CALL NO MAN YOUR FATHER

This is a short, sharp polemic for anyone who has ever squirmed in a pew. Gouws takes one verse most readers skim past and builds a case that touches Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran practice alike. Read it if you care about church tradition versus Scripture, or if you've ever wondered why the man at the altar has a name Jesus seems to forbid.

1. 1

   Act 1

   The Pew and the Pinch

   The book opens with the Bible quote Matthew 23:9, which the author quotes in full: 'And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.' He notes that these are Jesus's own words, a direct command from Christ - not a suggestion, not a cultural footnote. He recounts a personal experience in a Catholic church where a priest was addressed as 'Father' and describes his inner discomfort, a discomfort he couldn't shake and couldn't immediately explain. That unease becomes the engine of the whole book. He states the problem plainly: the title 'Father' is used for Catholic priests, for the Pope, and for some Protestant leaders too - and this practice must be examined against Scripture, not against sentiment or habit. The stakes are set. Either Jesus meant what he said, or centuries of church practice have quietly overruled him. Gouws has already told you which way he leans, but he promises to earn the conclusion, verse by verse, objection by objection. The discomfort in that church becomes the reader's discomfort: once you notice the title, you can't unhear it.

2. 2

   Act 2

   Context, Objections, and the Long Shadow of Trent

   The author examines the context of Matthew 23, explaining that Jesus was rebuking the scribes and Pharisees for loving titles and places of honor, and that the prohibition on 'father' is part of a broader warning against religious titles like 'Rabbi' and 'Master' (Matthew 23:8-10). The author argues that the command is not limited to a first-century Jewish context but applies to all believers, because the reason given—'for one is your Father, which is in heaven'—is a timeless theological truth. Next come the objections. The author addresses the objection that the Apostle Paul called himself a spiritual father, citing 1 Corinthians 4:15, and argues Paul is describing his role in their conversion, not claiming a religious title. The author addresses the objection that the term 'father' is used in the Old Testament for prophets and patriarchs, such as 'Abraham our father,' responding that these are biological or ancestral references, not religious titles used in direct address. The author traces the historical use of the title 'Father' for clergy, stating that it began to be used for bishops in the early centuries and later extended to priests, becoming formalized in the Roman Catholic Church. The author cites the Council of Trent's teaching on priestly ordination and the sacrificial nature of the Mass as reinforcing the priest's role as a spiritual father, a development he argues departs from New Testament practice.

3. 3

   Act 3

   The Protestant Dilemma and the Pope's Own Title

   Here the book turns its fire on Gouws's own side. The author notes that some Protestant denominations, including Anglicans and some Lutherans, also use the title 'Father' for clergy, and he critiques this as an inconsistent retention of a Catholic tradition that contradicts the plain reading of Matthew 23:9. The author singles out the Anglo-Catholic movement within Anglicanism for promoting the title 'Father' and argues that this reflects a drift toward sacerdotalism rather than the priesthood of all believers. The author specifically critiques the papal title 'Holy Father,' arguing that it compounds the error by ascribing to a man an attribute of God and a title Jesus reserved for the heavenly Father alone. He quotes John 17:11, where Jesus prays, 'Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me,' to show that the term 'Holy Father' is used by Christ to address God, not any man. The author distinguishes between the functional reality of spiritual fatherhood—where older men mentor younger believers—and the use of 'Father' as a formal, distinguishing title for a clerical office. He says the former is biblical, the latter is forbidden, and writes that a man may be a spiritual father in the faith without ever being called 'Father,' just as Paul never commanded anyone to address him by that title. Function, yes. Title, no.

