-
Website
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2009/08/revolutionaries-dont-have-room-for-t-ball-right/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I think there is a difference between living "voluntary poverty" and living in poverty as many do in "less developed" countries, though there certainly are radical disciples of Jesus who embraced the poverty they were born into. I can see how it might seem radical to us to live the life that many poor people take for granted, because that is all they know. But I think there is significantly more to following Jesus than what we see in most poor people's lives (I'm speaking partly from my work with the poor in a Catholic Worker house).
That being said, I don't think there is any conflict between following Jesus "with our whole self" and raising a family (including lots of play, and even t-ball perhaps, though some of those suburban leagues are over the top). Many have claimed that there is, usually quoting Paul's letters. But I don't hear Jesus saying that (and Paul was actually only giving his opinion: 1 Cor 7.25). As you point out, Jesus chose apostles who had families, and they were quite good examples of radical discipleship.
From what I've read, Gandhi was a pretty poor father (and I think King had his problems as well), but I don't hear Jesus calling us to anything that would prevent us from being good parents. I'm planning to be a father myself (God willing). I even think, for many of us, the radical call of Jesus includes being radically good parents.
But I remember reading that from Tony a bit ago. The problem for me is not so much how he described Shane's life, because clearly to live a celibate life according to a strict rule of life is something that a portion of the church has clearly always done. The problem is the strict distinction between that life (the radical life, or whatever) from a secular life of the family. Surely there should be more overlap between those two callings, between the call to an irresistible revolution and living a suburban life.
I am confused... Are you actually saying those who spend time coaching T-ball, raising a family(although you have one), etc. cannot/are not living "radical lives?"
Why can't someone living in the Suburbs live a "radical life." You dont really have to have long hair, talk slow, and remain celibate to be "radical" do you? Tony Jones seems to really miss the mark on this one.
John Piper lives a radical lifestyle. He isnt a suburban guy, but he has a family and does all the normal family things. Yet, he lives in a more dangerous, poor community, buys clothes at Good will, etc... To separate "family man" and "radical" is ridiculous.
also i think that parenting or the idea of being a parent is seen and reinforced in this culture as almost always being an absolute good. unless of course you are a single parent or some other less desirable subcategory. otherwise though a couples desire to reproduce/acquire a kid is considered pretty selfless. to me though it seems most have kids for fundamentally selfish reasons (and the fact few can admit to this confirms it even more for me). they "want a baby". "want" is usually said in the same tone people use when they "want" a puppy and "a baby" seems to be a term that denotes an object not an actual human being in all its beauty and brutality.
i think most people shouldn't have kids at all. but then again if F'd up dum dums didn't have kids most of us (especially me) wouldn't be here. i am happy to be alive and typing so i don't know what that means.
all i am saying is we prospective parents (revolutionary or toolutionary) should be very very very very (very) prayerful about our motives and be willing to hear the call that very few fertile people seem to be able to here. ever.
Scripture assumes that couples should have kids. To most cultures throughout most of history, it is strange for couples to not have kids...in fact, if you didn't have kids, it is assumed something is wrong with you. So, to most people in this world, it isn't about selfishness.
MOST people in this world certainly DO NOT have kids out of selfishness...they are seen as a gift--a blessing--to the family, tribe, etc. In America, we make it into a selfish enterprise because, frankly, we do that to everything. But that is the fault of our Societal lens, not the fault of parenting as a practice.
At any rate, as a parent, I've become more radical since having a kid. Sure, I don't have as much time for various activities, but my reason for doing what I do is deeper...I want what I do to last. Plus, I'm raising a little person to understand Jesus' radical call of discipleship (I hope).
