerce statistics if you don't believe me. Far, far more women are working as Wal-Mart cashiers, waitresses, day-care attendants, secretaries, and nurses' aides than are building high-powered careers

That's a recent phenomena that actually has a lot of people rather surprised at the sudden shift.

I don't consider it "typical" as of yet, especially with the number of women on this blog with aspirations of successful career (defined the way my boss sees it).

It is nice that the winds are changing, but they aren't quite there yet.

Mark, #87
You said,
It is unfortunate that we live in a time where at least one parent needs to be seperated from the rest of the family for most of the day, but this is modern, and cultural, and not "traditional" nor biblical. I am bad at taking care of my kids, cooking, and cleaning at the same time, and my wife is good at it.

Maybe not BIBLICAL - but it is "traditional" and much more biological than cultural.

There's a REASON why men know more about hard labor (back breaking work), and being away from the home for hours. There's a REASON women's back-breaking work was TYPICALLY limited to picking, bundling, churning, and making of lye soap. Picking, bundling, churning, and lye soap doesn't put that little bundle in your tummy at risk of a fatal accident. Its also something your little ones can chase you and help you with as you continue doing it while carrying new baby in a sling at your breast.

9 months is a LONG time to be "laid up" from ploughing, harvesting, heavy, manual labor. Nothing can survive on that. Heck, a pregnant woman can't even PAINT. Can you imagine if we relied on WOMEN to do carpentry and masonry while taking off from work for 9 + months so they can successfully carry a healthy child (good for the economy and family), go through travail, and wean baby off mommy? That's about 1 solid year of being out of work...possibly more. No wonder we rely on men to bring in the bacon - THAT IS TRADITIONAL.

Nowadays, *culturally and modernly*, this is not such a big deal - the gender roles we have are TRADITIONAL based on human biology and the physical needs of mothers, fathers, and babies. That's why your father taught you how to mow the yard and fix a car. That's why your wife's mother taught her how to cook and clean. So she can be productive and beneficial while remaining close to home and you can take care of the manual labor when the wife is not physically capable of doing so.

The only definition God gave us for gender roles was biology and commands for husbands to lead and wives to submit.

Some women are capable of being bread-winners, if they are not going to be popping out children EVER.

Other women are perfectly capable of having and wanting children - and they should be encouraged to use their gifts and talents to help the family (financially as well) while still keeping their children close. Nothing wrong with getting the kids to help. And these days, women actually are intelligent and educated. I do somehow question their powers at creativity, though, to somehow think the only thing they can do to be financially productive and using their God-given "talents" is working outside the home...

[97. kaj said the following at 1:28 PM on Oct 11:]

97

re Comment #96:

Just because some activity is/was "traditionally" done by women doesn't mean it was necessarily safe for children to be around.

"Picking, bundling, churning, and lye soap doesn't put that little bundle in your tummy at risk of a fatal accident. It is also something your little ones can chase you and help you with as you continue doing it while carrying new baby in a sling at your breast"

Upon reviewing the chemical properties and safety precautions for lye (aka sodium hydroxide), I wouldn't consider lye a "safe" substance to expose children to, unborn or already-born. (Also read the "soap" article on Wikipedia for more about the hazards of soap-making.)

In addition to hazardous chemicals, soap-making usually involved an iron kettle over a smoky (and fume-laden) hot fire--not necessarily a "kid-safe" environment there!

[98. Leah said the following at 11:01 PM on Oct 14:]

98

jared- I don't know a lot about Driscoll's history, but I do know this much: Mars Hill has only been going for a few years. When he started it, Driscoll worked a full 40 hour week in a normal job (I don't know what that job was) PLUS a full week pastoring the church so that the church would not have to pay to support him.

Once the church got on its feet, they took on payment of him so he didn't need to hold down an additional job.

So while I don't claim to know all about Driscoll's job history, I would suggest that he probably does know a thing or two about working outside a church environment.

PS- Corporate America is not the only place you can get a job.

[99. Kellie said the following at 4:20 PM on Oct 15:]

99

Christina (in green) said: "Some women are capable of being bread-winners, if they are not going to be popping out children EVER."

Interestingly enough, my job as a nurse (a traditionally female profession) pays much more than my husband's job and provides better benefits.

[100. Julie said the following at 7:37 PM on Oct 15:]

100

Bob Hyatt, a pastor in Portland, OR, says it best: http://bobhyatt.typepad.com/bobblog/2008/10/driscoll-on-stay-at-home-dads.html

[1. Barb said the following at 4:51 PM on Oct 7:]

1

If the family is destitute and the father is sitting on the couch eating potato chips all day, by all means, condemn him.

But while I think stay-at-home dadhood is a less-than-ideal situation, I don't see it as a matter of church discipline.

My former college pastor is now a stay-at-home dad whose wife is in biomedical tech. They are amply provided for by her job, and he takes care of their two sons.

Should his church tell him to go get a job and his wife to start staying home?

[2. Jerry said the following at 4:55 PM on Oct 7:]

2

Kudos to the Driscolls for having the guts to say what the Bible does even though it's gotta be EXTREMELY unpopular, especially in their beloved Seattle.

[3. Kellie said the following at 5:07 PM on Oct 7:]

3

Might a SAHD be providing what his family needs? Isn't a SAHD better than two working parents? Or is it mom or nobody? I think Driscoll's interpretation of scripture is simply that...his interpretation.

[4. farmer Tom said the following at 5:09 PM on Oct 7:]

4

the father is sitting on the couch eating potato chips all day,

and what's wrong with that???

I hope he has the decency to wash them down with lots of soda? pop? soda pop? !!

After all one can not achieve couch potato status with out all the necessities.

[5. Charity said the following at 5:10 PM on Oct 7:]

5

I thought that, viewed in context of the surrounding verses, 1 Timothy 5:8 was referring to providing for the widows in one's own family? I do agree that mom at home is generally the best choice, but I do not see how that specific verse makes any case for a dad-as-sole-provider doctrine.

[6. Ricky said the following at 5:24 PM on Oct 7:]

6

Whenever someone quotes a Bible verse to support thier agenda, I check the context from which that verse originated to ensure that the verse really does support what they are arguing for.

This chapter has nothing to do with the role of husbands and fathers. It is a chapter addressing widows. The verse quoted (verse 8) was clearly a written instruction for widows to provide for thier family and not live selfishly, as is described in the verse before it.

Men need to be strong providers for thier family, but that provision does not need to be financial. It can be intellectual (by teaching children), emotional, spiritual (teaching children to follow Christ), and practical also. My father generally provided for me well financially, but while he was unemployed and my mom was working, he kept giving in other ways.

I watched the video and I believe that the frustration expressed is in regard to men who are just purely lazy. But it is a leap in logic to go from condemning a lazy person to saying that stay at home dads are sinning and need church discipline. There is simply nothing in the Bible (that I am aware of and I have read the Bible an endless number of times) that supports that viewpoint.

[7. DannieA said the following at 5:28 PM on Oct 7:]

7

Condemned in every situation? Absolutely not.

Every family dynamic is different and while 95% of families would be great on the mom staying home with the kids, there is that 5% who would do better if the roles were reversed.

Plus what are we saying when we say that "stay at home dads" don't provide for their family...I guess I perceive it as saying that if the roles were reversed that means that basically stay at home moms don't do anything...and we all know that this is not true of them.

I had a friend once who's dream was to be able to stay at home with his kids and cook for the family...whether or not that would happen for him, that was his dream...a lot of us thought that was great....he got laughed at for being gayish.

I'd rather lift up a male by encouraging his big heart for the family side of things than to scoff him and say he is gay....way to support people in Christ guys!

so yeah I DISAGREE wholeheartedly

[8. S said the following at 5:31 PM on Oct 7:]

8

Any indication of what the definition of "provide" is in the original text? The interpretation of this verse would, to me, hinge on that definition.

[9. Kellie said the following at 5:37 PM on Oct 7:]

9

Why does providing/protecting = bringing home a paycheck? Couldn't that merely be our western/modern day interpretation?

[10. Gina said the following at 5:49 PM on Oct 7:]

10

Church discipline? Good grief! I've never seen that verse taken so out of context. If the family is being provided for, there is no reason why the dad can't be the stay-at-home parent. It's different, and it's not what I would choose personally, but it's not unbiblical.

[11. Chris H. said the following at 5:57 PM on Oct 7:]

11

"Should his church tell him to go get a job and his wife to start staying home?"

Scripture is fairly clear that the husband's primary responsibility is provision, while his wife's primary responsibility is her children and home.

1 Tim. 5:8 has already been quoted, and the picture gets clearer when you put that alongside of Titus 2:5.

Titus 2:5 may not be commanding a woman to stay at home full time, but it does establish priorities, and it's pretty specific on whose priority the children/home/husband is.

If I ever was tempted to stay at home and let my wife go out to work each day, I hope my pastor would be man enough to tell me to man up.

[12. Rose said the following at 6:13 PM on Oct 7:]

12

It doesn't seem to me that the Driscoll's point of view is necessarily Biblical. The verse doesn't stipulate the means of provision. Perhaps the way the man provides for his family is by looking after the kids while his wife works. There are just so many exceptions to the rule: damaged(by disease, depression and disability) people who can't work, those unemployed through no fault of their own, missionaries who are wholly supported by donations, men studying to provide their family with a better life in the future, etc. I can also well imagine God putting a man in a situation where he is not able to provide in order to teach him dependence on Him(God).

