Names and titles
Names and titles are such interesting things. On a purely
human level, there was a time -- even in this land of freedom and democracy --
that everyone addressed their social betters as "Mister" and "Mrs." And when
younger ones addressed every older person (and that could be a 21-year-old
speaking to a 25-year-old) as "Sir" or "Ma'am". But we have changed, and
probably we have lost something that can never be retrieved.
One writer recently mused on the dining-out custom that has
taken hold. He and his wife went for dinner to a fine, expensive restaurant, and
were greeted by their very young server: "Hi there, my name is Tiffany (or
Lance, or whatever!). And what are your names?" To which the fellow responded,
"Mr. and Mrs. Curmudgeon, if you please!"
There is a leveling effect to the use of first names. Should
it be a requirement that, five minutes after meeting someone, we should all be
on a first-name basis? The teenager and the elder brother or sister? "We're all
equals here!" And in some sense, that is true. But hasn't the 70-year-old, or
the 50- or 30-year-old for that matter, somehow earned the right to be addressed
as "Mr. Booker", or, in ecclesial settings, as "Brother Booker", or maybe even
"Brother George", or "Uncle George".
And I still cringe (maybe a lot of us do?) when I hear a small
child refer to its mother by her first name.
I have a client -- a young woman of about 30 -- who always
calls me "Sir". Once, I said, "Just call me George, please." "No, sir," she
said, "I can't do that. I was TRAINED by my parents. I have to call you 'Sir'. I
can't do anything else."
So... the point? Even we human beings can have a variety of
"names and titles", all of which are appropriate in certain circumstances, but
not so much so in other circumstances.
And sometimes we can all disagree as to which "names and
titles" are best in which circumstances.
And, partly, such differences are the result of background,
disposition, and social training, and family example.
And partly too, the result of the age in which we
live.
I remember, years ago, encountering a Pentecostal fellow who
kept referring to "Dad", or occasionally "Daddy". For the longest time I thought
he was talking about his real (that is, natural, or human) father! And even when
he mentioned that "Dad" was "in heaven", I thought that of course his father had
died, and that's where the fellow figured he was!
Finally, with some shock, I realized that he was talking about
the Heavenly Father, the Lord God Almighty, or Yahweh! But his use of "Dad" and
even "Daddy" was so intense and personal that I found it terribly jarring. I
could never bring myself to use such a "name" for God, nor do I think he should
have done so -- and I mean: because of the propriety of the thing, quite apart
from the fact that, doctrinally, he was probably miles away from a fundamental
understanding of the God of Israel -- the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob.
On the other hand, maybe somewhere in the quiet recesses of
private and personal prayer and meditation, maybe there, if not in public
discussion... "Dad" or "Daddy" could be appropriate. Of course, as has been
pointed out, "our Father" or "our Father in heaven" were the terms that Jesus
taught to his disciples.
And there may be an unwarranted presumption in our using the
other term that Jesus sometimes used: that is, "MY Father". The Eternal God is
only Father to us because he was, first of all, Father to Jesus -- and that
makes him "our Father" even if I am addressing him individually and personally
-- because "our" in such cases can mean "the Father of Jesus Christ, and then
mine as well, but only in and through Christ".
Still, Paul has that wonderful reference to the LORD God, or
Yahweh, in Rom 8:15: "But ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we
cry, Abba, Father."
I believe it was on Rom 8:15 that HPM said something along
these lines (this is a paraphrase, as it appears in my notes, not necessarily
verbatim, but attributed to HPM in Log 23:44):
'Abba and Pater (Rom 8:15) epitomize, respectively, affection
and respect. This joint title (the two appear together as well in Mark 14:36 and
Gal 4:6) expresses a fullness that neither word alone can. There is Abba, the
love and trust that a little child (the "teknon" of Rom 8:16,17,21) feels for a
father, an intimate and tender affection. And there is the Pater of an adult son
or daughter (the "huios" of Rom 8:14,15,19,23,29), the intelligent apprehension
of the status and dignity due to the Head of the family. The combination of
Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek words suggests also the mixed character of the Divine
family: "neither Jew nor Greek... ye are all one in Christ" (Gal
3:28).'
So perhaps it does look like "Abba" may be approximated,
today, by "Dad" or "Daddy" -- the familiar term of a small child for his father.
At least some commentators think so. So would the Apostle Paul, if he were
speaking in English, have referred to Yahweh as "Daddy"? I don't know. Probably
not in any public setting, at least. But perhaps in the privacy of his own
"closet".
Just musing.
Speaking for myself personally, I can appreciate the use of
Yahweh occasionally. There is a dignity, and a reverence, in the name -- maybe
most closely "translated" in English as "The Eternal One", or the NT "The One
who was, who is, and who is to come".
But I think that dignity and reverence may be lost, or
cheapened, if "Yahweh" is used all the time.
On the other hand, He -- the Eternal One, the All-powerful,
self-existent One, who sustains all creation -- allows us, even invites us, to
call Him Father, through His Son Jesus Christ. The baby in the manger uttered
his first cry, and thereby his Father staked a claim upon our lives. Thereby the
Mighty God of all the universe became also "Abba" -- the tender Father of a
little child; and OUR Father as well!
The God whose son was born in that stable, amidst the simple
farm animals, ceased being (if He ever was!) a God of remote abstractions and
technical theories.
He is now, for us, a God who loves PEOPLE, a Father who is not
willing that any should perish, who holds back no blessing from His "children",
who searches out and loves even the least worthy and most neglected.
Should I call Him Yahweh, or LORD? Yes, of course. But that is
not enough, at least to me. I also need the One who is "Father".
But to think of Him as the familiar "Father" only, and risk
losing sight of the fact, even for a moment, that He IS All-Powerful and
All-Knowing, and that He had a sure and certain plan that existed in that Grand
Mind untold ages before I ever drew breath... well, I'm not sure even "Father"
is all-sufficient as a name or title.
He is, simply, both... Yahweh AND Father.
And sometimes, in my opinion, it may be more appropriate to
refer to Him as the one... and then again, at other times, it may be more
appropriate to refer to Him as the other.
And sometimes, being human, I may find another person's
selection of name or title as grating.
But, being human, and trying to remember my own fallibility, I
will try -- really hard -- not to judge him for the "sin" of being a bit
"different" than myself.
Maybe he'll feel the same way toward me.
