How do Orthodox members understand

[Halbhh]

Matthew chapter 23, verses 1-12?

I ask about the sentence of our Lord saying to us:

"And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."

In context, starting from verse 1, it retains the same meaning as stated alone.

I feel there is no way I could refer to a living brother, pastor, bishop as "Father" without disobeying Christ my Lord, and I don't see how others can interpret it any other way.

But it is a real question, and I'm really looking to listen to what you say (which isn't of course meaning I can put aside what Christ says).

I certainly recognize we have a variety of fathers of various sorts on Earth, of course, and yes I definitely read (and well) the full epistles including where Paul uses the word "father" more than once, and realize it is possible to say a variety of things like:

"He is a father to me."

Or a usage like Paul in 1 Cor 4 --

"Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."

In order to think Paul hasn't made a real error, I have to interpret Paul's usage here as father with a small 'f' here in the context with this meaning: Paul evangelized them, bringing them the good news of Christ, and this is what Paul means here by saying he is a 'father' to them "through the gospel".

So, you can imagine how I blanch back when I hear in another certain church the phrase "Holy Father" used to refer to a certain bishop I respect, who is a good preacher of Christ's Word I already can see by reading his homilies.

I respect Francis, and consider him a good servant of the Lord, but of course never could he ever be a "Holy Father" for me without my direct, knowing disobedience to our Lord in His instruction to us.

Shouldn't we strive to obey Christ and at least make our 'fathers' here on Earth make do with a small 'f', and our using the word 'father' meaning only a mere Earthly father, not a "Father"?

I mean shouldn't it be a mere affectation, and not a Title, because isn't Christ's instruction in verse 23 about that elevation a title conveys?

By context, as read from verse 1 continuing.

I also though feel it may be that Christ is saying to us that even the affectation is too dangerous to use. But if that's right, then Paul is...setting a bad precedent at least in the above verse from 1 Cor by skirting too close to the edge.

Put another way, I wear a seat belt when I drive, even though I don't expect to encounter a dangerous moment.

 

[All4Christ]

Matthew chapter 23, verses 1-12?

I ask about the sentence of our Lord saying to us:

"And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."

In context, starting from verse 1, it retains the same meaning as stated alone.

I feel there is no way I could refer to a living brother, pastor, bishop as "Father" without disobeying Christ my Lord, and I don't see how others can interpret it any other way.

But it is a real question, and I'm really looking to listen to what you say (which isn't of course meaning I can put aside what Christ says).

I certainly recognize we have a variety of fathers of various sorts on Earth, of course, and yes I definitely read (and well) the full epistles including where Paul uses the word "father" more than once, and realize it is possible to say a variety of things like:

"He is a father to me."

Or a usage like Paul in 1 Cor 4 --

"Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."

In order to think Paul hasn't made a real error, I have to interpret Paul's usage here as father with a small 'f' here in the context with this meaning: Paul evangelized them, bringing them the good news of Christ, and this is what Paul means here by saying he is a 'father' to them "through the gospel".

So, you can imagine how I blanch back when I hear in another certain church the phrase "Holy Father" used to refer to a certain bishop I respect, who is a good preacher of Christ's Word I already can see by reading his homilies.

I respect Francis, and consider him a good servant of the Lord, but of course never could he ever be a "Holy Father" for me without my direct, knowing disobedience to our Lord in His instruction to us.

Shouldn't we strive to obey Christ and at least make our 'fathers' here on Earth make do with a small 'f', and our using the word 'father' meaning only a mere Earthly father, not a "Father"?

Do you call your biological father Father? Linguistically, that is the title most people use across the world for their father, though in modern English, we often say Dad. It doesn’t mean we are considering our father to be the same as our Father in Heaven. Remember there were multiple titles listed: Teacher, father, instructor. We have One of each of these, but we also have those who pass on His teachings, His instructions, His love and care.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Matthew chapter 23, verses 1-12?

I ask about the sentence of our Lord saying to us:

"And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."

In context, starting from verse 1, it retains the same meaning as stated alone.

I feel there is no way I could refer to a living brother, pastor, bishop as "Father" without disobeying Christ my Lord, and I don't see how others can interpret it any other way.

But it is a real question, and I'm really looking to listen to what you say (which isn't of course meaning I can put aside what Christ says).

I certainly recognize we have a variety of fathers of various sorts on Earth, of course, and yes I definitely read (and well) the full epistles including where Paul uses the word "father" more than once, and realize it is possible to say a variety of things like:

"He is a father to me."