I'd also like to know about the "anyone" and "he" mentioned in that verse...whether they relate specifically to men or they relate to everyone. That's how I would have previously interpreted the verse, that everyone(men and women) has a responsibility to provide for their family, including parents and extended family...rather than spending their money on selfish pleasures etc. The chapter is in the context of provision for widows and the emphasis is not so much on who earns the "provision" or how, but that those with the means to take care of their families do so, not leaving them as a burden to the church.

In my personal opinion, men who are not contributing to the needs of their family and are able to do so, should be held accountable. However, I don't think this necessarily means, biblically, that they must be the biggest direct financial contributers to the household.

[13. JB said the following at 6:17 PM on Oct 7:]

13

So, my question is, don't we need to make allowances for the fact that providing for one's family is a very different endeavor today than it was in the primarily agricultural economies of the ancient world? It's no longer the case that men are necessarily more economically productive than women, as would have been the case when Paul was writing his letters. Isn't there some room for recognizing that the world we are in (though not of) has dramatically changed in the intervening two millennia?

[14. Adam said the following at 6:46 PM on Oct 7:]

14

Motte,

Why is it that this text is in the context of women?

1 Timothy 5:4-10 but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. 5 Now she who is a widow indeed and who has been left alone, has fixed her hope on God and continues in entreaties and prayers night and day. 6 But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7 Prescribe these things as well, so that they may be above reproach. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 9 A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man, 10 having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints' feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work.

Why is it that the whole surrounding context is about widows, and yet, we somehow have Mark Driscoll saying that it refers to men? Yes, everyone in the family needs to contribute something. Women and men. Yes, both women and men need to work in the home. Hence, I would likewise condemn the behavior of anyone who sits on the couch all day and watches TV. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with someone who is going about the daily duties of the household, and working together with his wife to take care of the household.

God Bless,
Adam

[15. Rachel Ballisty said the following at 7:04 PM on Oct 7:]

15

I'm not sure how a man isn't providing for his family if he is a stay-at-home dad? We're not talking about a lazy bum here, we're talking about a guy who is dedicated to his family and has found that the best way to provide for his family's greatest possible well-being is by him taking an unpopular role.

If a man knows that his wife loves her job and the only way she can work is full-time, should he work full-time also and deprive the kids of their time and put them in day care? Or is he supposed to tell his wife that she can't work in her profession? If the wife loves her job and makes better money than the man but he still demands to be the only one working full-time because that is "biblical," isn't he actually denying his family better provision? It seems more like a power play rather than sound biblical guidance.

I know these are just a few of the options and I do think it's best to have mom home with the kids, sometimes the best fit really is mom at work with dad at home. I particularly do not believe that a stay-at-home dad should be cause for church discipline!

In my example, I plan on working full-time as a Nurse Practitioner, taking nearly a year off for each child I have. My fiance plans on working from home almost full-time as a consultant while I take time off from my practice and then when I return to work he'll cut back the jobs he takes considerably to be a mostly stay-at-home dad. Obviously this is a unique situation and it's amazing that it is flexible enough to actually work but I don't see any biblical problem with it because my fiance knows that I absolutely love my profession. He is much happier to provide for me by allowing me to continue in it at very little cost to our children since they will still have a full-time parent. I just don't see how this is considered him not providing for me and our children!

[16. Al said the following at 7:17 PM on Oct 7:]

16

I love Mark Driscoll, his preaching and teaching, and for the most part agree that males should be the wage earners. I also love how Mark and Grace are an example to believers and to those in their church of the beauty of marriage. However, I do have to say that I disagree with Grace Driscoll's use of (and I suppose Motte's promotion of) the verse in 1 Timothy here in this context.

The verse seems to be addressing laziness and irresponsibility in believers and the refusal to provide for the family's needs. While it's possible that a man is choosing to stay at home out of sheer laziness, in which case the verse may apply, this might not always be the case. Trading a traditional job for the task of raising children isn't necessarily choosing to do less work, unless we're ready to proclaim that child-raising mothers really don't work and provide as much as wage-earning fathers do.

Furthermore, the verse applies to "anyone", and not just men, and therefore I'm lead to think the provision described may include those duties to family and home that are traditionally associated with women, especially as the verse lies smack dab in the middle of a passage dealing with worthy widows who are faithful to their families, and exhorting their children, then explicitly their female relatives, to take care of them. In our vernacular, we tend to associate "provide for" as only referring to material and monetary provision, but in context, I think it's reasonable to conclude the provision mentioned includes the nurturing and often backbreaking duties needed at home.

So looking at the scriptures in context, I'm lead to conclude that a man doing work traditionally assigned to women is still very much doing the work that provides for his familiy. Now, for various reasions, it's probably not a good idea for most-- perhaps all-- men to take on the duties of raising the family at home alone, but I believe it is somewhat poor use of scripture to imply that his doing so renders him "worse than an unbeliever".

I do think as Christians who value the Word and its careful use, we need to use the right verses to support the right doctrines and avoid the mistake of using the wrong verses to support even the right theology. Else, we allow our positions (even if they are correct) to shade particular words of scripture instead of allowing them to speak for itself.

[17. Elizabeth said the following at 7:21 PM on Oct 7:]

17

It seems like a bit of stretch to say that being a stay-at-home dad is unbiblical. Stay-at-home dads are not lazy any more than stay-at-home moms are. They can provide for their families in many ways, such as fixing meals for the kids, home improvements, tending the garden. I really don't understand why a pastor would make this a church platform issue, when it could be divisive and alienate people otherwise seeking to grow in Jesus. In fact, in an agricultural community both mom and dad "stay at home" working on the farm all day. So is this actually a dialogue about family roles, or is just about culture?

Apologies in advance if this comment is short-sighted, as I am not able to watch the video.

[18. Courtney said the following at 7:35 PM on Oct 7:]

18

Wow. I'm speechless. I am very conservative and always have been, but I don't believe that the church has any business discipling a stay-at-home dad. The family is a unit, whose head is God not the church. If the man is living a life of adultery or pornography or something of that nature, then yes there is a call for church discipline. But, in the case of where the family has decided that the woman has more of an opportunity to make more money and it is important for that family to have the child not in daycare or whatever, than by all means the dad can stay at home. In that case, he is taking care of his family and he is providing, just not in the traditional sense. I would leave that church and never walk through the doors again if I had been in that service. That is the case of the church overstepping its bounds drastically.

Just a side note, generally speaking I agree with Focus on the Family and Boundless.

[19. Lindsay said the following at 7:56 PM on Oct 7:]

19

Sometimes it makes more sense for the man to stay at home. His work may have a more lenient time off schedule, or the wife may earn more. If the man earns less money, there is more money for the family if he stays home.

It blows my mind that you see it as not being faithful for a man to be the one who stays home. Both parents should be close enough with their children to take care of the home effectively. What is wrong with a woman being the one who earns a higher salary? Perhaps she is more educated or works in an industry that pays more.

I believe if women and men truly are ONE, as long as one of them is providing, there is no reason the male can't stay at home. Who works and who stays is not important.

[20. Walter Stiffler said the following at 8:03 PM on Oct 7:]

20

So what do I do while I am in seminary full time and my wife is providing for my family? Is that wrong?

[21. Julia K. said the following at 8:07 PM on Oct 7:]

21

"If I ever was tempted to stay at home and let my wife go to work each day, I hope my pastor would be man enough to tell me to man up."

What exactly do you mean by this?

While I agree that there is a lot to be said for men going to work and women staying at home, it is important to realize that what women do at home every day IS work. In fact, it is work that demands great gifts to be well done. You seem to speak scornfully of staying home, as if it is the domain of the lazy, or the weak.

I for one, am not motivated to "stay home" if the work I do there is not appreciated by the Christian men and community I am surrounded by.

[22. Steve said the following at 8:18 PM on Oct 7:]

22

Really we are talking about worldviews here. If we adhere to Scripture (and I think we should) we are talking about returning to a different way of life that does not fit with today's fast-paced culture. Far more is at stake than stay at home moms or dads. This is something the Church at large is going to have to hash-out. The alternative is "situational ethics." In this situation it may be o.k., in that situation, though, it is condemnable. We should seek to avoid situational ethics and set up worldviews that are as compatible with Scripture as possible. That will not be easy or popular.

[23. Justin said the following at 8:26 PM on Oct 7:]

23

Another pastor taking a verse out of context and making his own opinion to be The Body's doctrine.

[24. Katie said the following at 8:28 PM on Oct 7:]

24

I know a mom that is a MD. She works while her husband stays home. She has a strong desire for children so she gets pregnant, gives birth and then goes back to work. Her husband resents her so much. They have four kids. It is so sad!

