Jesus' (Apparent) Dimunition of the Family

[the_earnest_inquirer]

Hi there,

I am unsettled by the "Big-Eva" disposition toward the biological family (BF), particularly in its demotion of it in comparison to more explicit "Kingdom-oriented" ambitions, like over-seas missions and local philanthropic ministries of all sorts. Part of the reason I moved toward the Reformed community was because of this; it seemed the more Reformed a group was, the more highly they evaluated family discipleship and the centricity of the family unit in building healthy churches.

However, I somewhat get why there is the drift to demote the BF when one looks at Jesus' teaching. It just seems that, when Jesus is confronted with a situation in which familial ties are in question, He tends to downplay the family. I know that's a simplistic misconstrual, but it does appear that way. I think Mark 10:29 is the most jolting example. In it, Jesus seems to encourage his disciples away from earthly family ties. I think anyone reading without a strong, developed hermeneutic would get the impression from scripture that Jesus diminishes the BF pretty brutally and as a matter of principle.

Now I know, I know, Jesus is ultimately teaching that following him means putting him and his kingdom above earthly ties, even good ones, but I have yet to find a strong, comprehensive explanation for how this truth doesn't imply that we ought to put family under “ministry,” whatever that ministry may be, provided it is outside the home and involves unbelievers. In a sort of devil's advocate role play, I see where the pseudo-gnostic Christians are coming from when they divorce the Spiritual from the Biological and elevate the former over the latter.

Missionary boarding schools, traveling preachers that leave their wives to care for the babies for months on end, young couples opting for adoption over having biological children — all these manifestations of the assumption that Jesus prioritizes missions over BF. Doesn't anyone have any resources on the topic that might shed light? Books, sermons, podcasts? Or personal input? I'm looking for answers to these questions that are thought out and aren't reflective of the synchronized church's disdain for the family.

Grateful for your thoughts and input.

 

[Johnny G]

In Mark 10:29, Jesus is talking about the cost of following Christ. It may cost you everything, including those closest to you. Jesus came to bring a sword that sometimes divides people on account of their allegiance to Christ (Matt 10:34-39). I don’t think this is applicable to the person who neglects his family to serve Christ. The ministers first ministry should be to his family. If he isn’t serving there faithfully he isn’t qualified to serve others.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It's surprising (a bit) to me that, of all places, Mk.10 should jump out at you as a place where the nuclear family is set down in NT or "kingdom" terms.

When I preached this chapter, I noted that it begins with an affirmation of marriage for the kingdom age, followed immediately by a strong affirmation of the place of babies and children in the kingdom.

It's almost as if Jesus intends--even contrary to his disciples' obtuse aims and false emphases--to indicate that husband's, wives, and children (i.e. the famiiy) remains the basic building block of his kingdom moving forward.

While the disciples push the fathers with their infants away, they are rebuked; then they seem somewhat appalled when the Lord dismisses the rich young ruler, one who seemed poised to get the ball rolling on this mission attracting major money and influence. Does Jesus have it backwards?

Given how often the church wirh its mission has taken the disciples' line, you'd be justified in thinking there's a perverse preference for their thinking.

 

[davejonescue]

I wonder how long the Disciples left their families to follow Jesus, if they had any? Or did their families travel with them? And if this plays any part in some who give preeminence to what they deem as a greater mission, than the one in their homes?

 

[Polanus1561]

1 cor 9. Paul is saying Peter had church support as his wife travelled with him

 

[davejonescue]

1 cor 9. Paul is saying Peter had church support as his wife travelled with him

I was thinking more Matthew 19:27-29?

"Look,” Peter replied, “we have left everything to follow You. What then will there be for us?” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, in the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for the sake of My name will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first."

 

[the_earnest_inquirer]

Thanks for the good thoughts. Related to this, and perhaps at the source, I am stumped by the burden that seems to be out on believers when we not only have the Dominion Mandate from the OT, but then the Great Commission from the NT. I can see why Christians feel like the Great Commission, which almost seems to undermine natural family, usurps the DM. It makes sense why they'd drift away from earthly investments, like fruitful wombs, family focused discipleship, saving inheritance for future generations, and other activities and investments that seem more OT in spirit. Anyone have thoughts on this? (If it's helpful, I'm playing devil's advocate on this. I'm definitely convinced that God wants us to be faithful with our natural families. I'm just trying to build up my hermeneutic on this matter.)

