Should I Be a Stay at Home Dad?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Tue, October 21, 2008
- Viewed 283
- (24) comments so far
What do you think?
Todd
Get current updates from MMI and me here: http://www.twitter.com/toddrhoades
The following is a clip from the Q&A portion of the Mars Hill sermon series on the Song of Songs, called the Peasant Princess. Mark Driscoll is posed with the question... should I be a stay at home dad?
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Ryan on Tue, October 21, 2008
How does this relate to churches and their ability to provide for the needs of staff members? I’m awed by guys like Mak Driscoll and Craig Groeschell who have a half a dozen kids and are able to provide for them. But then, they are Sr. Pastors of large churches. What about the youth minister or the other lower-tier staff members? Does the church have a responsibility to meet their needs or does this just mean that those guys need to go find a second job?
Brian Ayers on Tue, October 21, 2008
WOW! Those are some tough words; ones that I think many of us would tend to skirt-around or water-down to make them sound a little easier… I’m glad that Driscoll doesn’t skirt the issue though. I’m glad that he sets an example in speaking truth boldly.
Peter Hamm on Tue, October 21, 2008
I’m not crazy about her reference to the Timothy passage about “worse than an unbeliever”. If a man is a stay-at-home and is doing a lot of the stuff that typically in western society many women do, he is providing. It’s an exhortation against laziness. You can stay at home and not be lazy. Until relatively recently, families worked together in the home anyway, until the rise of industrialization.
I’ve known some pretty darn successful and God-honoring families where the wife worked and the husband stayed home…
BUT… I doubt it’s the norm. And the big question that he raises at the end is a good one. (Not to mention the fact that he is very clearly not legalistic on this issue.) If you’re BOTH working outside the home, then some “professional” is raising your kids. I wouldn’t want them.
I reluctantly kind of agree with Mark on this. My wife and I may adopt, and she wants to stay home with the kids if we do, and I agree.
Brent on Tue, October 21, 2008
Ryan, I can relate. I’ve been in children’s ministry for 10 years, but since I’m not called to be a senior pastor, I’ll always be at the lower end of the church pay scale. It seems like most churches looking for a children’s pastor already have several other full time staff, and hiring a children’s pastor is a “step of faith” that calls for the equivalent of half the pastor’s salary. Both my wife and I are working on the side to bring in extra income. I’ve thought of getting out of full time ministry so I can meet my families needs.
CS on Tue, October 21, 2008
The use of that particular verse can be admonishing in this purpose, but I’m not sure it’s 100% on target. I believe that there are enough other verses and themes in the Bible that make it clear that the responsibility of the father is to work, and the responsibility of the mother is to care for the home in a Proverbs 31 way.
Having both parents work and putting the kids in daycare? Absolutely not. Dad loses his job and mom steps up for a short time while he’s looking for a new employer? Okay. Mom is the breadwinner and dad raises the kids at home? I’m with Driscoll—no.
—
CS
Ryan on Tue, October 21, 2008
Brent,
Glad to hear your thoughts. This is a hard subject. I’d definitely be open to hearing how you’ve processed these decisions as I am in the same place now.
Nora Beerline on Tue, October 21, 2008
Wow. I think Driscoll is completely—albeit in a well-intentioned way—off base on this one. As Peter pointed out, the verse cited is an admonishment against laziness; it is not saying that dads should not stay at home with their kids if the mom is able and willing to provide for them in some other way. I think it’s also interesing to note that Mark says repeatedly that he is not a “legalist,” but then throws in the comment that a dad who stays at home would be “subject to church discipline.” Kind of sounds like legalism to me.
Obviously, the stay-at-home dad set-up is not for every family; there are actually relatively few out there who do this. But in situations where both mom and dad are able and willing to do this, there should be no condemnation by the church. In fact, it would be ironic, to me, for a patriarchal church to interfere in the internal workings of a family where both mom and dad are in agreement about their roles.
Mark’s wife’s comment that a woman would have a hard time “respecting” a man who stays at home to raise the kids is offensive to me. It implies that raising the kids at home is somehow less of a “providing for” than working outside the home. However a family works it, it takes two, both pulling together, to make a family work, and both roles are equally deserving of respect. Maybe Mark’s wife would not be able to respect Mark if she brought home the bacon, and he stayed home with the kids. That’s fine. But don’t condemn the families where the wife can, and in fact does, have respect for the stay-at-home dad.
There are many, many things for the church to be concerned about in this day and age; this is not one of them.
bryan allain on Tue, October 21, 2008
yes, a man is responsible for providing for his family.
and sometimes that responsibility means staying at home with the kids so his wife can go out and work at a better job than he ever could.
i’m sorry…i think he’s off base on that one
Eric Joppa on Tue, October 21, 2008
I am both discouraged, and encouraged by this. It resonates with me and my wife, but we are in a tough situation.
I am a youth pastor. I have been doing ministry in a church that pays an ok salary, but no benefits, and I can’t support my family just on what I get payed. it’s just not enough.
Ryan…I am right where you are. It was as though you were speaking my words. What are guys like you and I supposed to do? I am open to suggestions, but I agree 100% with Driscoll here and agree that this is totally biblical.
