What About Titles?

By Terence E. Johnson

[Page 189]

     "Holy and reverend is his name." This is the only instance of the word "reverend" appearing in the (English) Bible, says the minister, and it is referring to God. So stands the traditional, though superficial, prooftext argument of the Church of Christ evangelist. From this statement of honor to God by the psalmist the traditional construction of argument is erected.

     What about ministerial "titles"? Are members of Churches of Christ really free of the "error" of which they continually accuse the "denominations" of practicing? Is there any inconsistency in the traditional Church of Christ teaching?

     Perhaps we should initially point out that titles are used in the Churches of Christ. The word "minister" in the New Testament usage does not specify a salaried, seminary-trained leader of a Christian congregation. Yet the title "minister" is consistently used by the mainstream of the non-instrument Restoration churches. In these churches it is used to indicate in a special way the man who is called to serve certain functions, on a fulltime, salaried basis, within a certain church: preaching, pastoral counselling, visitation, administration, etc. These churches further reveal the title usage of this term in the designation of other functionaries: "minister of education," "minister of music," "minister of personal evangelism," "minister of youth," et. al.

     Such terms are obviously un-scriptural; but to the churches which employ these titles and these "ministers" the terms are not anti-scriptural. That "minister" is used as a title among the majority of noninstrument Churches of Christ cannot be denied.

     Further, look at the use of "Brother" in these churches. That this term is used as a title is clearly revealed in writings and conversations. Often the minister will be called "Brother Smith," while another member, a "layman," will be called "Mr. Jones." The title usage becomes even more apparent in its abbreviated form, preceding the minister's surname, e. g., "Bro. Smith." In some congregations the designation is so strongly adhered to that elders will demand that only "Brother" be used in the pulpit (as opposed to "Dr." or "Mr." or even plain "John Smith")!

     It is interesting to note that the only time in the King James New Testament that the term "brother" is connected to a person's name is in Acts 9:17: "Brother Saul..." And Ananias called someone "brother" who had not even been baptized! (But, of course, that is another issue.)

     What is the answer? Can we continue to preach the old outlines on "denominations" condemning "Rev." (or even its correct usage: the Rev. Mr. Smith) while we employ similar recognition of "our" ministers with "our" own terminology?

     Perhaps a partial solution would be to continue to use our own verbiage (it is interesting to note that when we finally decide something is "right" (meaning we want it), that it miraculously becomes "right" as long as we give it a different designation), and at the same time not be overly concerned when our ministers are titled as "the Rev. Mr. Smith" by the local newspapers (whose unknowing reporters are unfamiliar with our jargon). Let us admit our extremely non-contextual use of the psalmist's statement of praise and the weakness of our non-title harangues. And, most importantly, rise above the incredibly petty and trivial semantic polemics to the crucial issues of faith, purposeful life, and significant Christian service!

     Editor's Note: Terence E. Johnson labors with the Valley Forge Church of Christ, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406. The above article appeared first in The Exhorter, and is used here with permission of both writer and publisher.