titles – La Vista Church of Christ

No Titles, Please

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 15:09:22 +0000

by Joe Slater

One of the minor annoyances of being a preacher is that well-meaning people frequently put some title before your name. It may be Reverend, Pastor, Father, or some other title. They are trying to be respectful, which I appreciate even though I repudiate the titles. I tell them that my mom named me Joe, and that’s what I go by! As with other unusual aspects of the Lord’s church, people wonder why we don’t use titles. We owe them a courteous, Biblical answer. Jumping down someone’s throat feet-first for using a religious title is counterproductive. Just smile as you explain; most people will listen and respect you, even if they disagree or don’t understand. Be certain your reasoning is biblical.

Shortly after I began learning the Scriptures, someone taught me that the title “Reverend” was wrong because it was used only once in the Bible and referred to the name of God: “Holy and reverend is His name” (Psalms 111:9). That sounded convincing; it even appeared to be biblical as long as you were using the KJV. However, as it turns out, the apostles could not have made that argument. The Psalmist’s word for “reverend” is used over 300 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Most often, it is translated as “fear” or “afraid.” The idea is that God’s name is awe-inspiring. Reverend is not a “title” for God any more than "holy" is a title (“holy and reverend is His name”). Holiness is an attribute of God, which He commands us to imitate: “Be holy, for I am holy” (I Peter 1:16).

His name is also reverend (worthy of great respect). Joshua 4:14 speaks approvingly of the fact that Israel “feared” (revered, stood in awe of) Moses and Joshua. Who can doubt that Christians should seek to be respectable people? Even the pagan Chaldeans are said to be reverent (fearful, terrible, awe-inspiring, Habakkuk 1:7).

The problem with using “Reverend” as a religious title, then, is not that the word is somehow reserved for God alone. Jesus demonstrated that the root issue lies in the very nature of religious titles. Like special religious garments (robes, collars, etc.), they serve to divide God’s people, setting certain ones above others and fostering a spirit of pride and competition. Rejecting the use of contemporary titles such as Rabbi, Father, and Teacher, Jesus told His disciples, “You are all brethren” (Matthew 23:8-10). It is not the words Rabbi, father, and teacher that are forbidden. The New Testament frequently employs these words. The point is, they are not to be turned into titles that would exalt certain people above others. Our highest honor is that we are brothers and sisters in Christ, children of the same Heavenly Father. May we always be content with that!

Can we use “saint” as a title?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 07 May 2025 21:49:30 +0000

Question:

Good evening, dear brother.

I saw a flyer by a church that referred to its speakers as Saint ... . My question is can we use saint as a title?

Answer:

I suppose there is as much justification for using "saint" as a title as there is for using "brother" as a title. All Christians are saints, so using "Saint" before someone's name doesn't tell you much about them, except that he claims to be a Christian.

We tend to avoid using the term "saint" because denominations have redefined it to mean someone who is more than an ordinary Christian. To avoid leaving the impression that we are being prideful, the trend is to limit the use of "saint," even though it is a perfectly fine description of a Christian.

Titles of any sort should not be used when the title elevates one person above others (Matthew 23:5-12). Jobs have titles. Thus, a man spreading the gospel is a preacher, evangelist, or minister. A man watching over the church is an elder, an overseer, or a pastor. A person teaching the Bible is a teacher. "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-12). However, these are the names of the duty being done, not titles for a person.

Response:

Many thanks for your response. May the Lord continue to bless you.

Is it wrong to refer to an elder as “brother”?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 11 Feb 2019 20:15:32 +0000

Question:

Good day,

We have a duty roster which I draw up monthly. One month I listed one of the elders as "brother," which he was not happy with. Is it really such a violation to call you a brother and not an elder?

Answer:

Actually, the violation is on the elder's side. Consider that it is said of Jesus, "For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren" (Hebrews 2:11). If our God and Savior sees us as brethren, then why does a mere man think he is above his fellow Christians? When Peter was addressing the apostles and elders at the church in Jerusalem, he addressed them and those listening in as "brethren" (Acts 15:6-7, 12).

"Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But 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 slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many"" (Mark 10:42-45).

"Elder" is not a title. It is a job description. We don't make use of titles to make a distinction between members. We call each other brethren to emphasize that we see each other as family and as equals.

Ph.D., LLD, DD, Ed.D, Th.D, etc.

