This is another one of those questions from a friend that I wanted to take some time to address at length, and the more I read and wrote about Ted Haggard yesterday, the more I started to think that this would be the time to go ahead and address it. Virtually all the articles I read about the controversial pastor related the events as “Haggard this” and “Haggard that,” so I had to work extra hard to make sure that I was calling him “Ted” rather than falling into the style of my source material. You see, unless prompted otherwise or supplied with a preferred name, my default setting is to refer to people (regardless of status or influence) by their first names.
My parents met on their college newspaper staff, and I was taught the importance of writing from an early age. I learned the journalistic style, but there was one thing that I was never quite okay with: the trend of referring to people solely by their last names. I understand the rationale behind it. It’s a way to maintain neutrality and objectivity, and it helps a writer avoid confusion over titles-- “Miss? Mrs.? Dr.? Rev? Rev. Dr.? What do I call this person?” Still, I have a problem with this practice, and I try to avoid it. I feel like it’s dehumanizing and keeps readers from having to relate too much to the people in the news (which streamlines the judgment-passing process). I try to combat this and maintain a charitable mindset, and using a first name only is a way to hold myself to that. Even if I don’t necessarily agree with a pastor, I try to remember:
Every person is only human,
and every human is still a person.
Don’t put someone on a pedestal,
but don’t kick someone to the curb either.
A first name can be a really effective check against this.
A first name is an affirmation.
A first name is an affirmation.
I think I picked up the first name practice from attending my college’s Episcopal church off and on during my senior year at Kenyon. I will admit that, like the majority of the country, my opinion of George W. Bush was not high toward the end of his administration, but when I went into church, part of the liturgy included a prayer for our leaders. As a group, we would say something along the lines of, “Be with our president, George, may he something something something.” I can’t remember the rest, but given how much I complained about “W” or “Bush,” it was a humbling and convicting moment to have to sit there and pray for George. I didn’t care for W at that point, but I think I really liked George, and I could feel sympathy toward George. Anyone and everyone was criticizing W, but George was in a rough spot and could use some friends at that point. In the same way, following the inauguration of President Barack Obama, we would pray, “Be with our president, Barack.” While “Obama” had become this great messianic figurehead in the eyes of a change-obsessed nation, Barack felt oddly human. Depending on who you asked, Obama was either changing too much too quickly or not changing things fast enough, but Barack had just started a new job, so I was willing to be more understanding with Barack. Because I referred to them by their first names, I think I started giving these leaders a certain amount of leeway that I might not have otherwise. By sticking to first names, they got to maintain their humanity without being held to such a high standard. I became more tolerant of their mess-ups and more excited by their successes. I was able to mourn and rejoice with them, rather than giving in to the language of the vicious pundits on either side.
By the same token, there’s a certain respect and familiarity that accompanies a first name. A first name is a special acknowledgment of identity that you just don’t get with a last name. One of the things that I slightly dread about being ordained is being called “Rev. Lewis.” Rev. Lewis is a title. Tom is my identity. The name by which my friends and family know me will always carry a significance that a proper title cannot. Of course, this isn’t universal, and the main exception is with family members. My aunt and uncle are still Aunt Jeannie and Uncle Rick (or Uncle Elvis), but those are titles which only my brother and I get to call them, so that gives those titles an added and personal element, an extra note of affection and endearment. In some cases (thinking especially of Pastor Thurman and Coach), the title does have that same note of endearment, but in a blog by a student who is coming into these pastors’ churches for only a weekend or less, it doesn’t always feel appropriate. The safest default setting is a first name. It’s personal without being too personal. It acknowledges identity and neither elevates nor lowers. It carries a note of respect and understanding that news stories simply don’t. A first name is exactly who a person is, no more and no less, so unless I am specifically instructed to do otherwise, that is the name I use.
Peace and Blessings,
Tom
No comments:
Post a Comment