Tenet 7

7. The authority of fathers is limited by the law of God and the lawful authority of church and state. Christian fathers cannot escape the jurisdiction of church and state and must be subject to both. (Rom. 13:1ff.; Eph. 5:21; 6:4; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:13ff.)

Rom. 13:1 – Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

If every soul should be subject to them, why does this tenet only mention fathers?

Eph. 5:21 – submitting to one another in the fear of God.

This don’t relate to authorities, but to how believers – including husbands and wives – have to treat each other.

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.

Is this part of jurisdiction a father must be subject to? If the father's behavior makes a child angry (provokes him to wrath), is the child's wrath jurisdiction that must limit the father's behavior? Why is this text included here?

Heb. 13:17 – Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

This verse, in its context, refers to church jurisdiction. But once again, it speaks not only of fathers - everyone is under church jurisdiction.

1 Pet. 2:13 – Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme.

This verse, in its context, refers to state jurisdiction, but there is still no mention of fathers.

7a) The authority of fathers

See 5a); 5e) and 6a); perhaps also discussions of Tenet 3 and 4.

b) is limited by the law of God

Yes, God's law limits authority.

c) and the lawful authority of church; Christian fathers cannot escape the jurisdiction of church

Yes, the church should certainly believe that human authority ought to be limited.
d) and the lawful authority of state. Christian fathers cannot escape the jurisdiction of state

Yes, Christians - that include parents - should respect the law.

e) and must be subject to both.

Not an extra point, but a repetition of c) and d).

Other ways Christians understand this:

(No extra notes this time)

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? Here is the 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


7. The authority of fathers is limited by the law of God and the lawful authority of church and state. Christian fathers cannot escape the jurisdiction of church and state and must be subject to both.

 

Tenet 8

Family, Church, and State
8. Family, church, and state are parallel institutions, each with real but limited authority in its ordained sphere. As the keeper of the keys of Christ’s kingdom, the church is the central and defining institution of history. As the primary social group, the family is the foundational institution of society. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18; Acts 4:19; 5:29; 25:11; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:13ff.; Eph. 1:22-23; 1 Tim. 3:15)

Matt. 16:19 – “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matt. 18:18 – “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Yes. In Christ, the church can do this. When the church leave Christ, and call people unsaved/ disobedient to the gospel for reasons that Christ did not endorse, it no longer use the keys.

Acts 4:19 – But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.
Acts 5:29 – But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.“
Yes. The same Peter who told us to submit to authorities (1 Pet. 2:13), tell us we ought to rather obey God. The authorities did not want Peter to commit any direct sin. They wanted Peter to shut up about the gospel, to refrain from doing something good. When elders, or a husband, tell you not to do a certain type of good work, does this apply too? I believe it does. After all, the same word for submit is used for submission to governing authorities, church leaders, and husbands.

Acts 25:11 -“For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.”
This is an example, not doctrine. But this same Paul preached submission to government. Because of that, I get the impression that submitting meant yielding to the good things the government could give (legal protection), while opposing the bad (unjust arrest). If this is the truth, then surely it counts for church and home submission too?

Heb. 13:17 – Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

I Pet. 2:13 – Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme,

Yes. Heb. 13:17 refers to church authority, and 1 Pet. 2:13 to state authority within their contexts.

Eph. 1:22-23 – And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Christ is the head of the church, but I don’t see how this is relevant to the tenet. By the way, this verse use “head” (kephale in Greek) in a figurative way that may refer to Him being the source – “Him who fills all in all.” (See tenet 2, discussion under 1 Cor. 11:3)

I Tim. 3:15 – I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

True, but how is it relevant to the tenet?

8a) Family, church, and state are parallel institutions,

This is not supported by a text. Moreover, this was not always so. For example, church and state, in some societies, was the same institution. For children whose “family” was a church orphanage, the boundaries between church and family were hardly there. In many societies, the despot’s will overrode that of the family. The spheres have never been separate.

b) each with real but limited authority in its ordained sphere.