So, while I can't travel all the time and get arrested all I want and work full time with the Christian Peacemaker Teams, I can travel sometimes and get arrested every once in a while and work PT with the CPT. But that isn't because I'm less radical...it is just because raising a little radical takes a lot of time and energy.
maybe this wasn't directed at me but i was not questioning your or other parents radicalism. i have met in my life (albeit very few) parents like your self whose baby having has made them even more radical and those people are the people that my wife and i should we ever birth a litter of Krafts would hope to be like.
so let me refine my statement. most people that i have been around in my life, in my culture, in my Christian community seem to want babies for reasons other than a purely selfless desire to create a life and raise up another radical follower of Jesus.
it should be said too that this all comes out of me having some realizations in my life as of late and struggling with just living my life much less bringing a innocent kid into the mix. and it bothers me that so many around seem to not think twice about doing so.
The prospect that Mark knows some admirable parents doesn't undo some of the very disappointing consumerist perspectives that have infiltrated a western view on parenting.
Mark, I appreciate you speaking well of folks and fighting against cynicism but I think some prophetic correctives should be uttered in their full strength.
I think the full force of error is a stark (and yes, I'm going to drop the most overused word in the emergent vocabulary) dualism that separates out parents from their children.
If someone thinks T-ball is really important to the development of their child or it is pivotal to quality family time, do they also play? If it is significant enough to apprentice your child in the ways of T-ball, then surely it must be significant enough that you are attempting to master the discipline yourself.
There are so many trivial things in which we invest our children's time and yet many of these things are not things we consider needful for our own lives. And by the way, I here do speak as a parent of three. I am not a non-parent speculating about how I might feel someday.
I genuinely believe the stuff that is severe in meaning to grownups is the same for children. In this, I fear the educational revolution of secular humanism has strongly imposed an informational model of learning over our more eastern/discipleship-infused way of information through practice and lifestyle.
I mean to say that our varied approaches to educating our kids, I believe, come from psychological beliefs about how we learn and that children learn things very differently from how adults learn things. I'm not refuting this at all. I believe that whole-heartedly. I do believe children and adults filter, accept, and absorb propositional information differently than adults. These are ideas that primarily use the mind as a channel.
But I think discipleship is far more profound in that we are not merely talking about propositional information. We are talking about a way of life and a transformation that is effected far more often through our experiences and the void that we try to conjure within our own souls so that God might fill us. This is not book-learning or something you take in a class but this is much closer to pure discipleship.
I think parenting should be seen through the lens of pure discipleship and not the delivery of propositional truth (as through our educational systems).
If this is true, then both children and adults are transformed by their experiences with the Creator in the same manner or at least not in a way that the distinction between child and adult matters at all.
I know that probably sounds like I'm attempting to be smart here or perhaps I'm being wordy so let me try this:
As an example, my wife and I believe that generosity and hospitality are core values that have come from our meager events with the Creator. Now we could put our oldest boy in T-ball and hope to God that he somehow picks up generosity from competing against other kids and developing an appetite for winning (which, I must add, he needn't develop any further at all), or we could integrate into his daily life opportunities to give.
So we recently had a give-away inspired by some friends at Re-Imagine in San Francisco. Of his own accord, my little six year old filed into his room with a box and filled it in less than five minutes. He asked for another box which he also filled with toys, clothes, shoes, etc.
I suppose he could engage in those kinds of experiments and play T-ball too, but he wonders about these things because he doesn't see me, his father, investing heavily here. Maybe the things that are transformative for me are also transformative for my kids and perhaps the things that aren't for me, aren't for them either.
Just to be sure no one hears what I'm not saying, anything could be set apart as done to the glory of God and we do, at times, make attempts at redeeming what would seem to be an otherwise useless habit or activity. You could encounter Jesus at a T-ball game. It just might not be as likely as encountering Him in the least of these.
I believe this should be applied to taking risks as well. One of the complications of the parental instinct is security and protection for our kids. I fight with this constantly. Most of my anger issues these days hinge on something that seems to be a threat to my children. If any of you find a way to get a handle on this, I would love to hear how.
But if we believe there are times when risking our security, or risking a meal, or risking a new shiny thing, or maybe even risking our health or safety for Christ and His kingdom is justified for us, then is it not also justified for our families?
If paying a price for Jesus, if taking up our cross is the way in which we believe we'll truly find our lives, is that not also true for our children? I think it is.