Or a usage like Paul in 1 Cor 4 --

"Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."

In order to think Paul hasn't made a real error, I have to interpret Paul's usage here as father with a small 'f' here in the context with this meaning: Paul evangelized them, bringing them the good news of Christ, and this is what Paul means here by saying he is a 'father' to them "through the gospel".

So, you can imagine how I blanch back when I hear in another certain church the phrase "Holy Father" used to refer to a certain bishop I respect, who is a good preacher of Christ's Word I already can see by reading his homilies.

I respect Francis, and consider him a good servant of the Lord, but of course never could he ever be a "Holy Father" for me without my direct, knowing disobedience to our Lord in His instruction to us.

Shouldn't we strive to obey Christ and at least make our 'fathers' here on Earth make do with a small 'f', and our using the word 'father' meaning only a mere Earthly father, not a "Father"?

I mean shouldn't it be a mere affectation, and not a Title, because isn't Christ's instruction in verse 23 about that elevation a title conveys?

By context, as read from verse 1 continuing.

Christ also says call no man teacher, for we have one Teacher, the Christ. also, father is used as a title for many in the OT. Christ refers to Father Abraham in Luke's Gospel.

 

[All4Christ]

Also, in Romans 4:

4 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

I'm not an expert in Greek, but I know that Greek scripture did not have capital letters. Abraham is clearly called "father" here.

 

[Halbhh]

Do you call your biological father Father? Linguistically, that is the title most people use across the world for their father, though in modern English, we often say Dad. It doesn’t mean we are considering our father to be the same as our Father in Heaven. Remember there were multiple titles listed: Teacher, father, instructor. We have One of each of these, but we also have those who pass on His teachings, His instructions, His love and care.

Yes, of course I call my biological father by a word like this: "dad", and could call him "father" innocently. Please read more of the post question to see more exactly what I'm asking. In Matthew 23 the problem is the special elevation of another believer here as best I understand.

 

[All4Christ]

Yes, of course I call my biological father by a word like this: "dad", and could call him "father" innocently. Please read more of the post question to see more exactly what I'm asking. In Matthew 23 the problem is the special elevation of another believer here as best I understand.

Please don't think I am brushing off the question. I did read your post closely. Coming from a Pentecostal background, I certainly understand where you are coming from. We shouldn't elevate another believer, no matter the position. That includes priests. The title "Father" is not meant to be an elevation, though I didn't understand that until I saw the dynamics in my parish. We all have different roles in the Church - and none are more important than the others.

 

[Halbhh]

Christ also says call no man teacher, for we have one Teacher, the Christ. also, father is used as a title for many in the OT. Christ refers to Father Abraham in Luke's Gospel.

From Lazarus and the rich man, Luke chapter 16?

Reading that full story, we notice it's the rich man in Hades who is the one using that title 'Father Abraham' (and as "father", small 'f', in verse 27 too), but reading that full passage, we feel the rich man is generally in error about much.

I definitely see these verses in Matthew 23 we are discussing as one full passage, from verse 1 through 12. And so I'm understanding the problem is that of following men.

Instead of following men, as our Instructor, and such, we are to follow Christ.

So the shepherds, the pastors, they are His servants, of course, as I know you already agree, and that's a special role of great importance, already. It's already a special privilege to be a servant of His, for them, without any honoring titles of elevating them into Teacher or Father.

Perhaps the point in post #2 of referencing "One" is key. We have One Father, in Heaven.

 

[All4Christ]

The concept is supposed to be similar to this passage:

4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Spiritual Gifts
7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore He says:

“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”

9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors [presbyter] and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

It is wrong to consider a priest to be more important spiritually than the other members of the body of Christ. With that in mind, it is a calling. Just as many are called to be spiritual teachers as a gift from God, some are called to be presbyters - spiritual fathers - for the spiritual care of those in the parish. However, they cannot even have a liturgy by themselves, as it is, by its very definition, a work of the people.

I understand that using the word as a title sounds like it is raising someone up, but it really isn't meant to be spiritually elevating someone to a higher importance than others. Just as I don't consider my teachers to be "the Teacher", I don't consider my priest to be elevated in the same way as "the Father" - our Heavenly Father. He is the Prototype - the one and only. All others are given a gift from God - not of their own selves, but as an extension of His love and Grace.

 

[ArmyMatt]

From Lazarus and the rich man, Luke chapter 16?

Reading that full story, we notice it's the rich man in Hades who is the one using that title 'Father Abraham' (and as "father", small 'f', in verse 27 too), but reading that full passage, we feel the rich man is generally in error about much.

