Well written and good to consider.
Thanks Jared

Well put, Jared. Very well put!

Whoever said, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me," or something similar, must have lived on another planet.

I think it can be helpful to notice big patterns and trends. But we get in trouble when we wholly identify any particular person with any one of them.

Besides, its more fun to learn how unique an individual is than how similar he or she is to others.

Thank you for this and for your other fine blogs!

Dave

Here is a video that graphically depicts the hideous lengths to which the naming game goes when left unchecked.

Christian lady (in name, at least) proclaiming, "You’re feces-eating brute beasts and God hates you." At 0:29 in the video.

Jared: You did everyone a big service even though many in those various pigeon holes would freely admit it. Labeling is the product of incomplete information and/or biases that have been planted by families, teachers, preachers, politicians, etc. Biases grow like finger nails until we stand back to check out the Big Picture.

You are insightful to suggest we all should do a bit of theological or sociological taxonomy to find out what the so-called differences really are and how those ideas have grown through the centuries. Many would be very surprised as to where many of the so-called "truths" came from. For instance, the immortal soul notion. Or many of the various theories of the atonement.

Lots more we can all say. Just keep thinking like this. Cheers, Herb

Pardon the Oops, but that first sentence should read "would NOT freely admit it." Cheers, Herb

Fantastic, Jared!! This is right on and so important. Thank you!

Wonderful.
Thanks!

I agree that labelling people is not desirable. I still think that there is value in analysing and identifying beliefs and worldviews. It is important to the job of theology to be clear about what the categories of fundamentalism, evangelicalism, liberalism, Calvinism etc. mean. It is valuable in locating a theological discourse within its context.

A good friend of mine once said to me that fair and honest discourse only happens when the person whose beliefs or ideas you're describing or debating agrees with you about your description. No "straw man" arguments allowed! In other words, if you're going to describe my belief or ideas and then disagree with them, you must first describe them in a way that I agree with. Then we may both agree that we disagree. But if you caricature my beliefs or ideas and then disagree to score points with others, then you've demonstrated only that you are willing to sacrifice truth and civility to gain political advantage.

The best example I can think of is the way I (still) hear people refer to things as "Catholic." (i.e. someone lights candles in the church and someone else storms out the back saying, "that's Catholic!") If we are going to disagree with Catholic theology or Catholic religious practice, first we must describe those things in a way that a practicing Catholic would agree that we've gotten it right. Then we can make our argument based on accurate information. How many times this has been done to me. "We'll he's a Seventh-day Adventist and they're a cult." That's a problem because, as a Seventh-day Adventist, I think I can demonstrate that we are not a cult, so the conversation is a non-starter.

But we do the same thing all the time, most notably in evangelistic contexts. We want to prove that we're better than everyone else and everyone should join with us, so we set up straw men everywhere (Catholics, New Agers, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Charismatics, the list goes on). Then we knock them down!

Thanks Jared!

Jared,

Some good points...but...nomenclature/labels as Benjamin Gibbs notes do keep the value of various categories for discussion, i.e..fundamentalism, evangelicalism, liberalism, Calvinism etc.

This within itself need not label an individual. It may be appropriate because one can not "rebuild the wheel" with every discussion. It might be more appropriate to rather ask how one disagrees with that "label" that seems so much like the idea/ideas one proposes.

I have often seen for example in the idea of substitutionary atonement antagonist use the false concept/label of "God punishing Christ for Justice to forgive our sins." The true concept would be that Christ, who is God, chose to willingly die as an atonement for sin. It was God's wrath against sin/thus sinners that he willingly assumed so as to be just and the justifier of those that have faith in Christ. In otherwords it does not divide the Godhead as implied.

I have often seen "literalist and fundamentalist" used for an individual/me because one is not willing to assume a "metaphor" for everything a "non-literalist" chooses to disagree with in scripture.

Ryan Bell's comments are also good that, "fair and honest discourse only happens when the person whose beliefs or ideas you're describing or debating agrees with you about your description. No "straw man" arguments allowed! In other words, if you're going to describe my belief or ideas and then disagree with them, you must first describe them in a way that I agree with. Then we may both agree that we disagree. But if you caricature my beliefs or ideas and then disagree to score points with others, then you've demonstrated only that you are willing to sacrifice truth and civility to gain political advantage."

