I've debated this concept internally many times and have never come to a conclusion: Can a Christian man have multiple priorities or should God be his only priority?

Multiple: The general argument is that God has given us dominion over a number of things. Although our pursuit of Christ should always be our number one priority, it is appropriate to pursue other priorities as distinct and separate from our pursuit of Christ, as Christ has placed us in a position of responsibility over other things than merely our pursuit of Him. For example, when Moses was praying to God, making God his highest priority, God essentially says, "Stop praying to me and go lead the people I gave you!" (Exodus 14:15). A more pragmatic and relevant example would be that it's perfectly appropriate to love and care for one's wife and children simply because our relationship to them, independent of our faith, places this obligation on us, and there is value in such a prioritization, particularly when it is appropriately placed in a subordinate role to our obligation to God.

Single: The theory here is that our motive for anything should be derived from God himself, so no other priority has any value in itself; rather, it only has value to the degree that we do it in the context of serving God as our highest priority. As such, when we provide for our family or go to the gym or watch a TV show, our motivation should always be one of faith for God, the failure of which is sin (Romans 14:23). Accordingly, we shouldn't pursue anything unless our faith compels us to do it, which means that even something as basic as loving your spouse and children is detestable to God if it is done for any purpose other than our faith prompting us to glorify God through such behaviors (Hebrews 11:6; Isaiah 64:6; 1 Cor. 10:31).

I feel like this is the "slice v. pan" distinction. The "multiple priorities" theory assumes that our obligation to God is a slice of the pie - a portion of our life that must be balanced with other practical concerns, like gong to work, raising our kids, etc., which are all important for their own sake, but should be subordinate to our obligations to God. The "singular priority" theory assumes that our obligation to God is the pie pan and that all slices of the pie are meant to fit inside of that overarching framework - and that when a slice of the pie is taken out of the pan ... well, it just turns to mush and rarely holds its shape.

The reason I ask is that I often lean toward the singular priority theory, but I get the impression that most people view life in the multiple priority theory. They carve out a slice of life for God and explain away that they can't give much more because there are other "essential" things that "God wouldn't want us to ignore," although their motive isn't necessarily one of doing it from faith as it is using faith to rationalize why it's okay to have other separate priorities. Then again, there are times when I've been almost convinced of the multiple priority theory - so here's your chance. Convince me. Or don't.

It's likely that I will use feedback from this post as a foundation point for another post sometime down the line about how men and women prioritize things differently and how to lead through proper prioritization (unless someone else would like to beat me to it!)