"DON'T CALL ME FATHER"

It happens every day.  You will often hear Catholics respectfully calling their priests “Father” as a title of honor.  But let’s get right to the issue.  Didn’t Jesus forbid us to call anyone by this title when He said, “Call no man Father” (Matthew 23:9)?   Or did He really mean something else?

But we’re not just going to address Catholics today, because members of the Orthodox Church and even some Protestants (Anglicans / Episcopalians) call their priests by this title as well.  If it’s wrong, it’s wrong for all of them.  And it is wrong.  Whether one happens to be a Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant priest, the words of this article’s title should be applied… instead of encouraging  the practice, they should be saying, “Don’t call me Father.”

Let’s look at the context of what Jesus was saying in Matthew chapter 23.  Speaking of the scribes and Pharisees, He said:

(v. 5)  But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries, and lengthen the tassels of their garments.

(v. 6)  And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

(v. 7)  and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called by men, Rabbi.

(v. 8)  But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.

(v. 9)  And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

(v. 10)  And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.

(v. 11)  But the greatest among you shall be your servant.

(v. 12)  And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.  (NASV)

Catholics (and others) will often argue that Jesus was really only saying for us not to call someone “Father” if they don’t deserve it, like the scribes and Pharisees.  But Jesus didn’t say, “You can call others ‘Father,’ but not the scribes and Pharisees.”   He didn’t say, “Only call the deserving leaders ‘Father’.”  And He didn’t say, “Call no one ‘Father,’ except for priests.”  No, He said to CALL NO MAN “Father.”  Jesus clearly tells us who is deserving of the title:  No one on earth (v. 9).

But some will object and say, “But He had to be using hyperbole (that is, a figure of speech which uses exaggeration to emphasize a particular point) when He said to call no one “Father,” because other people in the Bible are called ‘fathers’.  So He couldn’t have meant it in an absolute sense.”  

But there is no exaggeration if this passage is taken in its right sense.  And the context bears out this sense… He forbids such terms when used AS FORMAL RELIGIOUS TITLES OF HONOR. 

 

Notice that the scribes and Pharisees craved the attention and approval of men (v. 5).  They loved the honor and devotion of men (v. 6).  And they loved the respectful greetings of men - and Jesus even gives examples of these greetings, which included titles (v. 7-10).  Was Jesus “exaggerating” about the scribes and Pharisees when He said these things, or when He said, “You are all brothers”?  No, not at all.  Again, context is the key.  When He said, “Call no man Father / Teacher / Leader…” He was not denying the role or the function of fathers, teachers or leaders in the church – He simply forbids the use of these terms as personal titles of honor.  

It is ok to refer to someone as a spiritual father, spiritual teacher, spiritual leader, bishop, elder, overseer, pastor, deacon, etc., because these are biblical roles.  But in the New Testament we see no titles like “Father Paul,” “Bishop Titus,” “Reverend John,” “Elder Nathaniel,” “Pastor James,” “Doctor Andrew,” “Monsignor Bartholomew,” or “Holy Father Peter.”  The context of Matthew 23:5-10 is specifically speaking of the scribes’ and Pharisees’ love of flattering religious titles and special attention.   

Hyperbole is indeed exaggeration.  But it is certainly not an exaggeration to say that only God is worthy of such titles of honor.  There is nothing confusing or “exaggerated” about this passage – it is very simple and straightforward.  

Understanding the passage in this way places all Christians on the same plane as brothers (v. 8), yet with each having his own function and role in the church.  Yes, there are leaders in the church of Jesus Christ, but there is no “big I” and “little you.”  There should be no elevated religious titles if we are all brothers in Christ.

Once again, we want to make it clear that we acknowledge that the term “father / fathers” is indeed used in many places in the Old and New Testament.  Sometimes, the term simply refers to natural fathers (male parents).  Sometimes it refers to ancestors.  Sometimes it refers to “spiritual” fathers (leaders or founders of the church, for example).  But in the case of Matthew 23, it refers to none of these.

