It has recently been brought to my attention that labels are unnecessary. In fact, I was asked, based on my posts “synergism vs. monergism,” “are these labels really necessary.”
The answer is, yes they are. It identifies a belief system. Whether it is in the secular world or the religious world, labels are necessary for identification. In the political world, we label ourselves by the party we affiliate with. If one does not eat meat, one will use the label ‘vegetarian’ to identify that particular part of their life. Our world has labels for all sorts of things. A person who does not process glucose has been labeled by the medical community as a ‘diabetic.” Thus, instead of that person saying that they can’t eat a candy because their body does not produce glucose (depending on the type of diabetic they are), they simply say that they are a diabetic. A vegan will say that they are unable to eat the eggs you put in front of them because they are a ‘vegan’ while the ‘vegetarian’ will. Those labels identify where we stand. If one declares themselves to be a republican, it is understood where they stand on certain political issues whereas it is understood where one stands on certain issues by simply using the label ‘democrat.’
Filling out forms for the government, jobs, or even applying to certain colleges, a questionnaire is used to identify one’s beliefs, ethnicity, class, etc. We simply check the box next to the ‘label’ that applies to us. In filling out the form for a driver’s license, one is asked their ethnicity. If one is Asian, one checks that box, if one is white, they check that box, and so on. These are labels that we have assigned to identify where one’s background originates. Labels make things a bit easier. Instead of having to write a short essay on my origins, I can simply check the appropriate box that identifies my ethnicity.
Within Christianity, there are certain labels that we use to identify certain beliefs. My posts have delineated the different beliefs and the labels attached to them. If a person identifies themselves as a Pentecostal (a label), we understand the theological beliefs they hold. If one identifies themselves as a follower of covenant theology, again that label identifies their belief system and how they read scripture. Even the label “Christian” identifies someone as a follower of Christ.
The question regarding the unnecessary use of labels as based on my posts on ‘monergism vs. synergism.’ I have discussed the different beliefs that those two groups have. It makes discussions a bit easier. For instance, when discussing a particular belief, we would not have to go through the whole definition before getting to the point we wish to make. We can simply say a ‘monergist’ or a ‘synergist’ holds that this scripture says . . . . ” By the same token, instead of going through a whole definition of what ‘baptism’ is, the word ‘baptism’ is a label or word that we all understand and do not question. However, if one does not know what that word means, then we will be required to go through the whole definition. If we want to purchase a book on ‘defending the faith,’ we know to look under the category ‘apologetics’ which is a label that has been given to the topic or field of ‘defending the faith.’ If want to purchase a book on salvation, I know that ‘soteriology,’ is the label that we have given to the branch of theology that deals with salvation and therefore will look under that heading or label.
Labels are used all the time whether we are aware of it or not. If one identifies themselves as a heterosexual, there is no need to go into explanations. That label is understood . Imagine how difficult it would be if there were no labels that we have assigned to denote activities, beliefs, etc. Instead of a short sentence, we would be spending time in defining beliefs or other activities.
Imagine if we did not have a label to describe “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” We lave labeled this theological truth as “the trinity.” That word or label cannot be found anywhere in scriptures but it is a theological truth that most Christians follow as truth. On the other hand, if one identifies themselves with the label “Oneness Pentecostal,” we understand that label to mean that they do not believe that the ‘trinity’ is a theological truth. “Old Testament” and “New Testament” are labels we use to describe a part of the bible.
A label is nothing more than “a short word or phrase descriptive of a person, group, intellectual movement, etc.” (dictionary.com)
So to anyone that questions the necessity of labels, it simply makes discussions a bit easier. Instead of giving a definition every time we wish to describe something, we can simply use the label that denotes what we are describing.