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 03:40:00 +0000

by Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

More and more we are seeing my brethren attaching academic degrees to authors of religious writings and advertising them as speakers at church events. Not only this but often advertisements of church lectures and meetings contain a bio of the speaker's outstanding accomplishments in the academic and secular fields. Just a couple of generations or so ago that would have raised eyebrows among most those that sought to restore primitive Christianity and it should have.

I am not against education nor excelling in one's chosen secular calling. I always told my children to get all the education that they had sense enough to use. I have known a number of preachers with a list of academic degrees, but they refused to use them or allow them to be used to "enhance" their standing as preachers of the gospel.

These things are often used to impress the world and fellow Christians of the importance of these men among us, that we too have an "educated ministry." The idea is that because of their standing in academia, the professional, and the business world, they somehow are better qualified to speak on matters of "the faith" than those without such standing.

Whatever happened to "standing behind the cross and preaching and exalting Christ?" It was said of Peter and John that they were perceived to be "uneducated and untrained" men, but the people perceived that they had "been with Jesus." (Acts 4:13). Gospel preachers and writers today may not have been with Jesus in the same sense as the apostles, but it can be perceived whether or not they have "been with" the Book, His word. It was important to Paul that men's faith did not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God (I Corinthians 2:5).

Paul was likely the best educated and most accomplished of the apostles, but he counted all these things as loss: "Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ" (Philippians 3:8). Paul also indicates that he made a deliberate determined effort to not use the tactics that would exalt human wisdom so that those who heard him would have their faith stand in the power of God rather than the wisdom of men.

We can gloss over the practice of exalting brethren's academic and professional accomplishments all we please. It is still nothing more than taking pride in our being able to compete with others in those areas.

Why do some use titles?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:06:00 +0000

Question:

Hello brother Hamilton.

Hope you're doing well. I have a question that pertains to "titles" given to those in position in the church and mainly I'm speaking on preachers and the title that some give themselves such as reverend, pastor, evangelist, etc. Now, I read some of your articles which has helped me, but I think I need a more direct answer like a "yes" or "no" if possible.

I don't understand why some ministers give themselves these titles. Reverend only refers to God Himself. Psalm 111:9 in the King James version, says: "He [God] sent redemption unto His people: He hath commanded His covenant for ever: holy and reverend is His name." God alone has a name worthy of reverence. No man, including any minister, has a name worthy of such respect or worship

Matthew 23:8-11: "But you [Christ's disciples], do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant." Our Savior commands that those He calls to serve the brethren of the church should not take upon themselves titles that arrogate God and Christ's own titles and positions, such as "Teacher" and "Father." Instead, as servants and brothers, ministers should live and work in humility as servants of God.

On one website, the author talks about people who think reverend is wrong are silly-minded. I read what he said and it doesn't make sense.

I don't see where in the Bible it gives you the title pastor or for man to have any title like that. Pastor means Shephard which is our Lord. I understand the concept of leading the flock. But again that title doesn't seem like it should be given and me personally growing up in the Church of Christ, "minister" has been the only title but even we still say brother other than addressing them as a "minister" even though that's what the preacher is doing, ministering.

Why do the ministers who have this title do this? Do they feel their position gives them this right to have a title? It seems they are going against what the Bible says. What is your intake on it?

Answer:

You didn't ask a "yes / no" question, so it is hard to reply in such a form.

Why do people want titles? Most likely because of pride. At least that is what Jesus ascribed it to. But "why" doesn't matter. The point is that Jesus clearly taught against the use of titles in Matthew 23:5-12. We don't use titles to elevate one Christian above another.

Jobs have titles, thus a man who is spreading the gospel is a preacher, evangelist, or minister. A man watching over the church is an elder, an overseer, or a pastor. A person teaching the Bible is a teacher. "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-12). However, these are the names of the duty being done, not titles for a person.

Can a woman be an Associate Campus Minister?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 02:28:00 +0000

Question:

I've been attending the church of Christ. I'm fairly new there. It's almost 30 miles away and there is no other acceptable church that I know of. My concern is with their campus ministry. My husband only recently noticed a flyer in the church hallway announcing a woman as the new Associate Campus Minister. They hold a Wednesday night worship service on the campus for college students and anyone else who would like to attend. I have not been to it yet. I wanted to encourage my brothers to attend since they both miss Sunday worship due to their work schedules. My husband and I always thought that a woman cannot be a minister because they must remain silent in the church. I'm not aware of what she does exactly as 'Associate Campus Minister' as I have not been to the services or study classes. Are they wrong for assigning that title to her? Does it depend on her "job description?" Maybe she just ministers to women. I suppose I can try to find out more, but my question right now is just whether that title or position is wrong for a woman.

