I just got in touch with a dear old friend and we have been discussing our faith and spiritual matters. She states that she is a Calvinist, I have been lurking on some peoples blogs who call themselves emergent, I also love reading a blog by a woman that is the epitome of a fundamentalist. I don't know anyone right now that is an Arminion(sp), but I know plenty of people who call themselves: post modern, modern, conservative, liberal, moderate, pentecostal, Baptist, Orthodox and Unorthodox, republican and democrat.
The problem I have is that I have no label for myself, in fact I realize that I have spent a great amount of effort to not have one, because I don't really like them. The reason that I don't like labels has nothing to do with the people that label themselves, it has everything to do with me. The truth is that I have preconceived ideas in my head about these labels, some of them are inconsequential but others can get the "ooohhh" reaction out of me. You know what I'm talking about, you keep smiling and talking but you are looking at them out of the corner of your eye waiting for their head to spin around. I mean I do it as soon as one of my friends says "yeah I'm such a night owl." I quickly jump in with the patent "I want to be in bed by 10pm," so that they know that I am not a night owl.
Can labels help us idenify with certain people that we want to have common ground with (like "adoptive parent") or do they alienate people (like "true christian"?) I honestly don't know. I read and listen to just about anybody, does that make me gullable or discernable? If I think that I am on the "right" path should I listen or read something from someone who is on a different path? A sampling of things I've read over the past year. John Piper(calvinist) Rob Bell (won't label himself but is semi emergent), Brian Mclaren (emergent) Terry Maxwell (hardcore fundementalist) Heidi and Rolland Baker (embodies the word Charismatic), and something by a catholic priest but I forget the name. I'm sure that I would have a dozen other labels if I only knew the background of some of the authors I read. I gained lots of valuable insight by reading from a diverse list of people, even though at times I do admit that some things bordered on insanity if not heresy.
I do believe that people who label themselves differently than I will be taking up some of the space around the throne in heaven, so how big of a deal should we make about labels, when God is just going to throw us all in a big pot together. Truth be told though I have huge OPINIONS about lots of different topics and I would probably not have half of the friends that I now have if I was constantly spewing about them. (got you wondering didn't I) I don't even like the label "christian" because I don't want to be compared or associated with some of the people that use that label. (I was just about to be mean and name names, whew! I have some restraint) I use that label only when I know that someone won't look at me out of the corner of their eye and wait for my head to spin around. In all of this I am just rambling about what I have been thinking about for some months now, so the question is "To label or Not to Label?"
16 comments:
Interesting blog. I think labels are good and bad. Just like butter, sugar and chocolate. In their proper use, they are helpful and useful. Out of context or over-used or used too much, they make me fat.
When I am with my "There is no God, velvet Christ piggy banks, yoga meditating, any path is valid" friends, I do make a point of saying, "I am a born-again Christian."
Why? Because saying I'm a Christian means nothing, but saying I am a BORN-AGAIN Christian stirs up all kinds of "evils" in their minds and they cannot wrap their minds around the fact that they like me and yet I hold to values they easily reject. And they wonder, "How can I reject everything I think this person stands for and still really like them?"
That's a good time for me to have a label and in many ways redefine for them what that label is about.
You're right on target when you say there will be lots of different labeled Christians in heaven. It will be fun to see them all.
Bottom line is if Christ's blood isn't the only way, your label will do you no good.
On a side note, these are the other non-Christian labels I like to have for myself: "Hot" "Crazy"
Yes, you are right about them being helpful at times and I tend to use them with people I know more than with people I am just meeting. I like when my label of Christian can throw a different light on someones preconceived ideas of "christian".
i'm a labeler. i use them to understand better, not to settle my ideas about something though.
it actually helps me bring my thoughts together. rather than making me stereotype something, it doesn't send my head spinning, cause i think everything comes down to the individual way someone takes their slant on a label. labels don't mean specifics to me, just general traits. and sometimes i need to have that as a place to start processing my ideas and to be objective. the gender label for instance is really helpful sometimes, i needed to know certain things are just what "guys" do. but then, even with that you have to be careful with cause all guys and gals are individuals and not all generalizations are true.
i guess, as said, it's all in how you use them. using them to judge is not really ever helpful. labeling helps me understand broad perspective though, and that is crucial to building relationships IMO. so i use them in that sense and would probably label myself regardless how someone would take the label. more comfortably, as you say, with those i know better though.
