This
study concludes the section on the institution of Family.
·
The
family is the primary trustee of a society’s capital.
·
The
promise to Abraham concerning the inheritance of his descendants was central to
God's covenant.
·
This
future-orientation is central to the life of a biblical family.
·
In
essence, making disciples begins within the family.
·
Christians
have time on their side.
·
Men
will not sacrifice for the future of a bureaucratic State.
·
The
family is God's primary institution for dominion.
The
following is from “Unconditional Surrender” by Gary North.
Trustee
The family is the primary trustee of a society's capital.
The family serves as a bridge between generations. The family name is an
important aspect of biblical rule. To increase the capital of the family unit
is a basic impulse in Christian societies.
A
promise to Abraham concerning the inheritance of his descendants was central to
God's covenant with Abram, whose name was changed to Abraham ("father of
nations") by God. God promised to give his heirs the land of
Canaan (Genesis
15:18).
Abraham had been concerned about a lack of an heir for his capital,
having only a steward to leave his wealth to (Genesis 15:2-3). He wanted a son
to inherit his capital and presumably to inherit the family name.
The
family was understood to be an institution ideal for the preservation of
capital. Abraham recognized this, as did the people
of his day. By extending one's family, one extended the dominion of the family,
the most important institution a man could belong to in Abraham's day. This
hope was part of God's promise to Abraham when He called him out of Haran. "Now
the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy
kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee. And I
will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name
great; and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and
curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be
blessed" (Genesis 12:1-3). A man with no children who had reached
age 75 was promised heirs. A man with no heirs would have his name made great.
This was a true incentive to pick up and leave one's home.
The
future mattered to Abraham, even though he would never see the entry of his
heirs into the land of Canaan. That promise from God could be trusted. It
was as good as done, four centuries before they entered Canaan (Galatians
3:16-18). His
family, though presently without blood heirs, would receive the land of Canaan
as its inheritance from Abraham, by the grace of God.
This
future-orientation is central to the life of a biblical
family. The dominion assignment was
given to Adam, reconfirmed with Noah, and is now part of the covenant between
God and His church, meaning individuals who belong to His church. We are to
extend the rule of God's law across the face of the earth. We are to subdue
it and have dominion over it. One of the means of extending dominion is
the family. No wonder one of the promises to Moses was that if the nation
remained faithful to God's law, wives would not have miscarriages. Even the
female domesticated animals would avoid miscarriages (Exodus 23:26). The
promise of a growing stock of human capital is basic to God's covenant
with His followers.
The
family serves as a trustee of the most important capital asset, the faith delivered
to the saints. This
is why Deuteronomy 6 requires parents to teach their children the law of God. By
bringing children under the dominion of God's law, parents rear up families of
dominion-minded children. The subordination to God's law inaugurates the
dominion aspect of God's covenant. Dominion-minded families then ex tend God's
rule even further, as they bear more children, who in turn are brought under
the rule of God's law.
Christians
have time on their side. It may not always seem to be so, but it
is. Time is under God's sovereign control. He allots time to everyone, but He
blesses those who conform themselves to His law. Long life and large families
are both aspects of God's blessings to the faithful. They are blessed because
they use their capital in kingdom-oriented ways. Christians can look to their
earthly futures in confidence, even as Abram did (before God renamed him
Abraham). They know that they have the tool of dominion, God's law. They know
that God promises blessings to the faithful. They can rest in Christ's work on
the cross. The future belongs to them and their heirs. Their names will extend
into the future.
Given this perspective,
is it surprising that Christians should amass capital? Is it surprising that
the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's led to the growth of capitalism in the
next century? There is a Protestant ethic, and its view of time is fundamental
to its success. Men who are confident concerning the future, in time and
on earth, can plan for a very long run: centuries, if necessary. Their
vision extends beyond their own graves. They see victory in terms of linear
development over time. They can invest a bit of money today, even at a very low
rate of return, and if God blesses its growth long enough, the law of compound
interest takes over, leading to a long-run expansion of capital. It is
revealing that charities established by Puritan businessmen in London in the
late 1500's and early 1600's were still operating in 1900. The original capital
base had been reinvested over the years, leading to an expansion of charitable
activities. The growth in productivity - the basic rate of return - was
sufficient to operate the charities and still expand their influence.
Men will not sacrifice for the future of a bureaucratic
State with the same enthusiasm with which they will sacrifice present consumption
for the sake of their families’ futures. The
State is a pseudo-family, and men treat it as such. If the State confiscates
family wealth at the time of death of the "founding father," then the
sons, not to mention the father himself, will have an incentive to spend the
family fortune today, if only to keep the tax collector from getting the bulk
of the estate. This
drastically shortens men's time perspective. The
long run becomes no longer than the lifetime of the founder when the State
confiscates the estate at his death. A bit of money invested today must make a
high return if it is to grow to any considerable capital base in the lifetime
of one man. Such a return is not that easy to achieve. Men turn to gambling to
"make the big killing" when they recognize the improbability of
building a capital base with today's few assets, given the tight boundaries of
a single lifetime.
