Labels

I hate labels.

Labeling somebody presupposes that we know everything there is to know about them. It allows us to dismiss what they have to say because, after all, we know why they're saying it, and by extension, why they're wrong. And when we label ourselves - well, that's a different story. Have you ever noticed that generally when we label others it's to their detriment, and when we label ourselves it's to our benefit? Interesting.

Apparently we're living in the "post age", so why can't we be "post labels"?

Clearly I have label issues, so having said all that, let me continue on to contradict myself.

If you insist on applying a label or labels to yourself would you please do us a favour and at least make them as succinct as possible?

Perhaps a couple of "for instances" would be in order:

For instance, those of you running around with the label "Pro-Family" (or "Pro-Marriage") firmly affixed to your metaphorical bumper - I have news for you: You are not all pro-family. Some of you (the loud ones, apparently) are only anti-homosexual.

We're all adults here. You can be anti-homosexual if you want. But at least have the courage of your convictions and call it what it is. If you were really pro-family you would be worried about the number of people living in poverty, and the working poor. You would be making a loud noise about single parents having to work two jobs to pay the rent and put food on the table, and a decent minimum wage. You would be upset about young children spending most of their day without a parent, about poor nutrition and it's impact on learning, and about inadequate day care, for that matter. And please tell me if you were pro-family you would be concerned - nay, you would be trying to do something about - the huge percentage of marriages ("Christian marriages" included) that end in divorce.

While we're at it, even if you take my advice and label yourself appropriately, please do not go on international television unprepared for the reasonable question, "Why are you against gay marriage?"

"Well, you know... there's the AIDS" is not an answer.

Sorry, I digress. Moving right along...

For instance, to those of you proudly waving high your "Pro-Life" placards - I have news for you. Some of you are not pro-life. Some of you are just anti-abortion.

Let me explain the use of the word just in the previous paragraph. Being anti-abortion is on the list of possible attributes of a pro-life person, but it's not the only one. (Don't get me wrong - I am not a fan of abortion. It makes me sick.)

If you were really pro-life you would, by definition, be... well... anti-capital punishment. You would also be concerned about an administration that wages war to spread democracy while placing such little value on civilian life that it fails to include them in casualty counts. You would be upset, perhaps to the point of sleeplessness, about the outrageous numbers of young pregnant women who feel there is nowhere to go and no alternative. And if we were really pro-life (notice the switch in personal pronoun here) while waiting for our tsunami relief cheques to clear our bank accounts we would give a moment (if not a dollar) to thinking about how we could apply some of our meager resources to the preventable catastrophes taking place, everyday, out there. (Yes, you're right - you can't save them all. But you know what? You can save some of them.)

Grudgingly, I admit it's probably naive of me to long for a post label culture. If we're going to use them though, let's try to make them accurate.

And did I mention that Jesus called and He wants His name back?

Comments

[J.R.]

Mike-

Good post. I wrote about this in one of my posts coming back from emergent. While we engage in emergent expressions at Pierced, I'm growing more and more nervous about the emergent label for similar reasons that you listed above.

Good thoughts indeed.

J.R.

[Lisa]

Well said, Mike. A loud shout out of support.

[RickinVa]

I hate labels.

Labeling somebody presupposes that we know everything there is to know about them.

Some of you (the loud ones, apparently) are only anti-homosexual.

It allows us to dismiss what they have to say because, after all, we know why they're saying it, and by extension, why they're wrong.

Some of you are just anti-abortion.

Mike, I can't join the chorus of kudos... because you've posted an anti-label rant and then go on to label people.

Pot meet kettle.

[gord]

I think you've raised some very important and thought-provoking points ... so don't worry about the form vs substance stuff ... its more important to keep the ideas and dialogue coming than to have everything editorially perfect before you ever click to Post ... unless of course you deliberately used the ironic juxtaposition of "anti-label" labels in your anti-label rant ... in which case, you're just plain brilliant!! ... and more kudos to you!!

[bobbie]

how 'bout if we do label in this 'post-age' we use 'post-it's'? - not permanent, interchangeable, reusable - and disposable! :)

great post mike!