[25. Texas Craig said the following at 8:34 PM on Oct 7:]

25

Wow! The basis of church discipline? Really? On what scriptural basis? The 1 Timothy 5:8 passage comes right in the middle of instructions about the church caring for widows. It is clearly and obviously directed to a situation where believers are not taking care of their family AND the CHURCH IS BEING REQUIRED TO PICK UP THE SLACK. Read the passages right before and right after it. So, sure, if a churchmember is not working and that is causing the church to have to care for that person's family, then it needs to be addressed. But, if the wife is voluntarily providing for the family and the church or other believers are not having to do so, then 1 Timothy 5:8 does not appear relevant.

As for church discipline, I would suggest that Mark and his church focus on the things scripture tells us are to be disciplined. 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 tells us to deal with the following categories of people in the body of Christ: "sexually immoral, greedy, idolators, slanderers, drunkards, swindlers." When Mark is disciplining people who are not giving generously to the kingdom (i.e., being greedy), or who party too much on the weekend (including college students who may be getting drunk frequently), then maybe he can consider discipline for other areas that are not clearly addressed in scripture.

Having said that, let me say that I agree that it is generally best for a man to be the breadwinner in the family. But I do not know that I can say that is an absolute, inviolate scriptural command. If so, I need more than 1 Timothy 5:8 or Titus 2:5 to conclude that.

[26. Claire said the following at 8:40 PM on Oct 7:]

26

While I agree that a man should provide for his family (and not be a couch potato eating chips all day while the wife is working) I find it hard to say that he's not providing for his family by taking care of his children. This is the only argument/logic used so far, and it falls short. Taking care of children during the day is providing for the family, just a different role, which seems to be the problem the pastor has with the situation. I guess what I'm saying is that the wife working inside or outside the home are both provisional duties, as they would be with the husband, but rather than saying working outside the home (wife) and inside the home (husband) isn't providing, the role issue is the concern. Am I making sense?

[27. Lynne said the following at 8:43 PM on Oct 7:]

27

To Barb:
"Should his church tell him to go get a job and his wife to start staying home?"
Based on the video, I believe Marc Driscoll would say yes.

While it is clear the Driscolls are speaking in love and out of a genuine desire to shepherd their families as they believe scripture indicates, their interpretation is not the default for those who hold scripture to be infallible and inerrant. This interpretation is also completely consistent with their previous sermons on gender roles/stay at home moms, etc.

That said, I don't buy it. I'm not going to argue scripture here, as I've found that generally doesn't get me anywhere. However, based on my work with families, couples, and engaged couples, I can say this:
Most families don't struggle with dad being home "too much," rather they struggle with dad being away too much (perhaps working multiple jobs if they don't believe the woman should), or too uninvolved in their kids lives, or seeing the child-raising as "woman's work" in a perjorative sense. Yet, I seldom, if ever see church discipline extended there.

Just my thoughts...let the disagreement begin : )

[28. Krystal said the following at 8:49 PM on Oct 7:]

28

I would love to be a stay at home mom someday and am not married so admittedly that may skew my view on this slightly. However, I think this idea is simply horrendous. Admittedly, I would rather have someone staying home than no one; but I think it should be about picking the best, God honoring choice, not the lesser of two evils. I hope that I can find a God loving man who understands it is his responsibility, not his choice, but his responsibility to provide for his family. Not because I think he should, but because God says he should. I hope I can find a man who will have planned ahead for his family and chooses a career where he can do so. I would love to be a supportive wife and mother who cares for my children, husband, and household. I think this idea is so abhorrent to me simply because I think it has shown how far things have gone. Not only do so many men plan so poorly that the women are the ones making enough money to support the family, but men are taking on what is supposed to be primarily a woman’s role. I want to use the gifts God’s graced me with to serve as he intended me and I want to encourage the men and women around me to do the same. I guess I have what are often seen as “old fashioned” ideas, but I really think that is how God intended it.

[29. Mike said the following at 8:52 PM on Oct 7:]

29

I do not see how that Timothy 5:8 passage relates to stay at home dads. It seems to me to be a call to both fathers and mothers to put their family before themselves. That said, the reason mothers typically stay at home is that is the most effective arrangement for rearing children. I could envision exceptions, however. For example, maybe dad is a gifted teacher and wants to homeschool the children. Providing for the family entails a lot more than just earning money.

[30. kaj said the following at 8:55 PM on Oct 7:]

30

I watched the video, as suggested, to get the full context, and my conclusion is that Driscoll's use of 1 Timothy 5:8 was taken out of context.

From what I read, the context of the verse is about caring for Christian widows, not about the so-called "proper" roles for married couples.

1 Timothy 5 says relatives are to aid widows first, then the church, only when no relatives are available (verses 5,9 and 16). Thus the church is not unduly distracted from "the Word of God" (see Acts 6:1-4).

Strong's Greek translation, (courtesy of Blue Letter Bible), uses the terms idios [#2398] (not to be confused with the word "idiot!") and oikeios [#3609] is translated as "one's own" and "one's own house." Both Greek words appear to be gender-neutral. (Any seasoned Biblical Greek students out there, feel free to clarify or set me straight on this).

I read into this passage the principle that both husband and wife should "provide" for their families. "Provision" is not limited to earning wages in order to put food on the proverbial table. Sometimes "providing" for a household could also mean spending "quality time" with family members, giving respite so whomever cared for the kids all day can rest, making sure bills are paid, educating and training children, offering a shoulder to cry on, or helping with various repairs.

I agree with Barb's assessment in Comment #1. With the recent economic uncertainties, there is no guarantee the husband will be able to find another job soon after he loses one (would Driscoll consider that an "extreme emergency?). My father went through bouts of unemployment, and he cared for us kids while mother worked.

Perhaps a better application of this Scripture in regards to church discipline is to discipline those who leave their aged parents in a nursing home, instead of the few stay-at-home dads who do provide genuine care for children (as opposed to "sitting on the couch eating potato chips all day") while the mother works.

[31. Gina said the following at 9:01 PM on Oct 7:]

31

Chris H., are you saying that a stay-at-home dad isn't doing a tough job? I'd be very careful with that "man up" talk. You make it sound as if being a stay-at-home parent is easy, and there's an awful lot of parents -- moms AND dads -- who won't like that.

[32. Lauren said the following at 9:16 PM on Oct 7:]

32

I'm not sure what I think about this - I really want to be a stay at home mom so it's not something I've thought a lot about. My initial reaction, though, is "Why can't providing for his household mean staying home and supporting his children and wife in a hands-on way? Why does it have to mean providing a paycheck every two weeks?"

[33. brx said the following at 9:52 PM on Oct 7:]

33

Let's be careful not to drop the qualifications Driscoll is clearly stating (and repeating):

+ provide for the "NEEDS" of his family. - not wants, and needs can look different for different families/spouses. Too often, we discount people's uniqueness and think 'everyone should be like me.'

+ "we're not legalistic here." - Driscoll seems to recognize there are many different situations and marriage is a covenant partnership, not a contract.

+ "statistically" - Driscoll seems to recognize there are plenty of healthy situations that may not look like the 70% norm.

I think a better way for Driscoll to say it would be to simply point out that a man should be willing to humble himself and put in serious effort to meet the important needs of his family. A man should not let his family's needs go unmet for his own pleasure or refuse to work because he hasn't found his ideal job in the field he would prefer. The way Driscoll did say it, I think there's a danger of encouraging men to spend too much time trying to make mere money. Many a marriage has broken up because the husband became convinced that he needed to work more (too much) feeling that he's not providing enough money.

Grace, peace, humility & balance

[34. brx said the following at 10:04 PM on Oct 7:]

34

While I agree with Driscoll's comment regarding a husband's lack of willingness to work being a church discipline issue,

I think the church has an equal responsibility to provide healthy encouragement and career mentoring to men - helping them to become succesful, upstanding members in the business community. I'm not advocating another church program, but suggesting this guidance should be a natural part of Christian discipleship.

Grace, peace, humility & balance

[35. Rachael said the following at 10:05 PM on Oct 7:]

35

"1 Timothy 5:8, "But 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."

->I am not attracted to verses like this. Even though in my head I believe faith is not through works and that is through grace, I want to better understand the role of works/sanctification and I wish I could understand how work-ish looking verses fit into the big picture.

Other troubling verses:

"For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (Matthew 6:14-15)."

-->Forgiving others seems like a work to me, and perhaps an unforgiving spirit could be at the root of things when it isn't always clear that a lack of forgiveness might be the issue or one of the issues at the bottom of another sin(s).

I suppose the above points are a huge digression from the topic of stay-at-home dads. I feel like in Christianity salvation can be considered in different ways. While the key ideas might be considered important by all/many Christians, I wonder if the presentation of salvation can have different emphases and points that are brought up or neglected. I know this post isn't focusing on salvation, but I do want to think about salvation, sanctification, and so-called 'easy-believism', repentance, and forgiveness more. Maybe over time I'll consider and look into those issues.

Book idea for someone: look through the Bible and find instances of conversion and ways salvation is explained. Write those down and put them in a book...

Maybe one day...

