Comments on: Genre and the authority of scripture http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/genre-and-the-authority-of-scripture/ a few graffiti on the wall of life Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:08:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: doug http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/genre-and-the-authority-of-scripture/#comment-2034 doug Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:51:46 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/genre-and-the-authority-of-scripture/#comment-2034 Peter, I have to note that anyone who knows me knows that I am indeed "a mere man." You may or may not care to know this, but I prefer "Father" to other titles (I personally think "Reverend" is the worst option available), on the occasions when titles are relevant (key point!), because unlike nearly all the others available, it is relational, rather than status or office based. It has, for me, the additional advantage that in schools, as "Father Doug" I am differentiated from teachers and sundry other adults, when of course it is inappropriate for my first name to be used alone. It also helps younger children address me alike in school and church contexts. Peter, I have to note that anyone who knows me knows that I am indeed “a mere man.” You may or may not care to know this, but I prefer “Father” to other titles (I personally think “Reverend” is the worst option available), on the occasions when titles are relevant (key point!), because unlike nearly all the others available, it is relational, rather than status or office based. It has, for me, the additional advantage that in schools, as “Father Doug” I am differentiated from teachers and sundry other adults, when of course it is inappropriate for my first name to be used alone. It also helps younger children address me alike in school and church contexts.

]]> By: Peter Kirk http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/genre-and-the-authority-of-scripture/#comment-2033 Peter Kirk Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:27:42 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/genre-and-the-authority-of-scripture/#comment-2033 Doug, I agree that precise titles are not the point. But the problem with the title "Father" for a minister of the church is precisely that he does become seen as someone between the ordinary people and God, with a higher status than normal people. I accept that in practice the same is true of most ministerial titles. "Reverend" is just as bad, and "minister" and "pastor", although etymologically suitably humble, have come to have similar overtones. I might also say that clerical dress has the same kind of effect. I know that "most of the church down history" has not agreed with me, but then the size of the church and the state of the world are ample evidence that "most of the church down history" has not been perfectly following God's will. I would concur with the Reformers that setting up the clergy as a caste apart is one of the important areas in which the church has gone astray - even Protestant churches and not just the ones which are more catholic in tradition. So I am pleased that (from earlier comments) you are happy to be called just "Doug", and to wear special clothes only when the occasion really demands it. That is the approach which is necessary to show people that you are a mere man, not a demigod and co-mediator with Christ! Doug, I agree that precise titles are not the point. But the problem with the title “Father” for a minister of the church is precisely that he does become seen as someone between the ordinary people and God, with a higher status than normal people. I accept that in practice the same is true of most ministerial titles. “Reverend” is just as bad, and “minister” and “pastor”, although etymologically suitably humble, have come to have similar overtones. I might also say that clerical dress has the same kind of effect.

I know that “most of the church down history” has not agreed with me, but then the size of the church and the state of the world are ample evidence that “most of the church down history” has not been perfectly following God’s will. I would concur with the Reformers that setting up the clergy as a caste apart is one of the important areas in which the church has gone astray - even Protestant churches and not just the ones which are more catholic in tradition.

So I am pleased that (from earlier comments) you are happy to be called just “Doug”, and to wear special clothes only when the occasion really demands it. That is the approach which is necessary to show people that you are a mere man, not a demigod and co-mediator with Christ!

]]> By: doug http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/genre-and-the-authority-of-scripture/#comment-2028 doug Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:08:43 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/genre-and-the-authority-of-scripture/#comment-2028 As you know, Peter, <a href="http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/commandments-contexts-and-castrati/" rel="nofollow">I take Matthew 23:9 to be rhetorical hyperbole</a>, and what is to be obeyed is fundamentally the idea that no-one should put anyone else between themselves and God, and that teachers etc. should not put themselves between others and God, so that this is about status, not about naming. I may not be able to persuade you of that, but like me, most of the church down history has not taken it as a direct command about naming either. As you know, Peter, I take Matthew 23:9 to be rhetorical hyperbole, and what is to be obeyed is fundamentally the idea that no-one should put anyone else between themselves and God, and that teachers etc. should not put themselves between others and God, so that this is about status, not about naming. I may not be able to persuade you of that, but like me, most of the church down history has not taken it as a direct command about naming either.

]]> By: Peter Kirk http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/genre-and-the-authority-of-scripture/#comment-2025 Peter Kirk Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:29:06 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/genre-and-the-authority-of-scripture/#comment-2025 Doug, I more or less agree with this, as should be clear from posts like <a href="http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=333" rel="nofollow">my latest one</a> in which I argue against simplistic fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. But bear in mind that the example I gave (in simplistic language) of a Bible text which should be obeyed, Matthew 23:9, is a direct command of the Lord Jesus - not a conditional one like 18:8. And it is one which is given with a rationale which is generally applicable to all, and so cannot be taken as situational, only directed to the scribes and Pharisees. If we feel that we can disobey this direct command, then I really don't see what basis there is for us to obey anything in the Bible any more. Why don't we instead just do whatever is right in our own eyes and ignore both the incarnate and the written Word of God? Doug, I more or less agree with this, as should be clear from posts like my latest one in which I argue against simplistic fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible.

But bear in mind that the example I gave (in simplistic language) of a Bible text which should be obeyed, Matthew 23:9, is a direct command of the Lord Jesus - not a conditional one like 18:8. And it is one which is given with a rationale which is generally applicable to all, and so cannot be taken as situational, only directed to the scribes and Pharisees. If we feel that we can disobey this direct command, then I really don’t see what basis there is for us to obey anything in the Bible any more. Why don’t we instead just do whatever is right in our own eyes and ignore both the incarnate and the written Word of God?

]]>