Thread: Slimmed down titles? 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=025795
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Forgive me if this has been touched on before, but I was reminded about the question of clerical titles by certain new reports referring to Justin Welby 'Archbishop Welby' in the first instance, then 'Mr Welby' in the second. It seems highly peculiar to hear an archbishop of Canterbury referred to as 'Mr'. I believe SkyNews did this. Presumably an ignorant press did this because ++Justin hasn't a doctorate (although I am sure this will soon be remedied by his alma mater)?
There also seems to be a growth in the use of some titles in the last few years, athough admittedly the use of 'My Lord' for bishops seems to have diminished (although I notice 'Your Grace' is still used frequently in Synod when addressing the archbishops)
It now appears that some honorary canons who have a doctorate like to be called 'Canon Dr' (as in Canon Dr Alan Billings) on Thought for the Day. At one time someone might be 'Canon' (and a doctorate only used in post nominals) or 'Dr' and the canon not used at all. This reminds one of a commment in 1997 about how New Labour cabinet ministers loved their academic titles.
And then there are the Venerables...
What might shipmates feel about this?
[ 03. April 2013, 18:00: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Surely calling a male priest, "Mr X," is correct? I can't see what the problem is here.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Indeed, although not every (male) C of E priest is the archbishop of Canterbury.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
Plenty of media outlets have house styles that deprecate honorifics, but seem to end up almost making it up as they go along.
The Telegraph went with "The Most Rev Justin Welby" followed by "Mr. Welby", but "Cardinal Keith O'Brien" followed by "Cardinal O'Brien".
Then again, it also published reports that begun by referring to "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" and moved swiftly on to "William and Kate".
I wonder if anyone's used "The Most Rev Justin Welby" followed by "Fr. Justin" ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
ETA: A common US style is to not use titles at all after the first mention. So I've seen several reports about begin with "The Most Rev Justin Welby", and in the second paragraph refer to His Grace as "Welby".
[ 01. April 2013, 17:53: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Presumably an ignorant press did this because ++Justin hasn't a doctorate (although I am sure this will soon be remedied by his alma mater)?
Surely calling someone with an honorary doctorate "Dr ..." is even worse?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Surely calling someone with an honorary doctorate "Dr ..." is even worse?
No. Calling yourself Dr. when you have an honorary doctorate is much worse than that. One of the unsuccessful candidates in our elections for Police Commissioner did that.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
but it was quite common prior to Michael Ramsey for all diocesans who hadn't a doctorate to be given a Lambeth DD on appointment. They were all addressed as 'Doctor'.
This was also true of some 19thC clerical headmasters. Thomas Arnold was made a DD by Oxford on his appointment to Rugby. He was called 'The Doctor'.
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Surely calling someone with an honorary doctorate "Dr ..." is even worse?
No. Calling yourself Dr. when you have an honorary doctorate is much worse than that. One of the unsuccessful candidates in our elections for Police Commissioner did that.
I hope this is something on which we can all agree. It's worse than wicked, it's vulgar.
But then giving oneself a title of any sort is very wrong. I find it most difficult when forms require the "Title" field to be completed.
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
but it was quite common prior to Michael Ramsey for all diocesans who hadn't a doctorate to be given a Lambeth DD on appointment. They were all addressed as 'Doctor'.
Really? Perhaps things have changed, because a Lambeth Doctorate is (now) a substantive doctorate, not an honorary one.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I believe that it is possible to 'work' for a Lambeth degree (this started with the MA but has been extended), but Lambeth degrees are still awarded by the archbishop of Canterbury on other worthy individuals.
Whether one regards these as substantive or honorary I am not sure, but would be happy to leave such semantics to the Burgon Society or others with a similar interest.
However many in reception of some 'honorary' degrees have earned them in some sense. A cleric was recently made a DD for her outstanding work in the area of the church's healing ministry. As far as I am aware, she did not submit or supplicate for the degree in terms of published work, but is one of the UK's leading experts on the subject, so she has in effect earned, or certainly 'deserved' it.
In time Justin Welby's former university will no doubt confer on him the DD. This would be quite in keeping with tradition - as we have discussed, the conferred Lambeth DD was given when one was not already 'earned' by a diocesan, or his university had not conferred one on his appointment to a diocese.
The virtually automatic conferment tended to end in the 1960s.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
...and the nature of a Lambeth degree has often been debated. The recipient customarily wore the academic dress of the Archbishop's own university. However, this tradition was broken in the time of George Carey who was not from Oxford or Cambridge.
Archbishop George Carey exercised his archiepiscopal right, and authorised recipients to wear the dress of the University of Oxford.
Prior to the 1990s, all Lambeth degrees were 'honorary' but certainly substantive in that they were, and are, real degrees. It is possible that they might have been earned, in the usual undersanding of that term, many centuries ago, but not in the 19thC or 20thC until the 90s.
The archbishop uses his former legatine power to confer a degree of any university, the exception being the MD. The orginal universites were Oxford or Cambridge, hence the use of the dress of either of those institutions in the present day. There was some speculation as to whether ++George would do this with London, but in the event used his predecessor's university.
Despite these degrees being sort-of Oxford or Cambridge degrees, they are properly termed 'Lambeth' and are unique.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And Cambridge DDs- like all higher doctorates- are substantive rather than honorary degrees. However, the University regulations seem to require the submission of a body of published work for examination: I don't know how much ++Justin has published or how much of an original contribution he can be said to have made.
As I've said before, ++Rowan should have given him a Lambeth DD when he was selected. Now he can hardly confer one on himself, can he?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Titles - I'd get rid of the whole dam' lot. What's wrong with a minister being known as <baptismalname> <surname> ?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And Cambridge DDs- like all higher doctorates- are substantive rather than honorary degrees. However, the University regulations seem to require the submission of a body of published work for examination: I don't know how much ++Justin has published or how much of an original contribution he can be said to have made.
As I've said before, ++Rowan should have given him a Lambeth DD when he was selected. Now he can hardly confer one on himself, can he?