Now, we are not denying that there are some with titles in the church who are still humble.  But they are still disobedient to Matthew 23:7-10.  Sooner or later, the enemy will capitalize on this and will either cause the title-bearer to fall because of pride (Proverbs 16:18), or he will cause others to stumble because of him.

Why should we not call someone “Father”?  Simple… because it usually goes to his head!  That’s the nature of man.  Ministries and church offices or positions are gifts from God, not something we earn.  But personal spiritual titles tend to puff us up.

Whatever happened to, “I must decrease and He must increase” (John 3:30)?  It’s got to be pretty hard to “decrease” when you allow people to call you “Father,” “Doctor,” or “Reverend.”

Let us ask a serious question:  If you thought that there was any remote possibility that a title in front of your name offends God, even if only slightly, would you be willing to drop your title?  If your answer is yes, then by all means, get rid of it.  This would go a long way toward avoiding the type of inflated egos that Jesus was speaking of.

If your answer is no, why not?  Why demand to keep your title?  God knows your work and the level of your faithfulness.  If you can’t be content with losing a title, that’s just more proof that you don’t deserve any title.

Whether a “priest” is Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, he is not my father in any sense of the word.  These groups may try hard to deny it, but the concept of priests using the title “Father” seems to be EXACTLY the type of thing that Jesus was condemning.  Those using these types of religious, self-exalting titles of themselves need to repent.

By the way, not only should we not call priests “Father,” but these groups that we just mentioned all have a more serious problem:  there is no ministerial priesthood in the New Testament.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/03/priesthood.html

CONTRACEPTION (Part 2)

We will continue in this article with some of the reasons why the Catholic Church is against any and all forms of artificial contraception. We stated in Part 1 that our objective is not to glorify it, and that contraception should only be used by legally married couples. We also want to repeat that any contraception that would cause abortion is not acceptable. But our purpose here is to demonstrate that the Catholic Church’s reasons for condemning responsible artificial contraception are actually unreasonable.

“Natural Law”

The Catholic Church tells us that contraception is a violation of “Natural Law,” because it deliberately “blocks” the natural purpose of sex which was designed by the Creator. But we could say that using deodorant / antiperspirant is also a violation of “Natural Law,” since using it, too, deliberately blocks the natural purpose of the skin and sweat glands, which were designed by the Creator. What about suppressing the urge to use the restroom until you have an appropriate time to go? Aren’t you “blocking” that natural function (at least temporarily) that God designed? What about medicines that block the natural production of stomach acid, or the ones that reduce a fever? And doesn’t suntan lotion / sunscreen block the natural UV rays from access to your skin?

So, if contraception violates the Natural Law, then so do these other things. But we don’t see the Catholic Church up in arms over these other things. So, their “Natural Law” argument doesn’t work because the Church is being inconsistent with it.

As we mentioned in Part 1, “Natural Family Planning” (NFP) is the only type of contraception allowed by the Catholic Church. They insist that the “possibility” of conceiving during sex must always be there. But, ironically, Catholics often brag that NFP, as a contraceptive, is just as, or more efficient, than other contraceptive methods, and can be as high as 99% to 100% effective. If this is true, then why are Catholics allowed to use NFP as a contraceptive, since it offers the least amount of “possibility” for conception?

These are simply more examples of the Catholic Church playing word games. From a moral standpoint, when NFP is used as a contraceptive method, the Catholic couple deliberately avoids conceiving and has the same intent (no pregnancy) and they get the same result (no pregnancy) with NFP as they would with artificial contraception, but without using artificial contraception. Morally, there is no difference.

The Guilt Trip

Some Catholics will say that using artificial contraception is “playing God.” According to the Catholic Church, contraception “…harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life’.” (Vademecum for Confessors, 2:4)

First of all, is it “true love” to impregnate an already tired, over-burdened wife with yet another child, a wife who is already concerned about the couple’s ability to adequately manage the energetic toddlers they already have?

