Ignatius, the church, and others
One of the seminars that I’m taking this semester is called Theological Foundations. As I mentioned in a post called “Theological Foundations“, I honestly did not expect to enjoy this seminar. But, I have enjoyed it immensely, and I’ve learned tremendously from the readings, from Dr. David Nelson, and from the other students.
As part of the requirements for this seminar, I’m writing a paper about Ignatius of Antioch. I had planned to write this paper about the monoepiscopacy in Ignatius’ letters – that is, the teaching that one bishop should rule each church, with presbyters/elders under him, and deacons under them. However, as I studied Ignatius, I decided to write about something different. I may share more about this later.
Since I have read Ignatius’ letters several times over the last few months, I thought I would share one of my favorite passages. This comes from his letter to the church in Ephesus:
Therefore, you are also all fellow travellers, God-bearers and temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, holiness-bearers (or saint-bearers), made beautiful according to all things by the commands of Jesus Christ… Pray without ceasing for other men. For there is hope of repentance in them that they may find God. Therefore, allow them to be taught even by your works. In response to their anger, you be gentle. In response to their boasting, you be humble. In response to their slanders, you offer prayers. In response to their error, you stand firm in the faith. In response to their wildness, you be docile, making every effort not to imitate them. Let us be found to be their brothers in graciousness. Then let us make every effort to imitate the Lord, to be the one who is the more wronged, who is the more cheated, who is the more rejected. (Ign. Eph. 9:2-10:3a)
While Ignatius spoke against false teaching among believers, he also encouraged followers of Jesus – as seen in this passage – to treat others with gentleness and humility, dealing with them prayerfully and with a steadfast faith. The idea of imitating the Lord by trying the be the one more wronged, cheated, and rejected is certainly different from what we normally hear today.
I think I can learn alot from Ignatius, especially when it comes to dealing with “others”, that is, people who are different from me. If I’m talking with or serving with people from other cultures, or with other theological stances, or either with unbelievers, I need to learn to respond in gentleness, humility, and prayer, imitating our Lord instead of imitating the ways of this world.
Modern All Saints Day
All Saints Day is the day when Christians have traditionally remembered those who have died because of their faith in Jesus Christ, that is, martyrs. While the eve of All Saints Day (Halloween – from “hallow” meaning “saint” and “e’en” meaning evening) has become more prevalent in some circles, this has not always been the case.
From my research, it seems that remembering martyrs began as far back as the third century, sometime around 270 AD. However, we do not know when this remembrance took place. For some, the day to remember martyred believers falls on the Sunday after Pentecost. For the Western church, this day of remembrance falls on November 1.
In honor of All Saints Day, I want to share this story with you. This is an excerpt from one of Becky Lynn Black’s reports about their trips to Ethiopia. The topic is Muslim converts to Christianity in Ethiopia:
The converts know the price of obedience to Christ; it may cost them everything! A young Christian man in the southern region rode the public bus from his town to a new church congregation in another area. Upon his return home, the bus was stopped by Muslims. Everyone was taken off the bus, and before they were allowed back on the bus they were required to recite the Islam statement of faith, “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.†Everyone on the bus said the statement except this young man. Instead, he said “Jesus is Lord.†They shot him in the head. This happened the first week we arrived in Ethiopia. The cost of discipleship can be very high in Ethiopia.
The people on that public bus probably did not know this young man’s name (and I don’t know his name either), but they knew the name of his Lord. He probably did not teach them in words, and he probably did not preach a sermon, but his actions demonstrated that he was willing to follow his Lord to death. This is the kind of life that I want to life: a life that exalts the name of Jesus above my own name, and a life that preaches the gospel and demonstrates that Jesus is my Lord in my actions as well as my words.
I hope this story of faith and obedience and counting the cost – from today’s world – will encourage you to consider what it means to confess, “Jesus is Lord”. Like this young believer in Ethiopia, are you ready to pay the very high price of discipleship?
May the faith and perseverance of those willing to die because of their faith in Jesus Christ encourage us to live out our faith in Jesus Christ.
Why just the bread and the cup?
I’ve suggested previously that the New Testament always describes the “Lord’s Supper” as taking place as part of a meal (for example, see “The Lord’s Supper as a Meal?“). Even when the elements (bread and cup) are mentioned, they are mentioned in the context of a whole meal.