[Vaughn Thompson]

Heh, heh! Mike, This is good stuff! There's nothing like having something up one's harse (ahem!) to bring out one's inner prophet. Thanks.

[Wes]

Yes! Amen!! More!!!

[Fish]

Awesome post! You said so much of what I feel in this post!
Amen!

[RickinVa]

Mike... you write me to tell me I must've missed your "I'm contradicting myself" statement... one you apparently think disqualifies you from criticism on this post, one that then allows you to continue to bask in the glory of your apparent wisdom as your adoring fans scream for more.

Well, I ain't buying it.

Your ideological com-madre on the left fringe, Joan Chittister seems quite adept at using labels too:

The problem with the political agenda of the Radical Right is not that they're wrong...

Do Christians of the radical right...

As does your fellow leftist Jim Wallis:

But we are holding our own and getting out the message that the monologue of the Religious Right is over...

The religious right is not critical enough of the political right...

My bottom line is that if you're going to criticize the right for using labels, then you need to be consistent and criticize those you frequently link to who do the same...

... otherwise people who aren't prone to be so quick with the kudos might instead be quick to attach you with yet another label...

... hypocrite... whether you use qualifiers to hide it or not...

[Mike]

Thanks for trying to set me straight, Rick.

I'll tell you what - I'll think on what you've had to say, and you tell me what you think of what I've written from the first For instance down.

[Caroline]

Isn't it difficult to write in the English Language without using labels, they're a sort of short hand that saves us many lines of writing.

So, yes RickinVa is right in a way, Mike. You have rather contradicted yourself, so take a slap on the wrist and write 100 lines .. (British Irony there:-)

but

Mr RickinVa, could you slip past the semantic nicety to the substance? Do you think that some of Mike's options would enrich the pro-family and pro-life communities?

I notice that you label your website "Brutally Honest" .. uhuh .. with yourself and your own communities?

I proudly proclaim that I am pro-life, and I'm spending a lifetime finding out what that means for my work, church life ..

And I'm pro-family. I made a mess of mine and have had to come to pro-family through repentance and the grief of loss and failure.

So my pro-ness will try to add and not judge, will try to complement not judge and try to love and not judge.

which all means that, if I'm brutally honest with myself, that I'll have to avoid judging ...

[BradinVA]

‘Grudgingly, I admit it's probably naive of me to long for a post label culture. If we're going to use them though, let's try to make them accurate.’

Interesting post Mike. Good points and certainly has encouraged debate – which I believe is the purpose and always appreciated. I’d be very interested, however, in exactly what a ‘post label’ culture is.

There is a ‘tree’ in my front yard. Tree is a label that works in most instances. If you want more information – let’s have the discussion.

‘Pro-life’ is neither a complete nor accurate description – nor was tree – but both do set the context for a discussion for those who want more information.

For me, labels seem an unavoidable part of language. As for making them more descriptive… Do you have a crisp ‘label’ for a person who believes abortion is wrong, as is capital punishment, feels empathy for those young pregnant women who feel trapped and is also concerned about an administration that places so little value on civilian life that it asks people to strap bombs on themselves and blow up innocent men, women and children on sacred days in sacred locations all in the hopes of preventing democracy?

[Pete]

Great post.

The thought that struck me was that labels make things easy. If we label each other, we don't need to go any further. We don't need to really find out who anyone really is. The funny thing is that all these "labels" define what we are not who we are.

Perhaps some labels that describe who we are are the ones that should stick. Perhaps some might think it a bit simple but let's try 'child of God' or 'His precious treasure' or 'apprentice'.

[Ket]

i'm just wondering... does anyone mind being labeled "christian?" i mean really -- doesn't it just come down to what we do and don't regard as right or wrong?

i'm enjoying your blog. you have a new reader in indianapolis!

amy

[RickinVa]

I'll tell you what - I'll think on what you've had to say, and you tell me what you think of what I've written from the first For instance down.

I thought I already had... I see no reason to change what I've written... do you?

