Go ahead… carve out 3 hours from your day. You are going to want to watch this. The following is a three part documentary produced by Adam Curtis and originally aired on the BBC. It follows the philosophical underpinnings that have guided the way we understand the world for the past century and how that has affected everything from foreign policy to personal health to our notion of productivity. The whole series hinges on how we understand the concepts of freedom and liberty. This is quite timely given the political climate of the day and the obvious disconnect between various wings of society. I have embedded a YouTube playlist for each episode so you can watch it through. I have also included notes on each episode… but trust me, you want to watch the whole thing.
Episode 1 – Fuck You Buddy
I am sorry if the title offends you (if it makes things better… I was introduced to this documentary through a seminary class that required we watch it). The title comes from an experiment developed by John Nash (the lead character in A Beautiful Mind) which supposed that the world operated best when people were selfish. This segment details how game theory and other mathematical formulas convinced the world that the best way to view humanity was through a lens of suspicion where all people were obviously in it for themselves and every decision was motivated by self-interest and preservation. This was the dominate mindset in the Cold War Era. When we approach the whole world through a lens of distrust, it is amazing (and unfortunate) how we view society.
In this episode Curtis continues to explore our desire for society and people to be predictable. Perhaps it is a desire to understand, or perhaps it is a desire to control. He looks at the development of the mental health field and our own understanding of what it means to be “normal.” From here he explores the consequences of a world where everyone strives for an ideal that is, at best, arbitrary. Curtis follows how this emphasis on standards spiraled out of control in a vain attempt to maximize productivity in all sectors… even if the measurements were pure conjecture. These ideas (however flawed) were monumental in ushering in a new understanding of the free market.
After exploring the way we view ourselves and human nature, Curtis begins in earnest to explore our ideas of freedom. Specifically he examines the concepts of Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty as made popular by Isaiah Berlin. Negative Liberty is a freedom from coercion while Positive Liberty is the freedom to achieve one’s true potential. The prior has been deemed the “safest” because the later has historically required force and oppression to bring about. However, following the path of negative liberty to its logical conclusions, as governments have done in the West for the past 50 years, results in a society without meaning populated only by selfish automatons. The answer then must be a peaceful pursuance of Positive Liberty.
Adam Curtis has always been known for producing provocative documentaries. I am sure he overstates some items in this program and under reports others. However, this program forces the viewer to examine the way in which they view the world and requires them to acknowledge how their understanding of society affects their interactions with it.
Many of you know Beth and I are planning a move to Swaziland Africa in the next couple years (I wrote a 3 part series on how we made our decision, important information about Swaziland, and what we expect to do there). Rather than going to “fix” things, we want to be a part of a community that is responding to needs. We want to participate in something much bigger than us. While we haven’t made any decisions yet, we have found a place that gets us very excited: The city of Bulembu.
Bulembu is situated in the mountains of northwest Swaziland right on the South African border. In its prime there were 15,000 residents of this city, most of them employed by the local asbestos mine. When the mine closed the city fell apart. The population dropped to less than 1,000 and the infrastructure collapsed. The entire city was bought by a development corporation who then sold it to a non-profit called Bulembu Ministries. This organization is primarily made up of native Swazi leaders. It is now the vision of the city to redefine and rebuild itself.
The vision includes a town where 10,000 residents are safe and have access to quality work and essential social services. A town with the infrastructure and programs to provide ongoing care for 2,000 orphaned and vulnerable children with access to education, health services and family structures so they can develop into young adults and emerging leaders with hope for the future. ~Bulembu.org
The rebuilding process in built around a plan for a fully sustainable city. Rather than rely on outside aid, the people of Bulembu have a vision for place where the community enterprise completely supports community care. Industries have been brought in (tourism, forestry, bakeries, etc.) to provide work for the local people. Then, all of the profits go towards sustaining the orphanages, schools, churches, hospitals, etc.
Nearly every aspect of the city is built around shared opportunity and individual potential. The orphanages are designed in a village structure so that children live in “families” rather than being shuffled around in large institutional settings.
The commitment is to provide holistic care for each child in a home, rather than in a large institutional orphanage. Each child lives in a refurbished home with a caregiver and 5 other children. In this way, each child becomes a part of a caring family that will prepare them for a bright future filled with hope and to emerge as the leaders of tomorrow. These new famlies will be the thread that restores the social fabric of a nation on the verge of collapse due to the AIDS pandemic.
In a similar way, the schools are based on individualized instruction so each student can be taught the skills they need while developing their natural ability.
What really gets Beth and I excited is that this initiative was started and is sustained by local people with an amazing vision for what their city could be. It is also a place where a diverse group of people are partnering together for a common good. It is a place where we could be part of something much bigger than us with a long range vision for positive change. We don’t know where specifically we will end up in a couple years, but learning about this city has energized us and reminded us why we want to move 8,000 miles away.
