Ship of Fools: Eccles: CofE clergy titles

Thread: Eccles: CofE clergy titles Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000824

Posted by Cruet (# 14586) on :

Why are CofE clergy generally addressed as Vicar?
This is uncommon in TEC.

[ 29. September 2011, 07:34: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Because the vast majority of parish clergy are vicars. I know a couple of villages where the priest is always addressed as 'rector' but that is rarer. Only in a self-consciously advanced Anglo-Catholic shacks is the vicar called "father." Don't think I've ever heard of an English priest being called "mother."

And nowadays, many are just called by their first names. Times changes and so do vocative customs.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

There's a bit of the history of the titles Rector and Vicar as used by the C of E in this Wikipedia article.
I would guess the historical precedents are different in TEC.

If you scroll down on that page and click on Vicar (Anglicanism) you get more information but I can't link to that page because it's got brackets in the URL!

[ 11. June 2011, 15:57: Message edited by: Lucia ]

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Because the vast majority of parish clergy are vicars. I know a couple of villages where the priest is always addressed as 'rector' but that is rarer. Only in a self-consciously advanced Anglo-Catholic shacks is the vicar called "father." Don't think I've ever heard of an English priest being called "mother."

And nowadays, many are just called by their first names. Times changes and so do vocative customs.

We ain't in England (but not too far away) and this is hardly a self-conscious community, and we don't do shacks. Even so, the Vicar of Abertillery has been called Father for over a century. I also get called Vicar, Rector, by my forename, surname, Reverend - and also various other things - the rude ones usually restricted to people outside the parish... [Projectile]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

There are technical differences between vicars and rectors - to do with historic titles and tithing (not the modern version), so older parishes can have rectors, whose income came, at least in part, from glebe land or other tithes.

You don't address anyone as Rev or Reverend correctly in English English> It is a formal form of address in writing when it takes the definite article - the Reverend [name], and the correct abbreviation is Rev'd.

Father is very Anglo-catholic and many people will not use it as they would see it as papalism, although I can think of people who do call their parish priest Father. There are some CofE churches with the boards inscribed "Father [name]", although I suspect many of the ministers concerned are now part of the Ordinariate. The Roman Catholic priest in town is known as Father.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Father is not all that 'advanced' a-c, though obviously those outside the worshipping community will be less inclined to use it. 'Mother' is rarer, and probably used much more self-consciously and maybe semi-jocularly, but I know of a couple of parishes where their (women) priests are addressed thus.

'Vicar' is the good old standby. I have only been 'vicar' for about half my ordained life but it's not worth being pedantic about it.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Isn't it true that before the Oxford Movement - and in fact right up till maybe the 1950s or so - most Anglican priests (in England, anyway) were called simply "Mister"?

That's what I'm to understand. (If true, was it also true in the U.S., does anybody know?)

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

I once knew a parish priest of an American Episcopal Church that was on the high side of things back in the swinging 60s. One Sunday this priest walked into said church which unfortunately had just received word that the scheduled supply priest would be unavailable that Sunday. Someone on the search committee for the new rector noticed the collar on this stranger and walked over and said "Mister or Father." My aquaintance shot back an inquizical "?" and the person asked again "mister or father." Then the priest vaguely understood and answered "I prefer 'father'" and from the smiles that grew on the the face of the questioner, proceedngs were begun and the visiting priest became the rector for a very, very long time.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Isn't it true that before the Oxford Movement - and in fact right up till maybe the 1950s or so - most Anglican priests (in England, anyway) were called simply "Mister"?

That's what I'm to understand. (If true, was it also true in the U.S., does anybody know?)

Like Mr Beebe and Mr Eager in A Room With a ViewI believe that's the case. I remember finding some old service sheets from the 1950s in the library of my former parish, and the rector (this is in the USA) was referred to in the announcements as "Mr. Eddy." The rector when I was there (late 1980s) was called "Father Link" by some, and he was comfortable with that.

[ 11. June 2011, 16:36: Message edited by: Oblatus ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

It's Mr Collins in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice too, thinking about it.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

"Father" isn't particularly Anglo-Catholic in the USA, nor even exlusively High Church. Lots of MOTR places have had that usage, though it varies regionally and from diocese to diocese. Use of first names has somewhat supplanted the Use of Father as a form of address in recent years. "Mother" is also encountered in places that are basically MOTR to High-ish MOTR.

Posted by jordan32404 (# 15833) on :

Are there cases of Anglican clergy in the US being called "Vicar" or "Rector" (or even perhaps "Pastor")? Something like, "Good morning, Vicar/Rector/Pastor X"

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It's Mr Collins in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice too, thinking about it.

And the dreadful Mrs Elton in Emma has a habit of referring to her husband as "Mr E."

Round here (London UK) it's mostly Rev'd Ann, spoken or in writing, and occasionally Sister Ann. Mother is rare but not unheard of.

I've heard of women priests using Father as their own title but never met one or seen it in writing. Is this attested anywhere?

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jordan32404:
Are there cases of Anglican clergy in the US being called "Vicar" or "Rector" (or even perhaps "Pastor")? Something like, "Good morning, Vicar/Rector/Pastor X"

Rare, if ever - at least in my experience. "Pastor" seems (to me at least) a more Lutheran/Baptist thing. I don't believe I've ever heard an Episcopal priest called this.

Never "Rector" - that's more or less a function here. (As you'd never call a corporate VP "Vice President Smith.")

Maybe Vicar - but nobody uses that around here that I know of, except in downtown Manhattan! In parishes there, you often have both a "Rector" and a "Vicar." Nobody uptown understands what this is about, though.... [Biased]

)

[ 11. June 2011, 17:28: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joan_of_Quark:
I've heard of women priests using Father as their own title but never met one or seen it in writing. Is this attested anywhere?

Heard of this, too, and I still think it's bizarre.

What makes sense to me is "Mother" for female priests in the same shacks where male priests are called "Father."

I've also heard "Pastor N." used in places where "Father" and "Mother" are deemed too A-C and where there's collaboration with Lutherans. But even RC parishes, which have "pastors," never use "Pastor" as a form of address. Interesting to observe the differences from place to place in Anglicanism (not a complaint; just an observation).

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Never "Rector" - that's more or less a function here. (As you'd never call a corporate VP "Vice President Smith.")

A former bishop of this diocese had his own rules (which everyone was supposed to follow) calling clergy by their function or position. Rectors were called "Rector Whoever," and other priests were "Priest So-and-So." Envelopes were addressed the same way. We all cringed and happily returned to normal when he retired.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

In the United Church of Canada it's "Rev. X, Minister of Y United Church" or "Z Pastoral Charge".

Clergy are Ministers. It's all very Kirky, showing our heritage.

In conversation a minister might be Rev. Firstname, Rev. Lastname or just Firstname.

The correct abbreviation in the UCCan is Rev., none of this Rev'd stuff. Even ordained Moderators, the only people who deviate from pure Rev. to Right Rev. during office and Very Rev. after their three-year term use Rev.

Some ministers might call themselves Pastor but I find that to be excessively Baptist.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Isn't it true that before the Oxford Movement - and in fact right up till maybe the 1950s or so - most Anglican priests (in England, anyway) were called simply "Mister"?

Until the late 19th century most Roman Catholic priests were also 'Mister'. Indeed it's debatable whether 'Father' came into general use before a few Anglo-catholics (the East End priest Father Wainright for example) became so known. Though of course Religious priests would have been 'Father'.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Isn't it true that before the Oxford Movement - and in fact right up till maybe the 1950s or so - most Anglican priests (in England, anyway) were called simply "Mister"?

Until the late 19th century most Roman Catholic priests were also 'Mister'. Indeed it's debatable whether 'Father' came into general use before a few Anglo-catholics (the East End priest Father Wainright for example) became so known. Though of course Religious priests would have been 'Father'.

Is this a particularly English thing? I mean, in France, RC priests have always been "Père," haven't they?

Maybe just a Reformation thing, I guess?

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

In the USA, the Rector/Vicar distinction does survive, at least on paper. A self-supporting parish is led by a rector, whereas a mission aided by the diocese is led by a vicar. To digress a bit, the title "curate" seems to be disappearing, having been replaced by "associate rector" or some such term borrowed from the business world. Is "parish" doomed to be replaced by "franchise"?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Business world? In Presby parlance they are Associate Ministers, have been forever. You may be flying a bit too close to PCUSA but that never hurt anyone. [Biased]

Posted by wrinkley (# 7673) on :

The rector of my church is addressed as "Father".

He said that he had been addressed as Rev'd, but felt that that was too high an honour, as Rev'd means 'Honorable" and he wasn't sure he was.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Is this a particularly English thing? I mean, in France, RC priests have always been "Père," haven't they?

Maybe just a Reformation thing, I guess?

No, only religious priests are Père; diocesan priests are Abbé even today. In most histories of the church in France in the 19th Century, a lot of the priests will be referred to as "Monsieur <last name>."

Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :

AFAICT, John Wesley always styled himself "Mr. Wesley".

I style myself Br. Joshua, but that is because I am a member of a religious order. If I weren't, it would be Mr. Joshua.

ETA: It bugs me when people give themselves the title "Reverend". I've always been given to understand that "reverend" is a term you give to others as a sign of respect, never to yourself.

[ 12. June 2011, 05:20: Message edited by: Padre Joshua ]

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
I've always been given to understand that "reverend" is a term you give to others as a sign of respect, never to yourself.

My understanding is that this is true of all titles, including 'Mister'.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Never "Rector" - that's more or less a function here. (As you'd never call a corporate VP "Vice President Smith.")
A former bishop of this diocese had his own rules (which everyone was supposed to follow) calling clergy by their function or position. Rectors were called "Rector Whoever," and other priests were "Priest So-and-So." Envelopes were addressed the same way. We all cringed and happily returned to normal when he retired.

Why the cringe? This seems quite sensible to me. In fact, with the exception that we only do it with sacramental/canonical order and not job titles, that is the practice we follow in the Orthodox Church.

Forms of address such as "Vladyka" and "Father" are somewhat informal and may be affectionate (such as at the dismissals at services) but if you shouldn't find them in any directory of clergy. If you do, it is probably convert influence from another tradition.

