The Driscolls on Stay-At-Home Dads

Have you seen this clip from the Driscolls? I sent it to my class on the Role of Women in Ministry, and here is the response from one of the guys, John Lavoie, whose wife is working so he can go to seminary:

I watched the clip with my wife Rachel last night and we talked about it for a little bit.

Tone. I'm trying to assess his arguments in a fair and unbiased way, but I really believe that the tone in which a person communicates says a lot. Every "stay at home dad" in that room cringed at the way he reacted to the initial question. My dad used to debate socialist scholars on the university campus, and he always used to tell me, "If you want to persuade someone to believe what you believe, go for a walk with them in the park. Hold their hand, show them all the beautiful things in nature and have a nice time with them. By the end of the walk, you've taken them where you want them to go without them even realizing it." There's something to be said about winsome communication. Now, I realize Driscoll is trying to talk bluntly with the men, and as a man I appreciate that kind of frank candor (and I think women can appreciate that too!). He spoke very much about the "norm of men sole providing and women staying at home" and did very little to clarify the "not legalistic exceptions." 

Over-reaction. It seemed clear to me that they were over-reacting to what we call, "radical feminism." They were labeling mothers who want to work outside the home as shirking their responsibilities as mothers. It's not always so cut and dry. "Working" is not an automatic sign that a woman is somehow misguided in her family life. Proverbs 31 clearly affirms the value of women who are very active entrepreneurially. I think the Driscolls should have spent more time clarifying what they meant by the "exceptions" to the rule. And by clarification I mean, say more than "If you're a man and an invalid, then it's okay for you to stay at home." That is not helpful. Q-and-A sessions should help people who are in the mess, in the in-between, who are struggling to find wisdom in how to apply big biblical principles to the unique situations in their lives.

Fatherhood. I was so sad when Grace Driscoll said that her husband would let the house fall apart if he stayed home with the kids. It is such a denial of so many giftings that he already has and could develop. It's not so black and white. It's not, "man go" "woman stay" and anything in between is not ideal or unbiblical. This echoes what I [feel] about wanting to engage more with my kids someday (hopefully!). Maybe being at home with my kids during the day some wouldn't be a bad thing?

Irony. He said that Christians "shouldn't be conformed to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of our minds" but he is arguing for a 9–5 working husband, stay at home mom, post-Industrial-Revolution middle-upper class family model. That sounds culturally conforming to me.

What do you think?