Which is more impt : spiritual or physical family

[The edge]

For those who are familiar with the book by Rick Warren : Purpose Driven Life,
A sentence in Chp 15 says that our spiritual family is more important our physical family because it will last forever.
It is a more permanent bond, than blood relationships.

While it goes against the normal grain for most of us, just like when Jesus says that whoever who does not "hate" his parents are not worthy of Him, it has to be persued if it's the way God wants it to be.

Question is: Does the bible indirectly imply the above?

[Kurieuo]

For those who are familiar with the book by Rick Warren : Purpose Driven Life,
A sentence in Chp 15 says that our spiritual family is more important our physical family because it will last forever.
It is a more permanent bond, than blood relationships.

While it goes against the normal grain for most of us, just like when Jesus says that whoever who does not "hate" his parents are not worthy of Him, it has to be persued if it's the way God wants it to be.

Question is: Does the bible indirectly imply the above?

Hi Edge--welcome to the boards.

I'd say the question is misplaced and it should not even come up. It makes no sense to me whatsoever to say one family is more important than the other... I mean what is the purpose of such a question anyway? If we accept everyone has the image of God within them, then all of us are equally important as each other no matter whether one is Christian (spiritual family), non-Christian, family, non-family.

However, to comment further, some churches are very controlling and will try to assume control by equivocating "spiritual family" with themselves "the Church". So someone not apart of the Church (usually theirs) is said to be an orphan of God's "spiritual family." I'd warn anyone to be aware of churches who say these things, and to stay away from them, otherwise they will very likely experience a lot of pain in the long haul.

In addition, you should never have to hate your own family which goes against Jesus' second greatest commandment. What Christ is doing in Luke 14:26 is using hyperbole, a figure of speech which exaggerates for emphasis. Jesus was setting up an extreme contrast to make the point that our passion for Him should be so strong that our affection for our families could, by comparison, be considered hatred. Jesus was not literally calling us to hate our families, rather He was stressing total commitment to Himself.

Kurieuo.

[Jac3510]

I would agree with everything K said, but I'd also like to add this: the only way this "objection" (or problem, or whatever word you want to use) can come up is if your legal family is non-Christian. In any case, we are called to love people--all people--equally. This is evidenced by the way Jesus treated both Samaritans and Gentiles, the way He ate with tax collectors and "sinners" (as if anyone He ate with wasn't one of those!), etc.

What this means is that we, as Christians, are absolutely called to completely submit our lives to Jesus Christ, and that submission takes priority over everything, even your legal family. The simple fact of the matter is that if someone is really THAT dedicated to his or her faith, the chances are (though not definitive) that his or her non-Christian family will be the ones hating. In any case, we are to love them unconditionally. This is an extremely prominent problem among Jewish Christians, who, incidently, is who Jesus would have been addressing in particular in this passage, though it does address all Christians.

Mr. Warren could have been more clear on this, I think. I've not read the book, but I do know he is conservative in his theology. I doubt this is any attempt to "control" his people, but, as always, that is why you must be careful about who you listen to, and like the Bereans, be sure we are "examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so." (Acts 17:11, NASB).

God bless

[The edge]

thanks for the reply.
I've read till chp 19 of Mr Warren's book so far & indeed his tone does not gravitate towards those cult-like controlling church.

However, his book does provide multiple food for thots that challenges the way we've been viewing things or the lax attitude we may have.

In this instant, he is emphasizing the importance of the spiritual family due to it's eternal relationship vs the physical family which is only temporal. Of course, one may argue that since the physical family is only temporal, it is thus of greater importance that we allocate more attention to them (there is only so much time left).

His subsequent chapter also made mention that we are to treat our Christian brethren better than people of the world. Initially, this seems to run against the grain of what I thought is right - that God is promoting partial love. But yet Gal 6:10 tells us to do good "especially" to those of the same faith.
Thus when considering the above, I can't help but think that perhaps we too ought to be partial in the way we prioritize between the spiritual & physical family (especially if they are different).

It probably goes against the way most of us really feel, if we're not from dysfunctional homes or if our parents are not persecuting us for our faith. Yet it also goes against most of our feeling when God want us to love Him more than our parents.
But to accept God's commandment to love Him more, though we don't really feel that way, would at least push us towards that goal.
Similarly, I'm seeking to find out if God has the same goal for us in the area of spiritual vs physical family.
It is unlikely that circumstances will arise where logic will not resolve what should come 1st, should either family demand our attention, but yet when it does how should one react.