Here is a youtube video from the city as well as a few more pictures and links:
I stepped outside this evening to get something out of my car and was blown away by the dancing beauty of an electrical storm lighting up the night sky. From my vantage point the cloud-to-cloud lightening was non-stop. I have no idea how long it had been going on or how long it lasted, but I spent a good 15 minutes mesmerized by the sight. I did not have a tripod for my still camera, nor our good video camera so I had to settle for the video setting on my point and shoot. You can certainly get a feel for it, but in real life each strike lit up the entire sky.
It has been a long time since something has really gotten my blood boiling, but at 1:00 in the morning while I waiting on videos to render I came across this video.
Let me give a disclaimer first. I have always approached Mark Driscoll with some hesitancy. Most of the time I don’t disagree with what he is saying, but I do question his delivery. To put it simply, I tend to put the emphasis different things.
That being said, this commentary on gender roles is completely out of line and personally offensive. In case you don’t know, I am currently a stay-at-home dad and this was a decision Beth and I did not take lightly, but are completely happy and at peace with the decision.
Okay, enough with the disclaimers — on to the video:
Lets start with delivery before we dive into the deeper points. I am convinced Mark thinks he is a better pastor if he drives people out of his church. He seems to take an arrogant pleasure in the fact that some of the stuff he is saying will piss people off and cause them to leave (by the way… this seems to be par for the course.) I am sure he would say he is sticking to his guns in the face of a fickle society. Don’t get me wrong, Christians need to be unwavering on some issues and refuse to compromise. However, even on issues that stand at the core of Christian belief, there is no need to enter the conversation by speaking down to those who hold opposing views. There is no room for discussion or clarification. For Driscoll, this is how it is and everyone else can go to hell. It is one thing if he takes this attitude on things like the divinity of Christ, but he is talking about stay-at-home dads here. If I remember correctly (and I too have read the whole Bible) there is no definitive passage addressing the evils of stay-at-home dadding, so we are all forced to interpret secondarily what the witness of scripture is.
Continuing with my critique of Driscoll’s tone, I must call him out for on some of the offensive things he said (and implies). First, I think it is clear that Driscoll thinks all stay-at-home dads are deadbeats. Forget his theological rational, his argument revolves around an assumption that it is not manly to stay at home. Furthermore, he basically says that men suck at nurturing. That may be the case for him, as he clearly admits, but lets not paint with too broad of a brush. His statements about men not being cut out for the job of staying at home relies on stereotypes, is short-sighted and is offensive to those who do a great job (may I point to my man Lee Fowlkes.) Furthermore, he builds his case on the assumption that women cannot adequately provide. These comments are not based on biblical exegesis, but on ignorance. If he wanted to make statements about the topic from a (conservative) biblical viewpoint he could have said something like “The bible outlines certain roles each gender should follow. To deviate from those is a sin.” Saying that would have been more biblically based without conveying arrogance, ignorance or hate. The bible does not give him the right to judge the effectiveness of males parenting/nurturing skills.
Now, on to his arguments. Driscoll bases most of his discussion his interpretation of 1 Timothy 5:8
If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
He has taken the phrase “does not provide for his relatives” to mean the “a man should be the breadwinner.” But be careful here and go back and read the verse. Is it addressed to men? No! The verse says “anyone” who does not provide for his relatives… So a wife not providing is as bad as a husband. This is bolstered when you realize this whole segment of 1 Timothy is addressing how to care for widows. Paul addresses gender roles, but he doesn’t do it here. Even if you take traditional approach to Christian gender roles and insist on the male being the head of the household, you must admit scripture does not say the man must bring home the bacon.
Since Driscoll is a man who values “The Word” lets take a look at the word. In 1 Timothy the word for provide is pronoeoand has nothing to do with providing physically. Instead, it implies thinking ahead (pro=before) and planning. It is used 3 times in the NT and tends to carry an administrative nuance. So even if this did apply to directly and only to men (which it doesn’t), a first year seminary student could tell you the exegesis doesn’t allow for a reading that points primarily to providing physically. Driscoll says “if you are an able bodied man it is your job to provide for the needs of your family” and then he goes on to talk about work and material provision. Where is he getting this, because he sure didn’t get it out 1 Timothy. He is clearly reading what he wants to into the text. Even if we throw the greek (and context) out, we must admit that “providing for a family” is a multi-faceted thing. A father could provide all the money in the world, but if he is not taking his turn changing diapers, he is worse than an unbeliever (sarcasm intended). If anything, American fathers need to know that God calls them to provide holistically for their families. The last thing we need is more distant fathers.
“If our father is our basis for God, and our fathers abandoned us, then what does that tell you about God?” – Tyler Durden in Fight Club
Okay… lets look a bit deeper at how he chooses to answer the question. The question was “What are your thoughts on stay-at-home dads if the mother really wants / needs to work.” His answer reveals his convictions on gender roles. Not only does he speak out against men staying home while women work, he makes it clear he believes a woman’s place is at home.
