Thread: Addressing the Bishop Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024997
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
Having taken over as Churchwarden this year during a, well, rather interesting time for our church, I find myself having occasional conversations with the Bishop. When I answer the phone he introduces himself as "hello it's Bishop N" or "it's the Bishop of X". I never know the correct form of address to reply, so I've taken to saying "hello Bishop". Is that correct, or should I call him by his first name, or some other title? He's never objected. Do all Bishops like the same form of address or should I check what's correct for each one? What advice can any of you give?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
'Hello, Bishop' will do just fine, especially in telephone conversations.
Different bishops prefer different degrees of formality, but generally CofE bishops prefer 'Bishop Christian Name' and TEC bishops prefer 'Bishop Surname.' 'My Lord Bishop' in conversation = 'You are intensely dislikeable.'
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
By their Christian name, they're usually quite approachable. It's a long time since you had to form an orderly queue to kiss the ring.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
At first I was going to inquire if your bishop was a horse's ass and then answer accordingly. Then, upon rereading your post, I was flummoxed.
Your bishop places his own phone calls?
Count yourself fortunate that you do not live in one of the Imperial Dioceses where bishops are Too Important to bother with such menial tasks.
Edited to add that, around here, we still are made to feel as though we should queue up, but it is in order to kiss something else.
And, to substitute place to the anachronistic dial.
[ 23. December 2012, 21:16: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
At first I was going to inquire if your bishop was a horse's ass and then answer accordingly. Then, upon rereading your post, I was flummoxed.
Your bishop places his own phone calls?
Count yourself fortunate that you do not live in one of the Imperial Dioceses where bishops are Too Important to bother with such menial tasks.
Edited to add that, around here, we still are made to feel as though we should queue up, but it is in order to kiss something else.
And, to substitute place to the anachronistic dial.
I second Silent Acolyte's wonder and approbation that your bishop callsl people directly rather than through the Diocesan Archdeacon, the Executive Assistant, or the Canon to the Ordinary. However, I would suggest that, given Anglican attempts at technological innovation, the bishop's telephone may well still operate by a dial.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
In the Orthodox Church, it's "your grace" or "Vladika."
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
How do you say that in Greek?
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
In the case of a phone call, I would just avoid using the name or title altogether. If I am working with him and need to get his attention, I would just use his first name. Every bishop I have met would be perfectly okay with this.
[ 23. December 2012, 21:53: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
Bishops here make their own phone calls, type their own letters and send their own email. However, they are almost always addressed with "bishop" before their name, even in casual conversation. I do find it strange though to work out the new etiquette, especially for archbishops!
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
In conversation, I generally address them as "Bishop," but refer to them in the 3rd person as "bishop last name."
I've never received one from him, but I know that our local ordinary makes his own phone calls. One diocesan priest I know always answers the phone to him, "Hello, bishop. What have I done wrong now?" So, apparently, he has a sense of humor too.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
How do you say that in Greek?
Despota! and for your Arabic-speaking bishops, Sayedna (or sayidna, depending on your transliteration).
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
About two hours ago I addressed mine as "Bishop" following Lessons and Carols at our Cathedral.
(And yes, he often makes his own phone calls.)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Shaking hands after a service, or over lunch later, it's "Bishop". In the third person, it's Bishop first-name. There are only 23 dioceses here, and even with a few suffragan/regional bishops, it's usually pretty clear to whom you're referring.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
Because of the nature of the establishment of the See (some form of royal paperwork/charter/decree), I understand that the Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn is entitled to be referred to as the Lord Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, and addressed as My Lord.
I am sure that he would not welcome such a term of address, however. As Gee D observes, Bishop Firstname is just about universal. Having said that, a recent search revealed the Anglican Church League using Bishop Lastname.
I am the sort of person who might consider a more formal mode of address in formal communication, but then I am also the sort of person who signs off letters to archdeacons with "Yours respectfully and sincerely". I learned years ago of the variety of such endings, but only ever knew the one for an archdeacon. It seems to be outdated too, as I cannot find a reference anywhere.
Our Diocesans sign +Firstname Seename.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
As well as learning a variety of letter endings, you probably learned the value of them....
IIRC, +Newcastle and + Tasmania are lordly. Canberra/Goulburn and Bathurst may also be. ++Sydney is strictly Graceful, just as the ABC and ABY. I don't think Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth are, and almost certainly Adelaide is not. CJS would have quick access to the necessary info.
[ 24. December 2012, 07:01: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on
:
In the UK, "Bishop Paul" (or Nigel, or Frank, or Peter, or whatever) would be absolutely normal. Some might be slightly surprised if you called them by their first name without the "bishop", but I don't know any who would object. Just "bishop" is also perfectly acceptable...
John
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
On the rare occasions that I might meet one, I would enjoy saying 'My Lord' and watching them cringe these days.
In the event that I was addressed by a bishop and he used by Christian name, then I would do the same in return.
It seems perfectly in order to address a bishop as 'Father'. I believe this is probably the preferred style of Archbishop Rowan Williams, who isn't much interested in style and form anyway, and is happy with 'Rowan', but has such natural and self deprecating authority, that one might be tempted to use it out of natural respect.
