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 16, and a thoroughly Christian education

16. Education is not a neutral enterprise. Christian parents must provide their children with a thoroughly Christian education, one that teaches the Bible and a biblical view of God and the world. Christians should not send their children to public schools since education is not a God-ordained function of civil government and since these schools are sub-Christian at best and anti-Christian at worst. (Deut. 4:9; 6:6-9; Rom. 13:3-5; Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 3:15)

Deut. 4:9 – Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren,

This is a command to the Israelites to teach their children what they saw. This is no command to teach children reading, counting, or even of the meaning of the death of Christ. Those are not among the things we saw. It could either mean: “Israel, teach the children and grandchildren of your nation” or “each Israelite parent, teach your own children and grandchildren.”

Deut. 6:6-9 – And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

This is a command to diligently teach the laws of Deuteronomy. How do you pick and choose what you take from there? Do you still bind a frontlet between their eyes? Do you do a genealogy check on people before they become part of your group, to insist that no bastard (someone born from illicit intercourse) may become part of the group, even if the illicit act was by the grandmother’s grandfather’s great-grandparents?(Deut. 23:2)

Rom. 13:3-5 – For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.

We must do good, so we do not have to fear the government. How does this relate to educating our children? Could “he (the authority) is God’s minister to you for good” be used to mean that the authority ministers for good by providing public schools? Or does this relate to being willing to let authorities test your home-schooled children, as you have nothing to fear?

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.

Notice that fathers are not asked to potty-train their children, or teach them chemical science or bicycle riding or self-defense or how to make a living. These things could be taught by other people, and the father who trains his children about Christian living and understanding the things of God would still obey Eph. 6:4.

TBP use this verse to refer to fathers, and not mothers, in tenets on authority. (See tenet 5 and 12) Now that it comes to the actual work of educating children (closer than authority to the real meaning of this verse) they say fathers should do it with mothers!

Why do they use this for a father’s authority to train children without using Deut 4:9, Deut 6:6-9 and 2 Tim 3:15 for a mother’s authority to train them? The question here is about consistency: If they use verses on teaching children to prove male parental authority, they should also use them for female parental authority. If they believe that verses on teaching children prove no authority, they should scrap Eph. 6:4 from tenets 5 and 12.

2 Tim 3:15 – and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Timothy knew the Scriptures from childhood. His mother and grandmother taught him. It shows mothers could teach their children about God. The Scriptures he knew would have been only the Old Testament and perhaps a few of the first apostolic letters. It would not be the whole New Testament as little of it was written by the time Paul wrote to Timothy.

16a) Education is not a neutral enterprise.

It makes sense, but it was not defended from the Bible.

b) Christian parents must provide their children with a thoroughly Christian education,

It depends. Education has a very wide meaning range. It includes everything that the child learn, from chewing solids through potty training, counting to ten, manners, swimming, algebra, the Bible, using a weapon, healthy eating habits or how to relate to the opposite sex.

Educating babies on how to chew solids pretty much entail the same things whether you are a devout believer, an atheist or a Hindu. The same with bicycle balance, mathematics, preparing a meal, entrepreneurial skills, or a myriad of other things. And the Lord never commands it should be parents who teach children these things.

Bringing children up in the training and admonition of the Lord certainly mean they should be taught to do what they do as if for him. (Col 3:23) In that sense, they do need Christianity to permeate everything in their education. For that reason, and because Eph. 6:4 could refer to both parents (Heb 11:23 use the same Greek word to refer to both), this point gets a pass.  

But patriarchists use Eph. 6:4, about the training and admonition of the Lord, to refer only to fathers and not both parents. (See tenets 5 and 7) As such, they have no scriptural command here to let mothers partake in Christian teaching, or home schooling. (2 Tim. 3:15 is no command, and Deuteronomy don’t speak of Christianity.)

Nothing in scripture say parents should be a child’s sole teachers. Or that they should be the ones to teach much beyond religious belief itself.

That said, a child who is taught by wise Christian parents in many ways, will most likely be better brought up in the training and admonition of the Lord than children who spend most of their time away from parents, or children with unwise parents. For example, the Tenets of Biblical patriarchy provably contain much unbiblical material. (The evidence is all over this blog.) Any parents who believe these tenets prove that they are not wise enough to be solely responsible for teaching their children in the ways of the Lord.

c) one that teaches the Bible and a biblical view of God and the world.

As far as “training and admonition of the Lord” overlaps with Bible teaching, this is biblical. However, to believe this refers to both parents, you must reject the way Eph. 6:4 is used in tenet 5 and 12.

d) Christians should not send their children to public schools

There is no Biblical defense for this view in TBP.

d) since education is not a God-ordained function of civil government and

Nor is education – except for training children about God – a God-ordained function of parents. (Not by the literal words of the Bible, anyway.) If you demand a Bible verse that tell government to teach young ones reading and writing and ‘rithmetic before condoning public school, you should also demand one that tells parents to do so, before condoning home schooling.

e) since these schools are sub-Christian at best and anti-Christian at worst.

The Bible says nothing of government schools. As such, this point cannot be Biblical. However, American teachers are not allowed to talk of God to children in school hours. Therefore, I would concede these schools are sub-Christian at best.

Other ways Christians understand this:

Christians believe that children should be brought up in the training and admonition of the Lord. Most Christians, however, have no problem with teaching children whose parents are not Christians, because Christ tells us to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. In several spots, the New Testament talks to children. As such, it seems that children were taught not just by their parents, but by the church as well.

Many Christians emphasize that bringing up children in the training and admonition of the Lord does not mean teaching them the right outward attitudes. A parent should help them find Christ, and testify Christ to them in word and deed. To have Christian attitudes outside while not having Christ inside (right behaviour can be beaten into a child, but Christ cannot), is futile. In fact, it could just bring the child under a false impression of having salvation when he/ she does not.

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

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

16. Education is not a neutral enterprise. Christian parents must provide their children with a thoroughly Christian education, one that teaches the Bible and a biblical view of God and the world. Christians should not send their children to public schools since education is not a God-ordained function of civil government (nor of parents, beyond the training and admonition of the Lord) and since these schools are sub-Christian at best and anti-Christian at worst.

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.