Facing criticism for withholding information, Episcopal Church removes ‘transparent’ governance pledge from website
flockwoodUPDATED June 7, 2009 at 7:05 a.m. with Episcopal Church response:
Facing criticism for withholding information from its 2.3 million members, the Episcopal Church has quietly removed from its new IAmEpiscopalian.org website assurances that the church is committed to openness and transparency in government.
Anne Rudig, director of the Episcopal Church’s office of communications, says the transparency pledge was removed to free up space so that there would be room on the page — at some future date — for the church to add a message in Spanish and (eventually) French.
The page also needed “freshening and perhaps some specificity for seekers” she added.
For months, the site had proclaimed on its home page: “Our controversies and conversations have been public. Our governance is tranparent. You are free to see our imperfections…” (See a copy of the original message here.)
But sometime this week, after the church was repeatedly criticized for concealing key governance decisions from the people in the pews, the “transparency” and “openness” message disappeared.
In related news, the Episcopal News Service reported Friday on a survey by the (Little Rock) Arkansas Democrat-Gazette showing that a majority of the church’s standing committtees have vetoed the bishop-elect of Northern Michigan, the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester.
The Episcopal News Service, which (like the denomination) is based in New York City, could not independently confirm the Democrat-Gazette’s report because top church officials in New York City and leaders of the Diocese of Northern Michigan have declined to release their own counts.
Meanwhile, Episcopalians who support full-inclusion for gays and lesbians are calling on the church to release the names of a secret committee which is studying the theology of same-sex relationships. They say the secrecy is an insult and contradicts the church’s commitment to “transparent governance.”
But the transparent governance pledge is no longer on the church’s electronic welcome mat — the first thing visitors see when they type in either IAmEpiscopalian.org or EpiscopalChurch.org.
On the Preludium website, Episcopal Church communications director Anne Rudig explains why the transparency pledge was dropped, writing:
“Hi -
We shortened the copy so that there will be room for the Spanish translation (coming soon) below it. It is part of our effort to welcome in many languages. French will be next. We just thought the page needed freshening and perhaps some specificity for seekers. Sorry if you liked the first copy better. Don’t worry – it will change again.
People were always invited to submit their videos. They are still invited to do so. We are our shooting now and adding more ourselves soon, and there will be ample opportunity to create your own and post if you come to General Convention.”
June 6th, 2009 at 9:16 am
I wish all this were open to the light of day, but I do think that overall, this process has been pretty open and has shown that there is a core of shared belief in the Episcopal church that is pretty dang centrist among Christian believers.
Given the outrageous response from fundamentalists to Gene Robinson’s consecration, I can totally understand why that other committee would keep its’ membership private at least for now.
I don’t see the Southern Baptists airing their dirty laundry for the world to see–or anyone else. Compared to most any denomination I can think of, the ECUSA is amazingly transparent.
June 6th, 2009 at 10:25 am
You said, “But sometime this week, after the church was repeatedly criticized for concealing key governance decisions from the people in the pews, the “transparency” and “openness” message disappeared.”
Do you mean the committee of theologians, appointed by the House of Bishops Theology Committee, who are (yet again!) “studying” lgbt relationships, and the membership of which Bp Parsley refuses to release? Or are there other star-chamber matters of which I have not heard?
June 6th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Actually, as Frank points out, it is the homosexualists that are having a hissy fit at the “secret” committee, like the lesbian Susan Russell of “Integrity.”
Ms Schori has violated canon law after canon law to “depose” more bishops than in the previous entire history of American denomination. She has had to hire her own personal litigator (in addition to the national chancellor) to handle all the lawsuits she has instigated. See an analysis about the “legacy” of Ms Schori, here: http://tinyurl.com/kuqeyh
Headline after headline hammers home the message to the public that the Episcopal denomination has degenerated into a gay rights organization that sues Christians. Ironically, the liberals state that the conservatives are “hung up on sex.” See all the resolutions for this summer’s General convention about homosexuals, trangsgendered, etc. here, http://tinyurl.com/c3zxhl . It will get worse, much worse.
June 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I agree, Madge, that we’re better than about anybody else, but we’re still not where we should be if we’re not totally open and transparent. I think the other denominations, particularly the Catholics, should become open and transparent, rather than us becoming secretive like them.
