![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Call No Man Your Father
Finished reading the Gospel of Matthew this afternoon. And there is one passage in this that absolutely screams out to be talked about (okay, several, actually). It comes from chapter 23, and features Jesus absolutely slamming the high priests, calling them hypocrites, liars and saying that they only do good when it can be seen by men and will increase their social standing.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
What I want to know is: how in HELL could a religion perpetuated by priests have at its core a number of extremely obvious and very literal warnings against priests? I mean, throughout the whole of the Gospels, the priests are portrayed as these nefarious jerks who try desperately to trap Jesus into doctrinal error and blasphemy and then are ultimately responsible for his death. And right here, he says that no man should be called “Father” or “Rabbi” and yet, here we are. How the heck did this ever happen? How do Christians read the Bible and NOT get this message. I mean, it’s not like I’m interpreting into it some kind of crazy anarcho-gnostic blabbety-blah or seeing what I want to see here. This is completely out in the open!
Also related: Jesus spends a good portion of the Bible chastising Peter, calling him a hypocrite, unbeliever, betrayer and more. And yet, the Catholic Church is supposed to be founded on his lineage. Freaking crazy. People must just never read the Bible. That’s the only explanation.
November 21st, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Jesus was a rebel. A conservative rebel , but still a rebel.
The classical age was over , and the Hellenistic age was just over. It was a wild time of ideas.
At that particular time the Jew were looking for converts. Jesus was a Jew and wanted to transform , and grow the church from what it was.
He had no intention of starting a new church at all. Just reforming the existing one.
November 21st, 2006 at 6:49 pm
I’m not really sure I agree with all that…
November 21st, 2006 at 7:19 pm
A distinction should be made when observing Jesus comments…
Jesus did not slam the priests for BEING priests - it was their attitudes and actions that were the problems.
Thus Christianity can still embrace priesthood so long as it doesn’t fall into the same hypocrisy that the Pharisees were caught up in.
Thus it is not a contradiction that Jesus rebuked the priests and yet Christianity embraces preisthood.
I hope this helps
I acknowledge that Christians often get hypocritical like the Pharisees and carry wrong atiitudes and actions - I guess noone is sinless
However theologically Christiaity maintians its integrity on this one
What do you think?
November 21st, 2006 at 7:31 pm
I’ve always had serious problems with this, too, but it’s been beaten into the ground about a zillion times. Here’s a pretty typical RC response:
November 21st, 2006 at 7:37 pm
sorry - I omitted to comment on what Jesus said about not being called “Rabbi” or “master”.
It could be that the issue here was the terms “Rabbi” and “Master” being very honorific in Jesus time. Jesus instructed his disciples not to honour or exalt themselves and by extenson not to be called “Rabbi”. Many Christians would hold this “Spirit” of the text to be the most important thing there.
Hence contempoary “preist” terminology would only be contraictive of Jesus teaching is the title is honorific. In many cases “priest” is simply the term used to refer to the church leader nowadays. It is more a means of identifying those in leadership for clarity in the running of a church service - It is not used to exalt the person concerned
I accept that my argument is not compelling, but I only speak form my own experienece of church. The necessary leadership in my church (necessary for purposes of order etc within church organisation) are refered to as “pastors”. However in person I address them by their name - no special honour or exaltification.
Thus contempoary Christian “priesthood” terminology doesn’t necessarily contradict Jesus teaching
Hope this is clearer than what I last wrote
November 21st, 2006 at 7:48 pm
JP: Yeah, those comments I find very funny. Because - I mean - if you want to know what Jesus said, you can just look at the Bible. You don’t have to look at someone else’s interpretations of it to find the answers, because it’s right there. He said it. Simple! What could be easier?
Will:
I’m not really sure it does. What I think is fairly clearly laid out in the original post, and again, you can just look at what Jesus is saying. I don’t have to intrepret it at all. It’s very plainly spoken throughout all the Gospels.
