Previous Post -Interview with Scott Bessenecker
Recently I have come across a few comments about labels and faith. Generally, people were declaring that they were tired of identifying as “missional Christians”, “emerging Christians” or other such names. Why can’t we, they ask, simply call ourselves Christians? Isn’t it enough to be a follower of Christ? Don’t we lose sight of what is important when we take on identifiers that cloud that underlying truth? I resonate with these questions. I affirm the desire to be identified with Christ alone. There is something to be said about the risk of taking on other labels in our attempt to define ourselves. There is an important caution here that we should all keep in mind.
That being said, there can also be risk inherent of this way of thinking as well. After all, can we really just call ourselves Christians? On one level, of course we can. However, if we are honest with ourselves and each other, we will have to acknowledge that these labels emerged because of very real differences. While many of those differences need not be divisive, others are more significant, even “deal-breakers”. To ignore those differences can recklessly expose ourselves and others to dangers. The labels, used responsibly (and arguably they need to be used very differently than has been the norm) can serve the help us better understand each others.
There is also the great danger of arrogance in this dynamic. Some will say “I don’t need any labels. I am just a Christian”. While there can be some good in that affirmation, there can be the implicit suggestion that, for those who do choose to use identifiers are somehow less Christian. It can, intentionally or not, come across as “I am actually a Christian”, or worse, “I am more of a Christian”. I realize that ride can be just as involved in the use of labels. My point is just that abandoning them altogether changes very little, exchanging one set of problem for another.
While I have resisted denominational identifiers for most of my life, I have made some public and genuine statements about what kind of Christian I am. For example, I would say that I am strongly a missional Christian, even an emerging Christian. Now, I acknowledge that I probably just muddied the water further, requiring much more clarification as to what I mean. I am sure there are those who identify with both of those ethos that would not like to count me in their company (and some I would rather not be identified with). Despite this, I think they can be helpful, not to mention honest.
More recently I have come to identify as a Franciscan and an Anabaptist. Since I am neither Catholic nor Mennonite, what does this mean? Again, they can be helpful touchstones for understanding the nature of the Christian faith I am pursuing in my life and community. It points to emphasis and convictions and even questions that locate me more specifically in the wider community of faith and its history. I hold to neither of these expressions absolutely. Neither do I believe that they are the “better” expressions of Christianity. Of course, there are obviously aspects I believe to be right in opposition to others, such as my deeply held, Biblical conviction about women in church leadership (I am for it). However, it has more to do with my own vocation within the wider Body of Christ, both in relationship to the necessary diversity of the members of that Body and the great diversity of contexts in which that Body functions.
We can’t forget that these labels are simply tools to help us better understand and relate to one another. Yes, that understanding might very well lead to a radical shift (or end) of certain relationships. That is a tragic, but sometime necessary reality of sin. More often, though, if we are willing to take the time and understand and learn from each other, we- and by we, I refer to that same Body I referred to earlier- will gain so very much. Like anyone who has been married will tell you, the very differences that bring the most conflicts are also the places were our hearts can be most transformed.
Some talk about abandoning even the word “Christian”, loaded as it is with such dark history and division. These are the scars on the hands and feet and side of the Body to which we belong. We do not resolve the failures of sin by ignore them, denying them or even distancing ourselves from them. They are part of who we are, eternal reminders. And through His love and grace, they can become symbols of hope and new life.
Tags: emerging, emerging church, labels, Missional
Good commentary, Jamie.
In this post modern age, we as Christians really need to remember that words do have meaning. I too know people who won’t use the name Christian anymore because of the connotations of the word for some. And while I understand their concerns, I think it’s a real shame. There are times we really need to stand up and fight for the correct meanings of words instead of just surrendering them to constant change. That’s so important if we’re going to even understand each other. The key is not so much in the label, but in the definition assumed by it vs. the traditional meaning. Clarify that, and we can get a lot closer to genuine communication.
Having said that, there are times when labels are actually created to create division. For instance, I’ve been called a “Fundigelical” before. Now technically there is probably some truth to that label. But whenever it’s been leveled at me it was done as an insult. So it’s not a word I care for. But since it’s not really a word, I don’t really consider it something to fight for the definition of. But I think there are lots of other words that are, Christian being at that top of that list.
Very interesting you posted this right now.
I just finished writing a wee status update that included calling myself a Pente-Bapti-Holiness-semiQuaker.
Thanks Janice. You illustrate very well that labels are tools that need to be used intentionally and wisely. They can help build understanding and to tear down. It is not the labels that are bad (for the most part), but those who utilize them wrongly.
Peace,
Jamie
Nice Patrick! I totally understand as a Franabaptist!
Peace,
Jamie
Good insite – I am seeing a rise in labeling at the moment. Maybe it gives people some sort of strange comfort to be able to label and shun.
I guess the church has always done that – to our shame.
Thanks Colin.
[...] Previous Post – What Kind Of Christian Are You? [...]
Good word. Though they’ve been misused, I agree that these points of distinction are good things that help us understand each other when we don’t use them as weapons.
There was a period of time when I couldn’t shut up about how we don’t need denominations, and they are not God’s will, and yada yada yada, But part of that was the fact that I was not feeling very connected to my denomination at the time. My frustration was really that I didn’t want to be Southern Baptist anymore, but couldn’t figure out how to make the change since I was a minister in an SB church. Instead of recognizing that there were some distinctives about being SB that were not a fit with me, I took the easy route of just condemning all these “labels”.
I’m an Anglican now and I know the things that are unique to us are a good fit for me and my family.
Great post Jamie. John Franke at Biblical Seminary speaks of “interdependent particularity” in reference to Christian identity and unity with one another. In reading IVP’s series on the history of evangelicalism (ed. by Knoll and Bebbington), I’ve been struck by how many Christian groups broke off from one another claiming to be the more pure version of Christianity or whatever. There were soooo many denominations that started with a group of people who just want to call themselves Christians. I appreciate your approach to identity here since, in a sense, it’s cognizant of one’s influences and tendencies and allows you to learn from those who are different, even if you’re generally on the same page about the majors of Christianity.
Thanks Jason. I really appreciate you sharing your own story. It puts this in excellent context.
Peace,
Jamie
Thanks Ed. I any book of Franke’s on this topic you’d recommend?
Peace,
Jamie
Well said. On one hand labels suck and can be used to divide. On the other hand, if used *descriptively* they can be very helpful in helping us understand one another and what God is doing in a particular stream or movement of the Church. I personally don’t know how to categorize or label myself; I often go with “theological mutt.”
Some kind of holiness-Wesleyan-Calvinist-missional-pentecostal-liturgical-Vineyardish-emerging… ok, well, how about “mutt?” McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy is pretty good here too… Thanks for sharing!
I agree, Brian. “Mutt” seems to be more and more appropriate for me too. “Generous Orthodoxy” has been important to me as well. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
Every so often I think about how I’m using labels, for myself or others. Some labels have been helpful in locating where I am at (Anabaptist/Mennonite/Anglican-ish/Missional…and i’m jealous of you because “Franabaptist” sounds so much better!). But I have to admit I’ve labeled others (fundamentalist, etc) far too frequently and with much less grace than they deserve. Thank you for these helpful reflections, Jamie.
Thanks Chris. You are welcome to join the ranks of us Franabaptists (or Frannonite, if you prefer!)
Peace,
Jamie