Second, being a good steward by making wise choices in spacing your children is not “denying God’s sovereignty.” Using artificial contraception will not, and cannot, override His sovereignty. Nothing can do that. If God really wants a woman to be pregnant OR barren, there is nothing that can stop Him, so this is a false argument. It may have something to do with His specific will in a particular couple’s lives, but it doesn’t affect His sovereignty. By definition, it is not possible to “interfere” with God’s sovereign will. He has already taken all things into account. On the other hand, it is possible to go against His “moral” will (i.e., His Law / Commandments). But we find nothing in this Law that prohibits responsible contraception.

“Let God Decide…”

Catholics will say, “When you are using NFP you are letting God decide the number of children you have. This is the right way to do it.” This is a noble thought, but exactly how does a couple “let God decide”? Do they just casually ignore any potentially serious problems, like health, financial or child spacing issues? No, God expects us to make reasonable and responsible choices in every other area of life, so why not in this area also?

Yes, God is the One Who makes the final “decision” as to whether pregnancy occurs or not. But there’s a difference between getting pregnant because God overrides our well-intended and responsible plans, and getting pregnant because we were just being irresponsible.

Every couple should strive to know God’s will for their family and be accountable for it. You are disobeying God if He wants you to have a large family, when you are striving for a small one. And you are disobedient to God if He wants you to have a small family, when you are striving for a large one. Every couple should first seek God’s will earnestly, and put aside any selfishness. But the idea of “letting God decide” should not justify a couple going beyond their means. God expects us to use common sense.

“God Will Provide…”

Because the Church encourages large families, another thing Catholics will often say when couples are hesitant to bring more children into the world is, “Don’t worry, God will provide.” This, too, sounds very spiritual, but this does not remove the obligation to make wise decisions on the part of the couple.

Yes, God even provides for those who are not His children. He causes the sunshine and the rain to fall on the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:45). But this fact alone doesn’t mean that you are in His will. There comes a point where a person can be guilty of tempting God in this “God will provide” context. Should we quit our jobs, stand around doing nothing all day, and “just trust God” to provide for our needs? Obviously not. Again, there is a balance when it comes to trusting God and exercising responsibility. The Bible says that the one who doesn’t provide for his own family has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel (unbeliever). (1 Timothy 5:8)

The Case of Onan

Catholics believe they have a biblical case against contraception by pointing to Onan in Genesis 38:6-10:

“And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar. And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, ‘Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.’ And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore He slew him also.”

So the question is, why exactly did God take Onan’s life?

Catholics claim that Onan’s sin was that he practiced contraception, namely that he “spilled his seed” on the ground, using the “withdrawal method” instead of impregnating Tamar. They will say that his sin was his chosen METHOD of birth control.

But this assumption is quickly disproved by asking a simple question: “Would Onan have been spared if he had used ‘Catholic-approved’ birth control (i.e., NFP) to prevent pregnancy?” Of course not. In God’s eyes, he would still have been avoiding his duty. So, it had nothing to do with the specific method used.

But it’s very clear in this passage that Onan’s sin was that he failed to raise up a son for Er, “…lest that he should give seed to his brother.”

But Catholics believe that can’t be the case; there had to be more involved, since the penalty for not providing a son for your brother’s wife was not death, but public humility. (Deut. 25:7-10)

Perhaps so, but we think that it can safely be said that Onan’s case was similar to that of Ananias and Sapphira in the early church (Acts 5:1-10). They withheld a certain amount of money in their offering and lied about it. But neither lying nor stealing (withholding money) was a capital offense, yet God took their lives also because of their deception. It is very possible that Onan (like Ananias and Sapphira) was killed by God because of his deception in pretending to do a godly service (providing a son for his brother), but actually neglecting to do so.

The simple lesson in this is NOT that contraception is bad. The lesson is that disobeying God is bad.