Properly, we are addressed by our sacramental place within the Body of Christ. Laymen and women are "the servant/handmaiden of God, name; clergy are "Priest name, Protodeacon name, and so forth.

This makes sense to me, as our life in the Church is a sacramental one.

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Isn't it true that before the Oxford Movement - and in fact right up till maybe the 1950s or so - most Anglican priests (in England, anyway) were called simply "Mister"?

Until the late 19th century most Roman Catholic priests were also 'Mister'. Indeed it's debatable whether 'Father' came into general use before a few Anglo-catholics (the East End priest Father Wainright for example) became so known. Though of course Religious priests would have been 'Father'.

The Father / Mister distinction was actually between 'religious' / 'secular' clergy (ie monastic / parochial). Until The 19th century parish clergy Roman and Anglican were usually known as Mister (as they are in other European languages). Before the Reformation 'Sir" (as in Spanish 'Don") was common.

Following Catholic Emancipation and mass Irish immigration to England Catholic parishes were frequently served by religious (trained secular priests just not being available). Catholics therefore got used to thinking all priests were called Father.

It is indeed possible that it was Anglo-Catholic parish clergy who first started using Father (to emphasize their sacred calling) and that Roman secular clergy followed suit.

'Mother' or "Mo' is not unusual among (the relatively few)Anglo-Catholic parishes inLondon which have women priests.

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Isn't it true that before the Oxford Movement - and in fact right up till maybe the 1950s or so - most Anglican priests (in England, anyway) were called simply "Mister"?

Until the late 19th century most Roman Catholic priests were also 'Mister'. Indeed it's debatable whether 'Father' came into general use before a few Anglo-catholics (the East End priest Father Wainright for example) became so known. Though of course Religious priests would have been 'Father'.
The Father / Mister distinction was originally between 'religious' / 'secular' clergy (ie monastic / parochial). Until the 19th century parish clergy Roman and Anglican were usually known as Mister (as they are in other European languages). Before the Reformation 'Sir" (as in Spanish 'Don") was common.

Following Catholic Emancipation and mass Irish immigration to England Catholic parishes were frequently served by religious (trained secular priests just not being available). Catholics therefore got used to thinking all priests were called Father.

It is indeed possible that it was Anglo-Catholic parish clergy who first started using Father (to emphasize their sacred calling) and that Roman secular clergy followed suit.

'Mother' or "Mo' is not unusual among (the relatively few) Anglo-Catholic parishes in London which have women priests.

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

The Father / Mister distinction was originally between 'religious' / 'secular' clergy (ie monastic / parochial). Until the 19th century parish clergy - Roman and Anglican - were usually known as Mister (as they are in other European languages). Before the Reformation 'Sir" (as in Spanish 'Don") was common.

Following Catholic Emancipation and mass Irish immigration to England Catholic parishes were frequently served by clergy from religious orders (trained secular priests just not being available). Catholics therefore got used to thinking all priests were called Father.

It is indeed possible that it was Anglo-Catholic parish clergy who first started using Father (to emphasize their sacred calling) and that Roman secular clergy followed suit.

'Mother' or "Mo' is not unusual among (the relatively few) Anglo-Catholic parishes in London which have women priests.

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

I would like to delete this double posting, but 'flood control' won't let me.

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

Flood control problems

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

It should never, ever, be Reverend Smith; if the Reverend is to be used, the proper address is either,the Rev Mr (or Ms) Smith. Otherwise, it is simply Mr or Ms Smith, or Father Alf or Mother Jenny.

But of course there is the excdption to even such an ironcast rule. The previous chaplain at school was always "Rev", and remains such with his emeritus status. He even has his own rgby jersey, with REV emblazoned on it.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

We only use Rev Mr. for deacons; priests use Rev for formal occasions, Fr. otherwise.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joan_of_Quark:
I've heard of women priests using Father as their own title.

Oh good Lord! Bring Miss Amanda some smelling salts, there's a dear!

It is also common in the USA for women attorneys to use the title "Esq." when everyone knows that only a gentleman can correctly do so. To her credit, I once heard a woman attorney opine that her colleagues should adopt "Goodwife" as their honorific, to be abbreviated "Gdwf" of course. [Smile]

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

I almost always introduce myself as "Anne" and that's what most people call me, but in the last week I've also been addressed in the following ways:

"Am I going to Hell Vicar?" (by a bridesmaid swigging gin from a hip flask as we waited for the bride to arrive)

"This is for Father Anne" (by a young member of the Sunday School)

"It's the Rev." (my Dad who thinks that this is hilariously funny)

"Hello, Reverend Anne" (by a funeral director.)

By and large, if people are polite, I'll answer to most things, and I'm getting more relaxed about the 'Father' thing, since it's mostly used by youngsters who are clearly doing their best and not being at all cheeky.

I'm also reminded that my Mum's 'phone book always has the parish priest under P for Parson.

anne

Posted by minstermusic (# 16462) on :

I have never considered 'Father' to be a particularly AC form of address - around these parts, most clergy who are middle-of-the-road use it.

One thing which does irritate me is the incorrect use of 'Reverend'. This really started after the ordination of women to the priesthood when people usually from a non-church background didn't know how to address them. (Despite what some others have said, I've never encountered 'mother') Thus interviewers will address someone as 'Reverend Angela', 'Reverend Smith', or perhaps worst of all, just plain 'Reverend'. These of course are quite wrong - the title should only be used when referring to someone as 'The Reverend Angela (or A.) Smith'.

A priest I know was once most amused to receive a letter from a couple enquiring about getting married, where they addressed him as 'Your Holiness'. Very singular!

First prize however must go to Mrs Proudie, wife of the Bishop of Barchester, who really wore the trousers (or gaiters) in the Bishop's palace, yet very deferentially always addressed her husband as 'My Lord'.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

I'm afraid it might be simpler than the ordination of women--American usage has probably crept its tentacles across the pond. Titles and honorifics are not as big a deal in America as they are over there. Overall, we just don't care.

Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :

I'm in the UK and not sure I've ever actually met a vicar who wants to be called Father (I'm sure they exist I just haven't been in those circles). I'd find it a bit odd to be honest, but then I tend to be in MOTR churches these days where the vicar tends to be called by the first name.

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

This is a good explanation of the technical differences between rectors, vicars and curates.

For practical purposes, the changes in financial arrangements, and the modern trend for priests in charge on (at least in theory) fixed-term contracts to be appointment, rather than incumbents with the freehold, has lead to the difference disappearing.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Joan_of_Quark:
I've heard of women priests using Father as their own title.
Oh good Lord! Bring Miss Amanda some smelling salts, there's a dear!

It is also common in the USA for women attorneys to use the title "Esq." when everyone knows that only a gentleman can correctly do so. To her credit, I once heard a woman attorney opine that her colleagues should adopt "Goodwife" as their honorific, to be abbreviated "Gdwf" of course.

This thread came to mind today. I was engaged in a conversation with an RC bloke I met at hospital, politely curious about my denomination, and whether I was a priest(I was collared up visiting a parishioner); and throughout the whole conversation he kept calling me 'Father', very casually and in a natural way.

I came to the conclusion he just simply didn't know what to call any other kind of clergyperson, let alone a lady-lumpity kind like me! So he was just addressing me in the same way he would've his own priest.

It was the most peculiar feeling, though. It left me chuckling all the way home. I don't think I would like to be 'Father' all the time though! I'm quite happy with all the variations on 'Reverend' and 'Rector' and my name that I usually get.

[ 12. June 2011, 20:42: Message edited by: Anselmina ]

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

So we've had a couple of sightings in the wild of women who are OK with others calling them Father, but none who prefer it or suggest it themselves. Maybe these fabled creatures do not in fact exist? Or maybe it's about time someone tried it!

Ordained people here: did you change your title on passport, credit cards etc. or do most people stay as Mr/Ms/etc on those?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
I'm in the UK and not sure I've ever actually met a vicar who wants to be called Father (I'm sure they exist I just haven't been in those circles). I'd find it a bit odd to be honest, but then I tend to be in MOTR churches these days where the vicar tends to be called by the first name.

If it's a choice between 'Father' and 'Sir' (let alone 'Reverend') I prefer the former. I'm ambivalent about people addressing me by christian name; I generally prefer it but get the feeling some people might try to take advantage of over-familiarity. Hence I mostly prefer 'Father Christianname' in semi-formal situations or on first meeting.
When I worked with a female colleague who didn't want to be Mother, I quietly encouraged people to drop the Father for me as well. To give one priest and not the other a courtesy title is worse than giving one to neither.
As someone upthread pointed out, 'Sir' used to be a title for priests in the middle ages. Nowadays I'm sure it's extremely rare, but in the rural village where I grew up certain of the more traditional (and often upper-middle-class, who would have expected to be thus addressed by their 'inferiors') laity addressed the clergy thus.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joan_of_Quark:
So we've had a couple of sightings in the wild of women who are OK with others calling them Father, but none who prefer it or suggest it themselves. Maybe these fabled creatures do not in fact exist? Or maybe it's about time someone tried it!

Ordained people here: did you change your title on passport, credit cards etc. or do most people stay as Mr/Ms/etc on those?

Renewing my UK passport I learnt that one would have to provide evidential proof of the 'Reverend' bit. Much easier just to be First Name, Middle Name, Second Name. No title required. Not that attached to the handle.

I notice that one of my credit cards has a 'Rev' on it; must have been a black out moment. I think I'm otherwise Miss on non-clerical related paperwork. Though I've also noticed that since moving to Ireland people are more inclined to put the 'Rev' on, if they know I'm a clerge.

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

I had Rev. on one credit card. This was the one I used for church expenses and I did it so it was easier to keep business expenses separate, when it came to tax time.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Titles and honorifics are not as big a deal in America as they are over there.

As a Brit who worked for a US company for 14 years, I can assure you that that is not true, On the whole Americans are far more formal than we are and care far more about rank and titles.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Titles and honorifics are not as big a deal in America as they are over there.
As a Brit who worked for a US company for 14 years, I can assure you that that is not true, On the whole Americans are far more formal than we are and care far more about rank and titles.

