Part 2
Non-Tract: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php
Neither Luke 14:26 nor Matthew 10:35-36, though couched in familial terms, are actually about "family values", or even family relationships. To refer to them in support of an argument that Jesus was anti-family is misleading, and can only be accomplished by removing them completely from their context.
In Luke 14, the full passage is contained in v. 25-35. Jesus is using exaggerated language, well within the understanding of his listeners, to show that devotion to God is the first duty. A true follower must love Jesus so much that compared to that "God-love", normal "family-love", or even self-love, could be likened to hate. Jesus uses this example, the example of the tower (v. 28-30), and the example of kings at war (v. 31-33) to illustrate the cost of being a disciple. He goes on to say that anyone not willing to pay that cost is like salt without savour, worthless and not fit for use in the kingdom. In a way, this verse actually shows that Jesus valued family very highly, using it as a standard to measure one's love of God.
We've already seen part of the Matthew passage, which really covers the whole of chapter 10. Jesus is sending out his twelve disciples and giving them instructions. The quoted passage here follows right on the heels of the "sword" verse quoted in the previous section (v. 34), and continues that thought. The disciples are being warned that the message they are to preach, that "the kingdom of Heaven is at hand" (v. 7), will be so divisive that the words of Micah 7:6 will come to pass. The non-tract doesn't mention that Jesus didn't make up these words, but appropriated them to the circumstance. That is, he simply used a known Scripture passage as a metaphor for the strife that would occur. Again, these verses have nothing to do with Jesus' position on the family, and only seem to do so by being quoted out of context.
Matthew 8:22 is not fully quoted and it is inaccurate to describe Jesus' response as a "rebuke". It is widely understood that the disciple in question was not simply asking for a short funeral leave. If the disciple's father had died recently, the disciple would have been at home mourning until the father was placed in a tomb, and for a full week after, rather than discussing funeral arrangements with an itinerant preacher. The phrasing of the disciple's request leaves open two possibilities. It may have been that his father was still alive and that the disciple didn't want to follow Jesus until the father had died. Alternately, it may have been that the father was already dead and buried in a tomb. According to Jewish custom, the son would wait for up to a year before fulfilling an obligation to re-bury his father's dried bones. In either of these cases, it is clear that this man wanted to enter into discipleship on his own terms, rather than God's. The point of the passage, then, is the same as that of Luke 14 discussed above. Nothing, not even family obligation, is as important as serving God. This does not mean that family has no importance at all.
The next sentence in the non-tract is completely irrelevant and misleading. It is obviously true that a first-century, Bethlehem-born Jew never used the English word "family". A far more precise (and honest) statement is that he is not reported to have used that word in some English versions of the Bible. In the entire King James New Testament, "family" appears exactly once. It is ridiculous to assert that Jesus never said anything that wasn't in the Bible, or to assert that family matters aren't a significant biblical topic. In the KJV, the concept of "family" is often expressed as "house" or "household". We have an example of that right in the non-tract with the quote from Matthew 10:36. Even though the non-tract's statement is technically true, it is completely unreasonable to attempt to turn it into some sort of accusation against Jesus.
The same could be said of the next sentence in the non-tract. While some people assert that that Jesus was married and was a father (as in "The Da Vinci Code"), the most reasonable position is that he was neither. Even so, that only shows that he believed his mission was more important than having a family, not that family was unimportant. Roman Catholic priests and nuns don't normally marry or have children, yet few could doubt their pro-family stance. Indeed, if family weren't valued, vows of chastity and celibacy would not be considered significant signs of religious devotion. Jesus made several statements about the favored place of children in God's heart and, later, we will see some strong statements about the sanctity of marriage.
John 2:4 is another verse that is not fully quoted, and is another example of the non-tract taking a passage out of its context to make a point that has nothing to do with the actual biblical intent. The quote is taken from the story of the wedding in Cana. If one simply reads the entire verse, it becomes clear that Jesus is not trying to just brush off his mother here, or be rude to her. He's telling her that it's too early to start his miraculous ministry. Reading the whole story (v. 1-11) shows Jesus attending a wedding party with his mother, granting her request despite his initial reluctance, and performing a miraculous feat so that the celebration isn't spoiled. It is difficult to see how this event could be used to show some sort of anti-family sentiment. Jesus clearly demonstrated a positive feeling towards the institutions of marriage, motherhood, and family pride.
While the points made by the non-tract are not all self-defeating as they were in the "Peace and Compassion" section, the best of the arguments offered here only show that Jesus thought that the things of God were more important than family, not that family shouldn't be valued.