Do we generally make excuses about protecting our kids from that dangerous Jesus character? Is it ok for me to try and be radical but too risky for my family?
Is the act of protecting our families from Jesus really loving and protective in the end? Perhaps we put too much emphasis on temporal or physical health or safety. And before I get slapped with the dualism label, was it not Jesus who said it is better to cut your hand off than have your entire being burn?
Jason, I think your question is an important question to be asking these days and it is extremely relevant. For those of us who are very unchaste, how do we radically follow Jesus (and if you were to ask me, there is no other way than radical).
For example, you ask: "But if we believe there are times when risking our security, or risking a meal, or risking a new shiny thing, or maybe even risking our health or safety for Christ and His kingdom is justified for us, then is it not also justified for our families?" I'd agree that it is justified, as long as they are making the decision for themselves. If you are the one deciding to risk your children's health and safety "for Christ and his kingdom," however, or if you are pressuring your spouse to do so against their will, then I think it is not justified. We're to be examples and be willing to risk ourselves, but not push others into risks they are not ready and willing to embrace. That's the real difficulty with family.
Ever read about Leo Tolstoy's life? A wonderful case in point: "His relationship with his wife deteriorated as his beliefs became increasingly radical and he sought to reject his inherited and earned wealth, including the renunciation of the copyrights on his earlier works." (He ended up "giving away" his property to his family, but continuing to live on the estate with them unhappily, until running away just before his death. He died alone in a train station.)
I believe God can make a way to live radically and also give our children the security and stability they need. But it's far from an easy path to discern.
I think we as parents bring our kids to take risks everyday. We put them in vehicles, we drive them down roads, we cross streets, we feed them processed things and expose them to people we have no control over.
Truly, I find security and stability to be illusions if they are rooted in anything short of nature of the Father. I think Jesus spoke powerfully to this when He mentions the sparrows and the hairs on our heads. Perhaps at the end of this process, we find that risk is the actual illusion.
But if, in fact, we lead our kids to take risks constantly, why not the kind with the greatest grounding in the One we trust most? Do we believe that giving our lives is really finding them? Is not the center of God's heart the safest place in the universe to live?
Ironically, T-ball is quite a risk. I remember playing as a kid with a friend named Max. Max had played ball for barely more than a season and at eight years old, had been struck hard with the ball no less than three times. One such accident resulted in bruised ribs. Max didn't want to play ball anymore after all that.
There are better risks to lead our children into. The only real risk is the perception of the normative culture who believes that security and stability are things we can actually effect. Refer to our reactions in America post September 11th. We scurry about in our airports far more than we did a decade ago, but recent studies suggest we are actually no safer than we were.
I'm far too young to speak with any authority on this point, but with my little ones in this phase of their lives, they aren't coerced into these decisions. My children see my wife and I struggle to follow Jesus in unconventional ways and they want to be just like us.
Maybe this won't last. Maybe I should cherish these fortunate gifts and prepare for the ugly teenage years ahead (at least that is the predominate forecast). These years never came in my life. I was so profoundly drawn into the love that my parents had for me that I never lost sight of my Jesusy parents as the model for me.
But I certainly don't coerce my wife either. I have been gifted with a remarkable woman who supports and balances the journey we've been called on.
Perhaps if you have to force this kind of "risk" on your family, you aren't speaking of it rightly. Jesus lets the rich man go away heart-broken.
Maybe if our kids don't grow into the stability found in the hand of God, whether they play T-ball or not is as superfluous as the musical selection from the deck of the Titanic.
I've been part of an intentional Christian community that raised kids years ago in a risky urban environment amid high-demand ministries, and I met a number of those who grew up that way and were quite critical of their upbringing. Who felt they had been deprived of some of the parental attention they needed (due to ministry demands). And imposed upon too much by the many other adults in the close community, who were not their parents. Nearly all of the kids left the community eventually for more mainstream lives. (And this is not a far-out bunch of folks, but one of the oldest and most respected communities of its type in this country.) We need to be careful about this, because the results usually take years to appear, and they can be severe.