Answer:

I checked out the link you sent me, and I found several difficulties. One is with the titles in general. "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ" (Matthew 23:8-10). The church has elders, deacons, preachers, and teachers; these aren't titles but terms for the duties or roles various play in a congregation. But here I find:

Campus Minister
Associate Campus Minister
Administrative Assistant
Missions Coordinator
Campus Ministry Shepherd

Groups that feel the need to create titles are not what I find in the Bible.

Then there is the organization. There are statements throughout that says it is under a nearby congregation but it appears to function as a separate group. They have a single elder overseeing the work. It has its own Bible studies and worship assemblies, though it doesn't appear that they have worship on Sundays. Reading through the Spring 2010 newsletter I find that this group has its own treasury and solicits contributions. (I also found that they were pleased to go to Croatia and teach baseball to children.)

Finally, there is the problem of having a woman as the "Associate Campus Minister." The title does not state that her role is limited to women. The web site states clearly that they as a group serve the campus and the community. I Corinthians 14 deals with the worship service and one could argue that this really isn't a church. But the verse to be concerned about is I Timothy 2:11-12, "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." The title implies this woman is in a leadership role that places men underneath her. Perhaps that is not how it actually pans out, but you are right to be concerned.

Question:

My husband and I have been having the same concerns with the entire organization. We also don't like that they incorporate the college into their ministry. We believe that such a ministry should be bringing the students into the church apart from the school, not making the school a part of the ministry. I feel that they focus too much on the school and not enough on the church. They get together and go to the football games and things of that sort. I don't feel comfortable when I put money into the offering tray knowing that the church gives money to this organization. Since the church is affiliated with it, is all of this something that should be corrected, and if they don't correct it, is it reason enough to avoid attending that congregation?

Answer:

There have been times in my past where I've attended some of the more liberal churches for the simple reason that there was no other available to me. Even then, I did not support the practices that I felt were unscriptural, including sending my contributions to another congregation that I knew spent its money as God authorized. I did what I could, pointed out what the Bible actually said, and eventually moved on. It won't hurt to discuss the issue with the congregation there. My guess is that they will ask you to leave.

What Is the Proper Way to Refer to a Preacher?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 27 May 2010 15:59:00 +0000

Adapted from an article by Clem Thurman
via Gospel Minutes, Vol. 58, No. 34, Aug. 21, 2009.

Question:

My denominational friends refer to their preacher as "Pastor" or "Reverend." What is the proper way to address the preacher, or how do you refer to him as you speak of him to others?

Answer:

For me, it is easy to answer what I call the preacher who preaches for our congregation. He is about fifty years my junior so I call him David for that is his given name.

David is not a 'pastor', so I don't refer to him in that way. Nor do I call him 'Reverend' for God is the only One who is called 'Reverend' in the Bible and I dare not give that title to a mere man. Even though I respect David for what he does, he preaches the gospel regularly in our assemblies. He also teaches classes in our Bible class assemblies.

It may seem odd to some when they hear you call the preacher by his first name. But why not? If Peter could refer to Paul as 'Paul,' and Paul could refer to Timothy as 'Timothy,' then why can't we use the same terminology when we speak to or of the person that preaches in the congregation of which we are members? I firmly believe that we can, and should. Now, if David happened to be a person that was several years older than myself, I would respectively refer to him as 'Brother' Deason. This is done with respect to age, but not to put him on a pedestal in a spiritual way. We, as Christians, refer to our brothers and sisters in Christ, as brother so and so or sister so and so.

With regard to the term "Pastor," as it is used in the Bible, it refers to a shepherd or elder of the flock or church. A plurality of pastors, elders, or bishops are those men who meet certain qualifications as are given in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. They then are appointed to oversee the congregation, especially in Spiritual matters. They can only oversee the congregation of which they are members and not several congregations.

The preacher is not to be referred to as "Pastor" "Reverend" or "Father." In most cases, the preacher is not one of the 'elders' in the congregation. And certainly, he is not in a position to be called "Reverend" because that term is only applied once in all of the Bible and then it refers to God. Then, one is not to be referred to as 'Father' in a religious sense because we are told not to be referred to in that sense Matthew 23:9.