Personally, if a woman wants that, I think its a great option. BUT… it is not the only option. Again, even if you go into a discussion of gender roles, we have to understand what scripture says and doesn’t say. It clearly does not say a woman should stay at home with the kids. Driscoll bashes the “culturally relevant” argument, but in doing so he neglects the social situation of the day. Thank God we have come a long way as a society and women now have choices and are not considered property. Lets not adopt an archaic social structure (i.e. slavery) just because scripture addresses that cultural circumstance. But again, that is not even relevant because scripture is silent on whether women should stay at home. But I digress… I want to return to affirm women who choose to stay at home. I think this is a much better option than paying someone else to raise your children. Likewise, if women do work, I think that is a perfectly fine model as well — as long as your family is being cared for.
Lets return to Driscoll’s argument and something his wife says: “”It is hard to respect a man who does not provide…we need to take the word seriously.” While I agree it would be hard to respect a man who does not care for his family, lets not forget “the word” does not use this phrase to address material, but actually care and foresight. She then quotes Titus and Paul’s words to this young missionary. Again, if we look at the context, Paul is giving some suggestions on what to teach to a new church. There is one phrase in chapter 2 that says “women should be busy at home.” Now… is there enough in those 6 words to base your entire post-marriage career path on? I think not. Can a woman (or man) be busy at home and have a job. Absolutely. Just ask my wife!
Lets end on a Driscolls closing. He says there is nothing in scripture that allows for this sort of family structure. First, I would also point out there is nothing in scripture that clearly lays out the structure he insists on (mother at home, dad bringing home the bacon). But more importantly, I would disagree with him. We do have a model of this. Check out Lydia in Acts 16:
Lydia’s Conversion in Philippi
11From Troas we put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace, and the next day on to Neapolis. 12From there we traveled to Philippi, a Roman colony and the leading city of that district of Macedonia. And we stayed there several days.
13On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.
…
40After Paul and Silas came out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house, where they met with the brothers and encouraged them. Then they left.
The text clearly shows a woman working outside the house. The household is identified by her name rather than her husband’s and she is in a prestigious business. I will grant a couple points: She was not a christian when described as working, it is possible her husband is dead / she is not married. However, what I find important here is that the text is neutral and does not paint Lydia’s work outside the home as a bad thing.
Lets get personal for a second. Beth and made the decision together for me to be a stay-at-home dad. We realized that we could provide for our family best if she worked and I stayed home. We are not giving into cultural trends, we are biblically asking how we can best provide and following through. Let me say this too. Beth is not working just so she can make the money to sustain the family. She is working because the job she has allowed for more ministry than anything I could get. Plus, it freed me up to engage in ministry of my own that I would not be able to do if I was working full time. Forget killing two birds with one stone, we just took out a flock of geese with a boulder: Beth can minister as a teacher, I can minister during the day, Mikayla is raised primarily by her parents, financially we can give more to charity and the church…. and the list goes on.
Driscoll’s conclusion to the question asked is very direct: unless there are extreme circumstances, it is outside God’s will for a man to be a stay-at-home dad. He even goes as far as saying such an action would require church discipline. Once again, I must ask… on what grounds? It is so frustrating to hear his pastor rail so heavily on the importance of the scripture, yet when you take even cursory glance at his arguments you realize his preconceived views are more heavily at play than the authority of scripture. We aren’t even discussing interpretation of difficult passages. Driscoll is ignoring the context and running with a flawed ideal.
This is not just about me getting my feelings hurt. This man is calling into question the career and family life of a significant number of godly people. Heaven forbid godly men and women abandon their life just because some pastor misreads (or ignores) the implications of Scripture. If Beth and I were to act on his advice and take up his model for a godly family, we would be living on less, giving less, Mikayla would have less time with her parents, Beth would leave a job she loves and I would have to take a job I hate, our opportunities for ministry would decrease and our stress would increase. Is that really the biblical ideal of providing for one’s family. I think not.
I would leave his church over statements like this (and perhaps that would only stoke his ego) because I think they are dangerous and ignorant.
Beth and I are not ignoring the call of God, we are embodying it. We are not clinging to culture and rejecting biblical truth, we are clinging to godliness and rejecting naivety and closemindedness.
Thankfully, after writing over 2000 words on the matter my blood pressure has returned to normal and maybe I can get some sleep. 😉
*I found this video while searching for stay-at-home dad blogs. HT to athomedaddy.
So I have been thinking about homosexuality recently. I find in discussions about Christianity and the appropriate response to homosexuality, there are never easy conversations. It is rare to find someone who agonizes over the issue without first pre-judging the various camps. That being said, I must admit I am undecided. First, I have found scripture is not as clear as we would like it to be. Second, there is the human factor – it is impossible to flesh out an understanding of the issue in a vacuum with interacting with the real people and real consequences of your decisions. I find this youtube video helpful in reminding us of the human side:
For now, I can affirm the trajectory of redemptive history that seems to err on the side of inclusion. What that means, I am not yet sure.
_titles.jpg "Title Screen")