Caroline, smugly, writes:

I notice that you label your website "Brutally Honest" .. uhuh .. with yourself and your own communities?

Yes Caroline... do you have reasons to suspect otherwise? If so, put your money where you mouth is... or simply shut it.

So my pro-ness will try to add and not judge, will try to complement not judge and try to love and not judge.

which all means that, if I'm brutally honest with myself, that I'll have to avoid judging ...

Go back to your first question to me... you failed to avoid judging... which is ok here at Mike's place... he fails often to avoid doing what he decries in others... it's the liberal way... and yes, I used a label there... an appropriate one...

And BradinVa... loved your last question... many who come here are appalled that we would go to war to bring democracy/freedom/liberty to Afghans and Iraqis... if their way would've prevailed, well over 50 million people would continue to be oppressed under evil/brutal/thuggish regimes... and these same people I'd have to assume would think Jesus would then have his name back...

[Sue]

Interesting conversation so far......it's too bad, though, that what is standing out louder than anything else is how rude and abusive some people choose to be in the process.

[BradinVA]

Actually RickinVA, the few people I know personally on this site actually did support the military action in Afghanistan…I think because ‘liberation’ was a stated objective up front. Democracy in Iraq, on the other hand, is a potential (and I stress potential) fantastic outcome of the military action there, it was not the main reason we went. I maintain it was ‘a’ reason – but not ‘the’ reason. Therefore, although I disagree with their opposition, I understand where it comes from and respect their right to have it.

As for Mike’s style on this blog – I like it. I disagree with much of what he says – but also agree with a fair amount. However, what I respect in Mike is that he is willing to put his thoughts out there and stimulate debate. If he was more cautious or more adverse to controversy – I doubt that this would be a blog that I would visit.

[RickinVa]

Mike tells me I've been rude to Caroline... and owe her an apology...

Caroline, I'm sorry that my choice of words that questioned your questioning of my honesty and integrity weren't couched in the kind of nuance and backhanded insult that Mike (and apparently Sue and I'm sure others who visit here regularly) approve of...

I've not laid my hands on the discourse rulebook yet that approves and even teaches the finer art of ancillary and circuitious insults that seem so prevalent here and go without the confrontation and rebuke that comes when one practices these things as a reaction to the first and does so more openly, more directly, yes, more brutally honestly...

Once I find that rulebook and am able to study and inwardly digest it, I too can become skilled in the art of the backhanded cheap shot that garners not an admonition but instead promotes a oneness in voice, a unity of sorts that in some way gives Jesus his name back...

The problem is that I'm a tad slow to pick up on this art but with practice (and I'm sure the longer I hang here with Mike and his friends) I'll pick it all up and can join the throngs of others who decry the disrespecting of others unless it's done with innuendo, a hint of suggestion or a flavor of inference...

I was also reminded once more by Mike (privately) how the Bush administration (according to him and Jim Wallis and Joan Chittister and others on the Religious Left) did not "go to
war to bring democracy/freedom/liberty to Afghans and Iraqis".

Thankfully, there's recorded history that deals rather effectively with the intentional political amnesia so prevalently infecting certain segments of this administration's crtics.

[Mike]

Anyone care to comment on the issues I've really addressed in this post?

[Caroline]

Thanks for that reminder Mike!

but first ..

Mr RickinVa:

Smug, no .. but cross, yes and sarcastic yes, and in that I was wrong and I apologise: sorry.

How can we pro-life? I think that I would start with issues closser to home, Mike. I'd look at issues in my village about where I could add value to those who live round me. I'm exploring several possibilities: setting up a Timebank, helping support a local youthworker (like many small villages we have 'nothing for the kids to do'), I'm also exploring the possibility of setting up an entrepreneurs club (we've lost a lot of jobs in the village over the last 4 years).

Of course none of these tackle some of the mega issues that you raise, Mike. But they are possible and maybe, just maybe they'll light a flame of helping ourselves which might just spread ..

which is an interesting idea, cos

none of these ideas are original, they spread to me from some other candles I saw.

