Featured Is it wrong to refer to a man as "Reverend?"

Yes, I think it is a bad idea.

 

Yes, briefly, I would say:

Reverend is a man-made title, not based in the New Testament. There is no biblical command, precept, or example for calling anyone “reverend” as a title.

Even what we often think of as “biblical titles” are not. For example, we have in the scriptures “Paul, an apostle” and “Peter, an apostle” – but not Apostle Paul or Apostle Peter.

Jesus discourages the use of religious titles and honorifics. See, for example, Matthew 23:8-10.

 

Matthew 23:8-9, ". . . ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. . . ."

John 17:11, ". . . Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, . . ."

 

It used to be that one said, for example, Rev. Mr. Smith. Now you hear just Rev. Smith. I do not object to the title as it just means pastor or minister.

 

It would be wrong of the pastor used that title to lord himself over others!

 

I think you are splitting hairs here on this one.

 

I call all the black preachers I know "Rev".

 

The problem with showing consistency or inconsistency in an issue is that at best it only shows whether one is consistent or inconsistent, not where the actual truth lies. So, we could achieve consistency in your example by either not calling people Rev., Mr., or Mrs., or by calling people Rev., Mr., and Mrs. Either way will meet your standard of consistency.

Further, what one sees as inconsistent may not be seen as inconsistent by the other. (And usually there is some "wiggle room" in how either would explain the consistencies and inconsistencies.) I feel no obligation to resolve someone else's sense of inconsistency. I do, however, attempt to deal with what I feel are inconsistencies in my own thinking. Here are a few examples along that line.

I grew up in a church culture that rejected the title "Reverend" but accepted the title "Elder". That is fairly easy to see, considering one is used in the Bible to describe the office, while the other is not. However, across the years I have come to believe that "Elder" is a description of an office and a labor and not intended to be a title placed in front of a preacher's name. Yet, this is so ingrained in my mind I struggle to consistently view/say/use "John Doe, an elder" versus "Elder John Doe."

Another example I can live with that others may see as inconsistent comes from the educational industry (in which I move). If I were to write a letter to Albert Mohler as the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, I would address him as Dr. Albert Mohler. If he were to preach at my church on Sunday (he wouldn't) I would not address him as Dr. Mohler, but simply as brother. This is part of what I see as "context." I can & do accept & understand the fact that "Rev" is part of our American culture, as a title of or reference to a pastor or preacher. I can live with that, while at the same time rejecting it as a valid religious title.

It is not a matter of splitting hairs or straining at gnats, but rather looking at what was practices by that first generation of Christians who were taught by Jesus to not love the grand sound of titles (Matthew 23:6-7). How did they apply his teaching? It seems to me that the NT demonstrates that they avoided such titles pretty well.

 

Yes. It means "one to be feared."

 

Yes, that would be Psalm 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.