It is also interesting to observe that the footnotes in the Catholic New American Bible say:

“In the present story, it is primarily Onan’s violation of this law [the law of levirate], rather than the means he used to circumvent it, that brought on him God’s displeasure.” (World Publishing, copyright 1987, p. 44)

Furthermore, according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia concerning Genesis 38:

“Consequently, no certain argument can be based upon this text to prove the sinful character of either improperly completed intercourse or masturbation. Evidence for this must be sought elsewhere.” (McGraw Hill, copyright 1967, Volume 10, “Onanism”, page 696)

For the record, whether Onan was aware of it or not, this family line was extremely important to God – Tamar was destined to be an ancestor of Christ! (Matthew 1:3)

The Fathers Know Best?

Catholics will almost certainly also point to the early church fathers and their opposition to contraception. But what was the reasoning which determined the early fathers’ view of contraception? Was Scripture the greatest influence which led them to their beliefs? Were these beliefs accurate, biologically? The answer in both cases is no.

For a long time, one of the false beliefs of the early church was that the male’s semen contained a fully formed human being and the female’s womb was simply a place for it to grow. These early church fathers considered any male semen that was not implanted in the female (i.e., “blocked” or “wasted” in any way) to be a form of abortion.

It was the heavy influence of rigid Stoic philosophy, along with this faulty understanding of conception, that was the main reason for their negative view of contraception.

According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Clement [of Alexandria] adopted the Stoic rule set out by Musonius Rufus: the SOLE LAWFUL PURPOSE for initiating marital intercourse was procreation… This rule became the dominant opinion of the Fathers and of the medieval theologians on the lawful use of marriage; it effectively excluded contraception.” (McGraw Hill, copyright 1967, Volume 4, “Contraception”, page 271) [Ephasis added]

Again, not only did it exclude contraception, it excluded sex for a lawfully married couple for ANY reason other than for having children. In other words, the accepted modern Catholic form of contraception (NFP) would not have been accepted by them. Today, it would be very rare to find a modern denomination that actually follows the contraception views of the early fathers.

“I Just Feel Used…”

The Catholic Church states, “…It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” (Humanae Vitae, 17)

That’s possible, but there are two sides to this coin. It is also possible that the Catholic wife, fearful of the condemnation of the Church, could come to view herself as merely a “baby factory” for producing Catholic children. But Humanae Vitae doesn’t mention this possibility. So if it’s wrong for the husband to make her feel “used,” then it’s also wrong for the Church to make her feel “used.”

Where Does This Lead?

In the old days, the birth of a child didn’t cost anywhere near what it does today (not to mention the cost of raising the child). The temptation to lean on government assistance for help today can be very strong. Since artificial contraception is severely condemned by the Church, it can even drive the faithful poor (who may see no other way out) deeper into the welfare system and to depend more and more on government assistance, because of his (reluctantly) growing family. This is one result of such a system of unnecessary guilt.

What Do You Really Want?

God will sometimes give us what we want, even if it is not in our best interest. For example, in the Old Testament the people wanted Saul as king, but Saul was not God’s choice. However, He gave them what they wanted (1 Samuel 8:9). But it was not till later that they realized the serious error of their selfish request.

But God will sometimes allow this just so that in the end we would say, “I should’ve seen it God’s way and taken advantage of His blessings. What I THOUGHT I wanted is now grieving me.”

In the same way, many couples want to be childless, and they should have that freedom (Romans 14). Refusing to have children is not necessarily a sin – although (just as the Jews who demanded Saul as king) this could very well be something the couple will live to regret.

Personally, I find it difficult to see how anyone can NOT ever want children. Children are certainly a blessing from God (Psalm 127:3-5). Big families are wonderful, and children from large families are generally more disciplined (depending on the parents), and usually more acquainted with having to share with, and care for, younger siblings. But the bigger the family is, the greater the responsibility. God wants us to be good stewards of all that He gives us… but He wants us to have what we can reasonably manage. Not every couple can handle eight or ten children.

