Jump to content

Are Labels Really Necessary?


Javelin

Recommended Posts

Personally, I prefer the term open or liberal Christianity rather than progressive. Someone suggested “spiritual humanist” which I also like, or even the neutral “seeker.” Religious labels rarely come up in my day to day life. Still there are times in face to face conversation when it does help to tactfully mention one’s background, if someone might take offense.

 

As far as on line situations, I used to think Beliefnet focused on labeling and fine-tuning categories way too much. That’s rarely a problem here. On the other hand, I posted on a forum for several months (not any more) which on the surface appeared to be for all major faiths. It became clear after awhile that it was primarily a fundamentalist /right wing group where liberals/feminists were out of place. If the board had been labeled more accurately or provided an appropriate statement up front, I’d never have intruded.

 

One further note -- I like Spong’s idea of labeling oneself as “biblical not religious.” And his explanation of the word "spiritual" which is often interpreted as pious, otherworldly, detached, given to contemplation, turned toward the nonphysical. The root words for spirit were nephesh and ruach, literally the "breath of God” and "wind." To be spiritual was to be animated, vital, whole, alive physically and mentally; free to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph,

 

 

 

No, not really. I use Velcro anyway. Buttons are so passe. biggrin.gif

 

I was just stating where I agree with you (that labels can be divisive and judgmental, and that it would be good if they were not necessary) and where I disagree, not necessarily with you, that labels are always a hindrance to relationships.

 

I know that TCPC had to come up with some kind of label to distinguish itself. Organizations must do that. It is just interesting, to me, that I feel rather "at home" here even though I am not a Christian. That's a good thing, I hope. Once someone is on the inside, they can see that TCPC is not a "Christians Only" club. But it does appear that way from the outside. Not a condemnation, my friend, only an observation.

 

Bill,

I really like your come backs... laugh.gif

 

It pleases me on behalf of TCPC to hear that you feel at home here. It is indeed a good thing.

 

And yes it does not necessarily appear that TCPC is not a "Christian Only" community to one on the outside and perhaps even takes some time for one on the inside. Neverthe less, I am certain that the appropriate people will find this place at the appropriate time for the appropriate need in their life. smile.gif To me, to know this, is fulfilling in itself.

 

Your participation and support of others on their journey is what this site is all about which assists in fulfilling of Points 1 and 2 of the mission statement.

 

Best of all, the accomplishment of this requires emphasis on love rather than any label on your part.

 

JosephM (as TCPC Administrator)

edited to remove () note after word "certain"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the original topic, but perhaps off topic now. It sometimes helps mee to use words or phrases to hep me figure out who I am and what I think I'm up to. But when labels become icons, then it is time to be an iconoclast.

 

 

Greetings Grandpawombat,

 

You have my curiousity. I would be interested in your expansion of that post. How do labels help you to use words or phrases to help you figure out who you are or what you think you are up to? And When labels do become icons, what exactly do you think we should do as relates to an iconoclast?

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I prefer the term open or liberal Christianity rather than progressive. Someone suggested "spiritual humanist" which I also like, or even the neutral "seeker." Religious labels rarely come up in my day to day life. Still there are times in face to face conversation when it does help to tactfully mention one's background, if someone might take offense.

 

As far as on line situations, I used to think Beliefnet focused on labeling and fine-tuning categories way too much. That's rarely a problem here. On the other hand, I posted on a forum for several months (not any more) which on the surface appeared to be for all major faiths. It became clear after awhile that it was primarily a fundamentalist /right wing group where liberals/feminists were out of place. If the board had been labeled more accurately or provided an appropriate statement up front, I'd never have intruded.

 

One further note -- I like Spong's idea of labeling oneself as "biblical not religious." And his explanation of the word "spiritual" which is often interpreted as pious, otherworldly, detached, given to contemplation, turned toward the nonphysical. The root words for spirit were nephesh and ruach, literally the "breath of God" and "wind." To be spiritual was to be animated, vital, whole, alive physically and mentally; free to live.

 

 

Karen,

 

Thanks for sharing the root words for spirit and what it means.

 

You said you prefer the term liberal rather than progressive. Do you see that as more of a fixed theology even though liberal in nature? What do you see as the real difference between the two labels? And do you see labels as really necessary or just a convenience or ?