These ideas form the basis of honest and open discussion and should be practiced on the Spectrum blog.

pat

Jared

I like the phrase "Libel by Label!"

Three years in the army gave me plenty of experience.
By the end of the war "Deacon" became a term of endearment.

I always found the best way to combat labalism is to ignore or to accept in a jovial fashion.

To my students I was Dr. Zwemer in the classroom or clinic.
On the ball diamond I was Dr. Z. or Tom.

The Dutch Reformers of Holland, Mich. called the Methodists "bun luggers" even so they frequently inter married--the term carried no venom.

In Milwaukee I had a part-time private practice with 4 other faculty. The senior member of the group would always call down the hall on Friday afternoons: "Tom the sun's going down!" I would always reply: "Thanks Ralph, I have my eye on it!" Yet Ralph would always tell his patients and friends: "Tom is the best orthodontist within 50 miles.

It is alway wise to consider the source and the tone.

Tom

But we do the same thing all the time, most notably in evangelistic contexts. We want to prove that we're better than everyone else and everyone should join with us, so we set up straw men everywhere (Catholics, New Agers, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Charismatics, the list goes on). Then we knock them down!

Thanks Jared!

Posted by: Ryan Bell | 24 August 2008 at 10:19

Shall we stipulate that all the "Labels" you used are just a shorthand discriptions of a particular belief system and not the adherants of those systems?

And that for purposes of communication they have value as a shorthand discription of said belief system?

And that WE are not whats better about our belief system, its the belief system itself that we believe is more complete?

"that fair and honest discourse only happens when the person whose beliefs or ideas you're describing or debating agrees with you about your description."

In any discussion such as this, the first commandment should be: "First, define your terms" so that each side knows and agrees with the definitions. Usually, that is not the case and there are too many exceptions, which demonstrates that each may have built his own strawman.

Thanks Ryan for this thought-provoking topic. Human beings tend to be lazy and short-hand descriptors are easier to use instead of expressing ourselves fully. The problem with labeling people is that on most occasions its disparaging, demeaning, destructive and derogatory. As you pointed out such communication is esoteric and 'outsiders' seldom comprehend what is being meant. I recently saw an article about 'Third-World Adventism' what is that? I don't think it's a good label! It will be a healthier Church if we get rid of labelings.

Beautiful, Jared.

I think doing a collective fast on using the divisive labels could be instructive for us. In the Adventist context, I find the following seven as the most divisive and unhelpful ones (and I'm guilty of using all of them frequently): fundamentalist, liberal, conservative, traditionalist, progressive, evangelical, and historic.

Or, another way of dealing with the label problem might be to recognize that multiple descriptors apply to us and others as you highlighted so nicely. I prefer this latter approach. The above labels that I identified as divisive all apply to me in significant ways; and I embrace them all.

As an Adventist, I seek to be:
* Fundamentalist: live with certain non-negotiable fundamentals that derive from Scripture
* Liberal: strive to understand and live out what Scripture means for us today
* Conservative: strive to understand and live out the original meaning of Scripture
* Traditionalist: respect and continue the legacy set by my Adventist and Christian forebears
* Progressive: seek to grow and change within the Body of Christ
* Evangelical: organize my life around the gospel of Christ and the calling derived from that gospel
* Historic: find connection with the origins and ideals of Adventism

And more.... Thanks for reminding us, Jared, that what the labels mean for each of us is quite complex, and that we should exercise grace in applying labels upon others.

Great List Julius!
All have their place.

What is the proper label for a former SDA? Ex?
Former? Disgruntled? No longer one of the remnant? We are legion, and if our voices are to be heard, as they should be, the adage is true: One can often learn more from those former members now outside, than those within. IOW, the perspectives will, inevitably, differ and should they not be heard?

Like "former customers" who have found the merchandise less than advertised, is their voice unimportant? I hope not.

A successful business should want to know why their customers leave. Otherwise, it will constantly be looking for new ones while neglecting to learn, possibly good information, from former customers. It would seem more instructive to try to keep customers than continually looking for new ones.

"What is the proper label for a former SDA? Ex?
Former? Disgruntled? No longer one of the remnant?"

The answer would be Baptist or Lutheran as whatever the case may be as they choose a belief system that appeals to them. However many simply go straight to agnostic or deist which gives them the control they seek. Many are comfortable with those affiliations too.