Photo: Railway signal currambine green by Leon Brooks
Related posts:
5 comments
maaark
March 28, 2009 at 9:21 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I get tripped over the labels “liberal” of “fundamentalist”. And a lady said to me “you shouldn’t judge yourself by those because when u do u are judging Christ”.
tishrei
March 28, 2009 at 9:50 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hi, in my opinion she is wrong. In fact, I wrote a blog post on what I believe “judging” to mean scripturally. We all judge — if we hire a babysitter, we judge the sitter to make sure that our children are safe. We can, do and are required to judge sin — but what we are prevented and commanded not to do is judge a person’s heart. In other words, we can judge the fruit but not the heart.
As to liberal/fundamentalist, boy, that’s a whole new blog post … LOL
Harlequin
October 22, 2010 at 6:14 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Labels with accurate definitions are important. Otherwise we could find ourselves agreeing with someone where we are loading entirely different meanings to a particular word or concept.
By the way, the liberal / fundamentalist choice is a false dichotomy used most often by liberal Christians to label anyone who doesn’t agree with them as a fundamentalist, meant to be a pejorative. Bruce Watke in his work Old Testament Theology lists five types of Christian based on their approach to the Bible, and I find I fit, more or less, into Evangelical. I’ll post a summary of his comments here when I have more time.
Tishrei
October 29, 2010 at 12:07 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I would like to read the summary. Hope you get some time soon
BLT
Repent Harlequin
October 29, 2010 at 8:20 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Okay, Blog Lady T., here it is:
This is from Bruce K. Waltke’s “An Old Testament Theology” pages 73-77
He describes each of the five types as he sees them in relation to the Bible. For the record, I agree with him.
1. Liberal Theologians stand *above* the Bible – They read under the canon of skepticism, placing reason above revelation. They view the Bible as morally superior myth, but as a solely human mythical product. They place a higher emphasis on nature and natural causes; they are heirs of deism. They also assume that nothing happened in the past that does not happen today.
2. Neo-Orthodox Theologians stand *before* the Bible – This is postliberal, a reaction to the practical atheism of liberal systematics. Karl Barth taught that the Bible becomes the word of God when it is preached. The Bible’s authority is placed in the Christian experience of the revelation of God and not in the Bible’s divine inspiration of that revelaton.
3. Traditionalists Place Traditions / Confessions *alongside* the Bible – This is almost self – explanatory, though I was surprised to read that there is no Jewish theology in the OT alone, but the Talmud and Midrash are placed along side of it. For these Christians the church is the heir and interpreter of the Bible. Even though the reformers protested sola scriptura the reformed traditions tend toward the same authority in tradition. This has been my own experience in two branches of the Lutheran church, both liberal and conservative.
4. Fundamentalists stand *on* the Bible – Waltke’s meaning of fundamentalist is “those who presume the Bible does not stray from their standards of accuracy, especially in matters of science and historiography” and that “the Bible, though written in an ancient environment will not stray from the accuracy of their modern horizon”. He goes on to say, “The only legitimate human standard by which the Bible can be measured is the logic of noncontradiction. Paradox may be incomprehensible, but contradiction is nonsense.” I love that last. Basically, I can understand the distinction of fundamentalist experientially. I’ve often gotten into arguments with them on the meaning ‘literal’, as in ‘literal interpretation’ or ‘reading the Bible literally’. We both argue that we take the Bible literally but do not agree on what the term ‘literal’ means. In fact I’ve yet to meet a fundamentalist who even understands my definition which is rather simple: I interpret poetry literally, history literally, metaphors literally, exposition literally, and so on. On the other hand I would describe the fundamentalist as reading scripture in a *woodenly* literal manner. I’m sure I may step on the toes of some of your readers but I am not questioning their faith.
5. Evangelicals stand *under* the Bible – “[A]ccept the inerrancy of Scripture as to its Source and its infallibility as to its authority.” I love that. He goes on to intimate about some of what I wrote in #4 regarding literal interpretation in that he studies how the the Bible writes history and to recognize different literary forms. We must come to the Bible on its own terms and let it dictate to us how it reveals God.
Waltke’s approach in his book is more Biblical Theology than Sytematics and he goes to great pains to get the reader to understand Ancient Near East Literature in order to approach the Old Testament and discover how great a departure it made from other religions that were strictly man made, though they may have glimpses of the divine.