why do ministers call themselves, "Reverend?"

Wow, I am new here, just joined this week end, and wow, this subject has really become intense. My husband goes by Pastor Pete to everyone. He has been ordained and given the title Rev. but isn't all of this, the Ordination Ceremony and the title just that, a ceremony or celebration of what God has already done. I don't think that we mere human beings can call people to the ministry or ordain them for the calling. My feelings are, that God calls and ordains. We celebrate. Amen.

 

I know a pastor that teaches his congregants to call him pastor and his wife pastorette. He also teaches them that he goes first in the line for food at their dinners. He's WOF, so these are some of his milder teachings. :laugh:

 

If you want to be biblically correct, pastor is an office and not a name or title. Bishop, elder, pastor are all offices with slightly different job descriptions, but essentially the same role.

God calls one to ministry and man confirms that calling through ordination and the laying on of hands. It is the local church that actually ordains on the advice of an assemled group. The term Reverend was never used when I was ordained in 1948.

Mr. Spurgeon was never ordained. His famous quote was, "Why lay empty hands on empty heads?" Yet, over time, people referred to him as The Rev. Mr. Spurgeon.

What a chimera is man; what a contradiction.

Cheers,

Jim

Note: In Canada Reverend is a legal title and is required on wedding certificates and other legal documents.

 

I have only heard one person call himself a reverend. He was writing a check where I worked and he tried to get me to let him write it for way more than the purchase price. I told him I could only take checks for the exact amount of purchase per the check acceptance policy (which was posted right in front of him). He replied, "Well, I am a reverend." - as if that overruled my employers check acceptance policy. I said, "If you are the pastor of a Christian church, then you should know better than asking me to break the rules." He wrote another check - muttering under his breath the whole time. He never did tell me what church he was from.

 

I don’t know if this is really on subject or not but there was an earlier reference to the “reverends” Sharpton and Jackson. I think that one aspect of the reverend title that our British and northern friends might miss is the importance of “reverends” in the African-American culture of the south. Historically in this community reverends were much more than pastors but were the political, social, and spiritual leaders of their communities.

To really understand their roll you really need to go back 200 years. The slave owners would bring in black preachers to minister to slaves. There were many reasons for this. The thinking of some owners was that by converting their African slaves to Christianity they would be more accepting of their roll as slaves. Others may have used this as a way to deal with their guilt, you know sure I own slaves, but because of me they became Christians so they are much better off now. I think you can see that line of reasoning, flawed as it is.

Anyway, often these preachers would be the only educated members of the black population and they had much greater freedom of movement. They were able to communicate with different groups that were cut off from one another. They became the community leaders. This carried forward after slavery ended. The reverends were much more than just preachers.

Now I am white, but I have ministered in areas of the south were I was the minority and I can tell you that this authority and position within the community is still there. Because of my ordination and position within a church I had an instant authority with some African-Americans that made them not only listen to but also respect me. Many times as I ministered to families in times of special need this was a valuable tool to have.

So if someone wants to call me reverend I take it as a note of their respect and I am glad to have it.

I know we have some African-American pastors here on the board; they may want to sound in on this.

 

Hey Pegs, welcome.

I would just add one thing. I agree with you that God calls and God ordains or sets apart, but I see our ordination ceremony and examination as a bit more of a celebration. I see it as recognition of God's call. It is the idea that not only do you feel that call from God but others see and recognize God's call on your life. It is an affirmation from other men that God has called, and that hopefully you respect, that they see that same call you feel.

 

I agree NC Tentmaker. I just have a problem I guess when the call is questioned by others. Not all, but some. I guess that would be another thread, right?

 

Yes, that would make a good thread. Of course the questions would be questioned by whom and why?

 

The idea of a title meaning one to be feared given to man because he met the requirements to be ordained is (IMO) one of the residual effects of Catholicism, with its heirarchical implications of authority that cannot be questioned, having standing to say the words that literally turn the elements into flesh and blood, et al. In many evangelical churches such ideas are still extended that only the pastor/elder/reverend is qualified to baptize, to officiate a wedding, to say the words to pass and consume the elements, et al.

So if we try to do away with a class system in these things, and have awareness that it's only because of study and experience that we expect such services to be performed by those we appoint to do them, titles which indicate class (and its implications of unquestioned privilege and authority) should also be done away with.

I'm sure the secular press always catches it for how they present 'religious' persons and stories, though they try to identify people as the people prefer; and they still catch it. One example is a story I remember about a Messianic congregation. Those involved wished to be called Jews who happen to be Christian. There were letters to the paper (from non-messianic Jews) extolling that, saying if they are Jews they are not Christians, and if they become Christians they are not Jews. Funeral notices, at least in my part of the country, used to give the one "presiding" at the funeral the Rev. title automatically; and sometimes there were vehement complaints-- especially from Church of Christ ministers, a common church in this area-- that they are not Rev.'s. So now the press tries to give everyone a chance to say what want to be called.

On the other hand, I've seen this 'letting them choose' result in some 'unorthodox' obituaries. Not that it's bad, per se, to write "Grandma ___ said goodby and went to be with the Lord Jesus on this day of beautiful clouds and showers of blessings....." But mentioning your chihuahua or your old Teddy bear as a "survivor?" That's what so much looseness-- loss of reverence-- can lead to.

 

After reading the sign you painted in the photo, Language Cop asks, "Why would not you expect that form of address?"

Ed says, "Language Cop is in a "smart-alecky" mode after being on vacation for a week!"

Ed

 

A belated welcome to the Baptist Board. :wavey:

Ed

 

Pastors are not qualified because of experience and study. They are qualified because God called them. Period. Acts 20:28

And if a church has a pastor "they" appointed then "they" need to get rid of him and find the man God appointed.

 

Hey...I don't have to stand here and take that!


(rbell sits down)