 

[davejonescue]

Thanks for the good thoughts. Related to this, and perhaps at the source, I am stumped by the burden that seems to be out on believers when we not only have the Dominion Mandate from the OT, but then the Great Commission from the NT. I can see why Christians feel like the Great Commission, which almost seems to undermine natural family, usurps the DM. It makes sense why they'd drift away from earthly investments, like fruitful wombs, family focused discipleship, saving inheritance for future generations, and other activities and investments that seem more OT in spirit. Anyone have thoughts on this? (If it's helpful, I'm playing devil's advocate on this. I'm definitely convinced that God wants us to be faithful with our natural families. I'm just trying to build up my hermeneutic on this matter.)

Possibly because we know the Creation "Mandate" not to be a perpetual mandate at all (outside its context of adequately populating the Earth.) John the Baptist, Jesus, nor Paul (one the greatest prophet, one our Lord, and one the greatest evangelist) never felt the need to have children, raise families, or wed; and, nobody has accused them of sinning for not doing so. There seems to be a shift post-incarnation, where, Jesus in his day mentions the harvest is already plentiful; but the workers are few. So, it isn't a matter of needing to broaden the harvest by perpetual population, but to find workers that will tend to the crop already ripe.

 

[Frisian Gardener]

Thanks for the good thoughts. Related to this, and perhaps at the source, I am stumped by the burden that seems to be out on believers when we not only have the Dominion Mandate from the OT, but then the Great Commission from the NT. I can see why Christians feel like the Great Commission, which almost seems to undermine natural family, usurps the DM. It makes sense why they'd drift away from earthly investments, like fruitful wombs, family focused discipleship, saving inheritance for future generations, and other activities and investments that seem more OT in spirit. Anyone have thoughts on this? (If it's helpful, I'm playing devil's advocate on this. I'm definitely convinced that God wants us to be faithful with our natural families. I'm just trying to build up my hermeneutic on this matter.)

Dispensationalism. If Christ is likely to return at literally any moment from now and burn it all up, why bother spend any resources to improve our lot down here?

 

[the_earnest_inquirer]

Possibly because we know the Creation "Mandate" not to be a perpetual mandate at all (outside its context of adequately populating the Earth.) John the Baptist, Jesus, nor Paul (one the greatest prophet, one our Lord, and one the greatest evangelist) never felt the need to have children, raise families, or wed; and, nobody has accused them of sinning for not doing so. There seems to be a shift post-incarnation, where, Jesus in his day mentions the harvest is already plentiful; but the workers are few. So, it isn't a matter of needing to broaden the harvest by perpetual population, but to find workers that will tend to the crop already ripe.

Interesting thoughts. It seems, my friend, that you well represent the very attitude that I, at the outset of this post, was referring to as those who hold a relatively anti-family view. I realize you are probably not actually "anti" family, but it does appear that you embrace view that strongly diminishes the importance of the natural family in the New Covenant age. I find this sad, and am glad that it seems the majority of those responding hold to a high evaluation of the family and don't see a competition between it and the fulfillment of Christ's teachings.

With love and in good humor.

 

[Pomopu]

As a single person that for all I know might forever be single, but also called to the ministry, I ( humbly I submit this) find it amusing and biblically illiterate when my family and friends view finding a wife for me as of greater importance than holiness, my preaching, my time in seminary, etc. Because the one thing needful is not "to be married," the one thing needful far surpasses "being married."

Single people are eschatological pointers to our collective, future state as single people in the world to come. The fully redeemed state of man and woman is to be single, in corporate covenant marriage to Christ. The entire thrust of the Bible is to propel us to think grander, broader, bigger, about the purposes of God.

It is not the nuclear family which ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth. And single people play a key role in the 21st century church, existing as constant burrs to our thought: "My spouse will die. And nevermore, will my spouse be my spouse. Heaven, heaven is about a new Spouse. My hope is not in family, or my descendants. My hope transcends such things. Paul's family was the church."

Who is our primarily family? Our siblings, or our siblings in Christ?

There is no competition, of course, between our flesh and blood and our grander family of Christ. But I find the tendency isn't to elevate our new spiritual family, but to grandly overemphasize our physical family. Even the pagan, secular American loves the nuclear family. Every SUV commercial tells me this. But only the Christian can see far beyond their own family, to the billion people that make up their spiritual family, of past, present, and future. This should be more stressed, likely. The market for "marriage/family" book/bible study/video series is insane. Every church has a huge interest in family values/help/resources. The stress, if there must be a re-evaluation of theological stress, must be on the new church family.