I have only read through closely Mark & Matthew so far, but nowhere do I see Jesus talking about running or actually running a “church service.” The only mention I have seen to a church of any kind is when he calls Peter a “rock” upon which he will build his church, which I am inclined more than anything to take as a bit of a joke, because when Peter went out to meet Jesus walking on the water, he sank like a rock because he lacked faith.
The only types of “services” that I see Jesus doing are: actually healing people, telling interesting stories that you can learn something from, openly calling people out who are full of shit, and eating dinner with his friends.
November 21st, 2006 at 8:16 pm
The “dinner with his friends” bit is especially neat. Imagine, a whole religion based on dinner with friends!
November 21st, 2006 at 9:18 pm
I posted about this on my blog here a good month and a half ago:
http://henosis-decanus.blogspot.com/2006/10/call-no-one-your-father.html
-D
November 21st, 2006 at 10:57 pm
yeah, i just had dinner with friends so i tend to agree that it would be, um, neat.
religious bureaucrats are still bureaucrats and will always crowd the best tables etc.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:31 am
“You don’t have to look at someone else’s interpretations of it to find the answers, because it’s right there. He said it. Simple! What could be easier?”
and
I don’t have to intrepret it at all
Any reading of a text involves interpretation - yours is literalist that’s all.
Can you justify your approach to support your argument? Secular (non-Christian) scholars agree interpreation should be governed in part by the historical/cultural setting of the text NOT by our own culture. The latter approach is called ETHNOCENTRIC
To illustrate the need to interpret according to context:
“It’s raining cats and dogs”
Approached without regard for modern English idiom we adopt an incorrect literal interpretation. Accordingly when we look at Jesus comments in relation to Jewish religious leaders we should investigate the Jewish religious culture of the time where - leaders WERE exalted greatly. Thus it is reasonable for me to take the approach I do - that is Jesus was warning against self-exaltification not the title of priest/rabbi/master per se.
You give no justification for your literalist approach. There may well be some passages where this is warranted by the context - can you demonstrate this is the case here?
If not, I will assume you only choose a literal interpreatation to engineer your desired conclusion - that the RC church disobeys Jesus teaching
I’d like to note here that I am not a RC so please don’t think this is why I am defending them.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:51 am
Where there’s a will, there’s aq rastionalization.
Hell, if one tenth of Christians in history showed any interest at all in taking the message to heart, earth would be a paradise. Instead, like all revolutionaries, visionaries, and luminaries, jesus is just another tool for social control. Even Jesus knew, which is why he exhorted his followers to “take up the cross.”
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:30 am
I have no issue with taking the message to heart - just take the right message to heart. I have justified why I believe a literalist message in this instance is incorrect.
I am not choosing my interpreation for ’social control’ - I give good reasons. Furthermore I find it ironic that people object to Christianity because Christians are irrational. Admittedly they often are, YET as soon as I (a Christian) take a reasoned thoughtful approach to the Bible I am accused of using Jesus for ’scoial control’ simply because you don’t the idea of ‘priesthood’ terminology.
Let’s just test your approach shall we???
Let’s take the message to heart and LITERALLY take up our crosses. Perhaps all Christians should carry around huge wooden crosses into their workplace and about their daily business. Wouldn’t the world be a paradise then!!! - Society would be coherent and work really well!
I know you don’t accept the “take up your cross” phrasology literally - you read it as Jesus exhorting his disciples to give up their own will and in that sense give up their life. To argue that leadership is inconsistent with this on the basis that leaders are necessarily preoccupied with’social control’ is an assertion not an argument. The burden of proof is on you to show that all leaders must out of necessity be preoccupied with ’social control’.
Is it not possible for leader to be genuinely caring and that they can give up their personal will to serve others and ‘carry their cross’. I do not pretend all leaders do this - HOWEVER it stands that the Christian doctrine of church leadership although not specifically mentioned by Jesus IS CONSISTENT with His remarks regarding the Pharisees.