I'm not an academic but my lay understanding is that there are four sorts of doctorate.
1. The sort given to medical doctors. You call yourself and are called 'Dr' unless you become a surgeon.
2. The ordinary sort of research one, usually called a PhD irrespective of subject matter. You have to write some sort of thesis for this one. At work, you call yourself and are called 'Dr'. In Germany, if you have more than one of them, you can call yourself Herr Dr Dr.
3. The honorary doctorate, usually conferred for some sort of public service on the university's behalf or in the community of which it is part, interceding for the university with government, successful fundraising etc. While in many cases, this may denote legitimate respect, it has no academic credibility. However estimable, it is seriously bad form to call yourself 'Dr' on the basis of such an award. Only plonkers do so.
4. A limited range of doctorates conferred by some universities on people who have achieved respect in their academic field, but based on their published works, and academic achievement, not on study for the award. Often these are DD, LLD, DMus etc. I don't know whether it's bad form to call yourself Dr because of one of these. As they are supposed to be an accolade for genuine academic achievement, I would have thought that might be legitimate. However, I suspect that most holders of such doctorates already hold PhDs, or hold some other office of respect such as being an Appeal Court Judge.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I don't think it would be bad form in the case of (4) as these were the only doctorates before the PhD.
The DD was often conferred, but it was possible to apply - in some cases in the 18thC this might have been sending in a few volumes of your published sermons. It remains to this day the most senior of the 'higher' doctorates.
Samuel Johnson (Doctor Johnson) received (I think) a conferred DLitt, and had been given an MA by Oxford University in anticipation of the publication his famous dictionary. Both were substantive in that they were real degrees, but also in a sense honorary. Referred to as Doctor Johnson , it is unlikely that he would have been regarded as 'a plonker' even by those who didn't agree with his views.
Lytton Stratchey who was no fan of Thomas Arnold, always referred to him as Doctor Arnold (honorary DD), and probably did think of him as a plonker, but not because of the use of his doctoral title.
I believe that the author and critic Ronald Blythe with two honorary DLitts to his name, is known in some circles as Doctor Blythe. His literary output and scholarly research would put him considerably ahead of a PhD anyway.
As is well known, general medical practitoners are called 'doctor' out of courtesy. They are only properly 'doctor' as it were, if they possess a PhD or the MD.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
One of my oddities is that I prefer the American custom of referring to someone by their proper title at the first mention then afterwards by their surname. I find it comfortingly formal without being too distant.
What really irritates me is American Telephone manners. A total stranger using my Christian name is really pushing their luck. They do even worse if they abbreviate it. The young lady in the bank who addressed me by my first name today - inspite of the fact I was in clericals complete with cross and ring - got away with it only because she was cute and under-30. Nonetheless it was a bit of a come down after being in a meeting with the local congressman about immigration reform where everyone was being exceedingly proper.
Lest you think I am hung up on titles, I rarely use my own on the phone - just Christian name and surname. I also answer indifferently to Father P, Bishop P, and Your Grace. I tend to be informal in speech and formal in writing, which may be a product of my age.
PD
[ 02. April 2013, 07:03: Message edited by: PD ]
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Normally I couldn't care less about titles and such things, but it does rile slightly when people one has never met use a first name - especially cold callers on the telephone. It raises the points (1) that may not actually be the name by which I am known (2) if a complete stanger uses it, what does someone special call me?
This can be resolved quite simply - especially with cold callers if one can be bothered to continue the conversation - by saying, whether they are male or female: 'Gosh when was it? The only people who call me that are people I've slept with'
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
The sort given to medical doctors. You call yourself and are called 'Dr' unless you become a surgeon.
Even though you may only be MB and not MD - so not a real "Doctor".
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
When I got my PhD my dad very proudly introduced me to one of his medic friends (MBBS or equivalent) as 'my son- he's a doctor- a real doctor'.
DDs/DLitts/DMus etc are definitely 'real' doctorates unless awarded honoris causa.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
Always follow Debretts and never go wrong!
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Your father was quite right! I have even heard a GP say precisely that.
I would add that even honoris causa awards are 'real'. As in a few posts above where Doctor Johnson and Doctor Arnold were mentioned, these degrees were frequently earned (in a different way), and there is just a little kudos about a university coming to you, rather than the other way around.
The difference between honoris causa and 'earned' is not so obvious or simple. Most of these higher degrees were originally honoris causa anyway.
In my student days I remember a Physics post graduate who was awarded his PhD honoris causa as he had discovered something quite amazing, (I know not what) in the lab. He did complete his thesis - after the PhD had been awarded. One would certainly regard his award as 'real'.
Nearly, if not all, DScs are honoris causa ; but very 'real'.
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
What really irritates me is American Telephone manners. A total stranger using my Christian name is really pushing their luck. They do even worse if they abbreviate it. The young lady in the bank who addressed me by my first name today - inspite of the fact I was in clericals complete with cross and ring - got away with it only because she was cute and under-30. Nonetheless it was a bit of a come down after being in a meeting with the local congressman about immigration reform where everyone was being exceedingly proper.
True, as an American, this embarrrasses me. It is a fairly recent trend here, started in the late 1990s by businesses who believe that this makes their representatives sound friendlier.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
It's not just American. It bugs me too. Though I don't mind if they ask permission to use my first name.
But to get back on track: I find the over-'Fathering' laity as irritating as the over-familiar ones. I think within a Christian family the less extravagant and pompous the titles the better, but ones indicative of a family relationship have their place.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
When I first moved over here being addressed as 'Father P' got on my nerves. I had fairly consistently been Mr. D in England, and was used to that. In more whimsical I used to think to myself, - 'well, I know I am High, but High-and-Dry, not Anglo-Catholic.' Of course, anyone who is not of the 'call me Bob' school gets addressed as Father/Mother over here.
It was something of a relief to become a Bishop and have a whole new set of complications to deal with. My own clergy address me as Bishop P or Bishop D; those from outside of my diocese who need me on PB business always seem to say 'Your Grace.' This is handy as it allows myself to steal for the inevitable bad news/request for a boon.
