Commandments, contexts and castrati
In a generally humourous comment on this earlier post, Peter Kirk says:
Well, in Matthew 23:9 RSV it says “call no man your father on earth”, which is of course why Christians who obey the Bible (which apparently did not include Cranmer) do not call their pastors “Father”.
Now I don’t know exactly where Peter’s tongue is in relation to his cheek in that opening sentence of his comment, but I do know plenty of people who can and do say such things without any humourous overtones. My reaction to them is probably best described as rude. I want to make two points which are entirely serious.
First, what on earth does “obey the Bible” actually mean? Those parts of Scripture that might reasonably described as “commandment” are a relatively small proportion of the total. I understand what it means to obey (and disobey) those. However, many of those commandments are generally interpreted as not being in any direct sense applicable for those who accept Jesus as the fulfilment of the Law, who are free to disobey them for a variety of reasons. But by the far the larger part of scripture is narrative, with great chunks of poetry thrown in. And I have no idea how one “obeys” a story or a poem. That does not render it without authority, but demands a very different model of authority from that implied by “obey”. Most of the Bible cannot be obeyed.
Second, I have to ask on what grounds one might judge whether the particular sayings of Jesus in this Matthean collection are meant to be taken literally. The overall effect of the teaching is about status versus service, and the precise instructions are a rhetorical statement of this larger point. I doubt that Jesus (assuming, as I do, a reasonable degree of authenticity for these sayings) gave a toss whether anyone was actually called teacher or father. (Certainly, Paul sees no incompatibility in stressing the servant nature of his apostleship with a claim to be father and teacher of the Corinthians (1 Cor 4), and in this it was Paul who was followed by the early church.) The rhetoric is making a different point about our conferring and accepting status, in place of the radical equality of the call to service.
It is my personal observation that among those who take the letter of these verses literally are to be found a great many who ascribe almost inspired status and authority to the work of particular teachers (Grudem, Piper etc - you will see that I do not include Peter in this stricture) and hold their interpretations more infallible than most Catholics do the teachings of the Pope. They adhere to the letter, and flout the spirit.
In my view, however, these sayings of Jesus are somewhat hyperbolic rhetoric, no more to be taken literally than many of his other statements. I have met many conservative Protestants who have refused to call a priest “Father”, I have not yet met any who have torn out their eyes (Matt 18:9) or cut off their balls (Matt 19:12). A literal reading of scripture does not mean taking everything literally.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Well, my tongue wasn’t quite in cheek at this point, but it was being deliberately provocative, especially to someone like you who on his parish website calls himself Fr Doug Chaplin. I think there are several good reasons why Christian pastors should not be called “Father”, and the rationale given for it in this verse (more than the command itself) is one of them. But “obey the Bible” is, as you say, not as simple a concept as it might have looked as if I was making it.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:22 am
I don’t see the problem with addressing pastors as ‘Father’ — From my reading of Matthew 23:9 Jesus is concerned here with vain glory. The Pharisees liked to be seen, they liked the fancy titles, it was all about them. Jesus’ point is that glory and honor are due to the Father alone — it’s not so much about the title as it is about the attitude.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Father Doug,
My church tradition has raised me with an excessive respect for clergy. I can no more call a pastor by his first name than call my mother by hers. But Jesus is tweaking that impulse. More than tweaking, stomping on it.
I love “status vs. service.” Lots of good ideas.
And good job on the new theme. Very attractive.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
David, if I can help Jesus stomp on that impulse: why not try starting by calling me Doug? Maybe it will easier in cyberspace!
December 6th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
[...] noted in an earlier post that the phrase “obey the Bible” is an extraordinarily inappropriate generalisation, [...]
December 8th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Can I call you Dougie? OK, just kidding. You’re right that honorifics like Fr. Dr. Rev. and Prof. are left behind in the blogosphere. The informality is part of the fun and I think bloggers prick pretentiousness much like Jesus did and it tends to offend most those who most need offending.