Tenet 5

5. A husband and father is the head of his household, a family leader, provider, and protector, with the authority and mandate to direct his household in paths of obedience to God. (Gen. 18:19; Eph. 6:4)

Gen 18:19 – For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.”

This speaks of God knowing Abraham, the father of all believers. It does not teach anything about what a Christian father is.

Eph. 6:4 – And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

Yes. Interestingly enough, the same word that is translated fathers here, is translated as parents in Heb. 11:23

a) A husband and father is head of the household

If bringing someone up in the training and admonition of the Lord is headship, then the father (and mother?) is one of the heads of his children.
And Christian children are Christians, so the congregation's members with a teaching gift also have the authority to teach them, as they may teach believers. That would, by this definition, make them heads of the children too. He is in some way the head (Does this mean source/ origin? Or authority figure? Greek scholars disagree) of his wife. The head of his household? It depends on how head should be understood, and what is included as "household".

b) a family leader,

He should be one of the people leading his children, but what text say he should lead his wife, widowed father, or sisters or brothers or aunts or nephews or anyone else in the family?

c) provider,

This is not in the text. Making provision only a male gender role is contrary to 1 Tim 5:16. Technically it is true that husbands/ fathers should provide, but the point of including this in TBP is to claim it as a gender role. And that turns a technical truth into a lie.

d) and protector,

This is not in the text.

e) with the authority and mandate to direct his household in paths of obedience to God.

He has the mandate to direct his children in the ways of God by Eph. 6:4. If the translation as “parents” of that same word is correct in Hebrews, his wife does too. His children are not synonymous with his household. His wife is part of his household, and nothing said up to now show he can direct her in paths of obedience to God. (I think that both husbands and wives can potentially lead each other closer to God, but it is up to TBP to prove their point if they can.)

Does every father –Christian or not, knowledgeable or not - have the authority to lead his household in paths of obedience to God? Eph. 6:4 does not state it.
TBP say a father (without even specifying the father’s religious view) have the authority to lead his household in paths of obedience to God. But the Bible verse itself speaks to believing fathers (parents?) and their children, and don’t mention authority. The verse could even imply that a father needs to get the knowledge, wisdom, authority or whatever is needed, to do so. It does not tell he already has it.

Other ways Christians understand this:

(No extra notes here)

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is defended biblically, but another view could also be defended biblically

      This is not Biblically defended

5. A husband and father is the head of his household, a family leader, provider, and protector, with the authority and mandate to direct his household in paths of obedience to God.

(If the word “household” was replaced with “children”, and mothers were included as possible leaders of their children, this tenet would  have fared better.)

Tenet 6

6. A man’s authority in the home should be exercised with gentleness, grace, and love as a servant-leader, following the example of Jesus Christ. Leadership is a stewardship from God. (Ps. 103:13; Mal. 3:17; Matt. 11:29-30; Col. 3:21; 1 Pet. 3:7)

Ps. 103:13 – As a father pities his children, So the LORD pities those who fear Him.

Mal. 3:17 – “They shall be Mine,” says the LORD of hosts, “On the day that I make them My jewels. And I will spare them As a man spares his own son who serves him.”

Matt. 11:29-30 – “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

These verses describe what God is like. Everyone, not just leaders or/ and married fathers, should follow Christ.

Col. 3:21 – Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.

I Pet. 3:7 – Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

This tells to understand and honor her, not that you have authority over her. The word “vessel” is usually used in the Bible for the body or material things, and a weaker vessel probably refer to either physical strength, or to the fact that at a time when women often died in childbirth, they were weaker in health.

6a) A man’s authority in the home

TBP have not yet shown from scripture that men have authority that women do not.

b) should be exercised with gentleness, grace, and love as a servant-leader,

Yes, that is how to lead. The problem is when Patriarchy teaches men should lead in areas where the Bible does not prove they should. However gently a man lead where his leadership does not belong, it still is usurping the freedom of another.

c) following the example of Jesus Christ.

