QUESTION 01 - REVEREND

I agree that the term “reverend” is used only for God in the scriptures and by extension that this is the proper use of that term, but what are pastors to be called? Simply teachers, elders, deacons, fathers, reverends, brother, abbot, minister, or bishop?

ANSWER 01

You listed 8 terms other than “reverend.” How many terms do you believe we need to have for pastors? Why do you believe those 8 terms to be inadequate, given that most of them are used in the bible to describe men and “reverend” never is? It seems clear that we have plenty of biblical terms that refer to men in ministry. It is equally clear that “reverend” is not one of them.

QUESTION 02 - GOD FOCUSED ON THE HEART, NOT TERMS

I do not think God is concerned with nomenclature. He is concerned with the heart and if we focus on terms so intently are we not ourselves being consumed with legalism?

ANSWER 02

This is an unscriptural false dichotomy, given that the nomenclature of the mouth arises from the abundance of the heart (Matthew 12:34). God is concerned with our nomenclature (Exodus 20:7, Ephesians 4:29) as well as with our heart (I Samuel 16:7) and there’s no need to set these things at odds with each other. That said, I don’t think that we are guilty of “intently focusing” on this matter. The use of “reverend” as a title for ministers surrounds us on all sides. I do not believe that our practice regarding this term “consumes” us. Nevertheless, we have a conviction regarding the use of that term that we occasionally mention. The following questions illustrate our point of view based on Psalm 111:9:

Is “reverend” a term in the bible? Yes.
Is “reverend” a name of God? Yes.
Is “reverend” ever used in the bible for anything other than God? No.

On that basis, I believe that we are on solid footing to avoid using the term “reverend” for our ministers and to encourage others to consider doing likewise. I don’t regard that as legalism, but simply as an effort to share what we believe and why we believe it.

QUESTION 03 - JESUS WENT TO SEMINARY

Why do you think Jesus went to Seminary "aka the Temple" to debate and sharpen his iron with the Jewish teachers? Sounds like a type of seminary to me.

ANSWER 03

The Temple was not a seminary. Moreover, there is no biblical indication that the Lord’s doctrine or rhetoric stood in need of “sharpening.” Consider the blasphemous ramifications of suggesting that Jesus offered some dull, theological argument that needed improvement by the Scribes and Pharisees. That’s an awful idea that I recommend you put away altogether. While perhaps well-intended, it is unsound and poorly considered.

That said, the Temple was an evidently, God-sanctioned house of worship by many signs, wonders, and affirmations (II Chronicles 7:1, Luke 2:46-49). Seminary institutions have no such sanction found anywhere in scripture attesting to their validity or utility. In contrast, the Lord’s New Testament Church most certainly does have such attestation (Acts 4:29-31). I think it is a bad position to abandon the Lord’s New Testament church as a means of instruction. It is an institution for which he founded (Matthew 16:18), intended for the well-being of his sheep (I Timothy 3:15) and for which he gave his life (Ephesians 5:25). To zealously promote as an alternative to the Lord’s plan, an institution that he never founded, never referenced, never commanded anyone to attend, and which has been the largest mechanism for the spread of false doctrines in the history of the Christian faith is foolish. I offer that in all sincerity and believe this matter warrants more consideration on your part.

QUESTION 04 - THE CHURCH CAN’T TRAIN PREACHERS

Do you believe the basic church has the resources or the in-depth knowledge and skills to train the vast number of preachers the USA needs? Clearly not.

ANSWER 04

The exact same statement could be made of the church in the Lord’s day. It was largely an assembly of unlearned and ignorant men (literally illiterates and idiots). The apostle Paul, who was highly educated in the first-century institutes of religion, regarded his instruction as “dung” and never encouraged anyone to pursue training in such a place (Philippians 3:8). However, the apostles all taught that men should study the word of God so that they might have a proper, non-contradictory understanding of its contents (II Timothy 2:15). All this takes place within the context of the church, not a seminary. We must ask ourselves a very sobering question: Is God still capable of raising-up men to instruct others in the truth even as he did in the 1st century? I doubt that we would disagree that he is capable of such.

- Elder Daniel Samons

Reverends and Seminary