One of my ("open-handed" or secondary) theological disputes with Driscoll is his complementarian stance. I find it to be potentially damaging to the body of Christ (especially his personally stance). Despite the fact that he has emphatically claimed that his stance is not one that places different value on men or women, I have a difficulty buying the argument. I don't see how what they call an issue of "function" and "role" isn't simultaneously one of "class" and "value" when discussing nonbiological characteristics. That's a big discussion that has a lot of complicated aspects to it and I won't open that can of worms too much today. Just a little.
Before I get into my disagreements let me make a few positive statements. At the start (and end) of the day, Mark Driscoll and I are brothers in Christ. I'm thankful for his boldness and his theological mind. I'm thankful that many have been blessed through being a part of Mars Hills and that Christ works through that network of congregations. While I have my own issues with Driscoll I respect him. I agree that men in our society, even in the church, have been growing more and more irresponsible in the last few decades and that the Church ought to be the society in which men treat women well by treating them as sisters in Christ. In the Church we should see men staying faithful in the covenant of marriage, refraining from sexual activity outside that covenant, and being responsible in every imaginable way to their children when God blesses them with those children. Fatherhood must be discussed. There is a terrible epidemic of fatherless homes in our land and we should not foster fatherless homes in the Church. I agree with Driscoll in all of this and am thankful he faces the issue head-on with sincere passion for justice. With that stated, I have some thoughts on the sermon.
At the beginning of this sermon Driscoll opens the teaching by stating, "The most important person in your entire life is your father." Apparently Driscoll agrees with me now. Let me explain.
We can't say men and women are of equal value and merely of different function if we say that one role/function that only men can fulfill is more important than any other function or role that only women can fill. That is, if we say fathers are more important than mothers then we immediately place more value upon fathers than mothers and thus more value on men than women. The child with a single father is immediately better off than the child with a single mother.
The use of the word "important" creates a value statement. Important and valuable are often synonyms. If I say something is the most important thing to know then I say it is the most valuable thing to know. If I tell you a father is more important than a mother than I say a father is more valuable than a mother. One role is more valuable than the other. And since only a man can be a father and a woman a mother it follows that men can be more valuable than women. In the family, a woman can never be more valuable than a man because 1 man will always be the most important, the most valuable.
Driscoll's statement goes completely against his views on complementarianism and proves his views to be inconsistent (but who doesn't have inconsistent views). Driscoll is here saying that the two are different and not equal which is contrary to the popular complementarian view (the one he holds and preaches) that states men and women are equal in value but different in role and function. This statements shows what is often called a strong "patriarchal" view.
We could go in circles about how roles are given value and who places importance or value upon roles in our lives (do I put value into roles of people in my life, do they, does God, does the social sphere somehow do it itself, etc.) but let it be sufficient to say that Driscoll is claiming an absolute truth. For our purposes, let's point to God as the one who makes fathers the most important person in our lives. I think Driscoll would do this and claim the level of value attributed to the role of father is one established by God.
Driscoll states that the father is the most important person in our lives because "He has more power than anyone to influence you for good or for evil." How has this been proven? How do we see this in scripture? Sure, the Bible is written within patriarchal societies but the scriptures don't seem to consistently promote a patriarchal view (for an in-depth explanation of this see William Webb's Slaves, Women & Homosexuals) that gives this type of power to fathers above all others. The Bible never states or implies that fathers are meant to be regarded as more important than mothers or that fathers have the most influence for good and evil in our lives.
This also begs the questions 1) If the father has the most power to influence a child towards good or evil then why does Driscoll find stay-at-home fathers (by choice) to need church discipline? 2) If this is true of fathers then why ought the mother stay at home to raise kids when they are young? Isn't this wasting the father's potential?" This is a confusion I have. But we must truly ask if fathers really have this power of influence.
This also begs the questions 1) If the father has the most power to influence a child towards good or evil then why does Driscoll find stay-at-home fathers (by choice) to need church discipline? 2) If this is true of fathers then why ought the mother stay at home to raise kids when they are young? Isn't this wasting the father's potential?" This is a confusion I have. But we must truly ask if fathers really have this power of influence.
In giving Driscoll the benefit of the doubt, we should assume he meant to communicate that the most influential human in our lives is always our father. However, even this stance wouldn't be supported by scripture.
Do people influence one another? Absolutely! That's undeniable. The Bible indicates that we are greatly influenced by those who surround us socially (again, in Genesis it is a peer that brings human influence). That is why we are not to keep company with those who invest in evil deeds and are of sinful character (1 Corinthians 15:33). We are influenced to do good and evil by all those in our social sphere.
Matthew 27:20 shows that our religious leaders have great influence on us. Our religious leaders influence us so much that they can help lead us into life (as we see in the Apostles) or into sin and corruption (as we see in this Matthew passage). This is part of why I wrote my previous blog about Driscoll. The Proverbs prove that seductive women influence men far too often. This passage shows that the way in which a father treats his child affects the child (as is true with any two people, especially when a power dynamic is involved) but never in any of these passages are we told that one role, one person, is more influential than all the others in leading a person to good or evil.
The problem with Driscoll's statements is that it demands that a single mother can never be as important to her child nor have more power to influence her child towards good or evil than that child's father, even when absent. However, a story in scripture shows us a time when a mother influenced her son in a terrible way. In Genesis 27 we see Rebekah influencing her son Jacob to fool his father and steal his brother's blessing, despite the fact that Jacob knew his righteous father would not have approved (obviously). In this story the mother had far more power than the father to influence a child and the father was present! Driscoll's statements completely go against scripture on this one.
So yes, fathers need to step up because they are important and affect and influence the lives of their offspring. However, don't be fooled into thinking your father is the most important person in your life because then you admit your mother is not as important to you as your father and I don't see that going over too well (because who wants to be told "you're less valuable to me"). While the role of the father is incredibly important, fathers need to remember that they are not guaranteed to be the most important person in the lives of their children (even if absent). Plenty of psychology and sociology textbooks will confirm this.
So yes, fathers need to step up because they are important and affect and influence the lives of their offspring. However, don't be fooled into thinking your father is the most important person in your life because then you admit your mother is not as important to you as your father and I don't see that going over too well (because who wants to be told "you're less valuable to me"). While the role of the father is incredibly important, fathers need to remember that they are not guaranteed to be the most important person in the lives of their children (even if absent). Plenty of psychology and sociology textbooks will confirm this.
We must admit that the scripture does not supply us with a teaching that allows us to conclude that the earthly father is the most influential person in our lives. That's not at all a guarantee. Are we affected by the presence and/or absence of our fathers? Yes. But this is also true of mothers and friends. Ultimately, humans are easily influenced creatures and they will be influenced by anything and anyone that speaks to them.
The question is if we will listen to God above all others and allow him to influence us the most and if we will choose healthy and wise social circles that bring us and others closer to God. To me, it seems that if we are going to place importance on people and give them value then we should always view others as greater than ourselves. The most important person in my life is my neighbor in this moment. Seek God and love neighbor. Rest in that, whoever and whatever your father is.