This won’t look good on Katherine Jefferts-Schori’s record, and I suspect that enough has been stirred up about it to embarrass the powers that be. If it embarrasses them enough, they might actually become open and transparent.
June 6th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Yes, there has been a degree of openness in the process, thanks only to the blogosphere.
But the removal of the “transparent” statement from the national website is a clear sign that the critics are being read–and not responded to, but only reacted to. Big red flag. The sneakiness is really what’s transparent.
If it were otherwise, if the church were more honest, I think we’d be growing, and we’re shrinking rapidly. Even the majestic Diocese of Newark, which taught us that it’s “impossible” to believe in the Resurrection “because of Isaac Newton,” is shrinking.
Those awful, ungrateful peasants. Free them from religion, and they walk away!
It’s fascinating that both left and right wings are upset by the lack of openness.
June 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I am truly impressed, Newark, by your ability to blame everything on the liberal element in the church and bring the ruination by John Shelby Spong of the Diocese of Newark into every conversation. Bravo!
June 6th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
LOL!
Now, seriously, I don’t always mention Spong or his lackluster successors. Good thing, too, for my blood pressure as well as that of others!
I could mention that the Diocese of Newark lost about fifty percent–ONE HALF–of its membership under Spong. The decline has slowed but still continues. It’s obviously doing something really, really wrong. There is a full-time employee in the diocese whose only job is to close parishes and sell properties.
Spong’s delightful teaching that the Resurrection is “impossible” BECAUSE of Isaac Newton was a good push downhill. Calling Mary a lesbian also drove hundreds of people to the doors. And all the stories I’ve heard about him agree that in person, he was testy and demanding. Local parishes still remember his visits and many eyes roll.
What they have now is, in my opinion, totally lackluster. Pro-forma extreme leftism without any social charm whatsoever.
The right wing has made many mistakes; however, the left wing *is* a mistake. There’s a difference.
Pax!
June 6th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I have been wondering if this statement was removed by some “higher up” or whether it is a commentary on the action of the Bishops. Who writes the IamEpisc website anyway?
June 6th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I’d say that the numerous ways, regardless of the topic, that you are able to imply that those you disagree with are uneducated bigots is even more impressive, Caleb.
June 6th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
RE: “. . . there is a core of shared belief in the Episcopal church that is pretty dang centrist among Christian believers.”
What on earth madgebaby is talking about I have no idea. Christian believers worldwide in every main denomination from Baptist to Eastern Orthodox to Roman Catholic to the vast vast vast majority of Anglicans believe that blessing same-gender sexual activity is contrary to Scripture and in violation of 2000 years of Church history.
And thinking that fellow Episcopalians — the most liberal denomination in the US — actually has “fundamentalists” in it to protest is snicker-funny. There ain’t no “fundamentalist” Episcopalians. The fundamentalists wouldn’t allow conservative Episcopalians in their group for heaven’s sake because they’re too liberal.
Calling fellow Episcopalians who — along with the rest of the world’s Christians — recognize that there’s no way that a Christian church can validly celebrate, bless, and acclaim same-gender sexual activity “fundamentalists” is simply a hoot and reveals MadgeBaby’s ignorance about 1) what fundamentalists are and believe and 2) other churches.
A fellow Episcopalian who is opposed to the direction that our leaders are taking The Episcopal Church
June 6th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Madgebaby,
I agree with what you said at 9:16 a.m. Overall, this process has been pretty open. In fact, it’s been remarkably open. But the transparency hasn’t come from the top down. It’s come from the bottom up. Scores of standing committees and bishops across the country have demonstrated a real commitment to transparency and to openness. And I am grateful to the church leaders who have helped me and others to get accurate and timely information about this consent process.
June 7th, 2009 at 5:26 am
The recent “veto” of the Bishop Elect of N Michigan, “an Episcopalian”, is what has shown the shared theology of the ECUSA that is quite centrist for Christianity. The Trinity, atonement theology, that sort of thing.