One of the questions that I’ve struggled with, and had been unable to answer, is this: When and why did the meal turn into the elements only? Remember that even during the Reformation, the major argument concerning the Lord’s Supper revolved around the meaning of the elements not the meal, i.e. not the “Supper”.
Well, I may have an answer. In his book Making a Meal of It, Ben Witherington mentioned two councils that dealt with the Lord’s Supper and the meal associated with it: the Council of Laodicea (363-364 AD) and the Council of Trullian (692 AD).
Apparently, during these councils, the bishops attempted to deal with some improprieties (i.e., drunkenness) that were happening during the meal. These improprieties were being reported by people outside the church. This seems to be similar to what Paul was facing when he wrote 1 Corinthians 11. Paul decided to reign in the revelry and wantonness, but not the meal itself. However, in order to maintain appearances to those outside the church, the bishops decided to stop the meal altogether.
Here is a quote from the Council of Trullian (Canon 74):
It is not permitted to hold what are called Agape, that is love-feasts, in the Lord’s houses or churches, nor to eat within the house, nor to spread couches. If any dare to do so let him cease therefrom or be cut off.
I’m still looking for information from the Council of Laodicea. But, this begins to answer the question of when and why the Lord’s Supper changed from a meal (probably in homes) to a ritual of bread and cup in church buildings.
Missional Christians in 360 AD
Most people are familiar with Emperor Constantine, the Roman Emperor who legitimized Christianity and called the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. However, not as many people are familiar with one of his successors: Julian the Apostate. Flavius Claudius Iulianus was born around 331 AD to the half-brother of Emperor Constantine I. He died on June 26, 363 AD during a battle.
Julian is known as “the Apostate” because he rejected Christianity and attempted to return the Roman Empire to the worship of the pagan gods – which he called “the Hellenic faith”. We only know Julian’s writing “Against the Galileans” because parts were preserved in Cyril of Alexandria’s rebuttal.
What did Julian say about the Christians in the 360’s? Well, we can learn much about those Christians (“Galileans”) by observing Julian’s rebuke of the pagan priests and practitioners:
Why do we not observe that it is their [the Christians’] benevolence to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead, and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism [unbelief of the pagan gods]?… For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans [Christians] support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us. Teach those of the Hellenic faith to contribute to public service of this sort.
Have we come full circle? It seems that the church is willing to allow the state [pagans] to care for the poor – even poor Christians.
Interestingly, this pagan emperor recognized that it was the lifestyle of the followers of Jesus that was attracting people away from paganism – and, primarily that lifestyle was a lifestyle of service and concern and care for others. I wonder if that same kind of lifestyle would have the same effect today.
The bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, oh my!
I’m studying Ignatius of Antioch for a research project in my Theological Foundations seminar. Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch who was killed in Rome around 107 AD. As he was being transported from Antioch to Rome, he penned seven letters: six letters to the churches of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna, and one letter to Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna. Within these letters, Ignatius addressed several areas that are typically included within the scope of ecclesiology. Specifically, he discussed the sacraments and place of the bishop, the presbyters (elders), and the deacons within the church of each city.
Within Ignatius’ letters, there are several passages that deal with the bishop. He always uses this title in the singular when referring to the bishop of a church. Here are a few of the passages:
I urge [you], make every effort to do everything in the harmony of God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and the presbyters (elders) [presiding] in the place of the council of apostles, and the deacons who are precious to me having been entrusted with the service of Jesus Christ. (Ignatius to the Mangesians 6:1)
It is necessary, as you are doing, for you to do nothing apart from the bishop, but to be submissive also to the presbyters (elders) as to the apostles of Jesus Christ. (Ignatius to the Trallians 2:2)
Similarly, let all regard (respect) the deacons as Jesus Christ and the bishop as being in the place of the Father, then the presbyters (elders) as the council of God and as the assembly of the apostles. (Ignatius to the Trallians 3:1)
Make every effort to have one eucharist, for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup for the unity of his blood, one altar, as there is one bishop along with the presbyters (elders) and deacons. (Ignatius to the Philippians 4:1)
Let all of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ [followed] the Father, and [follow] the presbyters (elders) as the apostles, then respect the deacons as the commandment of God. (Ignatius to the Smyrneans 8:1)
The reason that these passages are interesting to me is that they are not consistent with some of the other early Christian writings – even those writings from the same time period.