I definitely see these verses in Matthew 23 we are discussing as one full passage, from verse 1 through 12. And so I'm understanding the problem is that of following men.

Instead of following men, as our Instructor, and such, we are to follow Christ.

So the shepherds, the pastors, they are His servants, of course, as I know you already agree, and that's a special role of great importance, already. It's already a special privilege to be a servant of His, for them, without any honoring titles of elevating them into Teacher or Father.

Perhaps your point of referencing the "One" is key. We have One Father, in Heaven.

yes, but no one corrects the rich man of that error. not Abraham, or Christ Himself.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think seeing it worked out (in a healthy parish) may be key, since A4C mentioned not understanding it until she saw it. I could say the same.

My relationship with our priest is like that of a father. He answers questions, he helps me through problems if I ask. He keeps an eye out for wolves (shepherd at work there). In all of these and many other roles, he served the people. It is not an elevation, although I understand how it might look that way with vestments and that only those who are ordained fill certain sacramental functions.

However, the vestments were ordered by God for His priests in the OT, as befitting those who serve Him. It elevates God, not the man wearing them. Ordination (the laying on of hands for special work) was practiced from the time of the Apostles onward, and is mentioned in Scripture, as are the roles of overseer (bishop), presbyter (priest), and the diaconate (deacons).

But seeing it in practice, the priest or the spiritual father (who rarely might not even be a priest) is a role of tending, caring, protecting, guiding, serving. The right man for the job tends to be very humble. If fact, I suspect a man can only fill these duties by seeing others as more important than himself, in terms of his efforts.

I've never met a priest who saw his role as in any way lording it over folks. Such a man would be very unsuited for the position, and I would expect would probably be removed from it. I also suspect the people wouldn't stand for it.

 

[All4Christ]

I agree with Anastasia. In Greece, people address the priest as Pappa (Daddy). It is also a term of endearment - a recognition of spiritual care - not an elevation. Likewise, in the Slavic parishes, we call the priest’s wife Matushka (“Mama”).

 

[Halbhh]

I think seeing it worked out (in a healthy parish) may be key, since A4C mentioned not understanding it until she saw it. I could say the same.

My relationship with our priest is like that of a father. He answers questions, he helps me through problems if I ask. He keeps an eye out for wolves (shepherd at work there). In all of these and many other roles, he served the people. It is not an elevation, although I understand how it might look that way with vestments and that only those who are ordained fill certain sacramental functions.

However, the vestments were ordered by God for His priests in the OT, as befitting those who serve Him. It elevates God, not the man wearing them. Ordination (the laying on of hands for special work) was practiced from the time of the Apostles onward, and is mentioned in Scripture, as are the roles of overseer (bishop), presbyter (priest), and the diaconate (deacons).

But seeing it in practice, the priest or the spiritual father (who rarely might not even be a priest) is a role of tending, caring, protecting, guiding, serving. The right man for the job tends to be very humble. If fact, I suspect a man can only fill these duties by seeing others as more important than himself, in terms of his efforts.

I've never met a priest who saw his role as in any way lording it over folks. Such a man would be very unsuited for the position, and I would expect would probably be removed from it. I also suspect the people wouldn't stand for it.

I feel I have at least a partial answer now, especially above from post #2 in the distinction of "One" Teacher and One Father. One Leader. The One. This is a crucial part at least, and seems the whole at the moment. Hearing that in churches a 'father' isn't elevated (like Christ) is encouraging, and I'd guess that is general also. A language usage note about 'spiritual father' -- the word 'spiritual' as the modifier is actually the very word I was using only a couple of years ago to try to point out the difference as I wrote it then -- that we "should not consider any of our various fathers a spiritual father" (my language usage at that time, trying to communicate the issue, however poorly, at that time). Of course then I meant 'spiritual' as something like 'holy', a special meaning, not Earthly. Some will take 'spiritual father' by their way of using the word as just that thing we are suppose to avoid, that special elevation of one among us so that we follow him (wherever he goes). But I know that's not likely what you mean! I mention this so that you can be aware of that potential miscommunication.

 

[FireDragon76]

Jesus is just using figurative language to make a point. He's saying, don't put religious leaders on pedestals. Whether you call somebody "pastor", "father", or "reverend" doesn't necessarily effect that.

 

[Halbhh]

It seems we do all agree a priest/pastor/father in a church is not to be put on a pedestal, as if our One Leader.

All that's left about this in my concern is not for us that are aware, but rather for those that are not aware.