Like the Italians, Germans and to a slightly lesser extent, the French. Think of all those Professors, Doctors, Engineers, Advocates, to say nothing of Herr Doktor Advocat, not as descriptions of the occupation, but as a title for everyday use. Once there's no real basis for a title, it becomes much more important to have one.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Titles and honorifics are not as big a deal in America as they are over there.
As a Brit who worked for a US company for 14 years, I can assure you that that is not true, On the whole Americans are far more formal than we are and care far more about rank and titles.

okay, ken

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by minstermusic:
I have never considered 'Father' to be a particularly AC form of address - around these parts, most clergy who are middle-of-the-road use it.

One thing which does irritate me is the incorrect use of 'Reverend'. This really started after the ordination of women to the priesthood when people usually from a non-church background didn't know how to address them. (Despite what some others have said, I've never encountered 'mother') Thus interviewers will address someone as 'Reverend Angela', 'Reverend Smith', or perhaps worst of all, just plain 'Reverend'. These of course are quite wrong - the title should only be used when referring to someone as 'The Reverend Angela (or A.) Smith'.

*snip*

First prize however must go to Mrs Proudie, wife of the Bishop of Barchester, who really wore the trousers (or gaiters) in the Bishop's palace, yet very deferentially always addressed her husband as 'My Lord'.

Minstermusic is quite fortunate; North Americans have been longtime grievously oppressed by the use of Reverend as a stand-alone noun or vocative. By now it has acquired a backwoods dialectic legitimacy, I imagine, but it always grates. Here at Circumlocution Canada, I take much cheer in correcting it in correspondence dockets.

Mrs Proudie is to be emulated! My favourite clerical title was that which an NDP activist gave to the Venerable Ken Bolton, when he was elected MLA for Middlesex Centre in 1969(?), who referred to him as Comrade Archdeacon.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Martin L: That's Mr. ken to you [Razz]

The Anglican Church of Canada seems not to be keen on the use of "Father" as formal address for clergy.

I can't find the resource offhand, but ISTM that the title of "Vicar" is also Very Much Not Used in the Anglican Church of Canada, where "Rector" or "Incumbent" is preferred. (Most confusing to those of us who grew up with the show Vicar of Dibley and assume C of E usage applies.)

[ 13. June 2011, 01:16: Message edited by: Leaf ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by minstermusic:
I have never considered 'Father' to be a particularly AC form of address - around these parts, most clergy who are middle-of-the-road use it.

One thing which does irritate me is the incorrect use of 'Reverend'. This really started after the ordination of women to the priesthood when people usually from a non-church background didn't know how to address them. (Despite what some others have said, I've never encountered 'mother') Thus interviewers will address someone as 'Reverend Angela', 'Reverend Smith', or perhaps worst of all, just plain 'Reverend'. These of course are quite wrong - the title should only be used when referring to someone as 'The Reverend Angela (or A.) Smith'.

*snip*

First prize however must go to Mrs Proudie, wife of the Bishop of Barchester, who really wore the trousers (or gaiters) in the Bishop's palace, yet very deferentially always addressed her husband as 'My Lord'.
Minstermusic is quite fortunate; North Americans have been longtime grievously oppressed by the use of Reverend as a stand-alone noun or vocative. By now it has acquired a backwoods dialectic legitimacy, I imagine, but it always grates. Here at Circumlocution Canada, I take much cheer in correcting it in correspondence dockets.

Mrs Proudie is to be emulated! My favourite clerical title was that which an NDP activist gave to the Venerable Ken Bolton, when he was elected MLA for Middlesex Centre in 1969(?), who referred to him as Comrade Archdeacon.

Speak for yourself, O Aleut!

I for one find myself quite oppressed by Anglicans who with to impute their own thinking into other people's traditions where such thinking doesn't belong.

The simple fact is that the Anglican usage is normative only for England. Most churchgoers in North America are either Roman Catholic, for whom usage is clear, or Methodist/Presbyterian/Baptist who have their own customs and those customs are much closer to the Church of Scotland's usage than the Church of England.

For instance, the United Church of Canada is quite insistent that it is Rev., not Rev'd. Ma Preacher was addressed as Rev. Ma by all her pastoral charges before her retirement.

Our house, our rules eh? It's like calling former Preacher residences which were provided by the pastoral charge Rectories instead of Manses. The former is Quite Wrong.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I referred, SPK, only to Anglican usage, by Anglicans, of Anglicans, and was thinking of the folkways and speech of the area from South Alice Township to Horton Township to Bastard & Burgess. This, of course, goes beyond the thread's title, as the CoE is a minority within Anglicanism.... That UCC ministers in Smith's Falls are called Reverend and OCA bishops in Merrickville are called Vladyka are interesting facts, but this is more properly part of a wider or more denomination-specific thread.

Some former Canadian practices, such as Mr Dean and Mr Archedeacon, have almost entirely disappeared--- I have not heard either within the past twenty years. Most bishops these days are really not comfortable with "My Lord," but they can just suck it up.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Surely "M'Lord" makes no sense in the Canadian context? They were never Lords Spiritual in the CofE sense were they, i.e. they didn't get seats in the upper chamber of Parliament?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Surely "M'Lord" makes no sense in the Canadian context? They were never Lords Spiritual in the CofE sense were they, i.e. they didn't get seats in the upper chamber of Parliament?

First, not all UK My Lords get seats anywhere (such as judges) and the link is now broken under recent legislation. Second, in Canada the term was used officially not only of judges, but also of RC bishops (e.g., the Governor-General's letter "recognizing Mr Power in the character of Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto," also addresses him as Your Lordship) as well as Anglican ones. The official style handbook no longer uses it although it exists still in a few of the legislation which established some dioceses.

In colonial times, a few bishops were also executive councillors (Inglis in Nova Scotia, Briand, Plessis, and Mountain in Lower Canada and Strachan in Upper Canada), but that only carried an Honourable. In recent years, the only clerical senator was a nun from Nova Scotia.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Thanks for that. Yes, I know that CofE bishops who don't sit in the Lords may also be referred to as "My Lord", but in fact that tends in practice to be done by a certain species of Sanctuary Swan. Your reminder that high court judges are similarly addressed seems more pertinent. But I wonder if in Canada as in the CofE, most of those today who would use "M'Lord" as a form of address are being rather camp.

[ 13. June 2011, 11:46: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

We of the non anglican persuasion are often called vicar by those who can't work out our pecking order. I was called "Father" a while back....

It must be confusing to people that I'm neither an anglican nor do I wear a clerical collar. They seem to think somehow (at least a few admit to thinking) that you aren't the real deal ....

Fortunately there's a few (who knowing the ante) call me Pastor Mark but most people (including the children I meet from school when I'm in the Supermarket in the White Town), call me Mark.

Godo enough for my parents and hence good enough for me.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Thanks for that. Yes, I know that CofE bishops who don't sit in the Lords may also be referred to as "My Lord", but in fact that tends in practice to be done by a certain species of Sanctuary Swan. Your reminder that high court judges are similarly addressed seems more pertinent. But I wonder if in Canada as in the CofE, most of those today who would use "M'Lord" as a form of address are being rather camp.

Just a quick guess, on my part, that the Canadian users fall into three categories: primarily those who embrace the use of titles as a sign of Times Gone which they would like to return (ca. 1925 or members of the Monarchist League of Canada), a few of the camp category, and the third (in which I include myself) who simply like to annoy people. I think that there are also a few who like any sign of differentiation with Our Great Neighbour to the South, but I am not sure what the percentage would be there. Our usage has to do with our own peculiar situation.

Posted by daviddrinkell (# 8854) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
The Anglican Church of Canada seems not to be keen on the use of "Father" as formal address for clergy.

Not so in Newfoundland - 'Father' is the normal form of address. There are a few folk who don't feel comfortable with it and use 'Rector' or 'Reverend', but it's by far the most usual. Perhaps this is because it's convenient and short, but historically Newfoundland was further up the candle than Canada, and somewhat dubious about joining the ACC on Confederation.

'Reverend' goes much further back than OOW. It's incorrect English but very common.

Rector and Vicar describe one's appointment, rather than what one is. Historically, the Rector received the Great Tithes. If theliving was owned by, say, a monastery, they would provide a parish priest - a Vicar - but retain the Great Tithes to themselves.

Posted by minstermusic (# 16462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I referred, SPK, only to Anglican usage, by Anglicans, of Anglicans,.... Some former Canadian practices, such as Mr Dean and Mr Archedeacon, have almost entirely disappeared--- I have not heard either within the past twenty years. Most bishops these days are really not comfortable with "My Lord," but they can just suck it up.

Just to come back to usage on this side of the pond - Roman Catholic Bishops here are addressed as 'My Lord', at least in formal situations. Confirmandi in RC schools are rehearsed in greeting the Bishop, "Good morning, My Lord",when he visits the school - unless it's the Archbishop coming to confirm, in which case it's "Your Grace".
On the other hand, I can't remember the last time I heard an Anglican bishop addressed in this way, and those I know prefer simply "Bishop John" or whatever. A new area bishop I know doesn't even use the term bishop as a title but just as the position he holds - "I'm Dave, Bishop of *******".

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Is this a particularly English thing? I mean, in France, RC priests have always been "Père," haven't they?

Maybe just a Reformation thing, I guess?
No, only religious priests are Père; diocesan priests are Abbé even today. In most histories of the church in France in the 19th Century, a lot of the priests will be referred to as "Monsieur <last name>."

Thanks, Hart - very interesting. Really, I had no idea. (Would have thought that religious priests would be called Frère instead, in fact!)

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joan_of_Quark:
So we've had a couple of sightings in the wild of women who are OK with others calling them Father, but none who prefer it or suggest it themselves. Maybe these fabled creatures do not in fact exist? Or maybe it's about time someone tried it!

I know one priest who refers to herself as herself Father Name - she's very high church, wears a Saturno and black shoes with silver buckles. I think it's slightly tongue-in-cheek - she'd fit right in in Eccles!

[ 13. June 2011, 13:36: Message edited by: Earwig ]

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

"Rev" seems to be very popular among some people in TEC today, especially from those who have converted and are in lowish parishes. I am of the age where it will be difficult for me to accept.

I know some bishops in certain countries in the Commonwealth who don't stop people from addressing them as "My Lord" or "Your grace," that seems to be to be a very dangerous stiuation really.

The other day someone addressed me as "pastor" before the Mass and was actually taking notes during the sermon as if he would be examined later. Obviously not of the Anglican tradition!

