Hot!
Is the “Rev” title biblical?
In many Ghanaian churches, pastors are often introduced as “Reverend” or simply “Rev.”
The title is seen as a mark of respect, yet its biblical basis continues to stir debate.
While some Christians argue that it is a harmless way to honour church leaders, others insist it is unbiblical and should not be used at all.
Those who question the title usually point to the Bible itself. Nowhere in Scripture did Jesus or the apostles use “Reverend” for themselves or for one another.
Instead, they addressed each other as “brother” or “servant.” In Matthew 23, Jesus even warned his followers not to seek titles such as “rabbi” or “father,” teaching that all believers are equal under one God.
Critics also note that Psalm 111:9 describes God’s name alone as “holy and reverend” in the King James Bible.
To them, this means the word should be reserved for God, not for human beings. Others go further, citing Job 32, which cautions against giving flattering titles to men.
For such voices, the modern use of “Reverend” risks elevating pastors beyond what the Bible prescribes.
On the other hand, defenders of the title argue that it is not meant to replace God’s reverence but simply to acknowledge a minister’s role.
In many churches, “Reverend” is given to ordained ministers who have undergone training, much like the way a doctor is addressed as “Dr.”
The Bible itself, they point out, encourages believers to honour their leaders, with 1 Timothy 5:17 stating that elders who direct the affairs of the church well are “worthy of double honour.”
In this sense, the title is seen as a formal courtesy rather than a theological statement.
Supporters remind critics that Christianity does not operate in a vacuum but within cultural settings.
In Ghanaian society, respect for elders and authority is central to social order. Just as chiefs are addressed with titles such as “Nana” or “Togbe,” many Christians believe it is fitting to extend a similar courtesy to church leaders.
In their view, calling a pastor “Reverend” reflects Ghanaian values of honour and respect, and does not amount to worshipping a human being.
Yet the debate is far from settled. Some argue that the title has been abused, with individuals presenting themselves as “Reverend” without any proper training or accountability.
Calls have even been made for the regulation of church titles to prevent confusion and protect the credibility of ministry. Others, however, see no harm in its continued use, so long as it is not taken beyond what Scripture allows.
At the heart of the matter lies a bigger question: should Christians stick strictly to biblical language when addressing their leaders, or is it acceptable to adapt titles as society evolves?
The conversation is not just theological but cultural, touching on how Ghana balances respect for tradition with the authority of Scripture.
The debate over the “Rev” title is therefore not one with easy answers. What is clear, however, is that it forces us to reflect on how we show honour, how we interpret the Bible, and how faith interacts with our cultural practices.
As the discussion continues in church pews and on social platforms, we ask you: should pastors and ministers be called “Reverend,” or should Christians abandon the title altogether?
By: Jacob Aggrey
Minority Leader in Parliament, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, says more than 15,000 Ghanaian workers have lost their jobs following a directive issued by the Chief of Staff.
According to him, the dismissals affected not only people employed after the 2024 general elections, as stated in the directive, but also workers who had been lawfully employed as far back as 2017.
Raising the issue on the floor of Parliament, Mr. Afenyo-Markin said the Minority uncovered evidence showing serious excesses in the implementation of the directive.
“We became aware that although the letter was specific to those recruited after the 2024 elections, Ghanaian youth who were employed as far back as 2017 were all dismissed from their lawful employment,” he said.
He explained that the Minority filed a motion in Parliament to investigate the matter, which was admitted by the Speaker. However, the process has faced several delays.
According to him, the Majority Leader raised a preliminary objection to the motion, which was upheld by the First Deputy Speaker. The Minority later filed a motion for review under the rules of Parliament, which was also admitted.
Mr. Afenyo-Markin said the review motion was moved by him and seconded by the Member of Parliament for Ofoasi- Ayirebi, while the Majority Chief Whip, Rockson Nelson Dafeamekpor , began the debate on behalf of the Majority side.
He noted that the House was expected to continue the debate the following Tuesday to allow the Speaker to rule on the matter, but this has not happened due to other parliamentary business.
“Several times the motion appeared on the Order Paper, but we could not take it,” he stated.
The Minority Leader stressed that the delay is having serious consequences for affected workers and their families.
“This is a matter that affects the livelihood of Ghanaians. We have in excess of 15,000 Ghanaian youths affected by this directive, and they are still at home,” he said.
He added that the Minister for Employment has acknowledged receiving petitions on the issue and has initiated investigations, but said that should not stop Parliament from carrying out its own inquiry.
“These Ghanaian youths are sitting at home. Their wives, their extended families are all affected. It has been over a year, and they are not getting any justice,” he added.
Mr. Afenyo-Markin appealed to the Leader of Government Business to ensure that the motion is included in Parliament’s report and debated to allow the House to make a final decision on the matter.
By: Jacob Aggrey
Director of Communications for the United Party, Solomon Owusu, has expressed strong disappointment following the Supreme Court decision to quash the rerun of the Kpandai parliamentary election.
Mr Owusu made his views known while reacting to the ruling, stressing that he would feel deeply disappointed if he were in the position of Matthew Nyindam, the current Member of Parliament for Kpandai.
He explained that the High Court had earlier examined the case in detail and arrived at a clear determination on the matter.
According to him, the High Court found that the election was compromised and that rigging took place with the involvement of the Electoral Commission.
Mr Owusu pointed out that when the New Patriotic Party moved the case to the Supreme Court, it did not challenge the substance of the High Court findings.
He stated that the appeal was based purely on a point of law, arguing that the National Democratic Congress was time barred when it went to court, and not that the alleged rigging did not occur.
In his view, this means that Mr Nyindam remains in Parliament through an election process that did not reflect the true will of the people of Kpandai.
Mr Owusu noted that this was why he had expected a rerun of the election, to allow the MP to return to the constituency and properly establish his authority through the ballot.
He explained that a rerun would have given Mr Nyindam the opportunity to prove that he genuinely won the 2024 parliamentary election.
With the rerun now quashed, Mr Owusu questioned how the MP could celebrate or take pride in the court outcome.
He stressed that he would no longer take contributions made by Mr Nyindam in Parliament seriously, as the legitimacy of his mandate remains questionable in his view.
Mr Owusu further argued that the Supreme Court decision has shortchanged the people of Kpandai.
He described the ruling as unfair to voters who woke up early on election day, queued patiently, and voted for a candidate of their choice, only for their will to be undermined.
According to him, the outcome raises serious concerns about justice, electoral credibility, and respect for the democratic rights of the people.
By: Jacob Aggrey
