How do you feel about titles?
Reading again Jesus words in Matthew 23 concerning the Pharisees and religious leaders (ministers) of His day:
As Christ inferred (at least to me), the use of titles assumes a privileged status in employing exaggerated, self-inflated, hierarchal titles as "Reverend," "Bishop," Pastor, "Senior Pastor," Father, "Doctor," "Elder," "Prophet," even "Apostle" or (as my wife received an invitation last week to) "First Lady of the Church."
Furthermore, in our churches, over the past century or so, we have traditionally employed titles like Brother/Sister when addressing fellow Christians. Although this practice is not biblical (Jesus and Paul, for example, never used formal titles when speaking to/about others, only using given names), it is nearly universal in conservative Protestant churches. To my mind, it seems to place our relationships with one another on a formal rather than informal (familial) status. For instance, I would never refer to by natural brother that way; I always use his given (Christian) name only. He is, after all, family. I dont need to remind him or others that he is my brother.
In our new church plant, we have elected to drop the titles altogether. I prefer just being Jim. But some of our older people still habitually call me Pastor Jim and Brother Jim. And, because they mean it as a term of respect (I hope), I usually allow it, but after a time suggest we get on a first name basis. Still, it is like weaning them from breathing. Our younger people love the first-name approach to relationship. In my opinion, that simple practice does as much to bond us to one another as anything else we do.
In the final analysis we do have to come back to Jesus' instruction, "Dont do it" (vs.8 above).
Am I over-reacting (again) or can you see my point? How do you feel about all this?
Jim
\o/
Reading again Jesus words in Matthew 23 concerning the Pharisees and religious leaders (ministers) of His day:
5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.' 8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
The more one thinks about these clear instructions from out Lord, the more one wonders about our modern practice of tacking titles on to ministers' names. As Christ inferred (at least to me), the use of titles assumes a privileged status in employing exaggerated, self-inflated, hierarchal titles as "Reverend," "Bishop," Pastor, "Senior Pastor," Father, "Doctor," "Elder," "Prophet," even "Apostle" or (as my wife received an invitation last week to) "First Lady of the Church."
Furthermore, in our churches, over the past century or so, we have traditionally employed titles like Brother/Sister when addressing fellow Christians. Although this practice is not biblical (Jesus and Paul, for example, never used formal titles when speaking to/about others, only using given names), it is nearly universal in conservative Protestant churches. To my mind, it seems to place our relationships with one another on a formal rather than informal (familial) status. For instance, I would never refer to by natural brother that way; I always use his given (Christian) name only. He is, after all, family. I dont need to remind him or others that he is my brother.
In our new church plant, we have elected to drop the titles altogether. I prefer just being Jim. But some of our older people still habitually call me Pastor Jim and Brother Jim. And, because they mean it as a term of respect (I hope), I usually allow it, but after a time suggest we get on a first name basis. Still, it is like weaning them from breathing. Our younger people love the first-name approach to relationship. In my opinion, that simple practice does as much to bond us to one another as anything else we do.
In the final analysis we do have to come back to Jesus' instruction, "Dont do it" (vs.8 above).
Am I over-reacting (again) or can you see my point? How do you feel about all this?
Jim
\o/
) but I think this concept could be taken to far. It assumes that the entitled person is using the title for nefarious purposes. That may be the case sometimes... but not always. There are instances where people have titles and those titles are merely appellates of identification. Beyond that, they are often designation of responsibility. Anyone who has the title "pastor" and is having fun with it is not doing his job. These titles (in the NT age) are ones of slavery rather than master. A true minister is one that is a slave to his calling. He is burdened by it and it is a whip at his back. A true minister does not care what people call him. It is the phonies that go out and try to lord it over people. I see clowns out here who think they are prophets and who try to lord it over people because they have this little title. They have no burden for those they are responsible for, and show it by their contempt for them. 
