Titles and Honour

One of the earliest conversations I remember having with my father was about him telling me how a child should speak to his parents, and grownups in general. They were not to be addressed by "jy" en "jou", the familiar terms for "you" in Afrikaans. The formal term "u" was not yet part of my vocabulary since it was not used at home. "U" was reserved for addressing strangers of equal or higher standing, including God.

That is why Afrikaners use such cumbersome language when addressing an older, yet familiar person. Directly translated a sentence such as the following would be quite common at the dinner table: "Ma, will Ma please pass me the salt." The same kind of language was used when addressing an "uncle" who visited or a teacher at school.

At the age of 14 I went to a German School because that was the only high school in the town we had moved to. Germans address their parents as well as God in the familiar "du" and not the formal "sie". Children and servants are of course also "du". But in our school the principal came up with the policy that teachers should cease to call pupils by their first name from the time they reached grade 11. Instead of calling me "Pieter" and "du", they were now say "Herr van Staden" and "sie".

On my train journey to university I shared a compartment with a senior student. I was quite oblivious to the strict class distinction between first years and the rest of the student body, and talked to my train companion as if we had pretty much the same status. What was my surprise when I arrived at the hostel to find all students other than first years were to be "Meneer" to me.

During my student years in the late sixties we had to wear jacket and tie to classes but our lecturers did not have an exact code by which they related to us. To some we were "julle" and to others "Dames en Here". They never used our first names, however, only surnames. We addressed them by one of two titles, "Meneer" or Dokor". "Professor" was seldom used, even if they held the title.

In the army I was again reduced to "jy met die brilletjies" or some other degrading title. I, on the other hand, had to take great care to address superiors by the title matching their rank. Otherwise the vilest expletives were directed at me for being an ignorant "troop".

When I started work as a university lecturer I fell in with the tradition of addressing students by their surnames, sometimes adding "Mr or "Miss". They spoke to me in the same formal manner, always using "Mr", and so did my colleagues. Later on some of these students joined the staff and in the 1980's we got onto first name terms with each other. It was very much a culture that was beginning to sweep the western world. After ten years on staff my colleagues and I started using first names also. Undergraduate students addressed us by our title "Mr", "Dr" or "Prof", almost without exception.

During the early 1980's I went to America for postgraduate studies. The ages of doctoral students varied between early twenties and middle forties and we all referred to one another by our first names. Most of the professors also invited us to address them by their first names. A Japanese professor who was on study leave expressed his frustration to me at the lack of respect the American students had for their teachers. I did not see it that way; to me using a formal mode of address does not necessarily indicate respect, and vice versa.

While I was on familiar terms with my American professors, some of whom were world renowned, my wife and I attended a church where we were expected to address the preacher as "Pastor". At home in South Africa I was used to call older Christians, whether they were in full time ministry or not, "Brother" or "Sister". Today those expressions are in disrepute. It is alleged that we used them because we did not know one another's first names. However, today we address our fellow congregants by first names and tend not to know one another's surnames.

The Bible has much to say about paying respect and honouring those to whom it is due. However, in my experience over the last 60 years I have learned that respect goes much further than addressing a person by the correct title. In fact, one can use the correct title and still show contempt for the person.

Jesus did have something to say about titles. He accepted all the titles given him because he was worthy of them all. He said to his disciples "You call me Teacher and Lord, and it is right that you do so, because that is what I am." (John 13:13 TEV) The Hebrew for 'Teacher' is 'Rabbi'.

Jesus had a healthy contempt for the custom of seeking honour through titles. He instructed his disciples about the practice of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees saying: "… they love to be greeted with respect in the market-places and to be called 'Teacher'. You must not be called 'Teacher', because you are all members of one family and have only one Teacher." (Matthew 23:7-8 TEV)

If a servant of Christ insists on being called by his title or "your grace" etc, he should also give honour where honour is due and never refer to the Saviour other than as the Lord Jesus Christ etc.

Exercise: Look up when Jesus was addressed as Lord and when as Teacher. Were titles used to flatter him? One title was used by the soldiers to mock him.

Babies

Someone said, "God is an artist" and someone else said, "He is a mathematician" etc. All these are true but he is also a copier (not a copycat). God created man in his image.

The image of God in man was not complete after the creation of Adam. This is because the essence of God is love. Without someone to love Adam could not 'mirror' the image of God. For him to love the animals would not be enough, it had to be someone his equal. Hence the creation of Eve from Adam's rib.

The trinity makes sense when we analyse the concept of love. How could God create in us the capability to love if he had no experience of it himself? When God refers to himself as 'us', it is because he is not just one person. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have had a love relationship since before the world began.

Not only are we humans capable of love, but also of duplicating ourselves. The image of God in us enables us to carry on this copying process, often with disastrous consequences. Of course God is really the one 'making' the child in its mother's womb but he gave humans the power to start the process.

I am therefore a copy of a copy of ... of a copy of Adam who was a copy of God. That is why I have so many flaws. The earlier copies were better and lived longer (some over 900 years).

Another aspect of God's image involves the ability to choose. This has been the subject of a multitude of books, debates and theological arguments over many centuries. To probe the real meaning of 'free will' is to explore the nature of God himself.

Dialog on suffering

I: If there is a God, I'm not interested in him, because how can he be good, seeing he allows so much suffering?
B: Have you ever done something that hurt another person, something you were later sorry about but you could not 'reverse'?
I: What has that got to do with the discussion?
B: You'll see.
I: OK, let's say 'yes' for the sake of the argument.
B: If there is a God, should he have stopped you from hurting the other person?
I: It depends.
B: So you would want him to stop you if your action would have severe consequences?
I: Yes.
B: How should he stop you, strike you with lightning, cause your limbs or tongue to stop functioning or what?
I: Whatever.
B: So you would prefer not to have a 'free will'?
I: I don't have a 'free will' anyway.
B: So you're like a robot in some aspects or what do you mean?
I: There are things I cannot do even if I wanted to.
B: But there are bad things which you can do, right?
I: I guess so.
B: I hope you can see God's dilemma. He made us so that we are able to make choices. He took the risk that we could hurt one another.
I: He must take responsibility for it then.
B: He does, and that does not make him someone who delights in evil. He remains good and he helps everyone who wants to do good to improve his/her behaviour.
I: A pity so many must suffer pain in the process.
B: Would life not have been terribly boring if we had been programmed to do only certain things and unable to 'follow our dreams'?
I: If I was God I think I would have found it boring to create only machines, whether they are called people, or animals or plants.
B: Imagine being the only human being and having an infinite IQ. I could create the best computers and make them 'live'. It would be most boring if they could not choose some things for themselves.