I presume that he thought Jesus was the Lord’s name and that God was maybe a title or sir-name.

On a slightly different note, I’ve heard it said that GD is blasphemous because God is not the one who damns us, but rather the one who saves us. What do you think?

You ask some great questions. I think it’s always worth the effort to figure out if our discomfort is truly a nudging of the Spirit or if it’s baggage from our traditions.

I know that many of the things with which you and I were taught to be uncomfortable have since become much more understandable to me as tradition and not Spirit.

But here’s the other thought that I had when reading your comment. You mentioned something that the youth did that caused you some concern. While it is definitely the responsibility biblically speaking for older to teach younger, there is another aspect of this that comes to my mind.

Familiarity vs. reverence is, at best, subjective. What might seem overly familiar to one may truly be reverent for another. And, in many ways, it may be contextual. Let me give an example:

Here in the south, it is common for adults to be referred to (by children) as “Mr. first name“. I am often referred to as “Mr. Steve” by younger children. I prefer that to “Mr. Sensenig” on many, many levels. It’s easier to pronounce, for one, and sounds “warmer” to my ears — less formal, yet still quite respectful.

We have good friends who moved to Tennessee from California. Their kids are very respectful, yet despite my requests to be called “Mr. Steve” (since some of them, including their father, still have trouble pronouncing “Sensenig” [can't seem to get the emphasis on the right syllable]), they still default to “Mr. Sensenig”.

To them, it’s respectful. To me, it’s not familiar enough for the level of friendship we have with this family. But I’ve resigned to accepting it from them because they are doing what they think is respectful.

Anyway, I say all that to say this: It is always tricky for us to look at someone else and say, “They are not being reverent enough.” Or, just as dangerous: “They are not being familiar enough.”

Maybe I feel in my relationship with God that it is appropriate to pray:

“Daddy in heaven, even just your name is special. Take charge and have your way here, just like you do there. I have needs every day, and I need you to meet them. And please forgive me when I screw up in the same way I forgive others when they do things like that to me, too. Don’t lead me toward things that are going to cause me to sin, and kick the tail of the one who keeps trying to tempt me. Because, in a nutshell, you’re everything. You’ve got it all. You rock more than anything or anyone in this world. And you always will. Thanks!”

If that’s where my relationship with God is, then I don’t see a problem with that. I shouldn’t expect others to say it that way, nor should others be too quick to criticize me if I do.

Having said all that, my experience tells me that often, youth are encouraged to do things like that just for the sake of being “youth”. I wouldn’t encourage that. But, I would definitely applaud the idea of thinking outside the traditional box.

Now, please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying anything here to detract from Jesus as deity arguments. What I’m getting at, however, is your point about Jesus referring to the Father as “Abba”, not “Buddy”. (Although my understanding is that “Abba” is pretty intimate insofar as a child is intimate with their father. It’s very personal.)

And you are quite correct! The attitude of child to father should be one of respect and honor.

But with Jesus, we are given some pretty familiar terms in scripture. Jesus says that he no longer calls his disciples servants but friends. He is referred to by the phrase “son of God” and we are referred to as “sons of God”, so we are brothers.

I also point to the early part of John’s vision in Revelation when he falls before Jesus and Jesus raises him back up. Make of that what you will.

So, when I said that we see both reverence and familiarity, I was thinking with relation to Jesus, and you mentioned the Father. I think there is a difference there.

As far as reverence and familiarity, perhaps our familiarity should be borne out of our relationship with Him. Jesus called His Father “Abba”, not “Buddy”. Paul often called Him “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I don’t think it’s for us to make up the familiar terms. We should let Him give those terms to us.

Tom, interestingly enough, most would find GD to be in the same category. I wonder why he only drew the line at the term “Holy Jesus”?

Aussie John, I am glad you didn’t think I was imbalanced there! The issue of familiarity in addressing or referring to God is a tough subject. I have seen both extremes of this.

When I was a teenager, there was an elder in the church I grew up in who would sometimes refer to Jesus as “bro” (short for “brother”, in case that slang didn’t make it down under). My parents were quite offended by it. I had trouble understanding why it was a problem.

However, I have seen other discussions where people have expressed similar sentiments to my parents’. So maybe I’m missing the point.

