Some of my favorite Driscoll sermons are the ones from the Song of Solomon series. There is, however, one thing that Driscoll continually mentions in these, and other sermons, that I have to disagree with and that is the issue of motherhood. According to Driscoll, the Bible forbids a woman from working outside the home if she has children who have not yet reached adulthood.
Let me be clear. I believe in biblical gender roles (Eph. 5). I am also not saying that it is best for a mother to work outside the home. In many cases it may not be. The question I am seeking to answer is not: "what is best?" On the contrary, I want to understand what the Bible actually teaches.
Driscoll bases his view that mothers are forbidden to work outside the home, except for very rare & extraordinary exceptions, on Titus 2:5, which says that women should be taught to love their children and work at home.
The primary problem with Driscoll's view is that he formulates his entire theology on this issue based on one verse. He seems to ignore the many commended woman in the Bible who worked outside the home, such as Deborah, Lydia, the Proverbs 31 industrious woman, the many woman mentioned throughout Luke's gospel who are considered to be woman of means and, possibly, Priscilla.
This is not the place for extended exegesis. Still, I think that if we look at the scripture holistically we will see that though it may be best for a mother to stay at home full-time and raise her children, it is not commanded in the scripture that they do so. Titus 2:5 is not an exhaustive text on womanhood. It should be taken seriously and women should ask the Lord if they are fulfilling their duties to be primarily homeward focused. Still, to say that this text forbids woman from working outside the home because it teaches that woman should work in the home, is an argument from silence that pushes this text beyond the breaking point.
Now, you may ask, "Matt, if you think it is best for a mother to be at home primarily when her children are young, then why do you oppose someone teaching that woman must stay home?" The reason my friends is because we cannot tolerate someone going beyond what scripture says and creating an extra-biblical commandment, even when we might agree with the principle they are propounding. In my opinion, when we create commands we are not only guilty of legalism, but we deny the sufficiency of scripture.
At the end of the day, I love Driscoll and think he is an amazing man of God. But on this point, I have to disagree.
Ok, my book is over, let me have it...in love I ask.
7 comments:
Let you have it? Have what?...A hand for defending the sufficiency of scripture, to say nothing of the sufficiency and freedom of the gospel.
Let us not roast the guy for his view on this. In reality it's seems an opinion level issue. But I would have to agree with Matt on this one.
Would you say that he also takes some liberties with 1 Timothy 5:8? To me it seems to say that anyone who disregards their family is worse than an unbeliever, not specifically a man (verse 4 talks about children and grandchildren, not necessarily men). Driscoll uses this verse against stay-at-home dads seemingly erroneously, since the particular context is taking care of older/elderly widows in your family. It seems pretty clear to me to be directed to both men and women, though I'm going off of studylight.org's greek word definition that doesn't specify male or female, though I am clearly no scholar on such things.
I do love Driscoll's passion for raising up godly, loving, submissive, leading men. I have been heavily encouraged and motivated by him to love Jesus and my wife better. I just think sometimes, as you said, he steers the text. I'll have to look up some of those examples you listed before I agree or disagree with you.
In response to your questions Kurtz, I would have to say yes, I do think that Driscoll uses 1 Timothy 5:8 in a way that is not intended by its context. There is such thing as getting the right doctrine from the wrong texts, and I think that is what is happening here. I think Ephesians 5 makes the case that men are to be the primary and ultimate, but not sole, financial providers for their families. In the same way, Ephesians 5 lays the spiritual growth of the marriage upon men, though I think it would be a false dichotomy to say that women have no responsibility in this regard.
Again, my main point in the post was to show that Titus 2:5 is not an exhaustive description of what women should do. Therefore, we should not use it prescriptively in order to construct a law that is not there.
If you are curious about examples of women being commended for things other than being homemakers you can do a study on the women mentioned in Luke/Acts. Certainly, the woman in Proverbs 31 and Deborah are very hard examples for Driscoll's view. Of course, to be fair, the example of Deborah can be a little tricky for all of us to navigate who are committed complimentarians!
