Skip to main content

3 Reasons why I will never be a Rev.

This post is not offered to insult or question the motives of the many good Christian leaders I know (and all those I don't) who have taken the title Reverend, and I know more than a few.  And this is not an issue that I would burn at the stake for. But that said I think the arguments are pretty compelling and I can't understand why everyone else doesn't think the same as me! ;-)

  1. Jesus' teaching in Matt 23:1-12 is quite clear that those who teach others about God shouldn't be in the business of self agrandisment and the taking (or accepting) of titles for themselves.   Despite the protests and straw men of the Roman Catholic apologists this is not about the exact words, "call no man FATHER," but about the way we choose (or choose not) to be addressed as a mark of honour in our communities.
  2. One friend of mine was told at his ordination, "you are now ontologically different,"  what nonsense.  The Spirit of God is what transforms us not the rites of a religious institution. If having those letters in front of your name doesn't actually in itself make you any different to someone who doesn't have them, then why do you want them there?
  3. I would rather people saved their reverence for God so would never want to suggest that it was in anyway due to me by taking the title Reverend.
Let me know what you think . . . especially if you are a Rev (or about to be one)!

Comments

  1. Scripture is perspicuous. Such titles, and they include others like Dr, Pastor etc.... sould be avoided. The trouble is it is not easy to persuade others always from using them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I knew you'd use the P word on me sooner or later! :-) As for your second and third points: indeed, indeed. Even when you have no titles whatsoever people still want to furnish you with them, sometimes!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I rather find that your 'protest' and 'straw bears' offer compelling arguments to the contrary. But then I would, wouldn't I!

    To respond to your points:

    1)Is not Our Lord's criticism more towards those who elevate themselves and use their position to show off? I think that these verses must be read in this context. I could never 'insist' on being called 'Father Matthew' (once I am ordained) but this is how I will probably be known. Just as S. Paul wrote 'Paulos apostolos' (sorry for the transliteration), he was not elevating himself (though I might believe he was) so much as recognising who he was in response to God's calling.

    2)It depends on your view of the Church and of the 'institution' that it has become. If one believes that the Holy Spirit gave birth to the Church and is passed on from the Apostles through the laying on of hands, as is continued in ordination then one can argue that there is an 'onotological' difference because the anointing of Holy Spirit for that ministry is passed on through the Bishop's laying on of hands, as a successor of the Apostles, though I rather suspect you don't see the Church this way! ;)

    3) This is a point that nobody could really argue with: the focus should always be on worshipping God and on leading others into worship. Besides, the title 'Reverend' is, I believe, a gerund--i.e. he/she who reveres. That is, the 'Reverend' whoever is somebody called and comissioned by the Church whose life is set apart for service of God and the Church--not somebody to be revered as you seem to imply.

    As for me, though I once shared your objections, when I am ordained I will be known as 'the Reverend Matthew McMurray' or simply as 'Father Matthew'.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Matt, :-).
    1. Yes of course, but I think the imperatives in the passage suggest that this is more than just a passivity towards titles but an eager refusal of them!
    2. Indeed, that is why I am a baptist and you are an anglo-catholic! Ecclessiology is critical. But I still love you.
    3. Hmmm, not really sure that is correct, although you are the greater linguist, but surely if the intention was to denote a posture of reverence they would be "The Reverent" rather than "the Reverend"!?
    I hope you wont be offended if I still call you Matt? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. oh yes, and apostle designates function rather than office. he was an apostle because he was sent, a vacuum cleaner cleans by creating a vacuum, a Rev is a Rev by virtue of the institution regardless of what they do or who they are and whether or not they actually show any evidence of the Holy Spirit! You may say Jonathan is a pastor, as you can say jonathan is a guitar teacher, but please dont say "pastor jonathan", any more than you would say "guitar teacher jonathan". one of the problems i see in the evangelical church at the moment is the many people who have the title "pastor" but don't actually fulfill the function.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You may be right about the apostle.

    A very good and honest critique of (some) evangelical leaders. Perhaps the other problems is as S. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: 'though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.' 1 Cor. 4:15 (ESV) ...As I will become my congregation's (well God's, but you know what I mean) father through my ordination and licensing there, and more importantly through the ministry of God.

    I would much rather you called me 'Matthew'. No, I wouldn't be offended if you didn't call me 'Father Matthew', anymore than I would have my wife or my mum address me as 'Father'.

    ReplyDelete
  7. wow! you just compared me to your wife or mum! :-) now i do feel honoured! hehe!

    I would make the same argument with regard to 1 Cor 4:15 as i did with the designation apostle, Paul is not accepting an honourific he is attempting to establish what he believes has been his function in the Corinthians Christian growth in order to argue for his right (authority) to speak into the present situation (cf. 1 Cor 3:5-9).

    good discussion.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

Thor Ragnarok and Parihaka: Postcolonial Apocalypse

Thor: Ragnarok is a riot of colour, sound, violence, humour, sci-fi and fantasy. As a piece of entertainment it is the best Marvel has produced so far. As in many of Taika Waititi's films the plot often seems secondary to the humour and a number of quirky moments seemed only to serve for a quick giggle. I left the theatre overwhelmed by the sensory experience, but ultimately unimpressed by any deeper meaning.

It wasn't until the second morning after my trip to the movies that I woke to the realisation that the movie could function as a profound postcolonial metaphor (I do some of my best thinking while alseep, also it can take me a while for the penny to drop). Unfortunately a quick google showed me that I was neither the first, nor the second to have this thought.

[Spoiler Alert!]

It's easy to miss with all the other stuff going on but Thor undergoes a postcolonial awakening during the film as he slowly realises that his beloved Asgard and its dominion of the nine realms …

Dale Martin does Mark

Dale Martin is an important and frequently controversial NT scholar. Those of us who can't make it to Yale to hear him teach can access some of his lectures, in fact his entire introduction to the NT course, through the magic of the internet.

Here he is holding forth on Mark . . .