In Anglican formularies (and Ordination and Induction services) the bishop is always referred to as 'Father-in-God' in the service, so the use of 'Father' seems very appropriate regardless of churchmanship.
The current use of 'Bishop John' or 'Bishop Fred' whilst getting over the conundrum, always seems to me to be a just little creepy. To me it it says 'I want to be modern and informal, but please remember that I am a bishop'
Perhaps in return one might say 'Oh good to hear you Bishop John. It's Doctor (or Professor) Tristram here...'
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
You could try 'Bish' or 'Hi Gaiters'.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The current use of 'Bishop John' or 'Bishop Fred' whilst getting over the conundrum, always seems to me to be a just little creepy. To me it it says 'I want to be modern and informal, but please remember that I am a bishop'
Perhaps in return one might say 'Oh good to hear you Bishop John. It's Doctor (or Professor) Tristram here...'
Or Childcare Assistant Liz, or Binman Ben, or Postman Pat...
Posted by Lynnk (# 16132) on
:
How about G'day mate.
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
... It seems perfectly in order to address a bishop as 'Father'...
That wouldn't work here. Nope. She wouldn't like that at all.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Here it seems to be 'bishop', or 'bishop first name' or 'bishop last name' or just 'x' if you know them well, informally.
It's probably a slightly less complex administration here in the CofI but bishops usually do a lot of their own phoning and e-mailing, though secretaries will do some of that, too.
Generally, you can address him anyway you like; just be careful where you can put the stamp! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The current use of 'Bishop John' or 'Bishop Fred' whilst getting over the conundrum, always seems to me to be a just little creepy. To me it it says 'I want to be modern and informal, but please remember that I am a bishop'
Perhaps in return one might say 'Oh good to hear you Bishop John. It's Doctor (or Professor) Tristram here...'
Or Childcare Assistant Liz, or Binman Ben, or Postman Pat...
Exactly.
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on
:
I've heard UMC bishops joke that when they become bishop they lose their first name. Protocol is much less formal in American Methodism, but generally we call bishops either "Bishop" or "Bishop Lastname."
Our previous bishop liked for people to call him by his first name without title, but I couldn't bring myself to do that. I always use "Bishop," even if he begins the conversation by using his first name.
Once he actually called me, on the phone, while in his car. I missed the call, but he left a voice mail saying, "Hello, this is Will ..."
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I prefer to be known as + Robert Caddington
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
In my patristics class, my prof asked me "Do you think we should be concerned regarding priests calling their bishops "My Lord" that they might confuse the bishop with God?"
I said "We are ANGLICANS. We do not have to worry about that problem."
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
How do you say that in Greek?
Despota! and for your Arabic-speaking bishops, Sayedna (or sayidna, depending on your transliteration).
AtA, Despite punctuation to the contrary, that was not a question. I was poking mousethief in the eye, because he said: "In the Orthodox Church, it's "your grace" or "Vladika."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
How do you say that in Greek?
Bladikos.
[ 24. December 2012, 19:01: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The current use of 'Bishop John' or 'Bishop Fred' whilst getting over the conundrum, always seems to me to be a just little creepy. To me it it says 'I want to be modern and informal, but please remember that I am a bishop'
I hear it as monastic, not informal: Brother Gregory; Father John; Bishop Jeffrey; Presiding Bishop Katharine; Archbishop Rowan.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
Len.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Yes, it's a bit strange that some Christians are wary of addressing their clergy by their Christian name.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
How do you say that in Greek?
Despota! and for your Arabic-speaking bishops, Sayedna (or sayidna, depending on your transliteration).
AtA, Despite punctuation to the contrary, that was not a question. I was poking mousethief in the eye, because he said: "In the Orthodox Church, it's "your grace" or "Vladika."
I am so literal at times, and I just cannot stop myself from being helpful. Shipmates are now prepared for all eventualities.
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
" ...hello Bishop... "
...What advice can any of you give?
You have come down just right. Say, "Hello, bishop." Anything else sounds contrived, unless the bishop asks for something else. The milord thingy is over the top and often used in a joking way. Don't go there. We should call Rowan, "archbishop," or, "Your grace," for now, even though most everyone round the world knows who Rowan (Williams) is and refers to him as plain "Rowan." But I sure wouldn't address him that way to his face unless he asked me to. (Fat chance of that!).
All that said, I have had friends who became bishops. In those cases, I continued to address them by their first names because that is what they preferred when with old friends or family. I think that custom is pretty universal.among promoted pals.
*
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Having taken over as Churchwarden this year during a, well, rather interesting time for our church, I find myself having occasional conversations with the Bishop. When I answer the phone he introduces himself as "hello it's Bishop N" or "it's the Bishop of X". I never know the correct form of address to reply, so I've taken to saying "hello Bishop". Is that correct, or should I call him by his first name, or some other title? He's never objected. Do all Bishops like the same form of address or should I check what's correct for each one? What advice can any of you give?