PD
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Are American RC bishops correctly styled Your Excellency?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Are American RC bishops correctly styled Your Excellency?
If someone asked me to call them Your Excellency, my response would be You're Kidding.
(Although I might have the presence of mind first to ask them what they thought they excelled in.)
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
It is the correct formal address for Ambassadors - including RC clergy at that level in the papal diplomatic corps. What about diocesans?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Anglophone RC bishops in Canada use the American Excellency. I ignore it. I give them Your Lordship and Your Grace and, when a priestly friend commented on this, a tad adversely, I told him that I would not treat his bishops with any less respect than I would their Anglican counterparts.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
As is well known, general medical practitoners are called 'doctor' out of courtesy. They are only properly 'doctor' as it were, if they possess a PhD or the MD.
In OZ/NZ that now includes vets, dentists, chiropractors and probably tarot card readers as well.
I used to be irritated bigly by a pestilential clerical colleague who was also a medico: he always signed himself off as The Rev'd Dr Fred Nurd although he "only" had an MBBS MRCS LRCP (and about 47 COGgy things from Nigeria or somewhere). Ironically as a COGgy sort (Gynaecologist) he insisted on being Mr Nurd in the hospital context.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
The young lady in the bank who addressed me by my first name today - inspite of the fact I was in clericals complete with cross and ring - got away with it only because she was cute and under-30.
You presume that an under-30 knows what clericals signify.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
The collar should be a bit of a giveaway.
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
... I used to be irritated bigly by a pestilential clerical colleague who was also a medico: he always signed himself off as The Rev'd Dr Fred Nurd although he "only" had an MBBS MRCS LRCP (and about 47 COGgy things from Nigeria or somewhere). Ironically as a COGgy sort (Gynaecologist) he insisted on being Mr Nurd in the hospital context.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Never met the chap, but definitely a plonker.
[ 02. April 2013, 20:15: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Always follow Debretts and never go wrong!
If only that were true. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
As is well known, general medical practitoners are called 'doctor' out of courtesy. They are only properly 'doctor' as it were, if they possess a PhD or the MD.
In OZ/NZ that now includes vets, dentists, chiropractors and probably tarot card readers as well.
My local dental practice now seems to have adopted the custom of calling their surgeons Dr too. Never encountered it in the uk before but maybe it's the latest fashion.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
My local dental practice now seems to have adopted the custom of calling their surgeons Dr too. Never encountered it in the uk before but maybe it's the latest fashion.
My dentist is Dr. Bob Deaver. He's got a DDS degree, so why not? Doctor of Dental Surgery, they tell me. His colleague in the same practice has a DMD, which is the same as DDS, only Latin: Dentariae Medicinae Doctor.
[ 02. April 2013, 20:49: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
The young lady in the bank who addressed me by my first name today - inspite of the fact I was in clericals complete with cross and ring - got away with it only because she was cute and under-30.
You presume that an under-30 knows what clericals signify.
You don't think most 20-somethings in Arizona see clerics and at least think "someone who works for a church"?
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
Whenever these kind of things come up for discussion, I am put in mind of the reassuring line I heard from the Duke of Norfolk in 198, to those worried that they'd get the form of address to the Queen wrong: "Those who matter don't mind and those who mind don't matter."
[ 02. April 2013, 21:30: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
And his Grace does not add his academic qualification to his name. But when one can style oneself "The Duke of Norfolk, EM" then any other initials seem rather superfluous.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
although it is doubtful that Edward, the present Duke would have any academic post nominals.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Wikipedia merely says that he 'attended' Lincoln College Oxford, without indication of whether he actually got a degree, so perhaps not even the BA(Oxon) to which a psss degree would have entitled him.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Regardless of who is currently Duke and Earl Marshal, when I hear the Duke referenced it always calls to mind Bernard Marmaduke (b 1909, Duke and Earl Marshal from 1917 until 1975.)
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
In my former existence, I managed to purge all academic initials from lists of dignitaries on the (semi-spurious) ground that many were from foreign institutions and therefore unverifiable, while their civil and military honours were at our fingertips. As an example, we had no Pierre Trudeau LèsL MA LLD X 8, but we left his PC CH CC QC FRSC GOLH (Fr) in.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I have noticed over the years the oddity of certain churches parading the academic qualifications of their ministers on the notice boards outside.
This has tended in my experience to be 'lower' churches in the candle stakes. Indeed, RC churches rarely seem to have a ministerial name at all, never mind a list of qualifications.
I passed the local Methodist church in the nearest town yesterday, and noticed 'Rev J Smith BA' (not the real name). Given the amount of BAs these days, I would have thought it unnecesary anyway.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
For myself, I think that the clergy being nominally at least members of a learned profession, it is perfectly in order to refer to their academic qualifications in that context. What I find odd is seeing councillors listed with their degrees in an offical context- plaque announcing that 'these public conveniences were opened by the Mayor, Councillor WC Boggs JP BSc (Econ), on 21 July 1998'- that sort of thing. Is this a peculiarly South Walian thing?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Actually, those town council types really do love their styles, titles and robes: Councillor this and Alderman That. Worshipful Blah Blah They are often worse than the Masons (often the same thing I suppose) and would make cardinals look very simple and unadorned.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
plaque announcing that 'these public conveniences were opened by the Mayor, Councillor WC Boggs JP BSc (Econ), on 21 July 1998'- that sort of thing. Is this a peculiarly South Walian thing?
Oh dear. Does he have his 200m swimming certificate on there as well?
I think it's more of an insecurity thing than anything else.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
I wouldn't be surprised to find news articles here in the US referring to the Archbishop as "Rev. Welby" instead of the Rt. (or now Most) Rev. Justin Welby.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Actually, those town council types really do love their styles, titles and robes: Councillor this and Alderman That.
Well, the fancy robes and "The Worshipful The Lord Mayor" and all that are dignities attached to the office. It might be a bit silly, but I think it's rather different in character from waving your academic accomplishments around in inappropriate contexts.
