(This article is originally published by the Centre for the Development of Christian Ministry of Trinity Theological College, Singapore, in periodical Church and Society, issue 1.1 [1998], pp.7-11, and reproduced at Church and Society in Asia Today website.)
Christianity as an avowedly missionary religion seeks converts. To prevent Christianity from performing missionary work is tantamount to denaturing it. This may sound offensive to some but when it is borne in mind that such a characteristic is not unique to it, the offence is somewhat lessened. Many religions do have such an agenda, especially when they claim to have the Truth and the principles to bring about the greatest happiness to a human being. Hence, Christianity, like some other religions, understands itself as helping to bring about something eternally significant and blissful to someone when it invites him to be converted. However, when this happens, there often comes with it a potentially thorny problem: intrafamilial conflicts brought about precisely by conversion. Such conflicts are often most complex, exasperating and traumatic. A new convert, especially a young one, may find it rather difficult to cope with these. The questions he may need answering could well be those which are Biblical, theological or practical in nature. It is the purpose of this article to look at this problem from some perspectives provided by the New Testament (NT) and it is hoped that some strategies may be found for pastors to alleviate the pain brought about by such conflicts [1]. By so doing, it also hopes modestly to demonstrate the importance of drawing resources from theology (and Biblical studies) to address societal norms, trends and concerns.
To deal with the problem of conversion-generated intrafamilial conflict, it is necessary to start by looking at the concept of the family and its place in society. The family is commonly regarded, with very good reasons, as the basic unit of society and, as such, it has fundamental importance for human civilisation in many respects. The nurture and shaping of a person's values and character do not take place without any influence of his family. Indeed, his very identity is determined to a large extent by the family he comes from. How an individual understands his identity and how others perceived this are linked to his familial ties: ancestral, parental, conjugal and consanguineous, and such ties have great currency in many Asian societies. The basic questions often asked by us in order to determine a person's identity betray the importance we attach to such ties: 'Who are your parents?', 'Who is your wife?', 'who are your siblings?' In the light of the foregoing, allegiance to one's family and kinship ties becomes understandable. Such allegiance is often demonstrated by the adoption of the same ancestral religion, rites of passage (birth, marriage, death)-some aspects of which may be informed by the ancestral religion - and norms for filial piety. This allegiance and the forms by which it is demonstrated are challenged when a person is converted to a religion which also claims his allegiance. Tensions are created and such tensions will be greatly exacerbated when the allegiance demanded by this religion is of the absolute kind. Certain rites of passage which are coloured by the ancestral religion might be deemed to be religiously wrong by the convert but the family may not perceive it as such. To them, to challenge the forms amounts to challenging the integrity and identity of the family. It is not surprising that many non-Christian parents are alarmed by the conversion of their children to Christianity. Often, they regard themselves as having lost a son or a daughter to it.
Some New Testament perspectives
As the Christian Church regards the New Testament as being foundational to its faith, a Christian might legitimately ask whether the New Testament does shed any light on this thorny problem. Perhaps it is gratifying to know, in this connection, that conflict is a major motif in the New Testament, especially the Gospels. Some key passages for consideration are the following: Matt 8.18-22; 10.34-7; Mark 3.31-5; 7.9-13; 10.28-31; 1 Cor 7.12-16; Eph 6.1-3. The focus in this section will be on the Gospel passages but constraints of space does not, however, permit exhaustive discussion.
Matthew 10.34-7
'Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 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 members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me... '
This difficult saying of Jesus is set in the context of the so-called missionary discourse, detailing the tribulations awaiting Jesus' disciples, and the resources and encouragement which are theirs. The saying describes conflicts which are intrafamilial. A few points relevant to our discussion could be easily discerned.
First, the conflict described is brought about by belonging to Jesus. Such conflict involves the breaking up of the original integrity of the family. The difficult saying of Jesus' coming to bring a sword and not peace could be interpreted either in a telic or ecbatic sense, i.e., it is either Jesus' intention to bring about conflict or such conflict is the unfortunate result (or effect) of his ministry, and not his intention [2]. Either way, it is clear that the call of Jesus creates hostility on the part of those who do not accept his message and this leads to division. This division is so fundamental as to break the strong bond of family-ties to the extent that the erstwhile family member is now regarded as a dreaded enemy or contagion to society. What may appear shocking to Jesus' audience is the revelation that the Gospel of peace can become a means of division. And this is a result of the family members' holding diametrically-opposed views of Jesus and his call to follow him.