I used "mama" for years as my title and so did everybody else. It simply means "father" and is what Anglican priest are called in Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands. When two women priests from NZ came one time to Vanuatu, people were wondering what to call them. ' "Mama" means "father" so it won't be correct' said some. We then realised that "mama" is the Bislama word for "mother" AND the Mota word for "father" so "mama" it became for everyone.

"Good morning, Mama Dorothy, More tea, Mama Philip?" Worked out fine.

What about introducing oneself? In church, I usually am becassocked and stick out my hand and say something like, "I'm Father Thomas" or at the hospital, funeral home, or other places on job. Never do when in mufti and just say, "Thomas" during introductions.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Wouldn't call anyone "Father" personally - seems somewhat contradictory to scripture to me

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Frederick Buechner says it all in his definition of 'Reverend' in Wishful Thinking. Where he points out that 'Reverend' is a title of honour given to clergy on account of the one whom they represent. He says that it should never be used as a form of address any more than you would address your congressman in a letter, say, as "Dear Honorable Smith…" let alone used on its own as a noun for that person.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Wouldn't call anyone "Father" personally - seems somewhat contradictory to scripture to me

Not even your dad?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

We do lots of stuff that scripture doesn't approve off. Can't remember the last time I cut one of my hands of because it offended me.

When it comes to clergy titles, it's all the Venerables, Very Reverends, Slightly Reverends and Reverend on Tuesdays that annoy me. That lot need chucking on the scrapheap.

The titles, I mean, not the people.

Although ... [Biased]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

And, going back some decades, there was that Archbishop of Cyprus (and president, I think), properly addressed in church as (please excuse spelling) Macarious (honorific) Macarious (first name).

John

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Wouldn't call anyone "Father" personally - seems somewhat contradictory to scripture to me
Not even your dad?

I call him dad

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

When it comes to clergy titles, it's all the Venerables, Very Reverends, Slightly Reverends and Reverend on Tuesdays that annoy me. That lot need chucking on the scrapheap.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

The simple fact is that the Anglican usage is normative only for England.

Actually what is described as Anglican usage here is only normative for a high-church minority of Anglicans - it just so happens that most north American Anglicans are part of it.

Calling somone "Father" is a sign of marked Anglo-Catholicism here. If someone says its MOTR then thats a clue that they are far enough over their side of the road that they can't see to the other side.

And people do call priests "vicar" quite commonly. And they do say "Rev so-and-so" or even "the Rev" or "a Rev" and have done for the thirty or forty years I've been hanging around churches. Its neither new nor an American import.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Wouldn't call anyone "Father" personally - seems somewhat contradictory to scripture to me
Not even your dad?
I call him dad

What he said [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Titles and honorifics are not as big a deal in America as they are over there.
As a Brit who worked for a US company for 14 years, I can assure you that that is not true, On the whole Americans are far more formal than we are and care far more about rank and titles.
okay, ken

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Martin L: That's Mr. ken to you

Exactly! The Americans in the copmpany used "Mr Surname" more than we did, we tended to use first names for everyone.

And normal people calling people "sir" feels creepy here. In Britain it goes with uniforms and discipline - if you call someone "sir" it means they are in some sense you commanding officer and entitled to have you punished. So the military, and prisons and and schools. There is an involuntary aspect to it.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Wouldn't call anyone "Father" personally - seems somewhat contradictory to scripture to me
Not even your dad?
I call him dad
What he said

Do you call him 'Dad' because he or you prefer it, or because of what scripture says? Plenty of priests I know get called 'Daddy X'.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Tangent alert: I was surprised during my time working in the UK that first name address was used in professional situations there so much more than in America. What I would like to ask is: how long has this been the case, and what factors contributed to the proportionately greater rise in the use of first name address in Britain relative to the USA?

[ 13. June 2011, 17:10: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I think about a generation.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

OK, so what's the origin of the practice? A type of protest against the class system?

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Titles and honorifics are not as big a deal in America as they are over there.
As a Brit who worked for a US company for 14 years, I can assure you that that is not true, On the whole Americans are far more formal than we are and care far more about rank and titles.
okay, ken
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Martin L: That's Mr. ken to you
Exactly! The Americans in the copmpany used "Mr Surname" more than we did, we tended to use first names for everyone.

And normal people calling people "sir" feels creepy here. In Britain it goes with uniforms and discipline - if you call someone "sir" it means they are in some sense you commanding officer and entitled to have you punished. So the military, and prisons and and schools. There is an involuntary aspect to it.

American use of "sir" and "ma'm" is, I think,
Southern and Midwestern usage - particularly Southern. (And, as you note, military.)

Nobody uses it around here, anyway - and whenever somebody does, I know they're from "someplace else" originally - or in the Marines....

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Ken posts:

quote:
If someone says its MOTR then thats a clue that they are far enough over their side of the road that they can't see to the other side.

More pond difference here, Ken, although that certainly would have been the case here (in Canada) in my youth. Currently, I know several evangelical clerics (so they claim themselves to be) who are often referred to as Father Bob or Father Igor by their GLE congregants. One of my evan singer friends tells me that this is frequent at youth for Christ gatherings, where the Anglican and RC clerics get the Father and the others get the Reverend or the Pastor.

Younger small-town Ontario Anglicans will sometimes use Father, but the post-50 generation will tend to stick with Mr or Reverend. Most Anglican Cree and Inuit I know keep to the older form.

I think that here are regional variations here, given the insular nature of Canadian diocesan life, but I do not know them all.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Earwig:

quote:
Originally posted by Joan_of_Quark:
So we've had a couple of sightings in the wild of women who are OK with others calling them Father, but none who prefer it or suggest it themselves. Maybe these fabled creatures do not in fact exist? Or maybe it's about time someone tried it!
I know one priest who refers to herself as herself Father Name - she's very high church, wears a Saturno and black shoes with silver buckles. I think it's slightly tongue-in-cheek - she'd fit right in in Eccles!

Some of us call our vicar Father Name and she doesn't seem to mind. In fact her previous parish did so too -- at least the church where she was the first female priest and which had a tradition of calling the priest Father. She's not as high church Earwig's example. I have to say I prefer Father Name to 'Reverend Name' which our sister church uses.

Carys

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Surely our Lord's strictures against calling men 'Father' would apply equally to titles such as 'Reverend'. Only God is Father, but in the same way only God is worthy of reverence. Except insofar as we are God's representatives of course.

As I said before, I'm not fussed about titles, but of them all I prefer to be called Father, because it implies a family relationship and not social superiority. First name suits me fine though. Or in the context where every other adult male is Mr, Mr will do. Not in a church where everyone is on Christian name terms except with the vicar.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Some of us call our vicar Father Name and she doesn't seem to mind. In fact her previous parish did so too -- at least the church where she was the first female priest and which had a tradition of calling the priest Father. She's not as high church Earwig's example. I have to say I prefer Father Name to 'Reverend Name' which our sister church uses.

I can't get my mind around calling a woman "Father" and not "Mother." There must be some thought process leading to that custom that I've never experienced! [Eek!]

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

In my non-con experience older folk have been used to the minister as Mr X etc

Now we use first names mostly but Rev when formal.

I use Rev on paper when acting in role, correspondence etc but am Miss for everything else in life.

My church only has reverend no Right Rev or Very Rev etc I get very confused by the ranks of the heirachy

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Wouldn't call anyone "Father" personally - seems somewhat contradictory to scripture to me

So is eating shrimp and wearing polycotton.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Some of us call our vicar Father Name and she doesn't seem to mind. In fact her previous parish did so too -- at least the church where she was the first female priest and which had a tradition of calling the priest Father. She's not as high church Earwig's example. I have to say I prefer Father Name to 'Reverend Name' which our sister church uses.
I can't get my mind around calling a woman "Father" and not "Mother." There must be some thought process leading to that custom that I've never experienced!

One that sees role and gender as non-exclusionary. A priest is in some sense a 'father' this is true regardless of the gender of the priest. God is Father, but not male -- both men and women are created in his image.

Carys

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
qb]
I can't get my mind around calling a woman "Father" and not "Mother." There must be some thought process leading to that custom that I've never experienced!

It certainly isn't new; I first heard about 30 years ago!

[ 14. June 2011, 00:09: Message edited by: Mama Thomas ]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
It certainly isn't new; I first heard about 30 years ago!

Say there were an ancient community of monks, who naturally addressed each other as "Brother N." In recent years the community had gotten quite small, so they decided to open a new dormitory and to admit women into the professed community, becoming a dual monastery where they pray, eat, and work together and stay in their separate dormitories.

The monks have always called members of their community "brother," so when the first woman takes her first vows, they dub her "Brother Mary Elizabeth." Their rationale is that members of this community have always been called "Brother." They ignore the fact that the word Sister is available, has been used elsewhere, and makes sense.

That's how calling a female priest "Father" strikes me. Or perhaps I should think of it similarly to "Sir" in Star Trek: superior officers are addressed as "Sir," even if the one being addressed is a female admiral (never mind Capt. Janeway's preference for "Captain"). But Star Trek is centuries off. For now, I think gender is firmly tied to the terms "Father," "Mother," "Sister," and "Brother." The appropriate one should be used for the person.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

Can someone please enlighten me as to the meaning of the abbreviation TEC as I am only aware of Training and Employment Council where I live and I'm sure this is not what is referred to. Can't find the answer in FAQ.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

"The Episcopal Church" (TEC) is the (official, I think) designation for what used to be called "Episcopal Church in the USA" (abbreviated "ECUSA").

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

The monks have always called members of their community "brother," so when the first woman takes her first vows, they dub her "Brother Mary Elizabeth." Their rationale is that members of this community have always been called "Brother." They ignore the fact that the word Sister is available, has been used elsewhere, and makes sense.

In this fair city we have had several female Lord Mayors in recent years. And in another borough the very genteel lady who held the office was insistent that she be addressed as 'Mr Mayor'.

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

Yes, I think we should use the appropriate title for the person, BUT taking into account the person's preferences, which might include using it as an opportunity to play around with the norms and to question whether we need different titles for different genders, heights, marital status, eye colours etc.

Words like "Father" and "Mother" all evoke different first thoughts in us according to culture and history and so on, which could be used as an argument for ditching them completely or trying them in new ways.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Wouldn't call anyone "Father" personally - seems somewhat contradictory to scripture to me
Not even your dad?
I call him dad
What he said

Do you call him 'Dad' because he or you prefer it, or because of what scripture says? Plenty of priests I know get called 'Daddy X'.