(The only appropriate contexts I can think of for BA (Econ) are on a school's list of teachers or on a CV.)
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In my former existence, I managed to purge all academic initials from lists of dignitaries on the (semi-spurious) ground that many were from foreign institutions and therefore unverifiable, while their civil and military honours were at our fingertips. As an example, we had no Pierre Trudeau LèsL MA LLD X 8, but we left his PC CH CC QC FRSC GOLH (Fr) in.
Idi Amin might have challenged that practice !
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
My local dental practice now seems to have adopted the custom of calling their surgeons Dr too. Never encountered it in the uk before but maybe it's the latest fashion.
My dentist is Dr. Bob Deaver. He's got a DDS degree, so why not? Doctor of Dental Surgery, they tell me. His colleague in the same practice has a DMD, which is the same as DDS, only Latin: Dentariae Medicinae Doctor.
That's a whole nother issue, because the DDS I suspect is basically a rebadged BDS ... and don't get me going on D.Mins which are .... no, I want to stay out of Hell this week.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
The young lady in the bank who addressed me by my first name today - inspite of the fact I was in clericals complete with cross and ring - got away with it only because she was cute and under-30.
You presume that an under-30 knows what clericals signify.
You don't think most 20-somethings in Arizona see clerics and at least think "someone who works for a church"?
Nope. Lots of people have no idea what the collar is. Particularly if it's a band instead of a tab (which is most commonly seen on TV).
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Well, the fancy robes and "The Worshipful The Lord Mayor" and all that are dignities attached to the office. It might be a bit silly, but I think it's rather different in character from waving your academic accomplishments around in inappropriate contexts.
True, I'm sure that many of them don't entirely like the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta look, although I suspect that a few of them rather like dressing up. In the case of this fine group, a measure of the importance of the office that these robes indicate is that senior members of the council get to sit on a committee that administers the town cemetery! Above this council is another council that is responsible for emptying the bins, and above them another council responsible for not maintaining the roads and for those schools that haven't got around to moving out of local authority control. The public sector over-staffed - surely not.
But back to the issue of titles. Should one address any Bishop as 'My Lord' ('My Lady'?), or only one's diocesan?
[ 04. April 2013, 07:25: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
The town council pomposity is just about the only example that makes me a little 'republican' or whatever. Lots of silly creatures with bad perms (male and female) thinking they are something.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
take the question back a stage: what is the purpose of titles?
is it to recognise a role or to affirm an individual in that role?
IME there's a lot of the latter and little of the former these days, esp when few understand the function of the office.
As an individual if you have - or positively like - to be known as <title ...> then you are rather bigging yourself somewhat. Isn't there a story Jesus told about wanting to be recognised .....
I can't think of anyone who refers to me as <title> apart from one very good friend who uses the jokey "Vicar" - which I'm not! I'm just mark be it in a school, at a Council meeting or in the street around the church on Prickly Mountain.
Too many people hide behind the supposed power a title brings as they don't have the personal ability to perform the function. In business, as soon as you have to say "I'm the boss" to get something done, then you've lost the plot. Respect and engagement comes from personality and prowess, not position or status.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I have noticed over the years the oddity of certain churches parading the academic qualifications of their ministers on the notice boards outside.
Our old notice board because we are a uni church.
The 3 clergy all had PhDs and I was a mere BA!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
But back to the issue of titles. Should one address any Bishop as 'My Lord' ('My Lady'?), or only one's diocesan?
I call the diocesan Mike and his suffragan Lee.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I would do virtually the same Leo, but would probably prefer 'Michael', as I hope the Diocesan is called in the intercessions or eucharistic prayer.
There is also that other variant which has been discussed here before: 'Bishop John' and 'Bishop Janet'. We rarely say 'Vicar John' or 'Vicar Janet' In other words it possibly means 'I want to be matey, but not quite enough for you to think us exactly equal'. If the bishop used by first name, then I would do the same back.
'Father' for a bishop is rather nice. It appears in all formal documentation with regard to those in episcopal orders (Father-in-God) irregardless of churchmanship.
Although popularly and affectionally called 'Rowan', the last archbishop accepted and understood being addressed as 'Father'. And I'm not all that High.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
No - he has specifically asked the be named 'Mike' on intercessions lists.
I sometimes also call him father - though he is only 4 months older than med.
[ 04. April 2013, 16:07: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No - he has specifically asked the be named 'Mike' on intercessions lists.
...
in that case, he needs your intercessions.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
That seems to me to be rather stuffy.
Do you want your bishops to be remote and other-worldly?
I prefer my leader to live in the real world like me. Then his leadership has some street-cred.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
In the case of this fine group, a measure of the importance of the office that these robes indicate is that senior members of the council get to sit on a committee that administers the town cemetery!
Why is the parish (alias town) council of a community in Surrey, preceded by a Scottish piper in a kilt?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That seems to me to be rather stuffy.
Do you want your bishops to be remote and other-worldly?
I prefer my leader to live in the real world like me. Then his leadership has some street-cred.
No, I'd just like my bishop to have some sense of the dignity of his office (which is absolutely not the same thing as having a sense of his own importance) and not to try to be chummy unless he's actually my friend.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
In the case of this fine group, a measure of the importance of the office that these robes indicate is that senior members of the council get to sit on a committee that administers the town cemetery!
Why is the parish (alias town) council of a community in Surrey, preceded by a Scottish piper in a kilt?
Just taken a look. They seem a prize group of potatos.
Like that 'Lady Mayoress' (Beyond the Fringe?) trying to open a fete:
Ai 'opes you henjoy this feet, and I declares it hopen
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I would do virtually the same Leo, but would probably prefer 'Michael', as I hope the Diocesan is called in the intercessions or eucharistic prayer.
There is also that other variant which has been discussed here before: 'Bishop John' and 'Bishop Janet'. We rarely say 'Vicar John' or 'Vicar Janet' In other words it possibly means 'I want to be matey, but not quite enough for you to think us exactly equal'. If the bishop used by first name, then I would do the same back.
