“The teachers of the law and the pharisees love the best places at feasts and the reserved seats in the meeting houses. They love to be greeted with respect in the market places and have people call them “teacher”. You must not be called “teacher”, for you are all brothers and sisters of one another and have only one Teacher. And you must not call anyone here on earth “father” for you have only the one Father in heaven. Nor should you be called “leader” because your one and only leader is the Christ.” Matthew 23,6-10
“As Jesus sat at table in Matthew’s house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.” Matthew 9,11.
“There is no longer Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free person, but Christ is all, and in all.” Colossians 3,11
At the time of Christ the scribes and pharisees considered themselves a class apart. They looked down on the ordinary people whom they called “am ha-ares”, that is, “the people of the land”. Rabbinical writings have preserved instances of real contempt. “A man should be ready to sell all he possesses to marry the daughter of a scribe. He should never take a daughter of the common folk, for these are contemptible and their daughters an abomination”. Scribes were not expected to mingle with such people even in every-day life. “A pharisee should not enter a house of the common folk as a guest, neither give them hospitality as their host”.
Such scribes and pharisees claimed for themselves a higher dignity, a greater interior worth, a superior social standing and even a greater sanctity in the eyes of God.
This was the situation which Jesus criticized. He did not condemn only the individual pride of some scribes and pharisees, but their whole attitude as a group. As a class they insisted on precedence both in the synagogues and at social functions. As a class they wanted to be recognized and acclaimed whenever they appeared in public. As a class they had reserved some titles to themselves which other people were not allowed to use. To bring out the higher dignity which they thought they possessed, they put themselves on a pedestal.
Christ did not want his future priests to form a similar higher-status group. “For you are all brothers and sisters of one another”. “For you have only one Father who is in heaven”. “Because your one and only leader is the Christ”.
In his own behaviour Jesus himself lived up to the principle of accepting a common dignity for all people. When he was born he was put in a manger as any other child of the ordinary people would have been in the same circumstances (Lk 2,6). Those invited to celebrate his birth were common shepherds (Lk 2, 7-8). Jesus spent his early life in the very hum-drum hamlet called Nazareth (Jn 1, 36). He was known as “the carpenter’s son” and his mother and relations were considered people like anybody else (Mt 13,55-56). The pharisees were scandalized because Jesus moved freely with “tax collectors and outcasts” (Mt 9,11).
The one thing Jesus never did was putting himself on a pedestal, even though as Son of God he could have done so.
The Christian Middle Ages flourished as a feudalistic society. The community could roughly be divided into three groups: nobility, craftsmen and dependents, that is: slaves. Just like in the Indian caste system, people were considered to belong to one of these social statuses because they had been born into them. Or, to put it sociologically, they belonged to their status by ascription. A nobleman even though he was poor and dressed in rags, retained the respect due to a nobleman.
Owing to the prestige which the Church enjoyed in those centuries, the clergy were considered part of or parallel to the nobility. Most vocations would come from this group and becoming a priest or religious was not therefore considered a loss in status. A clergyman was respected simply because he was a clergyman, just as a nobleman was respected because he belonged to the nobility.
The Church borrowed from the nobility many of the status symbols that now characterize the clergy. The old Canon Law enshrined customs that sought to underline the higher social status of the clergy. Examples are: the distinctive dress, the respectful form of address, the precedence to be given inside and outside of the church and the privilege of immunity.
Such these status symbols were carefully graded according to hierarchical rank. A bishop was supposed to wear more purple than an ordinary monsignore. Whereas a bishop was called “My Lord” (corresponding to the rank of a Baron), an archbishop was addressed as “Your Grace” (the title reserved to Dukes).
Modern society has moved away from the concept of higher and lower classes among people. By law all persons are considered full-fledged citizens with equal rights and duties. Position in society is, at least theoretically, due to what one does and not to one’s family background. People are respected by virtue of their professions: surgeons, engineers, journalists, lawyers or ministers of state.
From having been ascription-orientated, society is becoming more and more achievement-oriented. A certain individual is accepted as Prime Minister because of her achievements, and not because she has inherited royal status from her parents. In modern society, the clergy and religious too will be judged by the service they render, not by a higher status they are supposed to possess. “By their fruits you shall know them!” (Mt 7,16.)
The Church in our day has re-affirmed the essentially equal dignity of all its members.
“There is in Christ and in the church no inequality on the basis of race or nationality, social condition or sex... And, if by the will of Christ some are made teachers, dispensers of ministries, and shepherds on behalf of others, yet all share a true equality with regard to the dignity and to activity common to all the faithful for the bearing up of the body of Christ”. Vatican II, The Church, no 32.
In making this proclamation, the church gives expression to the teaching already found in the gospel.
Christ did not want different “dignities”, “ranks”, or “statuses” to exist within his Church. All of us are brothers and sisters (Mt 23,8). No one can claim the title of teacher, father or leader as if it belongs to him or her as part of one’s social prestige (Mt 23,8-10). Fidelity to Jesus’ word demands not only a personal humility on our part, but also the recognition that our leadership (if we have any in the church) does not constitute a higher dignity.
The equal status of all Christians does not imply a denial of real authority. Although Jesus rejected the scribes’ claim on having a higher status, he recognized their authority. “They are the authorised interpreters of Moses’ Law. So you must obey and follow everything they tell you to do”. (Mt 23 2-3) Although Jesus himself did not assume an attitude that would indicate a higher status, he did act with authority.
If we were to think that a loss of social status necessarily implies a loss of authority, could it not be that we have misunderstood the kind of authority Jesus is thinking about? If Jesus’ authority did not involve the claim to a higher status, why do we think leadership in the church profits by it?
On the other hand, not every prominence given to a leader implies the claim to having a higher social status. Our political leaders arc sometimes given red carpet treatment without anyone thereby attributing to them an in-born higher dignity. Jesus himself wanted to mark his entry into Jerusalem with a display of external splendour. The people spread their cloaks on the road so that Jesus could walk over them and sang “Praise to David’s son”. (Mt 21,9)
When a bishop or a priest is representing Christ, the people may well wish to express their joy in the same manner. In this case the norm does not lie in the external signs themselves, but in the interpretation given to them. What may be perfectly alright as a spontaneous honouring of an accepted leader, would be against the gospel message if maintained to underscore a difference in status. “You should not be called leader”.