I'm not sure where the people suggesting you say Bishop [Surname] are coming from, it is not a form I have seen prescribed as the Bishop takes on the title of their Diocese upon enthronement and their surname becomes somewhat mute... So Rev. (he wouldn't appreciate Fthr.) Robert Paterson become the Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man and signs his documents as +Robert Sodor and Man...
The simple, and courteous, rule of thumb is to, on the first occassion in the conversation use the appropriate, Your Grace/My Lord, and then to continue with Bishop [First name] or Fthr.
It's a shame that more people do not genuflect to the authority and Apostolic Succession (THAT is not a conversation for here!) that the Bishop represents and is Consecrated in...
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
I always find this one entertaining. The clergy from my own diocese usually answer the phone with "Your Grace" (I am my denominations Presiding Bishop) and then swap to my first name or Bishop firstname as they cannot quite drop the old formal address altogether.
Folks calling me from another diocese tend to stick with 'Your Grace' all the way through the conversation - especially if they want something, or they want to argue with me. However, most folks prefer to tackle me by e-mail as that gives me time to think, and you are far more likely to get my approval if I am not put on the spot.
Lay-folks in my own parish call me Father out of habit - which I am a little too protestant to feel 100% comfortable with, but then there is the pond difference to consider! (I am English and Central Churchmanship, but I live in the USA.) If someone slips up and is embarrassed I find that some quip like, 'You can call me anything you like except late for dinner!' recovers the situation for them.
Like the C of I bishops we do most of our own emailing and phoning around. I have some secretarial assistance (from my wife!) but I won't waste her time on jobs I can do myself.
PD
[ 25. December 2012, 05:16: Message edited by: PD ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
As an American Lutheran, I address my ELCA bishop by first name, but--hey--we are all on a first name basis in this neck of the woods.
When it comes to addressing the Presiding Bishop of the ELCA I would probably go by title, though Mark is known to introduce himself by first name.
If the person introduces himself by first name, it is permissible to use first name.
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The simple, and courteous, rule of thumb is to, on the first occassion in the conversation use the appropriate, Your Grace/My Lord, and then to continue with Bishop [First name] or Fthr.
It might be a difference in provinces etc - but here Lord Bishop is only applicable if the dioces has been established by Letters Patent (and I thought that in the UK only if the Bishop sat in the House of Lords); and Your Grace is a term used only of and by Archbishops.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Our pastor told this joke on Sunday:
These three women were discussing their sons. The first lady said, "My son is a judge. Whenever people address him, they say 'Your Honor.'"
The second lady said "Pffth, My son is a bishop. Whenever people address him it is "'Your Grace.'"
The third lady said, "You got nothing on my son! He is a Chippendale dancer and male model. When people see him, they say, 'Oh, my God!'"
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
That's very good and reminds me of a story about compulsory chapel at Eton.
One day an overseas pupil who was a foreign royal was sent to the Conduct (senior chaplain) by his housemaster to explain why he objected to going to chapel.
The Conduct waved aside his protestations saying 'We all go. What makes you so special?'
'Well I'm a god, Sir'
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
... (and I thought that in the UK only if the Bishop sat in the House of Lords)...
When I worked for the Church Commissioners c 1990 the practice was to address letters to Diocesans to 'the Lord Bishop of X', regardless of whether or not the Bishop was in the Lords (or even could be, since Gibraltar & Sodor and Man were addressed the same way). Suffragans were 'the Rt Revd the Bishop of Y'
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I'm not sure where the people suggesting you say Bishop [Surname] are coming from, it is not a form I have seen prescribed as the Bishop takes on the title of their Diocese upon enthronement and their surname becomes somewhat mute...
What if they're not Bishop of a diocese? How would you refer to +Lindsay Urwin for instance?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Rather more politely than I would refer to + Wallace Benn? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I'm not sure where the people suggesting you say Bishop [Surname] are coming from, it is not a form I have seen prescribed as the Bishop takes on the title of their Diocese upon enthronement and their surname becomes somewhat mute...
What if they're not Bishop of a diocese? How would you refer to +Lindsay Urwin for instance?
Mr Urwin.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I'm not sure where the people suggesting you say Bishop [Surname] are coming from, it is not a form I have seen prescribed as the Bishop takes on the title of their Diocese upon enthronement and their surname becomes somewhat mute... So Rev. (he wouldn't appreciate Fthr.) Robert Paterson become the Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man and signs his documents as +Robert Sodor and Man...
Moot, not mute.
And, while I realize you are writing from the CofE, this is an international board and in most of the rest of the (Anglican) world, bishops no longer take the names of their dioceses.
John
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
The two most recent bishops of Ottawa sign(ed) as +Peter and +John, but the third most recent was +John Ottawa. John Holding is, I think, right in that the custom is dying out. Some of these pairings had a ring to them, such as +Archibald the Arctic, +John Toronto, +John Moosonee, and +Reginald Athabasca and, while it was an anachronism, it had a certain depth to it, reflecting the union between a bishop and his role as teacher and guide in a particular place.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
Some day I'll find the details of the story about a meeting of bishops at which the Bishop of Albany, New York, signed himself +Robert Albany. The Bishop of Western New York saw that and signed himself +Buffalo Bill.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
... I am also the sort of person who signs off letters to archdeacons with "Yours respectfully and sincerely" ...
