'Bible colleges do not produce pastors. Women and children produce pastors. We've gotten it backward, completely backward. Men who love God and do a great job with their wife and kids- make them the pastor. Let them do that with a lot of people.'
~Driscoll
Huldra Forsvant (Theodor Kittelsen)
Huldra Forsvant (Theodor Kittelsen)
13 comments:
I really like this. Might put it on our blog too.
Though I wonder where that leaves single men training to be pastors...
I guess it's hyperbole. I'm sure he's very much in favour of bible colleges, and people training themselves up there.
But he's saying don't miss the big point, that the biggest and hardest training ground is the home.
I'm sure he is too, given he spoke to a whole bunch of them while in Australia.
Yes, I agree. I also think it says that what matters is the character and godliness of the man, before his theological training.
I have to admit, I think Driscoll is less than helpful here.
I don't think it is hyperbole Ben, from what I gather Driscoll thinks a family is necessarry in order to be a pastor (can someone correct me if I am wrong?). It feels as though he is implying that godliness and true character are contingent on having a family?? REALLY??!!
Where do we get this idea that the hardest training ground is the home? As I read the NT I don't ge that vibe. Paul's writings definately have a lot to say about suffering and perserverance as character building, and of course not to mention the Holy Spirit and our union with Christ.
I think Driscoll is in danger of intepreting everything through 1 Timothy 3:5,6, and could possibly alientate a whole bunch of people in the process.
In the talk that the quote comes from, yes he refers to 1 Timothy 3 (eg- 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)) and also Titus 1, and Proverbs.
At the same time, it's important to remember both of these letters were written by Paul, a single man.
I think your fear and criticism is valid, and that some people would feel alienated by this. But I also stand behind the idea that there is a lot of truth in it, not necessarily as the only way for guys to go, but as a really wise and beneficial way.
Agreed. Getting married made me realise I'm quite selfish. Then my first child the realisation doubled, and with Amelie it did once again, and I'm not sure how much more self-realisation I can take.
Driscoll believes that Paul was either a widower or divorcee (exegetically possible, I think), and that in 1 Corinthians 7 he is writing to a certain situation and his command that it is better to be single is not universal (exegetically untenable, I think).
I think the thing that frustrates me with this is that Driscoll seems to get an exegetical possibility, or what he sees as something wise (that having kids builds character) and develops almost an entire framework out of it and turns it into a biblical command.
With stuff like this, I take the principle without trying to get too caught up in the specifics.
The Bible does talk about elders being able to run their home and family, so I don't think what he says is totally groundless.
Having said that, Dricoll does have his theological framework and weaknesses, but everyone does and no-one is perfect. I think if we pulled everyone through the coals, you could find stuff on everyone which is unhelpful/risky/not the strongest interpretation.
I get from Driscoll's statement that for married men, it matters more that they are godly in the home than their theological training, rather than the other way around (that's the other issue - Driscoll may be addressing a specific context, and without that context his statement does sound odd, but with it, it may make more sense). And I find that helpful. But I am no theologian, so obviously I come at it with a very layman's perspective!
Geoff- I'm not sure how much more self-realisation I can take. I'm so with you on that one! Handling my kids of a weeknight is like putting all my weaknesses and faults under a microscope, and having them magnified and made all too evident. For now, painful. In the long run, a good thing.
Soph- I am with you 100% The context was a talk called 'Men As Fathers', so the emphasis is not on, 'hey single men, you are worthless, us fathers are the men for the job'. The emphasis is on' wake up, husbands, you are the pators of your wife and kids- get a good grip on this responsibility'.
For me as a layman, who has zero aspiration to be the pastor of a church, I feel very encouraged, challenged and strengthened to not diminish my own role, but to see myself as the pastor of my wife and daughters.
Hello!
Re self-realisation: I haven't got to the kids point yet. I'm sure it's going to hurt just as much as marriage... :s
Re Driscoll:
Mark is classically setting up two things against each other which are not, in fact, in opposition.
No-one argues that Bible college makes a pastor. I've never heard it said, at least.
The thing is, what I think Driscoll really wants is men who God has gifted to be pastors. And it's God who makes those, not a family nor Bible college. A man can be broken by either of those as easily as made.
Interesting quote. I'm not sure I totally agree with it, but it's interesting nevertheless.
Have to say, I am with completely Geoff on this one, and this is one of Driscoll's ideas that I don't like at all - for the reasons already mentioned here. Jesus, Paul, Timothy (for all we know) and many others were single. The advantage of singleness is supposed to be the gospel opportunities it brings, which are limited if you have people implying that they shouldn't be pastors. One of the reasons I don't listen to a lot of Driscoll is that he invalidates singleness at many points, and I just don't find it all that encouraging ...
Back to you question Geoff, Driscoll did say, when he was out here last year, that single men shouldn't be allowed to plant churches (so he does seem to think family is necessary). Paul Dale, the single minister and planter of Church by the Bridge, responded in the Southern Cross, as I recall.
Post a Comment