Yes, but is that because of her Christology, or only because of her sex and her position on same-sex relationship blessings? This article just mentions the latter stuff.
Interestingly, the more conservative members of the church I’m a member of (which is, to be fair, far from the most conservative in the Communion) are upset about the appointment not because she’s a woman, but because she’s pro-choice and pro-equal marriage.
Smiled at today's Matt cartoon in the Telegraph which depicted two bishops in conversation: 'We have the first female Archbishop of Canterbury. I must ask God what She thinks of that'.
It's the first decent Matt for a while. I think he has been forced to toe an editorial line over the past couple of years and his (previously genius) cartoons have become unpleasantly polemical.
Interestingly, the more conservative members of the church I’m a member of (which is, to be fair, far from the most conservative in the Communion) are upset about the appointment not because she’s a woman, but because she’s pro-choice and pro-equal marriage.
Reading the wiki article, sounds like she is more moderate. Seems like she is open to ministry with LBGTQA+ members, but she stops short of equal marriage. She supports reproductive rights, though for herself, she would not choose abortion. That is a moderate, in my book.
I have no doubt she has a thick skin. Raising through the nursing field means she had to develop the skills to stand up to doctors, be caring for patients, and learn how to handle extreme stress as part of the duties one would find in nursing. It is a tough occupation.
At the most, she will hold the office for up to seven years. Not a really long time. More like what I would consider a bridge archbishop.
Ruth has a point about appointing a female CEO of a failing company, but I would argue many times those women are able to turn things around.
(The following comment may get me into trouble with certain people.)
I note how the new leadership of both the Anglican Church and the ELCA both come into their rules as second or third career choice. Mullally through nursing. Curry through teaching/social work. Seems like they both will bring outside perspectives into their new callings.
BTW. Reviewing the comments up thread, I note how many people used the new ABC's first name, not her title or even her last name. If I did that in mixed company, I would have been called out for it, especially if Mrs Gramps were in earshot.
+Sarah, or ++Sarah are normal abbreviations for Bishop Sarah or Archbishop Sarah, which would be perfectly acceptable UK usage. I’ve seen similar for her predecessors and for other (arch)bishops.
BTW. Reviewing the comments up thread, I note how many people used the new ABC's first name, not her title or even her last name. If I did that in mixed company, I would have been called out for it, especially if Mrs Gramps were in earshot.
I think when that is done, there is usually a “+” or “++” before her first name, like this on the first page of this thread:
I think the “++” essentially functions as a title in this context, and can be read as “Archbishop Sarah.”
In Catholic and Anglican traditions, many priests signing their names write a “+” after their name, bishops write a “+” before their name and archbishops (or primates/presiding bishops in Anglican provinces with no archbishops) write “++” before their name. As a result, and from what I’ve observed, referring in writing to a bishop or archbishop as “+GivenName” or “++GivenName” seems to be an accepted way of doing things among Anglicans.
Of course, I stand to be corrected by an Anglican.
ETA: Sorry, posted before seeing the response from @BroJames, who was much more succinct than I was.
BTW. Reviewing the comments up thread, I note how many people used the new ABC's first name, not her title or even her last name. If I did that in mixed company, I would have been called out for it, especially if Mrs Gramps were in earshot.
I think when that is done, there is usually a “+” or “++” before her first name, like this on the first page of this thread:
I think the “++” essentially functions as a title in this context, and can be read as “Archbishop Sarah.”
In Catholic and Anglican traditions, many priests signing their names write a “+” after their name, bishops write a “+” before their name and archbishops (or primates/presiding bishops in Anglican provinces with no archbishops) write “++” before their name. As a result, and from what I’ve observed, referring in writing to a bishop or archbishop as “+GivenName” or “++GivenName” seems to be an accepted way of doing things among Anglicans.
Of course, I stand to be corrected by an Anglican.
ETA: Sorry, posted before seeing the response from @BroJames, who was much more succinct than I was.
I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "mixed company", but yes "+First Name" or "++First Name" is considered totally normal for Catholics and Anglicans in the UK at least. I see lots of people talking about ++Rowan or ++Justin.
BTW. Reviewing the comments up thread, I note how many people used the new ABC's first name, not her title or even her last name. If I did that in mixed company, I would have been called out for it, especially if Mrs Gramps were in earshot.
I think when that is done, there is usually a “+” or “++” before her first name, like this on the first page of this thread:
I think the “++” essentially functions as a title in this context, and can be read as “Archbishop Sarah.”
