Talk:Reverend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Christian? 2 Lutheran and other American Protestant usage 3 Catholic Deacons 4 "Mother" 5 usage

[edit] Christian?

I've always been of the assumption that "Reverend" was NOT an exclusively Christian title, i.e. churches like the Universal Life Church give out the title, regardless of specific beliefs. Should the article be rewritten to reflect this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebdoss (talk • contribs)

While some non-christians are now using the style of The Reverend for their clergy/leaders it is a style that origionates uniquely within the Christian religion, though Christians cannot stop others from using the term if they so choose. Some of the non-Christian groups, such as the Unitarian Universalist Association, have inherited the usage from their earlier origins within Christianity. Others, such as Won Buddhists, have simply approprated it, and may have done so incorrectly. The same thing has happened with other uniquely Christian words (such as church) and symbols, like the clerical collar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.28.19.204 (talk • contribs)

I would not say it was so much an appropriation as a translation. At the end of the day, to say that it is exclusively Christians is simply lying, as it is used by non-christian clergy, and legitimately so, as there are no laws restricting the use of the title. In the UK the title Reverend is used by a great deal of the Buddhist clergy, including the Therevada tradition and several Zen groups as well.

The history of the title is certainly uniquely christian, but there is still some rephrasing required here

Lostsocks 22:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lutheran and other American Protestant usage

On December 8th, a user changed the remark about Lutheran usage (on commonality of "Pastor" vs "Reverend" to indicate the opposite of what had been said previously). I believe I authored the original line about Lutheran usage and have thus reverted this change (conceptually anyway, I actually rewrote the sentences). Perhaps my revised reversion will be more to the liking of whomever made said change; however, I stand by my assertion that Lutherans tend much more toward using "Pastor" than "Reverend"--even the ELCA annual yearbook lists clergy as "Pr. John Smith" with "Pr." being the abbreviation of "Pastor"

I'm curious if anyone has noticed patterns of usage that vary from region to region or from denomination to denomination (that is among non-Lutheran and non-Anglican Protestants). My own anecdotal observations seem to indicate a higher usage of "Reverend" (including the incorrect usages) on the East Coast versus a higher usage of "Pastor" in the Midwest--but this is based in little evidence. In a similar vein, although not completely related to this article, in my own denomination (United Church of Christ), I've noticed New Englander clergy identifying their position as "minister" (I'm the associate minister at First Congregational in so-and-so) and Central Atlantic and Midwestern clergy identifying their position more often as "pastor" (I'm the associate pastor at First Church in so-and-so).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.232.21 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Catholic Deacons

According to the "Official Catholic Directory" of the Amercian Catholic Church, no distinction is made between permanent and transitional deacons with regard to this style. Both are entitled to use "Reverend Mister." Nor does it cite the use of the definite article before any of the Catholic ecclesiastical titles.68.65.122.80 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

68.239.112.131 22:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)==Other== What is the relevance of Psalm 111:9? The Bible clearly states that holy and reverend is his name in Psalm 111:9

Withing the Roman Rite Archdiocese of Anchorage, useage is as follows: Archbishop, Ordinary, Coadjutor, or Emeritus: Most Reverend Monsigneur: Right Reverend Vicar: Very Reverend or Father Priest: Reverend or Father, seldom both Deacon, permanent or transitional: Reverend Mister or Deacon

The use of "the" before hand is infrequent, not consistent. My father happens to be a Permanent Deacon in this Archdiocese.

Exemplar links: http://www.archdioceseofanchorage.org/archbishop/index.html

http://www.archdioceseofanchorage.org/about/chancery/index.html

http://www.nativityofourlordcc.org/Main.asp (Not in Anchorage, but shows The Rev. Mr.)

http://www.aksaintandrews.org/cntactus.htm (Archdiocese of Anchorage)

Note Very Reverend Leo Walsh is the same as Father Walsh. My father's mail from the Archdiocese is addressed either "Deacon ___ ___" or "Rev. Mr. ___ ___".

Wfh 08:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mother"

I'm Epicopalian and my priest's first name is Lula. She is referred to as "Mother," even in bulletin. Conversationally, she is referred as "Mother ____ ." It is not "in jest."

--J. J. in PA 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] usage

i just cut the section on usage. while i will admit i know nothing about the historical use of the term, i have never encountered even a mention of reverend being solely an adjective. i always saw "the reverend bob" vs "bob the reverend" equivalent to "father bob" vs "bob the priest". in any case, the cut section cites no refs and is remarkably prescriptivist -- there's a world of difference between noting historical usage and demanding what you consider correct usage. --dan (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This section is important and there is no valid reason reason to just remove it. The section doesn't "demand" anything but correctly explains the traditional grammatical useage. Anglicanus (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

you're right, cutting it entirely was stupid of me. however i repeat: this section cites no references, and there is a large difference between traditional usage and "the correct usage of the English language" (as if there is such a thing). surely, if there have been "repeated protests of grammarians" a few records of this protest could be sourced. i poked through the history a bit, and it seems a more balanced (to me, at any rate) version existed until the end of last year, when mamathomas changed it from traditional vs modern to correct vs incorrect. --dan (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)