The simple and elegant way around this is "John/Janet, our bishop".
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
I address our priest as "Bob" qua brother in Christ, and as "Father Bob" or "Father" qua priest.
Or at least I would, if his name was Bob.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
I wonder if anyone posting here has actually met any town or borough or county councillors? I've known dozens. Maybe met hundreds. Of all sorts of parties. And I don't remember any of them hung up on regalia, titles, and bling. Even those who were pompous farts. Of course the chains of office and robes and whatnot came out for formal ceremonies - as they do in academia or churches or the military - but most of the time no-one cares at all.
[ 04. April 2013, 22:35: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In business, as soon as you have to say "I'm the boss" to get something done, then you've lost the plot. Respect and engagement comes from personality and prowess, not position or status.
Yet is the office of Bishop not worthy of respect, even if a particular bishop is a total jackass? Salute the uniform, not the man and all that?
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Forgive me if this has been touched on before, but I was reminded about the question of clerical titles by certain new reports referring to Justin Welby 'Archbishop Welby' in the first instance, then 'Mr Welby' in the second. It seems highly peculiar to hear an archbishop of Canterbury referred to as 'Mr'. I believe SkyNews did this. Presumably an ignorant press did this
What might shipmates feel about this?
As you say, press ignorance. Most of those press chappies haven't darkened the door of a church for years, if ever, and suddenly they are called to deal with ecclesiastical titles and other complexities.Their use of that 'Mister' for a CofE or other Anglican bishop is particularly irksome.
I suppose the Episcopal Bishop of Washington is, by the same usage, "Mrs." Mariann Edgar Budde. Conservative traditionalists love to call the American presiding bishop "Mrs" Jeferts Schori, but that's quite another subject for purgatory.
How about "Mr." Francis Bergoglio, bishop of Rome?
*
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Our old notice board because we are a uni church.
The 3 clergy all had PhDs and I was a mere BA!
So what? It does rather come across as boasting
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In business, as soon as you have to say "I'm the boss" to get something done, then you've lost the plot. Respect and engagement comes from personality and prowess, not position or status.
Yet is the office of Bishop not worthy of respect, even if a particular bishop is a total jackass? Salute the uniform, not the man and all that?
If you have that kibd of person taking up the office, then it debases the position by virtue of incumbency.
Surely it's more appropriate to recognise (or not) person not position for that very reason. Too mnay individuals with feet of clay have survived over the years as a consequence of over deferential attitudes to "position."
Giving a title to anyone elevates their position above everyone else
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course the chains of office and robes and whatnot came out for formal ceremonies - as they do in academia or churches or the military - but most of the time no-one cares at all.
Sell them all and give the money to the poor. Get rid once and for all this kind of reminder of our past that represents a residual nod to economic systems of power that perpetuated exploitation and encouraged greed.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Sell them all and give the money to the poor. ...
As the late John Betjeman pointed out, when he asked which disciple said that, not a good argument to cite in Christian circles. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Sell them all and give the money to the poor. ...
As the late John Betjeman pointed out, when he asked which disciple said that, not a good argument to cite in Christian circles.
I don't think I claimed town councils and the like to be Christian Circles and this isn't a Christian web site!
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course the chains of office and robes and whatnot came out for formal ceremonies - as they do in academia or churches or the military - but most of the time no-one cares at all.
Sell them all and give the money to the poor. Get rid once and for all this kind of reminder of our past that represents a residual nod to economic systems of power that perpetuated exploitation and encouraged greed.
Well said Exclamation Mark.
I recently found myself swept into some silly civic do, that involved huge self-congratulatory speeches about supposed and imaginary achievement. The usual band of must-speaks and loud mouths that constitutes much that passes for local government was present, amusingly disguised by their ill fitting semi-Ruritanian robes, chains, and enough lace to make St Mary's Bourne Street blush.
I heard a person behind me mutter 'Cor they don't half think a lot of themselves' to his neighbour.
The hilarity of the spectacle would probably have dampened the hostility of Exclamation Mark, but certainly made one think if not 'roll on centralisation', then certainly of Eliza Doolittle in plastic pearls, expensive fake ermine and elocuted voices.
The only advantage I can think of is that it enables them to act out some time consuming self-delusion which prevents them getting their hands on real power - to the benefit of the rest of us.
Sell their baubles and fix the pot holes.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course the chains of office and robes and whatnot came out for formal ceremonies - as they do in academia or churches or the military - but most of the time no-one cares at all.
Sell them all and give the money to the poor. Get rid once and for all this kind of reminder of our past that represents a residual nod to economic systems of power that perpetuated exploitation and encouraged greed.
Well said Exclamation Mark.
I recently found myself swept into some silly civic do, that involved huge self-congratulatory speeches about supposed and imaginary achievement. The usual band of must-speaks and loud mouths that constitutes much that passes for local government was present, amusingly disguised by their ill fitting semi-Ruritanian robes, chains, and enough lace to make St Mary's Bourne Street blush.
I heard a person behind me mutter 'Cor they don't half think a lot of themselves' to his neighbour.
The hilarity of the spectacle would probably have dampened the hostility of Exclamation Mark, but certainly made one think if not 'roll on centralisation', then certainly of Eliza Doolittle in plastic pearls, expensive fake ermine and elocuted voices.
The only advantage I can think of is that it enables them to act out some time consuming self-delusion which prevents them getting their hands on real power - to the benefit of the rest of us.
Sell their baubles and fix the pot holes.
Local government would be a lot better if those who disdain it were prepared to do their bit, get off the fence and involved in it.
As for 'centralisation' that really is paying somebody else off to do it in stead of you, and then complaining when you're not happy with the result, or they oppress you.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Surely it's more appropriate to recognise (or not) person not position for that very reason. Too mnay individuals with feet of clay have survived over the years as a consequence of over deferential attitudes to "position."
