internetmonk.com

What We Need Are Name Tags

December 11th, 2007 by iMonk

Irony alert!! Overheard at a popular theoblog recently.

Oh those slippery emerging types. Right when you think you have them defined, they go squirming across the room, claiming you’ve misunderstood them.

You know who is just as bad? The “missionals.” One minute it’s Tim Keller. The next it’s Brian Mclaren. You can’t tell one person or another with these generic labels. Is it Ed Stetzer or Tony Jones?

It’s sooooo predictable. Start a conversation on the emerging or missional church and watch all those goatee-wearing, Message-reading, David Crowder look-a-likes say “You just don’t understand us.”

It’s quite similar to those naughty post-evangelicals. They act like they can make language mean whatever they want. Post-evangelical means this and post-evangelical means that. It’s like a game. If we can’t all agree that post-evangelical means they’ve abandoned the Bible and the Gospel, then what do we mean? Aren’t my definitions clear enough?

You know what it reminds me of? Dispensationalists. These days you call someone a dispensationalist and the first thing they do is ask “What do you mean by dispensationalism?” Then they have all these subdivisions and distinctions. You can believe anything these days and call yourself some kind of a dispensationalist.

They remind me of Calvinists. If you ask someone if they are a “Calvinist,” they start in by saying they believe this, but not that. They are one kind of Calvinist, but not another, and depending on what you mean they may or may not be a Calvinist. You can’t even trust the five points anymore.

Just like those reformed Baptists. Call someone a reformed Baptist and they will say “Not exactly. I am a Baptist and I’m somewhat reformed, but I’m not one of those reformed Baptists that you are talking about.” You have to know four different kinds of reformed Baptists to get somewhere on the radar, and even then the name never quite fits. In fact, the whole word “reformed” is pretty slippery these days. Who know who you can trust? Even Rick Warren says he’s reformed.

The same thing happens with the word “fundamentalist.” I called someone a fundamentalist and they said, “Not really. I mean, I believe all the fundamentals, but I don’t mind if you watch a movie or have a television. I’m not the bad kind of fundamentalist.” I thought fundamentalists were proud to be fundamental. Apparently not.

In fact, “evangelical” gets the same treatment. Call someone an evangelical and you get a speech about what it used to mean, what the Lutherans mean and what it ought to mean if we had the right theology. Then bring up some term like “historic evangelical” or “post-evangelical” and no one is ever one of those, but they aren’t very happy being evangelicals either. Everyone uses the word, but no one seems to actually want to just be one.

Then there are the “conservatives,” the “born again Christians,” the “Protestants,” the “confessionals,” the “truly reformed,” the “merely Christian,” the “Orthodox,” the “catholics (little c),” the “liberals,” the “progressives,” the “Arminians,” and, of course, the “Bible believers.” These people need to get it together. It’s getting so you can’t talk about anyone anymore without actually finding out what they believe. Don’t labels mean anything to people?

Yeah, those emerging church types are slippery, all right. It just goes to show how compromised they are in their theology. They can’t even agree on what their name means. How can anyone not see that these people have abandoned the faith!

Maybe we could just try using the names of favorite teachers, like “Keller types” or “Macarthur types.” What do you think? “I am of Paul.” “I am of Apollos.” It would make everything much simpler.

38 Responses to “What We Need Are Name Tags”

on 11 Dec 2007 at 2:23 pm Josh Gelatt

Not exactly to your point, but I’ve never understood the near universal whining of the emergent-types that they are “misunderstood”. The irony to me is that they constantly run around claiming to be misunderstood when most of them are professional communicators! They speak and write for a living, yet apparently they cannot simply communicate to people what they are trying to say.

Here are the options, as I see them:

1. They are lying.
2. They are confused themselves.
3. They are intentional deceitful.
4. They just stink at their jobs.

I’m leaning more and more to #4.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 2:25 pm sarah

heeeheehee…very nuanced I must say.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 2:44 pm Matt Wiebe

Well said, and love the finish. I belong to Christ, and my family is dysfunctional…
on 11 Dec 2007 at 2:56 pm Michael Spencer

Yes, Sarah. Maybe a bit too nuanced Ahem.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 3:05 pm Rustin S

Funny - and painfully so.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 3:53 pm sonja

Beautiful, just beautiful. Well worth the read, but that last paragraph … well … let’s just say it should launch a thousand ships!
on 11 Dec 2007 at 3:54 pm Megan

I want a bigger nametag!
on 11 Dec 2007 at 4:03 pm Anna A

Matt, I love your statement, “I belong to Christ, and my family is dysfunctional” May I borrow it?

Since my family is dysfunctional too.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 4:26 pm Terri

This made me laugh…but in a completely, post-evangelical, reformed, arminian, sometimes calvinistic way.

