Pernicious Labels: why any moniker than Christ-follower?
Jul 28, 2015 20:40:59 #
[E]vangelicalism is historic Christianity. Its the standard bearer of historic, orthodox Christianity. This statement which I read earlier today, whether intended to or not, speaks volumes. In effect, it says Evangelical and Christian are synonymous or interchangeable. It also strongly implies (if not being tacitly explicit) that if you are not or see differently than an Evangelical, you got it wrong. Of course, for me to come to my conclusions, I must take the word "historic" to mean "from the original Apostles and First Church," not the 70s Moral Majority movement or even Martin Luther. The author did not reply.
So I said to him, "I thought the standard-bearer of Christianity was Christ, not a movement's thoughts and ways about Christ. And in a similar vein, how, when and where did Christianity gain the power and authority to represent Christ? This may appear a foolish or perhaps a contentious question but think about it: look at Church history. Look at thousands of often contentious sects, and endless non-Christ (I feel anti-Christ) labeling as Calvinism, Lutheranism, Wesleyan et cetera ad naseum. One name above all, yes? Of one spirit, yes?"
The trouble with self-labeling and labeling in itself is the enormous margin of error about the definition, nature and purpose of the thing the label is meant to limit and clarify. The misconduct and abuse of a label is highly destructive to dialogue and people. "I follow Christ" is descriptive, not a moniker. This invites conversation. For good or bad, a label ends conversation and sparks only back-slapping or antagonism. Presupposition gets the seat of high honor, and that is intended by any label. Curious anyone would rely on them.
"Isn't it possible," I asked him, "just to obviate someone in the near or distant future having to go through the motions of re-labeling and re-defining the now corrupted "beyond evangelicalism" to "beyond beyond evangelicalism," to simply drop, in the name of Jesus, these pernicious labels that mostly serve either vanity or hate, collude for either conformity or conflict?
So I said to him, "I thought the standard-bearer of Christianity was Christ, not a movement's thoughts and ways about Christ. And in a similar vein, how, when and where did Christianity gain the power and authority to represent Christ? This may appear a foolish or perhaps a contentious question but think about it: look at Church history. Look at thousands of often contentious sects, and endless non-Christ (I feel anti-Christ) labeling as Calvinism, Lutheranism, Wesleyan et cetera ad naseum. One name above all, yes? Of one spirit, yes?"
The trouble with self-labeling and labeling in itself is the enormous margin of error about the definition, nature and purpose of the thing the label is meant to limit and clarify. The misconduct and abuse of a label is highly destructive to dialogue and people. "I follow Christ" is descriptive, not a moniker. This invites conversation. For good or bad, a label ends conversation and sparks only back-slapping or antagonism. Presupposition gets the seat of high honor, and that is intended by any label. Curious anyone would rely on them.
"Isn't it possible," I asked him, "just to obviate someone in the near or distant future having to go through the motions of re-labeling and re-defining the now corrupted "beyond evangelicalism" to "beyond beyond evangelicalism," to simply drop, in the name of Jesus, these pernicious labels that mostly serve either vanity or hate, collude for either conformity or conflict?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.