Thanks so much to those who submitted “puzzlers” a while back! I’ll be answering a few leftovers from a couple of months ago, so I’ll still need more for our next issue!!
“K” asked several questions about titles last time, but I only had time/space to answer the first couple. Here are the rest:
Is the Assistant to the Bishop pretty much the same as the Canon to the Ordinary - seems like an unnecessary highfaluting term. In a similar vein, why/how is someone Right Reverend and not just Reverend. Finally, at even a higher level, why/how is someone Very or Most Reverend? That’s it! (Has there ever been a Canon to the Most/Very Ordinary?😉).
To answer the first question (and to refer back to last month’s “Puzzling”), Anglicans/Episcopalians love honorifics (i.e., highfaluting terms!). So, “Canon to the Ordinary” basically refers to a clergy person who is “second in command” in many ways. Often they’re referred to as “Executive Officer”. Sometimes I’ve heard “Assistant to the Bishop”, but that can be confused (in some places) with the Bishop’s chief administrative assistant. (Let me know if you’d like the distinction between: “Bishop Coadjutor”, “Suffragan Bishop”, and “Assisting Bishop”!)
To answer the second question, “Reverend” can be applied to both priests and deacons. Usually (or at least often), a priest would be referred to as “The Reverend (Mr/Ms/Fr/Doctor/Canon) Jones”. A deacon would be referred to as “The Reverend Deacon Jones”. “Reverend’ is an honorific, not a title. So, thinking in the Judicial world, we might refer to “The Honorable Judge Smith”, but in addressing that person, we would just use the title, “Good morning, Judge Smith”. When a clergy person assumes a different role than parish clergy, there is often an additional honorific. So, the Dean of a Seminary (or Cathedral) might be given the honorific “Very Reverend”. Bishops, when ordained to that role, are given the honorific “Right Reverend”. And the Presiding Bishop is given the honorific “Most Reverend”. So our bishop is “The Right Reverend Kym Lucas”, but we would refer to her in conversation as “Bishop Lucas”.
And to answer your (parenthetical) question, I often argued, when I was the Episcopal Chaplain at UC-Berkeley, that I was the Canon to the Extraordinary. They wouldn’t let me print that on my business cards . . . .
“K” (a different one) last time asked another question I couldn’t answer. Here’s that question:
Why does the lectionary contain the weird Old Testament passages like the David and Bathsheba story and why do we have to read them out loud in church?
Such a great question! The “David and Bathsheba” story is such a classic piece of western culture that it would be doing Christians a dis-service if it weren’t included in the lectionary. But, in general, the lectionaries (both the 3-year Eucharistic Lectionary cycle, and the 2-year Daily Office cycle) are meant to lead the worshipper through the whole canon of Scripture—or, at least, in the case of the Eucharistic Lectionary, the main stories/teachings of the Bible. That often includes the “challenging” ones. The Eucharistic Lectionary—meant for public worship is a little more selective (for example the Rape of Tamar—recounted in 2 Samuel 13—is not read as part of the Eucharistic Lectionary.
I would say, too, in the Eucharistic Lectionary, there are sometimes portions of a reading that are omitted, or are optional. I’m always intrigued by what was left out! The omissions seem, to me, to reflect issues of “taste.” For example, some of the New Testament passages about women being silent in church are omitted from the Eucharist Lectionary.
I think reading Scripture as we’ve received it is always good. It gives us a chance to deal with all parts of our human and religious histories, and our changing ideas about interpretation. That said, I can understand why some passages (more obscure, like the Rape of Tamar) could be left for less-public occasions, when greater depth in discussion might be allowed.
More study of the Bible! Always!