Yes. A verse for that will enhance TBP.

d) Leadership is a stewardship from God.

Once again, TBP give no verse for it. Some leadership is stewardship, but wrongly usurped leadership is theft.

Other ways Christians understand this:

Many Christians would not use the term “authority in the home” for an admonition to bring your children up in the faith, something which your wife and your church (and perhaps others) could also participate in. And it is common to believe that wrongly seized leadership is not stewardship.

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

The color code:

      This is adequately Biblically defended

      This is defended biblically, but another view could also be defended biblically
      This is not Biblically defended

 

6. A man’s authority in the home should be exercised with gentleness, grace, and love as a servant-leader, following the example of Jesus Christ. Leadership is a stewardship from God.

Tenet 22

A father and his older children

22. Both sons and daughters are under the command of their fathers as long as they are under his roof or otherwise the recipients of his provision and protection. Fathers release sons from their jurisdiction to undertake a vocation, prepare a home, and take a wife. Until she is given in marriage, a daughter continues under her father’s authority and protection. Even after leaving their father’s house, children should honor their parents by seeking their counsel and blessing throughout their lives. (Gen. 28:1-2; Num. 30:3ff.; Deut. 22:21; Gal. 4:1,2; Eph. 6:2-3)

Gen. 28:1,2 – Then Isaac called Jacob and blessed him, and charged him, and said to him: “You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Padan Aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and take yourself a wife from there of the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother.

This is an example, not a biblical teaching. If this is teaching, should we teach young people to marry cousins?

Num. 30:3-5 – Or if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by some agreement while in her father’s house in her youth, and her father hears her vow and the agreement by which she has bound herself, and her father holds his peace, then all her vows shall stand, and every agreement with which she has bound herself shall stand. But if her father overrules her on the day that he hears, then none of her vows nor her agreements by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the LORD will release her, because her father overruled her.

This was the laws of ancient Israel. A girl in her youth means a girl under 12 in their culture. Children were seen as adults at 12. As such, this do not refer to older children at all.

Deut. 22:21 – then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.

It is worrisome that this is quoted: Do Sproul, Phillips and Lancaster want to return to stoning, as that society did?

Please note that this verse do not say she should stay with her parents.

Nor does it say she should be a virgin at marriage if she stays with her parents. (See Ex. 22:16-17 – she could marry as a non-virgin, and the shotgun wedding was a recognized concept. But she should, by Deut. 22:16-17, not lie about it – she should not marry Man 2 under the pretense of being a virgin while she is not. This lie is the only thing in the law, as far as I know, for which women could be stoned and men not.)

Gal. 4:1,2 – Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.

This, ironically, is a comparison to say we are no longer under the law: The law is a guardian prior to the inheritance coming in Christ. The irony is that the previous text used to defend this tenet, Deut. 22:21 was a stoning verse from that very law we are no longer under!

A child is under guardians and stewards, in this case, means he cannot manage his inheritance before his father deems him mature. This being under guardians refers to rich children who will inherit from their parents.  

Eph. 6:2,3 – “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”

We should honor our parents.

22a) Both sons and daughters are under the command of their fathers as long as they are under his roof or otherwise the recipients of his provision and protection.

These verses do not spell out children are under his command. Deut. 22 (Old Testament law which passed when Christ came) only say a girl could be in trouble for doing one particular thing while under his roof, whether her father set rules about it or not. Gal 4 say heirs are under a father’s (delegated to stewards) command until a time he appoints, not “as long as they are under his roof.” This "time he appoints" is not the "time when they may make their own decisions about their lifes" but the "time they will inherit."

b) Fathers release sons from their jurisdiction to undertake a vocation, prepare a home, and take a wife.

What jurisdiction? This point was not defended at all.  

c) Until she is given in marriage, a daughter continues under her father’s authority and protection.

No verse teaches she should stay under his protection until marriage.

d) Even after leaving their father’s house, children should honor their parents

Yes.

d) by seeking their counsel and blessing throughout their lives.