I'm waiting ...
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
Dear Fr Zappa
It is the one formal ending I remember, so it is a delight to use it on occasion.
Yours respectfully and sincerely
Vulpior
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I'm not sure where the people suggesting you say Bishop [Surname] are coming from, i
The simple, and courteous, rule of thumb is to, on the first occassion in the conversation use the appropriate, Your Grace/My Lord, and then to continue with Bishop [First name] or Fthr.
It's a shame that more people do not genuflect to the authority and Apostolic Succession (THAT is not a conversation for here!) that the Bishop represents and is Consecrated in...
It comes from common usage in America and a great deal of the Commonwealth, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. For a lot of those places, what you have suggested is way over the top these days, and I know that many bishops would find such practices odd or humorous.
*
[ 27. December 2012, 09:13: Message edited by: Mr. Rob ]
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And, while I realize you are writing from the CofE, this is an international board and in most of the rest of the (Anglican) world, bishops no longer take the names of their dioceses.
John
Quite a few members of the Australian episcopal bench identify with their diocese. Tends to be those more in the Catholic arm of Mother Church, mind you.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
+Peter Selby, when he was (Area) Bishop of Kingston, used to sign himself Peter Selby (without the +, IIRC), Bishop of Kingston. I assume he did similarly when he became diocesan of Worcester: perhaps Amos could confirm.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Probably. He was well known to be affected.
Posted by Edith (# 16978) on
:
The entire diocese used to refer to its rather pompous Archbishop as 'Cyril by the Grace of God'. He was very proud of his position. RIP.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Probably. He was well known to be affected.
..with what, pray?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
...his own importance.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Sebby: if that's what you feel why not take it to Hell. I was going to say 'affected by the Gospel'. But you don't expect bishops to be like that I suppose.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I thought 'by his own importance' quite mild and usual - for a bishop.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Peter Selby was an excellent bishop who had much prophetic insight into capitalism, prison reform etc.
He is not pompous - though people less intelligent than him might might say so because they are scared of his insight and want to put him down rather than engage with the issues he speaks about.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I endorse leo's comment wholeheartedly. There are pompous prelates, and pompous parish priests, but Peter Selby is not and never has been among them.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Peter Wigorn (as he signed himself when Bishop of Worcester) was my ordaining Bishop. He's now the head of the Independent Monitoring Bodies, who do prison visits and inspections in the UK. He's known by them as 'Dr Selby.' It's an earned doctorate. As a diocesan bishop he was called 'Bishop Peter' by most people most of the time, and 'Peter' by most people some of the time and some people most of the time.
Peter isn't pompous. What may have confused Sebby (if he ever met him) was that PS is, genuinely, magisterial. His family of descent is both left-wing and grand---rather like the Benns, only Mittel-European. Such people do exist.
I'm a little afraid that I'm now spoiled for lesser bishops.
Chartres on Selby: 'He was the conscience of the Church Commissioners.'
[ 27. December 2012, 19:29: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
The default setting IMHO for the episcopate is pomposity. That is not to say that the 'attribute' is necessarily a bad thing, or unsuited to its recipients. One can draw one's own conclusions.
Peter Selby might well have been insightful (horrid word I admit), but to class him as an academic - not that Leo actually used that word - would be somewhat imaginative. And to drop a mild hint that people who perceive him as somewhat pompous might be lower in intelligence than he, is of course plain daft.
The whole inverse snobbery of not using the See name when most others did, has a psychological implication all of its own.
I am sorry to diverge from Leo's opinion here, as I usually find his own insight agreeably similar to my own on a number of issues.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Whilst writing my post Amos managed to write his, which gives me greater insight. Thank you.
Would you have described Mervyn Stockwood as magisterial?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
I didn't know Mervyn Stockwood, so cannot say. Angloid might have some idea though.
Pompous Bishops I have known...
Well, there's one well-thought-of diocesan who, when he arrived, sent an email to one of his oldest University friends requesting that he henceforward prefix his Christian name with his title.
I don't actually think that Londin is pompous, though he sounds so, and, according to his former Director of Studies, sounded exactly the same when he read out his essays as an undergraduate.
Sebby--it may be that leo knew Peter Selby when he (Selby, not leo) was Fell Professor of Pastoral Theology at Durham. That was between Kingston and Worcester.
[ 27. December 2012, 19:49: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I have to admit that I have done a little more research, and discovered that PS was a colleague of someone I DID once know, and both opposed the Anglican Covenant.
I can't say that I opposed the Anglican Covenant as that would imply I was in a postion of influence, but I disapproved of it. Amongst my reasons for doing so was that enunciated by John Saxbee 'because Anglicanism IS a covenant'. But that is my way of digression.
Therefore my apologies to Peter Selby, and I genuinely admire his work with prisoners.
I would be fascinated to hear Leo or Angloid's opinions of Mervyn Stockwood. I also hope that Leo reads this before my previous posts.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I hate to take issue with sebby, but I think that most people would say that having held a Durham Chair does entitle one to be identified as an academic, no? And points to +PS for signing himself Wigorn, when at least one of his predecesors (I think Philip Goodrich, though I may be wrong) signed himself 'Worcester'.
