The reason for this distaste for the title is twofold:
1. As stated, it is seen as a “Catholic” practice.
2. The words of Jesus in Matthew 23.
The latter of these two needs to be examined.
But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. [Mat 23:8-12 RSV]
On the surface, it seems that the Pentes (and Protestants in general) have a good point. After all, it could hardly be clearer: Jesus said “call no man your father on earth.” But wait a minute. If this is a blanket prohibition, then why do these same churches have no qualms celebrating Father’s Day and asking all the “fathers in the congregation to stand?” This violates the letter of the command, doesn’t it?
Also, he tells us in this same passage that we should not be called “masters” which is being interpreted “teachers” or “guides.” So then why do these churches never demur at calling people “Sunday School TEACHERS” and the like?
Obviously, something is not as it appears or else these churches have selectively applied the portion of Jesus teaching that they wanted to and ignored the part they didn’t. The truth of the matter is they are applying it correctly in all but one area: calling their pastors and other religious leaders “father.” This is almost certainly a backlash against the Roman Catholic practice of doing so.
When taken in context this refers to the self-serving appropriation of titles by people who want to be glorified and recognized by others. It is similar to ministers who run around calling themselves “Apostle So-and-So” or “Prophet John Doe.” These are self-given and self-aggrandizing titles which they appropriate to trumpet their supposed status as highly spiritual people.
So the conferral of titles by a church on people to whom they are appropriate is not even in view here. Thus, calling someone a Bishop who has been placed in that office by the Church is not self-aggrandizing in any way. But someone who just decides that he wants to be termed “bishop” would be.
Just to make this point clearer, let us look at the New Testament itself for evidence that people were indeed referred to as fathers.
Out of 396 references to the word “father” (including “father’s”) at least 96 of them are in reference to someone besides God. So it is clear that the New Testament writers had no problem with using that title. And some of those were used in a religious context. For example,
I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment. (Philemon 1:10 RSV)
For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (1Corinthians 4:15 RSV)
But Timothy's worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel. (Philippians 2:22 RSV)
And what of the Early Church?
St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies
For when any person has been taught from the mouth of another, he is termed the son of him who instructs him, and the latter [is called] his father. [ANF 1: 524, ch. XLI]
St. Clement of Alexandria in The Stromata
It is a good thing, I reckon, to leave to posterity good children. This is the case with children of our bodies. But words are the progeny of the soul. Hence we call those who have instructed us, fathers….And every one who is instructed, is in respect of subjection the son of his instructor. “Son,” says he, “forget not my laws.” [ANF 2: 299, Book I, ch. I]
Among the Epistles of Cyprian, we find the letter From the Roman Clergy to the Carthaginian Clergy, About the Retirement of the Blessed Cyprian. One should note the deference with which the clergy at Rome speak of Cyprian.
We have been informed by Crementius the sub-deacon, who came to us from you, that the blessed father Cyprian has for a certain reason withdrawn…. [ANF 5: 280, epistle II]
And the same can be noted in the letter The Confessors to Cyprian.
All the confessors to father Cyprian, greeting. [ANF 5: 296]
Phileas was the bishop of Thmuis who died a martyr’s death around the year 306. The passage below comes from The Epistle of the Same Phileas of Thmuis to Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis.
For every one shall have enough to do in managing his own parish, and in finding with great care and many anxieties suitable subordinates among these with whom he has passed his whole life, and who have been trained under his hands. But thou, neither making any account of these things, nor regarding the future, nor considering the law of our sainted fathers and those who have been taken to Christ time after time, nor the honour of our great bishop and father, on whom we all depend in the hope which we have in the Lord Jesus Christ, nor softened by our imprisonments and trials, and daily and multiplied reproach, hast ventured on subverting all things at once. [ANF 6: 163-4]
Finally, let us close with a small excerpt of From an Epistle to Origen written by Alexander of Cappadocia.
For this, as thou knowest, was the will of God, that the friendship subsisting between us from our forefathers should be maintained unbroken, yea rather, that it should increase in fervency and strength. For we are well acquainted with those blessed fathers who have trodden the course before us, and to whom we too shall soon go: Pantænus, namely, that man verily blessed, my master; and also the holy Clement, who was once my master and my benefactor; and all the rest who may be like them, by whose means also I have come to know thee, my lord and brother, who excellest all. [ANF 6: 154, Epistle III]
There can be no doubt that the Early Christians interpreted Jesus’ words in a vastly different manner from the usual Protestant interpretation. They had no problem calling their beloved leaders “Father,” “Master,” or even “Benefactor.” We have also seen that the same is true of the Christian writers in the New Testament itself.
The question therefore begs to be asked: Why did we develop a problem with this obviously ancient practice? I think we have covered that above. It does set one’s mind to wondering if possibly we have rejected other things just because of their “Catholic” origin. It also makes me think that many of the things we have mockingly called “Catholic” may have better been called “ancient Christian” or “Early Church.”