The rant you take about the non existence of “fundamentalist Episcopalians” is interesting. It’s sort of all over the place, but plenty of Episcopalians are reading the bible in a fundamentalist way and espouse theology that is much more like the fundamentalist church down the street than it is Anglicanism.
the notion of “Biblical” marriage is pretty strange to me (and I say this as a very happily married person) The most “Biblical”, at least in the Hebrew Bible, form of marriage is polygamy; marriage in the bible is generally a property transfer. Paul argued that Christians should not waste their time with marriage. Funny how “Biblical” marriage as espoused by most conservative Christians looks more like a 1950’s TV show than it does anything Biblical.
It is funny, Frank, how the transparency has come from the bottom–particularly because of our Episcopal structure. I’m glad there are people who are able and willing to push for it when it needs to happen, like in this context.
June 7th, 2009 at 8:40 am
RE: “but plenty of Episcopalians are reading the bible in a fundamentalist way and espouse theology that is much more like the fundamentalist church down the street than it is Anglicanism.”
Well no. They’re not and they don’t. Traditional Episcopalians — as compared to Baptists, Methodists, RCs, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and non-denominational evangelicals, along with flocks of other Christians — are laughably moderate and understated and careful and nuanced in their theology and reading of the Bible.
Traditional Episcopalians who have no similarity to fundamentalists whatsoever. Fundamentalists are Christians who are a part of that early 20th century movement that originally focused on the fundamentals of the faith [you know -- the stuff you claim that TEC Dear Leaders believe that makes them "centrist", but that our leaders clearly do not] yet ended up devolving into a dispensational, separatist sect with massive “failure to thrive” to boot.
The only similarity that *any* Episcopalian has to fundamentalists is the failure to thrive part.
What you mean, of course, is that traditional Episcopalians — like Christians worldwide in every denomination — believe that Scripture is clear regarding sexual expression. The teensy — and growing smaller by the day — minority of current progressive Episcopalians are so desperate to be trendy and hip that they’ve decided that surely scripture isn’t all that important with regard to sexual expression.
But if it makes you feel better to decide that most Christians of any denomination are “fundamentalists” by all means continue to demonstrate your ignorance of 20th century church history.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:38 am
For those of you who read this post yesterday, I wanted to pass along this update:
On the Preludium website, Episcopal Church communications director Anne Rudig explains why the transparency pledge was dropped, writing:
“Hi -
We shortened the copy so that there will be room for the Spanish translation (coming soon) below it. It is part of our effort to welcome in many languages. French will be next. We just thought the page needed freshening and perhaps some specificity for seekers. Sorry if you liked the first copy better. Don’t worry – it will change again.
People were always invited to submit their videos. They are still invited to do so. We are our shooting now and adding more ourselves soon, and there will be ample opportunity to create your own and post if you come to General Convention.”
X
June 7th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Ms. Rudig’s response is an obvious lie. You can’t tell me that there truly wasn’t room for five or six words indicating openness and transparency, or even five or six words in each language. I am ashamed that someone in my church would try to foist off so obvious a lie on the public. That’s not what we should do.
Of course, what we should do is both be open and transparent, and say we’re open and transparent. At the moment, it appears that we’re not doing either. And that makes me ashamed of my church for the first time in a long time.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Hmmm, apparently I’ve touched a nerve. I’d rather, however, you not put words into my mouth or extrapolate too widely from what I’ve said.
There is great breadth in “traditional” Episcopal churches. Some of them are quite conservative in their theology and scriptural interpretation. some are quite progressive in these matters. Some are high church, some are low church. We exist in a vast diversity of cultures and speak a wide variety of languages. We all know that.
But the truth is many so-called Episcopalians–in this country as well as in others–came straight from fundamentalist backgrounds and never got challenged to think any differently. I’ve seen this happen repeatedly, in different congregations all over the country.
Perhaps your experience of what you call “traditional Episcopalianism” is not like this. In the churches I’ve been a part of, however, where issues of sexuality have become so divisive, a small group of people who read scripture in an extremely literal and selective way have held everyone else hostage.
IF only we could read what Jesus says as literally as we read what Paul says! If we could only read what scripture says about greed as literally as we read what little it says about sexuality literally! Alas. . . .