Nothing in here say how children should honor their parents.

Other ways Christians understand this:

Christians outside patriarchy do not see this point at all.

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is adequately biblically defended

      This is not biblically defended

22. Both sons and daughters are under the command of their fathers as long as they are under his roof or otherwise the recipients of his provision and protection. Fathers release sons from their jurisdiction to undertake a vocation, prepare a home, and take a wife. Until she is given in marriage, a daughter continues under her father’s authority and protection. Even after leaving their father’s house, children should honor their parents by seeking their counsel and blessing throughout their lives.

Tenet 23: Fathers, and helping children to find a marriage partner

23. Fathers should oversee the process of a son or daughter seeking a spouse. While a father may find a wife for his son, sons are free to take initiative to seek and “take a wife.” A wise son will desire his parents’ involvement, counsel, and blessing in that process. Since daughters are “given in marriage” by their fathers, an obedient daughter will desire her father to guide the process of finding a husband, although the final approval of a husband belongs to her. Upon a Marriage taking place, a new household with new jurisdiction is established, separate from that of the father. (Gen. 24:1ff.; 25:20; 28:2; Ex. 2:21; Josh. 15:17; Jdg. 12:9; 1 Sam. 18:27; Jer. 29:6; 1 Cor. 7:38; Gen. 24:58)

Gen. 24:1 – Now Abraham was old, well advanced in age; and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things. So Abraham said to the oldest servant of his house, who ruled over all that he had, “Please, put your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell; but you shall go to my country and to my family, and take a wife for my son Isaac.” …

Gen. 25:20 – Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah as wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padan Aram, the sister of Laban the Syrian.

Gen. 28:2 – Arise, go to Padan Aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and take yourself a wife from there of the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother.

Ex. 2:21 – Then Moses was content to live with the man, and he gave Zipporah his daughter to Moses.

Josh. 15:17 – So Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife.

Judg. 12:9 – He had thirty sons. And he gave away thirty daughters in marriage, and brought in thirty daughters from elsewhere for his sons. He judged Israel seven years.

1Sam. 18:27 – therefore David arose and went, he and his men, and killed two hundred men of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full count to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him Michal his daughter as a wife.

Up to this far, all passages describe events, not what we should do.

Jer. 29:6 – Take wives and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters—that you may be increased there, and not diminished.

This order was given to the Israelites taken in captive to Babylon. The whole passage is about building a future in Babylon, prospering where their situation took them. This is not a “God’s will for the Christian marriage” passage.

1Cor. 7:38 – So then he who gives her in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better.

This passage does not mention a father, or a daughter. This is just one interpretation of the passage. The real Greek don’t even have the word “her” in this verse. Bible scholars disagree whether this passage speak of a father giving his daughter, of a man who may behave uncomely towards his fiancée by staying single (:36), or a person who will struggle to keep his/ her virginity, and should rather give it away in marriage.

Even if this verse is about fathers who give in marriage, the literal meaning would be that fathers do better if they do not give children in marriage. They do better if they do not “oversee the process of a son or daughter seeking a spouse”. As such, it is certainly no command to be involved in their search for a partner.

Gen. 24:58 – Then they called Rebekah and said to her, “Will you go with this man?” And she said, “I will go.”

Rebekah chose to go to Isaac. This is an event, not a teaching.

23a) Fathers should oversee the process of a son or daughter seeking a spouse.

No verse in here teaches they should, unless you take Jer. 29:6 as an order to us. But by :4, it is an order to those “caused to be carried away from Jerusalem unto Babylon”. That is not us.

b) While a father may find a wife for his son,

Some texts speak of fathers doing it. But that don’t mean they may do it. Those same men who gave daughters in marriage were often sinners and cowards, prone to many types of wrongdoing. For example, Abraham (used here as an example of giving spousal advice to his son) also gave away his wife to a harem. The examples Abraham set for marrying and giving in marriage should not always be followed.  

c) sons are free to take initiative to seek and “take a wife.”