No, I don't think +Richard Londin is pompous, either, though he has worked very hard on his image over the years- there are some amusing recollections of him as a theological student in Humphrey Carpenter's book on ++R Runcie.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Peter Wigorn (as he signed himself when Bishop of Worcester)
Good job there isn't a Bishop of Wigan. That might have been confusing! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I'm slightly disappointed that +Peter didn't continue his slightly subversive signing custom after he moved. It might be perceived as a sort of inverted snobbery, just as wearing a black shirt rather than a purple one might be (though +Peter rarely did that). But ISTM both are making a rather unpompous point. And change always starts somewhere.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
PS, to pick up on Amos and Sebby's question about +Mervyn Stockwood, I'm afraid he had retired by the time I went to Southwark diocese. But anecdotes flourished of course. No doubt they also did in Bristol where he was a parish priest, so maybe Leo is in as good a postiion to comment as I am (or maybe better, because I think he retired to Bristol).
I did meet him a couple of times but only fleetingly, and he just conformed to his media image. 'Socialist Prince-Bishop' sums him up beautifully.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Nah, he probably just didn't want to shock contiental hoteliers, like the Bishop in the old joke, by signing in as '+Peter Kingston and Mrs Selby'.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
I knew Mervyn Stockwood quite well after his retirement to Bath. He was a very regular visitor at Downside Abbey, where I also spent a great deal of time. He was neither pompous nor magisterial, although an inveterate name-dropper and something of a snob. He was also unfailingly kind and considerate. I liked him very much. I didn't see him again after I married and was sad to learn of his death. We were living in Hong Kong at the time and the South China Morning Post carried The Times obituary.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
As a child I lived in the same area as the Bishop of Southwark, so I remember +Mervyn Stockwood walking up and down Streatham High Road wearing frock-coat and gaiters. The church I attended was a few hundred yards from the Bishop's house, so when he visited us, he would invariably walk from his home to the church in cope & mitre.
Magesterial might be too strong a word, but he was definitely flamboyant.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Peter Wigorn (as he signed himself when Bishop of Worcester)
Good job there isn't a Bishop of Wigan. That might have been confusing!
I'm slightly disappointed that +Peter didn't continue his slightly subversive signing custom after he moved. It might be perceived as a sort of inverted snobbery, just as wearing a black shirt rather than a purple one might be (though +Peter rarely did that). But ISTM both are making a rather unpompous point. And change always starts somewhere.
In these days of coloured shirts, and some bishops wearing black and so on, I wonder if any clergy who are not bishops affect purple shirts to return the compliment?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
As a child I lived in the same area as the Bishop of Southwark, so I remember +Mervyn Stockwood walking up and down Streatham High Road wearing frock-coat and gaiters.
That's interesting. I thought one of his little disagreements with Archbishop Fisher was over his refusal to wear gaiters. But I don't think +Mervyn was known for his consistency (at the start of his time he banned clergy for using non-BCP liturgies, but later boasted of using RC eucharistic prayers in his private chapel.)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Ken Leech used to wear a purple tee-shirt occasionally, though I don't suppose anyone would have taken him for a bishop in it.
Never mind all this wearing black shirts and signing your surname rather than the name of your see: for me the real test of 'unpomposity' is whether a bishop takes his full stipend or just takes the same as an incumbent. This is not to suggest that I think that bishops who take their full whack are pompous- I don't: merely that plain shirts and signatures are cheap, and that if you really mean it when you suggest you're not all that different from any other cleric, you'll mean it in your pocket too.
I don't know how many current bishops don't take the full stipend, because that's quite properly a private matter. There used to be one or two- Richard Rutt (Leicester, late 80s) was one, I think.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And, while I realize you are writing from the CofE, this is an international board and in most of the rest of the (Anglican) world, bishops no longer take the names of their dioceses.
John
Quite a few members of the Australian episcopal bench identify with their diocese. Tends to be those more in the Catholic arm of Mother Church, mind you.
Which might explain my views on this...
Though I wouldn't really equate +Robert Sodor and Mann as of the catholic wing...
There is something to be said, as mentioned above about the signing of with the Diocese instead of the Surname and the symbolic link to the traditional role of the Bishop in pastoral and educational terms to the Diocese.
As for the Lords Spiritual, +Wyn St. David's is referred to on many occassions as a Lord Bishop and +Robert Sodor and Mann is still a Baron I do believe by virtue of his Episcopal position and therefore has the title Lord by virtue of that rather than a position in the Lords Spiritual - although of course he sits on the Legislative Council, being the upper House of Tynwald (I don't think the Bishop of Sodor and Mann has ever sat in the HoL, the Diocese being the odd-duck that it is, although I would appreciate any documentation that repudiates that.)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
(I don't think the Bishop of Sodor and Mann has ever sat in the HoL, the Diocese being the odd-duck that it is, although I would appreciate any documentation that repudiates that.)
