Maybe labels aren’t the problem…



Are labels themselves the problem or is it our tendency to use them to define us - and justify our actions to both ourselves and others - rather than as an aide to understanding? 


Conversation necessitates agreed upon definitions, which in a sense are just ‘labels’ by another name.  Without them, meaningful discourse is next to impossible.  Spend any length of time on social media and that lesson will be obvious.  So perhaps it’s our intended use of the labels that warrants reconsideration more so than the concept of labels itself.  Maybe, just maybe, all labels should have the implied limitation: in so far as conscience allows.


For example…


My political label is conservative.  As my voting record, candidate preference, and ideological outlook reflect, that is a fair definition of my politics.  But my ‘conservatism’ must bow to the supremacy of Christ.  So the label is then valid only in so far as conscience allows.  When conservatism attempts supremacy over Christ; my ultimate, truest identity, remains is in Christ.  


My racial/ethnic identity is caucasian.  As my physical appearance, parentage, and DNA reflect, that is a fair definition of my race.  But my ‘whiteness’ must bow to the supremacy of Christ.  So the label is then valid only so far as conscience allows.  When race attempts supremacy over Christ; my ultimate, truest identity, remains is in Christ.  


My professions are academic and psychologist.  As my transcripts, experience, and employment reflect, those are a fair definition of my professions.  But my profession must bow to the supremacy of Christ.  So the label is then valid only so far as conscience allows.  When ‘psychologist’ or ‘academic’ attempts supremacy over Christ; my ultimate, truest identity, remains is in Christ.  


Maybe labels aren’t the problem…but our inability to prioritize identity is.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sometimes Certainty is the Greatest Sin of All

Image
One of the more offensive beliefs espoused by western evangelicalism (and there are many) is the notion that all expressions of the Christian faith preceding it - Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Reformed, et al - were in such gross and debauched error as to render them outside the familial participation of Jesus Christ and indeed worshippers of ‘another Jesus’ altogether.  They espouse this without really considering the ramifications of what they are saying.  If these traditional veins are indeed disconnected from the one true Vine of the church, that would mean that the assembled family of God was absent from the earth for over a thousand years.  Taking it a step further in logical progression, it would be asserting that all of the voices informing our current understanding of the nature of God and His Church are irrelevant as why would we rely on those worshipping ‘another Jesus’ for guidance of any kind?!  So that would mean… The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement which evangelica
Read more

Jesus is THE Lens!

Image
Like most people, I suppose, most of the criticisms leveled at me are, if I admit it, quite fair. Am I too quick to argue and defend my ideas rather than listen? Sure. Do I have a — completely undeserved — aristocratic bent from time to time? Yes, I own that. Do I love words to such an excessive degree that I frequently use far too many of them to make my point when fewer would do perfectly well? Ok…ouch! But yes, this is 100% true. It all the more shocks me then that the criticism most often charged against me is not at all true: “Matt, you’re just cherry picking scripture to make God in your image rather than allowing yourself to be confirmed to His.” The accusation is indeed so inaccurate that I, perhaps naively, wonder if it is because I have not adequately explained myself. So let me give it a whirl… ALL SCRIPTURE [γράφω - graphē] IS INSPIRED (literally ‘god-breathed’) is a far cry from equal, inerrant, infallible, or universally applicable. Scripture never bestows those a
Read more

Deconstructing Too Far

“Deconstruction”, when done correctly, is a refiner’s fire burning away that which is faulty or harmful, a gardener’s pruning cutting off those elements contributing to pain and death.  It should never consume the whole nor should it attempt to disconnect the branches from the vine.   While much needs removed, much warrants preservation.  Indeed, like pulling weeds from among the flowers, the purpose of subtracting the faulty is to enable the healthy multiplication of the pure.   A deconstruction process that burns the whole edifice to the ground isn’t healthy and it isn’t helpful.  It’s a form of mass suicide that, by inflicting the same fate on the wheat and the chaff alike, results in the same end as would have been obtained had we never deconstructed at all: misery and death.  (Note: I’m aware there are other, far better terms for the healthy form of ‘deconstruction’.  But I am equally aware that this is the word most commonly used and have adopted it above for the sake of clarity.
Read more