These texts do not teach they are free to do so. It mentions sons doing so, but some of these very same sons who take wives also have crimes like murder and adultery on their consciences. As such, their examples do not show we should follow it.

d) A wise son will desire his parents’ involvement, counsel, and blessing in that process.

No verse teaches it. I think a wise son will ask their involvement, council and blessing if he correctly judges them to be wise. A wise son, who correctly judges his parents not to be wise in this matter, will not ask much help from them in the process.

e) Since daughters are “given in marriage” by their fathers,

“Are given” is a bit ambiguous here. If it means they were given in marriage by fathers in the sinful world of Bible times, then it is true. It is historically and factually true that daughters are often given in marriage.

If it implies daughters should be given in marriage by fathers, this is not in the Bible. Since patriarchists act out the latter belief in courtship/ betrothal, I will treat it as meaning the latter.

f) an obedient daughter will desire her father to guide the process of finding a husband,

This is not in the Bible.

g) although the final approval of a husband belongs to her.

This is believable, and compatible with free will and with mercy and loving others as yourself, but not taught in the Bible.

h) Upon a Marriage taking place, a new household with new jurisdiction is established, separate from that of the father.

This was not defended at all.

Other ways Christians understand this:

On the blog Jensgems, Jen writes:

This Tenet is about “betrothal,” a system that is far more about a cultural system that was commonplace two thousand years ago, than it is about any biblical mandates. Patriarchists are seeking to reestablish a system whereby the father becomes the ultimate authority and arbiter on making the most important decision that his children will ever enter into — their marriage partners. Two thousand years ago this may have made a lot more sense culturally than it does today. Two thousand years ago sons generally took wives right from within their own communities. Sons also often took wives from among their own cousins. Today we know that such “inbreeding” often produces disastrous results. They also frequently took wives that were in their early teens (e.g. 14 year olds). Betrothals were also often arranged for a young man to take more than one wife. Today we know better than to encourage that. Not everything recorded in Scripture (polygamy, marrying cousins, etc.) can or should be interpreted as a biblical mandate for us today. God gave us an intellect and He expects us to use it.

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is not biblically defended

      This was not defended from the Bible, but I’ll concede it for rational reasons.

23. Fathers should oversee the process of a son or daughter seeking a spouse. While a father may find a wife for his son, sons are free to take initiative to seek and “take a wife.” A wise son will desire his parents’ involvement, counsel, and blessing in that process. Since daughters are “given in marriage” by their fathers, an obedient daughter will desire her father to guide the process of finding a husband, although the final approval of a husband belongs to her. Upon a Marriage taking place, a new household with new jurisdiction is established, separate from that of the father.

Tenet 25

25. Fathers need to exercise discernment in the choices they make for their families and not simply drift with the cultural tide. Egalitarian feminism is an enemy of God and of biblical truth, but the need for care goes beyond this threat. The values of modern society are often at odds with those that accompany a biblical worldview. For example, fathers need self-consciously to resist the values of individualism at the expense of community, efficiency at the expense of relationships, and material well-being at the expense of spiritual progress. The world and the worldly church will cheer many choices that are detrimental to family sanctification. (Rom. 12:2; 1 Jn. 2:15)

Rom. 12:2 -And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

1John 2:15 – Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

We should not conform to this world, or love this world. That also means we should not love or be like the sinful world of Bible times, to which this was written. Some of these tenets hold up people from the sinful world of Abraham, Sarah, Rebekah, Isaac, Leah, Rachel and Jacob, as an example for us, without proving God was indeed in favor of their behavior. These patriarchs were evidently sinners (with several examples of stealing, lying, fraud and loveless behavior between them), so why would we want to follow their example? We could follow their example in behavior God praises elsewhere, but not in all they did. Also see "Other ways Christians understand this" under tenet 21.