Then there's spouses. A friend of mine at a Catholic Worker house (homeless shelter and soup kitchen) married another volunteer there and had a child. They had agreed on a life of voluntary poverty and service in that community. But within a year his wife was sexually assaulted by a guest. Not too surprisingly, she soon decided she wanted a more conventional life for their family. He was willing to compromise a bit, but wanted to continue the radical life they had agreed on. They couldn't work it out. Eventually she demanded a divorce and insisted on taking the child (expecting him to pay child support, which would require him to get a paying job). Given the situation, any judge would certainly take her side. A terribly hard situation, where everyone felt cornered and threatened.
Jesus was always careful to warn his followers of the risks involved and make sure they were free to follow him or not as they chose. We also need to make sure our families are free to follow Jesus voluntarily and are not being pressured by our choices. Especially young children, who so readily accept our decisions (including the bad ones).
As I was thinking, we've gotten far off the scent of the point, I'm almost certain. Your example of kids regretting their upbringing had to do, in your words, of the children not receiving the attention they should have. This is actually the opposite approach I'm espousing.
If you're raising your child to be a Jesus radical who swims against the current of the world, then this would take vastly more attention rather than less. It would also take a willingness, I think, to integrate your journey with your children. I like to take my son out with me when I visit people. Does he feel like he gets less attention for this?
I guess I don't know yet. Perhaps he will, but I tend to think that I spend much more time with my children than most fathers. To me, it isn't a matter of choosing to follow Jesus or raise your kids. You ought to be able to follow Jesus BY raising your kids.
In a nutshell, I'm saying that we as parents are responsible to raise our children the best way we know how.
For me, the best way to live is to follow Jesus as radically as he demanded. I think this is the most abundant and rich life there is to live. This is what I strive to teach my kids, not through neglect, but by living with them and before them.
The idea that T-ball equals child attention and following Jesus equals child neglect is the false dichotomy of Tony's article that I primarily reject.
Teaching your kids to love Jesus is the best attention you can give. If my kids grow up and choose not to follow, they're welcome to make that choice. But I do not believe that is a reflection on their upbringing so much as their destination.
You can point someone the right direction and if they end up at the wrong place, I don't think you can fault yourself for your role. I say this having seen many kids raised in remarkable families only to choose a different path.
It is one of the greater crimes in the church of the last century that so many leaders have ignored the First Timothy three charge. Truly, if you cannot raise your family, you have no business helping with anyone else.
Teaching our kids to love Jesus should make us better parents, not worse.
So we should take these warnings seriously. Jesus always warned his disciples of the risks of following him, and the risks of marriage and family while trying to live a radical lifestyle are part of that.
For another example of the challenges of family life in a setting of Christian community and service to the poor, see this article about Dorothy Day's daughter (and other Catholic Worker kids): "An extraordinary, difficult childhood"
It's pretty fair and balanced. I think this part is perhaps the most revealing (and challenging):
Two introductory points and then I’ll jump into it:
I want to thank you for be willing to have this conversation and being patient enough to flesh much of this out in print. I think this is my first interaction on this site and it always speaks well of folks who are ready to do the work of process.
Also, I appreciate your concrete examples. I tend to be an idealist and I often push for the universality of concepts even in the face of glaring exceptions. Your stories provide some experiences in the radical community of the last century of which I have next to no exposure. I can really only speak to how this has played out in my life.
At this mile marker, I’m not entirely sure whether the horse still has a pulse or not, but I’ve still got my T-ball bat and I’m coming back for more :-)
I think Jesus is very active in the task of REDEFINING how we think of “risk.” Unless He is willing to work within one understanding to draw us into a higher understanding, then it is nearly impossible to get many of His sayings to square.
So Jesus says to take up your cross to follow Him. Obviously, that sounds pretty grizzly and daunting in it’s human way. But He also says that His yoke is light. How is that possible? Which is it Jesus? How can a light yoke be a yoke that demands we be willing to give up our lives on a moments notice?
