Both "Christian Family Values" and "Christian Patriotism" are credos that have many positive aspects. However, neither have their basis in the instructions of Jesus. It is not that Jesus was specifically anti-family, or anti-nation; he was just against tribalism in general where it restricts universal and unbiased love.Jesus proclaimed social equality, inclusion, and the indiscriminate nature of God's love which he called us to imitate. As such, Jesus warned us against any cultural, national, or religious division that encourages people to prefer, favour, or give allegiance to some individuals while discriminating against, discounting, or marginalizing others.
Jesus' most famous statements on this in terms of family are:
If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26 NIV)
Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37 NIV)
For these passages, let me point out that, for the Gospel writers, Jesus and, "The Way of Jesus", were synonymous and that Jesus' Way was a vision of a God of indiscriminate unpreferential love. Seen from this perspective, Jesus was telling his followers not to love anyone any less than with the love normally reserved in their society for family members.
Another example comes from the eighth chapter of the book of Matthew where, after a number of people pledged to follow Jesus, one disciple asked that he first bury his father.
But Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” (Matthew 8:22 NIV)
Jesus' statement was a startling request given the family obligation sons were expected to follow around the death of a parent.
Those mourning a parent additionally observe a twelve-month period (Hebrew: שנים עשר חודש, shneim asar chodesh ; "twelve months"), counted from the day of death. During this period, most activity returns to normal, although the mourners continue to recite the mourner's kaddish as part of synagogue services for eleven months. In Orthodox tradition, this was an obligation of the sons (not daughters) as mourners. There remain restrictions on attending festive occasions and large gatherings, especially where live music is performed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereavement_in_Judaism
Family was the primary social unit in first century Palestine and was the one in which the individual owed the most obligation and allegiance.
Martin C. Albl in Saint Mary's Press', "Essential Guide to Biblical Life and Times", explains family in this way:
The family was the central social institution of biblical times. Family ties shaped economic relations: a son would typically take the trade of his father; a few wealthy families often owned the majority of land in a given society. Family ties were central to religion: priests could be drawn from Levitical families only, and high priests from certain elite families only. Families strongly influenced politics. Sons followed their fathers as kings, and the Roman Senate was open to a few powerful, aristocratic families only.
Loyalty to one’s family was the essential value in biblical cultures. Ideally, even marriages took place within the same family (endogamous marriages). Unions between cousins were preferred: Jacob married the daughters of his uncle Laban (see Genesis 28:2; see also Genesis 24:4, Tobit 1:9). In this way, the values and loyalties of the family would remain intact.
https://www.smp.org/dynamicmedia/files/9a98fef004e9e9211f619d1610b42a2c/TX001246_1-Background-Life_Times_First_Century_Palestine.pdf Loyalty to one’s family was the essential value in biblical cultures. Ideally, even marriages took place within the same family (endogamous marriages). Unions between cousins were preferred: Jacob married the daughters of his uncle Laban (see Genesis 28:2; see also Genesis 24:4, Tobit 1:9). In this way, the values and loyalties of the family would remain intact.
I would contend that Jesus' point was not that we should not love our family, but that our love should be universal and that his concern was that family devotion and obligation should not exclude those outside our family, that this same love and duty should extend beyond all social groupings whether it be family, religion, nationality, or social caste based on wealth and power.
As a sidebar, I personally love my family very much and believe in the family unit as an important part of society. I would call myself, "pro-family", if the term had not been appropriated by conservative right-wing Christians to promote a doctrine that narrows the definition of family to exclude same sex couples and their children and who further define family in patriarchal terms that enshrine unequal power relationships. It is interesting to note that the states in the U.S. where conservative Evangelicals who promote the ideology of "Christian Family Values" have the most sizable population also report the highest number of unplanned pregnancies and S.T.D.s as well as the highest rates of domestic abuse.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/01/27/3743383/evangelicals-trump-are-not-religious/
http://religiondispatches.org/why-family-values-defined-conservative-christianity-and-why-religious-liberty-has-replaced-it/
Jesus' most succinct explanation of his teaching is in his response to the question on the greatest commandment.
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40)
What is most relevant here is the story he then uses to illustrate who our neighbour is and what loving our neighbour means, the story of the Good Samaritan. Notice that Jesus doesn't tell us that our duty to love should be hierarchical like some popular Christian teachings encourage. There is no, "after God your first duty is to your spouse, then your family, then your church, employer, nation", and so on. No, he tells a story where the one loved is one's despised enemy, someone of a different nationality and religion, where the loving act puts the person at personal risk. And, in a brilliant twist of inclusion, he makes the person who would have been the despised outcast to the audience he was talking to the hero of the story while the man being rescued is one of them.
Now let's look at nationalism. I find it interesting that although the Gospel writers cast Jesus in the role of Messiah, he never criticized Israel's enemies, or any nation other than his own. Outside of the Rabbinic Literature of the time, there was a popular doctrine in Jewish eschatology that anticipated a Messiah. This doctrine was tied to the restoration of the state of Israel and rescue from national enemies. This was especially relevant in Jesus' time with the conquest and occupation by Roman forces. The Jews of the first century expected to be rescued from foreign dominion. Looking to texts such Deuteronomy 4:32, Isaiah 40:1-2, and Jeremiah 31:27-40, many believed that this would only occur after they suffered a purification process for past breaches of their covenant with God.
However, liberation from national enemies or criticism of other peoples was never part of Jesus' teaching. In fact, he broke down barriers and was inclusive of those of other nationalities in God's love. As mentioned earlier, he made a Samaritan the hero of his story illustrating the love God expects us to show our neighbour. He had no compunctions against seeking out conversation with the Samaritan women at the well despite it being taboo in his culture. He healed Jews and Gentiles alike and praised a Roman Centurion as having more faith than anyone in Israel.
Like the nationalists and patriots today that tout American exceptionalism, or the exceptionalism of any nation, the common thought among Jesus' people was that they had an exclusive and entitled position with God as a nation. Jesus, however, did not limit God's love and blessing to one nation. In the fourth chapter of Luke, as part of his first public announcement while at the Synagogue in his home town of Nazareth, he dismissed the idea of Israel having an exclusive relationship with God.
"I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.” (Luke 4:25-27 NIV)
I personally find these teachings of Jesus difficult, but I want to be honest about what it is that Jesus actually taught. They challenge me in the dangers of preferential love and duty. It is a message of radical inclusion. It inspires me to be mindful of the social boundaries I live in and challenges me to extend the love and care I have for my family and preferred social groupings to all.
Image Links:
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjD-4n2w8rKAhVI9mMKHRP8CLEQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Falannothnagle.wordpress.com%2Ftag%2Fjesus%2F&bvm=bv.112766941,d.cGc&psig=AFQjCNEKoR8vaiJXidK_-czH5-gFSXyrBg&ust=1454002537479086
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjtls3qx8rKAhUU6WMKHXigCQEQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmcelroy.org%2F%3Fp%3D18740&bvm=bv.112766941,d.cGc&psig=AFQjCNHkp-fPgG7hEkF_8RSMqFCsAqsuKQ&ust=1454002462041346
No comments:
Post a Comment