It's better for ones mental health to align with something they agree with (positivity) dont you agree?

Is the label "Seventh-day Adventist" acceptable? If so, why? If not, well, why not?

The fact is that people give labels to others, and adopt labels for themselves, in order to summarize a whole lot of positions. Very often the labels are used to pigeon-hole and demean the other without dealing with the issues openly and fairly. And not uncommonly labels are used to provide a summary judgment of one's or another's positions because the other person isn't playing fairly.

In evolution-creation "discussions," deciding what a person brings to the table is paramount. One really cannot discuss the science of the matter, when anthropomorphic assumptions and prior beliefs that "God is the answer" are exactly what one side is insisting upon. Thus one almost has to begin any such discussion with labels, although one ought to first justify the labels.

In religious matters, well, I do happen to think that labels very frequently are a cover for prejudices which rarely come down to the previously mentioned stark (and often legitimate) judgments of "theist trying to sneak religion into science" and "people who take science on its own terms," that have to be taken into account with respect to discussing evolution. But even there, it helps to know what motivates one side or the other, so that although the generalizations rarely do justice to the individual, they are needed for understanding the bases that each side is using.

The labels are essential if any discussion is to take place. The only fair rule is to listen to the person or group to understand how they particularize and individualize whatever general beliefs they hold.

Glen Davidson

As I'm reading through the comments (and I find them helpful and insightful), there are two things that I'm thinking:

1. This post is the result of my realization of just how much I have used labels unfairly to denounce people I disagree with. It is sort of a repentance post.

2. As Pat Travis and Benjamin Gibbs suggest, there are ways that categorization can be useful in describing things that fit together in like or unlike groups.

Dave Larson put it well in saying

"I think it can be helpful to notice big patterns and trends. But we get in trouble when we wholly identify any particular person with any one of them."

People are not categories.

I don't mind people describing me as someone who belongs to the Seventh-day Adventist faith tradition, cares about the environment a great deal, believes that women ought to be granted the same rights and privileges as men, and feels that we do God a grave injustice by ostracizing, maligning and marginalizing homosexuals with our Church's official positions. All of that would be a fair (and accurate) description of me.

But to call me a liberal tree hugger goes well beyond descriptive language. It pinholes me and incidentally is untrue. Those phrases are more accusations than they are descriptions. I would object to those labels (not descriptions) being applied to me, and so using those labels is unjust.

There is a fundamental difference between describing and labeling, and I hope the illustration conveys something of the difference.

Tom,

"libel by label" is a great way of summing up what this is about! The anecdotes that you share frequently and well add a really nice texture to the points that you make. Thanks.

Michael,

See how hard it is to describe a person (someone who no longer identifies as Adventist) without resorting to labels (agnostic, deist...)?

Glen,

I'm not sure I could agree entirely that "the labels are essential if any discussion is to take place." I could be an "evolutionist" in that I believe that evolution results in speciation and biodiversity, and at the same time a "creationist" in the sense that I believe God created all the matter in the universe. The fluidity between categories makes them unhelpful in the conversation.

The labels, again, are insufficient, and neither one describes me as a person.

I really enjoy Michael negative view of "former Adventists!"
It is a picture window of his narrow mind. Church affiliation has absolutely no bearing on one's salvation. I didn't go away mad. I went away enlightened and to spare the institutional church the trouble of throttling me. I glad
Spectrum allows reasonable voice. I think I have made it aboundantly clear, I hold dear many friends within the Church and with at least 22-24 of the Fundamental Beliefs.

The sad part is that the remaining 4-6 are the "Test" beliefs.

None of which are included in Matt. 25.

The most obnoxious of labels is the question put to me
many times while on the Board at LLU. "A new insider, usually a local conference president would ask at break "Are you a worker?" The point was if not, I don't have to pay any attention to your contribution to an debate.

Labels have many uses most are a cheap way of classification and prejudices all subsequent thinking. Tom

The early church members were first labelled as christians in Antioch, it was not meant to be complimentary then.Today we are using labels because of our fears and insecurities of others.
This facilitates our prejudices and lack of demonstration of love towards those individuals we label as being diffent.Labelling justifies persection,stigmatising and exclusion of those individuals who do not meet our definitions of acceptability,e.g foods we read the labels on the packaging/tins, and if there are certain ingredients we discard the item.
The early christians were persecuted when they were labelled by the society they initially belonged too before the label were applied.
Jesus created all or we are all evolving dependent on your theology,therefore it is not for me to define you, neither for you to define me, but I should accept your uniqueness of your evolution, and I hope you accept me not for my sameness but for my difference,that is what makes the world so interesting our differences.
It is sad that today we are labellling each other in the church creating more divisions, instead of seeing children of the One humanity regardless of differences..

