|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Verys and Rights among us
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
I'm not sure if this should be posted in Ecclesiantics or Purgatory, but here goes:
A debate is currently going on among some of us who are Facebook Friends as to the use of honorifics for certain clergy of the Reformed and Methodist traditions. In the United Church of Canada, for example, the national Moderator, while in office, is designated "The Right Reverend"; upon retiring from such, he/she becomes "The Very Reverend." The use of such titles was forbidden in the old Presbyterian Church in Canada prior to the UCCan merger, so I'm assuming this may be either a newer innovation or a holdover from the antecedent Methodist days.
How many Reformed bodies and Methodist bodies are out there --- with or without bishops, as such --- that use superlative honorific titles for ordained denominational leaders? From what little I know on this subject, it's a bit of a hodgepodge: U.S. United Methodists have bishops but don't use the higher titles; British Presbyterians used to for their Moderators, but the United Reformed Church abolished them; some Eastern European Reformed churches, notably the Hungarians (also in the U.S.), have bishops and use the titles. (The Calvin Synod of the United Church of Christ --- that denomination's tiny Hungarian body --- refers to its Conference Minister as a bishop, with the title Rt. Rev. [a source of some irritation to the Congregational side of the UCC.]).
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Queens chaplains have them, and some of those are CofS, also the Moderator of General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and former Moderators are Right Reverend.
Technically the correct form of address for a non-conformist minister in England is Mr. All Rev are honorary and some object to using them. The fact that they are used is thus more social custom.
Within English NonConformity there is quite a distinctive tradition (i.e. not all by any means) who quite deliberately for reasons to do with their understanding of the priesthood of all believers, play down the distinction between the minister and the congregation. They object to the fact that it suggests that a minister should be revered more than another person within the congregation. I repeat, this is some and not all.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
In the United Church of Canada, for example, the national Moderator, while in office, is designated "The Right Reverend"; upon retiring from such, he/she becomes "The Very Reverend."
Unless, I suppose, he or she is unordained, as some of them have been. What then?
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
They object to the fact that it suggests that a minister should be revered more than another person within the congregation. I repeat, this is some and not all.
As a catholic Anglican priest I too inwardly squirm at the title 'Reverend.' I don't see what is wrong, in a Christian community, with Christian names.
It must have been nearly 50 years ago that the Lambeth Conference decried the use of titles like 'My Lord' for bishops, yet it still goes on in some places.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Just realised it those who tend towards the radical puritan non-conformist line (due to numbers this is everyone who is not Reformed). The Quaker approach to address to emphasise equality. It is actually a more useful distinction in URC circles than either Evangelical-Liberal or Low-High.
Jengie
[ 22. June 2013, 20:21: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
The use of such titles was forbidden in the old Presbyterian Church in Canada prior to the UCCan merger
As well as following it, it would seem.
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
some Eastern European Reformed churches, notably the Hungarians (also in the U.S.), have bishops and use the titles. (The Calvin Synod of the United Church of Christ --- that denomination's tiny Hungarian body --- refers to its Conference Minister as a bishop, with the title Rt. Rev. [a source of some irritation to the Congregational side of the UCC.]).
This pdf entitled "Simple answers to some common questions about the affiliation of the Hungarian Reformed Church in America with the Protestant Episcopal Church," is no obviously no longer current but is interesting for historical background.
I know that Magyar Unitarians have bishoprics in Hungary and Transylvania, but I can find no references to the use of the style "the Right Reverend."
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
In the United Church of Canada, for example, the national Moderator, while in office, is designated "The Right Reverend"; upon retiring from such, he/she becomes "The Very Reverend."
Unless, I suppose, he or she is unordained, as some of them have been. What then?
From the horse's mouth:
quote:
If ordained, the Moderator is designated "the Right Reverend." Former Moderators, if ordained, are designated "the Very Reverend." If commissioned as a diaconal minister, the Moderator is free to choose whether or not to use the designation "the Right Reverend" or "the Very Reverend." Lay Moderators are addressed as they personally wish to be addressed.
Which, I suppose in typical Untied fashion, answers nothing. What if a given lay Moderator happens to fancy the sound of it?
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
They object to the fact that it suggests that a minister should be revered more than another person within the congregation. I repeat, this is some and not all.
As a catholic Anglican priest I too inwardly squirm at the title 'Reverend.' I don't see what is wrong, in a Christian community, with Christian names.
It must have been nearly 50 years ago that the Lambeth Conference decried the use of titles like 'My Lord' for bishops, yet it still goes on in some places.
Agreed. As I've said elsewhere, hearing the lines "For our President Barack and our Governor Deval," and "For our Bishops Tom and Gayle" in the prayers of the people remains one of my favorite moments in the service. What a wonderful symbol of our equality as members of Christ's body.
ETA: Those who are concerned with what "the youth" want should pay attention to this sort of authenticity and humility, rather than trying to chuck out the hymns we love or pretending to be twenty years younger.
[ 22. June 2013, 20:39: Message edited by: Bostonman ]
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
Pace Jengie Jon, the custom in the Presbyterian churches in the British Isles is that the Moderator of General Assembly is styled the Right Revd; on demitting he, or latterly she, becomes the Very Revd. The Presbyterian C of E was in 1972 subsumed into the URC which has not continued the practice - one can only suppose so as not to offend congregationalist sensibilities.
The Dean of the Thistle is also styled Very Revd. There is living locally a CofS chaplain to HM, whom I know slightly. He doesn't use the Very Revd style, whether or no he is entitled so to do.