The Roman Catholics in
the middle ages recruited their brightest young men for the ministry. They
required celibacy to insure their full commitment to the institutional church.
In contrast, medieval Jews recruited their brightest young men for the
rabbinate. The families sacrificed to provide such training. Then the young men
were encouraged to marry bright (or rich) young women and produce large
families of (hopefully) equally bright children. The results of the two social
policies were very different. The Jews expanded their genetic pool of bright
people, and trained them to be industrious. The Roman Catholics got one
lifetime of labor out of their best men, leaving no family heirs behind to
inherit the amassed capital. The Jews have gained influence vastly out of
proportion to their numbers. The difference lay, to a great extent, in the
institutional trustee: church vs. family. The family name is symbolic of
a lot more than just a name.
Communion
The
family is a fellowship of faith. Concerning
Christian fellowship in general, Paul remarked: "Be ye not unequally
yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with
unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?" (II
Corinthians 6:14).
Marriage, as a true communion, involves separation from the enemies of God. A
man needs a cooperative wife, who can uphold him, help him, and give him
encouragement in their shared tasks. He has to be able to share his hopes and
dreams with her, and she with him. If they don't share first principles, how
can they share their hopes for the future? Their hopes would be shared only on
the basis of the least-common denominator principle. But a successful marriage
is based on higher principles than these.
A
couple's home is a refuge against the battles of the day.
If the man is battling the world, spiritually and economically, he needs a
place to gain new strength. He needs "rest and recreation" to help
him win the battles of the world. His family life should provide a zone of
mutual support against the pressures of the outside world. But what if the same
spiritual battles are in store for husband and wife, since they share different
outlooks? Life becomes a constant battle, or at the very least, battles
interrupted by temporary truces. Marriage should be more than a temporary
cease fire. The warfare of the spirit cannot easily be fenced out at the
front door. The Christian partner must subdue his mate's influence in the home,
to the extent that his or her influence is at war with the unbelieving mate's
anti-Christian first principles. Dominion is vastly more difficult for one who
is exhausted from battles inside the home, as well as outside.
Marriage
is compared with the relationship between Christ and His church. Godly
marriage is therefore a true fellowship, the archetypal fellowship among human
institutions. Men cannot normally operate successfully without wives, which is
why God gave Adam a wife. If a man has no fellowship, he is normally less
effective in his dominion labors. God provides a wife to provide a man with a
fellow laborer, and also with a fellow dreamer, fellow learner, fellow
restorer. Men work better when they are members of a tightly knit team.
Marriage is just such a team.
Conclusion
God
has established families. God's own being is a family: Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost. It has worked well for God throughout eternity; it can work
well for His servants on earth.
The
family is a unit, yet it is made up of different individuals. It is both one
and many. It provides a basic division of labor, and
this leads to greater productivity. It provides a zone of safety against life's
battles with a fallen, recalcitrant environment. It offers fellowship and
communion to its participants. It provides men and women with a stake in the
future, both through children and economic capital. It gears men to the future,
and in so doing, makes possible habits of thrift that lead to vast capital
growth. It gives men some idea of Christ's love for His church. It provides
welfare and education for its members. It reduces the need for a huge State
bureaucracy, so it acts as a weapon against the illegitimate expansion of State
power. It will not survive into heaven (Matthew 22:30), but short of heaven, it
offers mankind incomparable benefits.
This is not to say that
in a fallen world, marriage doesn't sometimes create problems for its members.
Paul even advised people in his day not to marry, if they could live
comfortably single (I Corinthians 7). Some scholars have argued that he probably
was referring only to his era, since he was concerned about impending judgment
from the authorities (which came under Nero's reign in the 60's): "But
this I say, brethren, the time is short" (I Corinthians 7:29a).
His recommendation: "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is
good for them to abide even as I" (I Corinthians 7:8). Paul was unmarried,
probably a widower, although we can't be certain of his status as widower. Yet
in his first letter to Timothy, he advised younger widows to remarry (I
Timothy 5:14),
which seems to indicate that his opinion in his letter to the Corinthian church
was temporary. Paul admits that there are times when the concerns of marriage
interfere with one's service to God: "He that is unmarried careth for the
things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But he that is
married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his
wife" (I Corinthians 7:32-33). It is important for men to choose wives
who are fully committed to their husbands' work before the Lord. Without this,
the marriage threatens to compromise the man's actions as a responsible agent
of God.
When a man and a woman
are working together to subdue the earth to the glory of God, self-consciously
applying their labors, content to be servants of God, working to produce a
family in conformity to God's law, marriage is a blessing. It is not the only
blessing, Paul told the Corinthians, but it is still a good thing. For most
people, he implied, the single state leads to sexual problems, so people need
the marital bond (I
Corinthians 7:2). For
most people, marriage is the most effective institutional means of dominion. Without
the family, the work of dominion could not continue effectively. Men could not
multiply and fill the earth except outside the faith, if Christians were
forbidden to marry - not without breaking God's law, anyway. The
family is God's primary institution for dominion.