I don’t want you to get the wrong idea.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 4:26 pm Brian Baute

Josh, #4 can be true of everyone. I’ve monologued lately with a coworker on my blog who is convinced that I’m not saved and I disdain the Bible and any time I disagree with him it’s only because I misunderstood him. I tried to let him know that if everyone he communicates with misunderstands him, maybe the problem isn’t with them. I often have to tell the mirror this as well. Maybe one of these days we can have dialogue instead of monologue.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 5:06 pm Odgie

Speaking as a lifelong member of the churches of Christ, it amuses me to no end that this type of discussion is taking place all over. Great stuff, Michael.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 5:08 pm Bob Myers

You got me on that last paragraph! Great insight. Problem is, I’m guilty. I never tell people I’m a “Calvinist” anymore. I just tell them, “Tim Keller”. In fact, when hiring staff and interviewing PCA prospects the most discerning way to assess them,and for them to assess our church was to list names of leaders and give them favorable unfavorable ratings. Not sure this is what 1 Corinthians is about, but you give me pause!
on 11 Dec 2007 at 5:45 pm Terri

ummm….did I completely misunderstand this post?

I thought the point was a tongue-in-cheek look at how people try to pigeon-hole other people by labeling them with a term or preferred author, yet some people seem to be responding with a “yeah…those ‘types’ are confused and we can figure them out by who they read.”

Help me out here…..Did I read this wrong?
on 11 Dec 2007 at 6:19 pm sled dog

Guilty on the Tim Keller label. Mark Driscoll too.

It must show that as hot as we American christians think we are, we relate pretty well with the Corninthian bunch. Whoops, another label!
on 11 Dec 2007 at 6:24 pm Michael Spencer

All of you who have said “I am of iMonk” have received a full pardon for all your sins.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 7:59 pm Mike

What exactly do you mean by “full pardon”???
on 11 Dec 2007 at 8:14 pm lonelypilgrim

Interesting that as evangelicals (whatever that means these days) we are more defined by what we don’t believe or practice than what we do believe or practice.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 8:20 pm Joel Brueseke

I guess I’m just happy to believe and understand what I believe and understand. One time on a certain online message board I said some things and someone replied by saying, “All you ________’s (one of the many groups/classification you mentioned here; I won’t say which one) are the same…”

What’s funny is that I had no clue what beliefs that particular group held. I did some research and I found that people in that classification seemed to believe some of the same things I did and also some different things.

So again, I’m happy to just believe and understand what I believe and understand… and I’m happy when I can work alongside any brother or sister based upon love, not based upon doctrinal beliefs.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 8:26 pm Bob Myers

“I am of imonk”, ok, I’m absolved of my sins, but will that get me kicked out of the PCA?
on 11 Dec 2007 at 8:44 pm jmanning

all the slice of a surgeon, but none of the stitch…

I think that’s what made the post enjoyable.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 9:02 pm beavis

hehheh…he said slice…hehheh
on 11 Dec 2007 at 9:07 pm Michael Spencer

I realize I can’t define the word “watchblogger.” I’m in trouble.
on 12 Dec 2007 at 12:14 am Irenicum

Ouch, but in a good way. As a confirmed member of the “I’m too precise by half” club, always feeling the need to explain myself in detail to those I speak with, I’ve suffered (enjoyed?) the response of “Oh, you’re one of those” comments by those who live more comfortably in bipolar worlds. I don’t like boxes. I’d prefer to make my own. The hard part is listening to a painful friend. They’re the ones I hate hearing from the most. For obvious reasons. I hate it when they nail me on my idolatries. I wonder if all of this word/name/label wrangling is a sympton of living in a church environment where “everyone does what is right in their own eyes”? Just a thought.
on 12 Dec 2007 at 12:54 am Thom

We Catholics (big “C’) seem to have the same problems. “I’m a traditionalist.” “I’m a traditionalist, but I don’t own my wife.” “I like the Extraordinary form, but only on special occasions.” “I’m a moderately liberal…,” and it goes on and on. But instead of nametags we would need come kind of a medal on a chain.

Great post, m’lord.
on 12 Dec 2007 at 1:11 am K.W. Leslie

Part of the problem is that people insist on both choosing their labels and choosing the definitions of their labels.

Fr’instance. (I don’t believe any of the following, but this is a fr’instance.) Let’s say I chose the label Calvinist. It’s a good solid brand name and I like it. Despite the label, I might waffle on total depravity, believing some people are inherently good. I might not be so sure on unconditional election, figuring God tends to only choose good people. I might deny irresistible grace ’cause I’ve not been a successful evangelist, and deny perseverance of the saints ’cause I know people who left the Church. In fact I stink as a Calvinist.