Giving a title to anyone elevates their position above everyone else
In discussions like this I always think of the negative things Jesus said about titles and deference, then wonder why some Christians make such a fuss over the 'right' title. Like Christians in court swearing an oath on the Bible (of all things!), it seems like a straight-up rejection of Jesus' instructions...
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course the chains of office and robes and whatnot came out for formal ceremonies - as they do in academia or churches or the military - but most of the time no-one cares at all.
Sell them all and give the money to the poor. Get rid once and for all this kind of reminder of our past that represents a residual nod to economic systems of power that perpetuated exploitation and encouraged greed.
Well said Exclamation Mark.
I recently found myself swept into some silly civic do, that involved huge self-congratulatory speeches about supposed and imaginary achievement. The usual band of must-speaks and loud mouths that constitutes much that passes for local government was present, amusingly disguised by their ill fitting semi-Ruritanian robes, chains, and enough lace to make St Mary's Bourne Street blush.
I heard a person behind me mutter 'Cor they don't half think a lot of themselves' to his neighbour.
The hilarity of the spectacle would probably have dampened the hostility of Exclamation Mark, but certainly made one think if not 'roll on centralisation', then certainly of Eliza Doolittle in plastic pearls, expensive fake ermine and elocuted voices.
The only advantage I can think of is that it enables them to act out some time consuming self-delusion which prevents them getting their hands on real power - to the benefit of the rest of us.
Sell their baubles and fix the pot holes.
Local government would be a lot better if those who disdain it were prepared to do their bit, get off the fence and involved in it.
As for 'centralisation' that really is paying somebody else off to do it in stead of you, and then complaining when you're not happy with the result, or they oppress you.
There is always something suspicious about those who seek power - and this tends to be highlighted by the types of all parties who go for town councils or local government, which is possibly politics at its most bitchy and trivial. It is, of course, disguised by a 'desire to do good', or whatever convenient cliche comes to hand. The more innocent are foolish enough to delude themselves into thinking that is true, the rest probably don't care.
Indeed, someone will point out that they put a lot of time in blah blah, usually without pointing out the expenses claimed, or the ego-inflation that they enjoy seeing their photo in the Groby Road Echo , or other dubious reasons they have consciously or subconsciously for seeking grubby bits of power over others, displayed in the trinkets, fake ermine and chains worn by red-faced, over weight (most often) men.
And we will hear very soon 'but what would we put in its place?'. I have absolutely no idea. But strip it of prestige, baubles, expenses. Slim down the titles (to return to OP).
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QUOTE]In discussions like this I always think of the negative things Jesus said about titles and deference, then wonder why some Christians make such a fuss over the 'right' title. Like Christians in court swearing an oath on the Bible (of all things!), it seems like a straight-up rejection of Jesus' instructions...
I've never taken an oath in court for that evry reason. It has caused one or two comments in the past until i explain why, as a Christian, I must affirm or not give evidence at all.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Our old notice board because we are a uni church.
The 3 clergy all had PhDs and I was a mere BA!
So what? It does rather come across as boasting
But in university circles, people don't regard you as worth listening to unless you have a doctorate.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Get rid once and for all this kind of reminder of our past that represents a residual nod to economic systems of power that perpetuated exploitation and encouraged greed.
Get rid of the economic system that perpetuates exploitation and encourages greed first, then we can work out what to do about the stuff they left behind.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Our old notice board because we are a uni church.
The 3 clergy all had PhDs and I was a mere BA!
So what? It does rather come across as boasting
But in university circles, people don't regard you as worth listening to unless you have a doctorate.
More fool them. I refer you to Paul's words about wisdom and foolishness in 1 Corinthians.
Obviously depends on what university you're in. I've not found any problem myself (at one of our oldest universities) and I don't have a PhD.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Get rid once and for all this kind of reminder of our past that represents a residual nod to economic systems of power that perpetuated exploitation and encouraged greed.
Get rid of the economic system that perpetuates exploitation and encourages greed first, then we can work out what to do about the stuff they left behind.
Why discriminate? Hit at anything we can - sooner of later we'll wound the animal and bring it down if we keep going long enough. Hope you'll be marching with Unison when the call comes .....
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Our old notice board because we are a uni church.
The 3 clergy all had PhDs and I was a mere BA!
So what? It does rather come across as boasting
But in university circles, people don't regard you as worth listening to unless you have a doctorate.
More fool them. I refer you to Paul's words about wisdom and foolishness in 1 Corinthians.
Obviously depends on what university you're in. I've not found any problem myself (at one of our oldest universities) and I don't have a PhD.
I agree. Russel Group universities seem a bit insecure.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That seems to me to be rather stuffy.
Do you want your bishops to be remote and other-worldly?
I prefer my leader to live in the real world like me. Then his leadership has some street-cred.
No, I'd just like my bishop to have some sense of the dignity of his office (which is absolutely not the same thing as having a sense of his own importance) and not to try to be chummy unless he's actually my friend.
It's the 21st Century. I see no indignity in the use of Christian names, the names with which we were baptised.
In any case, I used to see the bishop regularly in Sainsbury's and had a chat until he moved to a different neighbourhood.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It's the 21st Century. I see no indignity in the use of Christian names, the names with which we were baptised.
In any case, I used to see the bishop regularly in Sainsbury's and had a chat until he moved to a different neighbourhood.
Seriously.
One of the things that drew me to the Episcopal Church (believe it or not) was hearing prayers "for Barack our President and Deval our Governor" and "for Tom and Gayle our Bishops" during the Prayers of the People. What could be more dignified than using the Christian name of a brother or sister in Christ, in whom we are all equal?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That seems to me to be rather stuffy.
Do you want your bishops to be remote and other-worldly?
I prefer my leader to live in the real world like me. Then his leadership has some street-cred.
No, I'd just like my bishop to have some sense of the dignity of his office (which is absolutely not the same thing as having a sense of his own importance) and not to try to be chummy unless he's actually my friend.
It's the 21st Century. I see no indignity in the use of Christian names, the names with which we were baptised.
Nor do I. And that is why, were I in your diocese, I would very happily pray for 'Michael, our Bishop'.