My wife works right now because she has to. What should be the fix? Do I work more than one job?
Wendi Hammond on Tue, October 21, 2008
No surprise that I disagree with this clip on several counts.
• For Mrs. Driscoll to say that leaving kids with their dad is leaving them with “just anyone” is a very pejorative statement about dads in general and offensive to me.
• Their reading of Timothy is completely western. There is a necessity to apply some contextual read to the passage. There are other ways to “provide for one’s family” beyond employment.
• To say that a household where the dad stays home and the mom works creates a case for church discipline is indeed VERY LEGALISTIC. If men staying home is cause for church discipline, I assume they also discipline every family where both parents work and they leave kids “with strangers.” If the woman has potential to earn enough for the dad to stay home, and the husband’s earning potential would require both to work while children go to a stranger, isn’t the former a better (more biblical) option for the family?
All that disagreement stated, I agree that GENERALLY women are hard wired to be more nurturing and our own culture does make it less comfortable for the traditional roles to be reversed. Still, I don’t believe there are any specific biblical indicators that we should consider instructive and normative in regard to our family employment decisions and budgeting.
And CS – It’s pretty clear that the Proverbs 31 woman worked outside the home, in fact was an entrepreneur and a business owner. She was able to do all that is described because she had servants (who probably cared for the children). If read as a picture of her typical day (which I don’t think it should be), she gets up early, fixes breakfast, gives instruction to the servants, then heads out to work in the market place, the vineyard and serve the poor. Although in our culture we view the day-to-day duties of child care as a typical mothers job, nothing is mentioned is mentioned in this passage about childcare duties. That is probably (as I stated earlier) because such day-to-day duties in ancient Hebrew culture were preformed by servants. Sorry Mark, context matters. The writer of Proverbs isn’t describing a real person (unless she was super-human), but providing readers with examples of characteristics which God honors and affirms; industriousness, devotion, resourcefulness, stewardship, compassion, justice and mercy, faith, humor, attentiveness, vigor, etc.
Working moms can, and often do, have all these . . .
Wendi
Agnes on Tue, October 21, 2008
The thing I find most disturbing in this clip is his inaccurate quotation of and use of Scripture. The Scripture he cited doesn’t say “any man” in the Greek. It says “anyone”. This is incredibly important. I am not disturbed nearly as much by his stance on stay at home dads as with his flippant use of Scripture to proof text his beliefs as the expense of the true meaning of the Word.
shane on Tue, October 21, 2008
I usually agree with Mark, but on this one I believe he is waaaaayyyyy off! I was shocked to hear him say he is not being legalistic but they would church discipline a family who is working and trying to make it in this economy right now…..that screams legalism. If I was an unbeliever I would stay away from this church, I just don’t see how this would be inviting to any unbeliever. I think Mark really needs to rethink this one, and I agree with Agnes, he is mistating Scripture and the intended use of the word anyman/anyone.
Kevin Womack on Tue, October 21, 2008
Their exegesis of 1 Timothy 5:8 isn’t just “western”, it’s completely wrong. Anyone who takes the time to look at the surrounding verses (vv.1-16) will quickly realize that Paul is referring to the care of entire extended families with a distinct emphasis upon the care of widows. To use this passage as the basis for church discipline to be administered to a stay-at-home dad shows a level of biblical illiteracy that should embarrass Mark Driscoll as a pastor.
Cole on Tue, October 21, 2008
Just to help Mark out…
Proverbs 31:24 - She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.
That’s a woman, held in high regard and seen as godly that does what? Works. Not sure how he read the whole thing and missed this.
Unfortunately, it’s clear that Driscoll is energized by criticism. It seems to make him feel righteous, “this is where attendance goes down.” That’s why, most times, I struggle between just ignoring this and responding. It might be better just to let it lay low. But, I’ll fight for Truth til I die.
I’ve long ago stopped listening to his drivel. Honestly, my issue isn’t even his view of gender. It’s his small view of the power of the Holy Spirit that bothers me.
In the end, I am nothing without the power of God in my life just as every man, woman and child is. I only have power because of the infusion of the Holy Spirit into my being - the same Spirit that exists in every believer regardless of gender, age, race, hair color, height or any other physical feature.
Another passage Mark missed in his reading of the whole book:
Acts 2:17 “ ‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.’ “
Ultimately, the issue with all of this is seeing - like the pharisees - with our flesh rather than our spirits. The question they are addressing seems like a ridiculous question when thinking eternally. God isn’t so concerned with our earthly possessions, is He? God is concerned with one thing… His fame. And He will spare no expense in receiving it - male and female.
Aaron on Tue, October 21, 2008
I agree with Kevin and others. The intent is in this issue of laziness. I live in a culture that many women are executives and make a comfortable living. The fathers while successfully employed chose to stay home in order to not have their children raised by “professional” childcare workers. They were nurturing and helpful in school. I would take a day and help them with projects with the “dad’s club”. The children really responded to the men who were active in the school. One has to remember the culture that Timothy is dealing. A patriarchal culture that did allow women to work except closely to the home. We live in a different culture. These men who did not work were not exercising their responsibility. It is a valid critique that I have with men in my congregation who are not employed to their fullest extent, usually because of laziness or lack of direction.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Post a Comment