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:27 am
First of all, Will, I was responding to Tim’s post, not your comments, which I did not even see. When I address a commenter, I always use their name.
Secondly, I never suggested anyone drag a wooden cross around- that’s a ridiculous straw horse, the sort of comment I expect of a petulant seven year old. I simply do not understand the motivation to make a comment like this when it is clearly not what I meant.
Jesus was obviously not speaking lightly when asking his followers to take on the same committments. He was asking for them to follow in his footsteps, not for them to form yet another race of self-righteous priests and demagogues.
And yes, today we see all the same sorts of hypocrisy apparent in churches of every denomination- the whited sepuchers abound, complete with complicated theological gyumnastics to justify being the exact same people Jesus warned about.
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:10 am
This same issue had me by the balls a year back. I was absolutely incredulous that a Christian could even step foot back in a church after reading this — and I still am. It just blows my mind. A lot of what Jesus says is parabolic, esoteric, symbolic, hermaneutic, context sensitive, etc. but this is as plain as day. “Oh… he was just talking about the pharisees” has got to be one of Christianity’s bigger cop-outs.
The fact that there aren’t more vigorous defenses from the Church(s) against this passage is what really depresses me, as it illustrates just how oblivious people are. Even atheists don’t reference this one all that much.
C’mon! The Pope has a friggin’ city!! Huge Cathedrals all over the world and tons of iconography exalting holy mother church. There is no way priests are held in less regard than the pharisees were during their time.
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:34 am
I accept what you are saying here
When priest are exalted in the way that they often are - this is wrong and goes against Jesus teaching. My point was:
I don’t believe Jesus was arguing against the terminology in itself - that’s all. When priests are exalted in status that is wrong - if the term is simply used for means of idenitfication (as seen in many but by no means all churches/denominations) I think it’s okay.
Also (for Jennifer) sorry for being so dogmatic - I had mistakenly thought your comments were a resposne to mine.
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:51 am
Obey the cloth. Salute the flag. Must-see TV.
Seems Jesus was hip to the whole ‘Metaphysics of Media’ deal. That people are easily dazzled by cheap pageantry is the basis of our domestication by those who ‘love the uppermost rooms at feasts’.
The archons (just used that word for old times’ sake) need us to watch their magic show for it to work at all. They need us to see it and act as if it were real.
Peter: Check out that baboon.
Jesus: Yeah what about it?
P: He’s wearing a fancy hat.
J: So?
P: Shouldn’t we do what he says?
J: No.
P: But what about the fancy hat?
J: All I see is a baboon.
The baboon is listening to this, walks over and smacks Jesus hard across the mouth.
Baboon: Think about that the next time you see this hat!
Peter runs off to preach of the Importance of Obeying the Hat. The baboon leans over the fallen Jesus and snarls. Jesus looks past the baboon in amazement.
J: Holy shit! Look at the size of that hat!
The baboon’s eyes widen as he turns around. Seeing nothing, he turns back to see Jesus spit blood and smile.
J: Made you look. Stupid fucking monkey.
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:08 am
In answer to your statement about Christians not reading thier bible, I cant agree with you more. Christians dont do it enough, because if they did I dont believe they would like what they read, there is also the unease that arises when you start to realise that what you thought was christianity doesnt quite seem to be what Christ is asking of his followers amongs other things at least in my opinion.
This passage much like other says or verses in the Bible have an application beyond the mere words. If we take this passage (and many others) at face value, its a pretty strong condemnation of the Jewish priesthood in particular. Interpreting it as a warning against priesthood in christianity as well is pretty common. So is interpretting it as condemnation against people who would abuse thier power in thier is another.
The other option is to ignore the dressing, in this case the religious overtones, and look at the core of the message, I believe this is something like “Your Ego does not entitle you to honour or power no matter how you feed it”.
I personaly enjoy taking a verse out of the bible as above and reinterpreting it not just on the meaning of the words, but reaplying the concept against different area’s of human existance. Its an excercise I find particularly usefull with biblical verses and find its great fun and sometimes very much a lightbulb moment.