It would be rather strange (and scandalous) if he did, considering the IoM is not part of the UK.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
(I don't think the Bishop of Sodor and Mann has ever sat in the HoL, the Diocese being the odd-duck that it is, although I would appreciate any documentation that repudiates that.)
It would be rather strange (and scandalous) if he did, considering the IoM is not part of the UK.
I know that, I'm as Manx as the Hills as we say... just wondered if He had ever been summoned to attend the HoL in some capacity in the past...
I don't like being caught out so left myself open to the possibility of being corrected if it turned out He had been summoned to appear before some sitting of the High Court or something...
[ 28. December 2012, 11:00: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I would be fascinated to hear Leo or Angloid's opinions of Mervyn Stockwood. I also hope that Leo reads this before my previous posts.
Stockwood did pioneering work at St. Matthew's Moorfields in Bristol. An urban priority parish, he created a local ecumenical project before LEPs were invented. He drew in Methodists, Congregationalists etc. into a ministry team and regarded their orders as interchangeable at the altar. He became a Labour councillor to get his parishioners noticed in a council that tended to be dominated by sectional and middle class interests. He appointed the late, great John Robinson as his curate (and later, at Southwark, as his suffragan). I have met elderly people who remember him well and speak highly of him.
At Southwark, he was a champaigne socialist, a name-dropper and he seems to have micromanaged his parishes. No sung eucharist was allowed to last longer than 60 minutes - I sympathise with this - he called it 'short church' as opposed to high church - but churches with good choirs disliked having to omit the kyries and Agnus Dei because the bishop said they were already 'covered' in the Gloria. Lots of good priests were appointed to his diocese - the origin of 'South bank religion.'
Sadly, my own personal dealings with him were in days marked by his ever-increasing drink problem. he 'ran' Holy Week for us during an interregnum. It was good of him to do this but it took strong MCing from me and colleague servers to hold him up and walk him round. At a lunch on Easter Sunday, he held forth for about an hour with no interruptions except to pour more gin.
So he was a mixture, like all of us (and his autobiography glosses over stuff - unlike that of Harry Williams, CR, which was published in the same week.) On balance, I see him as a great man and I think the C of E is the poorer without men of his stature and readiness to take risk.
RIP
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So he was a mixture, like all of us (and his autobiography glosses over stuff - unlike that of Harry Williams, CR, which was published in the same week.) On balance, I see him as a great man and I think the C of E is the poorer without men of his stature and readiness to take risk.
RIP
I agree entirely. Has anybody produced a 'warts and all' biography of him, by the way?
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
In these days of coloured shirts, and some bishops wearing black and so on, I wonder if any clergy who are not bishops affect purple shirts to return the compliment?
I recently spotted a plain 'ole local Lutheran pastor (Missouri Synod) wearing a bright red-purple clergy shirt with the tab insert to make (phony) steps.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
*
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
"Mervyn Stockwood: A Lonely Life" available here.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Indeed a mixture likje most of us.
A friend of mine used to say that Mervyn Stockwood was a great fan of the Ceausesios in Romania. This colleague occasionally felt that he would have liked the opportunity to ask +Mervyn what he felt about them - say post 1988-9.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
In these days of coloured shirts, and some bishops wearing black and so on, I wonder if any clergy who are not bishops affect purple shirts to return the compliment?
I recently spotted a plain 'ole local Lutheran pastor (Missouri Synod) wearing a bright red-purple clergy shirt with the tab insert to make (phony) steps.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
*
A Methodist superintendent of my acquaintance used to wear a purple shirt to make a point.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Yes, it's a bit strange that some Christians are wary of addressing their clergy by their Christian name.
The Len I had in mind was a somewhat prone-to-anger type, who really didn't like to be called Len. I can't find a link for a clip of him telling a priest to not call him Len ("don't call me Len you gobshite") so can only help you with this
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Nah, he probably just didn't want to shock contiental hoteliers, like the Bishop in the old joke, by signing in as '+Peter Kingston and Mrs Selby'.
I was always amused by a Christmas card received, signed 'The Bishop of Chicago and Elna Burrill.'
(But that prelate was known among his priests as 'Gerald Cardinal Burrill.'
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And, while I realize you are writing from the CofE, this is an international board and in most of the rest of the (Anglican) world, bishops no longer take the names of their dioceses.
John
Quite a few members of the Australian episcopal bench identify with their diocese. Tends to be those more in the Catholic arm of Mother Church, mind you.
My Arch always signs himself: +Phillip Brisbane. The assistant bishops when (eg) signing the service register usually do it +Rob, +Geoff, whatever (ie, they don't sign in the same way they would sign for their credit card which I assume would be some combination of their initials and last name, but with the episcopal + followed by their first name).
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
(I don't think the Bishop of Sodor and Mann has ever sat in the HoL, the Diocese being the odd-duck that it is, although I would appreciate any documentation that repudiates that.)
It would be rather strange (and scandalous) if he did, considering the IoM is not part of the UK.
But surely Sodor is?
Has he ever renounced his jurisdiction over the Sudreys?
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
As a child I lived in the same area as the Bishop of Southwark, so I remember +Mervyn Stockwood walking up and down Streatham High Road wearing frock-coat and gaiters.