Secondly, the subordination of family-ties to following Jesus is pronounced and radical (v. 37). In this regard, the mission work in which the disciples are engaged has priority over family ties. Following Jesus' call to mission work is regarded as a demonstration of the disciples' love for Jesus. This love broods no rivals, not even those which are familial, often regarded as foundational to a morally strong society.
And this leads to the third point. The upshot of all these is that Jesus' authority is here presented as absolute, and as a corollary, allegiance to him must also be absolute. This explains why the division mentioned in the first point is so drastic and radical. The allegiance to the family is superseded by an allegiance which broods no rivals. The conflict is heightened when the allegiance which is superseded once belonged to that (the family) which was the point of reference for the identity of the individual and those related to him. Does this mean that Jesus' message and call is antifamilial (against the family) or is it suprafamilial (transcending the family but not being against it)? Given the fact that Jesus castigated the Pharisees for circumventing the fifth commandment ('Honour thy father and thy mother') in the Korban episode in Mark 7.9-13, he cannot be said to be antifamilial. Thus, the category which best describes Jesus' message and call vis-a-vis family ties is suprafamilial.
Matthew 8.21-22
'Another disciple said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." But Jesus told him, "Follow me. and let the dead bury their own dead.'
This passage reinforces the conclusions arrived at earlier. In Jesus' day, the duty of burying one's dead father was an important demonstration of honouring one's parent and was therefore one's solemn responsibility [3]. So important did Jewish society regard this duty to be that it allowed for the non-compliance of other religious duties in order that the solemn duty of burying one's father could be carried out. To treat this matter lightly amounted to disrespect and might make one liable for the condemnation of the OT which involved the death punishment (Exod 2 1.17: Lev 20.9).
This at once exacerbates the offensiveness of this saying of Jesus in that it does not allow for even a mere delay to carry out a necessary duty when the call to follow him is issued. That being said. it must equally be borne in mind that there were already precedents in the OT which allowed for the non-compliance of this norm. The priest, by virtue of his calling. cannot touch a dead body or be in close proximity to it lest he be defiled (Lev 21.1 1-12). Hence, he is absolved from the duty of burying his father. Similarly, the Nazarite is exempted from this by virtue of the vow he has made (Num 6.6-8). Such precedence mitigates somewhat the offensiveness of the saying.
However, a point of significance could also be observed here. If exceptions are made for priests because they are divinely called to perform religious functions, one can see once again that the implication of the saying of Jesus is that his call stands on an qua1 footing with the call of God to the priests. The upshoot of this is that his authority is regarded as equal to God. Jesus' discipleship demand absolved the ow &led from the duty of burying one's parents. Moreover, so urgent is Jesus' call that a mere delay cannot be contemplated.
Thus, Jesus' authority is once again presented as absolute and this calls for absolute allegiance on the part of the respondent, an allegiance which supersedes that which belongs to the family. The point in this passage is not that a Christian is not allowed to bury his father but that the authority of Jesus transcends all other authority and claims.
Mark 3.31-5
'Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."'
This pericope is intercalated with the Beelzebub episode (Mark 3.22-30) which contains the famous saying about the sin against the Holy Spirit. Known as the 'Markan sandwich', this is a literary device which is characteristic of Mark and it is applied to show how one episode is related to, or perhaps, interpreted by another.
Mark 3.21 records that Jesus' family was eager to 'apprehend' [4] Jesus because they thought he was going beyond the bounds of propriety in the exercise of his ministry. It has been suggested that this action was attempted because in the ancient Mediterranean world, shame and honour were pivotal values. The family of Jesus therefore intended to safeguard their honour and prevent shame from coming to them by 'apprehending' Jesus as his conduct in his ministry would affect people's perception of them [5]. The reader is put in suspense as to the conclusion of this episode as Mark goes on to narrate the Beelzebub episode. This episode is similar to that of the attempted action of Jesus' family in that both feature people with the attitude that Jesus is beside himself, either he is out of his mind or possessed by Beelzebub.