In that spirit the above verse applies equally well to almost any kind of human activity, not just the religious/spiritual. Why should we honour people who seek or demand honours? It like the rhetorical “Do you know who I am?!” question uttered by people who have let fame and or fortune go to thier head, I believe that Jesus makes an admonition against this sort of egoist existance, and against the people who allow it in the above verse. This would not only make it a condemnation against the jewish priesthood, but also to an extent the jewish society for allowing and rewarding thier priesthood for acting in such a manner.
The same condemnation would apply to christians, muslims or invisible flying spaghetti moster believers and communities who act in the same manner.
Or even more simply, its a childish thing to do, if you have ever watched young children they are constantly trying to get the attention of thier parents or others
by saying “look at me, look what I did”, they are seeking the rewards of being praised, without a deeper understanding of why they should be praised if at all.
We tend to accept it from children, but we are ussually offended by adults who act like this. At least I am, not that I am free from behaving like this myself at times.
In the end being a priest is fine, being a priest who demands respect or who claims respect by virtue of his position is not. Likewise being a manager or a CEO is fine, using your status or activity as leverage, even to stroke your ego is not.
Simply because you can demand the best seats in the synagog/church/restaurant/theatre by virtue of who you are, does not make you entitled to them. To engage in that sort of activity, and feed your ego in this manner is not healthy to any person, especially in people who hold sway over others.
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:00 am
There is a Quaker church near my house I attended, which is indistinguishable from any other protestant church, with a preacher and programmed worship services, etc. If anyone has ever read George Fox’s journals, you can’t help but notice that these are EXACTLY the things Fox railed so bombastically AGAINST.
Quakerism was (is?) an attempted revival of the original Christianity, but the tradition has erased its own defining delineations in only a couple hundred years.
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:48 am
p–
in their defense, many many many Quaker churches don’t have the traditional worship servives. there’s one just down the street from us that is really amazing– just an hour of sitting meditation (”listening to the light”), no priests, leaders, deacons, etc. there are some with more traditional “looking” services, but they’re not in the great majority, as far as i know.
george fox is really amazing– well worth studying. wikipedia’s entry on quakers (actually called the ‘religious society of friends’) is pretty well-balanced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:08 am
Oh, no I didn’t mean to imply that all Quakers have become evangelicals. There is another meeting in my town that is exactly as you describe and I plan to spend some more time with that group. I only meant to note that the same dynamic of ‘degeneration’ is at work on multiple levels.
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:09 pm
i think Jesus is refering to political authority here as well as religious, since in the Roman culture that ruled then, the head of state was looked on as having authority for being the Imperial “patriarch” - and in fact the father of every family had life-or-death authority over the lives of his wife and children.
and, yeah, you don’t even need to spin it to read this as anarcho-gnostic. many Christians i know will ignore vast swaths of the Bible when convenient (such as the numerous wacky Old Testament laws), but treat certain sections as “gospel truth” (Lev. 20:13 comes to mind). some of my “Christian” relatives who think it would be great to “nuke all the hajis” come to mind.
maybe it’s just the fact that people who have unswavering faith tend to disregard reason and common sense when their ideas of what faith entials are challenged - regardless of what the ostensibly holy book says.
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:16 pm
almost forgot, there’s a pretty interesting piece along these lines from last year.
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
At another dinner with friends J drops a bombshell- guess who has the knife:)
http://www.thesecretsupper.com/
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Will:
No, and I don’t NEED to justify my approach to you or to anyone! If Christ does anything, he calls each person to a UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL relationship with him.
So what! Scholars do all kinds of shit I don’t agree with. They don’t run my life in any other regard, so why should they run it here?
If I can’t relate the Scriptures to my own life, then there is literally zero value in reading them.
Hahah. No, this is not about Roman Catholics. This is about all people who profess to be Christians but who directly countermand Jesus’ teachings.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Will:
Congratulations! We disagree. Now what do we do?