In Catholic and Anglican traditions, many priests signing their names write a “+” after their name, bishops write a “+” before their name and archbishops (or primates/presiding bishops in Anglican provinces with no archbishops) write “++” before their name. As a result, and from what I’ve observed, referring in writing to a bishop or archbishop as “+GivenName” or “++GivenName” seems to be an accepted way of doing things among Anglicans.
Of course, I stand to be corrected by an Anglican.
ETA: Sorry, posted before seeing the response from @BroJames, who was much more succinct than I was.
I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "mixed company", but yes "+First Name" or "++First Name" is considered totally normal for Catholics and Anglicans in the UK at least. I see lots of people talking about ++Rowan or ++Justin.
Her Grace is a former registered nurse and no doubt has a better handle than either of us on excellent palliative care…
That's not relevant to whether or not she's pro-choice. Using the pro-choice label when you so strongly oppose assisted dying is misleading. I don't mean whether her view is right or wrong, but the pro-choice movement is about medical and personal autonomy - which she is on record as opposing when it comes to dying. It comes across as her using the label to make herself seem more progressive than she actually is, similarly wrt gay marriage.
@Ruth "A mother as ABC. Wonderful!" suggests that there is something about a mother being ABC that is particularly wonderful - by definition that would have to mean that a childfree woman being ABC is less wonderful.
It does not have to mean this. It can mean that it is wonderful that this soon-to-be ABC is a mother, and that it would be wonderful in a different way if she were not. You acknowledge that no slight was intended but insist on reading one in.
But why specifically is it wonderful that the new ABC is a mother? Unless there is any actual difference that it brings vs a childless woman being ABC, you may as well say how wonderful it is that the new ABC has elbows.
I am not insisting on reading a "slight" into the comment, merely pointing out that male bishops' reproductive choices are never commented on. Because they aren't.
Her Grace is a former registered nurse and no doubt has a better handle than either of us on excellent palliative care…
That's not relevant to whether or not she's pro-choice. Using the pro-choice label when you so strongly oppose assisted dying is misleading. I don't mean whether her view is right or wrong, but the pro-choice movement is about medical and personal autonomy - which she is on record as opposing when it comes to dying. It comes across as her using the label to make herself seem more progressive than she actually is, similarly wrt gay marriage.
I wonder if that’s culturally contextual. In the US, I don’t think most people would associate pro-choice with assisted dying. My guess is most people here hear pro-choice as relating only to abortion.
Pro-life can carry broader implications in my experience, at least when used by Catholics. But probably not when used by Evangelicals, at least as a general rule.
I’m in the UK and I would not associate pro-choice with assisted dying; they are completely different issues, imo. I am pro-choice (as well as pro gay marriage), I have even worked as a nurse in a gynaecology theatre carrying out abortions, but I am not pro-assisted dying. This is not from a religious perspective but because of my experience as a nurse and as a disabled person and activist. I think assisted dying puts vulnerable people at risk of exploitation and devalues older and disabled people - Liz Carr explains this very well and I heard her excellent talk at Greenbelt. We should instead be valuing these people more in society and providing the means for them to have effective health and social care to live their lives to the full.
Sorry, even though the ++ may designate a title in GB usage, it is still uncouth in an American mindset. I could not refer to Presiding Bishop Curry (ELCA) by using his first name without his permission, and even then, it would be in a rather intimate setting. As former member of a synod council, I was able to refer to the bishop by first name in a social setting, though in formal meetings I would refer to her title and last name, or just title.
It is just an American thing, or at least the way I understood the American way.
@Ruth "A mother as ABC. Wonderful!" suggests that there is something about a mother being ABC that is particularly wonderful - by definition that would have to mean that a childfree woman being ABC is less wonderful.
It does not have to mean this. It can mean that it is wonderful that this soon-to-be ABC is a mother, and that it would be wonderful in a different way if she were not. You acknowledge that no slight was intended but insist on reading one in.
But why specifically is it wonderful that the new ABC is a mother? Unless there is any actual difference that it brings vs a childless woman being ABC, you may as well say how wonderful it is that the new ABC has elbows. I am not insisting on reading a "slight" into the comment, merely pointing out that male bishops' reproductive choices are never commented on. Because they aren't.
Being a mother is usually a choice, yes, but it was the fact of motherhood that was commented on, not the long-ago choice. A lot of people like to have a point of identification with their leaders, comparable experiences. It is not denigrating to women who don't have children for a woman who does have children to be glad that someone who has also had this important life experience will be the next ABC. I'm happy for them to have that.