Family has limited authority in its sphere? This tenet gave no evidence for family authority. Eph. 6:4 (discussed in tenet 5e) perhaps does, for fathers over children.  Some other verses certainly do, for parents – both mother and father – over children.

Church has limited authority in its sphere? Yes, that is defended.

State has limited authority in its sphere? Yes.

c) As the keeper of the keys of Christ’s kingdom,

Yes.

d) the church is the central and defining institution of history.

I see no scriptural support for this. Is God – Christ himself – not central to history, instead of his church?

e)As the primary social group, the family is the foundational institution of society.

This is not scripturally supported, but I’ll concede it for rational reasons.

Other ways Christians understand this:

As a rule, Christians find Christ, not the church, central.

Where patriarchal spheres of authority limits people to roles, many believe spheres of authority exist to give responsibilities to authoritarians, not to limit those under their authority. If upholding the law, for example, is in the state sphere of authority, it means the state have a responsibility in that regard. It does not mean you should refrain from wearing a gun, and say crime protection is in someone else’s sphere.

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

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

8. Family, church, and state are parallel institutions, each with real but limited authority in its ordained sphere. As the keeper of the keys of Christ’s kingdom, the church is the central and defining institution of history. As the primary social group, the family is the foundational institution of society.

Patriarchy and the family

Patriarchy places a very high priority on the family: Children obeying fathers. Wives obeying husbands. Schooling children at home. Staying with the family until marriage. Your father finding you someone to marry. Adherents are even opposed to Sunday school as the family should be teaching children about God.

What does Jesus teach us about family? Jesus is not nearly as pro-family as patriarchy supporters. He says, among others:

Mat_10:37  He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Mat_19:29  And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Luk_14:26  If any come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Jesus tells his followers to call nobody father, as there is only one father and master over them:

Mat. 23:8-9 But you are not to be called “Rabbi,” for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth “father,” for you have one Father, and He is in Heaven.

As for honoring his family, which family does Jesus choose sides for? :

Mat 12:46-50 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him: Who is my mother? And who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said: Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

A Christian, according to New Testament writers, has a new family – the family/ household of God. Among numerous such verses, here are a few:

Eph. 2:19  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; Gal_6:10  As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

1Pe 3:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

Believers are called brothers and sisters (meaning of brethren) – with one Father.

Now, if the New Testament extensively discuss being part of a spiritual family, why would God give authority to teach you and help you on the right way only, or mainly, to the natural family? Christ even approves of abandoning your natural family to follow him.

The Patriarchal focus on family authority is evidentially not how family is viewed in the New Testament. Biological family, in the New Testament, is something you should be willing to lose for Christ’s sake. Your real family is all the believers. There is family authority in the spiritual family, but from a structure where all – including fathers – are inherently brothers and sisters (brethren). It is not about hierarchy. It is about all believers submitting to one another. (Eph. 5:21)

Note:

Biblical Patriarchy is not the way families are pictured in the Old Testament either – in the Old Testament, most men were not patriarchs. Patriarchs were tribal chieftains, and most men and their families had to submit to whichever son the old patriarch appointed as new patriarch. See, for example Gen 27:37: 

And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son?

Tenet 9

9. Every Christian father and family ought to be a submitted and committed part of a local church, subject to the authority and discipline of the church through its elders. (Heb. 10:24-25; 13:17)

Heb. 10:24-25 – And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

We – fathers and non-fathers, families and singles, in short, all believers – should assemble to exhort and encourage one another to love and good works. Female Christians and Christian children should also take part in exhorting and encouraging. We should come together and stir up the good in one another.

Heb. 13:17 – Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

Obey in this text comes from a Greek word for being convinced. It is not unquestioning obedience, but obedience because you are convinced they are right. So yes, be obedient to your church – when you have good reason to believe they are right. The argument of this blog is that "Christian" patriarchy is essentially wrong, and that you should rather be convinced by (and then obey) a group that better understands what it means to be the church.

