New Testament Family Values (5 of 5)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1997 / May-June:

by Farrell Till

By request, the series on biblical family values is being extended another issue so that we can look at what the New Testament teaches us on the subject by both example and decree. For some reason, Christians seem to believe that Old Testament accounts of atrocious conduct on the part of God and famous biblical characters are unimportant, because, after all, those things were written in the Old Testament and not the New, as if the two testaments are not inextricably bound together in the traditional Christian claim that everything in the Old Testament happened to lead the way to God's plan of salvation in Jesus Christ. Christianity, then, must be held accountable for the god and biblical heroes in whom their own religion is firmly rooted. Christians can't just wave aside matters like those noted in previous articles in this series by saying, "Oh, well, that was in the Old Testament."

Even if they could evade the problem that easily, they would still have to explain why so-called family values don't fare much better in the New Testament. One would think, for example, that if proper family values could be found anywhere in the New Testament they would be evident in the conduct of Jesus himself and the couple whom God chose to be the earthly parents of his only begotten son, but such is not the case. In Luke 2:41-49, we read a story that certainly doesn't present Joseph and Mary as exemplary parents. When Jesus was 12, the family traveled from Nazareth to Jerusalem to keep the feast of the Passover, and when it was over, his parents were returning home and had gone "a day's journey" before they noticed that Jesus was not in the company they were traveling in. It's hard to imagine how responsible parents could travel for an entire day and not know that their minor child had been left behind in the city they had visited. Ordinarily, a couple doing this would be considered parentally negligent, but if the couple should be the ones whom God chose as the parents of his son, that apparently made it all right, because the inspired writer said nothing critical about the favored couple.

This little yarn concludes with the claim that after Jesus was found by his parents, he returned to Nazareth with them and "was subject to them" (v:51). He may have been "subject" to his parents, but he wasn't always polite to them. According to John, the first miracle that Jesus performed was at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. When the wine ran out, Mary went to Jesus and said, "They have no wine," and in response, her perfect son said, "Woman, what does your concern have to do with me? My hour has not yet come" (4:1-4). A man today who would speak in this manner to his mother would be considered disrespectful, and rightly so, but maybe Jesus in his omniscient wisdom thought that once a man had reached adulthood, he was no longer obligated to be polite to his mother. If so, most men today would disagree.

The incident at Cana wasn't an isolated one. On an occasion when Jesus was speaking to a crowd, he was told that his mother and brothers "stood without, seeking to speak to him." When he was told this, Jesus said, "Who is my mother and who are my brothers?" He then gestured at his disciples and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers, because whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother" (Matt. 12:46-50). A lot of preachers see noble concepts of brotherhood in this statement, but it is just as easy to see flagrant disrespect for close family relationships.

Telling the truth is a recognized family value, but the son of God wasn't above lying to his family. Once when the feast of tabernacles was "at hand," his brothers, who presumably didn't yet believe in him, challenged Jesus to go to Jerusalem and prove himself by doing his signs openly. Jesus then said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.... Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet come" (John 7:6-8). His brothers then left for the festival, and after they were gone, Jesus "also went, not publicly but as it were in secret" (v:10). It's hard to see lying as a family value, but what else could this be called? At the very least, it has to be considered deliberate deception. Is that a value that families today should emulate?

In his personal relations with his family, Jesus demonstrated an attitude that is hardly commendable, but in his public teachings, he fared even worse. This is the man who said, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:37). He even said that anyone who came to him and did not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters could not be his disciple (Luke 14:26). Jesus taught his followers to demonstrate a cultist fanaticism toward him, which, if actually practiced, would destroy not just family values but the family institution itself.

On another occasion when a disciple asked leave to go bury his father, Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury the dead" (Luke 9:60), and when another one told Jesus he would follow him but first wanted to "bid farewell" to them that were in his house, Jesus said, "No man, having put his hand to the plow and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God" (vs:61-62). Jesus showed little interest in family relationships and demanded that his disciples do the same. It's hard to see in this man's teachings much of anything that could be considered "family values." If parents today should practice the family values that Jesus taught, they would save no money for tomorrow (Matt. 6:19-20) and apparently show no interest in providing for the needs of their families. They would not worry about what they would eat or drink or wear (Matt. 7:25-31), and in so doing would lead their families into poverty and even total destitution. If people today should make a serious attempt to follow the teachings of Jesus, the family institution would be destroyed, yet the Christian Right keeps demanding that our government force upon the nation a return to "biblical family values." We can only hope that it never happens.