I think you find His work of redefining when He tells us there is less risk in selling all you have to attain the Pearl of Great Price. He tells us it is better to pluck out our eyes and go through life blind than for our entire being to be consumed. He tells one that if he wants to be complete, he should sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor. How can He say these things? Where is the key He is using to redefine?
I think it is found in the premise that He took temporal things very, very lightly. His view on such things, what you wear, or what you eat, or what you live under, can readily be seen as the domain of the Father, not worthy of human worry. There is no real risk in these things. They are far safer in the hands of God than they’ll ever be left to our devices and planning.
To Jesus, the risk here is on the same level as someone who is standing in front of a swimming pool fully engulfed in flames yet worries that if they jump in, the cell phone they have in their pocket will be damaged or ruined. What do we say to someone in this situation? I think we would say the same thing He says to us.
So then, there are at least these two ways of seeing “risk” or “danger” or “security.” We are more secure in the hand of the Father than we’ll ever be in the hands of our consumerism, or our suburbia, or behind the locked doors of our gated communities. If the hand of the Father takes us to Rwanda or Iraq to the heart of the bloodshed, we are still “safer” there than we’ll ever be in suburban Illinois.
But what also enters into this as we integrate kids back into the dialogue, is the imaginary category we assign to religious and sometimes political concepts. We have to remember that idols such as freedom or liberty or freewill have only really been conceived of as attainable for the last several hundred years. This is an innovation and one that folks outside of America or outside the western world may not be all that familiar with. Tolerance may be the highest god of postmodernity but it is only an effective tool when exercised in this imaginary category.
Let us propose an absurd example of how out of place tolerance is in the practical and real world. Imagine a person sitting in an almost empty lifeboat in the wake of the Titanic slipping into the water. There is an individual barely treading water not twenty feet away from mostly vacant lifeboat who finally calls out, “Help me! Please! Row this direction and pull me out!”
To which, a man in the boat replies, “Well sir, we have quite a dilemma here. You see, I am a real proponent of tolerance and I wouldn’t dream of imposing my belief structure onto you. For me, I feel that the water is icy and I am more predisposed to this dry lifeboat. But for you, well, you look rather comfortable there having a leisurely swim. I respect you far too much, sir, than to suggest that my solution for my problem would also be a solution for you, let alone that you suffer from the same problem as I once did. So please, I insist you carry on as you were and forgive that I even entertained the notion of forcing my worldview on you. Good evening, sir.”
Of course this makes no sense in a situation that we treat objectively, but that is just the problem. We have an objective, real life set of ethics and then we have this imaginary, there is no real objective reality set of ethics and I think it would be more honest of us to choose one or the other.
In other words, either the way of Christ is the most abundant and meaningful way to live or it isn’t. I once dabbled in the nonsense of saying it might be for me but not for others and I have come back home to a more orthodox position. Either Jesus is our greatest good for all people (including my children) or He isn’t. I wouldn’t place one of my kids in a car seat but leave the other two exposed out of respect for their preference. If they are safer in a car seat, they are all safer in a car seat. If the radical way of Jesus is a rescuing force in my life, than it can be for them as well.
Lastly, after having some time to think about your concrete examples, I would chalk the outcomes up to failure of execution, not failure of principle. I feel like I can say this convincingly because, again, I am a pastor’s child who grew to appreciate his father’s calling and work so much so, that I am engaged myself in an ever more radical way. I took what he taught me and have walked a step further. I can submit to you one of my friends on the board of our community who also has had an identical experience (though from a different denomination).
I think evaluating the lifestyle by the “results” it brought in the children is too simplistic. Parenting is not the only factor that determines the life a person leads. As Jason and Mark would say, the results in our path of life are entirely mystery and as predictable and coherent as frogs falling from the sky. Mother Teresa was another figure who resolutely stood against the results of a faithful act judging the act one way or another.
All we have is to be faithful; for our children have been entrusted to us to bring along in our loving journey toward the Creator, the safest place in the universe. The results are not up to us and should not be our judge.
