I like labels, however hurtful they may be. To some people, a label is an unfair and superfluous definition of a group or an individual. This is true. But on the other hand, labels are a superfluous definition of a group or an individual.
People say stereotypes exist for a reason. Psychology has taught me that we stereotype and then prejudge and finally discriminate between groups or individuals because stereotypes are like rules of thumb-- they might not always be true, but they are true often enough to believe them to be hard and fast rules. These things apply to adages as well as social classes as well as neighborhoods as well as racism.
"Birds of a feather flock together."
"Poor people are lazy."
"Long Beach is a ghetto."
"Asians are terrible drivers."
"Calvinists are joy-less jerks who don't want to evangelize."
However true these statements are, they're all useful. Labels are useful, even if their utility comes from a negative example and requires a willful determination to not judge a group or individuals.
Labels are useful to avoid making wrongful assumptions. Even though sometimes these labels aren't helpful or applicable, these labels help rule out other options.
"What a terrible driver! Must be an old grandma. Oh wait, he's just an Asian guy."
I could list many of the cons to labels, but I don't feel like being fair to the label-haters. I feel like there should be a label for that...
I'm just going to address two areas of life where labels are helpful to me: in religion and relationships. Actually, I just realized that political views are best summarized in certain vocabulary terms like Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, "progressive," "liberal," "conservative," and the like, BUT I don't care enough about my civil liberty and duty to nerd out about politics as I ought. Bad me. Political labels will have to wait for another day.
Religion: It's good to be able to label yourself when it comes to religion. After all, there are numerous sects of Christianity, and for the well-informed man, calling one's self a Methodist or a Reformed Baptist or a Catholic will grant much information about one's self in just a few syllables. The well-informed man may figure out your eschatology (the end times), your view on soteriology (salvation), and how grave you believe the human condition is as a result of the fall. He can guess your belief or denial of the sovereignty of God, the covenants of God, and the triunity of God.
[Sidebar: I guess it's good to label one's self as accurately as possible when it comes to other religions too. I've a good idea of my audience, and I'm definitely not a "well-informed man" even in the Christian circles, much less in those of Mormon or Islamic or Jewish or Sikhist, etc. circles. I'm just going to rant about Christians and the many persons' distastes for labels.]
In my first year at UC Irvine, I was looking for a new church home. I was a fool. I was living in a room 25 miles away from home and only 40 from my home church. Yet I was following the advice of the pastors of my Timothy Conference just the year before who told me to find a new church to call home, that I would be able to serve in a new way, to exploit and scheme how best I could be of service.
Nothing changed; I came home every weekend to remember how to do laundry and to worship at Branch that year.
But even still, as I was scouting the churches listed on the announcement card my Bible study gives out every Wednesday, I couldn't help but notice that the church that most of the people from that Bible study attended was going without a label. Eventually I understood that, though heavily influenced by the Reformation and its doctrines, the pastors and congregation of this unnamed-church generally held to a Baptist view of God's covenant when it comes to the salvation of children. Maybe I'm just lazy, but that sort of information doesn't need to be hidden from the public. If you believe with the strongest conviction that the Bible teaches that one's children must make a credible and public confession of faith in order to be received of Jesus, then don't be shy about it. Besides, part of the joy of being part of a denomination is the great fellowship across churches. Maybe that's just a Baptist problem of exclusion.
Relationships: It's important to not dismiss labels in relationships. I'm referring mainly to the special sort of relationship between a man and woman, but let's touch briefly on other familial names and labels. Things aren't right when a person refuses the labels of father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, friend, teacher, student, et cetera. Perhaps it's shame that stops the label from being applied, as in the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15. Perhaps it's ignorance of the God-ordained importance and gravity and blessing of being "man and wife" that disallows a young couple to label themselves.
Well, that didn't cover nearly as many relationships I thought I would. But that's alright. On the topic of labeling personswho're (That contraction probably shouldn't be used...) who are "in a relationship" according to Facebook: these sorts of labels, verbal or Facebook-indicative, are very helpful for colloquial brothers and sisters. Whether Christian or not, it's good to know whether a guy has laid dibs on a girl, to put it crudely. It's more of a concern for Christians to know who's interested in whom so that appropriate chaperoning and encouragement could spirit the couple along.
My beef is with persons in relationships who, for some reason unbeknownst to me, don't want to take that title. I doubt it's shame; love has a penchant for not hiding the truth and telling it on the mountains. I can't believe it's ignorance, unless it's a one-sided crush. So why? Maybe I'm overlooking something.
Labels prevent misunderstandings. For example, if a guy and girl are sharing a cup in a scenario where no lack of cups is, it's safe to assume they're 1) related, 2) dating, 3) totally interested in dating but haven't decided to actually take an official label, or 4) doing some weird science experiment.
In conclusion: labels are a double-edged sword. They're great for saving time and making quick judgments (Soft fruit = ripe fruit); they're bad and hurtful when the judgments are false (white = racist). Labels divulge information to the person who understands what different labels mean. Labels clear up confusion as to whether a person is a Baptist or is in a relationship. Wait a second...