9a) Every Christian father and family ought to be a submitted and committed part of a local church

Every Christian, without the words father and family added. It is only the one-sided patriarchal focus on the family that put “father and family” in this tenet.

b) subject to the authority and discipline of the church through its elders.

Subject to their authority? Yes, it is in Heb. 13:17. Subject to their discipline? I believe that could be found in scripture, but TBP (the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy) does not back it up with scripture. “Through its elders” is not in the texts given, but a scriptural case can be made for it.

Other ways Christians understand this:

Some say that the church is in itself the family of God, and that it does not have to rigidly follow earthly family structures in everything it does. Many churches have, for example, Sunday school or children’s groups that are so popular that some children attend whose parents are not churchgoers. Instead of thinking that they are usurping parental authority by teaching this girl/boy, these Sunday schools will rejoice in the opportunity to be the family of God for this child. As such, they encourage not only the family to be part of their church, but also the individual Christian who have a family that does not want to attend church.

Summing it up

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

      The color code:

      This is adequately Biblically defended

      This can be defended Biblically, but TBP don't give such a verse.

      This is not Biblically defended

9. Every Christian father and family ought to be a submitted and committed part of a local church, subject to the authority and discipline of the church through its elders.

Tenet 10

10. The church is defined by its orthodox confession and faithful teaching of God’s word; by the presence of the Holy Spirit; by the rule of qualified elders; by the biblical administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; by regular meetings for worship, instruction, breaking bread, and fellowship; and by the exercise of discipleship and discipline. (Gal. 1:8; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Cor. 12:13; 1 Tim. 3:1ff.; Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:20ff.; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 5)

Gal. 1:8 – But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Orthodox confession –yes. (By the time we get to the end of the TBP's tenets on men and women, education, and older children, you can judge for yourself if "the gospel centered doctrine of biblical patriarchy", as the tenets call itself, is the real gospel, or "any other gospel.")

1 Tim. 3:15 – I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

How is this relevant to the tenet? Does “pillar and ground of the truth” mean the orthodox confession and faithful teaching? Is the living God the pillar and ground of truth, or is His church that?

1 Cor. 12:13 – For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

The sacrament of baptism and presense of the Holy Spirit, yes.

1Tim. 3:1 and further (Excerpt):  This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless …

This covers qualified elders. (By the way, the original Greek of this contains no gendered word like "man" or "he".)

Matt. 28:19 – Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Baptism and discipleship is in the tenets.

1 Cor. 11:20 and further (Excerpt):  …the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come…

Acts 20:7 – Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

Breaking bread together is something the disciples did, but it does not say this is what defines the church. 

10a) The church is defined by its orthodox confession and faithful teaching of God’s word;

 Yes.

b) by the presence of the Holy Spirit;

Yes. It could be covered by more verses, not just half of 1 Cor. 12:13.

c) by the rule of qualified elders; by the biblical administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper;

Yes.

d) by regular meetings for worship, instruction, breaking bread, and fellowship;

Nothing in these verses mentions either regular meetings or worship, or instruction. Breaking bread is mentioned, but not as a definition of the church. Fellowship is not mentioned.

e) and by the exercise of discipleship and discipline.

Discipleship is mentioned in Matt. 28:19. Discipline by God, not by elders, is mentioned in the 1 Cor 11:20 and further passage. Discipline by the church elders is meant by TBP, but not covered in the Bible verses.

Other ways Christians understand this:

Some Christians emphasize that the church is not a building or a meeting, but each and every believer. The church can firstly be known, they say, by this:

 Joh 13:35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

This verse, interestingly enough, is not part of how the New Patriarchal leaders define the church, and none of their definitions, except Matt. 28:19, comes from Jesus himself.