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
This thread has given me such a warm, fuzzy fealing. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
The General Council article that LQ cited is correct, except it meant that Lay Moderators (of whom there have been four) are not given the honorifics "Rt. Rev." in office or "Very Rev." after it. They use whatever they normally use, Dr., Prof., Ms., whatever.
Lay people don't go around calling themselves "Rev." in the United Church. We're not THAT far gone.
I did not know that the Presbies didn't/don't use the Moderator honorifics. It's a straight Kirk thing, it didn't come from the Methodists. The office of General Superintendent didn't have an honorific.
It may be a dig at the dissenting Presbyterians as it's a Kirk tradition, perhaps given up in 1875 to appease the Free Kirk. The Very Rev. George Pidgeon's (see my avatar) term was only one year, not two as was standard until the 1960's, as his one year term as Moderator of the pre-union Presbyterian Church in Canada counts, as do previous Presbyterian moderators.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
I tolerate being called "Reverend" as a form of direct address, even though it's horribly incorrect grammatically (comparable to meeting one's legislator or governor and saying, "Hello, Honorable"). Some of my more evangelically-inclined parishioners like to refer to me as "Pastor," which is certainly more proper but is quite foreign to the tradition in which I was raised, thus it rather grates on me.
What makes me really cringe, however, is to see the honorific misused in the media thus: "The church's reverend said to one of our reporters . . .". One would think that news people would be clued in about this by their higher-ups, but then, they're probably clueless about it too. It's a secular age we live in. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
It would seem to against Presbyterian notions of equality of all before God. I thought that was why great emphasis was often laid on the idea that the 'minister' was still an elder like other elders, but had a role as a 'teaching' elder.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It would seem to against Presbyterian notions of equality of all before God. I thought that was why great emphasis was often laid on the idea that the 'minister' was still an elder like other elders, but had a role as a 'teaching' elder.
From my limited understanding of the Kirk, they hold that only the Minister may celebrate communion - only they are ordained as "minister of word and sacrament".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It would seem to against Presbyterian notions of equality of all before God. I thought that was why great emphasis was often laid on the idea that the 'minister' was still an elder like other elders, but had a role as a 'teaching' elder.
The same concept of ordination holds with Baptists and Congregationalists: it is a lateral recognition. The minister is a member of a local church who is trained and "set apart," to use the ancient terminology, to do full-time what the rest of the members are supposedly doing part-time. That said, however, he/she is a teacher as well as minister, so the pulpit gown (actually an academic vestment) is appropriate. The term "Reverend" is commonly used, but theologically and ecclesiologically it's really neither here nor there --- it pretty much just provides a convenient distinction between the ordained and the unordained.
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
Pompous bishops like to use such styles. Usually I can sum each one up in four letters.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It would seem to against Presbyterian notions of equality of all before God. I thought that was why great emphasis was often laid on the idea that the 'minister' was still an elder like other elders, but had a role as a 'teaching' elder.
The UCCan says that only Ministers of Word & Sacrament may celebrate the Lord's Supper without restriction. Chairs of Presbytery/Presidents of Conference/The Moderator of General Council may celebrate the Lord's Supper in worship with their Court whether Lay or Ordained, but only at a Court meeting. Given the number of ministers present at Presbytery and Conference, there is little call for lay celebration at that level, it's much easier to delegate.
Mardi Tindal, our past Moderator (who is lay) did celebrate the Lord's Supper at her inaugural General Council when she was elected.
The traditional Moderator's Geneva Gown, with black scarf and frilled shirt cuffs is displayed at Church House in Toronto.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It may be a dig at the dissenting Presbyterians as it's a Kirk tradition, perhaps given up in 1875 to appease the Free Kirk.
Surely the Free Kirk was the dominant party in the 1875 union?
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Pompous bishops like to use such styles. Usually I can sum each one up in four letters.
I don't know about that. I usually go by Bishop P, but when I write to a brother bishop I almost always begin 'My Lord Bishop,...'
I find it very hard to shed the use of more spacious age in writing.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I find it very hard to shed the use of more spacious age in writing.
PD
Don't you mean 'more feudal age', my Lord? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It may be a dig at the dissenting Presbyterians as it's a Kirk tradition, perhaps given up in 1875 to appease the Free Kirk.
Surely the Free Kirk was the dominant party in the 1875 union?
Largest but not entirely dominant; I can point you to some Auld Kirk congregations that are now United Church in Southern Ontario and Nova Scotia.
The Church of Scotland kept the tradition in 1929, which was a copy of 1875 in Canada. I guess someone lost the coin toss.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
I guess what I mean - and this could be filtered through the bias of my Knox course this year* - is that the Free Church seems to have taken hold in Canadian Presbyterianism in a way that it didn't at home, and had a particular civil and social influence through the likes of George Brown, the Temperance movement, Lord's Day Alliance etc. on the political character of the Province and then the nascent Dominion of Canada. And that missionary focus provided a forum for cooperation with likeminded groups which paved the way for the later union.
Or at least I hope so, since that's the thrust of the thesis to my final paper ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
*(I've been leaning particularly on Vaudry's The Free Church in Victorian Canada)
[ 26. June 2013, 00:36: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I like Frederick Buechner's take on it, particularly this: quote:
A minister is not to be revered for who he is in himself, but for who it is he represents, just as the British Ambassador is seated at the hostess's right not because of his beaux yeux but because he represents the Queen.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