People say stereotypes exist for a reason. Psychology has taught me that we stereotype and then prejudge and finally discriminate between groups or individuals because stereotypes are like rules of thumb-- they might not always be true, but they are true often enough to believe them to be hard and fast rules. These things apply to adages as well as social classes as well as neighborhoods as well as racism.
"Birds of a feather flock together."
"Poor people are lazy."
"Long Beach is a ghetto."
"Asians are terrible drivers."
"Calvinists are joy-less jerks who don't want to evangelize."
However true these statements are, they're all useful. Labels are useful, even if their utility comes from a negative example and requires a willful determination to not judge a group or individuals.
Labels are useful to avoid making wrongful assumptions. Even though sometimes these labels aren't helpful or applicable, these labels help rule out other options.
"What a terrible driver! Must be an old grandma. Oh wait, he's just an Asian guy."
I could list many of the cons to labels, but I don't feel like being fair to the label-haters. I feel like there should be a label for that...
I'm just going to address two areas of life where labels are helpful to me: in religion and relationships. Actually, I just realized that political views are best summarized in certain vocabulary terms like Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, "progressive," "liberal," "conservative," and the like, BUT I don't care enough about my civil liberty and duty to nerd out about politics as I ought. Bad me. Political labels will have to wait for another day.
Religion: It's good to be able to label yourself when it comes to religion. After all, there are numerous sects of Christianity, and for the well-informed man, calling one's self a Methodist or a Reformed Baptist or a Catholic will grant much information about one's self in just a few syllables. The well-informed man may figure out your eschatology (the end times), your view on soteriology (salvation), and how grave you believe the human condition is as a result of the fall. He can guess your belief or denial of the sovereignty of God, the covenants of God, and the triunity of God.
[Sidebar: I guess it's good to label one's self as accurately as possible when it comes to other religions too. I've a good idea of my audience, and I'm definitely not a "well-informed man" even in the Christian circles, much less in those of Mormon or Islamic or Jewish or Sikhist, etc. circles. I'm just going to rant about Christians and the many persons' distastes for labels.]
In my first year at UC Irvine, I was looking for a new church home. I was a fool. I was living in a room 25 miles away from home and only 40 from my home church. Yet I was following the advice of the pastors of my Timothy Conference just the year before who told me to find a new church to call home, that I would be able to serve in a new way, to exploit and scheme how best I could be of service.
Nothing changed; I came home every weekend to remember how to do laundry and to worship at Branch that year.
But even still, as I was scouting the churches listed on the announcement card my Bible study gives out every Wednesday, I couldn't help but notice that the church that most of the people from that Bible study attended was going without a label. Eventually I understood that, though heavily influenced by the Reformation and its doctrines, the pastors and congregation of this unnamed-church generally held to a Baptist view of God's covenant when it comes to the salvation of children. Maybe I'm just lazy, but that sort of information doesn't need to be hidden from the public. If you believe with the strongest conviction that the Bible teaches that one's children must make a credible and public confession of faith in order to be received of Jesus, then don't be shy about it. Besides, part of the joy of being part of a denomination is the great fellowship across churches. Maybe that's just a Baptist problem of exclusion.
Relationships: It's important to not dismiss labels in relationships. I'm referring mainly to the special sort of relationship between a man and woman, but let's touch briefly on other familial names and labels. Things aren't right when a person refuses the labels of father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, friend, teacher, student, et cetera. Perhaps it's shame that stops the label from being applied, as in the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15. Perhaps it's ignorance of the God-ordained importance and gravity and blessing of being "man and wife" that disallows a young couple to label themselves.
Well, that didn't cover nearly as many relationships I thought I would. But that's alright. On the topic of labeling persons
My beef is with persons in relationships who, for some reason unbeknownst to me, don't want to take that title. I doubt it's shame; love has a penchant for not hiding the truth and telling it on the mountains. I can't believe it's ignorance, unless it's a one-sided crush. So why? Maybe I'm overlooking something.
Labels prevent misunderstandings. For example, if a guy and girl are sharing a cup in a scenario where no lack of cups is, it's safe to assume they're 1) related, 2) dating, 3) totally interested in dating but haven't decided to actually take an official label, or 4) doing some weird science experiment.
In conclusion: labels are a double-edged sword. They're great for saving time and making quick judgments (Soft fruit = ripe fruit); they're bad and hurtful when the judgments are false (white = racist). Labels divulge information to the person who understands what different labels mean. Labels clear up confusion as to whether a person is a Baptist or is in a relationship. Wait a second...
Why are Calvinists thought to be joyless?
ReplyDeleteBecause of a misunderstanding of the consequences of believing the simple truth that God is sovereign over all things. Sort of like the most common (and wrong) response to "the problem of sin/evil."
DeleteHere's the faulty logic:
1. If God is sovereign, He knows who He calls.
2. If God knows who He calls, what's the point in evangelism? What's the point in prayer? Can you change the mind if God? (Rhetorical answer: No.)
3. Therefore, don't evangelize.
The truth is, God delights to use His creatures' requests and words as means to bring lost sheep to Himself.