by Father Toms
Many conservative evangelicals have resisted the practice of calling their pastor “Father,” by an appeal to Matthew 23:8-10, which reads, “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.” If you take Jesus’ words in the sense that many take it, I suppose you could not call your biological Father, “Father.” Maybe “daddy” or “pops” would be acceptable, just don’t use that word “father.” Actually, by this line of reasoning, you could not call anyone “mister” (Mr.). The word “mister” is derived from the word “master.” Some people call their pastors “doctor.” Well, “doctor” comes from the Latin word for “teacher”. Calling a person “doctor” would be a violation of the command not to be called “rabbi,” which was the Hebrew word for “teacher”. Some call their pastor’s “reverend,” but “reverend” is a title for someone who is revered for his office. Some call their pastor’s “pastor,” which comes from the Greek word for shepherd. If we can’t call anyone “master,” because only Christ is our master, and we can’t call anyone “father,” because only God is our father, then we shouldn’t call anyone “pastor,” because only Christ is our shepherd. If we are not to call our pastor’s “Father,” based on Matthew 23:8-10, then we should do away with all terms of courtesy and respect.
Most Bible interpreters have recognized that Jesus’ words should not be taken in their literal sense. Matthew Henry said, “Not that it is unlawful to give civil respect to those that are over us in the Lord, nay it is an instance of the honour and esteem which it is our duty to show them” (331). To understand Matthew 23:8-10, you must understand the context. The context of this passage is Christ’s rebuke of the Pharisees. Remember that they really yearned for these titles because they were such proud men. William Hendriksen puts it like this: “In the light of the both the preceding and the following context the statement is justified that what Jesus is here condemning is the yearning for rank, for special recognition above one’s fellow members.” As the Lutheran commentator Lenski writes, “The use of the name Rabbi, my teacher, is not forbidden by Jesus; for it is evident that he himself gives his church teachers and leaders who have various officers which also have their distinctive titles Eph. 4:11; I Cor. 12:28.” (898-9)
The Scriptures command us to honor our father and our mother. Is our Lord saying, “Honor father and mother, but don’t call them father and mother?” As you can see, such reasoning is ridiculous. The prodigal son, returning home, said, “Father, I have sinned.” The rich man in hell, cries out, “Father Abraham.” Abraham doesn’t reply, “Idiot, why did you call me ‘father.’” In I Timothy 5:1, St. Paul writes to Timothy, “Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father.” It would be strange if Paul said, “Treat elders as fathers, just don’t call them fathers.” Thus, when an elder has done wrong, the church member is not to rebuke him, entreat him, still treating him with the loving respect rendered to a father.
In the Scriptures we have instances of people looking to men as their spiritual fathers. In I Corinthians 4:15, St. Paul writes, “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, ye have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” St. Paul refers to himself as the spiritual father of the Corinthian Christians. In I John 2:13-14, St. John wrote, “I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because y have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have know him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.” St. John addresses certain men in the church as “fathers.” Surely, he was not violating the command of our Lord by such an address.
What was Jesus forbidding when he said, “Call no man father.” Matthew Henry explains it this way: “They the disciples) must not be magisterial, nor domineer over their brethren, or over God’s heritage as if they had dominion over the faith of Christians: what they received of the Lord, all must receive from them; but in other things they must not make their opinions and wills a rule and standard to all other people, to be admitted with an implicit obedience” (331). To quote Lenski again, “The subordination of one brother to another which is expressed by the term ‘Rabbi’ is not contrary to the Lord’s will, for he himself speaks of ‘the greater of you,’ v. 11. What Jesus forbids is that any disciple of his should arrogate to himself an authority as the scribes and Pharisees did who usurped the seat of Moses and despised the common people as knowing nothing and as thus being accursed for following Jesus ( John 7:49); an authority which would set aside our true Rabbi or Teacher, Jesus, and would destroy the equality which puts us all on the same level as brethren.” (899)
On the subject of spiritual fathers Lenski writes, “Now spiritual fathers are rightly called ‘father’…. We are to obey no man, however great he may be or may have been in the church, so as to set aside the one and only real authority in force for us, that of our heavenly Father whose children alone we are in the proper sense of the word. Paul may call Timothy his son and may, like a mother, travail again till Christ be formed in the Galatians; we may call the great old teachers ‘Church Fathers,’ the Reformer, Father Luther, the old and revered men in the church ‘fathers’–all such loving terms are bestowed on the basis of our common brotherhood in Christ only, on the basis of our common childhood through faith only. The moment one of these old teachers errs from our Father’s Word, we would not accept such an error” (899).
Matthew Henry agrees with this interpretation when he explains what Jesus forbids in this passage: “Call no man your father upon earth; constitute no man the father of your religion, that is, the founder, author, director, and governor of it…. St. Paul calls himself a Father to those whose conversion he had been an instrument of (I Cor. 4:15; Phil. 2:22); but he pretends to no dominion over them, and uses that title to denote not authority, but affection” (332)
Of course, so much of this rejection of the term Father, or any other titles, comes from our antinomianism. Antinomianism is a term that means “no law.” In his book, An Outline of an Anglican Life, Louis Tarsitano writes, ootnote–no. 6 on page 174
Some of the difficulties with title of respect comes from antinomianism: a rejection of any authority or rule. This is regrettable, since God’s order is a network of interlocking authorities and responsibilities. To be fair, however, some of the rejection of clerical authority has its origin in clerical failure to serve the Church. The polity of religious movements formed in reaction to clerical failure tend towards the anti-clerical, or at least to keeping the pastor under the governance of the local church board. Furthermore, those who believe that peace in inter-church relations can be achieved by the mere manipulation of terms, as in the substitution of “presbyter” for “priest,” should remember the example of the radical John Milton’s rejection of the Westminster Assembly’s efforts to bring peace in England by the adoption of a presbyterian system of polity. He wrote, “New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large” (“On the New Enforcers of Conscience Under the Long Parliament.”). (174).
Many people are hesitant to use the term “father” because it may imply that there is actually someone over them. But in the New Testament, elders are looked upon as those who rule in the church. The writer to the Hebrews said, “Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation…. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief” (Hebrews 13:13, 17).
In the Episcopal church, the term “father” is an address of respect and affection. Of course, with all of that said, in the Episcopal church we bind no man’s conscience. You don’t have to call the pastor, “Father.” You are at liberty to do so as a term of respect and affection. Using the term “Father” is a way of saying that you realize your pastor loves you and cares for you in the way that Father would his children.
Notes
Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel according to St. Matthew. Baker: Grand Rapids, 1973.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Vol. 5. Revell, n.d.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Augsburg: Minneapolis, 1943.
Tarsitano, Louis. An Outline of an Anglican Life.
Copyright c 2008 by Stephan R. Toms
Good article on the use of the term “Father”. I have often witnessed many protestants come against calling anyone father usually in regards to a comment against Roman Catholics use of the term. I see this article to be of good use in correcting such hogwash. Although I think we all know that the use of the term Holy Father by the Pope is going onward to near if not full fledged form of blasphemy. We have only one true Father , he which is in heaven and he alone is All Holy.