For example, Ignatius wrote one of his letters to Polycarp, who Ignatius recognizes as the Bishop of Smyrna. In his letter to the church at Smyrna, Ignatius tells the church to “follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father.” When writing to Polycarp, Ignatius instructs Polycarp to tell the church in Smyrna the same thing (Ignatius to Polycarp 5:2; 6:1)
However, when Polycarp writes a letter to the church in Philippi only a few years later, Polycarp does not even mention a “bishop”. Instead, Polycarp tells the Philippians to be subject to “the presbyters (elders) and deacons” (Polycarp to the Philippians 5:3).
In the Didache, another document written at about the same time, presbyters (elders) are not mentioned. Instead, the Didache instructs believers to appoint “bishops (plural) and deacons”. In an interesting twist, the Didache associates “bishops and deacons” with “prophets and teachers”, but the two groups do not seem to be synonymous:
Therefore, choose for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men [who are] gentle, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also serve you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore, do not disregard them, for they are honored among you, together with the prophets and teachers. (Didache 15:1-2)
The Didache mentions others types of travelling apostles and prophets (not to be confused with the original apostles of the New Testament nor the prophets of the Old testament) that seem to be distinct from the “bishops and deacons” and also the “prophets and teachers”. (Didache 11-13)
Why is this interesting to me? I think it shows that the early church struggled with some of the same questions that we struggle with today? Questions such as 1) What is the nature of Christian leadership? 2) Are there specific roles within the church that are distinct from gifting? 3) How should leadership within the church structure itself? 4) How should believers interact with those who they have recognized as leaders?
Ignatius seems to have answered these questions differently than Polycarp. And, the Didache seems to be different from both. Interestingly, in most of Ignatius’ letters he spells out what it means to follow the way of Jesus Christ, and he does not include the bishop, the presbyters, nor the deacons in any of those instructions.
I think it would be beneficial for all believers to read the Apostolic Father, as long as they learn to read critically. Before beginning a study of the early Christian writings, we must answer another question (for ourselves): Where will I find authority – in the texts of Scripture or in the early understandings of those texts?
Chrysostom on learning and doing
John Chrysostom (349 – ca 407) as archbishop of Constantinople. He lived a very colorful life. After his death, he was given the surname of Chrysostom (“golden tongue”), most say because of his preaching.
He ended one of his homilies (sermons) on Genesis with this exhortation:
[W]hen you go home from here, lay out with your meal a spiritual meal as well. The father of the family might repeat something of what was said here; his wife could then hear it, the children too could learn something, even the domestics might be instructed. In short, the household might become a church…
Without discussing the various roles in the family, or the idea of a family becoming a church – both of which may be important ideas, but not my point – I think Chrysostom offers great advice. As we listen to teaching, we should continue meditating on what was said, discussing it with others, and comparing it to Scripture.
I think that one of the reasons that teaching in the context of the church has become less effective is that believers do not know what to do with the teaching once they’ve received it. It is assumed that the sitting and listening somehow imparts grace to the hearer. But, there are few – if any – benefits to being hearers only.
While I think that lecture style teaching should not constitute the majority of teaching within the church, if the kind of discussion takes place that Chrysostom suggests, lecture style teaching would be a little more effective.
However, Chrysostom does not stop with this exhortation, he continues:
So, to make us more enthusiastic, take good heed of what has been said already, and with right teachings give great attention to caring for your life. Scripture says, “Let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works, and glorify your father in heaven,” in order that your life may conform with your teachings, and your teachings reveal your life. After all, “faith without works is dead,’ and works without faith are dead. For even if we have sound teachings but fail in living, the teachings benefit us nothing; likewise, if we take pains with life but are careless about teaching, that will not be any good to us either. So it is necessary to shore up this spiritual edifice of ours in both directions as Scripture says, “Everyone listening to my words and acting on them will be likened to a wise man.” Notice how this person intends not merely to listen but to act, and to demonstrate his listening by his actions; this is the one called wise, the one giving evidence of deeds in the wake of words, whereas the one who stopped short at words was called a fool.
What is amazing to me about this passage is the context in which it was presented. This was not a sermon on obedience. It was a homily on Genesis 1.
But, shouldn’t this be the exhortation after any teaching or discipling or admonishing or exhortation? Should we not always exhort and expect people to hear and obey – not our words, but the words of God?