Ok...I'll admit it...that last post was written by me! I am using Andrea's computer and she was signed in and I didn't know it.
Hey guys, sorry I've been absent from all of this learning for such a time.
"Again, my main point in the post was to show that Titus 2:5 is not an exhaustive description of what women should do. Therefore, we should not use it prescriptively in order to construct a law that is not there." MGC.
Matt, I completely agree with you on this point, but is there enough definition as to the role of a woman in marriage in Titus 2:5, to establish a law as to what is there?
Given that we should understand the Scriptures in light of themselves (referring to the examples you mentioned, Deborah, Priscilla, P31...) could it be said that in marriage, if at all possible, a woman should find her primary role in "working at home"?
In our American culture, the "if at all possible" previously mentioned refers primarily to the financial ability of a couple to support either themselves, or their children and themselves. In most cases it is necessary for both the man and wife to be in the workforce to provide for the lifestyles currently being lived. However, I wonder how many households have both man and woman in the workforce to sustain or enrich their desired lifestyle. Perhaps there is a pursuit of satisfaction or completion in the hearts of woman who go out into the workforce instead of choosing to pursue a reconfiguration of lifestyle so that they can work at home. If Titus 2:5 is not a direct law that says "All God-loving/fearing woman should work in the home", could it be an arrow for God-loving/fearing women towards being satisfied by fulfilling their God-given primary role in marriage by working at home, if at all possible?
As to the woman who fears the Lord from Proverbs 31:10-31, are those entrepreneurial efforts of hers to be understood as working from home?
So glad to be learning from you guys again!
Aaron,
I am detecting several questions within your post. I probably won't answer all of them, but let me give a shot to one or two:
1. "If Titus 2:5 is not a direct law that says "All God-loving/fearing woman should work in the home", could it be an arrow for God-loving/fearing women towards being satisfied by fulfilling their God-given primary role in marriage by working at home, if at all possible?"
First, let me say that the word "satisfied" is a very tricky one. In all honesty, I wish you had not used it. It implies that since a woman has the primary homeward responsibility, then she is in sin if she is not completely satisfied in just this endeavor. In my judgment, this has to be wrong. Men have the primary responsibility of provision, but I don't expect them to find their satisfaction their. Women and men are not primarily defined or satisfied by what they do. I cannot see any biblical reason why it would be wrong for a woman to do other things besides work at home.
2. "As to the woman who fears the Lord from Proverbs 31:10-31, are those entrepreneurial efforts of hers to be understood as working from home?"
This question contains within it the problem. We are trying to look at this text and discover if what she is doing qualifies as "homeward working." The author of proverbs seems rather unconcerned about this distinction. How do I know? Because he does not make the distinction. Read the verses again and be honest with yourself and you will probably have a good answer.
3. This one is for free: I completely agree that it is wrong for a woman to neglect her role as the primary caregiver to children in order to pursue her 'satisfaction' in anything else...ministry, career, Mary Kay...whatever. I completely disagree, however, with the idea that if a woman works 'outside' the home then she is necessarily neglecting her family. This is a quantum leap that does not make practical or biblical sense to me.
At the end of the day it is up for each couple to decide how they are going to practice the biblical principle that the man's primary role is for leadership, provision and protection and the woman's to be the primary care taker of children and home. I say that it is up to each couple to work out the specifics because all we have is principles, we do not have specifics. Of course, we all long for specifics because it is far easier to mindlessly follow a law than use biblical wisdom. I agree with the direction you are leaning Aaron, I just don't want to go beyond what is written because it may be less messy.
Ok...book over. Love your thoughts and questions brother!!!
Quick clarification...I do think that we should celebrate and encourage women to consider staying at home full-time with their children. God knows the culture shoves them the other direction. We should not be naive about the fact that women are not brought up hearing about the great value and importance of raising the next generation. Of course, neither are men and we should take note of that as well. Still, raising children is of central importance in the Bible and doing our part in that as men and women is more important than the particular career we may choose.
Post a Comment