Skip to main content

1 Samuel 1-4: Biblical family values?

One of the great ironies of the present day is the use of the phrase 'Biblical family values' to champion the cause of Western (American?) style nuclear families with authoritarian patriarchal leadership and neat polite children. I don't know what Bible those 'values' are found in, but it's not a translation I've ever come across. Incest, polygamy, wife swapping, rape, prostitution and rebellion seem to be some of the 'family values' protrayed in the Bible. But I'll get to most of those another time. here's 1 Samuel chapter 1-4 in brief.

Chapter 1
A man has two wives, one is fertile (Peninnah) one is barren (Hannah).Hannah promises God that if God gives her a boy she will dedicate the boy to God (no alchohol and no hair cuts).God gives Hannah a boy, Hannah gives the boy (Samuel) to the high priest (Eli) the moment he is weaned, and leaves Samuel at the temple as a servant.

Chapter 2
Eli (the hight priest) raises Samuel (who gets to see his mum and dad once a year). Eli also has two sons (Hophni and Phinehas). They abuse their position as priests and exploit those who comes to worship.Eli makes a half hearted attempt to discipline his sons, it fails because God has already decided they have to die.A prophet turns up and tells Eli that because he honoured his sons more than God that he and his sons are going to die.

Chapter 3
Samuel, while still a boy, hears God's voice and becomes a prophet. Samuels first message is to Eli: 'you and your sons are going to die.'

Chapter 4
Hophni and Phinehas take the Ark of the Covenant into battle and die, losing the Ark. Eli gets the news and falls off his chair and dies.

Now is it just me but, does the boy who only sees his parents once a year and never gets a haircut not turn out better than the ones who take on the family business and get spoilt rotten by their indulgent dad?

You have to look hard to find the 'family values' there but I think these chapters do have a subtle (and subversive) message about parenthood. Children are a gift from God (as God grants Hannah's prayer) but are not to be allowed to compete with God for our devotion (as Eli compromises his duties towards God for Hophni and Phinehas).

Western evangelicalism is often in danger of idolising 'the family'. This is seen in some of our organisations (see focus on the family, family first, etc) our politics (can I take that as read?) and in day to day church life (e.g. only going to a church with a good 'childrens ministry', or taking kids out of Bible study groups so they can concentrate on school work). But nowhere in the Bible is the nuclear family modeled, let alone advocated, and we need to ask ourselves how much are our 'family values' truly Christian/Biblical and how much is mere western middle class respectability?

Let me know what you think :)

Comments

  1. It sounds to me like you've just written verbatim one of the rants that Jane and I have from time to time.

    We've tried looking in the Bible, and we have not yet found a single example of a family exhibiting "Biblical family values" - not even Jesus' earthly family. "Biblical family values" were invented in the American mid-west following the second world war; strictly utilitarian.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks D&J, sorry to steal your rant ;-) but...
    Isn't Hannah exhibiting BFV?
    How do you mean 'strictly utilitarian'?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was using "Biblical family values" in quotes in the same context as you were.

    I agree that Hannah was exhibiting BFV. I also agree that when Jesus stayed in the temple as a young boy, he was exhibiting BFV. Any time God is glorified for a family decision, they are showing BFV.

    "BFV" were not "strictly" utilitarian (I got carried away!) After the horrors of WWII, American society had to reconsolidate, and these attitudes helped them to do so. By shunning difference and expecting respect for authority (parents), the risk of failure was minimised and it was believed that everyone would be better off. It was for the good of the many.

    ReplyDelete
  4. apologies, i see what you mean about "BFV".
    Re the history of "BFV" in America, interesting, where did you get that from? would be interested to follow it up.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Addictive Power of End Times Speculation

The mighty Rhett Snell has picked up his blog again (I wonder how long he'll last this time), check out his theory on why people get so into annoyingly unbiblical end times nonsense.

I think that where codes-and-calendars end times theology is dangerous, is that it can give a sense of false growth. We read a theory online, or hear it from some bible teacher, and we come to think that we have mastered an area of our faith. A bit like levelling up in a computer game, or Popeye after he’s eaten some spinach. At worst, we begin to believe that we’ve taken a step that other Christians have not; that we’ve entered an elite class of Christianity.

The false link between suicide and mental illness

One characteristic of human society is the tendency to keep doing something over and over again despite it not working. One example would be our approach to incarcerating criminals to punish them instead of rehabilitating them, compounding their trauma and making it harder for them to live productive law-abiding lives when they get out. But this is the "common-sense" approach, the intuitive human response to the failings of others, punish them and they wont dare do it again. It has never worked, ever, but let's keep doing it. Secular society is screwed because it cannot comprehend that its vision is blurred by sin and therefore knee-jerk, common sense solutions are usually destructive and counter-productive.

So it is with our response to suicide. To kill yourself must be the response of the weak minded and sick - so the thinking goes - so to combat rising suicide we treat individuals medically. Yet suicide is a perfectly rational response to a world as broken as ours and…

Wars and Rumours of Wars

I write in the morning after the USA 2016 Elections, which featured the historic election of Donald Trump. Apart from my personal interested as a resident of planet Earth at this time, it is interesting to note some of the apocalyptic language emerging in discussions of what this means. Even archaeologists are turning to the medium of prophecy. Hear the word of Tobias Stone,
So I feel it’s all inevitable. I don’t know what it will be, but we are entering a bad phase. It will be unpleasant for those living through it, maybe even will unravel into being hellish and beyond imagination. Humans will come out the other side, recover and move on.  Stone suggests that future historians will be able to draw clear lines from Brexit to Trump to the 3rd World War, or something equally bad. Mind you, just because historians can draw those lines doesn't mean they are here.

Then there is the word of Thom Hartman who is more interested in the domestic fallout than the fallout shelter. 
The last …