- Apr 20, 2011
- 1,143
- 115
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
We've all head the term "family values" in church, and every definition of family values seems to be pertaining to the biological nuclear family. We've also probably heard the terms "spiritual children" and "spiritual grandchildren", meaning people that we tell about Christ, who may in turn tell others about Christ.
In 1998 there was a member of my old church in Columbus that decided to become a permant missionary to Indonesia and take his wife and two kids with him. He received some flack over it, because many said that his calling was not necessarily that of his childrens, and that if he put them in danger because of his calling, he was a bad parent.
I thought and discussed this issue over and over again, and started to see a gaping hole in their reasoning. While you see verses in scripture telling husbands to love their wives, wives to submit to their husbands, children to obey their parents, and deacons to have their families under control, there is no verse in scripture that says that the biological family takes precedence over the church and the kingdom of God. Jesus also said that if we do not hate our mother or father ("hate" meaning to love God more), we cannot serve Him.
We hear so many statements in Christian society about marriage, dating, and starting a family that put them above all else, but so little about spiritual relationships. While the term "spiritual children" or "spiritual grandchildren" may sound like silly cliche's, one has to wonder in light of all the verses in the Bible telling us to be salt why we don't think about that concept more. There is certainly nothing wrong with marriage and families, and the family was most certainly designed by God, but I can't see how it takes presidence over adding new people to the kingdom. After all, we won't be married in heaven, we won't be parents in heaven, and we probably will have no memory of this life.
This thread is not a criticism of marriage, nor is it a criticism of family values, but it is meant to open the door to thoughts on the spiritual family that gets overlooks so much.
What in your opinion is the problem (if there is any problem) with what the missionaries critics said?
In 1998 there was a member of my old church in Columbus that decided to become a permant missionary to Indonesia and take his wife and two kids with him. He received some flack over it, because many said that his calling was not necessarily that of his childrens, and that if he put them in danger because of his calling, he was a bad parent.
I thought and discussed this issue over and over again, and started to see a gaping hole in their reasoning. While you see verses in scripture telling husbands to love their wives, wives to submit to their husbands, children to obey their parents, and deacons to have their families under control, there is no verse in scripture that says that the biological family takes precedence over the church and the kingdom of God. Jesus also said that if we do not hate our mother or father ("hate" meaning to love God more), we cannot serve Him.
We hear so many statements in Christian society about marriage, dating, and starting a family that put them above all else, but so little about spiritual relationships. While the term "spiritual children" or "spiritual grandchildren" may sound like silly cliche's, one has to wonder in light of all the verses in the Bible telling us to be salt why we don't think about that concept more. There is certainly nothing wrong with marriage and families, and the family was most certainly designed by God, but I can't see how it takes presidence over adding new people to the kingdom. After all, we won't be married in heaven, we won't be parents in heaven, and we probably will have no memory of this life.
This thread is not a criticism of marriage, nor is it a criticism of family values, but it is meant to open the door to thoughts on the spiritual family that gets overlooks so much.
What in your opinion is the problem (if there is any problem) with what the missionaries critics said?