Divisive Labels?

Met up with an online fren at A&W the other day to discover interesting things abt his leftist ideals hahah! And how marriage/kids is a dampener on such things...

Anyway, our conversation drifted to the Emergent... and he wonders aloud why must we group Christians under such labels? Doesn't that promote division?

The same can be said about Calvinists... Arminians... why dun you just call yourself a "Jesusist" and get done with it? Does that mean that people get their beliefs just because Calvin or Arminius or Luther taught it?

Isn't this something like the Church of Corinth? I'm for Peter! I'm for Apollo! I'm for Paul!

And here's the trumpcard... "I'm for Jesus!" (which can be every whit an expression of superiority and divisive spirit ie 'true Jesus church'?)

I confess these things are very possible, and I will not deny having seen these tragic situations. Our fallen nature is not making things better.

But distinguishing persons of different views may not imply anything more than that there is a difference. It's about as 'divisive' as distinguishing a 'Singaporean' from a 'Malaysian', or a 'Malay' from a 'Chinese'.

That such 'labels' are useful can be seen when I say "I'm a Malaysian Chinese"... and what it signifies is quickly and easily received in your mind.

Without these distinguishing labels, my speech is forever bound by the embarassing burden of continually and repeatedly explaining my geographical location, nationality, citizenship, ethnic background, origins!

As much as I try to reduce jargons, I'm reminded of ACT founder Ron Choong's explanation of why scholars use them...

For precision... you can't have a meaningful discussion if you think justification, regeneration and sanctification mean the same thing.

For brevity... any of those terms above can take pages to explain. Imagine having to repeat them 20 times in your assignment. It'd be too tedious for tears.

I owe Edwards' insights on this one:
http://jonathanedwards.com/text/FoW/Preface.htm

Comments

Sivin Kit said…
:-) good post my friend. As you noted, there is a difference between the fine art of "distinguishing" (for clarity, creativity and conversation) and the more notorious act of being "divisive" (for excluding, being separatist, or elistist). Knowing the difference for me helps a lot. History tells us most of the time it was others who gave the labels, e.g. Methodist, Lutherans, Anabaptists, etc. Luther would not have used the term "Lutheran" for example. Of course, there are those who "label" themselves to highlight their uniqueness at times for better, other times for worse. I've grown to appreciate the diversity in our Christian garden. No doubt, there are times we need to "admonish" one another, the Pentecostals remind me not to downplay the work of the Spirit. My Brethren friends always highlight the importance of the Bible. I'm not too sure whether we Malaysian Lutherans have been doing a good job in "admonishing". Anyway, reality tells me it's ok to have some ways, models, or lenses to understand ourselves better and even build ways to converse with one another. It's up to us whether we want to "promote" divisiveness or not. Concepts may or may not divide us, but people surely can. Lord have mercy ..
8:51 PM
Steven Sim said…
Brother, i still prefer "JesusNist" to "Jesusist". Perhaps Label-Critics (o' another label, hehehe, i love them) should direct their comments to the MISuse of labels rather than the use of them.

A follower of Christ - Christian,
Jack
12:58 AM
Leon Jackson said…
Sometimes we may take up a label so as to make a clear line of demarcation between an old label that has been hijacked by error and the correct position we want to draw attention to – like John Piper’s Christian Hedonism, is an attempt to revolutionise our understanding of the Christian life, that is wrong in the first place. Thus Piper’s label is rightly real Christianity, but he has to make another label for it just to get the idea through. Thus, Jack and I have our “Jesusnist” – which we use with prejudiced people so that they look beyond the labels and accept the ideas we communicate as material to test for themselves as being the biblical position on various matters. Does that mean that we somehow are able to transcend all labels? Of course not, as I work out our believes, I find myself fitting of that creature called a calvinist, and such a label is more a skilfull description of my believes rather than a conformity box I climbed into.
2:45 AM
Dave said…
Sometimes, labels have lost its meaning and may need to be abandoned altogether.

Once I heard a Malaysia leader in NECF defines an evangelical as 'someone who loves Jesus' ...

(roll my eyes up, and slap forehead)
5:57 PM
Anonymous said…
Needed to read that as of late, I am inundated by friends and curious onlookers who have asked me about postmodernism, emergent, evangelicals, etc etc. *grin*
11:39 PM
Leon Jackson said…
The term evangelical is dying the death of a thousand qualifications. Fortunately, R C Sproul has made an attempt to save it, find out more and have a good read, get the book:
http://store.discerningreader.com/getgosrigrcs.html
8:05 AM
Anonymous said…
If I may ask the difference between Jesusnist and Jesusist to reduce backlogs of labels with divise nature?
11:36 AM
Dave said…
Having said that, the spirit behind the revulsion of labels is noble. Nobody wants divisions.

McLaren wrote a very conciliatory response to Horton that almost moved me to tears hahaha..

Oden and Packer got a book called "One Faith", being optimistic that there IS a consensus among evangelicals which unite us based on recent statements and creeds...

But I fear Olson's prediction may be closer to the truth. It seems like some kinda fragmentation is over the horizon.
1:37 AM
Post a Comment