text: should "rev trask" address himself properly? the form "rev. trask" is incorrect. the title "reverend" is an adjective. he should be refered to as:  (a) the reverend john trask [or whatever his first name is] (b) the reverend j. trask (c) the reverend mr. trask  something *must* be between the title "reverend" and his last name.  it is not the article "the" to which i am primarily refering, but rather the fact that "reverend" is an adjective.  formally, he would be:  the reverend john trask; or the reverend j. trask; or the reverend mr. trask.  in conversation, one would address him as "mr. trask."  in newspaper columns, for instance, one would properly write:  "the reverend john trask preached a controversial sermon yesterday. mr. trask is quoted as saying..."  you should greet the reverend mr. trask as follows: "hello, mr. trask." in letters you would write, "dear mr. trask," but on the envelope you write, "the reverend john trask," but never in any context do you write or say, "the reverend trask" or "reverend trask." honey, that reverend has addressed himself properly unless he is the vampire hunter on dark shadows.  then maybe he should name himself vampire hunter or something else.  i saw that entire discussion about him an hour ago.  while i find it all funny, i think apostate was correct.  it is in the dictionary and often it is better to change with the times.  as apostate said before, it's a matter of a person's age, ridigity or flexibility, and openness to accept change.  apostate said catholics call their priest "father" (as a sign of respect), so it is quite correct and acceptable when other christians  address their ministers as "reverend" on an informal basis.  in this 21st century, it is now acceptable in the english language for certain christians to use the word "reverend" in an informal greeting, though it is used the way you state in a newspaper article.  isn't an online message board one of the most informal places around?   he gave several good sources, including the excerpts from the 2006 editions of dictionaries.  i just did a quick search and found so many of them.  this quote is from the one i listed below:  "in the united states in the 20th and 21st centuries, despite the protests of the  traditional, it is very common to find clergy referred to as "reverend john smith" (without "the") and/or addressed as "reverend smith". some contend that these are now acceptable due to common use. others continue to maintain that they are both incorrect."  http://www.answers.com/topic/rt-rev  there are so many references like these which a person can use.  it's become a personal preference.  this world would surely be a strange place for me if we still read, spoke, and wrote as our early ancestors did.  as my dear mom, bless her soul, always told me, "we need not criticize each other in informal settings."  of course, she was talking about the dinner table when we'd start our fighting.   in my opinion, your last statement is not as clear as it could be.  it would have been better stated in two shorter sentences.   i do not mean that as a criticism; i'm trying to make my point clearer.  i hope you understand.  even some of our most popular modern writers do not follow archaic rules and take full advantage of writer's privilege.  "the best teachers are those who continue to learn."  well, honey, that's about all i have to say.   smile, child, it's good for  you.  oh hi rev trask, what do you mean about your age?