Labels can be helpful to figure out what the heck people believe, but the danger is pigeonholing ourselves and others to a label. It’s too easy to dismiss someone and their ideas if they have a label we are wary of. Often the substance of their stances gets dismissed before even being considered solely because of a label. I identify with many labels, but I can’t say I align 100% with any of them. I think that’s the case for most people. So, labels can be helpful, as long as people use them to help define what we believe and we don’t impose labels on people to neutralize a their argument.
i don't want to be labeled or label others, but it does happen... Just look at my side bar. I'm a professing Jesus Freak! And yes, my head has been know to spin around from time to time...so watch out should we ever be face to face. :)
I don't profess to know a lot about Calvinists or Armenians, but I think that as Christians, we are either one or the other at least to some degree. I believe our church doctrine is Armenian. In a nutshell it is our belief that God gives all people a choice to come to Him, not that He has selected a few "chosen" people to save. I have friends that are reformed(Calvinists) and I respect and love them, I just don't think I agree with that belief. ~Maura
I don't like labels either, but you already know that.
And while some have said that you have to be either a Calvinist or an Armenianist, I don't agree. I think a lot of times people just emphasise different truths. It's best not to get caught up emphasising one too heavily. Maybe that's where a lot of the labels that divide us come from.
i avoid the armenian/calvinist debate too, and i think there is good reason for that. however, i didn't appreciate the calvinist veiwpoint (and what it emphasizes) until being under reformed teaching, as we are now. i talked with brian about it when we were in toccoa last time. and he said the alliance and grace for sure leaned heavily armenian. i thought so, cause i had so many "red flag" moments when we first started attending here. he also laughed and said it's good to sit under reformed teaching for a season. i am finding there is more to being a calvinist than the election point. my friend is only a 4-pointer, leaving out the limited atonement tenant of the doctrine. it is interesting to be under different teaching and realize i've accepted certain things as "my beliefs", not knowing there was more than one side to the coin. i think this season will help me solidify my own theology (which i don't think will mean choosing a side). sometimes, i think theology talk is just like sports, people want a team to cheer for or defend or more importantly identify with. that's all well and good until you start trashing the other teams. if you can play and be a good sport than i think it can be fine to keep your label. most theology talks seem to be just some form of abstract play. i like to play, but i am not taking it too seriously or it isn't very fun, although lately, i am having to remind myself to play nicely.
Chiming in here... on the Calvinist/Armenian thing, I've come to the silly conclusion that neither of these men lived when the New Testament was written. So to read it through either of those 2 lenses is ludricrous. I've also come to understand that John Calvin himself NEVER used the acronym "TULIP" or many of the other things that are attributed to his name. And finally (sacrilige and heresy) I'm not sure the Reformers got everything right. No more than we do. One thing I do think is dangerous is when people believe they "saved themselves" because they made the right choice when the person sitting in the pew next to them, didn't. At some point we have to lift high the work of the Holy Spirit in illluminating our minds and hearts to the truth. Then all the praise goes to Jesus, where it belongs. :)
I despise labels but I've seen them so misused. I feel like as soon as I accept a label, I've limited myself. Put myself in a box which means there is an "out" to that box, and I dont' want to keep people out. I want to be open.