At any rate, we see both “reverence” and “familiarity” in scripture and I wonder where the line gets drawn. Is there a “reverent familiarity”? Or is familiarity automatically irreverent?

Just tossing that out for discussion, if anyone cares to answer.

Brother, I’m sorry to have given the impression that I may have understood some imbalance in your words.

Not by a long shot! Re-reading what I wrote I agree I gave that impression. By injecting Bunyan’s words into the conversation I was attempting to raise the issue of reverence for whom God IS. However we address, or refer to, God, there often seems to be a common thread of irreverent familiarity.

Blessings,
Aussie John

I was scared because I didn’t know how my father would react, but Ricky’s dad(Big Rick) didn’t seem to mind, so my dad didn’t say anything. In fact he laughed at them too.

Anyway, if you’re familiar with Richard Pryor, you’ll know his jokes are filled with profanity. So Ricky is “cussing up a storm” telling us these stories. G.D.this and M.F. that and then he says “Holy Jesus!!, Holy Jesus!!”

Suddenly Big Rick thunders in “Rick I don’t want you saying that!” To my Dad and me we thought that was even more funny than the stories themselves. After all, who in there right mind would be bothered by “Holy Jesus!” if GD and MF didn’t bother them?

It wasn’t until several years later, after I got saved, that I realized that Big Rick didn’t want little Rick saying the Lord’s name in vain.

Nothing comes to mind. I’d have to do a search as well. It’s worth thinking about. Perhaps we could do a word study of how God is addressed in the Scripture. We might find some edifying surprises.

The most likely example, if there is one, would be a quote in the New Testament of the Old Testament (Here’s where we would find examples of ‘lord’ being used such as ‘O Lord our God’). That points to a fourth possible reason why transliterated Hebrew names weren’t used. Perhaps the New Testament writers were simply following the usage of the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

I’m glad that so many of you got something out of this post. It’s a tricky subject to try to talk about.

Alan, I actually wasn’t familiar with the transformer song, so my allusion was unintentional, by far! But I liked ded’s take on my use of it

Gordon, glad you thought it was so good, brother. I appreciate the encouragement you are to me. Hope to see you and your family again before too much longer!

Terry, I’m glad we’re on this ride together. You’re a blessing to me, too.

With regard to the Mark passage, I don’t have any original thoughts myself on it. I have often heard it explained in the context of the larger passage, wherein “blaspheme” refers to attributing the work of Christ to Satan or some other source. It seems in our American culture, we have the opposite problem wherein things that are not of Christ are being attributed to him.

Sarah, it’s funny that you mention the David story because we just read that not too long ago in our homeschooling “through the Bible at a snail’s pace, hoping to finish before he actually graduates from high school” reading! And I had similar thoughts about how David was moving stuff around like that and it seemed so contradictory to how it was spelled out to Moses. Yet it doesn’t seem to show that God was too upset by it.

Craig, I’d have to search, but do we see our Father actually being addressed as “God” in the NT? I haven’t searched it in this context, but I need to. I know there are references to “our God” and “my God” (referring to him, not casual usage of a phrase). He is addressed, however, as Father, as Abba, etc.

Aussie John, I’m not completely sure I understand the entirety of your comment. Do you feel that my post was out of balance in some way? If so, can you help me bring balance to it? Thanks!

Mary, intimacy with God is something that definitely freaks people out. We love to put barriers up. For example, the common usage of a verse from Ecclesiastes in the song which says, “You are God in heaven, and here am I on earth” — which in reality was (in my opinion) a desperate expression of a depressed and lonely man, yet is contradictory to the revelation of Jesus in the Old Testament.

With regard to the desire on God’s part for intimacy, I have often summarized it as follows:

1. God creates man and enjoys intimacy with him.
2. Man sins, breaking that intimacy
3. God chooses a people (Israel) through whom he desires to restore intimacy with all humans.
4. Israel rejects the offer of intimacy, instead asking Moses to mediate for them
5. God “puts up” with this arrangement for a while, sending prophet after prophet to speak his word
6. Finally, he ends the mediation and comes in human form himself (Emmanuel = God with us)

Interesting, however, how even now, we continue to want to put layers of mediation between us and God. How that must frustrate him…