POLEMICAL SERIES: THE TITLE REVEREND....

The title reverend is found nowhere in the Bible.  It is foreign to the New Testament church in vocabulary and in meaning.
Google Books does analysis of word usage over time in the millions of books they have scanned from the year 1500-2008.  The term reverend yielded interesting results.

This of course, does not prove completely the usage of the word, but it is at least an indication of how often it was used in many books.  We know that it could not have been used in the English language before 1500, since the word did not enter English until then.

There are several other sites that do NOT believe any minister of the Gospel should be called Reverend.  We think is is only fair to give those who believe the title Reverend to be used for ministers of the Gospel a chance to defend themselves and their reasoning. Thus, a Roman Catholic website explains.

The term reverend does not mean that a person is equal in dignity with God or possesses divine attributes or even that he is to be revered for anything intrinsic to himself. A person bearing the title Reverend may be a thorough scoundrel. The title simply indicates that a person holds a position for which reverence is to be shown (as he has chosen to devote his full-time to ministry in serving God), whether or not he is a worthy occupant of that position.

The writer goes on to explain the passages in scripture which he believes demonstrate reverence:

Reverencing another human being is shown in Scripture. One will note that in 2 Samuel 9:6 Mephibosheth does reverence to King David, as does Bathsheba in 1 Kings 1:31. In Hebrews 12:9, children are said to revere their fathers, and in Ephesians 5:33 wives are instructed to revere there husbands. All of this is true and proper regardless of whether the husband or father or king (or mother or wife or queen) is a scoundrel or a saint. It is the office that is revered, not anything intrinsic to the person.

When these passages are studied, they indeed could be seen as acts and statements of respect or reverence toward another human being.  II Samuel 9:6 reads, "When Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, came to David, he bowed down to pay him honor. David said, “Mephibosheth!” “At your service,” he replied."  When we turn to I Kings 1:31 it reads, 'Then Bathsheba bowed down with her face to the ground, prostrating herself before the king, and said, “May my lord King David live forever!”'  When we read Hebrews 12:9 it states, "Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live!"  Speaking of wives and husbands in Ephesians 5:33, again, further evidence is seen for the rationality of the statement that reverencing other humans is a biblical experience, "However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

Were the argument to be left there, we would have no objections.  But the subtlety of the writer of this blog becomes apparent:

Your problem about the title Reverend results from an legalistic reading of Scripture, using the premise that if something isn't commanded or stated (e.g., "Thou shalt call men 'Reverend'") then it is prohibited. This is contrary to the basic principle of all law: That which is not prohibited is permitted.

The writer speaks of a "legalistic" reading of Scripture.  Odd, that the Roman Catholic Church which seems to excel in rituals precisely carried according to their canon law, supernatural transformations of wine into the blood of Christ, etc., should be upset at any legalism.  We should think they would revel in it!  Certainly, if people are to be revered, then for sure the Law of God ought to be.  So a legalistic reading of scripture in the plain sense of the word (the writer has not defined it) should be "revered."

And of course if we used human law as the standard to understand Divine law, then he would be right that "that which is not prohibited is permitted."  But we hold to what is in theological parlance, called, the "regulative principle."  This principle states that whatever is not expressly commanded to us in scripture when it comes to faith and practice is prohibited to be done.  This is based on the sufficiency of scripture in providing the man of God all that he needs to worship God aright . (II Timothy 3:16).  This is the opposite of what is called the "normative principle" which our Catholic blogger has said is the correct view meaning that anything that is not prohibited in faith and practice is lawful to do.

But his most subtle jump in logic, from things that most people would agree with to something that Old School Baptists would vehemently disagree with, comes last:

Finally, Scripture requires us to show reverence for validly ordained ministers (e.g., 1 Thes 5:12-13, Heb 13:17; cf. Ex 28:2), and since they are to be shown reverence, it is thus perfectly appropriate to call them Reverend. It is also appropriate to use the title Reverend for Protestant ministers, not because we recognize their ordinations as valid (they aren't), but simply as a matter of courtesy.

Again we will follow the progression of his reasoning.  He quotes I Thessalonians 5:12-13: 

Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other.

Certainly we are to "revere" our Elders if by this is meant respect.  Hebrews 13:17 states, 

Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.

Aaron as a High Priest for the people of Israel was to be given honor,  "Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron to give him dignity and honor." (Exodus 28:2)

But from this principle of respect, giving them a title of "Reverend" does NOT follow.  Why not call our parents, our husbands and all those others we are to show respect to according to the scriptures Reverend also?  It is not an office that is being called Reverend but a person.  This form of addressing Elders, or other brothers in the faith is not found in the New Testament.  It is an addition of man to the scriptural practice and therefore ought to be rejected!

We know the office of elder (I Peter 5:1 - Greek word presbuteros from which we get the English word presbyterian) in the New Testament.  At times, these men are also called overseers (I Timothy 3:1 - the Greek word episkopos from which the English word Episcopalian comes), shepherds (I Peter 5:2, same Greek word poimen for pastor).

Ring of the Fisherman

Ironically enough, today Popes and other high Catholic officials carry the "Ring of the Fisherman" referring to the apostle Peter.  Men customarily kiss the ring as a sign of homage to Peter himself.  Yet what do we find in the New Testament; how does Peter speak of himself?

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

Account of Peter's Crucifixion (click to enlarge)

Brethren, note the difference in pomp between Peter and Popes, Peter has no pomp!  He views himself as a "fellow elder".  It was an appeal, not some sort of papal command.  He is not above them.  He is not the chief shepherd!  He leaves that term for our Lord Jesus Christ!  He was not a Lord over them.  He was an example to the flock and on that basis came any authority he had.  This man, who's imagined image Popes wear on their finger to show authority and power and glory, made of the finest gold, was the same man, who if tradition can be believed, asked not to be crucified upright, because he counted himself not worthy of that honor.  He instead asked to be crucified upside down, his death being ordered by that monster of a ruler Nero.  As seems to have been prophesied

by our Lord when in John 21:18-19 he told Peter:

Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God.

Brethren, may we count it an honor, when we suffer persecution for Jesus' name sake.