Sorry, even though the ++ may designate a title in GB usage, it is still uncouth in an American mindset. I could not refer to Presiding Bishop Curry (ELCA) by using his first name without his permission, and even then, it would be in a rather intimate setting.
No, it is not necessarily “uncouth in an American mindset.” Speak for yourself, and for your own tradition. I regularly hear bishops in The Episcopal Church referred to conversationally as “Bishop GivenName,” including former “Presiding Bishop Michael” [Curry]. Ditto Roman Catholics bishops. And over the last decade or two, I’ve increasingly heard moderators/co-moderators of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) referred to as “Moderator/Co-Moderator GivenName,” a practice those moderators/co-moderators seem to have encouraged.
Meanwhile, the American convention that it’s rude to call someone by their first name without their permission has largely disappeared except in particular social settings.
@Gramps49 'Sarah' or 'Justin' (her predecessor) are both a lot better than just 'Mullally' or 'Welby', both of which are usages that come across to me as sneeringly disrespectful.
Does 'The Apostle Paul' or 'Paul' sound disrespectful?
@Gramps49 is it 'uncouth' for senior US Episcopal clergy to be called 'Bishop David', say or 'Bishop Susan' or whatever their name happens to be?
This isn't a 'Pond' thing but a convention that applies to a particular Christian tradition.
I have no idea how Lutherans address their ministers/clergy.
Meanwhile, there appears to be the kind of hand-wringing and disapproval one might expect from Orthodox on social media but I did notice an Orthodox person who knows ++elect-Mullaly post something to say how 'amazing' she is as a person.
I don't know much about her but would trust this person's judgement. I was also pleased to see a positive and eirenic statement amidst all the hand-wringing.
Anglicans I've spoken to today all believe her to be a potentially unifying figure. We'll see.
I've not heard how the RCs and Orthodox have officially responded yet.
Sorry, even though the ++ may designate a title in GB usage, it is still uncouth in an American mindset. I could not refer to Presiding Bishop Curry (ELCA) by using his first name without his permission, and even then, it would be in a rather intimate setting. . . .
It is just an American thing, or at least the way I understood the American way.
@Gramps49, I can’t help but consider this concern that a reference like “Bishop Sarah” is uncouth in tandem with the fact that you regularly refer to President Trump as “Donald” or even “Donnie.” Is it only uncouth if you respect the person about whom you’re talking, but it’s acceptable if you don’t respect them?
Originally posted by Pomona: I am not insisting on reading a "slight" into the comment, merely pointing out that male bishops' reproductive choices are never commented on. Because they aren't.
I can't comment about bishops. But I'd say male ministers reproductive choices are frequently commented on. Especially, here in Scotland, amongst the more conservative churches, such as the Free Church and the conservative end of the Church of Scotland, where it would seem difficult for a male minister to tick the 1 Tim 3 4 box of managing his own family well, if he does not have children. My impression is that male ministers reproductive choices are commented on more often than female ministers.
It will be interesting to see what sort of church and indeed (Anglican) Communion she leads. She will have a lot of influence over that, and an element of control, but it is also a matter of what those associated with the See of Canterbury, but not controlled by it, choose to do. Even those who are within its province have options to be less associated than they might appear. The Church of England is not totally immutable, though neither is it totally protean.
It will be interesting to see what sort of church and indeed (Anglican) Communion she leads. She will have a lot of influence over that, and an element of control, but it is also a matter of what those associated with the See of Canterbury, but not controlled by it, choose to do. Even those who are within its province have options to be less associated than they might appear. The Church of England is not totally immutable, though neither is it totally protean.
This.
The term 'Anglican Communion' sometimes seems to be rather a misnomer...
Sorry, even though the ++ may designate a title in GB usage, it is still uncouth in an American mindset. I could not refer to Presiding Bishop Curry (ELCA) by using his first name without his permission, and even then, it would be in a rather intimate setting. . . .
It is just an American thing, or at least the way I understood the American way.
@Gramps49, I can’t help but consider this concern that a reference like “Bishop Sarah” is uncouth in tandem with the fact that you regularly refer to President Trump as “Donald” or even “Donnie.” Is it only uncouth if you respect the person about whom you’re talking, but it’s acceptable if you don’t respect them?
I refer to DJT by first name in the Hell thread. Yes. I have even used an infantile name with him too in that thread. But it is a hell thread. I think I have even referred to him as The Don--which he is, considering the many deals he has made which has lined his pockets.