Or are you suggesting that he was baptised Mike? Unlikely, I'd have thought, but if he was, that would of course be another matter.)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Bishop Robert Williamson, formerly of Southwark, was universally known (and prayed for) as Roy. That being the customary abbreviation of his name in Northern Ireland where he grew up.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
What could be more dignified than using the Christian name of a brother or sister in Christ, in whom we are all equal?
Or indeed "Elizabeth our Queen".
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Bishop Robert Williamson, formerly of Southwark, was universally known (and prayed for) as Roy. That being the customary abbreviation of his name in Northern Ireland where he grew up.
Ah, yes, you're quite right there. We all knew him as Roy.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
Until this thread it hadn't struck me as odd to pray for Bishop Mike. And were I in diocese of Bangor I'd be praying for Bishop Andy.
Carys
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
What could be more dignified than using the Christian name of a brother or sister in Christ, in whom we are all equal?
Or indeed "Elizabeth our Queen".
We also pray for Elizabeth our Queen, and pray for Julia our Prime Minister and Barry our Premier (the head of the State Govt.), in addition to Phillip our Primate, Peter our Archbishop. and Glenn our regional Bishop.
In the old days, we also prayed for Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh and Charles, Duke of Cornwall - perhaps we did not pray with sufficient fervour for him.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I agree. Russel Group universities seem a bit insecure.
The University from the Russell Group I had in mind is far from insecure, so I don't see your point unless it's a swipe at the whole lot, Bristol and Clifton included.
I suspect that the PhD thing is more about your church saying "We've got 3 PhD's on the staff" than it is the University saying "We won't go there unless they've at least 3 PhD's on the staff." In which case the issue is not one of who listens but of who is too far up themselves because they love the idea of titles and worldly status too much.
By the way leo I have to mark your submission down - please see me. Russell has 2 "L's" as you as a teacher should know.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] In any case, I used to see the bishop regularly in Sainsbury's and had a chat until he moved to a different neighbourhood.
Bet Mike loved being caught out when buying his pork scratchings in the mega pack.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Please tell me that isn't a euphemism for something.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Leo is talking utter twaddle about universities. For instance, he might like to know the majority of university academic staff do not have a PhD. It is the majority in full time and post 1972 but it is nowhere near 100%.
In Russell group this would include three very distinct groups of people. The first is the bright non-completer. This is someone who lands a tenure job just before they complete their brilliant doctorate and then never does complete it. They normally actually have quite a high publishing standard. The second group is the truly brilliant academic who has developed through a non-traditional route e.g. Wittengstein. Finally there are the very experienced very able medical doctors who simply have been too busy practising to get the formal qualifications. Even those with MD technically have a lower academic qualification than Phd (no I am not making this up; there are a few, very few, who having got M.D. are so inspired by research they go on to do PhD).
The universities would be poorer institutions if they had to exclude any of these people from researching and teaching students. They are unduly represented among the inspiring academics. So no the idea that you need a PhD to be listened to by academics it nonsense.
Jengie
p.s. the qualification I most often cite is not academic at all but simply my professional one.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Please tell me that isn't a euphemism for something.
[ 06. April 2013, 10:41: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Please tell me that isn't a euphemism for something.
]Nah - pity though its sounds too good to miss. It was just a wind up towards leo in an attempt to get him to understand that I'm not impressed by his mates even more than he would be by mine. If the bish wants to buy his fags at lidl then so what? Just imagine what he might think being accosted for a theological chat by leo in the undies dept
[ 06. April 2013, 10:45: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Jengie Jon posts: quote:
the idea that you need a PhD to be listened to by academics it nonsense.
Quite true: I found that, as a source of funds (in my former RL), they listened to me quite carefully. I found that they always wanted to address me as Doctor Aleut, and I would cheerfully tell them that, in Canada, it was custom that public servants never used their non-scientific doctorates. Unlike Ireland, where DPhil politicians got to be Dr FitzGerald, none of our PhD'd politicoes (e.g. Mackenzie King, Stéphane Dion) got to be more than Mr at best.
Having worked in a ministerial office many moons ago, well before many shipmates were even thought of, let alone conceived, we were accustomed to the even-then oldfashioned Mr Minister or Mr Familyname. At a dinner a few years ago, the year before our former boss died, we realized that, 20 years on, we still called him Mr Familyname, even after bottles littered the table and the floor. He liked Comrade Privy Councillor, which was the form I devised for our private correspondence.
As far as titling bishops and others, I will not spare them. When a certain diocesan asked me to call him Bishop Firstname, I replied, "Deal with it, Your Lordship." The Orthies, with their ethnic titles, were easier, so one could call a bishop vladyka, sayedna, or despota, and it sounded chummy while recognizing their office-- some of our Orthodox shipmates will note that this is how they do things.
Those who are seriously concerned for equality will work to break down oppressive class structures, and not spend any time on archaic trappings. My experience in life has been that those who focus on the trappings rest with their achievements, and merrily turn their eyes from the downtrodden, now that their work is done. But YMMV.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Leo is talking utter twaddle about universities. For instance, he might like to know the majority of university academic staff do not have a PhD. It is the majority in full time and post 1972 but it is nowhere near 100%.
In Russell group this would include three very distinct groups of people. The first is the bright non-completer. This is someone who lands a tenure job just before they complete their brilliant doctorate and then never does complete it. They normally actually have quite a high publishing standard. The second group is the truly brilliant academic who has developed through a non-traditional route e.g. Wittengstein. Finally there are the very experienced very able medical doctors who simply have been too busy practising to get the formal qualifications. Even those with MD technically have a lower academic qualification than Phd (no I am not making this up; there are a few, very few, who having got M.D. are so inspired by research they go on to do PhD).
The universities would be poorer institutions if they had to exclude any of these people from researching and teaching students. They are unduly represented among the inspiring academics. So no the idea that you need a PhD to be listened to by academics it nonsense.
Jengie
p.s. the qualification I most often cite is not academic at all but simply my professional one.