Summing it up

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

      The color code:

      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

      This can be defended Biblically, but TBP don't give such a verse.

10. The church is defined by (the love of Jesus’ disciples for one another,) its orthodox confession and faithful teaching of God’s word; by the presence of the Holy Spirit; by the rule of qualified elders; by the biblical administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; by regular meetings for worship, instruction, breaking bread,  and fellowship; and by the exercise of discipleship and discipline.

Tenet 11: Does leadership in the home carry over into the church and society?

11. Male leadership in the home carries over into the church: only men are permitted to hold the ruling office in the church. A God-honoring society will likewise prefer male leadership in civil and other spheres as an application of and support for God’s order in the formative institutions of family and church.(1 Tim. 3:5)

1 Tim. 3:5 – (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)

First, this doesn’t say that leadership carries over to the church, or that only men should rule the church. It says that those who don’t rule homes well cannot rule the church.

In fact, even the words “a man” in this verse is misleading. The Greek word used here mean “an indefinite pronoun, some or any person or object.” It does not have to refer to a male.

11a) Male leadership in the home

Neither this tenet nor any other have yet sufficiently defended male leadership in the home, beyond the leadership of bringing children up in the training and admonition of the Lord. And even in that, the Bible don’t teach that he has the only voice in it.

b) carries over into the church:

Successful home leadership is required to be a bishop in the church, by the verse provided and by the passage of that verse. But that don’t mean it carries over into the church: Some unbelievers rule their homes well, should their leadership carry over to the church?

c) only men are permitted to hold the ruling office in the church.

No. The text does not say it. Even if 1Tim 3:5 meant males - it actually does not mean that in the original Greek our Bibles is translated from - it stil would not say that.
By comparison to "if a man(anyone) does not know how to rule his (her) house, how will he (that person) take care of the household of God" , I will give this statement: “If a child does not know how to look after his toys, how will he look after a Blackberry phone?” This does not mean only children should have Blackberries. And 1 Tim 3:5 does not mean only men should hold the ruling office in the church.

d) A God-honoring society will likewise prefer male leadership in civil and other spheres as an application of and support for God’s order in the formative institutions of family and church.

That is not in the text at all.

Other ways Christians understand this:

The average Christian fail to see this point at all, as it is simply not backed up by scripture.

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

11. Male leadership in the home carries over into the church: only men are permitted to hold the ruling office in the church. A God-honoring society will likewise prefer male leadership in civil and other spheres as an application of and support for God’s order in the formative institutions of family and church.

Tenet 12: A man’s dominion carries over into the public square?

Men and women: Spheres of dominion

12. While men are called to public spheres of dominion beyond the home, their dominion begins within the home, and a man’s qualification to lead and ability to lead well in the public square is based upon his prior success in ruling his household. (Mal. 4:6; Eph. 6:4; 1 Tim. 3:5)

Mal. 4:6 – And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.
This has nothing to do with dominion or ruling.

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.

1 Tim. 3:5 – (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)

See the discussions of these two verses under Tenets 5, 7 and 11.

12a) While men are called to public spheres of dominion beyond the home,

This is not defended from the verses provided.

b) their dominion begins within the home,

Ruling the home well (which is not limited to men only, by the meaning of the word translated “man” in 1 Tim. 3:5) should (by this verse) come before being a bishop. But should it come before any other type of leadership? The Bible doesn’t say that. Jesus led without, as far as we know, ruling a household beforehand.

c) and a man’s qualification to lead and ability to lead well in the public square is based upon his prior success in ruling his household.

Nothing in here connects family ruling to public ruling, but only to one form of church ruling.

Other ways Christians understand this:

The average Christian fail to see this point at all, as the text simply does not say it.

Summing it up

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

      The color code:

      This is not Biblically defended

12. While men are called to public spheres of dominion beyond the home, their dominion begins within the home, and a man’s qualification to lead and ability to lead well in the public square is based upon his prior success in ruling his household.