 

[davejonescue]

Interesting thoughts. It seems, my friend, that you well represent the very attitude that I, at the outset of this post, was referring to as those who hold a relatively anti-family view. I realize you are probably not actually "anti" family, but it does appear that you embrace view that strongly diminishes the importance of the natural family in the New Covenant age. I find this sad, and am glad that it seems the majority of those responding hold to a high evaluation of the family and don't see a competition between it and the fulfillment of Christ's teachings.

With love and in good humor.

Thank you for your kind response. It isnt that I hold an "anti-family" view, not at all. If it were not for a family I wouldn't be here. But I do see this kind of tug-of-war going on, when, in my humble opinion, it should be ultimately neutral. What I see, in at least Reformed circles, is kind of an over-reaction (or over-correction) from the Papist idea that singleness and celibacy is "more sacred" than marriage and family. Which is of course, erroneous. But that over-reaction/correction now, is for some Reformed folk to make marriage and family "more sacred" than singleness, celibacy, or undistracted/undivided devotion; which is equally erroneous. What I mean is, that instead of letting each man or woman of God decide for themselves, as they feel called, to either glorify God by a family, marriage, etc. or, to glorify God by singleness, celibacy, etc. some people come up with the concept of a "mandate" that tries to push people into the former, kind of like Rome tries to push people who consider ministry into the latter. Each has its blessings, responsibilities, and gifts to the church; and people shouldn't feel compelled to either, when biblically both options are acceptable given you meet the criteria to do it blessedly.

With that being said, to kind of get more directly to your point; I think there is biblical precedent for those even with families, to at times, and if need be, see their distinct callings and missions as superseding their direct commitment within familial ties. And though this wouldn't be the norm, we do see scripturally that some do in fact leave wives and children for service to God. And furthermore, Jesus doesn't rebuke the thought, but promises blessings for those who may have to.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Unfortunately there is a devaluation of "nature" as a God-given and ordinal category; often in supposed favor of "supernatural" or "spiritual" at nature's expense, even suffering.

In reality, unless Providentially removed, one's presumed spiritual duties don't eliminate or come ahead of natural duty, but are added atop the natural.

So if you can't be both a responsible elder and a responsible husband, if you already have the husband-duty you are unfit to be an elder TOO.

 

[CathH]

In terms of book resources, the past week I've been reading Good Christians, Good Husbands? by Doreen Moore (Christian Focus Publications). She uses three case studies (John Wesley, George Whitefield, and Jonathan and Sarah Edwards) to explore the supposed tension between marriage/family and ministry. The gist of it is very clear on the damage that is done when someone who is a husband/father thinks they have a unique ministry which allows them to neglect their wife/family.

 

[the_earnest_inquirer]

Thanks guys, for the deep thoughts. I think a lot of this comes down to "knowing the times." I can't get behind the idea that, in our cultural climate, we need  more stress on singleness and the  heavenly family. I happily accept the clearly biblical truth that heaven, our ultimate home, is populated solely by true believers, which may or may not include biological family members. Sure. But I don't think it follows that we are in anyway to neglect shepherding and stewarding the gifts God give us (wife and children). In our day and age, we need more emphasis on having children and building strong marriages. Celibacy (not singleness, per se) is a calling for some people, and that's great, but it is not normative, and that for good cause. Marriages make babies, babies are people, people can become disciples, Jesus wants disciples. The idea of subjugating the Dominion Mandate because the earth is already populated seems ludicrous to me, and my reasons for that can be found in any basic Bible commentary on the matter, provided it's not published by Zondervan or Crossway after 2005 (haha).

In summation: Unless called to celibacy, get married. If married, have babies. If babies, train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And, in so doing, I think the question of running off on some perceived calling that would require abandoning them is off the table in God's Book.

Thanks.

 

[davejonescue]

Thanks guys, for the deep thoughts. I think a lot of this comes down to "knowing the times." I can't get behind the idea that, in our cultural climate, we need  more stress on singleness and the  heavenly family. I happily accept the clearly biblical truth that heaven, our ultimate home, is populated solely by true believers, which may or may not include biological family members. Sure. But I don't think it follows that we are in anyway to neglect shepherding and stewarding the gifts God give us (wife and children). In our day and age, we need more emphasis on having children and building strong marriages. Celibacy (not singleness, per se) is a calling for some people, and that's great, but it is not normative, and that for good cause. Marriages make babies, babies are people, people can become disciples, Jesus wants disciples. The idea of subjugating the Dominion Mandate because the earth is already populated seems ludicrous to me, and my reasons for that can be found in any basic Bible commentary on the matter, provided it's not published by Zondervan or Crossway after 2005 (haha).