For me, the issue goes to using a male referring to a newly elected archbishop female by first name without her known permission. A male referring to a male, no matter the title, is a little more permissible.
When candidate Harris was running for president, I made the mistake of calling her by first name--and was called out for it on this board. My mistake. I thought the same rule applied to all women regardless of position. I stand corrected.
Moving on. I look forward to seeing what the new Archbishop will bring to the office.
Yes, I think it's still the case in the C of E that Bishops (and maybe Archdeacons etc.) are prayed for by Christian name.
A Pond Difference here, it seems.
No, I don’t think it’s a Pond Difference. It’s standard in my experience the (US) Episcopal Church, and is done not just with regard to bishops but also political leaders, e.g., “for Donald our president.”
Sorry, even though the ++ may designate a title in GB usage, it is still uncouth in an American mindset. I could not refer to Presiding Bishop Curry (ELCA) by using his first name without his permission, and even then, it would be in a rather intimate setting. . . .
It is just an American thing, or at least the way I understood the American way.
@Gramps49, I can’t help but consider this concern that a reference like “Bishop Sarah” is uncouth in tandem with the fact that you regularly refer to President Trump as “Donald” or even “Donnie.” Is it only uncouth if you respect the person about whom you’re talking, but it’s acceptable if you don’t respect them?
I refer to DJT by first name in the Hell thread. Yes. I have even used an infantile name with him too in that thread. But it is a hell thread. I think I have even referred to him as The Don--which he is, considering the many deals he has made which has lined his pockets.
Fair enough.
For me, the issue goes to using a male referring to a newly elected archbishop female by first name without her known permission. A male referring to a male, no matter the title, is a little more permissible.
When candidate Harris was running for president, I made the mistake of calling her by first name--and was called out for it on this board. My mistake. I thought the same rule applied to all women regardless of position. I stand corrected.
Context matters, I think. In the Anglican context, referring to any bishop or archbishop as “Bishop/Archbishop FirstName” is standard and in accordance with accepted norms. So, in a sense, “permission” can be inferred.
In a political context, it can be different. Calling a female politician by her first name has been used by male political opponents (who are called by their surnames) as a subtle form of delegitimization or of asserting dominance. It’s a regular tactic for Trump.
At the same time, Hilary Clinton embraced the use of her first name in her advertising—perhaps partially to emphasize that she is a woman, and almost certainly to de-emphasize connections to her husband. So it can get complicated. Beyond the memes on how to pronounce her first name, Kamala Harris didn’t seem to embrace the use of her first name in the same way.
No, I don’t think it’s a Pond Difference. It’s standard in my experience the (US) Episcopal Church, and is done not just with regard to bishops but also political leaders, e.g., “for Donald our president.”
Agreed. In the prayers it’s always “[Christian name] our bishop, [Christian names] our priests,” and the same for those in secular authority, when named.
No, I don’t think it’s a Pond Difference. It’s standard in my experience the (US) Episcopal Church, and is done not just with regard to bishops but also political leaders, e.g., “for Donald our president.”
Agreed. In the prayers it’s always “[Christian name] our bishop, [Christian names] our priests,” and the same for those in secular authority, when named.
Yet again, I stand corrected - I guess @Gramps49 was referring mainly to the practice of Lutheran churches in the US.
In which case he should stop pontificating about the Anglican practice, which, as @Nick Tamen points out is common to Anglican churches in the UK and to the Episcopal Church in the USA - and presumably the Anglican Communion worldwide.
If this works. this link should take you to an interview with ++ Sarah from the Archbishopric's Facebook page. If it works at all, you may need to click on a little sound icon in the top left hand corner to get the sound.
I suspect it gives a better impression of her and who she is than most of the reports by others which tend to be strained through their aspirations of who they want her to be or not to be.
@North East Quine oh I am very familiar with the expectation that conservative evangelical clergy will be married with children as well as being male - it definitely applies to those circles in England too. I was definitely thinking specifically of Anglican bishops in the C of E.
@Nick Tamen@Heavenlyannie for what it's worth, at school (this would have been in the early 00s) in RE lessons etc abortion and euthanasia were very much grouped together as being related issues. Possibly this was influenced by the Catholic position as even as late as the early 00s, opposition to abortion was more associated with Catholics than any kind of Protestantism in the UK at large (although of course many Protestants did oppose it, evangelical or otherwise). Although by now I've heard more and wider discussion on the issue from various Christian perspectives, I suspect that for many non-religious or nominally/culturally Christian people in the UK the two issues are linked in their mind just because of how ethics and religion gets taught at school here.