[36. Becky said the following at 10:43 PM on Oct 7:]

36

Actually the "his" in 1 TIm. 5:8 is a gender neutral "his". There was no implied he/she, husband/wife, man/women in the original. Not to mention the passage itself is about taking care of each other not about roles.
As for Titus 2:5 it says a women should take care of, nothing about priority, and one could ague that providing the money to fed, cloth, and house your family is taking care of your family,

[37. bean said the following at 11:00 PM on Oct 7:]

37

I think that a dad can stay at home while still providing for his family. I'm thinking of a couple who are close family friends, the wife is a very high ranking, highly paid businesswoman. The husband has worked at various professions, such as landscaping and plowing, but for large periods of time was responsible for most of the "home" roles. While he spent time at home, he turned a small, mediocre backyard into a beautiful series of gardens, with ponds, and shelters made of climbing vines. He's constantly improving the house, inside and out. He was able to cook dinner before his wife got home, and do general home related tasks, so their house always felt like a welcoming, calm haven when you walked in. There is never a feeling of chaos or disorganization. Most importantly, he still maintains his position as spiritual leader in the family, and is an excellent husband and father, with firm leadership but also a lot of tenderness towards his family. I feel like, although his wife may be the primary earner, HE is still the source of provision because of the way he defines the tone of the family's day to day life with his skills and hard work.

I think more things need to be considered than just money when you talk about providing. By that logic, an immensely wealthy husband who doesn't need to work, and watches tv all day would be a better provider than a hard working man with a meager paycheck. And I think that men who work but do not invest their time and emotions in their family can hardly be providing what is really needed.

So, with those thoughts in mind, I would say that perhaps a better definition of providing would be "meeting the needs of the family" as opposed to merely "financing the family."

[38. Gordon said the following at 11:19 PM on Oct 7:]

38

I think with a discussion like this, we need to keep in mind the original historical-cultural context of which the quoted Biblical books were written.

In addition we need to not take verses out of context...

As for my opinion, I guess I agree with Barb. Or at the very least, I see the validity of the argument.

I feel like if a family is loving/respecting each other, and loving/obeying God, then the Spirit will guide and direct.

[39. Sarah said the following at 11:26 PM on Oct 7:]

39

I agree with Barb (#1), and I find it absurd to say that this would be a matter of church discipline.

I feel like there is more to these verses than meets the eye. Don't sell the Bible too short...

[40. Bertha said the following at 1:03 AM on Oct 8:]

40

I would understand from Driscoll's comments that he would possibly be willing to kick a man out of the church for taking care of his children. There seems to be something wrong with that. A stay at home dad may be unconventional, but it's not unbiblical.

[41. obewan said the following at 6:12 AM on Oct 8:]

41

Gee. If a woman were running for a high political office that if won would turn her husband into a stay at home dad, I don't think the same "conservatives" would be so critical if she was with "their" party.

[42. Stephanie said the following at 6:52 AM on Oct 8:]

42

Is it not possible that a man may be providing for his family by being willing to stay at home while his wife works? By taking care of the children while his wife works, a man is insuring that his family is provided for.

Also, I think it's important here, as always, to read the surrounding verses. 1 Timothy 5:8 does not fall in a passage talking about the roles of husbands and wives; it falls in a passage about the treatment of widows. Earlier in the passage, it talks about children and grandchildren caring for their widowed grandparent with no reference to whether the children and grandchildren are male or female. Caring for family members is a responsibility placed on all descendents.

[43. NAB said the following at 6:57 AM on Oct 8:]

43

Uh, this is assuming a pretty narrow definition of the word "provision". Any Greek scholars want to weigh in on it?

[44. cn said the following at 7:17 AM on Oct 8:]

44

what if a man is staying at home because... lets say... his wife holds a political office?

[45. Ben said the following at 7:40 AM on Oct 8:]

45

While I certainly agree that the principle is Scriptural, I wonder whether there might be Biblically-acceptable exceptions made even without "extreme circumstances" (I am assuming this refers to incapacitating illness or injury or the like.) For instance, I know a devout Christian family in which the husband is 15 years older than the wife. He had a long and productive career as a PhD chemist, and she left her work as a schoolteacher to raise their children. However, when the kids (whom he fathered relatively late in life) were in their elementary-school years, his job was eliminated by the company only a couple of years before he was due to retire anyway. At that point, a school was opening nearby, and the wife applied and was offered a position teaching inner-city middle-schoolers, which she considers to be a work of ministry. The husband, being of retirement age anyway (and, for that reason, having poor prospects for re-employment), has since stayed home taking care of the kids and the house. I have witnessed this couple being accused of living in sin for this very reason, and I personally wonder whether such an application of Paul's (unquestionably valid) instructions may smack of legalism (especially since this man, now in his eighth decade, did provide for his family through a long career) and do more to create division in the body of Christ than to strengthen it. Which is not at all to impugn Rev. Driscoll or his praiseworthy stand: I mention this only to draw attention to the question of whether or not the issue permits nuance.

[46. Brantley said the following at 7:42 AM on Oct 8:]

46

While I agree man has been given the task of toil and work in Genesis, the passage quoted seems to be taken out of context. That means giving of what you have to take care of your family and not only looking out for number one if I remember correctly. Didn't Jesus quote the same verse in Matthew and give an explanation? That was giving to the temple so they didn't have to give to the inlaws.

Providing for the family can mean swallowing pride when a wife's skills are more marketable then the husbands (might be more common in our current economy - what if wife has PhD & husband has a BA?) therefore providing the family a better lifestyle by allowing her to work. Granted that case is far and few between and most would be dads who refuse to take a perceived "lesser" job then they are worth. In that case, the husband is putting his pride and interest above his families and therefore should be subject to church discipline.

I'm not set on this opinion however in my limited reading, I've not seen evidence supporting "man = money maker or he is sinning".

[47. Angelin said the following at 7:43 AM on Oct 8:]

47

If the woman has a career that brings in significantly more than the man, it doesn't seem to make sense that she should stay home - I do think it's beneficial for children at times to have one adult stay home...but doesn't it make more sense for it to be the one who would be making less (especially when the disparity is large)? It's a smaller opportunity cost.

[48. Nick said the following at 8:04 AM on Oct 8:]

48

wow :)
Thank you guys for not being afraid of posing unpopular questions either!
Encouraging to see the Bible being held as the standard while also understanding there can be exceptions.

[49. Brenna Kate Simonds said the following at 8:21 AM on Oct 8:]

49

He & his wife have some interesting thoughts on this topic. And I actually agree with a lot of what they said - to a point.

Some quotes that bothered me:
"If you cannot provide for your family, you're not a man."
"This would actually be, at Mars Hill Church, if there were not extreme, extenuating circumstances, a case for church discipline."
"If they want to safeguard their home from divorce, they need to organize their home like that." (about semi-traditional gender roles)

My first concern is whether or not they are considering the entirety of 1 Timothy 5 when drawing such a hard line. The chapter is actually about caring and providing for widows. Later in the chapter, Paul also commands that women take care of the widows in their families.

I'm just not sure I see a precedent set in Scripture, especially in 1 Timothy 5:8, that says spouses can't make an intentional decision to have the wife work outside the home and the man be the primary caretaker. I'm not saying it's ideal, but I can think of many situations where a couple may choose to do that. While I do think there is timeless truth in 1 Timothy 5:8, Paul seems to be addressing people who refused to care for their families, rather than people who are providing for their families in a non-traditional way. It seems to me that the Driscolls have a very narrow view of what provision looks like.

[50. Jacob Arminius said the following at 8:34 AM on Oct 8:]

50

How do we know he is talking to husbands, since it says "anyone".

[51. Liz said the following at 9:34 AM on Oct 8:]

51

I definitely respect the Driscolls for sharing their belief and opinion without apology. I think too often, people sugarcoat opinions that they think will be unpopular. That said, in today's rapidly tanking economy, the traditional man-breadwinner/woman-homemaker family is quickly becoming very difficult for most families to attain.

I also don't think it is my job to judge the structure of other people's families when it comes to who takes care of the kids and who brings home the money. The way I see it, both parents "provide" for their families: Love, nurturing, guidance, discipline and yes, financial stability, are all just different types of currency. I deeply respect the man who realizes, for his family's sake, that being a stay-at-home dad might make more sense for the time being.

The concept of "church discipline" is pretty foreign to me--I'm Episcopalian, a decidedly not-Evangelical denomination, so it's doubtful that anyone in church leadership would ever comment on a "non-traditional" stay-at-home-dad family. And I like it that way.

[52. Dan Gill said the following at 9:38 AM on Oct 8:]

52

Let's see. The passage in 1 Timothy is about relatives of widows caring for them. So, is this not written to women as well as to men? Are we really that hung up on the pronoun "he"? Likewise, the Titus 2 passage isn't about work. It's about being busy at home instead of being a busybody.

This teaching smells of legalism. I've had a bit of experience with that, and it's a killer.

The whole Dad-at-work, Mom-at-home idea is a product of the industrial revolution. In an agrarian society Mom and Dad worked in or near home. If you look at child-rearing books from the U.S. Colonial period, you'll see that they are written to fathers, not mothers.

I think that mothers are better equipped by God to care for small children than are fathers. But fathers are just as important, especially as the children age.