Preachers are referred to as 'evangelists' in the Bible (Acts 21:8; II Timothy 4:5) because he brings the 'good news' (the gospel) to us. The preacher is also referred to as 'minister' which basically means 'servant' (Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7). So, it is proper to refer to the preacher by these Scriptural terms. But the terms used to denote the preacher are never designed to "put him on a pedestal" above the other members of the congregation. A preacher's work is done under the oversight of the elders of the congregation for which he preaches. They are responsible to be sure that he preaches the truth as it is found in the Bible, the Word of God.

What are some good passages to use to prove that we should not call Catholic priests “father?”

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:46:00 +0000

Question:

I am thinking of some verses to refute Catholicism, and the "father" thing came up. Would Matthew 23:8-10 be a legitimate argument against calling a Catholic priest "father?"

Answer:

"But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.' But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Matthew 23:5-12).

The motivation behind religious titles is to elevate some men above others. I've always been amazed that one of the titles Jesus specifically mentions not to use is one Catholics use for their priests ("father") and their pope (the Latin word for "father").

Christianity is about seeing every Christian as equal. "Fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others" (Philippians 2:2-4). Rather than exalting oneself, true leaders in Christianity see themselves as servants to other Christians. "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Matthew 23:11-12).

Should a preacher be referred to as “reverend?”

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:12:39 +0000

Question:

Very often here preachers are referred to as reverend. Is it correct to refer to a preacher, minister or elder as reverend?

Answer:

The word reverend indicates that a person is worthy of adoration or reverence, entitled to respect mingled with fear and affection. Such a description would apply to our attitude toward God. "God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be held in reverence by all those around Him" (Psalm 89:7).

Reverence is something that we give to those who have authority over us. The word is often translated as "fear" because we should be afraid to rebel against that authority. For example, children are to fear or revere their parents (Leviticus 19:3; I Timothy 2:2). God uses that attitude towards one's parents to address the lack of reverence toward Him by ancient Israel: "A son honors his father, And a servant his master. If then I am the Father, Where is My honor? And if I am a Master, Where is My reverence? Says the LORD of hosts To you priests who despise My name. Yet you say, 'In what way have we despised Your name?'" (Malachi 1:6). Christians learn to give God reverence. "Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear" (Hebrews 12:28).

>The problem with using a title like "reverend" for a preacher is that it wrongly elevates a man. In discussing what the Jews did wrong, Jesus lays down a principle of humble service: "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.' But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Matthew 23:5-12). All Christians ought to reject titles which elevate one Christian above another. "But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him 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"" (Matthew 20:25-28).

Save your reverence for the One who deserves it.

Should those assigned tasks in the church have titles?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 03:13:08 +0000

Question:

Thanks for the answer: Can a church organize tasks without elders? So the risk in this type of set up is that members need not shun their individual responsibilities because tasks have been assigned to one brother to ensure the tasks are done. I can see the wisdom in organizing; however, there are some dangers (especially with weak or less mature members). I guess I was mainly concerned that the assigned members (or volunteers) were not given titles or the task used inappropriately. For example, Brother J is the leader of the "visitor committee" or the "visitor office" with Brother H assisting. (This is our current issue). I just think we have to be careful with terms and titles. I don't have a problem with a designated contact person, however. You see my point? I would appreciate your thoughts.

Answer:

You are quite correct that Christians should never get the "I gave at the office" mentality. It is good that someone is asked to make sure that visitors are not overlooked, but it doesn't mean that I, as a member of the church, can sit back and let someone else handle all the visitors. We each should do what we can. Some are going to be very outgoing and have an easy time making visitors feel welcomed and seeing that their questions are answers. Some are going to be a bit shyer, but they may be more of a studious nature and will be able to answer a deep question from a visitor more readily. "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness" (Romans 12:1-8; see also I Corinthians 12). Hopefully, consideration of individual talent is taken when asking people to accept different duties.

Titles that designate duties is not necessarily wrong in and of themselves. However, they can become wrong when they place one brother over another. "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.' But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Matthew 23:5-12). For this reason, it is best to avoid titles because we humans have a strong tendency to use titles to elevate one person over another.

Yet to say that brother J is in charge of the welcoming visitors is merely stating what he was asked to do on behalf of the church. It is no different than people stating that I am the preacher here at La Vista. It doesn't put me above the other brethren, it merely describes my duties and explains why I get up to deliver messages frequently.