Lots of people also hate the fact that our church has taken some courageous steps to be inclusive. Some of the reason they hate this is because they think in a fundamentalist sort of way about scripture, and when challenged to do otherwise they get angry and defensive. Some of it is that homosexuality is to them alien and repulsive and it is SO handy when scripture backs up our dislikes
June 7th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Public relations is a dangerous game. Another post on the Preludian blog, at the link above, says that a character count shows the new language to be longer, not shorter, than the original. So, not only is Ms. Rudig lying about the spirit of the thing, she’s apparently lying about the facts, too.
You’d think they could at least count.
June 7th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Call her “Dr. Schori,” please, everyone who is against women in the episcopate. A Ph.D. requires much time, effort and money, and anyone who has one deserves to be called by the proper title.
June 8th, 2009 at 6:10 am
EHCulver, I hear your concern about proper titles.
My question today is: why do the clergy always address me, as an adult with a PhD, by my first name? I find this appallingly condescending. It’s always “Hi, First-Name, this is Father-Last-Name” or “Mother-Last-Name.”
Oddly enough, I worked just as hard for those three stripes as any lady bishop, if not harder.
If I am to call the PB anything but “Kate” or “Katie” (I’ve also seen “Goody Schori,” which I love), I need to be addressed first, and pro-actively, as “Dr. Last-Name.” Since that’s not forthcoming, I recommend that all faithful Episcopalians forthwith drop all courtesy titles until courtesy becomes, as it is supposed to be, reciprocal and pro-active.
Be as gratingly chummy with your Rector as possible, and see if that doesn’t awaken their long-dormant sense of ubuntu.
June 8th, 2009 at 6:38 am
newark-
Although there is the occasional (TEC) bishop with an earned degree in theology, one with an earned degree in oceanography, and a number with earned JD’s (although I know only one attorney who goes by “Dr.” and he is in college administration), the majority of the “Dr.” bishops of my acquaintance were gifted with an honorary DD by their seminary after becoming a bishop, in hopes they would direct more giving, and more seminarians, towards the seminary. But my guess is that you worked much harder for the big hood and the striped sleeves than your local “Dr. Bishop.”
June 8th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I’ve never heard a female Episcopal priest referred to as “mother,” though I have heard some of the male ones referred to by a variation of that title . . .
June 8th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
EHCulver,
At least four of the people commenting on this thread post have graduate degrees, at least three of them have doctorates and at least three of them have Ivy League educations. You don’t know that because (other than Newark Survivor), none of them volunteered details about their own educational backgrounds. (And Newark only mentioned it because you egged him or her on…) People on this blog tend to be courteous, but they’re not hung up on academic titles. Personally, I’m comfortable calling a preacher “Reverend” or “Elder” or “Pastor” or “Father” or “Mother” or “Brother” if that’s what they prefer. But I only call people Doctor if they’re wearing a stethoscope.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Flockwood,
You’re well within your rights to, as you say, call only physicians “doctor.” In fact, no less an authority than Miss Manners agrees with you. We “academic doctors” are advised to keep the fact politely quiet. I am happy to go as “Mr./Ms” myself.
My point was that a priest has no right to call me by my first name without my permission. You are willing to extend this very courtesy to the clergy; what am I, chopped liver? Is the church a place of formality, or chumminess?
How dare a mere clergyman address me familiarly, if I may not immediately reciprocate? Is that a test, to see if I have any self-respect?
I would say again, insist on formality with your clergy, or deny it to them in turn. If they want grown-up money from you, don’t let them address you as if you were a child.
EHCulver didn’t really egg me on to reveal my academic standing; I chose to reveal it because I’m tired of Episcopal clergy infantilizing me.
Honestly, you don’t need a doctorate to feel this way.
Just my opinion–this is one of the many straws that’s breaking TEC’s back.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
In my parish, we call our rector and the other priests by their first names, which is the normal practice, in my experience, in mainstream protestant congregations; certainly that was the case in the Methodist churches that I’ve been involved with. Also, the Book of Common Prayer calls for calling the president “Barack, our president,” and the governor (of Kentucky) “Steve, our governor.” When Pam Miller and Scotty Baesler were mayors of Lexington, they were referred to as Pam and Scotty, hardly formal names, in the prayers. So, I don’t take any offense at being called by my first, or as they used to say, Christian, name by the clergy.