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph,

 

It’s not a big difference to me-- I’ve never been one for systematic or fixed theology, but I do see myself as a liberal on many issues, like health care reform.

 

The term PC evokes the question “progressing toward what?” To me that implies active or aggressive participation to promote social justice, and I know from experience I’m better suited for other kinds of volunteer work.

 

I don’t see labels as necessary in real life, except the type of examples I mentioned where it might prevent distrust or misunderstandings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

 

 

I’ve come to ask myself just what kind of Christian I am? Am I really just a modified fundamentalist? If I am, is that a bad thing? Fundamentalists don’t accept my beliefs. They sure don’t think I’m one of them. Truthfully, I don’t want to be one of them. While I accept some of their teaching I fervently reject other parts of it. What label applies to me? Do I need, or even want, a label? I’m not into conformity and I really don’t want to be part of anybodies herd. I think, at least for now, I will just be an unlabeled Christian with inconsistent, and sometimes even conflicting, views and beliefs.

 

 

The thing with asking "what kind of a Christian are you?" is that there's never been a single unifying definition of what a Christian is. In modern times alone, there's up to around 35,000 denominations within Christianity and that's not even including all the diverse Christians that existed during ancient times that are no longer active today. To me, a Christian is simply someone who believes in Jesus and what believing in Jesus means to the individual who identifies as a Christian is for them to decide. Who am I to judge another why they they're a Christian if they don't agree with the popular beliefs? I agree with others that in an ideal world labels wouldn't be necessary, but labels can be useful in helping to categorize things. Imagine going to a movie store and trying to find a genre of a movie if we had no labels. I see labels for people in the same way in that label are helpful in categorizing what you are but the thing we have to remember is that labels are only a beginning to understanding people and not an end. Just go with whatever makes you feel comfortable and if others judge you because you don't hold to the popular beliefs, they should remember Jesus when he said to judge not lest ye be judged. Also, if you're curious in learning a different way of looking at the life and teachings of Saint Paul, I recommend the book The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon co-authored by the biblical scholars Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought to ponder concerning labels....

 

It seems to me that we as humans are so full of 'names' and 'labels', and what we think and believe they mean, that true communications, is the exception rather than the rule.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

And another thought to ponder concerning labels...

 

Until PC and those who represent it are willing to not use the label "Christian" in their 8 Points, PC and those who represent it shouldn't be too critical of the use of labels. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of labels, what's the difference between moderate, liberal, and progressive Christians? I often see people use the labels interchangeably and sometimes they just use the words moderate or liberal as an umbrella term for all Christians who don't believe in biblical inerrancy, but is there any difference with them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use 'liberal-' and 'progressive' Christian quite interchangeably and I'm not sure where the difference between them might fall. 'Moderate' however, as I understand, refers to a believer who is in the middle ground, not a fundamentalist yet probably not totally pluralist and liberal. For instance, a moderate might reject that the bible is God's literal word, and yet still suppose that it is a divine product, that God was truly somehow behind its production, or that while the bible is not infallible it is nonetheless more or less trustworthy as a source.

That's how I would use the terms, I may be wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use 'liberal-' and 'progressive' Christian quite interchangeably and I'm not sure where the difference between them might fall. 'Moderate' however, as I understand, refers to a believer who is in the middle ground, not a fundamentalist yet probably not totally pluralist and liberal. For instance, a moderate might reject that the bible is God's literal word, and yet still suppose that it is a divine product, that God was truly somehow behind its production, or that while the bible is not infallible it is nonetheless more or less trustworthy as a source.

That's how I would use the terms, I may be wrong though.

 

I view myself as a moderate for the specific reasons you listed Mike. Your definition of a moderate certainly mirrors my views & beliefs. I believe there are substantive differences in the beliefs associated with fundamentalism, liberalism, PC, and moderates.

 

There are specific reasons why I do not embrace some of the views held by fundamentalist, liberals, and even PC’s. Within that group PC is the least problematic for me and is compatible with many of my beliefs & views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view myself as a moderate for the specific reasons you listed Mike. Your definition of a moderate certainly mirrors my views & beliefs. I believe there are substantive differences in the beliefs associated with fundamentalism, liberalism, PC, and moderates.

 

There are specific reasons why I do not embrace some of the views held by fundamentalist, liberals, and even PC’s. Within that group PC is the least problematic for me and is compatible with many of my beliefs & views.

