THE APOSTLES
were NOT "REVERENDS"
Philip Lancaster
The world and the church
agree about how you should address me.
My proper name and title,
by unanimous consent, is: The Reverend Mister Philip H. Lancaster.
I am one of the elite
cadre of persons who has the right to be addressed as Reverend"
("Worthy of reverence; revered. A member of the
clergy.") This distinction is mine because I successfully completed
a three-year graduate program in theology (I'm also a "Master of
Divinity") and passed a theological exam before a body of ministers and
elders. Upon passing that examination I was ordained and granted the privilege
of being addressed as Reverend.
This distinction also
entitled me to be the pastor of a church: its preacher, the one who oversees
the church ordinances, and the one privileged to "pronounce the
benediction."
According to the church
and the world, I am one set apart. I am a member of the clergy, and my title
distinguishes me as such.
Sounds pretty good, huh?
Yes, it sounds good to
modern ears. But there is a little problem:
the title and what it implies is an affront to Jesus
Christ and an insult to every other man in the church.
As an expression of my
submission to my Lord I renounce the title and resist its implications.
Jesus said, "But you
are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all
brothers" (Matt. 23). Our Lord goes on to forbid other honorific titles
among his people, the church, and then concludes, "For whoever exalts
himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (v.
12).
Jesus explicitly forbade
setting any man apart in the church by means of a special title-and yet the
church has done it since not long after the apostolic age. Why is such a
practice such an affront to Christ? Because he alone is Head
and Master of his church.
The concept of a
professional clergy, which corrupted the church within a few centuries of the
apostles, was a direct expression of worldly concepts of leadership and power.
Whereas Jesus had adorned himself with a towel and became a servant to his
followers (John 13), "clergymen" began to adorn themselves with
special robes and collars and assumed a place of superiority over the
congregation of the church. Although later the Reformation removed some of the
worst abuses of this clerical system, it retained the distinction between the
"clergy" and the "laity", a distinction which survives to
this day.
Do we see any evidence of
a clergy/laity distinction in the New Testament? None
whatsoever. We see quite the opposite: the church leaders were ordinary
men who humbly served the flock and who neither sought nor accepted any special
status, title or dress that set them apart from the rest of the brothers.
Unschooled, Ordinary
Men...
The clergy system is a
direct attack upon the very nature of the body of Christ. It introduces a false
concept of a special spiritual class, with the accompanying temptation to pride
and abuse of power that comes when one man is exalted positionally
over others. It also leads to passivity on the part of those who are, by
implication at least, "second class" in the church. Members of the
body do not use their gifts to carry on ministry since the professional
"minister" is doing the work.
Perhaps the worst result
of the clergy system is that it stifles the spiritual development of the men of
the congregation. God's plan is that ordinary, unschooled men can become
elders, overseers and shepherds (pastors) of God's flock. They can grow in grace,
can learn their Bibles, can develop leadership in
their families... They do not have to go to Bible college
or seminary. They can strive through on-the-job training to be leaders in the
congregation.
However, the clergy system
removes this possibility from most men and smothers the godly ambition to
servant-leadership. So men are unchallenged, and the congregation is
weakened-not to mention its families whose leaders are given no practical
incentive for spiritual growth...
We must abandon the model
that burns out one man and leaves the rest unchallenged.