I totally understand where your coming from.
The admonition to renounce one's possessions is about looking at one's use of goods and land in a different way, from that which is conventionally the case. Jesus also referred to it in Matthew 5:3 as being "
poor in spirit". The question is this: do we view property - realty, chattel, whatever - beyond what we truly need to survive as an "absolute", unconditioned personal right without any concomitant social obligations to others?
Jesus and the traditional doctrine of the Church gives an affirmative "
no". The fact that we have income, corporation and in some countries land value taxation also indicates that only the most extreme kind of libertarian capitalists today would see property in this absolute way. But even those of us who don't, and who gladly pay our taxes to be used for the public good, can still fall victim to selfish use of our personal wealth.
One part of it, is about living without being inordinately attached to material objects. This is the "spiritual" or "mystical" dimension emphasized by the Gospel of Matthew. It's similar to the Buddhist concept of non-attachment.
The other element, is the one stressed by
Luke 6:2 and in the verse we are discussing, which has to do with an actual
social issue about the hoarding of goods and resources, as reflected in the communitarian church economics reflected in
Acts 2:44-45 where the early believers "
had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need."
Behind all of this lies a theological concept which regards the goods of the earth as destined for the succour humankind as a whole, rather than just for privileged individuals. See:
voluntaryist.com - Voluntaryism and Extreme Necessity
This theme was elaborated during the later Middle Ages when the principle of extreme necessity became a common doctrine among medieval theologians and canon lawyers.
The principle stated that a person in extreme necessity may rightfully take the property of other people to sustain his life. This principle is the most radical formulation of the medieval belief that God had bestowed the earth upon all mankind for its sustenance. [6] This conclusion led to two co-ordinate positions:
[T]he first held that people in extreme necessity might rightfully take what they needed to survive, and that their taking such goods had nothing of the nature of theft; and the second, held that every person has the obligation to sustain the life of other people once his own needs have been met. [7] Gratian’s DECRETUM, a famous medieval tome compiled about 1140 AD, also expounded the view that the fruits of the earth belonged to all mankind. All things are common, that is, to be shared in time of necessity with those in want. … [W]e should retain for ourselves only necessities and distribute what is left to our neighbors in need. [8]
The decretists saw no contradiction in maintaining the right to private property, on the one hand, and, on the other, the right of the poor to sustain their lives by taking from the wealthy. They recognized the right to private property, but the right of accumulation only extended as far as satisfying one’s basic needs. The man who accumulated goods beyond what he needed to live in a decent and fitting fashion according to his status had no [absolute] right to his wealth
Jesus often employed shocking hyperbole to get his listeners to re-arrange their priorities.
The statement regarding "hating one's family", is obviously not intended to contradict the earlier command in the same gospel to love even our "enemies". It should be understood in the context of the ancient, patriarchal family unit: which was a mechanism of tribalistic oppression of individuals and exclusion of compassion for the rest of humanity (i.e. nepotism, only caring about one's genetic relatives), in many cases; as opposed to the cozy, nurturing societal unit we know today.
Larry Siedentop,
Emeritus Fellow of Keble College, Oxford and former Faculty Lecturer in Political Thought at the University of Oxford, explained this as follows:
The paterfamilias was originally both the family’s magistrate and high priest, with his wife, daughters and younger sons having a radically inferior status.
Inequality remained the hallmark of the ancient patriarchal family. “Society” was understood as an association of families rather than of individuals.
It was the Christian movement that began to challenge this understanding. Pauline belief in the equality of souls in the eyes of God – the discovery of human freedom and its potential – created a point of view that would transform the meaning of “society”.
This began to undercut traditional inequalities of status. It was nothing short of a moral revolution, and it laid the foundation for the social revolution that followed. The individual gradually displaced the family, tribe or caste as the basis of social organisation.
This wasn't an ethical way to structure society. The paterfamilias model of the family had to die. I agree with Jesus.
He was telling his disciples to unburden themselves from this kind of environment and not allow it to restrict them from living a morally and socially upstanding life, beyond narrow tribalistic communities - so that people could see all human beings as members of their family and not merely their genetic relations:
Matthew 12:50 (NRSV)
"50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Jesus deliberately wanted to shock people, so you have responded appropriately.
Yes, Jesus wanted to undermine the ancient, patriarchal family and replace it with a more globalist ethic - namely the one enunciated in Paul's letter to the Galatians:
Galatians 3:28 (NRSV)
28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
Is that really such a bad thing? To act like the Good Samaritan in the Parable, rather than a cliquey-narrow-minded nepotistic family unit that treats outsiders with suspicion?
It's about moral universalism, in reality, and its the reason why Christians have the habit of calling each other "brother" and "sister" even though we aren't related by lineage or DNA (except distantly).