Conclusion

Leviticus 20:10-21 contains a list of specific sex sins. But why is artificial contraception not included here? If God feels so strongly about this “mortal sin,” then why don’t the Scriptures condemn it? Maybe… just maybe… it is just the Catholic Church that feels so strongly about it, and not God.

This is another case of truth mixed with error. We want to stress that there is nothing wrong with “Natural Family Planning.” It is a worthy and acceptable method of birth control. What IS wrong is demanding that this is the ONLY method approved by God, and condemning all other methods.

The Catholic view of contraception is used as a bullying tactic causing an unnecessary guilt trip on good, responsible, concerned and legitimately married couples who may not want large families.

Once again, the Catholic Church’s view of contraception is unbiblical, unbalanced and misleading.

CONTRACEPTION (Part 1)

Today, more than ever, we live in a society that is obsessed with sex… a society with rapidly weakening morals and very little self-control. Many things contribute to this moral decline, but the Catholic Church will blame contraception as a major factor. Contraception is often blamed for the rise of abortion, pornography, homosexuality, feminism, and the increase in sexually-transmitted disease. It is believed that it encourages promiscuity (sexually loose morals) and that it promotes irresponsibility.

It is true that the abuse of contraceptives has played a role in the moral downfall of this nation. But the abuse of something does not necessarily mean that it cannot be used for good when used responsibly and wisely. Yes, there are wrong reasons to use contraceptives, but that doesn’t mean that ALL contraceptive use is wrong. Now, we are not promoting any contraception that causes abortion, since abortion is murder. And even acceptable contraceptives are not appropriate for everyone, since sex outside of legitimate marriage is condemned by God. They should only be used by legally married couples. All couples should educate themselves on this important issue in order to prayerfully determine which contraceptives are safe and acceptable.

The purpose of this article, though, is not to glorify contraception, nor to condemn it altogether, but rather, to show that the Catholic Church’s view of it is unbiblical, unbalanced and misleading.

The Catholic Church’s View

The Catholic Church condemns all use of artificial contraception for any reason, even for legally married couples. The Church describes contraception as:

“Abortion… sterilization… [and] “… every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.” (Humanae Vitae 14)

Besides abortion and sterilization, their list of forbidden methods would include “coitus interruptus” (the withdrawal method), condoms, IUD’s, the Pill, spermicides, and others.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls artificial contraception “intrinsically evil.” (CCC #2370) Furthermore, according to the Church, “This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable” [infallible?]. (Vademecum for Confessors, 2:4)

As for as the Church is concerned, any “legitimate intentions” when using contraceptives, don’t count (CCC #2399). The correct method must be used.

But on what basis does the Catholic Church make these claims? Let us look at some of the reasons now.

Natural vs. Unnatural

The only type of contraception that the Catholic Church accepts is what is called “Natural Family Planning” (NFP), a method which includes observing the rhythm of the wife’s natural cycle, testing the cervical mucus, and observing body temperature. Thus, one can determine the time of fertility and abstain from sex on those days.

One of the main reasons that the Catholic Church is against artificial contraception is because it is… “not natural.” They are basically saying here that “natural” is right and “unnatural” is wrong. But if being natural is a requirement for something to be morally right, then shaving your beard, trimming your nails, cutting your hair, and using deodorant are all sinful practices, since these actions go against the “natural.” So, are these things immoral? Of course not.

If interfering with something that happens naturally is wrong, then why take medicine when you’re sick, because it just may be God’s will for you to die! Surely, you don’t want to interfere with God’s will, do you? And if “unnatural” is wrong, then having a prosthetic (artificial) limb would also be a sin. But would anyone dare to suggest this?

Closer to the topic, if “unnatural” is wrong then adoption is also wrong, since it too, is not “natural.” Perhaps those who have to adopt were “never meant to have children” in God’s eyes, and that adoption is actually opposing His will! Of course, this is silly. Furthermore, what is more UN-natural than celibacy? Yet, the Catholic Church has nothing against any of these things. So, they are not being consistent in this, but rather, are playing word games.