[53. Peter said the following at 10:13 AM on Oct 8:]

53

I have to disagree, and not in a "yeah . . . but" kind of way; I completely disagree.
Let's say a young women who recently graduated from med school falls in love with a male orderly at the hospital where she gets her first job. They get married and decide to start a family. After their first child is born and her maternity leave has ended, a decision needs to be made. After reading 1 Tim 5:8 the young man asks himself 'How would I best be providing for my household, by returning to work and my modest pay, or by allowing my wife to return to her substantial doctor's salary?'
I think the answer is obvious.
And as for the passage in Titus, I suggest you re-read Titus 2:1-7. The gist of it is that older women should act as examples for younger women just as older men for younger men. Claiming that it demands all women always stay homemakers loses sight of message this passage conveys.

[54. EKB said the following at 10:24 AM on Oct 8:]

54

Let me preface this by saying that I am very conservative and I think stay at home moms are awesome. I think it is going way too far, however, to claim that stay at home dads are a "matter of church discipline" from one Bible verse. If a father can better provide for his family by staying at home with the children, I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

I know several devout Christian families who have this arrangement. For example, in one the mom is a physician, and has a much greater earning potential than her husband, who stays home with their school-age children. We know that fathers are extremely important to children's developments, and this dad gets to be very involved in the kids' lives. Meanwhile, the mom is providing for the family financially and ministering to her patients. I don't see what's un-Biblical about this situation. The children's physical, spiritual, and emotional needs are being met, and the parents are happy. I think what's most important is that both parents are involved in the kids' lives, not which parent brings home the paycheck.

[55. J. Tucker said the following at 11:14 AM on Oct 8:]

55

Thank you for the provocative post, Motte.

Long story short, I disagree with the Driscolls (shocker). I believe that this is a classic example of inventing sin where there is none to conform people to pre-conceived notions of how society should be.

I don't have time to write the response I wanted to write, because there are too many things that should be said about the Discoll's viewpoint. However, I will say that these verses are not about stay-at-home dads (hereinafter "SAHD"). These verses are about deadbeat dads, layabouts, and lazy couch potatoes. By suggesting that a SAHD is condemned by these verses, the Driscolls implicitly suggest that housework and raising children are somehow less valuable and less difficult compared to work outside the home. This is not true, and it is demeaning to housewives.

By all means, condemn the lazy. But do not condemn the hardworking man that, for whatever reason, takes care of the home and raises children.

[56. Saidah said the following at 11:24 AM on Oct 8:]

56

Amen! Frankly, I can't wait to be at home with our kids. With all the nonsense going on in schools these days, we plan on homeschooling and frankly, I'm glad I'M going to be the one doing it and not my husband. He's brilliant of course, but I think our kids might not make it past elementary school alive if I left them with him every day! It doesn't even occur to the man to eat food other than hot dogs... if he eats! They would surely die.... hahahaha.
I'm very glad he works to provide for his family and I'm ecstatic that I get to do dishes, make dinner, and write up lesson plans! It would be terribly strange if he didn't work. Men without jobs have a tendency of making a nuisance of themselves if you know what I mean.... = )

[57. Mark said the following at 11:52 AM on Oct 8:]

57

As much of a defender of traditional family and gender roles as I am, I find this one a bit tought to take. It's one matter, as Barb mentioned above, if the guy won't work. But what if the woman can earn a higher salary and put the family in a better situation to pay off a mortgage and student loans and save for their retirement and children's college education?

Also if the children are still nursing or school-age makes a big difference. Do children benefit from having one parent at home all the time, or just the wife and mother at home?

One more question: in the reference to 1 Tim 5:8, what type of pronoun is "his" translated from? Many modern translations, up until the last few years, always used masculine pronouns when it's generally accepted that the writer was referring to both men and women.

Just some food for though.

Peace.

[58. Mark Williams said the following at 12:16 PM on Oct 8:]

58

Okay, I think this is one of the worst reasons for church discipline I have ever heard of. It hurts me to think about any family being disciplined for this. The implication of most is in these situations the father is lazy, the mother is a feminist, or both. Unfortunately, if provision is being supplied and the church is not responsible for the care-taking of the family, the man is off the hook. What I mean is that in the context of Timothy Paul is talking about taking care of widows, but not to take care of them if a relative (man) is able, and if he refuses to take care of them he is worse than an unbeliever. This really has no implication for men staying home, working for the family: providing food, cooking, cleaning, and general care-taking. If there is an able bodied man in the home, and the elders of that man are not taken care of, he should be disciplined.
If "busy at home" means the woman should be home always, how much more should the "manager of the home" have his priorities and presence at home!?

Shame on the Driscoll's for placing undue burden on members of their congregation. He has changed the meaning of the bible to fit into what he thinks is right. He instead should not take verses out of context and ask all those disciplined in his church for this for their forgiveness.

[59. Nobody imparticular said the following at 12:31 PM on Oct 8:]

59

I graduated 2 years ago with a doctoral degree (and a significant student debt load). My husband is a pastor by training and has nowhere near the earning potential that I do. When we have kids, I will need to continue working at least part time to handle my financial obligations (much as I would like to stay at home). Is it a sin for my husband to work part time and stay at home more than me? I think if both parents are committed to doing what is best in their situation for their family, dad being at home more should not be an issue. It sure beats day care!

[60. Ashley said the following at 12:55 PM on Oct 8:]

60

"The verse quoted (verse 8) was clearly a written instruction for widows to provide for their family and not live selfishly, as is described in the verse before it."

Ricky, I would disagree with your interpretation of this verse. I don't think Paul is instructing widows to provide, but rather instructing the family of the widows to care for them.

Taking the conversation away from SAHDs, I think this instruction is one of great compassion and reason. How shameful it would be for a man or a woman to let a an elder relative depend on the church when he or she is able to help.

Concerning v. 8 Matthew Henry said, "If any men or women do not maintain their own poor relations who belong to them, they do in effect deny the faith.."

I understand Paul to be commanding individuals to care for their relations so that the church can care for those who are truly destitute. And even though this verse is in the context of Paul talking about widows, I think there is a principle to be applied to the immediate family. In which case you mentioned, men being "lazy" and not caring for their own.

[61. Nicole said the following at 1:06 PM on Oct 8:]

61

Mark Driscoll is awesome. As a Seattle native who attends his church, it is wonderful to hear the Bible proclaimed with such courage.

However, I'm not sure that I agree with Mark on this one. It seems that there are some situations where dads would be better primary caretakers than moms especially if the alternative for the kids is public school and/or daycare. Although I understand the scripture, I would say this is a matter of Christian liberty.

[62. Tami said the following at 1:27 PM on Oct 8:]

62

Thoughts --

* By all means, I agree that the man is the head of the home and, as such, should take primary responsibility for providing for his family *as that is defined for his family.*

* I agree with Brenna Kate Simonds -- the Driscolls' definition of "provision" seemed narrow to me. Perhaps in certain seasons, "provision" for a certain man does indeed involve looking after the kids (along with other contributions). *I* might not like it or agree with their particular setup -- but I'm not his wife!

* Making this a matter of *church discipline* does indeed seem harsh and (despite their statements to the contrary) legalistic. As stated above - how does one define "provision"? Is it a certain ratio of how much the husband works compared to the wife? Or how much time is spent at home? How do we decide whose "season of life" issue is biblical and whose isn't? The whole matter gets super-tangled in no time.

By all means, if the husband is an irresponsible loafer, his brothers in Christ (and maybe his pastor, depending on the relationship) need to get after him. However, if he has worked something out in his family, and it does not go against principles that are *clearly* outlined in the Bible, who are we to say that the Lord hasn't led him there, and he must be disciplined?

[63. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:53 PM on Oct 8:]

63

Bleh.

I'm in favor of men working and women staying home with the kids (because it makes biological sense in a "breeding" family) but something that EVERYONE who commented as well as Motte and Mr. Driscoll has COMPLETELY forgotten is the historical context that is in play here, as well.

Adam, the entire passage refers to the widows as she. Did you just blatantly ignore the gender switch in pronouns when it got to provision?

Anyway, in the era this was written, women were groomed for childbearing and the expectation was they'd be bearing children more often than not - how inconvenient if you are also trying to provide for your family =/

The MEN needed to actually WORK TO PROVIDE FINANCIALLY for their families because their wives were NOT ABLE TO while bearing and weaning children (weaning? what's that?)

Everyone seemed to completely forget that little bit.

So YES, the verse is talking about MONETARY PROVISION for families. Then, it was important for a widow's family to support her (because hes typically didn't need to be supported - unless he's ancient beyond belief). If her family (her sons and sons-in-law) didn't support her, then it was a matter of church discipline.

However, given the historical context, i sincerely think this verse is not supportive enough of this position and does not have anything to say about SAHDs - only lazy men AND women.

[64. Al said the following at 2:16 PM on Oct 8:]

64

Oof, I just noticed that the pronoun "his" is attached to the verse. If the male pronoun "his" is in the original manuscript it lessens the strength of my argument. However, in context, it still seems to speak about general responsibility of all members, and "provide" in the greek apparently as a connotation of "forsee" rather than the connotation of material provision that we associate with the word. It's also possible that the male indefinite pronoun is used by default in order to agree with the more general "anyone", so the verse might not exclude women. So I still don't see it as a weighty enough verse by itself for the position of male-as-material-provider.

This is when I wish I knew greek instead of google.

