|
The rejection of all honorific titles is, as has been amply pointed out already, a major knee-jerk overreaction to the Romanist usage of "Father". There is nothing more in the argument, it seems, than an importation of this overreaction into the Biblical text. As Daniel has pointed out already, titles are indeed used in the Scriptures, and it is entirely appropriate for them to continue to be used. To reject them out of hand as though they somehow make distinctions that aren't there is really missing the boat. Sorry, folks, church leadership IS distinguishable from the laity - not in terms of intrisic work, but in terms of office - and it is completely appropriate to refer to an elder as Elder, a pastor as Pastor, and a deacon as Deacon. To use such titles does NOT mean one rejects the argument underlying Galatians 3:28. It is merely to honor those in such servant offices as those who have been invested with the responsibilities of those offices. I can't understand the complaint the OP's author has with these titles.
|