alexander284
Well-Known Member
Is it wrong to refer to a man as "Reverend?"
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is it wrong to refer to a man as "Reverend?"
- Thread starter alexander284
- Start date
alexander284
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
I think the problem is consistency. People object to Rev. but not Mr. or Mrs. (derived from master). It is also context. If one views Rev. as a title affording the position of pastor (or "overseer") the respect described in scripture as an "under-shepherd" then I have no issue with it. But if people use the word to elevate the person as more "holy" than the congregation then there are issues.
alexander284
Well-Known Member
Does the same hold true for "Father?"
I believe so. The problem is not the title but how people hold these men.
37818
Well-Known Member
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.
1 Thessalonians 5:12-13
But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work.
This is all the title represents.
But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work.
This is all the title represents.
It would be wrong of the pastor used that title to lord himself over others!
You don't have to tell us. Most of us are married.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
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.
Much is subjective. For me referring to someone as "master" (Mr.) is the same as calling some a person to be revered (Rev.). We are commanded to hold those over us in the ministry in reverence and to be faithful to our masters. But I do not think the titles are taken that far.
alexander284
Well-Known Member
I believe somewhere in the KJV, possibly in the Psalms, it refers to our God as being our "reverend" God.
And that other translations tend to render it as our "awesome" God.
Am I correct on that, rlvaughn?
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.