As I was disccussing this issue with my cell group, it also came to our attention that there's a slight difference in the cultural background of the West & Ancient East. The West believe (correct me if I'm wrong), that the foundation begins with the one-self, followed by family, then State & finally Country. The ancient Chinese starts things the other way around. If there's no country, there'll be no state, no state, there'll be no family.
This result in the celebration of heroic figures who sacrifice family for the sake of country good.
There've been thoughts that ancient Jewish custom or culture is more closely akin to the Eastern culture (e.g. where there's a greater emphasis on living together as an extended family (Jacob) than living separated lives). Thus I'm unsure if the foreign concept of sacrificing physical family for the greater (spiritual) family is nothing but an issue of how we've been influence by the prevalent culture.

There've been some quiet thoughts among brethren on whether it's right for someone to go to the mission field despite having aged parents who long to live out their lives with their children. Another example is John Sung, a famous evangelist in China. He practically spent his lifetime touring China spreading the gospel, but in so doing had left the charge of his children to his wife. One of his child actually died from illness in his absence. While he is being celebrated for his faith, I can't but help question his lack of responsibilty to his family.

At the moment, I can't remember any clear verses that indicate that we should have preference over spiritual family. But looking at Gal 6:10 & "hating" our parents, can we infer the above?

[Anonymous]

"Anyone who loves his father or mother before me, is not worthy of me."

Seems to me as solid as can be. The original Greek suggests not metaphorics. The whole church teaches us, that we are not to associate ourselfs with the things of the world. The church also teaches that we should not get too attached to people and possessions. If you think of it in terms of: Your physical mother is not actually your mother, but the utensil God uses to bring you into the world, we can Jesus' perspective here, that we are His sons and daughters. He also lessens the importance of family relationships and titles, when He talks about calling people "mother" and "father" and "brother" (adelphos: brother suggested in the spiritual sense.) For if we are like angels in heaven we are not married like we are on Earth.

An interesting subject, is that of Celestial Marriage - which members of LDS believe. When Jesus says there will be not marriages in heaven, LDS members interpret this as: if you get married on Earth, your marriage will continue in heaven, but there will be no wedding "ceremonies" in heaven.
Just food for thought. But the very fact that Jesus is answering the question of "who will be a wife's husband if many husbands die?" implies that celestial marriage is not possible - since Jesus says that there will be NO husbands in heaven.

[andyredeemed]

I have a friend who, after he announced that he had become a christian, was cut off from his family who where very anti-christ. In his case indeed, his spiritual family is more important than his natural family. This is seen in many cultures. Islam, for example. Muslim families will actually hold a funeral service for a member who becomes 'apostate' by following Jesus.
also, in the parable in Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus says (v.40) "whatever you did for one of these brothers of mine, you did for me". Well, natural family who are not Christians are not Jesus' brothers/brethren, are they?. Yes, by all means love your natural family, but always with the single purpose of bringing them into salvation.

[phoney]

For those who are familiar with the book by Rick Warren : Purpose Driven Life,
A sentence in Chp 15 says that our spiritual family is more important our physical family because it will last forever.
It is a more permanent bond, than blood relationships.

While it goes against the normal grain for most of us, just like when Jesus says that whoever who does not "hate" his parents are not worthy of Him, it has to be persued if it's the way God wants it to be.

Question is: Does the bible indirectly imply the above?

Hi Edge--welcome to the boards.

I'd say the question is misplaced and it should not even come up. It makes no sense to me whatsoever to say one family is more important than the other... I mean what is the purpose of such a question anyway? If we accept everyone has the image of God within them, then all of us are equally important as each other no matter whether one is Christian (spiritual family), non-Christian, family, non-family.

However, to comment further, some churches are very controlling and will try to assume control by equivocating "spiritual family" with themselves "the Church". So someone not apart of the Church (usually theirs) is said to be an orphan of God's "spiritual family." I'd warn anyone to be aware of churches who say these things, and to stay away from them, otherwise they will very likely experience a lot of pain in the long haul.

In addition, you should never have to hate your own family which goes against Jesus' second greatest commandment. What Christ is doing in Luke 14:26 is using hyperbole, a figure of speech which exaggerates for emphasis. Jesus was setting up an extreme contrast to make the point that our passion for Him should be so strong that our affection for our families could, by comparison, be considered hatred. Jesus was not literally calling us to hate our families, rather He was stressing total commitment to Himself.
Kurieuo.

I like this explanation very much

[oscarsiziba]

All the families are important,what matters is that God takes the precedence in all our dealings with both sets.