Any title brings some kind of social or hierarchical cachet. being called "Father" in the church context is nothing to do with family as you claim since you aren't their dad in reality or in christ. It's just an affectation (which means it's really irrelevant0 or a desire to be recognised (which is spiritually to be deprecated).

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Wouldn't call anyone "Father" personally - seems somewhat contradictory to scripture to me
So is eating shrimp and wearing polycotton.

Ah but neither of them in use or misuse are capable of bigging someone up. "Father" is.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
"The Episcopal Church" (TEC) is the (official, I think) designation for what used to be called "Episcopal Church in the USA" (abbreviated "ECUSA").

It's the official DBA (doing business as)for what even farther back used to be PECUSA (Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA) and whose actual official monicker under the laws of incorporation of the State of New York is The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (or is it the Foreign and Domestic...Society... -- never can remember which adjective comes first).

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Wouldn't call anyone "Father" personally - seems somewhat contradictory to scripture to me
So is eating shrimp and wearing polycotton.
Ah but neither of them in use or misuse are capable of bigging someone up. "Father" is.

So it's not actually the scriptural reference that matters - I thought that that was the point you were making; but the fact that in your opinion of scripture, people being called 'Father' are abusing the term.

Eclectic!

I know a few priests who give the impression that they like being called 'Father' because it gives them a certain something different to other clergy, and maybe even other people. But for the most part I'd say most 'Fatherly' clergy just take it on board as a working title; especially the Roman Catholic clergy, who couldn't get away from it if they tried.

Just because it's misused by a few, doesn't make the term redundant or wrong in call cases.

[ 14. June 2011, 12:33: Message edited by: Anselmina ]

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :

In Newcastle (NSW) the dominant tone is MOTR to Anglo-Catholic, and most priests go by Father - perhaps it serves to distinguish ourselves from Sydney to the south. Older parishioners seem to prefer the term "Rector" (no Vicars in this diocese). Some women priests like "Mother", others just go for "Reverend". Non-anglicans tend to call me "Father" (especially if Catholic) or "Minister" (especially if protestant). Nobody calls me "Mr" or "Dr", except for junk mail.

Incidentally, we have a Lord Bishop. My understanding is that this goes back to the 19th Century. Our Diocese was founded by Royal Letters Patent signed by Queen Victoria in 1847, as were all colonial dioceses up until the 1860's - I think the last may have been Goulburn NSW. Anyway, at that time there was a challenge to the practice, on the grounds that colonial churches were not established. So, if your Diocese was founded by Royal Letters Patent, then the Bishop is (in a sense) nobility, and hence "My Lord"; if not, you missed out.

In summary - from our jumbled wonderful history, do not expect consistency.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
So is eating shrimp and wearing polycotton.

quote:
Ah but neither of them in use or misuse are capable of bigging someone up. "Father" is.

Depends how many shrimps you eat.

But seriously, the same would apply to any titles, such as 'Reverend', 'Sir' or even Vicar. I'm happy to do without them all, but if people insist on using them I prefer one that indicates a relationship of service rather than social status.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

In the same passage, Christ tells us not to call anyone "teacher" either but I don't see anyone condemning the Sunday Schools of the land, nor yet those "Bible Teachers" that you see so prominently advertised in certain places.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
"The Episcopal Church" (TEC) is the (official, I think) designation for what used to be called "Episcopal Church in the USA" (abbreviated "ECUSA").
It's the official DBA (doing business as)for what even farther back used to be PECUSA (Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA) and whose actual official monicker under the laws of incorporation of the State of New York is The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (or is it the Foreign and Domestic...Society... -- never can remember which adjective comes first).

DFMS. Check out, for instance, dfms.org!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Wouldn't call anyone "Father" personally - seems somewhat contradictory to scripture to me
So is eating shrimp and wearing polycotton.
Ah but neither of them in use or misuse are capable of bigging someone up. "Father" is.
So it's not actually the scriptural reference that matters - I thought that that was the point you were making; but the fact that in your opinion of scripture, people being called 'Father' are abusing the term.

Eclectic!

I know a few priests who give the impression that they like being called 'Father' because it gives them a certain something different to other clergy, and maybe even other people. But for the most part I'd say most 'Fatherly' clergy just take it on board as a working title; especially the Roman Catholic clergy, who couldn't get away from it if they tried.

Just because it's misused by a few, doesn't make the term redundant or wrong in call cases.

Agreed to soem extent but you don't get builders' labourers (as I once was) being called Labourer Mark. It was usually something far ruder but Mark in a real crisis.

It's not the title nor the clothes nor the background that's important but the depth of character.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
In the same passage, Christ tells us not to call anyone "teacher" either but I don't see anyone condemning the Sunday Schools of the land, nor yet those "Bible Teachers" that you see so prominently advertised in certain places.

Agreed but you don't get anyone being called Teacher (name) do you? The status is sufficient rather than the (often insincere) flattery of "Father"

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
So is eating shrimp and wearing polycotton.

quote:
Ah but neither of them in use or misuse are capable of bigging someone up. "Father" is.
Depends how many shrimps you eat.

But seriously, the same would apply to any titles, such as 'Reverend', 'Sir' or even Vicar. I'm happy to do without them all, but if people insist on using them I prefer one that indicates a relationship of service rather than social status.

How does Father imply a relationship of service? It more likely implies a relationship of dependance and authority -- at best "Minister" is more service orientated but I suspect very unwieldy in conversation.

Why the beef about being known by our jobs? (Or in the case of ex service personnel their ex jobs? (Really raises my hackles when I see a letter in the local paper from Colonel Spiggot (rtd) - you don't get Paperboy Mark Exclamation 9rtd) do you). The whole thing is just a brag contest really - it's best to be known ISTM for what you are as a person not for the function you perform.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
it's best to be known ISTM for what you are as a person not for the function you perform.

A half truth. All things being equal, I would want to be a human being first and a priest second, preferably one respected for my human (and Christlike) qualities. But on a bad day (of which there might be many) I'd prefer simply to be acknowledged as Father Angloid, because I am God's servant whether or not I display that in my personality. And more importantly, it's not what I prefer but what enables the church to function.

Maybe 'Father' does come with additional baggage of 'this guy thinks he's superior to us'. It does link etymologically with 'patronise'. I accept that. But every other title commonly used for the clergy comes with similar baggage. I don't think people think too much about these connotations. And I certainly don't think titles are important or usually necessary (though, like a dog-collar, 'Father' can be a convenient way of identifying yourself).

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Agreed but you don't get anyone being called Teacher (name) do you? The status is sufficient rather than the (often insincere) flattery of "Father"

Indeed not but I think it a leap from the text to say that's what Christ had in mind. I don't particularly have a dog in this fight - if people ask me what they should call me I tell them to call me Mark - I don't think any Christian should have problems with being called by their baptismal name. But people choose to call me various things, including Father (with varying degrees of jocularity), and honestly, in agreement with Angloid, I much prefer that to Reverend (and variants). If I use it of someone, it is in the spirit of the relationship Paul speaks of in the letters to Timothy and Titus, where he describes them as his children in the faith: those who I feel have some role to share and encourage that faith.

To me, a true reading of Christ's warning is that we should not seek to aggrandise ourselves with titles or status. That danger lurks all over the place and it is that they we should be wary of not simply the particular words themselves.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
In the same passage, Christ tells us not to call anyone "teacher" either but I don't see anyone condemning the Sunday Schools of the land, nor yet those "Bible Teachers" that you see so prominently advertised in certain places.
Agreed but you don't get anyone being called Teacher (name) do you? The status is sufficient rather than the (often insincere) flattery of "Father"

You get people being called Professor, however. And Doctor. If you're Jewish and you teach little children their aleph-bet you get called 'Melamed'. You've painted yourself into a corner with your literalism, I think.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Tangent alert: I was surprised during my time working in the UK that first name address was used in professional situations there so much more than in America. What I would like to ask is: how long has this been the case, and what factors contributed to the proportionately greater rise in the use of first name address in Britain relative to the USA?

My entire adult life. So at least since the mid 1970s. At school we called the teachers "Sir" or "Miss" and surname, and they called us by surname when being formal, given name when being friendly - so a shift to surname could indicate that you were being criticised for something.

But from university onwards, including every job I've done, its usually personal names all round.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
You get people being called Professor, however.

Very, very, rarely. And usually in formal situations. Its not something I hear much and I work in a university.

quote:

And Doctor.

Only if you don't know them. But you are supposed to know your pastor. They aren't just someone you have hired for a short time to fix a problem.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:

And Doctor.
Only if you don't know them. But you are supposed to know your pastor. They aren't just someone you have hired for a short time to fix a problem.

Never worked in the NHS, ken? Though to be fair, you should never call a surgeon "Doctor". Especially if they have one of the sharper tools of their trade in their hand.

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

I work in a University and despite introducing myself to everyone using my first name, I am addressed perhaps more than half the time as "Professor Trick" by students.

That this form of address is voluntarily chosen by so many of my students would seem to indicate that the distance some posters feel implied in titles -- distance that by implication they are eager to erradicate -- is actually comforting or reassuring to a great many people.

(at conferences or professional meetings outside of my university I am pretty evenly addressed as "Prof Trick" or sometimes "Dr Trick" or even "Mr Trick, Professor of Gin Studies, Tanquerray University." I am universally addressed by my given name by colleagues).

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Agreed to soem extent but you don't get builders' labourers (as I once was) being called Labourer Mark. It was usually something far ruder but Mark in a real crisis.

It's not the title nor the clothes nor the background that's important but the depth of character.

I think, as Amos says, you're getting a bit into a literalistic twist.

Of course, it's the character of the minister involved that's important. Only a twit would think otherwise. But the minister must be called something whether formally, informally, on an envelope or in accordance with his job description. 'Father' is no better or worse than any other honorific - though depending on one's own churchmanship etc, some titles might not be regarded as appropriate.

By the way, never heard of 'Capability Brown'; never wondered where surnames came from: Smith, Taylor, Mason, Cooper, Fletcher? Even Simon the Zealot was called Simon the Zealot.