[65. Al said the following at 2:21 PM on Oct 8:]

65

Triple oops. Turns out my post was accepted and I didn't need to write up another. I just didn't see it. Now it just looks like I like to hear myself talk. Which is true.

[66. BDB said the following at 2:25 PM on Oct 8:]

66

Well, I'm only going to speak to economic history.

The farmer always needed a wife - and she had to work, work, work. She did not just entertain the kids and decorate the house. She - and the kids - had chores outside the house. Tht might mean milking the cows, growing the garden, cutting off the heads of chickens for dinner, collecting eggs. And frankly, if mom was a widow, she'd live with the family, and she'd have chores, too. In previous generations, wars had a lot more casualties than we've seen in Iraq, resulting in far more war widows. Make no mistake, women throughout history have worked.

The real question is - if you're not raising your children, who is?

[67. Lucie said the following at 2:27 PM on Oct 8:]

67

If "church discipline" was to be carried out in such a situation as Driscoll describes, I'm curious to know exactly how it would be done. And if the offending party - the SAHD - refused to comply, would he be "shunned," as in the Amish practice, or "disfellowshipped" as in my own church? ("Disfellowshipping" being basically the same thing as Amish shunning, with a different name.)

And if the offending SAHD ended up leaving the church in question because he was himself offended, no matter whether he was actually "providing" for his family in other ways, what would Driscoll have really accomplished?

[68. BDB said the following at 3:23 PM on Oct 8:]

68

Brenna (#44) noted the quote:

>>"If you cannot provide for your family, you're not a man."<<

Most men already know this. It leads to different things:

1) Some men decide they should not purue marriage until they are confident they'll be able to provide for a family - usually they get there about age 35.

2) I've known men who lost their jobs in some kind of reorganization, then divorced their wives (or ther wives divorced them) because their field was gone, and they couldn't cut it anymore. Seems like the church ought to think of something more practical than disciplining him for not being a man. Like a job referral board?

3) From an economic history perspective, I'm reminded of the men who jumped out of windows in the 1929 stock market crash. Windows on Wall Street don't open any more. But in the current economic climate, it seems likely that there will be significant economic dislocation. Does someone cease to be a man because he can no longer find work in construction or as a mortgage broker?

[69. Adam said the following at 3:25 PM on Oct 8:]

69

At the very least there is support for the wife bringing in income as well as the husband (Proverbs 31).

[70. Mark said the following at 3:26 PM on Oct 8:]

70

The idea of work and home life being completely separate is a recent (say last 150 years) notion. If anything, biblically, the man has more responsibility (manager, training and instruction in the Lord) at home than the wife. Being a wise and good manager, he needs to best decide who fills what needs best and act appropriately. If it is seen he is acting selfishly or sending his wife to work while he does nothing at home, discipline him. Again, these are issues of the heart that one must carefully judge before the church says unless you have cancer or no arms you cannot be a stay at home dad. Seriously, there are countless situations where our society's roles being switched would be appropriate and better.
I find it so sad that by Driscoll and his wife's admission his kids would be worse off if he was home more. If you aren't changing diapers, getting up in the night, letting your wife relax while you cook dinner and keep the kids busy, you are not a real man.
I stayed at home for two years while my wife built her business, and we actually took a pay cut and sacrificed so she could do this. In the end, with her full clientele, she can now work less and spend more time with the kids. If you are a man and not fully engaged in the ongoing, day to day details of your home, and not willing to step in and do the dirty work to love and support your wife, you should be disciplined.
When I went back to work, it was like a break. Every man should have the opportunity of stepping into his wife's shoes and see the actual selfless work involved in raising a family.
Being a SAHD is lonely and hard. Personal time is hard to come by and real fellowship is difficult enough without Christ's church condemning you for not "being a man".
The tragedy is that Driscoll is causing his people to see sin where God doesn't. This is more than a "men should work" issue. The real issue is a prominent sought after pastor is requiring of his people more than Christ requires. The "traditional" or "old-fashioned" way is actually the husband and wife being one, the wife submitting to her husband, and the husband dying for his wife. Rearing children, cleaning, cooking, car maintenance, mowing the lawn, ironing, laundry, budgeting, etc, is the primary responsibility of both, but the man's ultimate responsibility as a good manager.

[71. Scott said the following at 3:47 PM on Oct 8:]

71

Good discussion. One thing that bothers me in reading quite a few of these comments is that it contains the following logic:

Assumptions:
1. Wife has more earning potential than husband.
2. It is possible for the family to meet its basic needs with the wife working and the husband not working. (Note that the statement with husband and wife reversed need not be true, although in most cases it probably is.)

Conclusion: It is logically better that the wife should be working.

There needs to be more in this discussion than just "who earns more". The family dynamic needs to be considered- and sacrifices need to be made by both the wife and the husband regardless of what decision is made with respect to the primary breadwinner.

They need to consider not only their own needs, but the needs of the marital "unit" as a whole. It should not be something done without signifcant thought and prayer, since you're basically dicating a direction for the family, and the man should be the one ultimately making the decision on the dynamic. (and responsible for the consequences, the two sides of being the head, the man's role as described in Ephesians).

I do disagree with the "anti-SAHD" interpretation of the given verses for reasons stated by other commentors, although I personally am in favor of the traditional family.

[72. Leeandra said the following at 4:29 PM on Oct 8:]

72

Pre-industrialization, nearly ALL dads were "stay-at-home" dads. (Family farmers still are.)

This "Daddy goes out to work and brings home a paycheck while Mommy stays home and tends the children" idea is pretty recent--it only came about in the past three hundred years, and didn't become commonplace in America until the 20th century. In the past, BOTH parents worked both inside and outside the house on the family farm, and tending to children beyond infancy was something that was done by both parents while working.

Women may have done more of the indoor chores and less of the "heavy lifting" than the men, but that has more to do with basic biology (women were usually pregnant, nursing, or both, besides generally being of smaller build) than with any Biblical mandate that said washing dishes was women's work and plowing the fields was men's.

And, given the high rate of death in childbirth in the past, it was not at all uncommon for a man to have to take on the day-to-day nitty-gritty physical care of his young children. (The first Father's Day, BTW, was founded by a woman wishing to honor her father, who had been widowed as a young man and raised several children without help.)

It's probably true that more women than men are "naturally" good at caring for small children--but there is always the opposite situation. My grandfather could literally play with small children for hours without becoming bored, whereas my grandmother would be driven out of her skull within ten minutes. My grandfather couldn't balance a checkbook or remember to pay the light bill to save his life--my grandmother was a whiz at bookkeeping. They were both wonderful, loving people. Should they have divvied up things according to their gifts, or according to their gender?

[73. Novagirl in VA said the following at 4:48 PM on Oct 8:]

73

On the larger subject of church discipline, can anyone recommend a book on this? I come from a church background that basically doesn't really do discipline, and lately I seem to be running into it more and more. I am wondering how it can be done without being excessively overbearing or intrusive.

[74. Jo said the following at 5:05 PM on Oct 8:]

74

I agree with all those who've said the Timothy verse is being taken out of context and has nothing to do with SAHDs, although I also agree that in a majority of situations (but not all), it is more practical and better for a father to work.

Two further points:

1) When a preacher says "You're not going to like this and some of you are going to leave the church because I said this", it immediately annoys me. Don't put words in the mouths of your listeners before they even have a chance to respond positively. It's patronising and is hardly the best way to open them up to what you're about to say.

2) It's all very well for Driscoll to acknowledge that there are 'exceptions', but but then how are disabled men etc supposed to hear his message? If you tie someone's manhood too closely to specific actions (which not everyone can perform) rather than heart attitudes, you alienate huge numbers of men who can't fit into your 'real man' criteria. If xyz is what makes you a man, then what makes you a man if you can't do those things?

[75. Adam said the following at 7:14 PM on Oct 8:]

75

Christina,

The reason is very simple for the switch in translation. In Greek, there is no gender to the verb [something different with Hebrew]. The reason why translations translate this as "he" here is because the subject is the indefinite pronoun "anyone." However, you cannot create a singular that is inclusive to both genders in this construction in Greek in the singular when you translate to English.

Hence, this is an example of what is called a "generic masculine" in English. The masculine here is universal in its scope, that is, it is referring to both a female and a male who refuses to provide for their own. Both are condemned in this passage. However, if you are going to use this passage to say that a man must go out and work, then you are caught believing that a woman must also.

Also, let us take your logic, and apply it to other uses of the indefinite pronoun:

Matthew 12:29 Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.

Is Jesus here saying that a man cannot enter a strong man's house, and plunder his goods, unless he first binds him, but a woman can?

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Is Jesus here saying that only men who come after him must deny themselves?

1 Timothy 6:3-4 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,

Does that mean that only men who teach contrary to sound doctrine are conceited?

In fact, all languages have a use of the masculine in this fashion, including the New Testament. In fact, there are adjectives and participles in all of these counterexamples that are masculine that are very clearly referring to anyone, not just males.

In fact, this interpretation is supported by the context. Note the following section:

1 Timothy 5:4-6 but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. 5 Now she who is a widow indeed and who has been left alone, has fixed her hope on God and continues in entreaties and prayers night and day. 6 But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives.