The lawyers don't usually have PhDs. It isn't a field a person can do that sort of research in. They have to make their name by writing articles and text books or giving expensive opinions. Back in the 1960s, at the time of the wind of change, there was one of them that did quite a sideline in writing constitutions.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Leo is talking utter twaddle about universities.
Until quite recently, anyone new in our congregation would routinely be asked, 'What department are you in?'
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] In any case, I used to see the bishop regularly in Sainsbury's and had a chat until he moved to a different neighbourhood.
Bet Mike loved being caught out when buying his pork scratchings in the mega pack.
It was usually me coming out of the alcohol section. I once remarked that it wasn't all for me, to which he quipped, 'You enjoy.'
The thing that impresses me about him is that he is an evangelical.
Until recently, most evangelicals I knew were killjoys.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Leo is talking utter twaddle about universities.
Until quite recently, anyone new in our congregation would routinely be asked, 'What department are you in?'
Yeah but that is not the same as asking "Do you have a doctorate?" They ask me that and I reply the name of an admin department in the University. A cleaner can say estates. Even if they say something like "microbiology" they can be a secretary, technical assistant or some none academic role.
It just means that they have spotted that lots of people attending are employed by the University, not that they will not listen to you because you do not have PhD.
Jengie
p.s. two people you do not cross as an academic, the departmental secretary and the cleaner!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Leo is talking utter twaddle about universities.
Until quite recently, anyone new in our congregation would routinely be asked, 'What department are you in?'
Department?
Life.
Get out more, I suggest. Find a world that isn't just academia or those individuals who can't relate to anyone who isn't a clone.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Until recently, most evangelicals I knew were killjoys.
Oh, leo, where have you been all of my life?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Until recently, most evangelicals I knew were killjoys.
By 'recently' you surely mean 50 years ago. I've not come across many such in that time (and plenty of judgemental anglo-catholics and others).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
True. Though more like 40 years - when Michael Green, formerly of S. Aldate's Oxford, offered me a drink in Leeds Uni. union bar after a CU mission.
Stereotypes take a long time to die.
Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on
:
Local 'Piskie priests here (and our sister church, the Iglesia Filipina Independiente) seem to dislike being styled "The Reverend Mr./Miss" past the diaconate. They're usually addressed as "Father" or the gender-neutral local term "Padi" (itself a corruption of "padre" from the olden days in the North, but the use thereof outside these Islands will not fly under any circumstance), although I call the ladies "Mother."
By and large, even evangelical 'Piskie priests here are called "Father." They don't mind.
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The lawyers don't usually have PhDs. It isn't a field a person can do that sort of research in. They have to make their name by writing articles and text books or giving expensive opinions. Back in the 1960s, at the time of the wind of change, there was one of them that did quite a sideline in writing constitutions.
The Senior Assistant Solicitor-General here in NSW has a PhD - which he wrote on a famous court case in the 1930s when the Bishop of Bathurst was taken to court for diverging from the Book of Common Prayer when he produced a book of devotional instruction (it really did upset the apple cart here in evangelical heart-land)!
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
The (sadly late) Justice David Hodgson, of the NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeal had a D Phil from Oxford in philosophy - Hart said that Hodgson was the best doctoral student he had seen. He had a very substantial reputation as a philosopher, as well as a lawyer, his last book being published only a few months before his death. He did not use his doctoral title in his practice as a lawyer, nor in private life.
[ 07. April 2013, 10:13: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
As far as Canadian lawyers go-- the one law PhD I know uses his Dr at the University, but is Mr when at the bar-- I have a vague memory that there is a judicial protocal guideline on this. The University of Toronto has recently muddied things further by transforming their LLB into a JD (so as to "assist graduate in the global legal personnel market", viz., the US where many law schools issue JDs) but I have not met any of these graduates yet, so do not know if they chance their titular arm.
The qualified canon lawyers (JCD and DScOrient) I know are RC clerics, who do not use Revd Dr, just Revd or Father. One would dearly love to be a monsignor, but for many reasons will have to wait a very long time.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
The Americans have muddied this a lot in their (to me inexplicable, except in terms of 'title inflation', and very unhelpful) use of doctoral titles for what are essentially Bachelors or Masters level professional qualifications. Mrs A is seeing this in one of the healthcare professions now, where people are getting into a tizz about their American equivalents apparently having doctorates but finding it difficult to see that these are not doctorates as we understand them in the UK.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I mentioned above how the Orthies seem to make Byzantine honorifics sound chummy. As well, I recall well how Irish friends of mine were able to use "May it please Your Grace" to actually mean "Stand over here, eejit."
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
The Americans have muddied this a lot in their (to me inexplicable, except in terms of 'title inflation', and very unhelpful) use of doctoral titles for what are essentially Bachelors or Masters level professional qualifications. Mrs A is seeing this in one of the healthcare professions now, where people are getting into a tizz about their American equivalents apparently having doctorates but finding it difficult to see that these are not doctorates as we understand them in the UK.
Have we muddied it through title inflation, or is just a difference of history? Columbia University have been granting the MD as their medical professional degree (i.e., after four years of training, following a four-year B.A. or B.S. degree) since 1767. The JD, I'll admit, is a horrifyingly recent innovation (not), dating from only the nineteenth century.
Just so everyone is on the same page, the typical American pattern for the various professions would be:
- Medicine: B.A. or B.S. (4 years), then M.D. (4 years); if they want to do research, a further PhD. in biology or a medical field
- Law: B.A. (4 years), then J.D. (3 years)
- Ministry: B.A. (4 years), then MDiv. (3 years)
- Business: B.A. or B.S. (4 years), then some work experience, then M.B.A. (2 years)
- Teaching: B.A. or B.S. (4 years), then M.A. or M.A.T. (2 years)
In large part this structure has been to avoid conferring second bachelor's degrees, since none of the professional degrees involved (M.D./J.D./MDiv./M.B.A./M.A.T.) can be received as first bachelor's degrees.
How does it work in Britain?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0