In summation: Unless called to celibacy, get married. If married, have babies. If babies, train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And, in so doing, I think the question of running off on some perceived calling that would require abandoning them is off the table in God's Book.

Thanks.

If it is off the table in God's Book, then how do you deal with these verses? There seems not to be a single rebuke by Jesus that his disciples, nor anyone who would do so in his name (of course for the right reasons) were in the wrong for doing so. Rather, he seems to expect it, and furthermore, promises blessings for it. This isn't the normative case, of course, as most will not desire, nor be in a position to be involved in a commission/mission that would require their prolonged absence. But what I have a problem with is what appears to be your attempt to nullify the thought that there is anything of such supreme importance, that is deserving (or even biblically viable) that would require a persons prolonged absence from their family in the name of Christ or the Gospel.

Matthew 19:27–30
Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

Luke 18:28–30
And Peter said, “See, we have left our homes and followed you.” And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

Mark 10:28–31
Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

And, as far as the comment that God depends on Christians to have kids, to spread his church. The world is and has been an overwhelmingly majority heathen; and God no more needs the very minimal Christian collective of households to provide him with vessels of mercy, then he needs men's praises at the expense of singing stones. According to statistics, 70% of early believers quit the church before they leave college. So while I in no way want to minimize the importance of family, and dedication to it, I also don't want to lift it up to something more than it is. Remember, we can make an idol out of almost anything.

Luke 14:26-30
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. Which of you, wishing to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost……..

 

[Pomopu]

Thanks guys, for the deep thoughts. I think a lot of this comes down to "knowing the times." I can't get behind the idea that, in our cultural climate, we need  more stress on singleness and the  heavenly family. I happily accept the clearly biblical truth that heaven, our ultimate home, is populated solely by true believers, which may or may not include biological family members. Sure. But I don't think it follows that we are in anyway to neglect shepherding and stewarding the gifts God give us (wife and children). In our day and age, we need more emphasis on having children and building strong marriages. Celibacy (not singleness, per se) is a calling for some people, and that's great, but it is not normative, and that for good cause. Marriages make babies, babies are people, people can become disciples, Jesus wants disciples. The idea of subjugating the Dominion Mandate because the earth is already populated seems ludicrous to me, and my reasons for that can be found in any basic Bible commentary on the matter, provided it's not published by Zondervan or Crossway after 2005 (haha).

In summation: Unless called to celibacy, get married. If married, have babies. If babies, train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And, in so doing, I think the question of running off on some perceived calling that would require abandoning them is off the table in God's Book.

Thanks.

Observe that the question is not: "How is singleness?" It is "When are you going to get married?" That is, the default question in any church is, when, they will get married. As if it isn't an option. As if God might not call that person to singleness. As if God might not give that person a wife. As if God is only concerned about finding his Eves an Adam, and his Adams his Eves. This reveals to anyone listening carefully, that the church vastly overestimates the importance of evangelism within the sheets. And the other misconception is that it takes something superhuman and special to be chastely celibate! As if, (and this if Freud's thought) having a spouse permits the release of libidinal energy which would otherwise repressively harm us.

"Unless called to celibacy, get married." That is probably true. But a far cry from Jesus Christ's command: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations. . ." Which is why, again, I'm thoroughly convinced the stress is misplaced. When people quote "It is not good for man to be alone" more than the Great Commission, there is a great unbalance, a great loss. Because an eschatological smorgasbord, a new perspective on all of life and reality as God has created it, awaits those who can slip past the constraints of thinking in terms of the little family. Well--it's the very perspective Christ call us to, when as davejones quotes, Christ calls us away from home (little family) to heaven (big family).

On the other hand, it is very true God deals with families. . Complementary to the heavenly calling and "big family," there must be due tending to the covenant family. I also see this. It is what saved me! Without my parents, I would be in hell. So a bit of a balancing act. But at this point, as I think about my future ministry, all of my hyperbolic rhetoric and finesse will be to break people's shallow conception of God's mission for the church in that it must somehow hinge upon the vibrancy of baker's dozen families.

And many churches shame the woman who has no more than two or three children! It is like a thing to gossip about, or something. To great harm, from the very minimal exposure I have to these things.

