A
DEFENSE OF THE TITLE
"FATHER"
BY A ¿FATHER? A
Roman Catholic, who seems to be a "father," wants me to consider the possibility
that God didn't really mean for us to take the teaching of Christ literally:
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your
father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
So, I thought you would like to see how the Alexandrian Club jumps the
broom stick of pagan Mother Gooseology. Thus...
Subj: call no man father
From: TMcDonald@nccbuscc.org (Tim McDonald)
To: steve@balaams-ass.com Steve,
I happened on to your website this afternoon while browsing. I find you site very
professionally done, but I must admit that I have a little difficulty with the
content, particularly regarding "His hellishness." A rather unflattering monicker
for the Holy "Father," which brings me to my point. I read your article regarding
Mt. 23:9, "Call no man father," and I would like to makes several points on behalf
of the Whores. First, the Bible as a whole continually
uses the term "father" in referring to, well, to someone's father. This would
seem to fall under the injunction to call "no man" father, and, therefore, many
of our Biblical saints would have their sins immortalized in Scripture, while
defending Scripture. Even when others use the term father
in the presence of Jesus, he does not rebuke him (Mt. 8:21)
What are we to do with the commandment which tells us to honor our "Father" and
mother? Are we to honor him without calling him "Father". If so, what difference
does using the term make? Isn't the REALITY of faither more significant than the
use of a particular term? What would God simply not wish us to use the term "father"?
It seems that it is not the use of the term as denoting
a purely biological relationship of paternity that is important, but the use of
the term father as denoting "he whom one follows," in a paternity of faith. Matthew's
context is an excoriation of the scribes and Pharisees, who call Abraham their
father (Jn 8:53; Rom 4: 11-18), Rom 7:32). The reference is clearly to a fatherhood
of faith, supplanting Jesus with human traditions they ascribe to Abraham and
Moses. This is shown when Jesus condemns them for "doing the works of their father",
i.e. Satan. (Yes, I realize that this is exactly what you think us Roman
streetwalkers do when we claim the Holy Father as our emissary from Christ, but
we can debate the Pope's authority later, if you wish).
The fact that the priest in Judges is a nasty example of a priest has no relevance
to the fact that he is called to be a "father and priest" to them. One
might as well say that pizza is immoral because someone ate it while murdering
his victim; it would have the same connection and logic, which is, none.
Paul himself states that "I became your father in Christ Jesus
through the Gospel" (1 Cor 4:15). John greets his readers
with "I am writing to you fathers" (1 Jn 2:131-4) Again
Paul writes how "as a child with his father he served along with me" (Phil 2:2)
and "we treated each one of you as a father treats his children" (1 Thes 2:11)
Timothy himself not only does not condemn references to
fathers, but advises: "Do not rebuke and older man, but appeal to him as a father"
(1 Tim 5:1) In Hebrews we find another use: "For what son
is there whome his father does not discipline" (Heb 12:7)
As for your desire "not to give you any slack" about idolatry, I will admit that
there are people in the Catholic Church who are idolaters. I would also claim
that there are people in ANY denomination who are idolaters. So what? The
Catholic Church condemns idolatry; the fact that people idolize anyway does not
effect what the Church teaches. I look forward to your
response. Pax Christi, Tim McDonald
BACK
TO THE TITLE PAGE GE | 