That's interesting. I thought one of his little disagreements with Archbishop Fisher was over his refusal to wear gaiters. But I don't think +Mervyn was known for his consistency
I think he just liked to be different. The era I'm talking about would have been mid to late 70s, by which time all the other bishops had probably stopped wearing gaiters.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
But surely Sodor is?
Has he ever renounced his jurisdiction over the Sudreys?
I imagine when the Kingdom of Man was partitioned the jurisdiction of the Bishop over the Islands was taken away... although this may not have changed the official position since even as late as 1610 the phrase "the Patronage of the Bishopricke of the said Isle of Mann, and the Patronage of the Bishopricke of Sodor, and the Patronage of the Bishopricke of Sodor and Mann" was used in the appointment of the Earl of Derby as Lord of Man. M A Mills, Ancient Ordinances and Statute Laws of the Isle of Man (Douglas, 1821) p.517
Maybe the best thing to do would be to contact the Diocesean office and enquire whether there are any records in which the Bishops have formally rejected their claims or by legal proceedings had the jurisdiction taken away from them...
- Also, the Sodor aspect would fall under the legal jurisdiction of Scotland and the Bishop would therefore have no claim to sit in the House of Lords as the Episcopal Church of Scotland is disestablished.
[ 29. December 2012, 11:00: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I thought the Reverend Wilbert Awdry had sole rights in the territory of Sodor.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I thought the Reverend Wilbert Awdry had sole rights in the territory of Sodor.
We could have a situation such (but I admit not quite the same) as occurs when countries abolish their God appointed Monarchies... in effect the Scottish Church has created a Diocese with a different head but the Bishop of Sodor and Mann still has an historic claim to jurisdiction because he never renounced his claims to juridiction.. of course in this case, the Bishop could have aclaim as well if there has been no act of Synod or law passed by Tynwald or Letters Patent that revoked that jurisdiction either...
It could make for some interesting local news stories on the Island and in the Isles if +Robert was to press for a return to his jurisdiction of the historic Diocese... don't know how it would play out but it could be interesting...
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Yes, but what has the Fat Controller to say about it?
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
Of course, and sorry to double post, and I know I'm moving in the area of a DH (which is why I have put in this link to where I have reposted this post just incase: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000429&p=3#000103 )
- Does the latest act of Westminster apply to the Diocese of Sodor and Man in regards to the illegality of SSM in the CoE... Since Westminster legislation must name the Isle of Man by special mention or necessary implication has it done this - and further, since the issue of SSM in the Isle of Man would be a matter reserved to Tynwald for discussion and legislation, in its attempts to legislate for E&W has Westminster specifically included by mention or implication the Diocese of Sodor and Man, sought the consent of Tynwald, and if it has included the Diocese of Sodor and Man by intention with what must be a lack of consultation of Tynwald (since I have seen nothing anywhere about consultation between Westminster and Tynwald on this matter, nor a response by Tynwald on this matter) has it therefore overstepped the constitutional convention that governs the relationship between Westminster and Tynwald and legisalted for the Isle of Man in an area it has no right to do so?
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Yes, but what has the Fat Controller to say about it?
Which one - there were three Sir Topham Hatt's mentioned across the whole of the collection...
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
"Mervyn Stockwood: A Lonely Life" available here.
I am glad somebody asked me about this book. I am flicking through it again.
I think he was such a workhorse that he became too dominant and talkative in later life but nobody can regard him as a snob or full of his own self-importance. True, he befriended famous people but he invited them to preach/talk at his 'People's Services' in the poor end of Bristol and later at Great St. Mary's Cambridge. (At the latter he worked hard to bridge town and gown.
Bp. High Montefiore was impressed, on coming back home, to see Mervyn, his guest, engaged in a spitting contest with his youngest daughter.
He allowed a woman, in the early 1950s, to read the Epistle (unknown for a lay person, let along a female to do such a thing back then.)
He was well able to parody himself - preaching at the 1955 Labour Party Conference, his text was, "The heart of a wise man inclines to the right. The heart of a fool to the left.'
He devised a form of the Eucharist suitable for concelebration between Anglicans, Methodists and Congregationalists, ditto a form for Baptism.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
- Also, the Sodor aspect would fall under the legal jurisdiction of Scotland and the Bishop would therefore have no claim to sit in the House of Lords as the Episcopal Church of Scotland is disestablished. [/QB]
In this annual week of grumpiness I venture to observe that this is a rather partial (indeed Jacobite) view of the 1690 religious settlement!
[T]he Church of Scotland reverted to a presbyterian structure, a result of the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688, which it has retained ever since. However, an unofficial episcopal ministry continued in Scotland after 1688.
Actually I'd been hoping for a seat in the Storting for his lordship, and when the Union dissolves, who knows?!
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
"Mervyn Stockwood: A Lonely Life" available here.
I am glad somebody asked me about this book. I am flicking through it again.
I think he was such a workhorse that he became too dominant and talkative in later life but nobody can regard him as a snob or full of his own self-importance.