25a) Fathers need to exercise discernment in the choices they make

Yes, fathers should exercise discernment. So should mothers, singles, children, widows, and childless people. This is a major problem with these tenets: They read everything in terms of men and fathers, even that which apply to everyone.

b) for their families

This imply fathers should make choices for their families. Except for Eph. 6:4, which say fathers (and perhaps mothers) should (choose to) bring their children up in the training and admonition of God, no other verse in TBP say they should make any other choices for their families. Even with that verse, no verse in TBP prove they should make any decision whatsoever for their wives.

Common sense certainly suggest that there will be times, in a family, when not everyone can make his own decision, but nothing in these tenets prove this is the father's job.

c) and not simply drift with the cultural tide.

That is a challenge to all believers, not just fathers.

d) Egalitarian feminism is an enemy of God and of biblical truth,

This is hard to comment on, as they did not define "egalitarian feminism." Do they mean secular feminism, with egalitarian meaning its emphasis on equality? Do they mean Christian egalitarianism, with feminism meaning the focus on how women are treated in church? If they mean secular feminism, which aspects of it are meant? Is Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s work to allow widows to inherit the same as suffrage?

The tenets do not prove anything about secular feminism in itself (see for example how tenets 5; 12 and 14 have no biblical basis).

And the undoubtedly biblical things in the tenets do not prove that Christian egalitarian is an enemy of God or biblical truth. Even those things marked with "It can be Biblically defended, but so can another view"shows, at most, that Christian egalitarians may be mistaken about (some of?) their ideas if the patriarchal interpretation is right. It does not prove their view, as a whole, is an enemy of God.

As such, I will simply state that it was the business of Phil Lancaster, RC Sproul, and Doug Phillips to define their terms and give texts to defend it. What they did not define, they cannot defend.

e) but the need for care goes beyond this threat.

Whether egalitarian feminism is an evident need for care or not, some things are a need for care. I grant them this.

f) The values of modern society are often at odds with those that accompany a biblical worldview.

The values of all societies - including patriarchal Old Testament society - are at odds with a biblical worldview. That is, if you define "biblical" as what God wants and have revealed in the Bible as His will.

Define "biblical" as whatever Bible characters did, and murder, rape, theft, prostitution, marrying your half-sister, and giving your wife away to a harem, all become "biblical."

I believe the message they want to give is not akin to "Christian pro-life values are at odds with the murders that happened in the Old Testament." The message is that our values are less than what God wants. As such, this point is true, and defended in Rom. 12:2 and 1 Jn. 2:15.

g) For example, fathers need self-consciously to resist the values of individualism at the expense of community, efficiency at the expense of relationships, and material well-being at the expense of spiritual progress.

These were not defended from the Bible. Where are texts against individualism, or for community? Can being like the community not entail loving the world and the things of the world? Were John the Baptist not an individualist? Could efficiency not be to our advantage sometimes, even when you have to work on a task when you could have worked on a relationship?

h) The world and the worldly church will cheer many choices that are detrimental to family sanctification.

The world will cheer many choices detrimental to sanctification. That is implied in the texts provided. But inserting "family" is simply adding to scripture. And since these Bible passages warn us not to be like the world, it implies that the worldly church could live like them. I'm not sure the texts say a part of the Christian church would "cheer" those choices.

Other ways Christians understand this:

Christians agree that we should not be like the world. Most of them don’t see the need to add “fathers” or “family” to this truth.

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is adequately biblically defended

      This is a partial truth. (The other part of the truth, that together make it Biblical, will be added in brackets.)

      This is not biblically defended

25. Fathers (like everyone else) need to exercise discernment in the choices they make for their families and not simply drift with the cultural tide. Egalitarian feminism is an enemy of God and of biblical truth, but the need for care goes beyond this threat. The values of modern society are often at odds with those that accompany a biblical worldview. For example, fathers need self-consciously to resist the values of individualism at the expense of community, efficiency at the expense of relationships, and material well-being at the expense of spiritual progress. The world and the worldly church will cheer many choices that are detrimental to family sanctification.