Bottom line: “Unnatural” does not necessarily mean morally wrong. Whether “natural” is good or bad depends on the context.

Or perhaps, when they say it’s not “natural,” they are speaking more specifically of the intent of the Creator, that it’s not something that God meant to be. Ok, fine. But does the Catholic Church know God’s intention for every last couple on earth? Does God intend for every wife to become pregnant? And if so, how many times, and how are the children to be spaced? Is His will identical for all couples? No, indeed.

So, it is obvious that the Catholic Church (or any church) can’t speak for every couple. And since the Bible does not specify how many children to have or how often to have them, and since responsible contraception does not go against any scriptural principle, therefore each individual couple is obligated, concerning family planning, to make good decisions and to take responsibility as good stewards (1 Peter 4:10).

Be Fruitful and Multiply

Another reason that Catholics are against contraception is because God commanded Adam and Eve to “Be fruitful and multiply.” (Gen. 1:28) So they claim that this direct command to the first parents extends to us today. But remember, there were ONLY TWO PEOPLE on earth when God said this! The need to “fill the earth” is not so great today as it once was. Large families were more common (and more necessary) in the Old Testament because of the financial and social security that they brought in that society. But God never set a quota (high end) nor a limit (low end) to the amount of children they could or should have. Again, each couple’s situation is different.

By the way, if it was truly God’s will for every wife to “be fruitful and multiply” (i.e., beyond a child or two), then Mary was certainly a sinner, since she could have had other children after the birth of Jesus, but didn’t (according to Catholics).

The Catholic Church tells us that, in the act of sex, the possibility of conception must always be there, that the couple must always be “open to the transmission of life.” (Humanae Vitea 11) But why? Is this a command from God? If the possibility of conception must always be there, then what about those times when conception is impossible, e.g., when the wife is already pregnant, or during menopause, or after she has had a hysterectomy for a valid reason, etc.? Should the couple never have sex at all during these times?

Catholic documents tell us that, in the act of sex, we “cannot separate the unitive from the procreative.” Really? According to whom? Did God say this, or did man? Because nature itself shows us, in the female reproductive cycle, that there IS a natural separation / distinction between the time of fertility and the time of non-fertility. There are naturally times in her cycle that conception is not possible. So, this idea of not being able to separate the two elements is false.

Also, God, through the apostle Paul, warns us concerning sex between husband and wife:

“Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” (1 Corinthians 7: 5 - NASV)

God knows that whenever a husband and wife have sex, the level of temptation to be unfaithful decreases. Notice that Paul does not encourage long periods of abstinence, but tells them to “come together again.” Why? So they will not be tempted by the devil… NOT because of some missed opportunity to produce children. Paul doesn’t say, “Come together again, but only when conception is a possibility.” His concern here was the spouses satisfying each other, so as not to be tempted.

The Catholic Church is against artificial contraception because of the reduced chances of conceiving. But if responsible artificial contraception is wrong because the possibility to conceive is limited, then NFP is equally wrong (when used as a contraceptive method). The purpose of both of them is avoiding pregnancy - the intent is the same. In both cases, sex is “intentionally rendered unfruitful.” So, why would one method be sinful and not the other? There is no moral difference between them. Again, it’s just semantics.

It is ridiculous to think that a couple would be allowed to avoid conception by NFP all their lives, yet, it is “intrinsically evil” to do the exact same thing (avoid conception) by responsible artificial means, even once.

Catholic documents on contraception are filled with warnings which bully Catholics (who may not really want many children) into having large families.

Some Catholics may say that the Church doesn’t force them to have large families, but given the intimidating, guilt-inducing language in some of these documents, many devout Catholics are certainly made to feel guilty if they would rather have a small family, or no children at all.

We will continue this topic in Part 2…