Titles Used by Clergymen.

[Albion]

This seems minor, but I know of some hard feelings in congregations over how the clergy want to be addressed.

The choices are many, from Mister to Reverend to Father to Doctor to Bishop, and even Apostle. That last one seems to be gaining favor in some churches. However, there are some who prefer just their own first name. What do you think about this matter and why so?

 

[MoreCoffee]

This seems minor, but I know of some hard feelings in congregations over how the clergy want to be addressed.

The choices are many, from Mister to Reverend to Father to Doctor to Bishop, and even Apostle. That last one seems to be gaining favor in some churches. However, there are some who prefer just their own first name. What do you think about this matter and why so?

I'd prefer that no title be used except perhaps "brother" and that ought to be used of all one's Christian brothers and "sister" for one's Christian sisters. But on the whole first names seem best for informal occasions. If a title is needed/wanted to denote one's training and education then "Doctor" might suffice if one's pastor/priest has a doctorate in theology or something else.

 

[Albion]

Does anyone in your parish call the priest/pastor "Tom" when speaking to him?

 

[Josiah]

Our clergyman goes by "Pastor"

I understand in Europe, Lutheran clergy are typically referred to as "Father" (in whatever language is spoken there).

In the USA, "Reverend" seems very popular. "Minister" is used a lot, too. But probably "pastor" is most common. In my Catholic parish, we used the terms "Father" and "Pastor".



.

 

[Lamb]

All my communications with my pastor start off with, "Pastor". My previous pastor was also "Pastor". The one before that had a transition phase where he was the senior pastor and right before his retirement we had another one there...so I used their last names after "Pastor"

I've never liked calling ministers "Father" like they do in the Catholic churches I've gone to. It's awkward.

 

[Albion]

As a side note, does anyone think there's any other issue involved with this--that one or another title is actually correct or properly respectful or historically accurate or anything other than just a matter of preference?

 

[Albion]

All my communications with my pastor start off with, "Pastor". My previous pastor was also "Pastor". The one before that had a transition phase where he was the senior pastor and right before his retirement we had another one there...so I used their last names after "Pastor"

I've never liked calling ministers "Father" like they do in the Catholic churches I've gone to. It's awkward.

Pastor seems very standard among Lutherans. The only time I ever heard a Lutheran pastor called Father it was somewhat of an inside joke. However, I don't doubt that it might be different in Europe.

 

[Lamb]

I think it's more of what we're used to.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Does anyone in your parish call the priest/pastor "Tom" when speaking to him?

No, they call him "Joe" and his assistant is also called by his Christian name. Some prefix "Father" many do not.

 

[Josiah]

I think it's more of what we're used to.

I think it's mostly cultural.....


"Father" and "Pastor" both carry the idea of leadership and caring....

"Reverend" carries the idea of worthy of respect, which because of the office, seems appropriate (although I've always seen this as a bit egotistical, lol)

I'm not sure it matters. I KNOW it's increasingly common (at least around here) to simply refer to the person by their first name. Informality is a part of American culture (especially in California). I'm okay with that IF the clergyperson is... but it "rubs" me wrong: I was raised to respect people. I never referred to my teachers and profs by their first names (even if I know that was okay), they were "Mr." or "Dr" or "Professor." I was just raised that way....

 

[MennoSota]

Grand PooBah!

 

[Albion]

No, they call him "Joe" and his assistant is also called by his Christian name. Some prefix "Father" many do not.

Wow. I think this must be very unusual. "Fr. Joe," perhaps, but what you say does surprise me.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Wow. I think this must be very unusual. "Fr. Joe," perhaps, but what you say does surprise me.

Oz is a different country with a different culture.

 

[NewCreation435]

This seems to be more of a cultural issue. In many places in the south the pastor is referred to as the "preacher" or "Brother _______". When I was growing up in Texas the pastors were known as Reverend. I think it is more about what your use to hearing others call clergy

 

[tango]

This seems minor, but I know of some hard feelings in congregations over how the clergy want to be addressed.