" However many simply go straight to agnostic or deist which gives them the control they seek."

It is ordinarly considered an admirable trait for one to have self-control; to be in control, rather than relinquishing it.

To assume that one must become a Baptist, Lutheran, or ? is foolish. Many times, one can simply follow his heart and attend a church or no church if he so wishes. It is not a necessary part of life, as some folks seem to think. There are more and more agnostics, atheists and Deists because of the Christians who blacken the name. This has been well illustrated by the "Truth in Evangelism" thread on this blog.

"I really enjoy Michael negative view of "former Adventists!"
It is a picture window of his narrow mind. Church affiliation has absolutely no bearing on one's salvation"

Sir, Thomas,
You speak of what you dont understand. Perhaps you should re-read the post I made. Can you not see that I said the new label or description would be whatever belief system appeals to them? The thought was to identify ones self in the positive. What you do believe in, not what you dont whatever that might be.
I really fail to see how you could take that post badly. Do you not agree with the thought that it is better to deal with positivity rather than negativity?
Who ever said Church affiliation related to salvation? Not me.
Is it clearer to you now?

Jared there is nothing negative about agnostic or deiest if someone chooses that belief system.

Elaine is confused about who is confused. I never said anyone had to call themselves any particular thing. I simply said that its better to discribe ones self according to their belief system in a positive way. To percieve of ones self as any of the things on your list is to percieve of ones self through a negative discription and not a positive one.

Michael

My apology Your intro and previous entries blinded my eyes and/or my good sense.

You do have a way with words that tend to be read as put downs
rather than simply an opposing opinion. Such as the connotation that denominational affiliation is closely associated with redemption. Tom

Tom

Tom,
Dont give it a second thought. I have very thick skin. Its a blessing and a curse since its my personalities tendancy to assume everyone has as thick of skin as I do.

In fact I think it furthered and brought into the discussion an element you raised when you said, "Labels have many uses most are a cheap way of classification and prejudices all subsequent thinking."
We can say that sometimes we can do this to each other without the use of labels too.

I have told you before on other posts that I have always appreciated how you always bring the subject back to Christ and I always considered that to be very positive thinking.

Michael

It is great to be congruent. Tom

When did being "human" stop being good enough?

Basically this adds up to language is variable. Terms apply only within the context they are written and people do use language improperly. Labels however are useful particularly when they are the labels that a person chooses to apply to themselves. Which is what we see with historic or traditional Adventists etc.

The purpose of labels is not to dehumanize it is to abbreviate information into simpler forms. That is what language does, you can look up most of the words I have used here in the dictionary and you will see multiple meanings depending upon context. Language is symbol and labels are symbols within language.

You might as well complain about the sunrise as to complain about the way language is used because frankly without the language you have nothing to complain with. Language is not all encompassing it does not make or unmake another's person hood and it is not perfect.

RC,
Your point is well taken. If language was as singularly precise as a mathmatical equation there would be no miscommunication or misinterpitation.
Think of the language in a deed of trust or other legal document. It takes a boatload of words to make what a lawyer would say is a clear statement.
Thats why most peoples eyes glaze over if they have to read any of that legaleze mumbo jumbo.

Well, "I always thought you are a distinguished gentleman, now you are an Adventist !" my lawyer addressed me - the very lawsiuit being quite crazy because I am an Adventist. "Now, what is your opinion , as an Adventist ?" - my former classmates every time we meet once a year. The Conservative in a conservative school, the Socialist - because I also was interested in the working conditions of the ones at the gate of our hospital, the Conservative - yes, I held a Conservative (i.e. Catholic) mandate of the Labor Union in the very hospital, "The Christian I need now - " the head of the local Labor Union office. The Red - of course, everybody at the Social Security is Red. The Liberal, this rebellious guy - well, you certainly are familiar with these labels - -

No, you know my answer to the lawyer : "No, it `s always me."

Hi everybody !

GSS