[matt]

I think for me, labels are something that work both for positive and negative. I've never really thought of pro-life in such a large context, and I don't know if it really works because there is so many grey issues that come under the "pro-life". Am I anti-capital punishment? No, I can't say I am, although because it is not an issue in Canada, I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it. But I can say that when things get close to home (example: would I be pro-life in every respect if something happened to one of my children?) can I maintain the consistency? Probably not, and to be honest, I don't know if I would even struggle with it. Do I consider myself pro-life? Yeah, I do. Sorry if that's inconsistent.

So are the labels consistent? No, I don't think they ever will. But I think just how things can get lost when we label people because the label is so large, I also think that when we spend so much time worrying about what the label means instead of just worrying about a proper response to the issue itself. So I feel a bit torn, because I think "language" is important, but at times I also think we can let labels be the issue.

I think the best example of that is all the responses to this blog. I suppose in all our lives, the struggle will continue to be "how do we keep the main thing the main thing?"

[Lisa]

One of the things that I liked about this post and which has stimulated my thinking is the less "glamourous" parts of having an opinion. Let me expand; it is easy to have an opinion on a big issue (abortion, war, politics, etc), but much more telling as to where you put your time and energy. Your comments about poverty, the working poor, single parents making working decisions based on economic need (and from that particular topic arises the issue of daycare accessibility), minimum wage, nutrition and the like have stimulated me to think about how my micro opinions and actions must be consistent with any macro opinions I have.

In some ways, I think we've got it ass backwards. We spend time talking about the "big" issues but don't take steps to put the "small" issues in place. If I was a parent, perhaps I could be thinking of day care accessibility issues. As a consumer, maybe I should be making choices to give my custom to locally owned shops rather than big box stores. One of the things that I am doing is paying my employee a living wage, and in the process, making sure I give her training so that if/when she leaves my employment, she leaves with marketable skills. Maybe those of us with specific professional skills should be mentoring lower income kids so that they've got connections and encouragement to make it in the work world. Those things all take time and money. It's a lot easier to have opinions on the big issues without being fruitful on the small issues.

That's why I liked your post, Mike.

[Caroline]

I was just visiting another blog and it occurred to me that labels are a bit like theology ..

great when used as a springboard to relating with Jesus

distructive when putting boundaries of right/wrong, in/out or us/them

of course, working out which is which is a bit tricky!

[stephanie]

Mike, after reading your post and then all the comments I find the essence for me of what you have asked is "by being a follower of Jesus am I willing to do what He would do here?"
I guess in all of the above discussions I am looking at the "label" of being a follower of Jesus and wondering if it fits me with each issue you have brought up. I am so at the point of not giving a damn if you are right or left but I'd sure like to see Jesus if that the label a person wants to wear. In fact, it isn't the label I want to see, it's Jesus within in I am looking for, and wanting to be.
Thanks for the thoughts, that provoke more thoughts...and lead to action.

[Mike]

Steph - thanks for cuttung through and saying what I was trying to say. Well said.

[anj]

Why I dislike labels - when I can label someone and put them into a nice, neat box, they become less someone who is made in the image of God, and more someone who is made in the image of how i think I see them. Objects like trees are easy to label - they have the same attributes, the same tendencies, and the same leaf shape. People are not objects. Talk to me about pro-life and my defination and how I live that defination out might be vastly different than what you might assume, but if you simply label me a pro-lifer than the questions stop, and you never really get to know me, and if I label you anything, the questions stop and I miss getting to know you. How do I get to know you better if I have already labeled you? How do I get to experience that bit of the image of God you carry within you if I have already labeled you? Great post Mike, great sum up Steph.

[RickinVa]

Caroline, apology accepted, and I offer you one of my own... my words to you were a reflection of what I saw to be your words to me... to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, being absurd to point out absurdity is quite effective if (and only if) after it's over the discussion continues...

And continuing this discussion I think can be fruitful if, in my view, we focus especially on Steph's words...

