Hmm......
I don't mind during the meetings.
I did however take exception to them not learning my actual last name for 28 years...... so I am called by my first name (or was, I haven't answered yet at the new CBS).
Outside of the meetings..... I still call the older ones (or those I am not close too) Bro./ Sis. Surname as a gesture of respect but everyone else by their "Christian" names.
OF course here is what the WTS has to say (circa 1951)
***w51 9/15pp. 574-575 Questions From Readers***
Since the writers of the Bible used first names, such as the apostles calling each other Peter and John and Paul, some persons argue we should use first names in our meetings today, claiming that the use of "brother" or "sister" before the last name sounds too much like some of the false religions. How would you answer them? —L.R.,
California.
We use the terms "theocracy" and "Christian" and other expressions, despite the fact that false religions use them also. We do not have to abandon our proper use of such terms just because others misuse them. We cannot argue that it is false religion to use the terms "brother" and "sister" along with the last name, for the Scriptures do so occasionally. And whether the particular translation reads, for example, "Brother Saul" or "Saul, brother", in no way affects the sense of the matter. (Acts 9:17; 22:13; 1 Cor. 16:12; 2 Pet. 3:15) Moreover, the expressions do not become formal titles that set some individuals apart from others, as the Roman Catholic Church’s use of the terms sets some apart from the laity. Jesus allowed for no such divisions, but stressed the equal footing of all Christians when he said: "All you are brothers."—Matt. 23:8, NW.
To use first names would pose several problems. If a person were new to our group, or if we were not well acquainted with him, we would sound too familiar using his first name from the platform. If the one presiding were in his twenties and some in the congregation were in their sixties or seventies, it would seem that the youthful presider were lacking in proper respect if he addressed the elder ones by their first names, and especially so since in many cases he would not be intimately acquainted with these older ones and hence not feel free to call them by their first names, even in friendly conversation off the platform. Another situation, a woman may be in the truth, her husband not, and he may come to one of the meetings. He hears another man call his wife by her first name, and that from the platform in front of the entire congregation. Understandably so, he does not like it. So in view of these and other situations, whom are you going to call by their first name? Some will be offended if you do; others hurt if you do not. All difficulties vanish if when on the platform we use last names for everyone, including those of our own family. We thereby avoid dividing the congregation and addressing some one way and others another way. Of course, newcomers not in the truth we would not address as brothers or sisters, since the spiritual relationship thus indicated does not exist. However, newcomers seldom need to be addressed from the platform during meetings, since they are there to listen.
The use of such names as Peter and John and Paul in the Bible may seem to some to be an argument for using first names. But such were not first names, implying that second or last names followed. They were, for the most part, the only names. Some did have alternative names. For instance, the name first given to Peter was "Simon", and later he was called "Cephas", after the Aramaic, or "Peter", after the Greek. In some texts he is called "Simon Peter"; so "Peter" was more of a last name than a first name. At Mark 3:16 it even states: "Simon he surnamed Peter." However, this was not a surname or last name as we have today, but it was more of an alternative or additional name, given because it was especially fitting, which was a frequent custom with the Hebrews. Surnames as we know them today did not exist among the Jews of Bible times. The WestminsterDictionaryoftheBible (1944), page 418, states: "Surnames were lacking among the Hebrews; persons were designated by adding to the personal name the name of their city, as Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph of Arimathaea, Mary Magdalene, Nahum the Elkoshite; or by a statement of their descent, as Simon son of Jonah; by their disposition, trade, or other characteristic, as Simon Peter, Nathan the prophet, Joseph the carpenter, Matthew the publican, Simon the Zealot, and Dionysius the Areopagite."
On this point the EncyclopediaAmericana, 1942 edition, has this to say under "Names": "Neither the Hebrews, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians nor Greeks had surnames; and in the earliest period of their history the same may be said of the Romans." (Vol. 19, p. 685) This source continues to show that our present system of surnames came only centuries later. All of which shows that the Bible characters did not have first names as we view them today, with a surname following for more formal use; and hence the use of the names Peter and John and Paul and other similar ones that seem like first names to us does not indicate a familiarity among early Christians and apostles. It was the custom of that day.
What is the normal procedure today? When strangers are introduced last names are used, until such time as the two become well acquainted. If there is a big difference in ages, the younger one might never call the older one by his first name. When people are gathered in serious assembly, the procedure is to use last names. It is the customary approach, the more dignified and respectful approach. So we, during our congregational meetings, can copy this custom regarding last names. However, instead of using the worldly Mr. or Mrs. or Miss before the surname, we use the terms that show we enjoy a much closer relationship than worldlings.
The Lord’s Prayer opens with "Our Father", showing he is Father to many, and those many who so address him are necessarily brothers and sisters, all in a family relationship with God at the head. So when we address one another as brother or sister in our meetings we highlight this blessed relationship or spiritual, family oneness. It is this wonderful relationship that makes Jehovah’s witnesses so different, so considerate of one another, so ready to help one another. We are grateful for this relationship, ready to admit it, to call notice to it, without shame or embarrassment to do so because of what some worldling might think. Worldlings call one another by first names under many circumstances. They call us and we call them by first names. It only indicates informality or good acquaintance. But when we use "brother" or "sister" it indicates a blessed relationship, a family relationship under the one Father, Jehovah God. A relationship far closer and more precious than any indicated by the use of first names. Is it not so?
