Special thanks to Michael Hunter and The Reformed Conservative, where this was originally published, for permission to publish this on The Daily Genevan.
Natural Communities
Part 1: Natural vs. Non-natural Communities
Part 2: Types of Natural Communities
Part 3: Challenges of Defining and Relating Natural Communities
Part 3: Challenges of Defining and Relating Natural Communities
Defining the above communities is difficult because their boundaries can be vague. The rules are designed to address the needs of common human experience, not rare exceptions or the “fuzzy” edges. But only rationalists will deny the existence or importance of nations, for example, simply because we cannot precisely define a nation in a way that includes all and only members of that nation. As G.K. Chesterton writes in “The Patriotic Idea,”
Lastly, if he says, as he certainly will, that it is unreasonable to draw the limit at one place rather than another, and that he does not know what is a nation and what is not, we shall say: “By this sign you are conquered; your weakness lies precisely in the fact that you do not know a nation when you see it. There are many kinds of love affairs, there are many kinds of song, but all ordinary people know a love affair or a song when they see it. They know that a concubinage is not necessarily a love affair, that a work in rhyme is not necessarily a song. If you do not understand vague words, go and sit among the pedants, and let the work of the world be done by people who do.” It is better occasionally to call some mountains hills, and some hills mountains, than to be in that mental state in which one thinks, because there is no fixed height for a mountain, that there are no mountains in the world.
Once we have defined these categories, we face the additional difficulty of determining how to order their relative importance. I cannot address every case of competing loyalties in this article. But I will give two examples.
First, do we have greater obligations to our family (a natural blood community) or to the church (a supernatural, redemptive community)? We may be inclined to say we have greater obligations to the church, since our bond with believers is spiritual and eternal. But there are at least some cases in which our devotion must be to our family rather than to the church. For example, Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees for teaching people to give money to God rather than to their parents (Matt. 15:1–9). Of course, giving our resources to God is good; it is not in itself sinful. But when we must choose between supporting our parents financially and supporting the church, we are obligated to support our parents (cf. 1 Tim. 5:3–16). As a friend noted, if we must choose between being at the bedside of our dying mother or the bedside of a dying church member, we ordinarily should be at the bedside of our dying mother, even if she is an unbeliever. A safe guideline here is to prefer our natural blood communities in those things pertaining to nature and to prefer the church in those things pertaining to redemption.
Second, do we have greater obligations to a neighbor of a different nation or race or to a man in our natural blood community who lives farther away? Again, the answer is complex. If we can help either, but not both, we should ordinarily help the man who belongs to our natural blood community, if the blood relation is relatively close. Imagine, for example, that a disaster strikes the state of Joe, a black man, and vital resources, such as water, are scarce. Joe’s white neighbor needs water. But so does Joe’s son who lives on the opposite side of the state. He has enough water to help either, but not both. He should ordinarily help his son. But if the choice is between helping his white neighbor and helping a black man whom he has never met, he should ordinarily help his white neighbor. The nature of the help, however, will also inform our answer to the question. If the help pertains to his white neighbor as an individual, he should prioritize helping him over helping a black individual whom he does not know. But if the nature of the help is understood to include advancing the interests of the white community as such at the expense of Joe’s own nation or race as such, then he is forbidden to offer this help and must advocate for the interests of his own nation or race, just as he would promote the interests of his own family rather than the interests of another’s (though neither man is necessarily sinning by promoting the interests of his own family, as long as he does not violate the moral law). The same principles apply, of course, if Joe is white and his neighbor is black.
Accurately assessing our various relationships and weighing our obligations can be difficult, especially since changing circumstances can alter the relative importance of our communities. But the solution is not to deny the reality of our natural identities and relations. Rather, the difficulty of the task should humble us, and we should be content to discharge our duties in the various concrete communities to which we belong, including our families and nations. So, aside from spiritual concerns, take no thought for other people’s natural communities. Sufficient for your people is the evil thereof.
Michael Hunter is a PhD candidate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, and an elder and licentiate in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. He received his BA in Greek from Wake Forest University, his MSt in Greek and Latin Languages and Literature from the University of Oxford, and his MDiv from Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. He has served as a translator or assistant editor on several projects, including Reformation Worship (2018), Disease, Scarcity, and Famine: A Reformation Perspective on God and Plagues (2021), and The Book of Ruth Explained in Twenty-Eight Homilies (2022).