The reply of Jesus to his family's request to see him was that his true family consisted of those who did the will of God. In so doing, he did not uphold their honour. Nor did he shame them. He appealed to a higher and legitimating norm, one which was defined by the doing of the will of God. In Mark, this means following the call of Jesus to participation in and obedience to the demands of the Kingdom of God. This Kingdom was present in the person and ministry of Jesus. To reject the work of Jesus by regarding him as being demon possessed or mad made one guilty of committing the sin against the Holy Ghost.
To sum up what is significant for the present discussion, it could be said that the passage teaches that, at the personal level, the believer's identity is no longer defined primarily in relation to his family or blood-ties but by spiritual kinship to Jesus Christ. Hence, blood-ties are transcended. This new realignment of the disciples' identity also involves the creation of a new community into which he is placed. Mark 10.28-31 also supports this. There, Jesus promises that whoever has left brothers, sisters, mother, father, children or home for his sake will not be without a family but will find himself being placed into a new family: the eschatological people of God. In this regard, it can be seen once again that Jesus in Mark is not portrayed as antifamilial since believers are indeed placed in a family, albeit a new one and one which is defined by kinship to Jesus, which is further defined by obedience to the will of God.
Synthesis
From the above, a few conclusions press themselves upon us. The first is that Jesus' authority is absolute and hence, allegiance to him transcends all other forms of allegiance. The second is that the identity of believers is no longer defined primarily by their blood ties but by their kinship with Jesus. 1n fact, the consistent teaching of the NT is such that the believers' identity is not even defined primarily in relation to themselves but by their connection with Jesus Christ. The third is that this new identity is accompanied by incorporation into a new nucleus: the family as defined by doing the will of God and this means ultimately, spiritual kinship with Jesus. Finally, Jesus is not portrayed in the Gospels as antifamilial but, rather, as suprafamilial.
Of course, such perspectives must be balanced by the overall framework of NT teaching. In the NT, the command to honour one's parents is given (Eph 6.1-3) and upheld (Mark 7.9-13). The Christian is commanded to show love to all men, even one's enemies (Matt 5.44-8). Indeed, he is counseled to pursue peace as much as possible (Rom 12.18; 1 Pet 3.11). Because of this, the texts discussed earlier must not be taken as a pretext for despising one's blood-ties. These are to be valued but they must not encroach upon the Christian's relationship with Jesus Christ. The allegiance to him must be absolute. However, adopting this standpoint does put the Christian in some practical difficulties. The next section offers some reflections of a theological and pastoral nature with the hope that they could provide some help and encouragement.
Theological and pastoral reflections
I must start with a caveat. Given the complexity of the problem, I would have preferred to end the article here and refrain from applying the insights gained from the NT on this particular matter. However, since I believe that principles culled from the Bible are relevant to the problems we face in society, I am led to do otherwise. So, what is offered here are some rather tentative considerations which would, it is hoped, alleviate the pain of someone undergoing such a conflict.
It is to be remembered, first of all, that it is accepted in many cultures that a higher calling could transcend one's familial ties: a Buddhist entering monkhood, an ancient Greek pursuing philosophy in the Stoic tradition etc. Thus, the belief that one's religion or philosophy may take precedence over familial ties is not confined to Christianity. This indeed is a minor point but I believe it may help the convert put the matter into perspective.
Secondly, it must also be emphasised that the authority of Jesus is absolute and complete allegiance to him is non-negotiable. Once this is watered down, whether in the name of convenience or alleviation of pain, it will only make for a temporary relief which might bring about dire consequences later on, such as lack of commitment to the teaching of Jesus, nominal Christianity etc. And Christianity would have lost its raison d'tre. Of course, this perspective must not be abused to further the ends of any church programme or pastor but nevertheless, it is not ours to compromise on the matter of the authority of Jesus. The master who issues the summons to discipleship broods no rivals and demands complete allegiance. Thus, the faithful pastor should teach the converts (and those who have been long in the Christian faith) that the first question we are to ask, when facing conflicts, is not how we could get out of them. Rather, the question should be how we are to act faithfully and lovingly whilst in the midst of conflicts. Certainly, avoidance of conflicts and their resolution are desirable ends but these must not be the primary consideration. The goal of Christian existence is not the avoidance of conflicts.
Thirdly, it should be noted that the person whose authority is absolute is also the almighty and loving God. It is not his intention that we face this matter entirely with our own strength or resources. Therefore, a Christian can draw strength, resources and wisdom from God to face the conflict. He who calls us is also he who provides, and he has promised to be with his people forever.
