Often, when the news media is speaking about a particular religious teacher, they will refer to him as "the Reverend Such-and-such." Of course, we expect them to do that; they are referring to him by his religious title--a title that is offered out of tradition and respect. In fact, in a typical dictionary, usually toward the back, there will be a table entitled, "Forms of Address." In it, you will find the proper way to address all sorts of individuals--from Kings to Cardinals. In my unabridged dictionary, I can find how an envelope should be addressed, what manner of greeting to give in a letter (both formal and less formal), and how to address the individual when speaking to them. Interestingly, more than a quarter of the titles mentioned there are religious titles.
This is nothing new; the same was true in Jesus day. Just as we hear others called Father, Bishop, and Reverend today, there were some called Rabbi, Master, and Father in His; and in a similar way, if one refuses to call someone else Reverend today, that someone may get a little irritated. But do they have the right to expect to be called by a religious title? Perhaps just as importantly, we should ask ourselves whether we really have a right to address someone that way.
One of the reasons for the use of religious titles is that there is a common misconception about what can be called, a "clergy/laity distinction." Now, "clergy" comes from a Latin word meaning, "priest," and "laity" from a Greek word meaning "people;" so by saying that some people believe there is a "clergy/laity distinction," I mean that some people think there is a difference between Christians--there is a priestly group, and there is the ordinary, everyday fellow in the pew. That being the case, the common folk feel obligated to refer to the priestly folk in some way that sets them apart, and the priestly folk feel obliged to let them.
But that's not at all what we find in scripture. Under the new covenant, not only do we find that there is no priestly/common folk distinction, but rather, that all Christians are in the priesthood: 1 Peter 2:9, "But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light..." As Christians, we are part of a royal priesthood; and just as priests under the old covenant, there are sacrifices that we are to offer. Peter made mention of that fact just a few verses earlier, in verse five: "...you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."
What kind of sacrifices might we have to offer? Well, it's not the sacrifices that the Levites might have offered under the old covenant; rather, as Peter said, these are spiritual offerings. Consider what the writer of Hebrews said in 13:15,16: "Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased." We are then to offer up the sacrifices of thanksgiving to God, and kindness to others. Yet, as children of God, we are to offer far more than this; we must offer ourselves. In Romans 12:1 we read, "Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship."
The point is, that under the new covenant, we are all priests; there are no common folk. There is no clergy/laity distinction, so we cannot make that an excuse to treat one Christian differently than another by using titles.
If we were to consider it just a bit further, though, we would find that there is no authority to be found in scripture for the practice of using religious titles. Now, some might argue, "Why can't I use the term Bishop or Father--aren't they Biblical terms?" Yes, they are. In 1 Cor 4:15 Paul wrote, "For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." But what we find there isn't a title, like "Father Paul". The word father is a description of what Paul's relationship was to the Corinthians. He had taught them the truth, so it was as if they were born to him.
Some words that are used as titles today are simply descriptive terms in scripture; they deal with a persons relationship to others, or with their work or character.
There are many words that describe our relationship whether between each other, or between us and God: brother, sister, father, mother, disciple, Christian, priest, son, child. To another Christian, I would be a brother; to God, a priest. In neither case, though, are they to be titles.
Words like deacon, minister, bishop, pastor, preacher--they all describe an individuals work. Deacon and minister are both translations of a word that means "servant." Bishop is a poor translation of the word "overseer," and pastor is from a word meaning "shepherd." They both describe an identical work--that of an elder in the church. A preacher is not a pastor (unless he also happens to be an elder); he is simply one who preaches.
Even Biblical words can be used improperly. There is no authority for calling someone "Father John," or "Pastor Chuck" if they stop being a description and become titles making a distinction between Christians where there are none. For instance, there are religious orders whose members are set apart from the others of their denomination by being called "Brothers." Now, in the same way, if I make a distinction by calling only the preacher "Brother So-and-so," then I am acting without the authority of the scriptures, as well.
Not only is there no authority in scripture for using religious titles, though, it's actually specifically condemned. As was noted earlier, this was a problem in Jesus' day as well; the religious leaders of the day enjoyed being set apart from the laity--the common people. In Mt 23:6-12, Jesus said of the leaders, "They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi [which means, "my great one," or "my master"] by men. But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted." (Mat 23:6-12)
Jesus is saying that we are not to use titles that set some apart from the rest of us--there is no separation between one kind of Christian and another. It's not that we can't call our father, "father," or that we can't call a teacher, "teacher;" rather, as Christians, we are forbidden to use titles that would indicate some kind of distinction or superiority among ourselves. If we are Christians, then we are all brothers. That doesn't mean that there aren't to be leaders among us; the elders are the leaders in the congregation--yet they are not to lord it over the flock (1 Pet 5:1-4). They are not to exalt themselves as the Pharisees did--and titles of distinction become evidence of that pride.
It may be that you don't believe me, though. Perhaps you are thinking that titles don't necessarily indicate pride. Do you remember the table in the unabridged dictionary that I mentioned? Let's look at a few entries: right off, we see Archbishop, Cardinal, Monsignor, Pope... Well, that doesn't show pride; although the offices themselves aren't found in the Bible. But next to the title we find how we are to address the individual. Consider for yourself whether this sets him apart from others of their belief or not. An Archbishop is to be called, "your excellency" (to excel gives the idea of being superior); a Cardinal is to be called, "your eminence" (meaning, "to stand out", therefore superior as well); the title Monsignor is Italian, and means "my lord"; finally, the Pope (from the latin word for father) is to be addressed as your holiness, or most holy father. Wouldn't you say that these titles and the appropriate forms of address set them apart from others of their denomination?
Well, you may say, "that doesn't affect me." Perhaps; but have you ever called a preacher "reverend"? What do you think you are saying about him when you do? From that same dictionary, we find that reverence means, "a feeling or attitude of deep respect, love, awe, and esteem, as for something sacred; veneration." Friend, neither you, nor I, nor any other Christian should be called reverend--that description should be reserved for the God of Heaven. He alone is to be revered.
In Revelation 19:10, John fell at the feet of an angel to worship him, but the angel said to him, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God..." If an angel of God refused to be set apart, but rather said he was a fellow servant, who are we to make distinctions among ourselves, saying that some are common, and others set apart?
In Mt 20:25-28, Jesus said to His apostles, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." We ought not call anyone by a religious title, nor should we seek to be called by one ourselves. The truth of the matter is, as Jesus said in Mt 23:8, as Christians, we are all brethren.
