God Ordained Institutions

Lately my thinking has been on the subject of the relationship between the family and the church. It has led me to such questions as; "Which is more important, the family or the church?". I think that I err in making the assumption that there is a disparity between any of the God-ordained institutions.

Which is more important: prophet, priest or king? I do not think that question can be answered. Likewise I do not think that an importance of the family over church or vice versa can be argued.

Will there be marriage in heaven? No. What implication does that have for the family? Will there be a non-theocratic 'state' in heaven? I am pretty sure there won't be, but I don't know what source to cite as evidence. On the other hand you could argue that there will be a 'state,' though it will be a theocratic one. Likewise you could argue that we are all the 'family' of God and so there will still be the concept of 'family' even in heaven. Does the church exist in heaven? It ought to. I believe it is orthodox to look at the visible and invisible aspects of the church as the "church."

In one sense you could say that the institutions of family and state go away in the new heavens and new earth. From this you could argue that the church is the only lasting institution and therefore somehow most/more important than the others. I think this is where I have been recently, but I think I am coming to a more moderate position.

Neither institution is any more important than the other. I believe they are all aspects of God's administration of His creation (that is, covenantal aspects). The state represents a kingly institution, the church represents a priestly institution, and the family represents a prophetic institution. At the end of time I think we will see these earthly types melt away revealing God's singular covenantal ordering of the new heavens and the new earth. It will resemble something of a conglomeration of these institutions, not because God will combine them but because God separated them at the beginning of time for our benefit (a decentralization with 'checks and balances,' if you will; maybe so that no one could gain preeminence and proclaim himself as god).

What we shall see will be more comprehensive a covenantal governing than what a conglomeration of church, state, and family would look like. In every way God is inexhaustible and in general He is incomprehensible.

[As an aside, some of my favorite visualizations/ideations.

God is like a diamond with its many facets. Anyone person may see several facets of God but no one person can see them all at the same time. This is what I refer to whenever I use the term "multi-faceted." There are always aspects of every issue that go unconsidered by men in their thinking. This is why I try (hopefully) to always be humble and open to a fresh perspective. (Source: I dunno)

God is like an onion. There are many layers. But unlike an onion which gets smaller as you peel away another layer, God (or at least your view of Him) gets larger with each layer peeled away. (Source: C.S. Lewis, "The Last Battle" if I'm not mistaken)

God has not told us everything. But everything He has told us He wants us to know. John heard the voice of seven thunders but was commanded to not write what he had heard. So we know God has not revealed all there is to know. But what He has given, He wants us to know, understand and apply (I take this as a presupposition, I think or maybe I'm just copping out of a defense for it; well hit me up if you want more on this issue). (Source: Bible)

God is triperspectival. This is my latest discovery, courtesy of John Frame. Epistemology deals with convoluted thinking. We don't just "think" when we are thinking epistemologically, but now we are thinking about our thinking. Why do we believe what we believe? These are the sorts of issues epistemologists deal with. They also consider such things as the knower, the object that is known and the rules/norms governing this knowledge. God at all times and in every way knows all three perspectives about everything. (Well I suppose it helps that He sustains everything concurrently through His covenant with creation.) But we as humans never get beyond seeing things uniperspectivally. Barring any "out of body" experiences, we cannot not be ourselves. We can never go outside of ourselves to see something from a different perspective, not truly. It helps when someone shares their perspective with us. (But even then you are understanding what they are saying through your own perspective.) I guess when you are "one" with someone you've come the closest any man will come to biperspectivalism. If you and your wife are truly one, then you have something of two differing perspectives working to the mutual benefit of the parties invovled. In some ways we may speculate at what triperspectivalism looks like. Again we cannot elucidate it in any situation comprehensively, but we can "give it a go." (Source: John Frame, "A Primer on Perspectivalism," I do not give justice to this concept here. If you want to know more click the link.)

Alright, so those are the thoughts that go through my head when I deal with ideas beyond the grave.]

In summary, all institutions are equal and equally necessary. All three social institutions represent some aspect of prophet/priest/king.

But can we emphasize family over church? I don't think we can. God has no grandchildren. The family exists to provide conception and maturation of the children of God, but at some point it ends (and begins for the next generation). The father no longer has authority over their adult children. There is a certain respect due, but it is due to any elder regardless of family "ties." After a child is "liberated" he joins the church as it is now his "family." The church is not a family of families; the church is a family. The relation you have to your pastors, elders, deacons, and members are not mediated through your father any longer. Instead of viewing the church as a family of families it is more like a "little church." As we are "Christians" (little-christs), so are families "churchians" (little-churches). In other words the family is not an atomical(ly a) building block of the church but sub-atomical(ly) to the church; the church being the essence of society.

I know it really sounds as if I denigrate or even despise the family to those raised in our family-worshiping culture, but I do not. In fact I adore the family for its God-given role. I love being a father and have had the unction for it in me since I was five years old (am I strange?). I would not trade it for the world. But is my role more important than a pastor's role? No. Is it less important than a pastor's role? No. These are different callings and all equally valid and beneficial to the kingdom. They really are the same job; they deal with Christians at different levels of growth/maturity. Fathers are first in chronology, but pastors are final (in the earthly sense). Pastors pastor from ones birth to ones death. Fathers only father from birth to liberation. Each is necessary but pastoring is the permanent 'fathering.' Likewise the church is the permanent family.

I am saying all of this in my defense of my emphasis on the church. I am not saying that the church is more important than the family. I am merely placing a slight emphasis on the role/work of the church. I am not here debating importance but emphasis. Neither institution is any more important than any other. Thus no institution deserves an inordinate/disproportionate share of our attention. But I think this is where we fall apart. Most Christians hold the family to have greater importance and give an inordinate/disproportionate amount of attention to the family. I think they do this to the neglect of the church. Does this mean that no institution needs to be emphasized? I don't know? But I do know that until Christians in general give equality to the church in importance with the family I will continue to emphasize the church.

We do not get the sacraments in the family. The evangelical institution is the church. The mechanism of discipleship is the church (discipleship may take place in the family but it is not the family's work necessarily; it may be argued that any discipleship taking place in the family is the outworking of the fact that your children are your fellow heirs in Christ. I think many parents have a hard time looking at their snobby two-year-old as a fellow heir. This emotional or psychological detachment is not a reflection of reality however.).

State = legal, negative sanctions, order
Church = spiritual, sacramental, covenantal, worship, evangelism, discipleship, common grace, positive sanctions, Kingdom of God, "Christendom," Christian community
Family = economic, life, entrepreneurial, educational

If nothing else, take this away: We need more fellowship and the gathering together of believers.