If all Christians took up crosses, then they wouldn’t GO to their workplaces or HAVE daily business, and things might actually be a great deal different.
I can’t remember his name, but there’s a guy named I think Arthur something who actually DID drag a cross all the way around the world. It’s pretty interesting. Oh here we go:
http://www.blessitt.com/
In fact, my actual interpretation is only partly literal. I believe that reading Jesus’ moral teachings as literal admonitions is a necessary component of preparing yourself for the deeper mystical meanings of this - which relate to something along the lines of raising Kundalini energy and uniting with cosmic consciousness.
Leaders ARE preoccupied with social control. That’s why they become leaders and that’s why Jesus exhorts those who would be first to become last and to become the servants of all.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Jesus wasn’t arguing semantics!
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Awesome!
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Yes! I really want to go check these guys out. Been meaning to do it! The thing I find fascinating about the Quakers is that many of them believe the “Inner Light” to actually be a better guide than the Scriptures once you have developed the ability to hear it correctly. Many argue in favor of the Inner Light where it contradicts Scriptures, which I wholeheartedly agree with
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Sorry I am getting so uppity about this!
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Jesus was referring to self important religious hypocrites who’s behavior separates weaker people in society from the Holy Spirit. As a Gnostic leaning site you should have a clearer perspective. It’s not about societally created religions or political correctness. It’s about the direct contact with God/Jesus/Holy Spirit that is now available to us.
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Wow, this is really a hot-button issue for people, huh! Julia, I find it baffling that you come off condescending here since I completely agree with what you are saying!
But hey: “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword,” right? Swing away!
November 22nd, 2006 at 7:21 pm
I didn’t mean it to sound condescending. That’s just how I sound when I write. I meant it as a complement. Like “c’mon, you know better”.
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:03 pm
What don’t I know better though? That’s the part I am not fathoming in what you are saying.
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Direct contact with spirit, not “reality”. This site is filled with very intelligent people with a wide range of experiences but we are getting bogged down with the reality of history/religions etc. It’s good reading but Jesus was speaking across time. He was providing comfort to the downtrodden of all ages/circumstances. You qualify as downtrodden the further away you get from God. IMHO Jesus is saying “don’t look to them, the masters of reality. Look to me”. When the reality you can’t do anything about (like you can’t get a nice seat in your favorite restaurant because of the power of the people who use religion against others) gets to you understand that I, Jesus, agree and hold them in disdain too. Don’t follow them and have temporary peace, follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and have the peace that comes with understanding.
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Well yes, I agree again. So I don’t think we are at odds at all here.
In fact, I don’t think even the people who openly disagree with anything I’ve phrased here above are at odds either. I think there is a point where we all either do or eventually must realize that we’re all just using words to talk about things beyond words. It’s easy to forget in the heat of the moment, but I think these sort of “arguments” and machinations on the subject are a fairly essential component of exploring the power and meaning behind all of this.
It takes a great deal of work - for most people - to have that “direct contact with spirit” which you describe.
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Direct contact with the Holy Spirit is as simple as the person striving for the contact. Are you upset that someone is a religious hypocrite who is separating others from God? You and God are in perfect agreement. It may not seem like a religious experience but it is.
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Has anyone addressed the fact that Christianity (or, simply, “the Way of Jesus”) existed before there even was a Bible?
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Are you?
I really don’t personally find it quite so easy as that. It may be my personal hang-up.
So then, what’s the reason to strive or to change or to achive a more perfect agreement?
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:50 pm
1] Very upset. It’s one of my main hang ups and unfortunately separates me from attending organized religious services.
2] Personally I have had to try to (still trying) get over using my biases/prejudices in judging the authenticity of other peoples relationship with God. God will (thank you, thank, you, thank you) usually throw something at me to mock me in my arrogance when I look down on someone’s beliefs/relationship with God. I’ve had to learn that being simple is not the same as being simple minded. Mind gets in the way of heart every time.