The choices are many, from Mister to Reverend to Father to Doctor to Bishop, and even Apostle. That last one seems to be gaining favor in some churches. However, there are some who prefer just their own first name. What do you think about this matter and why so?

If a church leader wants to be called "apostle" that's all the reason I'd need to find another church.

My pastor just goes by his first name. I don't see why pastors need to be called "Pastor (name)" - it's not like we don't know they are the pastor and it seems like contrived deference that isn't required. I can respect the pastor's spiritual authority over the church without specifically prefixing his name with a title.

In a more formal context it doesn't hurt to use formal salutations - if a church leader has been ordained and holds a doctorate it's not unreasonable to formally address them as the Rev Dr John Doe but absent a formal qualification I'd regard a formal "Mr John Doe" to be all that is required.

 

[marhig]

If a church leader wants to be called "apostle" that's all the reason I'd need to find another church.

My pastor just goes by his first name. I don't see why pastors need to be called "Pastor (name)" - it's not like we don't know they are the pastor and it seems like contrived deference that isn't required. I can respect the pastor's spiritual authority over the church without specifically prefixing his name with a title.

In a more formal context it doesn't hurt to use formal salutations - if a church leader has been ordained and holds a doctorate it's not unreasonable to formally address them as the Rev Dr John Doe but absent a formal qualification I'd regard a formal "Mr John Doe" to be all that is required.

I don't think anyone truly belonging to God should have titles and be called things like doctor or reverend either. Gods true people shouldn't wish to be reverenced in any way, let alone have reverend in front of their names. Which of the apostles were called reverend? They are addressed by their first names. No reverend or right reverend or most reverend. Just John, Peter, James, Paul etc, even Jesus wasn't called reverend Jesus. And we should call no man on earth our father, as Jesus said in Matthew 22. We have one father, our father in heaven.

Matthew 22

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't think anyone truly belonging to God should have titles and be called things like doctor or reverend either. Gods true people shouldn't wish to be reverenced in any way, let alone have reverend in front of their names. Which of the apostles were called reverend? They are addressed by their first names. No reverend or right reverend or most reverend. Just John, Peter, James, Paul etc, even Jesus wasn't called reverend Jesus. And we should call no man on earth our father, as Jesus said in Matthew 22. We have one father, our father in heaven.

Matthew 22

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

What do you think of this passage:

I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you, then, be imitators of me. Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.
1 Corinthians 4:14-17
​

 

[Albion]

If a church leader wants to be called "apostle" that's all the reason I'd need to find another church.

My pastor just goes by his first name. I don't see why pastors need to be called "Pastor (name)" - it's not like we don't know they are the pastor and it seems like contrived deference that isn't required. I can respect the pastor's spiritual authority over the church without specifically prefixing his name with a title.

I suppose the standard answer is that he supposedly has a calling and it is a position that deserves some respect, etc.

In a more formal context it doesn't hurt to use formal salutations - if a church leader has been ordained and holds a doctorate it's not unreasonable to formally address them as the Rev Dr John Doe but absent a formal qualification I'd regard a formal "Mr John Doe" to be all that is required.

...which seems like a reasonable compromise.

 

[Albion]

I don't think anyone truly belonging to God should have titles and be called things like doctor or reverend either. Gods true people shouldn't wish to be reverenced in any way, let alone have reverend in front of their names. Which of the apostles were called reverend? They are addressed by their first names. No reverend or right reverend or most reverend. Just John, Peter, James, Paul etc, even Jesus wasn't called reverend Jesus.

No, but we see from the Scriptures that he was addressed as "rabbi," which indicates some degree of formality.

 

[Josiah]

No, but we see from the Scriptures that he was addressed as "rabbi," which indicates some degree of formality.

Correct.

And of course Jesus Himself is often referred to in the Bible with a title, "Christ."

Paul refers to the Roman Emperior not by name but by his title, "Caesar" He refers to "bishops" "pastors" "deacons" - all titles.