I agree with you guys, I hate labels too, and I avoid debating. I was just trying to clarify something I had wondered about. ~ Maura
This is totally off subject, but I just wanted to tell you this Catrina, because I thought about it last night after I left your house. When we were discussing the “egalitarian” vs. “complementarian” labels and how you were saying you thought neither should “be taught” or labeled and should be worked out in each individual marriage, I realized that while the complentarian/egalitarian labels have ALOT to do with the structure of a marriage and family, they also deal with women’s roles in public ministry: whether they can teach/preach/speak in the presence of men, whether they can lead even women/children ministries with or without a “male covering,” etc. etc. So, maybe that explains why people feel the need to identify with these labels, since it not only affects the structure of an individual’s home, but the structure and methodology of the church.
Oh and 5-point calvinism really freaks me out, like almost to the point that if 5-point calvinism were true, I wouldn’t be a christian. I could never serve a God that DESTINES people for hell with no chance, choice, or alternative.
Hello Michelle and welcome, thanks for weighing in.
Christy, were you saying that the church you are in now is reformed, and is that Calvinist?
I have to say that in regards to the calvinist/armenian label, I am neither so to the calvinist I am an Armenian, but I reject the label, lol. I also am no expert on either so I can't comment too much.
I was mainly interested in the labels that WE give people or ones that they give themselves that taint our opinion of them. It has been interesting to see where everyone falls on this though.
yes it is reformed and they teach classes about what that means, but I haven't gone yet. but i am getting a good idea by attending and studying on my own. they are under the evangelical presbyterian denomination, which i do know is rather new, from about the 1980's. however they also use "labels" such as emerging, post-modern and missional" sooo...anyway. i really like our church though.
I actually asked that question about reformed/calvinist to Michelle Mcrae about a year ago. I said our church is Reformed, and she said, well I think that means Calvinist.
I asked brian if being reformed meant just having teaching that was out of the "reformation" and he said no,that the reformed teaching was much more Calvinist than that. There may be some disagreement there, Michelle would have to help me out here, I am no expert.
and i don't think it really matters that much either.
wow presbyterian, calvinistic, emergent combo! that's some hybrid!
I'm late here, but Tia's comment about 5 point Calvinists made me think of something: You ever notice that people who believe that some are destined for hell never include themselves in that category? What makes them so special? Aren't all Christians sinners saved by grace? We're nondenominational anyway. We just believe the Bible.
On the label thing, I hesitate to label myself because I it tends to pigeonhole me in a way that may or may not be true. I do call myself a libertarian, but I'm not really a purist in that regard. I just despise the idea of socialism so much that libetarian is the closest political label I can relate to.
Not to belabor this comment, but you guys discussed so much here: On the matter of women's roles, people like the prophetess Deborah (in the book of Judges) and the three virgin prophetesses in the book of Acts make it very hard for me to me to say that women cannot be used in ministry. I mean, Deborah led Israel's army into battle! However, in the marriage relationship, I think scripture is clear on who is who and who is supposed to be doing what. I get concerned when Christians fervently deny the truth of our God-given roles in our marriages and families. I'm sure God has a reason for this order and its not to demean women. If we'd choose our husbands wisely and prepare ourselves for marriage in advance, we could appreciate more what God's order adds to our lives and that of our children after us. Okay, Catrina, I'm done. And sorry for the book.
I think being reformed is basically the same as being a calvinist only a little less "scary" of a label. I would say that most of us would believe that at least 3 of the points of Calvinism are true. And most Christians believe that God has to call you before you can be saved. But there is personaly responsibility involved, which is where the Arminianist view is latched on too so ferverently because 5 point calvinists don't really have that (even though they say that they do - if you can't resist God's call, how can chosing Him be your choice). I don't agree with either view totally and I think both have biblical components. Remembering that God exists outside of time and is able to predestine us according to His foreknowledge is a good jumping off point. And remembering that God is all knowing and knows what every individual will/would do with the gospel if/when it is presented to him or her is another good jumping off point. The way I see it, you can be predestined and sealed AND have a choice in your salvation and neither contradicts the other.
Post a Comment