Names and functions may not be so intimately connected as they once were, but in the professions, they still are: Dr, Mr, Prof etc. I personally would prefer not to call an Anglican priest 'Father'; but if he is regarded as, or regards himself as the Father of his spiritual community under the authority of the Church I think it would be counting angels on pinheads to get areated over it.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Ken, I promise you your experience is not universal, even within the UK.

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

quote:
By the way, never heard of 'Capability Brown'; never wondered where surnames came from: Smith, Taylor, Mason, Cooper, Fletcher? Even Simon the Zealot was called Simon the Zealot

The Zealoting business isn't what it used to be ...
Growing up I would address my Parents friends (particularly the Church ones) as "Uncle X" or "Auntie Y" - it was considered respectful and friendly at the same time. The Vicar was refered to as "Vicar X" on the same basis.
"Father" IMHO is very much a badge of churchmanship which is why it's always fun to refer to any Cleric who has trained at Oak Hill etc as "Father such and such" and amusing to hear people refer to the local housechurch leader as "your Rector".

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

On calling female priests "Father": one former interim rector at my parish was among the first women ordained in her original diocese, and she said she was regularly called "Father Mary" by folks accustomed to addressing priests as "Father." She said "Mother" would have been fine if her given name hadn't been Mary. She also said that if she ever wrote a book about her experiences, the title would be "Even My Husband Calls Me Father."

On the sir/ma'am tangent: calling people "sir" and "ma'am" isn't just a Southern or military thing in the U.S. It's also how you address strangers when you are being careful not to offend. Cops use "sir" and "ma'am" all the time. It's how I invariably address strangers at the church gate where I work.

And while we're being persnickety about language, allow me to note here that the phrase "women priests" is just wrong; "women" is not an adjective any more than "men" is. They're female priests.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Cops use "sir" and "ma'am" all the time.

Not around here, they don't. They scream at us, or demand to see our ID, or want to know where we're going. I can easily recall examples of all of the above, and don't believe I've ever been called "ma'am" by a cop.

Anyway, the point was that people use "sir" and "ma'am" in ordinary conversation. Some kids - mostly from the South, in my experience - are taught to use those forms of address every time they speak to any adult. In every sentence.

That sure doesn't happen around here, either.

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

Anyway, the point was that people use "sir" and "ma'am" in ordinary conversation. Some kids - mostly from the South, in my experience - are taught to use those forms of address every time they speak to any adult. In every sentence.

Isn't [British] English unusual in not having a polite way of addressing adults or strangers? In French (and most other languages?) it is perfectly natural - indeed expected - to begin a conversation with Bonjour Monsieur etc.

The problem in BrEng is class. "Sir' is expected only from inferiors to superiors. And you can't say "Hello Mister" [or "Reverend"].

It seems to me US southerners have improved the language (though I suspect it may come from linguistic interference from another language - probably French?).

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

First hand experience suggests that the term for addressing a stranger politely in modern Britain is generally considered to be 'mate'. Although 'Vicar mate' doesn't necessarily commend itself.

As ever, I reserve judgement.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Ken, I promise you your experience is not universal, even within the UK.

What's that meant to mean?

It wasn't me that was painting the CofE as it looks from one small corner.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
First hand experience suggests that the term for addressing a stranger politely in modern Britain is generally considered to be 'mate'. Although 'Vicar mate' doesn't necessarily commend itself.

Though ' Bishop, matey' might.
[Biased]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
First hand experience suggests that the term for addressing a stranger politely in modern Britain is generally considered to be 'mate'. Although 'Vicar mate' doesn't necessarily commend itself.

The former Dean of Exeter, Keith Jones, tells a lovely story about a bloky bloke he met who wasn't sure what to call him. Just call me 'Dean' said Keith, to which the bloke replied, 'OK Dean, call me Wayne'.

In the same vein, all Archdeacons should henceforth be referred to as 'Archie'.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I like the story Murray Watts tells of a friend of his who was invited to tea by the then Archbishop of York, Donald Coggan. She was very nervous and didn't really know what to call him. Was it 'Your Grace' or 'Archbishop' or 'Dr Coggan'. But when it came to it she fluffed it and called him 'Arch-Coggan'.

(From Watts' 'Rolling in the Aisles' book.)

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

btw, Amos, your mailbox is full.

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :

Culture is very important here - in Melanesia, I was never, never addressed by first name, unless it was preceded by a title. In that culture, that was the etiquette - in Australia, by and large, it is not once you get to know the person.

However, on the lighter side - late on Anzac Day I was walking back to the rectory past the local pub (this is an Australian country town). Out of the pub staggers a youngish man, who has been commemorating in Australian style the memory of the fallen. He sees this clerical apparition - clerical collar and dark jacket, service medals. There is a dim recognition in his eyes that (especially on Anzac Day) he should be respectful to someone who has served his country. He straightens up, looks me in the eye, and says "Hello, Priest dude sir." Or something to that effect.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

There is a retired priest in my church who is always respectfully addressed as 'Canon First Name' - but I suspect it is more to do with the fact that his Christian name is the same as the vicar's and it therefore avoids confusion.

Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Ken, I promise you your experience is not universal, even within the UK.
What's that meant to mean?

It wasn't me that was painting the CofE as it looks from one small corner.

His experience seems similar to mine and we've moved in mianly different circles in different parts of the uk (usually). I called all my tutors at Oxford by their first name (after the initial panic as to how to address them), all my colleagues in the schools I've taught in. Not sure of anyone I *don't* call by their first name in fact. I don't see doctors often, but midwives, health visitors, nurses, all seem to prefer first name. Also all the vicars I've come across so far (although I was at a vicar factory for a while so perhaps that makes a difference, but I've met tons since).

I'm in my 30s so perhaps its slightly a generational thing, but still I'd hardly say Ken's experience was unusual.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

How clergy address their bishops is another one. In one diocese I have served, simple first names were not regarded as in any way disrespectful. In another, I have never heard anyone (except perhaps fellow-bishops or archdeacons) address them as other than 'Bishop', and refer to them in conversation as Bishop (usually Firstname). I wouldn't be surprised if My Lord still lingers in some dioceses.

You would expect laity to be slightly more formal towards their bishops because they have a less direct relationship with them. Clergy have much the same relationship with their bishops as laypeople have with their parish priests. Hence no need for titles (unless, as we have argued ad nauseam, Father is seen as appropriate.)

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Ken, I promise you your experience is not universal, even within the UK.
What's that meant to mean?

It wasn't me that was painting the CofE as it looks from one small corner.
His experience seems similar to mine and we've moved in mianly different circles in different parts of the uk (usually). I called all my tutors at Oxford by their first name (after the initial panic as to how to address them), all my colleagues in the schools I've taught in. Not sure of anyone I *don't* call by their first name in fact. I don't see doctors often, but midwives, health visitors, nurses, all seem to prefer first name. Also all the vicars I've come across so far (although I was at a vicar factory for a while so perhaps that makes a difference, but I've met tons since).

I'm in my 30s so perhaps its slightly a generational thing, but still I'd hardly say Ken's experience was unusual.

No one has ventured to reflect on my question as to why first name address is more prevalent in the UK than the US. I've wondered if it came about as a way of social levelling and a rather feeble if possibly not fully conscious attempt at eradicating marks of the class system (even though first name address could never achieve this at all). By contrast, the class system in the US has been characterised historically both by greater mobility and by greater ambivalence/less overt hostility of the have-nots toward the haves, thus helping to retain a somewhat greater formality in personal address in the USA (in the South, the culture of sir and m'am is another matter and a deeply entrenched style of address that is reflective of a culture in which a class system is indeed far more entrenched than in other parts of the country).

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
By contrast, the class system in the US has been characterised historically both by greater mobility and by greater ambivalence/less overt hostility of the have-nots toward the haves, thus helping to retain a somewhat greater formality in personal address in the USA (in the South, the culture of sir and m'am is another matter and a deeply entrenched style of address that is reflective of a culture in which a class system is indeed far more entrenched than in other parts of the country).

The thing is, I don't see this at all. People here DO call each other by first name in business situations; it's really rare for this not to be the case, at least in this area. I can't think of an instance of using "Mr." or "Mrs." in the situations described here....well, since the 1960s or so. Perhaps this is regional as well?

We call our priests by their first names, too, for the most part AFAIK (except in A-C joints).

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
No one has ventured to reflect on my question as to why first name address is more prevalent in the UK than the US. I've wondered if it came about as a way of social levelling and a rather feeble if possibly not fully conscious attempt at eradicating marks of the class system (even though first name address could never achieve this at all).

I seriously doubt it. Or if it is the case its been going on for centuries. You'd have to apply the same to the replacing of "thou" and "thee" by "you". And that started in the 15th century and became common by the end of the 17th. (though it still isn't complete - there are probably about five million English speakers in the north of England who make a T/V distinction at least at home)

If I had to make up a Just So Story to explain it I'd say its that formality has become a mark of social distance in English, so removing these hierarchical distinctions becomes an indicator of social solidarity.

But then I don't believe that social class is more important in England than in the other English-speaking countries, just that its more visible. We talk about it more. You guys all have it too, but you don't notice it so much.

Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :

is there *really* that more mobility in the USA? If you need medical care and don't have insurance or can't afford to go to uni aren't you pretty much stuck at the bottom?

Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on :

As a Methodist, I get used to being referred to as "a Vicar". I have even had phone calls beginning, "Is that the Methodist Vicar?". No matter how many times I try to explain that, whilst all Vicars are Ministers, not all Ministers are Vicars (or Canons, or Deans, or Archdeacons, or Bishops, or Curates or Fathers).

I try and explain that "vicar" is a peculiarly episcopal (Roman or Anglican) job description, rather than personal title, and so shouldn't be used as a form of address... then I hear an Anglican priest round here not only tolerating being referred to, but referring to herself when she phones me, as "Vicar Theresa"* so clearly clergy people go native eventually!

I still fight my corner, though! Please call me either "David" or "Mr Keeston" if you want to be formal, I say. You need only address me as "Reverend David Keston" when talking about me, not when talking to me.

"Okay, Reverend," they respond, cheerfully. "Tonight, we'd like to thank Reverend David for leading this service..."

God give me strength... where's the Circuit shotgun when you need it?