Fourthly, there is much theological and pastoral mileage in the concept of the new believer's being placed by God into a new family which also gives him a new identity. It is often said that the vertical relationship with God is paramount but it is seldom noted that the restoration of this relationship also sets other important relationships on a right footing. In other words, one comes to understand the true importance and significance of family relationships through being reconciled with God. Instead of their becoming idolatrous, which they would be if they become absolute, they can now be seen as that which God has given for the purpose that we might find love, development and encouragement to be who we ought to be: the people of God. If this is correct, conversion, ideally, does not threaten familial ties but puts them in proper perspective and reorders them in line with the design of our Maker. Thus, a convert should learn to love his family members more even as he knows that his love for God must be primary. Furthermore. the concept of the new family of God formed by spiritual kinship with Jesus broadens one's appreciation of other families and other races, and this could potentially bring about the healing of a divided world. The journey to this new world may be fraught with obstacles and difficulties but it is what the world ought to be and what it will be when the programme of redemption is finally wrapped up (Eph 1.10). Perhaps all these may be regarded as theoretical stuff. But it must be borne in mind that this actually gives foundational conviction for one's life. Moreover, it must be said that the pastoral implication of this is that this troubled convert has found a new family and this new family must do all it can, by the grace of God, to help him. In this way, he would not experience a loss of identity but rather, the joy and power of the new identity given to him in Christ. Sadly, the church often fails to live up to its name as the family of God by failing to show care and concern for these converts.
What is called for is faithfulness to Jesus Christ and his message, and true love and care for the troubled soul facing such conflicts.
A word of advice
Finally, a word of advice. The matter of intrafamilial conflict should not be treated clinically as though once we have established the theological bearings we can say that the job is done and the convert should know how he ought to act. Life is always complicated and the wise pastor would also take into account the personality of the convert and his circumstances. This is not a call for compromise but a call for wisdom to apply what is Biblically and theologically correct. The reflections above and the conclusions derived from the analysis of the NT data may be said to be, for want of a better word, 'bottom-line' stuff. It defines for us what the bottom line is. It is also directional stuff in that it defines for us what sort of direction we ought to take. But it does not mean we should travel along this direction, unarmed, unprepared and naked. Cushioning the impact, constant prayer and support, providing a listening ear, arranging for support teams, and pointing to forgiveness in Christ for the one who has failed, are provisions and equipment a wise pastor could give to someone on this journey [6].
Tan Kim Huat is Chen Su Lan Professor of New Testament at Trinity Theological College, Singapore.
Endnotes
1. I am aware that many Singaporean families today are more tolerant of conversions of family members to another religion and therefore, such intrafamilial tensions may not be commonly found. Nevertheless, such a phenomenon is still with us, albeit less commonly than before. It is, therefore, expedient for the church to continue to prepare itself to deal with it as such tensions are often the most traumatic for a new convert.
2. Many commentators would support the ecbatic sense as they find this to be more in keeping with the niajor emphases of Jesus' ministry.
3. In Jewish tradition, this duty was regarded as an entailment of the fourth commandment. Cf. Tobit 4.3; Ecclesiasticus 3m; Berakoth. 3.1. A good discussion on the social implication of this saying could be found in M. Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981), pp. 8-15.
4. The Greek verb used in Mark 3.21 is kr-ateo, which has the meaning of 'to arrest'. This informs us that the action which was envisaged by Jesus' family was drastic and it also reveals their estimate of Jesus' ministry.
5. See D.M. May, 'Mark 3.20-35 from the Perspective of Shamel Honor', Biblical Theology Bulletin 17 (1987), 83-7.
6. I am aware that it appears ironical that this article is written at a time when many Singaporeans believe that family is being threatened by divorce and juvenile delinquency. One may ask whether this article is encouraging the further breakup of the family. In answering this, it is to be noted that the Christian perspective supports the importance of the family but not by absolutising it. Rather, it puts it in proper perspective, as an important institution of God and not as an idol. And it is only when we understand the family as an institution of God that a proper attitude towards it could be encouraged and this will lead eventually to strong families. Of course, many familial problems today are the result of making one's self-interest paramount or even absolute. The conclusions of this article would not support this as it is Jesus' authority and this claims over us which are absolute, and not any other forms of interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment