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
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 2: Types Of Natural Communities
Communities of Blood
The family is the most specific blood community. The human race is the most general blood community. Between these extremes, there are more general and more specific blood communities. For example, moving from the more specific to the more general, there are clans, tribes, nations/ethnicities, and races. We can apply the term “race” to blood communities at each level of generalization. So there is the human race (descended from Adam), the Semitic race (descended from Shem), the Israelite race (descended from Jacob), the Judahite race (descended from Judah), the Davidic race (descended from David), and so on. (The Latin gens and natio and the Greek γένος and ἔθνος can likewise apply to blood communities at different levels of generalization.) As these examples indicate, “race” at each level is ordinarily determined by the paternal line.
Christians today generally recognize the family as a God-ordained natural institution and acknowledge that the family imposes on us moral obligations (cf. Gen. 4:9; Exod. 20:12; Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2; 1 Tim. 5:8), though we did not consent to be born into the family to which we belong. The more general the blood community is, the more likely modern Christians are to reject these communities as social constructs or at least as irrelevant. Yet Scripture and the Christian tradition repeatedly affirm that God providentially established these blood communities and that they are significant, as Achord and Dow’s anthology Who Is My Neighbor? illustrates. I will not attempt here to give an exhaustive account of the biblical passages demonstrating this point, but I will briefly provide some examples. First, the human race is divided into three parts: Semites, Hamites, and Japhethites (Gen. 9). These divisions are divinely recognized and established and so cannot simply be redefined by any human individual or community. Further, God generally deals with men differently depending on the race to which they belong. Race, as noted above, does not determine anyone’s spiritual status before God; the only exception is the human race as federally represented in Adam. But race is an instrument by which God confers temporal blessings and curses and by which he preserves and propagates his covenant promises. So the descendants of Shem and Japheth received blessings that the descendants of Ham did not receive, not because of anything they did, but simply because of their lineage. Indeed, one branch of Ham’s race, the Canaanites, are uniquely cursed because their ancestor Ham sinned against his father.
There are also nations, or ἔθνοι. The three major races were sub-divided into “their nations” (Gen. 10:5, 20, 31, 32). God deals with these nations as nations (cf. Gen. 15:14; 25:23; Exod. 9:24; 34:24; Lev. 18:24; 25:44-46; Num. 13:28–29; Deut. 2:8–25; 32:8; Acts 17:26; Titus 1:12). And we are morally obligated to love our nation above other nations, a loyalty that Paul models for us (Rom. 9:1–3; cf. 11:1). As Hodge notes on this passage, “The Bible recognizes the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature. It therefore approves of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and other passages, of peculiar love for the people of our own race and country.” Likewise, Murray writes in his commentary on the same passage, “The use of the term ‘brethren’ bespeaks the bond of affection which united the apostle to his kinsmen. ‘According to the flesh’ is added to show that those for whom he had concern were not contemplated as brethren in the Lord…but it also expresses what is implicit in the term ‘kinsmen’ and supplies an additional index to the bond of love created by this natural, genetic relationship.” R.L. Dabney expresses the same idea in The Practical Philosophy (p. 95), though he also brings into view other natural relations alongside the blood relation: “Other active principles come in to limit and intensify the affection [of patriotism]: similarity of language, race, and modes of thought and feeling; common interests; the ties of a thousand proud associations of country and ancestors; the local associations of the familiar and beloved scenery, the plains, the mountains, the streams, the homes, the cemeteries, to which our hearts are knit by a thousand tender bonds of suggestion.” Besides having a particular love for our nation, we should also desire the preservation of all national identities, since a world reflecting a colorful variety is more beautiful than a world of gray, cheerless uniformity, and since each nation contributes something to humanity that the others cannot. Indeed, as Vos writes in his Biblical Theology (p. 60),
Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; an imperialism that would, in the interest of one people, obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will. Later prophecy raises its voice against the attempt at world-power, and that not only, as is sometimes assumed, because it threatens Israel, but for the far more principal reason, that the whole idea is pagan and immoral…Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.
While national identity is generally determined by lineage, there are other factors that aid in distinguishing one nation from another. Several of these distinguishing factors properly belong to other natural communities, but they intersect with lineage and so must be mentioned here. A nation generally occupies a common land (cf. Gen. 10:5, 20, 31). Territory alone does not constitute a nation, since multiple nations can inhabit the same land (cf. Josh. 23:12–13) and since, under some circumstances, a nation can be divided by geographical boundaries (e.g., Reuben and Gad east of the Jordan; English colonists across the Atlantic). A nation also generally has a common native language, or “mother tongue” (cf. Gen. 10:5, 20, 31; Neh. 13:23–25). Yet different dialects can develop within a nation, and nations can even change their native language. So, for example, there were national/ethnic Jews in the first century AD who spoke Greek (cf. Acts 6:1). And even the Israelites who spoke Hebrew in the late OT period were speaking a language different from Jacob’s. Yet they still belonged to the nation of Israel. A nation also generally has a common religion and culture (cf. Lev. 18:24; 20:23). Again, this feature does not determine national identity. Israelites frequently departed from the faith of their ancestors, yet they remained ethnic Israelites (cf. Rom. 2:17–29; 9:6–7). A nation also generally has a common political system (cf. Gen. 25:16; 27:29; 35:11; 36:40). Yet, again, this feature is not essential to national identity. During the period of the judges and during the divided monarchy, national/ethnic Israel had no common political structure, and during the exile, they did not have their own political system at all. Finally, a nation generally has common genetic features, many of which are easily perceived, such as hair, skin color, bone structure, and so on (cf. Jer. 13:23). Several nations that belong to the same race (e.g., Israelites and Moabites; French and Germans) will also share many of these same features, so these features do not define national identity. Also, members of two nations with significantly different genetic features may procreate, resulting in members of the nation whose physical appearance is distinct from that of the other members of their nation. While the categories discussed here do not determine the boundaries of national communities, the more of these categories that are present in a nation, and the greater the degree to which they are present, the more easily identifiable the nation is, and the farther it is from extinction. A nation that preserves its own territory, its own language, its own religion, its own culture, its own political system, and its own physical appearance is more easily identifiable and less likely to perish than a nation that does not. The above is merely descriptive; it does not address whether (and, if so, under what circumstances) a nation should abandon any of these features.
Tribes and clans are also divinely determined, and Scripture treats them as significant (cf. Gen. 10:5, 18, 20, 31, 32; 24:38; 36:40; Exod. 6:14–25; Num. 26). Many of the same features that generally accompany nations also accompany tribes and clans on a smaller scale. For example, tribes and clans generally have their own territory, and their dialects may differ from that of other tribes and clans in their nation. They may also have their own unique cultural practices and smaller political systems.
These blood communities — family, clan, tribe, nation, and race — are natural, not socially constructed, and they impose moral obligations on us. (I will not address all our moral obligations toward our natural communities; for more on this, see Johannes Althusius, Politica, chapter 3.) But the biblical ethic generally moves in concentric circles outward from the moral agent (cf. Matt. 7:5). Therefore, we ordinarily have greater obligations to our family than to our clan, greater obligations to our clan than to our tribe, greater obligations to our tribe than to our nation, and greater obligations to our nation than to our race. And so our obligations extend from our parents outward to all our blood relations, as Thomas Aquinas writes in ST II-II, Q. 101, Art. 1, co. [my trans.]:
Man is made a debtor to other men in various ways, according to their various excellence and the various benefits he receives from them. In both respects God holds the highest place, since he is most excellent and is for us the first principle of being and government. In the second place, the principles of our being and government are our parents and our fatherland, by whom and in which we have been born and nourished. Therefore, man is a debtor especially to his parents and his fatherland, after God. Hence just as it pertains to religion to worship God, so it pertains to piety, in a secondary degree, to honor one's parents and one's fatherland. Included in the honor given to our parents is the honor given to all our blood relations, since they are called our blood relations because they descend from the same parents, according to the Philosopher. In the honor given to our fatherland is included the honor given to all our fellow-citizens and to all the friends of our fatherland. Therefore piety extends principally to these.
Before we turn to the other natural communities, we should briefly address how important the doctrine of blood communities is for the Christian faith. How we view these communities is important for understanding our duties toward others. But it is also an essential part of the gospel. As we saw above, grace builds on nature. According to the gospel, Jesus Christ had to be a Semite, an Israelite, a Judahite, and a son of David (cf. Gen. 9:26–27; 49:10; Matt. 1:1; Luke 1:32, 69; Rom. 1:3; Rev. 5:5). These categories, then, must be natural, not artificial, and they must be significant. They are not supernatural, and so are of no saving significance in themselves. But they are antecedent natural realities on which the structure of redemptive grace rests. To deny this is not necessarily formal heresy (by which I mean the error of teaching a doctrine that one knows undermines essential features of the gospel), but it is material heresy (by which I mean the error of inconsistently believing a doctrine that, if believed consistently, would undermine the gospel).
Communities of Space
The second type of natural community is the community of space. Human beings are spatially limited. Therefore, we cannot discharge the same duty in two places at once. As mentioned above, our moral obligations move outward in concentric circles. So my moral obligations to another man generally decrease the farther away he is from me. Globalist philanthropy pretends that we have the same responsibilities toward everyone on the planet and so pretends that we (or at least some of us) are gods. Christianity, on the contrary, recognizes man’s finitude and teaches us that we especially are responsible for those who are near us. We cannot solve problems halfway around the world, but we may be able to solve problems down the street. Globalism is in fact nothing other than an anti-theistic imperialism that seeks to erase natural communities in favor of a homogeneous world community under the management of a godlike central government. But God has created irreversible natural distinctions within the human race and has imposed on us obligations suitable to our limitations within these natural communities. Globalism, then, is necessarily futile. The obligation to aid those who are near us, even where other close natural relations are not present, is demonstrated in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). Yet our communities of space generally overlap with our communities of blood and time. When we are born, we are initially bound by our community of blood to the same community of space. And since most people spend most of their lives near their family, and since traditions (which belong to the community of time) are ordinarily transmitted through families, the community of time generally depends on the community of space. Prolonged, especially generational, relationships on the same soil reinforce not only our commitment to a particular place, but also to the people of that place, with whom we share blood and tradition. From this relationship to our land and its inhabitants arises patriotism, the love for the people of our patria, or fatherland.
Communities of Time
The last type of natural community is the community of time. Our moral obligations in this relation become stronger the longer the relation lasts, whether directly or indirectly. Directly, we generally have greater obligations to our friends and family the longer we are in relationships with them. This is not always the case. For example, a man owes more loyalty to his wife whom he married yesterday than to his parents whom he has known his whole life (cf. Gen. 2:24). Yet a man generally has greater obligations to a friend he has had for twenty years than to a friend he met a week ago. Indirectly, as members of families, nations, states, and so on, we generally owe loyalty to inherited traditions (insofar as these traditions are not intrinsically immoral), and the more established these traditions are, the more loyalty we owe them (cf. Prov. 22:28; 23:10). As Kirk notes in his essay “Ten Conservative Principles,” “The conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.” A group of people who are not bound by ties of blood and who have not all met each other may be members of a community of time because they have inherited common traditions. Yet these indirect communities of time generally overlap with communities of blood and space, since we commonly inherit cultural and political traditions from our ancestors and from those with whom we live. For example, English political traditions generally existed in predominantly ethnic English communities and spaces that were inhabited by Englishmen. As time passes, if a community of blood retains its identity and continues to transmit its religion and culture from one generation to the next, this community will develop in ways that distinguish it from other blood communities and in ways that no other blood community could merely adopt in a few generations. For example, a nation with two thousand years of Christian civilization behind it cannot successfully assimilate large numbers of people from another nation that has been Christianized for only a generation, much less one that has not been Christianized at all.
We earlier identified the church as a supernatural community and the family as a natural community. But what about the state? Where does it fit among the various communities? The state consists of a group of people inhabiting the same territory who are organized into a political body with a common civil government and inherited political traditions. The state is divinely mandated (Rom. 13:1) and arises out of man’s natural condition as a political animal. Wherever there are groups of men, there will be states. There are moral and immoral states. Moral states are those political communities whose organizing principles are consistent with God’s moral law, and immoral states are those whose organizing principles violate God’s moral law. God has granted man some latitude in the arrangement of his political affairs, and so there are various political structures that are not intrinsically immoral (e.g., monarchy, aristocracy, republic). Yet even among the moral options for organizing political communities, some are better and some are worse, and which is better or worse depends on circumstances and so may differ for different natural communities. The state, both in its constitution and in the actions of its government, is not permitted to prevent us from discharging our duties to the supernatural community or to our natural communities. Indeed, the state exists to serve both. While the state as such is a natural community (since human nature demands it), a particular form of the state is only natural for us insofar as we have inherited it in the community of time and insofar as we are members of the community of space where our state has jurisdiction. So we are naturally obligated to show loyalty to our state, and we may not change its constitution by rejecting the legal system we have inherited. But we may change the constitution of our state morally by altering our political order according to the legal system we have inherited. Here is the difference between revolution and reform. The state, then, belongs partly to the community of space (because it belongs to people inhabiting the same territory), partly to the community of time (because the people in a state inherit political traditions which they are then morally obligated to respect), and generally to the community of blood (since the members of the governing class in a state often belong to the same community of blood and since members of a political community generally inherit their political traditions and their territory from their blood ancestors).
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).