posted
The kicker, I think, is that he talked about how awesome the Galatians were because of their living-on-the-edge combat style, but completely ignored the actual book of Galatians.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."
There's that one-track mind again. Victor Davis Hanson and Mark Driscoll need to spend some quality time watching 300 together, I guess.
posted
I'll give Driscoll the benefit of the doubt; there's no way he can pack 100% crazy into the book. The really damning pull quotes are portions, not the entirety of his book.
That they were deliberately written and placed in his book, then defended, however, is pretty much the problem. "But I didn't take a dump on ALL of the cupcakes before serving them to the guests!" isn't a great defense.
posted
The first chapter began with as much machismo and bravado as I expected, but took a better turn as I read on.
The second chapter isn't too bad thus far, all about friendship as the base to a good marriage.
It focuses at first on the marriage of Martin Luther, in which the wife is discussed as being quite a strong minded and strong willed woman. Nothing derogatory about that, which is cool. My only complaint so far with the chapter is that he does the modern sermon thing with the word FRIEND as an acronym, which is a bit of a pet peeve.
I'm less horrified than expected, but I do sense the expected tone of judgement on his wife and bravado about himself at times.
posted
I'm trying... I think that if I head the complementarian view, this chapter would be bearable... but it feels like he says "don't be a chauvinist" in one breath and then says chauvinistic things in the next.
posted
He makes the argument in chapter 3 that a man who does not provide for his family is worse than a non-believer, insinuating not so subtlely that a stay at home dad or a man who's wife make the bulk of the income is worse than a non-believer.
He indicates that the Bible is clear on this and does so in a way that I can see how easily someone reading could be like, "oh, well... if that's what the Bible says..." in easy agreement.
The notation on the bottom of the page is 1 Timothy 5:8. In the NIV, it reads, "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
So in quick glance, maybe he's right... but perhaps a little bit of exegetical thinking would attempt to put it in context. One need not look very far, as the paragraph that surrounds this verse is about taking care of the widows in the community.
Further exploration may lead someone to ACTUALLY look at the context of what society looked like in that time and place.
posted
Yeah, there's a lot of controversy in complimentarian circles about the NIV for that very reason. It's an example of what they consider the liberal theological skew that's present in the NIV.
Interestingly enough, This post discusses some of the trouble with that particular example.
quote: So, what happens if it makes better sense for a family if the mother works and the father stays home to raise the children? You come up for “review” with the leadership of the church, that’s what. A man who will stay home with his children while his wife works comes under the same kind of scrutiny as a man who is cheating on his wife. It becomes a question of whether said man is “fit to lead.” This is justified, because, apparently, Mark’s Bible says so.
Exegetically, Mark takes too many liberties in 1) giving narrow definitions for terms that are either contextually or culturally bound in the text, and in 2) insisting that such notions be applied to the lives of Christians as if they were the actual theological principles found in the texts, and in 3) using wisdom literature as prescriptive rather than descriptive.
For an instance of #1 and #2, in this broadcast posted on YouTube, you can see the basic hermeneutical approach utilized by Mark and his wife. They use 1 Timothy 5:8 which says, “but a man that will not provide for his own and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever” as an injunction against both a father that would stay home and take care of his family in order for his wife to work, and as an injunction against a father that allows his wife to work outside of the home - at all. Mark even goes as far as to acknowledge that some have complained that he takes the Bible out of its cultural context, but does nothing to answer the criticism.
posted
What's interesting is that my family lives and practices a complimentarian lifestyle, but not because we believe that's how it is supposed to be. It simply works for us.
So, while I'd probably be living close to what Mark thinks is right, I still completely take issue with his ideas.
posted
That's an interesting issue, actually -- I mean, I'm not even a Christian and I'm living the externally recognizable form of complimentarianism. (IE, I'm employed, Catherine isn't, she does a lot of crafting.) I don't think I can be considered a complimentarian by any means, though.
On the other hand, I talk about my feelings and I've never punched a dude in the junk, so I'm not really living up to God's highest on those fronts.
posted
thepaintedman- that's how i feel. I want to stay home and raise kids while my husbands works. I don't think that's right for everyone, nor is it what everyone wants. (NOR is it exactly what I demand or may even get).
Posts: 10663 | From: portland, living in mexico | Reg: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I caved -- was at the library picking up a couple of books for a project, and decided I'd snag Driscoll's, too. We'll see how far I can get. Maybe a drinking game is in order.
Email Page
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
