So what's the consensus?
A) Should the not-yet-ordained, but licensed minister be referred to as "Reverend"?
B) What if that person is the pastor (senior / associate / whatever) at a church?
PS. From webster.com: reverend means:
1: worthy of reverence: REVERED
2 a: of or relating to the clergy b: being a member of the clergy -- used as a title: the Reverend Mr. Doe, the Reverend John Doe, Reverend Mrs. Jane Doe
Are any pastors worthy of being revered? I'd say only as much as the other followers of Christ. Thus, the second definition is more fitting in the midst of these questions.
B) What if that person is the pastor (senior / associate / whatever) at a church?
PS. From webster.com: reverend means:
1: worthy of reverence: REVERED
2 a: of or relating to the clergy b: being a member of the clergy -- used as a title: the Reverend Mr. Doe, the Reverend John Doe, Reverend Mrs. Jane Doe
Are any pastors worthy of being revered? I'd say only as much as the other followers of Christ. Thus, the second definition is more fitting in the midst of these questions.
posted by Scott M. Collins | 11:50 AM
3 Comments:
My vibe is this: you're not a 'member of the clergy' until you've been ordained. Period. Ergo, no "Rev." until after ordination. And I mean, let's be serious: hardly anyone calls their Nazarene pastor "Reverend So-and-so" anyway - it's "brother [first or last name]" or "pastor [first or last name]" or often (or maybe this is just in the South) just "preacher." So the "Rev." is mostly a practical title to be used when filling out forms, or printed on business cards and such. But I still think it should be reserved for ordained elders and not applied to licensed ministers prior to ordination: nothing wrong with calling a guy (or gal) serving as senior pastor of a church "Pastor [name]" instead of "Rev." and, per my earlier point, that's likely what would happen automatically anyway.
Now, one might argue that ordination means very little anymore, and this might be true in a civil or even practical sense - practically anyone can become ordained online and perform weddings, funerals, and start up a church and do just about anything they want.
But fortunately in the COTN, we DO follow a certain rubric that is at least in the main consistent w/ orthodox Christian practice: the discernment process, the commitment and service to the local church, the ordination 'liturgy' (such as it is) inclusive of the laying on of hands, etc. This is a good thing, and indicative of the fact that we do take ordination seriously, even if we get it a bit wrong and need to perhaps 'tighten-up' the doctrinal language we use when it comes to this.
Not to send us down a rabbit trail (and perhaps this is a topic for a new post, which I'd be happy to compose), but I wonder how much this relates to our failure to really understand the value of the diaconate as an ordained pastoral but not necessarily priestly role. Granted, there is much variation even within the Christian tradition as to the role of deacon, e.g. in Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican traditions, a deacon is a member of the clergy, whereas most protestants consider a deacon part of the laity, although 'ordained' to be a deacon as such. And even within the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican tradition there is some discrepancy here: Anglican deacons can preside over baptisms and weddings, but cannot consecrate the Eucharist, pronounce absolution, etc, whereas Catholic and Orthodox deacons would not baptize or officiate at a marriage. Anyway, don't want to get us side-tracked, but I think there is a relationship here. We have (on paper, anyway) a deaconate but don't seem to know why or what to do with them.
In agreement with Sir Brannon, I too believe that one should not be called, Reverend, until the Church has confirmed upon them the order of ordination. Only then is one worthy of being called, Reverend, but this is not getting into the subjective view of "worthy of being revered". That is another debate, which would be individualized per "reverend".
Do post your new rabbit trail, Brannon. If you don't, I will! I am on the Deacon track!
Until then,
Joseph
This might be way off topic and definately way late, but I'm not a fan of titles period. They don't seem very Christian to me, at least the way most people use them to denote rank.
I have not as yet been bestowed a title, but when and if that ever happens, I don't plan on using it at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home