I want to believe that spiritually both the right and the left arms of the body of Christ are pumping in a manner that propels Christ forward rather than flailing in a manner that does nothing but manifest imbalance...

That may be hard for some to swallow given my history... but it's the truth... it's a reason why I keep coming back here, keep visiting Stephanie's site and a number of others who I might disagree with but who I offer respect (at times begrudgingly)...

Steph's words I think are at the heart of where the Church needs to be... and at the heart of that is who we say defines the person of Christ...

The left's focus on the poor is a correct focus but not at the expense of the right's focus on what has historically lifted the poor from the shackles of poverty...

The right's focus on the baby in the womb is a correct focus but not at the expense of the mother bringing that child into the world or the life she faces once the child is born...

The left's focus on treating the homosexual with dignity and respect is a correct focus but not at the expense of those who cling to the notion that homosexuality grieves the heart of God as does all that the Scripture calls sin...

I am and will likely remain a sinewy member of the body of Christ's right arm...

Mike is and will likely remain an important tendon of the body of Christ's left arm...

Ignoring these kinds of "facts", like ignoring certain labels, comes with a high risk of obscuring, of obfuscating, what it is that makes us different and an even higher probability of thickening the fog of that misunderstanding that is at the heart of the divide...

So my bottom line is that labels are important but only if the discussion continues... if, as others have said, they are used to simply stifle or gag discourse (and God knows I've used them as such in the past and am likely, sadly, to use them in that manner again), then the body of Christ is indeed off-balance and not moving in the direction that The Groom would have His bride move...

I've said enough, probably confused the hell out of most, so let me do what writers are supposed to do when they close...

My bottom line is that I think God needs both arms... a right arm and a left arm... attempts to try to make the left arm look weaker, attempts to make the right arm look overly muscular, need to stop...

And what needs to continue, in earnest, is the right arm working with the left arm to accomplish that work that God has purposed for His body...

I don't pretend to know how to go about that or even to stay focused on it... so I continue to ask Him to lead, to guide, to direct and to do so gently because I will need much direction, much guidance and visible and patient leading...

'Nuff said... for now anyway...

[gord]

The other thing we can use a left & right arm for is a hug ... consider this that ... good post Rick.

[matt]

Not to have a big love-in for RickinVa, but that is great stuff.

One question...who or what how is the most effective way to maintain that balance? The tension in my life has been being raised in the "right", tilting to left, and trying now to somehow prevent myself from swinging all the way around so hard that I kick myself in the ass.

Just wondering?

[Mike]

Nicely said, Rick. Sounds like good opportunity for dialogue to me. First things first... help me get that visual image of Matt jumping around on one leg trying to kick himself out of my head.

Please.

[Josh]

"And did I mention that Jesus called and He wants His name back?"

Hmmmmm.. it seems to me that Jesus gave himself quite a few names. Maybe we could just leave him with the names he gave himself and call it good. I'm betting that this was kinda the point you were trying to make in general Mike. Let's not overdefine Jesus and just let Him be who He is and leave it at that. It's probably better that way anyways. That's my take on it anyways.

Cheers.

[John]

Dragging this up again, a thought occurred to me.

Mike isn't (as far as I can see and for all his hyperbole) calling for labels to be abolished, but for them to be *accurate*. So, if you want to call yourself "pro-life", ensure that you are for *all* life. If you only want to prevent abortion, say so. There's nothing wrong with either position so clarity can only help.

We cannot communicate at all without labels of some sort, but labels (like all words and jargon) sometimes need to be defined carefully before we can communicate properly. When labels get in the way, then, we need to go beneath the label to the contents.

pax et bonum

[Drina]

Mike isn't (as far as I can see and for all his hyperbole) calling for labels to be abolished, but for them to be *accurate*.

John, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The current usage of labels such as "pro-family" and "pro-life" are inaccurate, or at the least, incomplete. But I don't think calling for accuracy will do much good --these labels are inaccurate for a reason. Few Christians will openly support an exclusively "anti-homosexual" movement, but when labelled "pro-family," the "anti-homosexual" becomes easier to support. It's just the way it is.