Notice how we have a contrast here between a woman who provides for her own family, and engages in prayer night and day with the woman who gives herself to wanton pleasure. Hence, what Paul seems to be saying by this verse is that, not just widows must provide for their own, but all genders, that is, any person must do so.

My point is not to say that this passage refers to females alone, but that it is referring to both genders, given that it is put in the context of widows. If either gender does not provide for their own, they are worse then an unbeliever.

God Bless,
Adam

[76. Morgan said the following at 7:56 PM on Oct 8:]

76

He says in the beginning of the video "we did this in the last one." I went to the service he's referring to, and when he answered it then ("Can I be a SAHD") the first thing he said was "Not at Mars Hill Church." He recognizes that there are Jesus loving Bible believing Christians that disagree about issues like this. Mars Hill, however, believes that the Bible lays out gender roles that say the mother should be the stay at home parent.

[77. Chris H. said the following at 8:07 PM on Oct 8:]

77

In regards to a comment (#11) I made earlier, by telling a stay-at-home-dad to "man up" I am in no way insinuating that working at home is easy. My mother was a stay-at-home-single-mom for many years, a fact I praise God for, and I know first-hand that the home is no place for the lazy, "weak", or those afraid of tough work.

So that's not the issue. The issus is that Scripture instructs women-not just "at least one parent-" to "love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled." (Titus 2:4,5).

Men and women are different, and God has given them different priorities and responsibilities.

If I chose to be a stay-at-home-dad, I would probably be working extremely hard, all day, every day. I would still, however, need to be told to "man up"- not because I was being lazy, but because I wasn't acting like a man, biblically defined.

[78. .j said the following at 9:46 PM on Oct 8:]

78

Everyone (for the most part) seems really interested in the biblical context of the passage, but not the cultural or historical context. I'm a bit on the fence about this, but I do agree that the context of 1 Tim seems to be gender neutral. Still, this chrono-bias is the same thing that leads people like Rob Bell to suggest that Mary may have just been a "young woman" instead of a virgin.

What then, are we to say about the curse in Genesis? (I only seemed to see this mentioned one or two times in this discussion.) Men are to subdue the earth in order to eat, and women are cursed to have pain in childbirth and to desire their husband (while he's off toiling)?

[79. Shannon said the following at 6:20 AM on Oct 9:]

79

Teaching like Driscoll's is exactly why I've started turning away from churches who espouse these beliefs. I've not seen one single accounting made for husbands who are sick and can't work. I hate that my husband had to quit his job five years ago (he had already lost two others due to this same medical condition), but I am very glad it resulted in our daughter having a stay-at-home parent with her. His health has improved in the past few years and with our daughter in kindergarten he's been applying for jobs, but of course after a five-year absence that's not so easy. I watch how it eats him alive every day not to be able to help take care of us.

Driscoll, Piper, Mahaney, et al simply do not understand the damage they inflict on fragile, hopeless souls - moms like me who once had the dream of being stay-at-home parents and have watched that dream die, all the while believing God's church has no place for them because they don't fit into a traditional woman's role. I decided if the "church" wasn't going to let me lay down this burden of guilt and sadness I've been carrying for having to work, I'd just have to lay it down myself.

[80. obewan said the following at 9:59 AM on Oct 9:]

80

Gee, if he puts stay at home dads and working moms under church discipline, I wonder how he views their tithes? Does that mean he only takes tithe money from men? I mean, it would seem that if he kicks people out of his church for having a stay at home dad that he would lose their tithe money. I think many churches are afraid of taking on controversial positions if they impact the cash flow.

[81. florida_grl said the following at 10:10 AM on Oct 9:]

81

"Stay-at-home-wife" what exactly does that mean? Because the Proverbs 31 woman is not exactly the typical stay-at-home.

[82. .j said the following at 10:32 AM on Oct 9:]

82

@Shannon 79 -- Driscoll has actually covered that before in many of the videos I've watched. He's stated their goal is to go after the lazy guys who loaf around and let wives/girlfriends provide for them. Coming down on guys who obviously are not in a condition to work, or who have medical issues is not their purpose or their heart. If I can track down/remember a better instance of Driscoll discussing this then I'll post a link.

[83. IMO said the following at 12:21 PM on Oct 9:]

83

"I think many churches are afraid of taking on controversial positions if they impact the cash flow."

Oh Obewan, when did you go so cynical? ;-)

I"m just happy my church isn't afraid.

Fear God, not man.

[84. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:37 PM on Oct 9:]

84

#81 said
"Stay-at-home-wife" what exactly does that mean? Because the Proverbs 31 woman is not exactly the typical stay-at-home.

She's not exactly your typical modern working woman, either.

So where are you going to find the balance?

[85. Leeandra said the following at 3:47 PM on Oct 9:]

85

@Christina (in green): Consider that the "typical modern working woman" in the United States works in a low-paying pink-collar job with no or minimal fringe benefits and little chance for advancement, and she does so to supplement or provide in full her family's income.

(Check the U.S. Dept. of Commerce statistics if you don't believe me. Far, far more women are working as Wal-Mart cashiers, waitresses, day-care attendants, secretaries, and nurses' aides than are building high-powered careers.)

[86. Eric C said the following at 4:26 PM on Oct 9:]

86

I agree with Pastor Driscoll for the most part; however, it's somewhat ironic that he makes a living off the tithes of people. People in ministry deserve to be paid (it's in the Bible), but they lack an understanding of everyman economics sometimes.

[87. Leah said the following at 6:14 PM on Oct 9:]

87

Barb- your "reasoning" is based on popular culture and not what the bible teaches.

Shannon, I think you missed part of the original post. "Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll says that unless there are extreme circumstances that would prevent a man from providing for his family". I feel for your husband. Obviously I can't know exactly what it's like, but I know what the burden to provide is like upon my husband, and he's doing it pretty successfully for only a wife at the moment. It must be torment for a husband who can't work and has a wife and daughter to provide for.
But you have to look beyond your own feelings and what you THINK Driscoll is saying to what he's really saying. He took into consideration that some men simply physically can't work for some periods, perhaps all, of their life. He's simply saying that outside of those circumstances- if there's no reason that he can't work- then he should be the main provider.

Leeandra- some of the "gender roles" you suggest are SOCIALLY defined gender roles, not biblically defined. Balancing checkbooks? Paying bills? Where does the bible say that's man's work? Yes, the man should be earning the money, but when it comes to actually paying for bills and balancing checkbooks, where does the bible talk about that? No, it's society in the past who has given those standards. Nobody is suggesting it's biblically wrong for a woman to do those sorts of things. I know a family who is very down-the-line on the biblical standards for male and female; they have three sons and another on the way, mum stays at home, dad works (and is in ministry), but mum balances the books because she used to be an accountant by profession. Her husband readily admits he's hopeless when it comes to that type of thing.

BDB- nobody is suggesting that if a man CAN'T work, then he's not a man. Where does Motte suggest that? Where?

Come on people, start reading properly. The post concedes there are times when it's out of a man's control whether he works or not. The post isn't about that.

[88. Alexis said the following at 8:09 PM on Oct 9:]

88

My mother is an attorney by education; my father is a behavioral scientist and elementary education teacher by education. They did not want kids at first, but God changed their hearts. At church, they heard the story of their pastor adopting a little boy. Their hearts broke, and they adopted me. They have raised me to love the Lord, but they decided that my mom would work and my dad would stay at home with me. My parents are both very outgoing, but my dad prefers staying in our city while my mom loves traveling for her job. My dad home-schooled me and my sisters. He takes care of the finances, and my mom cooks for our family after work. She hangs out with us as a family at 6 pm (chose not to live far from work) and on the weekends. Our family is traditional in the fact that my father is the spiritual leader; my dad is not passive! My dad has final decisions. He just takes care of the domestic things around the house and things outside like yardwork/painting as well as running errands. He loves children and loves working around the house. It is what works for our family. I am in college right now, but I desire to stay at home when I am married. My mom is not a feminist! :) I just wanted to say that if at all possible, the mother should stay at home. But it is not necessarily bad if the dad stays at home. In fact, I can't imagine it any other way. I love my parents so much.

[89. Cicely said the following at 8:23 PM on Oct 9:]

89

Why do why assume women aren't expected to provide for their families? I think "anyone" means men and women.

Daughters are biblically obligated to honor their parents, and that includes financial support if necessary. I have no brothers, so that responsibility would fall on my sister and I.

And considering Mark Driscoll's tendency to use vulgar language, I hardly think stay-at-home fathers are the ones who need church discipline.

[90. Stacy said the following at 9:51 PM on Oct 9:]

90

I wonder if the statistics Mark uses take into account the differences of socio-economic roles playing out in families. Because while those in the middle and upper classes would have many different reasons for needing the mother to work and father to stay at home, anyone working with the lower socio-economic class can tell you those men do need a kick in the pants. But - here's the thing, a lot of those men, might not have the education, experience, example or ambition to get a decent job, I'm sure many factors play into this, so, why would a guy go flip burgers at McD's for $6.00 an hour, when his girlfriend is allowing him to live with her for free, mooch, etc etc. I do think Mark took the verse out of context as well, but something tells me the lazy stay at home dads he refers to would not be at a wealthy middle class church to hear his sermon to challenge them to step up anyway. But consider the population you get the statistics from, and tackle the problems there... like helping lift our neighbors out of the pit of poverty/hopelessness/despair and into a life of hope/meaning/purpose/opportunity in Christ... the church should be INTENSELY involved in helping these men pull their lives together, not kicking them to the curb in condemnation. The church elevating a gray issue of cultural differences (traditional roles of men and women in society) into something black and white... that bothers me.

