J.A. Schep. Trowel & Sword, October 1961
Preamble: From our vantage point it seems rather amusing to see two Dutchmen having a spat over the correct use of the English language. One could well ask, “Why did they take such small matters so seriously?” With apologies to any Dutchman reading this post, perhaps it says something about the nature of Dutchmen (of which I am one).
Pastor Or Reverend?
In the August number of “Immanuel”, the monthly paper of Classis Wellington, New Zealand, the Rev. A. de Graaf started substituting the word “Pastor” for the usual “Reverend”, as far as the title for ministers is concerned.
In the September number the Rev. de Graaf tells his readers what he thinks is wrong with the title “Reverend”. The word “reverend”, he writes, occurs only once in the Bible, viz. in Psalm 111:9, where it is said of God that His Name is holy and reverend. The word “reverend” in this connection means “to be feared, to be reverenced” and, therefore, it is a title which, according to the Rev. de Graaf, “no man should bear: God will give His glory to no man”. Quite different from the word “Reverend” is the title “Pastor”, which does not denote “Dignity but . .. the job this man has to do”.
Some members of the New Zealand churches have raised objections to the change, in particular because it makes the New Zealand churches different again from the Reformed sister churches and creates another barrier “to divide us from the Australian churches which all use the ·word ‘Reverend’.
While replying to these objections the Rev. de Graaf invites our churches and their papers (“Trowel and Sword” included) “to react openly, either with approval or disapproval”.
I am gladly prepared to comply with this request and to state the reasons why I cannot agree with the standpoint of the Rev de Graaf. They are the following:
- The fact that in Scripture the word “reverend” is used with regard to God alone, does not imply that it may not be used in connection with man. The word “holy” is also used for God in the same Psalm, in one breath with “reverend”, but everywhere in Scripture the believers also are called holy. This implies that the word “reverend” may be used for men as well. Of course, a man will be “reverend” in a different way than God. But this applies for the denotation “holy“ too.
- As every English Dictionary tells us the word “reverend” used of men, (especially of clergymen) means: “worthy of high esteem”: just as the Dutch word “weleerwarde”. According to 1 Tim. 5: 17, faithful elders, especially those that labour in the Word and in doctrine, are “worthy of double honour”. That means: they are reverend (“worthy of high esteem”). In the light of this text one cannot possibly maintain that calling a minister “Reverend” means giving to man what belongs to God alone, or that it is unscriptural.
- It is possible to argue that the word “Reverend” as a title has something against it, and I would agree there. But if we have to abandon all words that have something against them, the end is not to be seen. The Dutch word “Domine” really means: Master, Lord. Ever heard a less suitable name for a minister who is a servant of Christ, and a servant of the Church for Christ’s sake? But who will undertake to abandon the title Ds. (dominus = Master, Lord) for this reason? One might also object to the term”Covenant of works” to denote God’s Covenant of love in Paradise before the Fall. There are many words and expressions, that are very inadequate.
But there is a Latin proverb that contains much wisdom: ”Verba valent usu”, i.e. “Words derive their value from the use that is made of them”. That means, as far as the word “Reverend” is concerned: whatever the original and exact meaning of the word may be, it is used just as a title, or part of a title for a minister of the gospel. When we use it in connection with the name of a minister, we do not ever think of the original meaning. The word has its value as title, or part of a title, and as such it has every right of existence.
- For various reasons it would have been better if the matter of substituting “Pastor” for “Reverend” had been submitted for discussion to the ministers and the Churches in Australasia before any actual change-over had taken place. The question of the title concerns all the ministers and even all the Churches. Nobody has the right to change a generally adopted and recognised title overnight and on his own.
This is the more true as according to the Rev. de Graaf using the title “Reverend” means to give to man what belongs to God. On the basis of this principle, it would be sinful to use this word in writing and speaking to (or about) ministers of other denominations, too.
Will most of them not be rightly indignant and feel offended, when their official title “Reverend” is denied them and replaced, against their will, by the title “Pastor”, which they think inferior? Will our ministers and churches not be blamed for it and branded “foreign” and “self-conceited”?
5. The Rev. de Graaf appeals also to the fact that the Lutheran Church uses the title ‘Pastor’ This is true, but it is only part of the truth. A prominent Lutheran minister, who for some years served a New Zealand congregation, told me all the facts:
- The custom to speak of “Pastor” was brought from Germany. There is no principle involved.
- “Pastor” is used only in unofficial daily conversation; the official title is “Reverend”, which is used in all official announcements, in addressing a minister at public meetings, in writing to him, etc.
- The Lutheran ministers do not like the word “Pastor” at all, because in the English speaking world this word is commonly used to denote unordained preachers, or ministers who never received proper theological training.
It is obvious that the appeal to the Lutheran custom fails completely. The facts lead to the opposite conclusion!
6. I do hope that the Rev. de Graaf and whoever of his colleagues may have agreed with him in this matter, may soon return to our normal way of denoting the ministers of the Word. Apart from the reasons mentioned above, there is also the fact that another stumbling block has been put on the road to uniting the Reformed Churches in Australasia into one denomination. If in all possible things the two groups go different ways, follow different customs, have different affiliations – what can be the use of forming one denomination? I am not against unification, though in certain respects I wonder whether it ·will be wise to unite. But what I do wish is this, that those who ask for union at least guard against creating new and unnecessary differences that cannot but make the desired union more difficult to obtain.
J.A. Schep.
We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past. To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com
T&S Revisited 