I think perhaps that we have been counting noses and putting the attendance numbers on our attendance boards for too long. It’s time to expect obedience to God not simply attendance and listening.
Anabaptists and Consistency
Alas… Dave Black as posted his final essay in his series on Anabaptists: “What I Have Learned from the Anabaptists (Conclusion)“. In this wrap-up, Dave discusses many attributes of 16th century Christianity, including the inconsistencies of the Magesterial Reformers compared to the consistencies of the Anabaptists. He says:
I must insist that I did not produce these essays because I am in favor of belittling the work of the Magisterial Reformers. For clarity’s sake I must repeat that I am thus indicting the Reformers only because they were inconsistent with their own principles of reformation…
On one thing I think even the severest critics of Anabaptism would agree, however. They practiced what they preached…
How did the consistency of the Anabaptists display itself in their practices? Dave says:
They were truly a family. Decision-making was based on consensus, not popular vote. Issues were discussed until the brethren agreed and could say, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.†What a far cry from our enslavement to Robert’s Rules of Order. They developed a true mutuality and sense of brotherhood.
If we are honest with ourselves, all of us are guilty of living from time to time in ways that are inconsistent with our stated beliefs. Whether these inconsistencies come from tradition, misunderstanding, or sin, we need the Holy Spirit to correct our way of life.
If you do not read anything else in this series on the Anabaptists, please read these next three paragraphs:
Above all, the Anabaptists taught that the church must follow the guidelines of the New Testament as to its confession of faith and its organizational patterns. For them the Bible was as ambiguous as to the doctrine of the church as it was to the doctrine of salvation. Their ecclesiology called for non-conformity to the world, the separation of church and state, and serving others in meekness in the spirit of Christ. The church is neither Catholic nor Protestant but simply Christian, they argued. Christ the King is the only Head of the church. An authoritative ministry by the elders was therefore out of keeping with the spirit as well as the letter of the New Testament.
I am well aware that I could go on and on in this vein. Instead, I want to return to the question: will anything in our churches change? How can it? The very fact that the strongest arguments, the most rigorous exegesis, the most time-tested values are of no avail is proof that we are faced with a conscious decision made in the light of thorough knowledge. Obedience, not knowledge, is our problem. As I have stated before, the church in America has reached a Rubicon, and it will either cross it or it won’t. Even though a good many thinking people regard the “system†as fatally flawed, as utterly frightful, they feel caught by an inescapable dilemma. They reject Christendom in principle, but a renewal is no longer desirable, at least in the current state of the church. Whether we call ourselves conventional, emergent, or “convergent†(which appears to be the new “in†expression), the church is rushing nowhere at an incredible rate of speed. We know the dangers of our faddish programs but we go on building them anyway. What frightful hypocrites I fear we have become, and I suppose I am the worst hypocrite of them all.
I know I am swimming against the stream, but there is no need to dwell on it any longer. I love the church. Why else would I have chosen to teach churchmen if I didn’t? I have simply tried to remind myself (and anyone who will join me in thinking through the issues) that the way forward is backward – back to the sixteenth century, and back even further to the radicals of the first century, the original generation of Christians that turned the world right side up. I believe that the old values are still worth pursuing. And – thank God! – they have not been completely forgotten. They continue to speak to believers today, hearkening back to a time when the church was Spirit-led, simple, and solidly evangelistic. If the church of today decides it knows better than the New Testament how to conduct itself, then so be it. The fact is that the modern church has sought greatness and attained power instead. And therein lies its ultimate tragedy. The astonishingly deep and balanced view of ecclesiology that Anabaptism represented and that I have tried to bring before the reader is now at its end.
These paragraphs are filled with admonitions to stick to the teaching of the New Testament. If Scripture does not teach it, then we would do well to stay away. If Scripture does teach something, then we should make sure that we are walking in obedience. If something that we do hinders or distracts us from obeying Scripture, then we should seriously question that which is hindering or distracting.
The church is too important to leave to opinions, good ideas, leadership tactics, organizational skills, and methodologies. Only the Holy Spirit can guide the church effectively.
Anabaptist Accountability
Dave Black has posted the seventh article in his series on Abaptist belief and practices: “What I Have Learned from the Anabaptists (Part 7)“. This article deals with how the Anbaptists held one another accountable to know what they believe and to live according to those beliefs.