History tells us that Peter took his family with him to Rome toward the latter half of his life. Was it responsible as a parent to act in ways that ended his life? I wonder how much money his wife spent on therapy for their children after he was gone?
I don’t think it matters. I am not sure there is a conventional way to follow Jesus. I don’t think He left us that option.
I'm only asking that we acknowledge the serious difficulties and temptations, so we don't go into it naively and make some of the same mistakes that many others have made before us. Jesus was careful to point out the risks of following him, and I'm trying to do that in this area also.
Perhaps you aren't interested in discussing those real challenges. But others might find the information I provided helpful.
That being said, I think your basic point is correct and bears repeating - in fact, one thing that has been discussed a fair amount in radical (not necessarily Christian) circles in which I've orbited has had to do with how to raise children in a radical environment, as well as how to equip them to be an example to other children in the neighborhood - while also giving them the tools to not be co-opted by "normalcy" (whatever defines "normal" where you are). This was so particularly because two of the families who were often involved in demonstrations, meetings, and organizing had children, in one case two and in the other I think they're up to six now.
I think one thing that needs to be done is we need to find ways so that a radical embodiment of the Gospel is not only integrated with family life, but in fact is the center of it, and is embedded into the life of the family and the family's engagement with the neighborhood. It probably will involve re-ordering certain conceptual categories about what it means to be and live as a family, but then I seem to recall Jesus doing a fair amount of that himself - as you aptly point out.
I mean really, who says I can't play catch with my (hypothetical, at this point - right now my wife and I have cats, not kids) son and 5 of his baseball-playing friends and still live with a radical embodiment of the Gospel at the heart of how my family inhabits the neighborhood? It seems to me Mr. Jones exhibits a stunning lack of imagination on this point.
Personally, I don't have kids, OR play t-ball -- not because I think it's wrong, or would put into question my loyalty to Christ though; it just hasn't come up.
My concern with the term "emergent" is that it seems to me yet another new name for something that will become yet another denomination (though claiming not to be). And sadly, what also seems to come along with that is even an americanized definition once again of what it means to follow Christ, and many wanting to make sure they stay in good standing with a certain crowd vs being true to Christ.
I appreciate your post, jwinton, and the reminder of other cultures, other lands, other ways of doing things that don't fit "the bubble" -- whatever that bubble is currently being defined as.
I think the suggestion is that Gandhi and MLK weren't around a lot to play T-ball with their kids, which I think is accurate (and I've read other complaints from Gandhi's wife and children also). Other commenters also seem to have missed this distinction, that it's not so much about having a family as being there for your family, which many "revolutionaries" haven't been able to do. That's a legitimate question and challenge. Some Christians choose not to marry or have children for this reason, because they don't want to put them at risk unnecessarily or deprive them of a spouse/parent because of the demands of "revolutionary" Christian activity. Paul seems to have chosen this option, and recommended it for others.
Jones seems to be saying he chooses to be more available for his kids, but also respects those who choose a life more like Gandhi's or King's.
The more difficult questions (ones my wife and I are grappling with now) are: How radical can we be following Jesus' example and still be good spouses or parents? What level of risk can we "impose" on our kids, or expect of our spouse?
And what can we expect from God as we embrace poverty and vulnerability more and more, yet still hope to be able to provide for the many needs of a family?
Heather and I waited years to get married (and almost called it off) until God showed us a possible, practical way to work together and live as a family while remaining in Jesus' poor, vulnerable, "give without asking anything in return" way. It's not a certainty, or "proof" that it can work, but it is at least a real, concrete possibility that God showed us. That may be needed to help someone who's struggling to believe. When talking with the Catholic Worker friend I mentioned above (here) I encouraged him to pursue alternative options to present to his wife, so she could see how God might provide and protect their family while they still served the poor.
I guess I would suggest that for anyone. Take the risks yourself (such as exploring a change of work or a new living arrangement), trusting that God will provide in the meantime so your family doesn't have to risk themselves or be deprived unwillingly. Show them how, set the example, rather than pushing them.
Jesus' words to us about the cross were "Take up your cross and follow me."