Whether some in some churches may indeed, unaware of this important teaching from Christ, really be following men, a man, as their One Leader, and that such titles as "Father" can at times for some in some places be a problem, helping them make the error of following a man instead of Christ as their Teacher, as their Leader. I suppose this can be avoided in a number of ways, but from outside a church, it's very concerning to see the elaborate robes and special titles. Of course, a wonderful help in that situation is when that very 'father' himself is kneeling at the altar, or doing such as Francis did when Francis visited a prison and shook the hands of prisoners, a good moment. (of course I know more about what Francis has done than I do about Orthodox, so that's why I at times am mentioning him and contrasting his actions and titles)

 

[“Paisios”]

It seems we do all agree a priest/pastor/father in a church is not to be put on a pedestal, as if our One Leader.

All that's left about this in my concern is not for us that are aware, but rather for those that are not aware.

Whether some in some churches may indeed, unaware of this important teaching from Christ, really be following men, a man, as their One Leader, and that such titles as "Father" can at times for some in some places be a problem, helping them make the error of following a man instead of Christ as their One Leader.

It seems to me that the churches that use the term “Father” may be less likely to fall into the error of following a man, as there also in these churches seem to have a governance structure that doesn’t usually allow for a single man to take sole authority (even the RC Pope has some limitations), as opposed to some Protestant denominations where splits occur because of differences in opinions and personality conflicts, and ministries are named after and totally dependent on the preaching and ministry of one person.

(Forgive me if this sounds harsher than I intend it to...)

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm concerned about the use of the term "father" too. Because I came to understand that authority has to come through a trusting relationship where that respect is earned- that it is even your right as a Christian to expect that. In a sinful world it isn't a sign of pride for respect to be earned, it's just being realistic.


And I'm concerned that some Orthodox are really not on the same page. I see the dangerous tendency among some, just like old-school Catholics, to put clergy on a pedestal. It's a human tendency common to many religions but it's dangerous and it leads to spiritual abuse.

In fact that this rejection of putting people on pedestals even influence how we understand the Gospel: we Lutherans approach Jesus as our Savior first, and our Lord second. We even alter our prayer language to reflect this

 

[FireDragon76]

It seems to me that the churches that use the term “Father” may be less likely to fall into the error of following a man,

If you think it's not a problem, look at the Catholic Church and the problems with priestly abuse. Abuse can happen, especially when people just expect their leaders to be holy people without putting them to any kind of vetting or test to see if they've earned that status. This is what is called "clericalism", and every commission that has looked at the abuse problem in the Catholic Church has concluded this contributed to the sexual abuse and coverup problems.

 

[“Paisios”]

If you think it's not a problem, look at the Catholic Church and the problems with priestly abuse. Abuse can happen, especially when people just expect their leaders to be holy people without putting them to any kind of vetting or test to see if they've earned that status. This is what is called "clericalism", and every commission that has looked at the abuse problem in the Catholic Church has concluded this contributed to the sexual abuse and coverup problems.

No, I agree that it is a problem, just that there are some checks and balances there. Anywhere there are people involved, it will be a problem.

 

[All4Christ]

I'm concerned about the use of the term "father" too. Because I came to understand that authority has to come through a trusting relationship where that respect is earned- that it is even your right as a Christian to expect that. In a sinful world it isn't a sign of pride for respect to be earned, it's just being realistic.


And I'm concerned that some Orthodox are really not on the same page. I see the dangerous tendency among some, just like old-school Catholics, to put clergy on a pedestal. It's a human tendency common to many religions but it's dangerous and it leads to spiritual abuse.

In fact that this rejection of putting people on pedestals even influence how we understand the Gospel: we Lutherans approach Jesus as our Savior first, and our Lord second. We even alter our prayer language to reflect this

Honestly, before I became Orthodox, I saw people put our pastor on a pedestal. People would leave the church to follow that pastor, and often it seemed like the church was defined by the pastor.

I don’t think this is something that only happens with people who call their priest “Father”. It happens many different places. I actually see it less in our parish than I did before I became Orthodox, partially because the Liturgy isn’t about the priest and his sermon, but rather is all centered around the Eucharist.

That’s my experience, though I know we all have different experiences.

 

[ArmyMatt]

well yes, any proper teaching can be abused, but we shouldn't discount what is proper. we still rightly call Christ the Son of God, even though Arius abused that title. but all seriousness, a serious look throughout history disproves the idea that the clergy should be put on some pedestal just by default. St Maximos the confessor was a lay monk, and the heretics he fought were the bishops.