This may only be of interest to Christians, but I'm very interested also in how non-Christians would respond.My friend Sherry posts some thoughts about how American Catholics (and maybe others, but she's speaking from her direct experience) seem reluctant to use the name Jesus in their prayer or in speaking about their faith. Here's a quick quote:
We talk incessantly about the Church. But not about the Lord, Savior, Redeemer, and Head of the Church. Not Jesus. Not by name. Not spontaneously without the liturgy to give us "cover". To do so, seems so naked, so unsophisticated, so pietistic, so what - Protestant??Meanwhile, in my own spiritual journey, I've noticed a tendency toward using what I think of as God's "full name": Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship has asked that the name given in the Old Testament, usually Englished into "Yahweh" (or "Jehovah"), not be used in music during mass.
I am not the only one who has noticed this aspect of American Catholic culture. A Catholic scholar friend of mine has mischievously coined a memorable phrase to describe it: Jesus is "He who must not be named".
My first observation is that this emphasis on the importance of names, whether to be used or to be avoided, seems to be a feature of Abrahamic religion. Observant Jews do not pronounce the name of God, and some even avoid the common (though capitalized) noun, spelling it G-d. Muslims have a meditation on the ninety-nine names of Allah, which they recite in a manner similar to the Catholic rosary. Christians have the famous passage from St. Paul (Philippians 2.9-11):Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.But I'm not aware of any such devotion to the Buddha, or to any Hindu or Celtic or Germanic or Native American deities. I don't know of any particular attention among the Romans or the Greeks to the name of Jupiter or Zeus. My neo-pagan friends are fond of using various and multiple names for their ideas of the divine or supernatural, but seem to have at most a personal devotion to one name or another. (I'd welcome correction if I'm missing something here.)
I don't know what conclusion to draw from this observation, except the obvious one that names are very important for Christians and for the Abrahamic religious tradition.
Next, I suppose I want to admit that I found Sherry's post quite challenging. Having grown up in the Pacific Northwest, where any religion is preemptively suspect, I have a gut-level reluctance even to mention that I am Catholic, to say nothing of bearing witness to the name of Jesus, my Lord and my God. I've noticed the name of Jesus appearing in my prayers more at some times and less at others. My current meditative practice (when I take the time to meditate) usually involves a simple repetition of his name. But I almost never say the name of Jesus aloud, or in the presence of others.
I'm not sure how exactly to answer this challenge. On the one hand, I want to be unafraid and unashamed of Jesus and his name. On the other, I know that, when many people hear his name, it raises all sorts of false or distracting or painful associations. I've often described my sense of vocation as preparing the way for Jesus, so that when people hear of him they recognize him as they one they have long desired. But am I merely capitulating to the fear of offending someone?
In any case, your input is most welcome.
Posts
3 comboxers:
Okay, this may sound weird, but I think one of the problems is that the word Jesus just doesn't sound very good in English.
It makes a fine swear word because it has some very harsh syllables with the J sound, especially, being very hard. In non-sinful use, however, it's like trying to cozy up to metal pole that's been out in sub-zero temperatures.
The way the Spaniards pronounce it, the name rolls off the tongue. I'd name a kid "Hey-sus" any day. I'll even say it a few times now because it sounds so good: "Hey-sus", "Hey-sus", "Hey-sus". Ah, that's better.
It is often said that in the ancient world, names were seen as having power, and knowing someone's name meant you had some power over them. Of course, this might just be one of those historical facts that "everybody knows" but which turns out to be baseless....
In the academic world, I rarely hear teachers refer to "Jesus". I think you and Sherry are right: saying "Jesus" is dangerous, as if you were some embarrassing preacher on a street-corner.
But it's perfectly respectable to say "Jesus of Nazareth" (usually in reference to the Historical Jesus), or "Christ" (when discussing Christology or soteriology) or "the Logos" (when discussing the pre-existent Second Person of the Trinity). Why then, does one not just say "Jesus"? I guess it sounds too familiar. As if he were someone you had a personal relationship with, and not merely an object of investigation!
R wrote: On the other, I know that, when many people hear his name, it raises all sorts of false or distracting or painful associations.
Very true, and I often end up in exactly this place as well. But thinking about it now, I wonder: Our audience's "associations" are based on the aggregate of all the times they have heard people mention Jesus. If we mention Jesus (and if we give them no cause for scandal ourselves), then won't we -- at least a little -- modify the associations that this name has for our audience?
If the answer is 'yes', this is a reason to say His name. If the answer is 'no', then saying His name would just be throwing good money after bad. In which case, we should give him a new name, as his old one is ruined. This happens to corporations sometimes -- they have such bad PR that it's better to rename and start from scratch. But how could this be the case with the name given by God, announced by an angel, and bestowed by Mary and Joseph?!!
Post a Comment