But what I wonder about, Newark, is that given the amount of anger you obviously feel at the Episcopal Church, and apparently the Diocese of Newark, why are you still a member? If I felt the way you apparently feel about any organization, the last thing I’d want would be to be a member of it.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Frank,
I once had a philosophy professor memorably address the whole “Mr./Dr.” issue. She let the whole class know that she expected us to refer to her (and anyone else with a Ph.D) as “Dr.” in our coursework. Pointing out that “doctor” comes from the Latin for teacher, she said something to this effect:
“The person in the hospital is a physician… I’m a Doctor!”
So, I was sure to always refer to her as Dr. And honestly, I think Miss Manners is wrong, and anyone holding a doctorate (academic, medical or professional) who wished to be referred to as “Dr.” should be.
Thankfully, Americans are no where near as obsessed as Austrians, who even have a special academic title for those holding a master’s degree (which are of course combined with Mr. or Mrs. and a whole host of professional titles). Frankly, I wouldn’t mind being addressed as Mr. Master (Herr Magister) every once in awhile by some of the “Dr.s” I know…
June 8th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
It is actually sort of uncouth to call PhD level professors “doctor” in some high level schools. Since everyone has the distinction it’s not relevant. the tradition is to use the title “Mr.” but that’s problematic for female professors (who are way too often called by their first names).
That happens in churches all the time, as in “here’s father so and so our associate and our rector Susie”. Some churches call female priests mother, but that’s hard to swallow from adults (as is father–way to Freudian). Whatever you do, don’t call a female priest “sister”. That is beyond strange.
I do, however call priests by the title that is customary in a given congregation, and teach my kids to do the same. It’s respectful, it’s appropriate from a boundary perspective. Just like I call my dentist or physician “Dr” for some amount of time at least (and they often call me Madge, with no disrespect intended or taken) I see it as appropriate for clergyfolk to be called by their titles and for them to call parishoners by a first name (or a title if it is someone quite a bit older).
The role of the clergyperson–sacerdotal priviledge and all that–is something worth discussing, but while we are working that out good manners are important.
Interesting Ms Manners sidenote: if a clergy person has a PhD in a non-related field (like our dear presiding bishop) the proper thing to do is put it at the end of the name and not use “the most reverend doctor _____” That’s only for theological degrees. One would instead write The most reverend ___________, PhD. With capitals of course
June 8th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
It’s funny, in law, perhaps because we strive for that “aw shucks” image, despite the fact that today’s law degrees are doctorate degrees (unlike the LL.B.’s of the past, which have gone the way of the B.D., which has blossomed into the M.Div.), no lawyer would ever want to be referred to as “Dr.” even in an academic setting; they certainly don’t do it in law school.
A friend of mine told me that he was cross examining a lawyer who was selling himself as an expert witness in some area of finance and referring to himself as “Dr.” When my friend asked, “Why do you call yourself doctor?” he replied that he had a J.D., a law degree. “Oh,” my friend said, “So you’re a doctor like I’m a doctor!”
This apparently brought down the house, and no doubt hurt the dear doctor’s credibility.
Herr Magister UKLutheran is right that Germans (who generally do refer to their lawyers as Dr.) have the best titles. When you go on a German web site that has a place to leave your name, they don’t just offer the German equivalent of Mr. or Ms.; they’ve got everything from Direktor General (gotta love the Ks) forward.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Where I used to teach, in a theological affiliated to a university, I was always referred to as Dr. (my surname). Nobody saw any problems with that. Why would a person with a Ph.D. in a theological field be somehow less worthy of being addressed as “Doctor” than those with a doctorate in some other field of study? Something wrong with theology?
Rudy+
June 9th, 2009 at 4:01 am
Newark Survivor,
You’re not the only one who doesn’t like priests calling people by their first name without their permission. Clint Eastwood doesn’t like it either or, to be more precise, Clint Eastwood’s character doesn’t like it in the 2008 movie Gran Torino. I’m not going to give anything away, but there are several scenes involving the movie’s crotchety old protaganist and a barely-out-of-seminary Catholic priest who likes to call everybody by their first name.