It is easy to get bogged down in discussions and disagreements about opinions that have little to do with faith in Christ and living according to that faith. These kinds of disagreements tend to distract and hinder the work of the Spirit through a believer and through a group of believers. Dave quoted John Wesley, who said:
I will not quarrel with you about my opinions; only see that your heart is right toward God, that you know and love the Lord Jesus Christ; that you love your neighbor, and walk as your Master walked, and I desire no more. I am sick of opinions; am weary to bear them; my soul loathes this frosty food. Give me solid and substantial religion; give me a humble, gentle lover of God and man; a man full of mercy and good faith, without partiality and without hypocrisy; a man laying himself out in the work of faith, the patience of hope, the labor of love. Let my soul be with these Christians wheresoever they are, and whatsoever opinion they are of.
Like Wesley, it is my desire to focus on living a life of faith, not quarrelling over opinions. This is not always easy. I don’t know about you, but I’m ready to lose an argument if it means strengthening a brother’s or sister’s faith and maturing them toward Christ.
Missional Anabaptists
Dave Black has published the sixth part of his series on the Anabaptists: “What I Have Learned from the Anabaptists (Part 6)“. These articles are getting better and better, and they motivate me to want to learn more about the Anabaptists. This article concerns the Anabaptists’ views of the Great Commission. He says:
In speaking of the missionary heart of the Anabaptists my highest hope is that it might help us to implement biblical principles in our own lives and fellowships. I believe that if we are open to a fresh leading of the Holy Spirit, at whatever cost to our present way of living, we cannot help but become more missional in the way we think and act. The purpose of the Anabaptist movement was more than to recall Christians to their biblical roots. At every point the Anabaptists sought to correct the notion of their contemporaries that the Great Commission had been fulfilled by Christ’s original apostles. It was this emphasis that explains the contempt, and even disgust, that some of the magisterial Reformers felt for the missionary program of the Dissenters.
Our own situation is much like that of the erudite Anabaptists. Today we have to strip off the false notion that missions is only for professionals. Jesus is asking His followers today to take seriously not just the gathering but the going forth. What we must learn to say to the world is: “Here we are. We are willing to make any sacrifice to see that you know Jesus. We are not asking you to come to church with us. We love you right where you are. We love you no matter what you do to us. If we have to build a hut next to you for the rest of time just to witness to the love and grace of the Lord Jesus, we are going to make that effort. We’re not going to take you out of your environment or make you a part of an institution just to keep the institution going.â€
I love this last part. Are we willing to go where unbelievers are, not just to hit and run, but live among them? This is true missional living… and I would say, this is true “follower of Christ” living.
Beyond the discussion of the Anabaptists’ view of the Great Commission, Dave also discusses the Anabaptists’ view of the church. Why? Because what we think about the church will affect what we think about the Great Commission. So, what did the Anabaptists think about the church:
For the Anabaptists, the church meant a great deal. It was a community consisting of those who had a vital relationship with Jesus as Lord and Savior. It was the brotherhood of the redeemed, purchased by Christ’s spilled blood. It was the fellowship of the regenerated who as “living stones†were being built up into a holy temple. It was the body of Christ-centered sharing where each bore the other’s burdens and thus fulfilled the law of Christ. The church was all of this to the Anabaptists. But it was much more than this. The church was the community of those who not only worshiped God and learned of Christ but who witnessed and served, proclaiming in word and deed the Lord Jesus Christ and His full and free salvation to anyone who would listen. For the Anabaptists the biblical church was a Great Commission church – witnessing, evangelizing, and ministering in love both to each other and to the outside world. For them the whole of life was to be one of service and sacrifice.
I love this description of the church. I don’t think I’ve read enough about and by the Anabaptists. How about you?
Dr. Anabaptist
Dave Black has published his fifth essay about Anabaptists in an article called “What I Have Learned from the Anabaptists (Part 5)“. I think my favorite thing about this article is the introduction from his blog where he says, “Because of your enthusiastic response, I’ve decided to continue it for a few more entries.” I am enjoying this articles and looking forward to more.
In this article, Dr. Black (yes, that was intentional) tackles the question about Christian “titles”. He introduces the topic like this:
If we were to read Matthew 23 and take Jesus’ words at face value, we should come away with the notion that He was not very impressed with all the titles we make so much of today. We should feel that all this talk about “Doctor†and “Reverend†and “Senior Pastor†is somewhat superficial, that titles are merely manmade epithets and quite contrary to the idea of a brotherhood church.