3] You and God are in perfect agreement on that subject at that moment. All you can do is try to be aware of those moments and learn from them for when a test comes. It may come for you or it may come for others around you.
You may have mastered the test of not being able to get a good seat at a restaurant because of a faulty social/religious system so you can pass on your wisdom to others. You don’t care anymore, it doesn’t bother you, your eyes are on God, that phase of your life has passed.
Now it’s time for you to help someone who is going to get into a fight over this/hurt the way you were several years ago by the injustice/move away from God etc. (Lucky you. You are now the Patron Saint of restaurants patrons.)
You have no choice but to strive. Life changes constantly and there’s nothing you can do about it. You can stew in resentment yourself or brew it up in others so you will have company but you won’t be happy. This is why people who are of service to others are fulfilled. God uses you as a tool. You go through life building from successes and trying to learn from failures. You don’t know why until the moment comes, then it makes sense.
This will sound silly but here goes. One of the things I am a very minor patron saint of is giving directions to lost people in Chicago, mostly downtown. It happens a few times per month. I try to run an errand/catch a bus/decide to take one route over another and there they are, lost people. I guess I look approachable and they usually ask me how to get where they are going. I always know the way. This is so much a part of my life now that I notice when it hasn’t happened in a while. Somebody has to do it! Why wouldn’t God arrange Chicago so that people don’t stay lost for long! It’s not a grand beam of light to your forehead and a choir but it’s pretty helpful.
Here’s the point. I’m on the street anyway. If I didn’t strive, in my own little ways, to achieve a better relationship with God/Jesus/Holy Spirit he wouldn’t direct my path to these people/situations. I wouldn’t hear his voice, wouldn’t care. I wouldn’t be there to help people he wants helped. The streets of Chicago would be a little less Holy Spirit filled for everyone, including me. I can’t prove this but I can know it.
November 23rd, 2006 at 8:43 am
I have a problem with the Holy Spirit. How do you know its really the Holy Spirit?
You really want a “voice” to guide you that you can never say “No.” to?
If you ever get to the point where you clearly hear the Holy Spirit and then you feel asked to do somthing you really don’t want to do, what then? You can’t say no.
You can’t say you must be making a mistake, you have to say “yes” and then you aren’t free to do as you wish, or no and disobey God.
Maybe that is why people don’t really want clarity on these questions.
November 23rd, 2006 at 9:24 am
But one thing no one disputes is that Jesus didn’t write any of this. So then this passage is either attributed to him falsely or attributed correctly, or both.
Now why would anyone say this? Is it it that hard to see? Its an argument of authority. The people who wote this wanted to remove religious authority from the leaders at that time. They appeal to Jesus having said this. So that shifts authority over to the Christians.
It all comes down to authority, whos authority will you listen to? That is why people argue about the Bible.
November 23rd, 2006 at 12:41 pm
I don’t know to do the blue things yet but I’d like to add to my too long already comments. From my perspective you don’t have the problems connecting with the Holy Spirit you think you have. Your web site is an expression of your frustration with separations from God. You are attempting to build bridges/standing in the gaps. Your constant work to improve your site and it’s contents is a reflection of your striving to achieve a more perfect agreement with the Spirit. I have very few places to go on the web for this level of content/communication. It functions as a community of believers/strivers/faith to me eyes. It really is that simple.
November 24th, 2006 at 9:44 am
After some reflection I think this means simply that priests must be humble to be priests at all. Clearly there’s a paradox here… a priest has to be able to be a priest without that title conferring some sort of honour.
There’s other threads that spring to mind here: praise Him with the loud cymbal vs. go aside into a quiet place to pray, not like the hypocrites who stand in the street.
The ‘dinner with friends’ thing is genius, btw.
November 24th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
hey tim, you know what your problem is? sure seems like everybody else around here does. good thing so many enlightened beings with all of the answers read your blog, otherwise how would you be able to make up your mind about anything? surely you’re too incompetent to do it for yourself.