Scripture throughout makes a sharp distinction between personal loyalty to God and simple prioritization of the institutional church. When things are ordered rightly, this distinction is not a separation, but it remains a distinction. Here is a striking example.
Jesus sharply rebukes those who prioritize the needs of the temple over the responsibilities to family. You could not erase your obligations to father and mother by dedicating a gift to the temple. And the temple is where the name of God is located, is it not?
“But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition” (Matt. 15:3–6).
But this is not because family trumps the claims of Christ. Not a bit of it.
“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37; cf. Luke 14:26).
Jesus demands ultimate allegiance to Him personally. When it comes to the things of God, that may or may not be the case.
We’d like to see more of your thought about the “institutional” aspect — the sausage-making & it’s environs as an institution — of the church. Can the church operate not as an institution? Is institutionalization a given? Was choosing a replacement for Judas Iscariot an obvious & right move for the 11 that now feels weird to us because of some aberrant notions that have seeped in and settled in our bones? Should the church attempt to operate minimally as an institution? (congregationalism / house churches) Should “para” church institutions really be regarded as nonChurch, when we regard some intrachurch… Read more »
Who thinks replacing Judas Iscariot was weird?
Why would someone think it necessary? — did they have 12 regional territories to cover, and the vacancy was increasing everybody else’s workload?
To restore what was lost? Because they assumed, with or without understanding pragmatic reasons, that Jesus had the right idea when He picked twelve?
These are interesting issues, discussions, ones I’ve had to explore a great deal myself. I come from some very militant atheism with my parents, but conversely I left my original church many years ago when they strayed too far from doctrine and started flying the rainbow flag.
It’s all good, God is faithful, scripture is true, and He has led me well, but it is somewhat humorous, placed between non believing parents and a lost church what else can you do but say, “uhm Lord, help me out here!” And He does, He will, He is faithful.
This addresses a disease that’s fashionable among evangelicals, especially of the open-borders persuasion. Some seem to believe we don’t need nations, families, organizations, institutions, or neighbourhoods, just Jesus (and maybe our wives and kids). These people remind me of interior decorators who feel that furniture keeps people from truly enjoying a room and that windowshades are an unnatural and arbitrary obstacle to true Christian fellowship.