The Name: Holy or Not?

A Story by Michael

Exploration of addressing the Creator of mankind

Psalm 8

2 Corinthians 13:11-13

Matthew 28:16-20

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?

Deny thy father, and refuse thy name;

Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,

And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

’Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.

What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:

What’s in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,

Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;

And for that name, which is no part of thee,

Take all myself. William Shakespeare

“A rose by any other name …” is a phrase often used in common speech to settle arguments over what something must be called in order to be accurate. Simply put, it is a challenge to stop “splitting hairs” over something that may otherwise be insignificant. Although I’ve often heard the same thing referring to the foul smell of manure, this comparison would not do for what I hope to achieve in this writing.

For as long as I can remember, it has always struck me as rather odd that the Lord is referred to as simply “God”. The English translations have pretty much narrowed down the references so that no matter the context in which the Lord’s name is invoked, it is simply reduced to “God”. I suppose the reason why it strikes me so strangely is that I was raised by parents who insisted that I address my elders with a title such as Mr. or Mrs. In the south, addressing an elder by first name is ok as long as Mr. or Mrs. is attached to the front. Always, it was taught to me, it is appropriate to show respect for our elders.

The Marine Corps is no exception to this rule. Everyone has a title, or rank, and it always precedes the person’s last name such as Captain Smith or Corporal Jones. And because the military has strict rules regarding fraternization, addressing superiors by rank maintains a certain degree of separation between the higher ranking officers and the enlisted. It all has to do with discipline and respect, and it matters especially on the battlefield in the midst of carrying out a mission. If we are too familiar or too chummy with those who outrank us and they command us to do something we would rather not do, we might feel free to question the order in the presence of others especially if the order or command does not suit us. In such a situation, such delays can cause the unnecessary loss of life or limb, the mission itself is in jeopardy, and the “former” leader’s role is forever diminished.

It has also been my experience that being too chummy in the workplace can be detrimental to the morale of the work force because supervisors will always have their favorites and by their actions make these favorites well known to the rest of the crew. It is also reasonable that genuine friendships can develop between these bosses and the favorites among the rank-and-file. It’s all fine and dandy until the boss has to actually fulfill the role of “boss” in order to get something done. It is then when the “boss” will find out who his or her friends really are or worse, the “boss” may consistently assign those less-than-desirable duties to someone not in his “inner circle”. Sooner or later, this imbalance will manifest itself in morale-diminishing ways. No matter how you slice it, nothing good will come of it and “fair” is the last thing that will be evident.

Last but certainly not least, the degree of separation in the home is also important for many of the same reasons. Children do not need their parents to be “buddies”; they need their parents to be the parents. Children need the guidance, the wisdom, the experience, and the discipline that can only come from responsible, godly parents who see their roles as leaders of the household not purely for the sake of a well-ordered home but also as opportunities to teach their children how to function not only culturally but also theologically. We as parents have an opportunity, in fact an obligation, to teach our children how to respect the Holy Father. We should also probably pay a little extra attention to how we teach our children to address the Lord. We would not allow our children to call us by our first names for what should be obvious reasons. Why would we teach them to address our Holy God and Father with any less respect?

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.” Exodus 20:7

This commandment has too often been oversimplified so that many will misunderstand that a familiar swear word is the prime example of what this commandment actually means. However, Judaism takes this commandment very seriously, and I wonder if Christians would not do well to follow this example of reverence and respect.

In the first place, at least in the Hebrew language, “God” is not the Lord’s name. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any reference to an actual proper name that can be attributed to the Lord. And according to some scholars, attempting to restrict Him to a single, proper name is akin to attempting to strictly define Him in human terms which, of course, is impossible. In the second place, in Judaism the Lord’s name is unspoken outside of a worship setting. It has been suggested that this particular prohibition stems from Ezekiel which is set in Babylon during the Exile. The Jews were in what was considered to be an “unclean” land which would have been unworthy of His Holiness and give “unclean” people the opportunity to besmirch the Holy Name (Hashem) since the Jews were, for lack of a better word, imprisoned. How “mighty” could be a God who would allow such a thing to happen to His chosen people?

Speaking His name so casually, in the context of this prohibition, suggests a certain lack of reverence and respect and diminishes the degree of separation in which it is understood that He is the Holy God worthy of intense awe and respect. We have casually come to understand Jesus in purely human terms as our “buddy” without realizing or even appreciating the reverence with which He is both addressed in the Gospels and referred to in the Epistles. He was “teacher”, “master”, “lord”, or “messiah” but never simply “Jesus”. Even if we get an image in our mind’s eye that the Lord laughed, joked, and played with His friends and certainly with children, there was still a degree of separation between Him and His disciples. It could well have been from an understanding and appreciation for the tradition and practice that may stem from Ezekiel’s time and school, but the disciples still acknowledged by manner of address that Jesus was not exactly their “equal”.

Is there a useful purpose in even worrying about something as seemingly inconsequential as what His name actually is or in a proper way of addressing or referring to Him? “A rose by any other name …” seems to fit here. After all, what we call Him cannot by any means change His essence. Is it just a language thing? I respectfully submit to you that the manner in which we address Him or refer to Him has everything to do with how seriously we regard Him and His Word. Think of how many Christians are involved in the political process and how nasty the campaigns progressively grow over the years. The name-calling, the accusations, the finger-pointing, fact-twisting and quote-manipulation, the overall nastiness is no indication of what we claim to believe and if the evidence of how we regard the Lord Himself is not apparent in our words or deeds, there exists no evidence at all. It grows progressively nasty from generation to generation because we are teaching our children by our example.

Or perhaps it is that what we really believe and how seriously we regard the Lord is entirely evident in our irreverence for life and disrespect toward our fellow man, especially those with whom we have disagreements, political or theological.

I think maybe it all matters in how we regard the so-called “Great Commission”. The words are attributed to the Risen Christ, spoken by “the word made flesh”. If we really believe that the Lord God and the Christ are One and the same, then we must believe that the words come to us from the Almighty Himself who does not show an inclination to mince words. A spoken word from Him is The Word, and we will receive it in the same manner in which we regard Him.

If we have no respect, no real respect, or reverence for Him or His Essence, then we can have no real respect for His Word. We will feel free to “talk back” or to sass Him just as children will sass an adult if they have not been taught respect for genuine authority. Or it could be like the buck private who lacks any sense of discipline or respect for authority when he is ordered to “duck” but chooses instead to turn and question the reason for the order. It is then when not only is his life in danger, but he also compromises the well-being of his entire unit, each member depending on the other to do what he is supposed to do.

The Lord created an entire world in six days. When the world threatened to overwhelm us, He came to us to show us the way home. That He is entitled to our respect and awe is an understatement.