A peculiarity in the Methodist Church is our District's lead clergy person. In the old days, when we didn't ordain women, he was referred to as Chairman of the District, and called "Mr Chairman" in formal conversation or speeches. When we saw the light and began to ordain women, we of course eventually appointed women ministers to the District chair... so now, that's everyone's title who is heading a District - they are all District Chairs, and we refer to them as Madam Chair or Mister Chair, formally.

I happily conform to the new reality, but it always strikes me as the kind of egalitarian logic which confuses function with person. I saw, and see, no confusion about referring to our female district leaders as Madam Chairman, because in that case, surely, "Chairman" is descriptive of function, rather than gender?

If I as in the Royal Navy, I would have no hesitation in referring to a female matelot as "Bo's'un", even though, originally, that title was gender specific ("swain"), if that was her function.

Americans do this all the time. They refer to David Cameron as "Prime Minister Cameron" as if Prime Minister was his title, as President is for Obama. It's totally wrong. He should be referred to as "The Prime Minister", or "The Prime minister, Mr David Cameron".

Or, as I prefer to call him... no, don't go there!

* not her real name, obviously!

Posted by Fr.Andrew (# 16332) on :

As a fairly high church anglican priest in the Church in Wales - I prefer people to call me Father, but I answer to Andy, Andrew, Vicar- which I am not - I've always been non-stipendiiary ie: acting unpaid, - I was a police sergeant and was ordained while still serving in Greater Manchester Police - I was one of their Chaplains to the Police for over 20 years and a serving police officer at the same time. I got called all sorts of things, but as long as I was called regularly for meals and the odd single malt, I couldn't realy care less [Smile]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
No one has ventured to reflect on my question as to why first name address is more prevalent in the UK than the US. I've wondered if it came about as a way of social levelling and a rather feeble if possibly not fully conscious attempt at eradicating marks of the class system (even though first name address could never achieve this at all).
I seriously doubt it. Or if it is the case its been going on for centuries. You'd have to apply the same to the replacing of "thou" and "thee" by "you". And that started in the 15th century and became common by the end of the 17th. (though it still isn't complete - there are probably about five million English speakers in the north of England who make a T/V distinction at least at home)

If I had to make up a Just So Story to explain it I'd say its that formality has become a mark of social distance in English, so removing these hierarchical distinctions becomes an indicator of social solidarity.

But then I don't believe that social class is more important in England than in the other English-speaking countries, just that its more visible. We talk about it more. You guys all have it too, but you don't notice it so much.

I think the thing is, social class was historically institutionalised in British society in a different way to that which developed in the American colonies and in post-revolutionary America. The institutionalisation of the aristocracy, and the monarch as the font of honour - with the whole attendant system of honours - did indeed create a highly visible class system, augmented by a landed gentry and later a wealthy capitalist class (both of the latter as in America) that often aspired as much as possible to the ways and outward status displays of their aristocratic "betters". However, the higher echelons of the British class system have no equivalent in American society. This is a cause of historically greater social mobility in America than in Britain, since there has never been much chance of being being granted an hereditary peerage, whereas for the exceptionally talented or industrious there has always been a somewhat better chance in both countries of moving into the class of wealthy capitalists or failing that, at least into the ranks of the well-off merchant bourgeoisie. Of course, there are plenty of reasons to think that upward social mobility in America is now declining - perhaps precipitously - but the effects of the different social class systems on either side of the pond upon social manners arguably were determinative in the years after the Second World War as British society sought to modernise and open up social opportunities, whilst American society got stuck - with the exception of some fairly brief interludes - in a reactionary cycle of social conservatism that has tended to worship social authority and hierarchy. Of course, American society is less formal now than in the past, but again the point is that in certain ways these developments have gone further in Britain than in America, so one seeks an explanation for why this might be the case.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I would add to Lietuvas' interesting post that class in the US has a powerful racial and ethnic component (in Canada, it is more regional and linguistic, although one would be foolish to ignore how aboriginal Canadians are usually placed on the lowest possible rung), and in those ways has a strong hereditary component. In both countries, class and accent have a role--note how Mrs Palin was dissed on account of her rural Wasilla accent (and used it, as well) and many looked down upon (ex-PM) Jean Chrétien on account of his nigh-incomprehensible Mauricien French and even more mangled English.

How clergy are addressed here is a shifting scene, partly as older generations more used to Mr (or, in some areas, Father) are replaced by a generation which, while perhaps wishing to be respectful, has little experience of clergy and church life. A further complication, I am reminded, is of a cohort of young non-Xns who cheerfully conflate Xn and Sikh/Muslim terminology. One of my colleagues begged off Sunday duty for an official visit on the grounds that she was helping out at church-- upon my idle coffee-chat enquiry as to which church she attended, I was told it was the Rideau Heights Gurdwara. They've a new reverend there, she continued, who was really good with young people.

As far as the distinctions between Venerable and Very Reverend &c., the (Ismaili) correspondence officer I briefed seemed to have no trouble with it and was grinning with delight when I constructed a table with the RC/ Anglican/ Orthodox/ UCC/ Presbyterian titles all laid out for her. I was very good, and omitted telling her to write "stooping to kiss the hem of the sacred purple" at the bottom of letters to Baptist clergy.

Posted by Lola (# 627) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Ken, I promise you your experience is not universal, even within the UK.
What's that meant to mean?

It wasn't me that was painting the CofE as it looks from one small corner.
His experience seems similar to mine and we've moved in mianly different circles in different parts of the uk (usually). I called all my tutors at Oxford by their first name (after the initial panic as to how to address them), all my colleagues in the schools I've taught in. Not sure of anyone I *don't* call by their first name in fact. I don't see doctors often, but midwives, health visitors, nurses, all seem to prefer first name. Also all the vicars I've come across so far (although I was at a vicar factory for a while so perhaps that makes a difference, but I've met tons since).

I'm in my 30s so perhaps its slightly a generational thing, but still I'd hardly say Ken's experience was unusual.

All teachers at my (very large) sixth form college were addressed by their first name, including the principal. (Well, expect for Mr Kingsley who wanted everyone to address him as such - we did but it made us think he was a bit of a wally - he was also the only teacher to insist that the no beachwear rule menat no shorts in his lessons). Then at university we reverted to Dr/Prof Lastname for the lecturers which was a bit weird.

My doctor is actually a good friend of Mr Lola's whom I consequently address by his first name, however, I would therefore always ask for my appointment to be with one of the other practise members who I would address as Dr Lastname.

In the business world, working in British operations of large multi-national corporations I have never encountered anything apart from first name usage for everyone right up to senior partners on the main board of big four accountancy practises or the CEO of major PLCs. In fact, the CEO is generally referred to by just his first name because everyone will know who that is.

Within the teams I have worked in/work in people will sometimes use Mr Lastname or Miss Lastname to a colleague they are fond of to be jokey with them. I also once worked in a team where we referred to the senior mgrs that we liked as Uncle Firstname (although not to their faces!).

I don't have lots of experience of the USA although what I do have supports the argument that they are far more formal. My experience was also that there was a big insistence on offices with these perceived as a status symbol. Most UK offices buildings I have worked in have been entirely open plan with maybe two or three offices for the most senior staff or for HR to hold confidential meetings.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Lola's tangent is an interesting view into corporateland: in the federal bureaucracy in Canada, my Ottawa-based experience (it is different in the more informal regional offices) is that we tend to try to follow the vous/tu principle. If you would address the person with vous in French, they get Mr/Ms Lastname or very occasionally, Mr/Ms Deputy (for the permanent head of a department), at least in more formal occasions. In smaller meetings, it is firstname for everyone unless you are in a session with a minister or MP or senator, in which case they are always Mr/Ms/Senator Lastname or just minister/senator, and never by firstname.

The private sector I have dealt with is in the publishing and legal areas, and it is normally firstname although a very occasional older partner will get Mr/Ms/Mrs or Monsieur/Madame. With QCs or privy councillors, I use Mr/Ms/Mrs lastname, but they normally then tell me to use the firstname. However, I don't get to go to meetings much these days, so I miss out on these arcane Byzantine joys. Luckily I still get to go to the occasional diocesan activity where I can let myself go.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I have been reflecting on my own experience.

I wonder if Amos is speaking from a largely undergrad experience. I can recall using Prof X and Dr Y when an undergraduate. Although I suspect several assumed I used first names for them*. I am very good at not using names when I am unsure how someone should be addressed. This is over twenty years ago.

That disappeared as soon as I graduated. First Post graduate experience was that the head of department was Roger. It was how all staff referred to him in our presence. So we did too.

In my current job which is in a uni, I suspect staff would be offended if I used titles. Ironically they are consulting me, so deference works the other way around, even though I am neither a Dr nor a Prof. Profs tend to expect to get seen quicker but the worst for that are students hitting a deadline.

With the Open University, I suspect the staff have always been on first name terms just because of the different demographics of their students.

Finally my PhD supervisor would hit the roof if I addressed him with anything but his first name. He is a fairly senior professor within the University I am studying at.

So while I think for undergraduates who actually have comparatively little contact with staff using "Dr" and "Prof" might remain in some cases, this distinction does not happen once a person has graduated. If you are in the senior common room it is usually first name terms.

Jengie

*There are some background anomalies which meant that I was not quite your average student.

Posted by JohnWesleysHorse (# 14975) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
." Don't think I've ever heard of an English priest being called "mother."

I have, in leeds - http://allsoulsleeds.org.uk/

Posted by JohnWesleysHorse (# 14975) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr.Andrew:
As a fairly high church anglican priest in the Church in Wales - I prefer people to call me Father, but I answer to Andy, Andrew, Vicar- which I am not - I've always been non-stipendiiary ie: acting unpaid, - I was a police sergeant and was ordained while still serving in Greater Manchester Police - I was one of their Chaplains to the Police for over 20 years and a serving police officer at the same time. I got called all sorts of things, but as long as I was called regularly for meals and the odd single malt, I couldn't realy care less

are you at the marble church? i used to pass there each on the way to work

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JohnWesleysHorse:

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
." Don't think I've ever heard of an English priest being called "mother."

I have, in leeds - http://allsoulsleeds.org.uk/

Every reference to her on the website calls her 'Revd Alice'. But I can believe she is used to 'Mother' as well.

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by JohnWesleysHorse:

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
." Don't think I've ever heard of an English priest being called "mother."

