For the Anglicans among us from Feeding on Manna (blog)

Point of Personal Privilege: Of the “+” and the Names of the Clergy

Posted on July 17, 2012

A good rant never hurts anyone once in a while, especially if it’s a good, educational, public rant. Surprisingly, for someone as opinionated as me, I haven’t had any on this iteration of my blogging life. Being long overdue, I’ve finally found what may be an actual, productive rant to make: on the cross “+” used with the names of the clergy. So here goes.

In the church in general, and in the Episcopal Church in particular, the clergy tend to overuse these symbols. Having been ordained a little over a year, I’ve already received emails that looks something like this:

Dear David+,

Just wanted to recap the meeting with +John and +Jane the other day you attended with Mary+, Jim+, Jean+, Jack+, /Susan, and /Sam. For the 1500th anniversary Eucharist of the Diocese of Dioceseseland, we’ve decided to ask ++Katharine to come and preside. She is, after all, the Presiding Bishop. It seems unlikely that +++Rowan would come. +Jane will preach, and +John will give words of welcome at the peace. /Susan will be the deacon for the Presiding Bishop, /Sam will be the deacon for +John, and we’ll talk to /Elizabeth about serving as +Jane’s deacon. /Jim has agreed to be the Deacon for the Liturgy.

Pass this email along to Bill+, Bob+, Tom+, Jane+, Susan+, and Barbara+ as soon as you can. Can’t wait to start planning this liturgy in committee! Talk to you soon about all of this.

Peace and Blessings,

Bob+

Ok, admittedly there is some exaggeration here. But I have received emails where Deacons are denoted by a slash ( / ) – (like their stoles! Cute, huh?), Every priest is referred to with a cross ( + ) after their name, every Bishop is referred to with a cross ( + ) in front of their name, and anyone of higher esteem (whether of higher rank or not) gets some multiplicative number of crosses in front of their name (++Katherine, +++Rowan, or even +Rowan+)

Here’s the thing. Of all those crosses in the letter, only ONE is correctly used. And that’s the one at the end:

Peace and blessings,

Bob+

Because the origin of the cross before or after a name comes from that era when we still wrote letters. And when those letters might take (gasp!) days to deliver. That cross then and now convey one thing, and one thing only – that the letter was sent with a blessing, by the person signing the letter.

This is why only priests and bishops actually put the cross before or after their name; as our sacramental theology and ecclesiology believes that only priests and bishops have the ontological capability to “bless and declare pardon in the name of God.”  Otherwise, the “+” with names makes no sense – because the use of the cross as an honorific would, or should, be a baptismal birthright – not one conveyed by ordination. (Unless you want to claim the ordained are more holy. If you do, I urge you to get to attend a Clergy Conference for some one-on-one research.)

The + is not, at its root, meant to convey to which order one belongs. That’s because we’ve long had titles and honorifics to do this: “Bishop Smith, Father Sibley, Deacon Jones” (Among others.) The + sign conveys that the priest or bishop sending a letter, across distance, time, and space, sends a blessing with the letter itself.

The idea that the “+” conveys the order to which one belongs is the misconception that led to some folks using the ” / “ to denote persons who are deacons. (I swear I’m not making it up, I’ve seen this.) And, as such, it is also never appropriate for a Deacon to sign a letter as “Bob+,” since, according to the ecclesiology of our church, they cannot bless.

Think of it another way. Ever write a letter to your significant other? I know its an old fashioned concept, but bear with me. Perhaps you signed it with a little heart at the end, before or after your name. That heart doesn’t denote a state of belovedness or attachment to anyone – but an emotion, and thought, and conveyance of love, sent with the letter.

So I’ll sum it up with a nice rule of thumb – if you’re a priest or a bishop, looking to conclude your letter with a blessing, use the +. If you’re trying to convey to what order a person belongs with due respect, or for differentiation, call them what they are – Bishop, Mother, Father, Pastor, Deacon, etc.

If you’re angry and looking to retain the sins of many, then don’t use anything but your name.

One exception I find appropriate: The Twitters. When you’ve got a limited number of characters, using a “+” to denote a priest or bishop works really well. I’ve done it myself. But only on the Twitters.

And if you’re a deacon, don’t use that slash. Unless you’re sending a deacon’s stole in the mail. Then it might be appropriate.

You’ll save yourself some typing time, and me another rant.

Peace and blessings,

David+

UPDATE 1: I have been informed that the “+” after the name is a particularly American usage, and not seen with priests in the CofE. I’ll buy that – we Americans have always had a somewhat heightened sense of self importance.

UPDATE 2: I have further been informed that the “+” with the name may have originally been reserved to the Episcopate only, and come downward and after the name when a bunch of priests obtained some heightened sense of self importance. I can believe that, too, knowing my fair share of the clergy, but am not ready to make that argument quite yet.  In the mean time, use the “+” properly – which is to say, of course, to my personal taste and preference! (Also, why isn’t there a sarcasm font?)

Hat tip: Deacon Phillip Shade and Annie Rothgeb