For me personally as a disabled person who is in favour of assisted dying in general/in principle, there's a frustration in how there doesn't seem to be room in the public discourse (not any individual stances that people have described here) for stances other than either agreeing or disagreeing with the government bill. To me there is no reason why assisted dying, appropriate and well-funded palliative care, and societal respect for disabled and older people couldn't all sit side-by-side as part of healthcare as a whole - that can't be so rare a viewpoint that there's nobody else that feels similarly, but I don't see that the Church of England has allowed for truly open discussion on the subject and I don't think that ++Sarah has helped with that.
@Pomona, thanks for that. Just to be clear, I wasn’t doubting that what you said reflected your context and your experience. Rather I was just noting that I don’t think linkage of abortion and assisted dying under the umbrella of “pro-choice” can be assumed as a universal. As I said, I think that kind of linkage may be culturally contextual; it’s not one I typically encounter in the US, which is the only cultural contextual I have experience with.
Not pontificating about Anglican use. Just saying how it seems strange to me. I am only expressing my views, not even speaking to the official position of the Lutheran church
Again, back to the election of the new Archbishop of Canterberry. More power to her.
Comments
Yes, but is that because of her Christology, or only because of her sex and her position on same-sex relationship blessings? This article just mentions the latter stuff.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c179yvn08njo
Yes, I'd never seen anything to that effect but thought I'd ask anyway in case others knew of any such thing.
https://gafcon.org/communique-updates/canterbury-appointment-abandons-anglicans/
Lord, have mercy.
The toys really are very far from the pram.
But not pro-choice wrt assisted dying.
Maybe it will - there are cogent arguments for and against.
However, the Church of England, its bishops, and their opinions, are largely irrelevant as far as many (possibly most?) people are concerned.
Or so it seems to me.
I have no doubt she has a thick skin. Raising through the nursing field means she had to develop the skills to stand up to doctors, be caring for patients, and learn how to handle extreme stress as part of the duties one would find in nursing. It is a tough occupation.
At the most, she will hold the office for up to seven years. Not a really long time. More like what I would consider a bridge archbishop.
Ruth has a point about appointing a female CEO of a failing company, but I would argue many times those women are able to turn things around.
(The following comment may get me into trouble with certain people.)
I note how the new leadership of both the Anglican Church and the ELCA both come into their rules as second or third career choice. Mullally through nursing. Curry through teaching/social work. Seems like they both will bring outside perspectives into their new callings.
BTW. Reviewing the comments up thread, I note how many people used the new ABC's first name, not her title or even her last name. If I did that in mixed company, I would have been called out for it, especially if Mrs Gramps were in earshot.
I think the “++” essentially functions as a title in this context, and can be read as “Archbishop Sarah.”
In Catholic and Anglican traditions, many priests signing their names write a “+” after their name, bishops write a “+” before their name and archbishops (or primates/presiding bishops in Anglican provinces with no archbishops) write “++” before their name. As a result, and from what I’ve observed, referring in writing to a bishop or archbishop as “+GivenName” or “++GivenName” seems to be an accepted way of doing things among Anglicans.
Of course, I stand to be corrected by an Anglican.
ETA: Sorry, posted before seeing the response from @BroJames, who was much more succinct than I was.
Yeah but GAFCON don't like anyone, not even themselves.
I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "mixed company", but yes "+First Name" or "++First Name" is considered totally normal for Catholics and Anglicans in the UK at least. I see lots of people talking about ++Rowan or ++Justin.
Seconded.
That's not relevant to whether or not she's pro-choice. Using the pro-choice label when you so strongly oppose assisted dying is misleading. I don't mean whether her view is right or wrong, but the pro-choice movement is about medical and personal autonomy - which she is on record as opposing when it comes to dying. It comes across as her using the label to make herself seem more progressive than she actually is, similarly wrt gay marriage.
But why specifically is it wonderful that the new ABC is a mother? Unless there is any actual difference that it brings vs a childless woman being ABC, you may as well say how wonderful it is that the new ABC has elbows.
I am not insisting on reading a "slight" into the comment, merely pointing out that male bishops' reproductive choices are never commented on. Because they aren't.
Pro-life can carry broader implications in my experience, at least when used by Catholics. But probably not when used by Evangelicals, at least as a general rule.