4. 4

   Act 4

   The Heart of the Matter and the Cost of Obedience

   The author states that the core issue is not merely a word but the spirit of antichrist—substituting a human mediator for the direct fatherhood of God and the sole mediatorship of Christ. The author argues that calling a priest 'Father' in the context of confession and absolution sets up a man in the place of God, who alone forgives sins, and undermines the believer's direct access to the Father through Christ. The author urges readers who are in churches where clergy are called 'Father' to obey Christ's command by refusing to use the title, even if it causes offense, and to gently explain the biblical reason when asked. The author advises that if a church insists on the title and will not heed the biblical correction, the believer should consider leaving that fellowship, citing the command to 'come out from among them, and be ye separate' (2 Corinthians 6:17). The author concludes by reaffirming that God alone is the Father of the redeemed, and that all believers are brethren under one Father and one Master, Jesus Christ. He calls for a return to the simplicity of New Testament church practice. The author closes with a prayer that God would open the eyes of those who have been deceived by tradition and bring them into the liberty of obeying Christ's plain command in Matthew 23:9.

• PPhumlani F. M. GouwsThe author and narrator, a believer whose discomfort in a Catholic church launches a scriptural investigation. He wants to obey Jesus's plain command and wants you to do the same - even when it costs you relationships or a church home.
• TThe priest addressed as 'Father'The unnamed figure in the opening scene whose title triggers the author's inner discomfort. He never speaks, but his title becomes the question the whole book exists to answer.
• TThe Apostle PaulThe book's chief witness for the defense, summoned via 1 Corinthians 4:15 and then cross-examined. Gouws concludes Paul described a role in conversion but never claimed or commanded the title 'Father.'

The title 'Father'

The book's central symbol and its target: a word that should point to heaven but, in clerical use, points to a man. Its spread from bishops to priests to the Pope mirrors, for Gouws, the growing distance between the church and the New Testament. Refusing it becomes the visible mark of obedience.

The church pew

The opening scene's location - a Catholic church where the author first hears a priest addressed as 'Father' and feels inner discomfort. The pew stands for the moment passive attendance becomes active conviction, the place where a habit of speech turns into a question of conscience.

The confessional

Where the argument gets flesh: a penitent confessing to a man called 'Father' who pronounces absolution. For Gouws this scene embodies the substitution of human mediator for divine - God alone forgives sins - making the confessional the book's most concrete image of what the title costs theologically.

The prayer 'Holy Father'

Jesus's address to God in John 17:11, quoted to show the term belongs to heaven alone. It stands as the standard against which the papal title is measured - and the measure condemns it, in Gouws's reading, by ascribing to a man an attribute of God.

The ending is deliberately practical, and that is where its force lives. Gouws refuses to let the book remain an exegetical curiosity; he sends the reader back to their own church with an instruction that will make them visibly odd: stop saying 'Father.' The closing prayer - that God would open the eyes of those deceived by tradition - frames disagreement not as mere error but as deception, which is either the book's most charitable or most condescending note depending on where you stand. A sympathetic reading sees a man honoring conscience at real social cost, invoking 2 Corinthians 6:17 to dignify the painful choice to leave. A critical reading notes that the same logic could justify exit from any church over any disputed practice, and that 'the plain reading' is doing heavy lifting in a book about a verse whose context (Pharisees, first-century honor culture) is contested. The ending lands because it is consistent: if the command is timeless, obedience cannot be optional, and the book's discomfort in that opening pew finally resolves into a decision the reader must now make too.

1. 1.Is Gouws's 'timeless theological truth' argument sound - does the reason attached to a command ('for one is your Father, which is in heaven') automatically universalize it, or can a command and its reason both be context-bound?
2. 2.The book distinguishes functional spiritual fatherhood (biblical) from the title 'Father' (forbidden). Is that distinction stable, or does formal mentorship in any tradition inevitably produce honorifics?
3. 3.Gouws applies the critique to Anglicans and Lutherans, not just Catholics. Does his willingness to indict his own Protestant side strengthen or complicate the charge of anti-Catholic bias - and where does 'spirit of antichrist' language fit in charitable disagreement?

Christians weighing church tradition against Scripture, especially those in Catholic, Anglican, or Lutheran congregations where clergy are called 'Father.' Also valuable for anyone who enjoys a short, combative work of biblical exegesis that ends in a decision rather than a shrug.

FAQ