I have, in leeds - http://allsoulsleeds.org.uk/
Every reference to her on the website calls her 'Revd Alice'. But I can believe she is used to 'Mother' as well.

And in darkest Edmonton:

http://churchnw6.co.uk/whos-who/

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

That site also provides this sensible statement

quote:
The Vicar — Fr Andrew Cain
Father Andrew (he will also answer to Andrew or Vicar – whichever you are most comfortable with) has been our Vicar since 1998!

Though I don't quite see the point of the exclamation mark.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

When one of our curates was ordained, we threw a party. As she walked in through the door, the vicar called out, 'And now let's give a tremendous welcome to 'Father Julie'!'

In Creamtealand, we are probably less formal than most - so Archdeacons and Bishops are usually addressed by their first names, unless someone is writing a letter, when it is 'Ven.' and 'Rt. Rev.'

Posted by Lola (# 627) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
No one has ventured to reflect on my question as to why first name address is more prevalent in the UK than the US. I've wondered if it came about as a way of social levelling and a rather feeble if possibly not fully conscious attempt at eradicating marks of the class system (even though first name address could never achieve this at all).
I seriously doubt it. Or if it is the case its been going on for centuries. You'd have to apply the same to the replacing of "thou" and "thee" by "you". And that started in the 15th century and became common by the end of the 17th. (though it still isn't complete - there are probably about five million English speakers in the north of England who make a T/V distinction at least at home)

If I had to make up a Just So Story to explain it I'd say its that formality has become a mark of social distance in English, so removing these hierarchical distinctions becomes an indicator of social solidarity.

But then I don't believe that social class is more important in England than in the other English-speaking countries, just that its more visible. We talk about it more. You guys all have it too, but you don't notice it so much.
I think the thing is, social class was historically institutionalised in British society in a different way to that which developed in the American colonies and in post-revolutionary America. The institutionalisation of the aristocracy, and the monarch as the font of honour - with the whole attendant system of honours - did indeed create a highly visible class system, augmented by a landed gentry and later a wealthy capitalist class (both of the latter as in America) that often aspired as much as possible to the ways and outward status displays of their aristocratic "betters".

I've thought about your question but I'd suggest the existence of a formal honours system is a bit of a red herring in a discussion of work place forms of address etiquette because by and posh people with hereditary titles don't work! Or if they do they join the armed forces and are called by their rank just like everyone else (e.g. Prince William, I believe, was Officer Cadet Wales at Sandhurst).

There are different approaches to the use of "earned" titles - both my current CEO and his predeccessor have knighthoods but were/are known internally at work not only by their first name but by the diminuitive of their first name - for example (not the current people although does apply to previous equivalents) Ted not Edward, Mike not Michael etc. Alternatively, Sir Alan Sugar as we are currently reminded by the latest series of the Apprentice expects to be addressed as Sir Alan by his employees.

I suppose that the reason is that the context is your professional competence - your military rank, medical degree, your knight or dame hood for services to whatever are relevant factors to flag up.

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lola:
I've thought about your question but I'd suggest the existence of a formal honours system is a bit of a red herring in a discussion of work place forms of address etiquette because by and posh people with hereditary titles don't work! Or if they do they join the armed forces and are called by their rank just like everyone else (e.g. Prince William, I believe, was Officer Cadet Wales at Sandhurst).

There are different approaches to the use of "earned" titles - both my current CEO and his predeccessor have knighthoods but were/are known internally at work not only by their first name but by the diminuitive of their first name - for example (not the current people although does apply to previous equivalents) Ted not Edward, Mike not Michael etc. Alternatively, Sir Alan Sugar as we are currently reminded by the latest series of the Apprentice expects to be addressed as Sir Alan by his employees.

Except that William and Harry's surname is not Wales, but Windsor - the above is a habit of the aristocracy (and some bishops) to use their title in place of their family name, which works against your argument. And 'Suralan' is called 'Lord Sugar' by everyone in the current series of 'The Apprentice', including his henchmen/women and the unseen secretary/PA who calls the victims to their fates... [Devil]

Posted by Lola (# 627) on :

Yes - I forgot he's been upped since I last watched it.

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:

Except that William and Harry's surname is not Wales, but Windsor -

Actually they don't need a surname (except when they do):

". . . members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor."

Royal Family website - Family name

[Edited for URL length.]

[ 20. June 2011, 19:34: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:

quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:

Except that William and Harry's surname is not Wales, but Windsor -
Actually they don't need a surname (except when they do):

". . . members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor."

Royal Family Website - Family Name

I think I was a bit unfair to the Royal Family there. It also says:

"Members of the Royal Family can be known both by the name of the Royal house, and by a surname, which are not always the same. And often they do not use a surname at all"

- which I take to mean they haven't got a surname in quite the same way as everyone else. They only have one when they need one, but it is no more their 'real name' than the title of the Royal House (which is indeed 'Windsor') or if they are princely [nothing].

[Also edited for URL length.]

[ 20. June 2011, 19:35: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
No one has ventured to reflect on my question as to why first name address is more prevalent in the UK than the US. I've wondered if it came about as a way of social levelling and a rather feeble if possibly not fully conscious attempt at eradicating marks of the class system

I think it's the effect of post-war television comedy, which began to parrody the obsessive Mr-ing and Madam-ing of a previous generation to a point that addressing anyone in this way came to be seen as farcical (much as no one would seriously refer to his wife as Mrs Lastname to her face or in conversation).

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
In Creamtealand, we are probably less formal than most - so Archdeacons and Bishops are usually addressed by their first names, unless someone is writing a letter, when it is 'Ven.' and 'Rt. Rev.'

When I lived in Cream Tealand I always referred to the Dean (the very one you reference upthread) as "Mr Dean".

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by JohnWesleysHorse:

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
." Don't think I've ever heard of an English priest being called "mother."

I have, in leeds - http://allsoulsleeds.org.uk/
Every reference to her on the website calls her 'Revd Alice'. But I can believe she is used to 'Mother' as well.

Hopefully she responds with equal respect to those who use the latter form of address.

I always thought it rather rude that some relatively newly minted 'Fathers' of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion addressed rather distinguished and much older members of their congregation as 'Mavis' or 'George'. Perhaps they needed a sermon on mutual respect?

Wanting to be 'Father' or 'Mother' in contemporary Australia seems rather unrealistic when even the Prime Minister is addressed as 'Julia'.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
In the same vein, all Archdeacons should henceforth be referred to as 'Archie'.

No -- Archie is the Archbishop (as opposed to plus David).

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I wonder if Amos is speaking from a largely undergrad experience. I can recall using Prof X and Dr Y when an undergraduate. Although I suspect several assumed I used first names for them*. I am very good at not using names when I am unsure how someone should be addressed. This is over twenty years ago.

Like you I tend to avoid names when I'm not sure what to use. This is what I tended to do as an undergraduate, although students would use first names to refer to lecturers in their absence. In the case of the Professor he got both his forenames, although staff used his second.

As a postgraduate (at a different university), it was first names for the senior members, with one exception, one of the professors (a personal chair I think) was always referred to by his surname. I remember being asked by an undergraduate what to call my supervisor and my instinctive response was his first name, but then I realised it was a question about the stress in his surname.

Personally, I'm Carys, but if the situation calls for formality, my title is Dr not Miss and certainly not Ms. Though I can't quite work out how to tell my aunt this!

Carys

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Isn't it true that before the Oxford Movement - and in fact right up till maybe the 1950s or so - most Anglican priests (in England, anyway) were called simply "Mister"?

That's what I'm to understand. (If true, was it also true in the U.S., does anybody know?)

I grew up in the UK, and I can assure you that in my home parish the Vicar was firmly "Mr Hepworth" until he became "Canon Hepworth" in the mid 1990s. My default, even after twelve years in the USA is still to address clergy as Mr./Dr. unless I know they prefer Fr.. I rarely run into female clergy.

PD

[ 24. June 2011, 06:03: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

Anyway, the point was that people use "sir" and "ma'am" in ordinary conversation. Some kids - mostly from the South, in my experience - are taught to use those forms of address every time they speak to any adult. In every sentence.
Isn't [British] English unusual in not having a polite way of addressing adults or strangers? In French (and most other languages?) it is perfectly natural - indeed expected - to begin a conversation with Bonjour Monsieur etc.

The problem in BrEng is class. "Sir' is expected only from inferiors to superiors. And you can't say "Hello Mister" [or "Reverend"].

It seems to me US southerners have improved the language (though I suspect it may come from linguistic interference from another language - probably French?).

I get very suspicious of people calling me sir - they either want something or it's the sarcastic police (amazing how you can make "Sir" sound) or the Inland Revenue.

Mind you I'm not all that keen on people writing to me as Dear Mark (presuming association, including denominational people) when we've never met or been introduced.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
In Creamtealand, we are probably less formal than most - so Archdeacons and Bishops are usually addressed by their first names, unless someone is writing a letter, when it is 'Ven.' and 'Rt. Rev.'

Markland being not so far away - it's much the same. Here we'd probably address the letter as we'd address the person. I wrote a reference for an ordination candidate to the Bp of Exeter - it was a "Dear Michael" and his subsequent phone call was "Michael" and "Mark" We'd met once at a conference.

On another point - about time we kicked this class/social stuff into touch more by recognising people for who they are, not for what they do or by which ancester fell into bed with some member of the so called aristocracy or royalty.

[ 24. June 2011, 07:56: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I get a range of address depending on when people came into the parish. Most folks call me 'Bishop Peter' a few still refer to me as 'Father Peter.' Clergy from outside my parish tend to play safe and start their letter/emails "My Lord Bishop" - which I find odd in this day and age, but better than some of the alternatives.

I am not the sort to encourage over familiarity. One deacon who greeted me with the words "Hey, Bish!" He got a broad smile, "Hello, Mr Smith - now you are a perpetual deacon, aren't you?" (I knew damn well he was transitional, but I had made my point!

The custom seems to have been in this diocese correct title - "My Lord Bishop" - the first time, then "bishop" or "Bishop John" thereafter. The clergy get mighty offended if they are addressed as anything other than 'Father X or Y' so we leave it at that. The universal insistence on 'Father' amuses me because this is not a particularly Anglo-Catholic diocese, though it is the highest of three.

PD

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0