It is just an American thing, or at least the way I understood the American way.
Being a mother is usually a choice, yes, but it was the fact of motherhood that was commented on, not the long-ago choice. A lot of people like to have a point of identification with their leaders, comparable experiences. It is not denigrating to women who don't have children for a woman who does have children to be glad that someone who has also had this important life experience will be the next ABC. I'm happy for them to have that.
Meanwhile, the American convention that it’s rude to call someone by their first name without their permission has largely disappeared except in particular social settings.
Amen!!
@Gramps49 is it 'uncouth' for senior US Episcopal clergy to be called 'Bishop David', say or 'Bishop Susan' or whatever their name happens to be?
This isn't a 'Pond' thing but a convention that applies to a particular Christian tradition.
I have no idea how Lutherans address their ministers/clergy.
Meanwhile, there appears to be the kind of hand-wringing and disapproval one might expect from Orthodox on social media but I did notice an Orthodox person who knows ++elect-Mullaly post something to say how 'amazing' she is as a person.
I don't know much about her but would trust this person's judgement. I was also pleased to see a positive and eirenic statement amidst all the hand-wringing.
Anglicans I've spoken to today all believe her to be a potentially unifying figure. We'll see.
I've not heard how the RCs and Orthodox have officially responded yet.
https://www.episcopalchurch.org/publicaffairs/presiding-bishop-sean-rowe-congratulates-new-archbishop-of-canterbury/
I am not insisting on reading a "slight" into the comment, merely pointing out that male bishops' reproductive choices are never commented on. Because they aren't.
I can't comment about bishops. But I'd say male ministers reproductive choices are frequently commented on. Especially, here in Scotland, amongst the more conservative churches, such as the Free Church and the conservative end of the Church of Scotland, where it would seem difficult for a male minister to tick the 1 Tim 3 4 box of managing his own family well, if he does not have children. My impression is that male ministers reproductive choices are commented on more often than female ministers.
This.
The term 'Anglican Communion' sometimes seems to be rather a misnomer...
I refer to DJT by first name in the Hell thread. Yes. I have even used an infantile name with him too in that thread. But it is a hell thread. I think I have even referred to him as The Don--which he is, considering the many deals he has made which has lined his pockets.
For me, the issue goes to using a male referring to a newly elected archbishop female by first name without her known permission. A male referring to a male, no matter the title, is a little more permissible.
When candidate Harris was running for president, I made the mistake of calling her by first name--and was called out for it on this board. My mistake. I thought the same rule applied to all women regardless of position. I stand corrected.
Moving on. I look forward to seeing what the new Archbishop will bring to the office.
A Pond Difference here, it seems.
Fair enough.
Context matters, I think. In the Anglican context, referring to any bishop or archbishop as “Bishop/Archbishop FirstName” is standard and in accordance with accepted norms. So, in a sense, “permission” can be inferred.
In a political context, it can be different. Calling a female politician by her first name has been used by male political opponents (who are called by their surnames) as a subtle form of delegitimization or of asserting dominance. It’s a regular tactic for Trump.
At the same time, Hilary Clinton embraced the use of her first name in her advertising—perhaps partially to emphasize that she is a woman, and almost certainly to de-emphasize connections to her husband. So it can get complicated. Beyond the memes on how to pronounce her first name, Kamala Harris didn’t seem to embrace the use of her first name in the same way.
Perhaps it’s a topic worthy of its own thread.
Agreed. In the prayers it’s always “[Christian name] our bishop, [Christian names] our priests,” and the same for those in secular authority, when named.
Yet again, I stand corrected - I guess @Gramps49 was referring mainly to the practice of Lutheran churches in the US.
'When in Rome ...' 😉
I suspect it gives a better impression of her and who she is than most of the reports by others which tend to be strained through their aspirations of who they want her to be or not to be.
It's about a quarter of an hour.
For me personally as a disabled person who is in favour of assisted dying in general/in principle, there's a frustration in how there doesn't seem to be room in the public discourse (not any individual stances that people have described here) for stances other than either agreeing or disagreeing with the government bill. To me there is no reason why assisted dying, appropriate and well-funded palliative care, and societal respect for disabled and older people couldn't all sit side-by-side as part of healthcare as a whole - that can't be so rare a viewpoint that there's nobody else that feels similarly, but I don't see that the Church of England has allowed for truly open discussion on the subject and I don't think that ++Sarah has helped with that.
Again, back to the election of the new Archbishop of Canterberry. More power to her.