So you, knowing all this, might rightly label me a Pelagian — to which I would indignantly respond, “I am not. I don’t accept that label. I embrace the title ‘Calvinist.’ Pelagians are heretics. Don’t call me that.” Despite my Pelagian beliefs, I would insist on the Calvinist label.

Back to reality — I likewise know lots of crypto-Christians who insist on the Christian label despite their rejection of about half the Apostles Creed. What makes them call themselves Christian? Because they like Christian traditions, they’re fond of Jesus’s pacifism, and they like being spiritual without being religious. But when I call them Deists, they object… because they don’t reject Jesus. (Just His deity, lordship, sinlessness, forgiveness, resurrection, present-day mediation, gift of the Holy Spirit, and eventual return.)

I should be able to describe what I believe; but none of us should be allowed to redefine a label in order to fit that description. If the shoe fits, wear it.
on 12 Dec 2007 at 10:20 am Josh Gelatt

My personal favorite experience is when I’m called a “Liberal” and a “Fundamentalist” (both with equal levels of scorn implied) by different people in the same day. While that usually happens on my blog, it has also happened several times in *real* life (a few times on Sunday morning, no less).

Perhaps I should have pressed them further:

“Are you saying I am a ‘Classical Liberal’, ‘Post-Liberal’, a ‘Neoliberal’, a ‘Flaming Liberal’, or ‘Continental Liberal’.

“Are you saying I am a ‘Militant Fundamentalist’, a ‘Baptist Fundamentalist’, and ‘Separatist Fundamentalist’, a ‘Neofundamentalist’, a ‘Historic Fundamentalist’ or a ‘Post Fundamentalist’?
on 12 Dec 2007 at 10:46 am sled dog

But how do you put a label on post-evangelical? It’s a wilderness. It has no systematic theology or statement of faith. For me it’s a stripping down, simplifying approach to the things of faith; a desire to clear all th clutter. Someone else my find a different route.
on 12 Dec 2007 at 10:57 am WebMonk

K.W. - agreed, but most all the terms out there have accumulated baggage that the people who fit the terms don’t like, and so they start ‘clarifying’ what sort of Calvinist/Arminian/Catholic/Baptist/etc they are.

I don’t think this happens much in a dramatic redefinition, but rather in small stages. If a person is 95% something, then they call themselves a ______. Multiply this by 20 years, and include all the more rapid associations which take place when a label becomes popular.

After a while, there are more partial ______’s than there are the originals, and you’ve now got to clarify what sort of ______ you are because so many others have used the label. It’s not always a conscious redefinition of terms, though it sometimes is. Instead, it’s the inherent laziness of labels - we use them to sum up broad ideas. The label will trend toward broader summaries over time until it label is too broad to be useful, and then it’s time to start clarifying the label.

Labels are a fact of life, not just in Christianity, and people can’t operate without them, or at least not in a useful way.
on 12 Dec 2007 at 1:12 pm Craig V.

Though this has been going on since Corinth, I do think there is a different element in some of the current debates. It seems to me that many are in the process of re thinking their faith. As they enter this process they are quickly labeled before really settling anywhere. A bigger concern for me, over the labeling, is that we don’t allow one another to enter this process.
on 12 Dec 2007 at 4:34 pm The Scylding

I belong to dysfunctional, but my family is Christ? Actually, as long as I am a rose….
on 12 Dec 2007 at 6:11 pm Doug

This made me think of a line from a Derek Webb song:

“There’s no categories just long stories waiting to be heard
Don’t be satisfied when someone sums you up with just one word”

Maybe that’s why we do labels-it’s easier than listening to people’s stories and actually trying to understand them.
on 13 Dec 2007 at 12:35 am Eric

Our labels place us among people that think similar to us. Just another segregation technique, we need some way of separating “us” and “them.”

and I hate it.
on 13 Dec 2007 at 12:56 am Brendt

Terri, no, you didn’t miss the point.
on 13 Dec 2007 at 1:02 am Thom

Aye, Eric, but humans label each other anyway, consciously or not. Check out Labeling Theory.
on 13 Dec 2007 at 12:37 pm Josh Gelatt

Terry, Brendt,

You got the point of the article, but you might be missing the point of some of the comments! :o) LOL
on 14 Dec 2007 at 9:33 am MC

Is the goatee required for you to be missional or postmodern? Warren started sporting one about 5+ years ago and I remember a panic set in because I couldn’t grow one and Goodwill was all out of floral printed, Hawaiian shirts so I was doomed.
on 18 Dec 2007 at 2:52 am RsS

Wow! All of this sounds very postmodern, especially the replies to this post.
on 19 Dec 2007 at 3:39 pm Nephos

Wait, RsS. By postmodern are you talking about postmodernism or postmodernity?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

What We Need Are Name Tags

38 Responses to “What We Need Are Name Tags”

Leave a Reply

Internet Monk.com