 

In terms of popularity and scholarship, I think probably the biggest moderate on the block today, so to speak, is N.T. Wright. He also happens to be good friends with Marcus Borg, who in the same way is one of the biggest liberals on the block, so by comparing their views you can get a good idea of what moderate- and liberal-Christianity is all about. They even wrote a book together about the resurrection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've kept a little eye on this thread, but steered clear initially as in seemed more involved with various "fundamentalist" ideas with which I didnt really wish to get involved, but it does seem to have moved on a bit to "labels" in general, and their various uses........and abuses! A while back I posted something on another forum on this very subject and hopefully it will not be given the label "spam" (!!) if I repeat this here........

 

I was just roaming around and took a look in. Spotted this particular thread. The idea of "labels", their uses/abuses/limits etc seems to me to point to the fundamental uses of language and the limit of words. Is the word the thing? Lets mention something like sexuality, just to catch everyones attention! In a very real sense there is in nature an unbroken line of continuity between the world's most macho male and the world's most effeminate female, physically, psychologically. Each of us finds ourself somewhere on that line, each of us unique, valueable, irreplaceable. Yet our minds love to label and classify. We create fences, lines and divisions. Judgement follows. Often we even seem to like labeling ourselves and take great pride in doing so. And so our "becoming" and our possibilities can grind to a stop and we congeal.

 

When we look at and meet another, and we have heard they are "gay", or "Christian" - or whatever - we see only our own experience and understanding of such words. Possibly our label meets theirs! We can miss the actual person altogether, including ourselves! All chance of genuine empathy and mutual understanding can just wither and die.

 

It seems to me that "reality" lies beyond words. Words have their uses, but also their limits.

 

 

Expanding on this a bit, it seems to me that "labels" always have their own context, and when the context is lost then things get out of focus. Our minds act like a microscope. Looking at Christianity, which seems appropriate here, there is Catholocism, the Eastern Orthodox, the various Protestant varieties......and adjusting the microscope, within Catholocism, "liberals" and "moderns" and "traditionalists".....Cistercians, Benedictines, Trappists.......and mystics, ancient and modern......then onto the individual hearts and minds experiencing the reality of their faith according to their own lives as lived and experienced themselves, as it has unfolded uniquely for them. It just seems that if we lose the context our minds then can get out of focus, and we throw words and labels over something or somebody and we lose empathy and communion with them, divided by assumed judgements.

 

And I would like to repeat that we can miss the actual person altogether, including ourselves Giving a label to ourselves can create false parameters that eventually stifle the "spirit". I try to wear my own lightly!

 

Just to finish.....(gasps of relief all round!)....there is a relevant passage from the Journals of Thomas Merton regarding "labels" and whatnot. Merton tells of how he was visited by a good friend, Mark Van Doren, and they were watching the flight and activities of some birds together. Mark Van Doren remarked...."The birds don't know they have names." Merton went on to write in his journal.....no name and no word to identify the beauty and reality of those birds today is a gift of God to me in letting me see them.......And that name - God - is not a name! It is like a letter X or Y. Yahweh is a better name - it finally means Nameless One

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

Your post, Tariki, gives one much food to chew on. Now, if I can find my dentures! :D

 

I appreciate what you said about context. Labels are buckets for context. But context of what? What is carried in the buckets?

 

I am an accordionist. I've played accordion off and on since I was 15. I love the instrument and love most of the music/culture surrounding the instrument. And there are some very good people associated with the instrument. But even within the label "accordionist", I am a "keyboard accordionist." I can't play a chromatic or a diatonic or a concertina. And there are certainly people who like accordion music but they can't play a note. So my label of "accordionist" is descriptive, not so much of what I believe, but of what I actually do. I play the accordion and I enjoy fellowshipping with other accordionist, even of types of accordions unlike mine. There is a shared practice.

 

There are some people here on the forum for TCPC who disdain labels. And there are some who find them useful. When it comes to labels, I advocate a middle road.