 

[the_earnest_inquirer]

Observe that the question is not: "How is singleness?" It is "When are you going to get married?" That is, the default question in any church is, when, they will get married. As if it isn't an option. As if God might not call that person to singleness. As if God might not give that person a wife. As if God is only concerned about finding his Eves an Adam, and his Adams his Eves. This reveals to anyone listening carefully, that the church vastly overestimates the importance of evangelism within the sheets. And the other misconception is that it takes something superhuman and special to be chastely celibate! As if, (and this if Freud's thought) having a spouse permits the release of libidinal energy which would otherwise repressively harm us.

"Unless called to celibacy, get married." That is probably true. But a far cry from Jesus Christ's command: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations. . ." Which is why, again, I'm thoroughly convinced the stress is misplaced. When people quote "It is not good for man to be alone" more than the Great Commission, there is a great unbalance, a great loss. Because an eschatological smorgasbord, a new perspective on all of life and reality as God has created it, awaits those who can slip past the constraints of thinking in terms of the little family. Well--it's the very perspective Christ call us to, when as davejones quotes, Christ calls us away from home (little family) to heaven (big family).

On the other hand, it is very true God deals with families. . Complementary to the heavenly calling and "big family," there must be due tending to the covenant family. I also see this. It is what saved me! Without my parents, I would be in hell. So a bit of a balancing act. But at this point, as I think about my future ministry, all of my hyperbolic rhetoric and finesse will be to break people's shallow conception of God's mission for the church in that it must somehow hinge upon the vibrancy of baker's dozen families.

And many churches shame the woman who has no more than two or three children! It is like a thing to gossip about, or something. To great harm, from the very minimal exposure I have to these things.

A lot here, and thanks for sharing. I think it's clear you and I have our respective theological and personal precommitments, and that this comes down to more than hurling scripture back and forth. In other words, this is a case of presuppostional interpretation of scripture, and I'm okay with admitting that on my part. I think I am in alignment with scripture, as do you.
I reaffirm what I said before. The Church is made of churches, churches (healthy ones) are mainly comprised of families, families (healthy ones) are led by strong, present fathers. Those celibate members, or temporarily single, are a blessing in that they have more capacity for the Lord's work in other ways. God bless them. God bless you, friend. Keep sharing the Good News and optimize your celibacy for God's work in this world. Goodonya.

 

[CathH]

"Unless called to celibacy, get married." That is probably true. But a far cry from Jesus Christ's command: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations. . ." Which is why, again, I'm thoroughly convinced the stress is misplaced. When people quote "It is not good for man to be alone" more than the Great Commission, there is a great unbalance, a great loss. Because an eschatological smorgasbord, a new perspective on all of life and reality as God has created it, awaits those who can slip past the constraints of thinking in terms of the little family. Well--it's the very perspective Christ call us to, when as davejones quotes, Christ calls us away from home (little family) to heaven (big family).

On the other hand, it is very true God deals with families. . Complementary to the heavenly calling and "big family," there must be due tending to the covenant family. I also see this. It is what saved me! Without my parents, I would be in hell. So a bit of a balancing act. But at this point, as I think about my future ministry, all of my hyperbolic rhetoric and finesse will be to break people's shallow conception of God's mission for the church in that it must somehow hinge upon the vibrancy of baker's dozen families.

And many churches shame the woman who has no more than two or three children! It is like a thing to gossip about, or something. To great harm, from the very minimal exposure I have to these things.

This is very neatly put, I think. In that book I mentioned, 'Good Christians, Good Husbands?' one thing that struck me was that the need for it apparently sprang from the expectation that a lot of Christians will be working in full-time ministries and therefore need like-minded spouses if they are to have a spouse at all. On the extreme end of that are people like Wesley and Whitefield, who genuinely thought that they were special, unique, and did not need to abide by the ordinary constraints of (say) clergymen who were expected to minister within parish bounds or (say) husbands who needed to love their wives and live with them. Those ordinary regulations and relationships were for *other* people, those less-specially-blessed-by-God mortals.

What seems to be missing is the notion that Christians are mostly called to ordinary jobs in ordinary communities and the priority should therefore be to be the best Christian you can be in the actual, concrete circumstances in which you currently find yourself. If that's being single, that's God's good plan for you right now and there are relationships right there which require as much loving and prayerful engagement as you can give. If it's being married, then it's less about some compulsory breeding programme by which to achieve world domination and more about, boringly, loving your husband or wife and loving whatever children you have.

Jonathan and Sarah Edwards believed that the closer the relationship, the greater the responsibility. As a husband or wife is the closest possible relationship, that is the married person's greatest responsibility in terms of love and honour and mutual enjoyment. Next come your children if you are a parent. The minister's congregation is important, but less close, and likewise the unevangelised world out there.