If you haven’t seen this movie, it’s a stunner. One of the very best Eastwood movies ever and the ending is as good as it gets…
June 9th, 2009 at 4:22 am
Dear Dr. Rudy,
People with Ph.Ds in theology are as worthy of the honorific “Doctor” as people with Ph.Ds in any other field. And if I’m taking a class where the teacher wants to be referred to as “Doctor”, I’ll gladly do so.
Personally, I’ve never asked anyone to call me doctor and I’m not offended when people call me by my first name.
By the way, UK Lutheran, they’re very conscious of titles in Mexico, too. Someone with an undergraduate degree is often referred to as “Licenciado.”
June 9th, 2009 at 8:52 am
That’s interesting to know, Frank. Though I do wonder if any country can really beat the Austrians when it comes to titles. For a country that does not (in contrast with Germany) allow people to use royal/noble titles as part of their name, they sure do heap on the academic titles. It’s not unusual to see something like this in a directory at a University:
Herr Hofrat Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Dr. Schimdt
Maybe the Mexican custom could be something our academic communities could adopt. I imagine there are many days when a university staffer or instructors wouldn’t mind being referred to “Licendciado” or “Magister” rather than being talked down to in the manner Newark describes.
Somehow I think honorifics and titles are meant to recognize the achievement of the person, not to puff that person up or to put others in their place. Sadly too often they are indeed misused. Maybe a more egalitarian approach, or a re-introduction of “comrade” as a form of address, would help the situation.
June 9th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I think you’ve hit it on the head, Herr Dr. Magister Prof. UKLutheran; in their Mitteleuropean petit bourgeois manner, the Austrians, when stripped of their traditional titles of nobility fall back on those of academe (or business; thus the Direktor General) as a substitute.
In my own communistic way, I’d prefer to refer to everyone as comrade. After the revolution, no one will be compelled to call anyone Doktor!
June 9th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I once read a dissertation on Colossians which was directed by “Landesbischof Prof. Dr. Eduard Lohse.” Lohse, now retired, was Bishop of the Protestant regional church of Hannover / Niedersachsen, and never officially gave up his Lehrstuhl (professorial chair) in Göttingen. After his term as Bishop ended, he went back to teaching at the University, I believe, at least part time. Sort of a north German N. T. Wright (or one of his predecessors such as H. C. G. Moule, J. B. Lightfoot, and B. F. Westcott), probably all of which were addressed as Doctor.
I’m sure that sounds intolerably old-fashioned, not to say stuffy, but was the church stronger or weaker then, when there was a lot more respect for well educated clergy than there is now?
June 9th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Comrade Rudy, I suspect that there is as much respect for educated clergy today as there ever was; it’s just that we don’t respect educated clergy with views different than our own. And I don’t think that has anything to do with titles. I studied under both Helmut Koester and Krister Stendhahl, and don’t recall either one ever being called doctor, though both had earned doctorates. By your invoking the name of N.T. Wright and the ghosts of Lightfoot and Westcott, I assume that you favor the conservative academics; I don’t, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t give them the courtesy they deserve.
June 10th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Wasn’t really talking about how academics would be addressed at a school of theology, but how church leaders like Lightfoot and Westcott (who were academics) would have been addressed by church people in the context of church life.
I was just using them as examples. I’m not a particularly conservative NT scholar.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Comrade Rudy, I wasn’t around in those days, obviously, but I imagine that Lightfoot and Westcott, who were Church of England bishops, were addressed as “Your Grace,” a title giving them their due as titular members of the House of Lords. “Dr. Your Grace” doesn’t fall trippingly from the tongue. Titles of nobility generally trump titles of academia.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
24 bishops, always including London, Winchester, and Durham, were addressed as “my lord.” Only the two archbishops of Canterbury and York were and are properly addressed as “Your Grace.”
Rudy+
June 10th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
In that case, Comrade Rudy, you’ve answered your own question: None of them was addressed as doctor.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Normally Church of England bishops are referred to in the third person as “Dr. N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham” or “Dr. Stephen Sykes, Bishop of Ely” or “Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury,” and then in a subsequent reference “Dr. Williams.”
June 12th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
After the revolution, they will all be addressed as “Comrade Bishop.”
June 12th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
What revolution might that be?
June 12th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
You’ll see.