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