I mentioned this passage and asked a question about titles last December in a blog post called “Do titles matter“. Jesus seemed to think that titles are inappropriate among brothers and sisters. What did the Anabaptists say? Well, Dr. Black says:
When Jesus says, “Do not be called Rabbi,†He means (so I take the Greek), “Do not make people call you Rabbi.†All of this would have been quite acceptable to the Anabaptists. For them, the essence of Christianity was discipleship. All else was subordinated to that. And what is a disciple? A disciple is one who follows Christ (Nachfolge Christi) and not any man, no matter how important or eminent or exalted that man may be in the world’s eyes, or in the church’s. Discipleship for the Anabaptists refers not simply to a life that is spiritually motivated but one that is externally patterned after Christ’s own person and work. It was assumed by the Anabaptists that the life and teaching of Jesus were to be replicated both in principle and in form by His followers. The Lord’s rejection of social strictures, His freedom from cultural entanglements, His humility and lowliness of mind – all these were accepted as normal for all true disciples.
Such beliefs contradicted, of course, the fundamental convictions of more than a thousand years of ecclesiastical history. The Anabaptist faith was a radical departure from that history not least because it clashed with culturally entrenched traditions of the Reformation such as the clergy-laity division. The Anabaptists were content to call each other Brethren, in keeping with Jesus’ teaching. It seems to me, therefore, that if we are to be true to the Scriptures we must abandon the idea that there is any positive value in referring to each other by manmade titles instead of by the term of endearment enjoined upon us by our Lord.
Well, this sounds good, but does the good doctor practice what he preaches? He says:
I do not want people to call me “Doctor Black†because they think I prefer the title or place any weight on academic credentials per se. I don’t. If people choose to use the title “Doctor†because they cannot break with tradition or because they cannot conceive of me as their brother, I understand. But my preference is to be called “Brother Dave†or “Brother Black†(if you feel you must use the last name) or simply “Dave.†Please do not think that this is a mark of modesty on my part. I actually believe, am completely persuaded in fact, that the term “Brother†(or “Sisterâ€) is the highest, most honorable, most glorious title that a follower of Jesus can be given by a fellow Christian (Heb. 2:11-12). It marks the relationship we will all enjoy in eternity when every earthly title will disappear for good.
Okay. I have heard Dr. Black say, “You do not have to call me Dr. Black. Brother Dave or simply Dave is fine with me.” I’ve heard him say this several times. But, I still call him “Dr. Black”. (In fact, counting this sentence, I’ve called him “Dr. Black” six times in this post already. I’ll try to do better, I promise.)
So, why do I prefer to call Brother Dave by his academic title? Is this because I want to be called “Dr. Knox” when (if) I receive my Ph.D.? No. As a matter of fact, whenever someone jokes about calling me “Dr. Knox”, I say, “I prefer ‘Alan’.” If I want to called by my first name, why no do the same for Brother Dave?
I think he pegged me in this post. Tradition. That’s it. I was taught (brought up) to use titles. Every man was a “Mr.” and every woman was a “Mrs.” or “Ms.”
I am going to talk to Bro. Dave (I’m practicing) about this. I am unlearning some of my tradition. It will not be easy for me. By the way, I do not think this is an issue for Dave Black at all. He has never said anything to me after I’ve called him “Dr. Black”.
But, honestly, this was not the point of Dave’s article (see, I’m still practicing). His point is that we should not ask people, encourage people, nor expect people to call us by any title other than “Brother” or “Sister”. As he pointed out, Hebrews 2:11-12 tells us that Jesus is not ashamed to call us “Brother” (or “Sister”). Why would we want any other title? If an academic institution imparts the title of “Doctor” upon you, how can that ever compare to being called a child of God and a brother to Jesus Christ?
Brother Dave (it’s getting easier, and more natural) ends his article with these lines:
I am well aware that some readers will think this is simplistic, even comical. But I must repeatedly insist that this is the biblical pattern, and it is plain. But it is a Rubicon. You will either cross it or you won’t.
Hopefully, if someone desires to follow Jesus Christ as his disciple, they will consider this to be a very important issue. Jesus did speak to it. So, what are you going to do about this? If someone calls you by a title (“Doctor”, “Pastor”, “Reverend”), are you willing to ask them not to, and gently explain why? They may not think it is important, but Jesus did.