 

To me, if PC (and those associated with the movement) is going to move forward, we need to "translate" labels so that they are more descriptive, not of specific beliefs, but of what we do. It seems to me that labels of belief are always going to be devisive. We all have different beliefs, even though we might share many of them with others. But if we can translate labels to what we actually do, then we might find some unity, not of thought, but of (dare I say it?) mission. We are moving in the same direction, not because we all believe exactly the same, but because our values are lived out in a similar way. If a Buddhist gives money to help starving children and I give money to help starving children, then we might both wear the label "progressive" or "benefactor" or "philanthropist". I could, in a sense, care less whether my Buddhist friend is a Christian or not. What matters is that he/she has the same dream for a better world and he/she puts that dream into practice.

 

So as long as labels are used as descriptors of beliefs, they will probably always foster more devisiveness than unity. But if they are used to describe what we do, how we live, the values that we practice, then labels could be a good thing. We would stop so much fighting over labels and all have extra time to learn to play the accordion! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post, Tariki, gives one much food to chew on. Now, if I can find my dentures! :D

 

I appreciate what you said about context. Labels are buckets for context. But context of what? What is carried in the buckets?

 

I am an accordionist. I've played accordion off and on since I was 15. I love the instrument and love most of the music/culture surrounding the instrument. And there are some very good people associated with the instrument. But even within the label "accordionist", I am a "keyboard accordionist." I can't play a chromatic or a diatonic or a concertina. And there are certainly people who like accordion music but they can't play a note. So my label of "accordionist" is descriptive, not so much of what I believe, but of what I actually do. I play the accordion and I enjoy fellowshipping with other accordionist, even of types of accordions unlike mine. There is a shared practice.

 

There are some people here on the forum for TCPC who disdain labels. And there are some who find them useful. When it comes to labels, I advocate a middle road.

 

To me, if PC (and those associated with the movement) is going to move forward, we need to "translate" labels so that they are more descriptive, not of specific beliefs, but of what we do. It seems to me that labels of belief are always going to be devisive. We all have different beliefs, even though we might share many of them with others. But if we can translate labels to what we actually do, then we might find some unity, not of thought, but of (dare I say it?) mission. We are moving in the same direction, not because we all believe exactly the same, but because our values are lived out in a similar way. If a Buddhist gives money to help starving children and I give money to help starving children, then we might both wear the label "progressive" or "benefactor" or "philanthropist". I could, in a sense, care less whether my Buddhist friend is a Christian or not. What matters is that he/she has the same dream for a better world and he/she puts that dream into practice.

 

So as long as labels are used as descriptors of beliefs, they will probably always foster more devisiveness than unity. But if they are used to describe what we do, how we live, the values that we practice, then labels could be a good thing. We would stop so much fighting over labels and all have extra time to learn to play the accordion! :D

 

Billmc,

 

Trust you were able to locate your dentures, and the indigestion wasn't too bad........Well, once someone posted on another forum that there was no such thing as a coincidence. Not sure if I agreed at the time, but I'm beginning to give the thought some extra cosideration. The last few days I have been reading "The Book Thief" (blurb:- "The No.1 International Bestseller......just how many "number ones" can there be?) and the book deals with words and their uses and abuses. In addition, one of the central characters plays the accordion! Anyway, my own mind slides between "labels" and "words", for better or for worse; for me they are virtually interchangeable. In the novel - set during WW2 - the words of Hitler and their effect is contrasted with the use of words by a young German girl who just happens to steal books (all in a good cause!) Her family are hiding a Jewish guy down in the basement, and the young girl, Liesel, befriends him. As he is unable to ever come out, he relies upon Liesel for news of the weather, and her simple words of description are treasured by him. Other words evoke tears, tears of friendship and communion. The contrast with words as used by Hitler, to enslave and deaden, is their throughout the novel.

 

Thats it really, words/labels have power. Personally I feel no need to advocate any sort of "road" towards them, middle or otherwise. You can't go far on a Buddhist Forum without hitting the phrase...."Don't mistake the finger that points for the moon itself" - it comes straight out of the "Bluffers Guide to Zen", just like "the cypress tree in the garden" - nevertheless, it does "point" (!!!) towards a certain truth and way of seeking to understand. (Another Zen saying springs to mind........Better to see the face than to hear the name )

 

In the end, life can only be lived, not thought. There is a branch of Buddhism that deals with this, that points to the inherent contradiction within all language, of the utter negation of thought as revelatory of the real. But now is perhaps not the time to pursue this, not least because it tends to give me a headache..........

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service