There isn't much that we've done particularly well at, and I honestly don't want to make a list of our acts of righteousness, as though they had some particular worth in and of themselves; particularly as most of them are very much baby steps. But I also recognize the poverty of ideas, and imagination is what is needed so much in these areas. So here are some of the things we've wrestled with, and hopefully they inspire you:
* My wife nannied for a homosexual couple. They had adopted two children already (one, I believe, had FAS) and this was to be their third; a foster-care situation as the mother had a meth addiction. We stood with them through the tumultuous process, eventually seeing the mother exit recovery and take her child back.
* We explored foster care in our county. We were ineligible, but it is something we have kept an eye on.
* Even when we were in an apartment, we opened our house to friends and family who were in transition or needed a place for a variety of reasons. Welcoming the stranger is still frightening territory for us.
* We attempted to initiate an adoption through a local church - a prayer request had been offered regarding a potential abortion. The mother went through with the abortion.
* We've had the blessing of letting our daughter have significant interactions with girls of other ethnic and religious backgrounds at an early age, and we hope to see that continue.
* We are (very, very tentatively) exploring the idea of tax resistance
* I'm still trying, slowly, to establish some interactions between some of the local churches and the local mosque
This list of baby steps can be coupled with a (much, much longer) list of failed attempts and ideas which were not followed up on. But hopefully this inspires some and gives some fodder for your own journeys. I just ask in return that you share your own small resistances, particularly those of you who are married and/or have children. God knows how finite my own imagination is. Peace.
Unfortunately, as the Bruderhof has demonstrated through the sadder parts of their history, the faith vs. family teaching is easy to abuse, turning the "church" into the persecutor of family (rather than the other way around).
And, I'll be honest, the Arnold quote is a bit hard to swallow for me as well. If the early christians were known for these things, then what was it that made them compelling to the "young people and women"? I've seen many marriages unravelled and then, ultimately, destroyed. I doubt this happened (in the cases I am familiar with) because of any committment to Christ, however, it's hard to imagine much, if any, good coming from that kind of family disruption (no matter who the person claims to follow).
Jesus talks about family members rejecting us or persecuting us because of our faith. But it shouldn't go the other way. Paul said to stay with an unbelieving spouse as long as they will have us, they may be converted through seeing our example. Our faith should cause us to love our family better, not punish them.
My pursuit of the radical teachings of Jesus has brought my mother and father to tears over me, not my two brothers, but me the pastor. It has become so bad that I have no desire to be around my family with my wife and two boys. I love my family but they have become such a heavy burden to me.
I love my community of faith and am always at peace with them, even when they are challenging me. I would rather be with them then my family 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.
My family has become hostile toward each other with so much resentment, hurt, expectations and just simply a lack of peace and joy.
If you were in my shoes what would you do?
There was a rough time with my family when I made some extreme choices in following Jesus (read more about it here). It may not have been as hard as what you are facing. But my parents were scared and embarrassed (ashamed?) about me, and at one point my dad angrily said, "So you're gonna be a bum?" Luckily I was about a thousand miles away at that particular moment.
It wasn't very fun spending time with them during the next few years (though they were more confused and worried about me than angry, thinking I might have lost a marble or two). But over several more years they began to come around. Not because they agreed theologically, but because they saw some good in what I was doing and how God was supporting it in a pretty miraculous way. They could understand that, even if they couldn't really agree with lots of stuff I said about Jesus. Now they are very happy (and proud) about what I'm doing, my dad even asked me to give a presentation at his men's bible study.
I'm not sure whether it could work similarly for you and your family. But I do think time and them seeing the good fruit of your life may soften their hearts where explanations and arguments are useless. Just let them see Jesus active in what you are doing and be patient. And continue to love them the best you can.
Sometimes I think it would be very significant, and perhaps also a bit shocking, to all of us, if I were to ask them to give me some constructive feedback. And I may do that...someday...become the more vulnerable family member (which might either fuel the fire of criticism or maybe cause it to burn out). Who knows, maybe I would learn something new about them (or even myself).