[91. Stacy said the following at 11:15 PM on Oct 9:]

91

Hmmm should have watched the video before I wrote that otehr post... he doesn't talk about statistics so much, but yeah, he's still made something legalistic, black and white, that shouldn't be... some families it will work for the dad to stay at home, many families it will be the mother to stay at home, and while I do agree that families should cut back standards of living before using child care, he implies that all stay at home mothers are innately better than stay at home fathers... but there are certainly moms at home who, well, the child is behind when they enter kindergarden, let's leave it at that... and I do think still socio-economic factors play into this, because most upper and middle class men want to work. They are depressed when they are laid off, jobs go overseas, etc etc. The lower socio-economic class, the poverty stricken, those trapped in welfare mentalities... they need more church involvement and help... they tend to not want to work, or not want to work jobs beneath them... (so let's help teach them skills to get jobs they can work honestly and provide for their family with...) the passage is about caring for widows, though, and families should take care of their widows, I agree with that... and if the mother is gifted and skilled and makes more money, and her family includes not only her husband and children but added responsibility of caring for her mom... or both her parents when they are too old to care for themselves... if their family will survive much better financially with the mother working, it seems she should work... aren't finances behind the problems of many failed marriages anyway? I would say though, marry someone who agrees with your financial views, flesh these debates out while dating/courting, because if you are not on the same page, that's when the real problems will come (men resenting their wives working while they are at home with the kids)... plus it seems like circumstances for families change constantly. I don't know... if the father is all about being with his kids, helping prepare their minds for school and grow in the Lord, who is okay staying home for however long he feels led while his wife works... his providing for the family is just as great of value than if he was doing the traditional "bringing home the bacon..." PS I appreciate Adam and Scott's posts, pulling in historical contexts...

[92. Mark said the following at 12:15 AM on Oct 10:]

92

The curse is not what defined our marraige roles. God defined it before creation to show the Christ/church relationship. Also,the curse is not a command. It is not a "you must", but more telling what we are now, what we will do, whether we want to or not.
A biblical man is the spiritual leader in the home, a good manager of the home, and is the one responsible for the provision of the family. It is unfortunate that we live in a time where at least one parent needs to be seperated from the rest of the family for most of the day, but this is modern, and cultural, and not "traditional" nor biblical. I am bad at taking care of my kids, cooking, and cleaning at the same time, and my wife is good at it. This is not a call for me to pawn it off on her. It is a call for me grow and improve. Some men I know are better than their wives at juggling the stresses of home. They should "man up" and determine what duties each partner should have.
"Love your husband and children" and "working at home", has nothing to do with not making more money, or being in the home more than, the man. there are just too many scenarios where this cannot be the case, for every reason.

[93. mark said the following at 12:23 AM on Oct 10:]

93

When Driscoll draws a line like this, no matter how many times he denies it, it is legalism, plain and simple.

It seems everyone in this post who says Driscoll is wrong, in the end say, but I think the traditional way is best. I don't. I don't think the "traditional" way is best nor biblical. I am a complementarian, who believe men and women have different roles in the home and at church, but those roles have less to do with actions and more to do with attitudes and heart. some actions are required by Scripture, but where Scripture does not specify, wisdom is necessary.

[94. Loris said the following at 8:21 AM on Oct 10:]

94

On a personal note, my outgoing husband would be crazy pretty quickly if he had to work at/from/stay at home. On the other hand, I'd be perfectly happy to do chores and crafts all day.

[95. jared said the following at 10:36 AM on Oct 10:]

95

Getting a job as a man in this environment is frustrating, depressing, and sometimes impossible. We are not only competing with women who compliment the position even better than we do, but we are also in competition with your men who have had the opportunity to receive a more advanced education.

Men never used to have to compete against women for their jobs, but now those days are gone. As soon as women back out of corporate america and let men provide for their family then yes, i'll be on mark's side on this one.

I wonder if mark actually has ever had to find a job in corporate america? No, being a pastor, or a youth leader, or working at a fast food restaurant is not a qualification for working in corporate america. Maybe Mark had a corporate job once. Maybe he knows what men are up against. If he doesn't know what we're up against, then he should jut pipe down a bit.

By the way I own my own business, and have had jobs in corporate america. I know what it's like. Does Mark?

[96. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:36 PM on Oct 10:]

96

#85 Leeandra

Check the U.S. Dept. of Commerce statistics if you don't believe me. Far, far more women are working as Wal-Mart cashiers, waitresses, day-care attendants, secretaries, and nurses' aides than are building high-powered careers

That's a recent phenomena that actually has a lot of people rather surprised at the sudden shift.

I don't consider it "typical" as of yet, especially with the number of women on this blog with aspirations of successful career (defined the way my boss sees it).

It is nice that the winds are changing, but they aren't quite there yet.

Mark, #87
You said,
It is unfortunate that we live in a time where at least one parent needs to be seperated from the rest of the family for most of the day, but this is modern, and cultural, and not "traditional" nor biblical. I am bad at taking care of my kids, cooking, and cleaning at the same time, and my wife is good at it.

Maybe not BIBLICAL - but it is "traditional" and much more biological than cultural.

There's a REASON why men know more about hard labor (back breaking work), and being away from the home for hours. There's a REASON women's back-breaking work was TYPICALLY limited to picking, bundling, churning, and making of lye soap. Picking, bundling, churning, and lye soap doesn't put that little bundle in your tummy at risk of a fatal accident. Its also something your little ones can chase you and help you with as you continue doing it while carrying new baby in a sling at your breast.

9 months is a LONG time to be "laid up" from ploughing, harvesting, heavy, manual labor. Nothing can survive on that. Heck, a pregnant woman can't even PAINT. Can you imagine if we relied on WOMEN to do carpentry and masonry while taking off from work for 9 + months so they can successfully carry a healthy child (good for the economy and family), go through travail, and wean baby off mommy? That's about 1 solid year of being out of work...possibly more. No wonder we rely on men to bring in the bacon - THAT IS TRADITIONAL.

Nowadays, *culturally and modernly*, this is not such a big deal - the gender roles we have are TRADITIONAL based on human biology and the physical needs of mothers, fathers, and babies. That's why your father taught you how to mow the yard and fix a car. That's why your wife's mother taught her how to cook and clean. So she can be productive and beneficial while remaining close to home and you can take care of the manual labor when the wife is not physically capable of doing so.

The only definition God gave us for gender roles was biology and commands for husbands to lead and wives to submit.

Some women are capable of being bread-winners, if they are not going to be popping out children EVER.

Other women are perfectly capable of having and wanting children - and they should be encouraged to use their gifts and talents to help the family (financially as well) while still keeping their children close. Nothing wrong with getting the kids to help. And these days, women actually are intelligent and educated. I do somehow question their powers at creativity, though, to somehow think the only thing they can do to be financially productive and using their God-given "talents" is working outside the home...

[97. kaj said the following at 1:28 PM on Oct 11:]

97

re Comment #96:

Just because some activity is/was "traditionally" done by women doesn't mean it was necessarily safe for children to be around.

"Picking, bundling, churning, and lye soap doesn't put that little bundle in your tummy at risk of a fatal accident. It is also something your little ones can chase you and help you with as you continue doing it while carrying new baby in a sling at your breast"

Upon reviewing the chemical properties and safety precautions for lye (aka sodium hydroxide), I wouldn't consider lye a "safe" substance to expose children to, unborn or already-born. (Also read the "soap" article on Wikipedia for more about the hazards of soap-making.)

In addition to hazardous chemicals, soap-making usually involved an iron kettle over a smoky (and fume-laden) hot fire--not necessarily a "kid-safe" environment there!

[98. Leah said the following at 11:01 PM on Oct 14:]

98

jared- I don't know a lot about Driscoll's history, but I do know this much: Mars Hill has only been going for a few years. When he started it, Driscoll worked a full 40 hour week in a normal job (I don't know what that job was) PLUS a full week pastoring the church so that the church would not have to pay to support him.

Once the church got on its feet, they took on payment of him so he didn't need to hold down an additional job.

So while I don't claim to know all about Driscoll's job history, I would suggest that he probably does know a thing or two about working outside a church environment.

PS- Corporate America is not the only place you can get a job.

[99. Kellie said the following at 4:20 PM on Oct 15:]

99

Christina (in green) said: "Some women are capable of being bread-winners, if they are not going to be popping out children EVER."

Interestingly enough, my job as a nurse (a traditionally female profession) pays much more than my husband's job and provides better benefits.

[100. Julie said the following at 7:37 PM on Oct 15:]

100

Bob Hyatt, a pastor in Portland, OR, says it best: http://bobhyatt.typepad.com/bobblog/2008/10/driscoll-on-stay-at-home-dads.html