Absolutely. Despite his flamboyance, he was a genuinely humble man. He was loved by all his clergy and had a reputaion as an extremely caring pastor.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Long post alert and slight tangent but I am stressing his liturgical innovation as well as his personality. More from the book:
He insisted that services began punctually – like the BBC – music to my ears.
He lived an austere life – no central heating, though his idea of a good pilgrimage was one that, after taking in Sandingham and Walsingham ended with a good dinner with caviar flown in from Iran.
He wanted to modernise the liturgy but got impatient after the fifth ‘The Lord be with you’ he responded, ‘Of course he is. He was last time you told me, five minutes ago.’
Unlike most closeted homosexuals who date not put their heads above the parapet, he was a strong supporter of gay rights and homosexual law reform post-Wolfenden. Donald Reeves suggested (in my view a very discredited psychological theory) that Stockwood lacked a male role model so he doted on his young chaplains as if they were his lovers.
He pioneered the blessing of gay couples, admitting children to Holy Communion as early as 1974 and the concelebration by newly ordained priests at their ordination. He was also a strong proponent for the abolition of the death penalty.
He had to be the centre of attention at all times – he hated listening to the ordination sermons of others and sulked over precedence, annoyed that the Bishop of London walked behind him in some procession, yet was able to pray/quip “Shower down thy mitres upon those which are aching for them and shall ache from them.”
He was also very bossy. Going along the communion rail: “The Body of Christ, The Body of Christ, The Body of Christ, David come and see me afterwards.” He would often sack a chaplain late at night only to reinstate him next morning.
Nick Stacey: quote:
He has always been accident prone, has worn his faults on his sleeve and has laid himself open to criticism. He is obviously and painfully torn between heart and head. Intellectually he is a Radical Socialist dedicated to the building of a fairer society with a lively concern for the underprivileged. Emotionally he is a high church Tory who finds compensation for his bachelor life in the trappings and glamour of episcopal office and the prestige of a seat in the House of Lords.
On one hand he can see through the hypocrisy and cant of much of the Establishment, and yet on the other, he needs the security it provides. Inevitably the radicals are suspicious of his prelatical heart and the Establishment suspicious of his Socialist head. And so his is a lonely life. In view of the disappointments and frustrations of much of his work in Southwark it is to his lasting credit that he has prevented his heart from completely controlling his head. There are many occasions when Mervyn Stockwood has infuriated me and many times when I believe he has deserved criticism. But there are also times when I realise he was a scapegoat for my own frustrations.
David Hutt remembers quote:
'imitation flowers banked everywhere. I think Mervyn was both aesthetically sensitive and extraordinarily insensitive. He was a fairground person, in a way. He would store daffodils in the deep freeze and bring them out out of season.' He says he stayed two nights to be further vetted, and there was a dinner party each night. 'No one drank port after dinner except Mervyn, so every four minutes he would top up his glass, and by one o'clock in the morning he was completely pie-eyed. After 48 hours I thought I couldn't manage this at all. I just couldn't. Mervyn wasn't quite clear whether he wanted a kind of live-in nurse, or live-in boyfriend. And it is clear to me with hindsight, even clearer than it was then, that Mervyn lived in that strange ambivalent world of bishops who are gay and have a private life - a private sexuality and a public persona. I would say that Mervyn was desperately in need of affection, and he needed more touch and more reassurance than most people I know, and I think how he got it was by surrounding himself with rather sycophantic clergymen who would go along with his role-play, would never oppose him, but give him a sense of security. And it actually wasn't enough for that man. I think that he was emotionally starved. He was someone who had never experienced unconditional love. Everything had to be earned, and love came as a reward. It was an evangelical concept very much to do with his generation. I think that complexity about liking frozen daffodils and imitation flowers extended into his sexuality. He was someone who really needed a permanent, stable, loving relationship. I wasn't going to place myself in the situation of being either nursemaid or live-in friend. So I made my excuses and took my leave.'
Someone else who knew Mervyn well but did not want his remarks on this matter attributed to him has a further revealing insight to offer about Mervyn's possible need for a permanent homosexual relationship, and why he never had one - quite apart from the virtual impossibility of such an arrangement for a bishop, then or now. 'I think Mervyn would have been an impossible person to live with, as a partner. He was very much caught up with himself and what he was doing. He had a low boredom threshold. I think it would have been very difficult for him to cope with one other person. And I think it would have been very difficult for another person who wasn't a saint to cope with him. So I don't think a partnership would have been a practical possibility.'
Charles Lansdale, now a team rector in the diocese of Chichester, found himself embarrassed by Mervyn's chronic inability to sort out friendships and potential love affairs, or his roles as friend and bishop. And interestingly enough, he and Mervyn shared a similar disturbed childhood; Fr Lansdale's mother had been killed in the blitz when he was four, and at five he, like Mervyn, had been shunted off to boarding school. He trained as an ordinand at Mirfield, and first met Mervyn at Artillery Mansions when investigating parishes in Southwark in which to serve his first curacy. He remembers that Mervyn was very charming, 'and kept asking if I liked the poor. We weren't really engaging, because I was rather more into mysticism and the Early Fathers than the poor, but he was kind and thoughtful and put me at my ease
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0