Resources

CHALLENGE

Labels are for jars, not people

ELAINE STORKEY is tired of dangerous, sweeping labels – all bar one

There is such a strong tendency to give people labels. We read it in newspapers, and watch it on television every day. Labels trip so quickly off the tongue in almost any interview or panel discussion: "Now with us in the studio we have a 'gay rights campaigner' and a 'conservative Catholic' to discuss the issue of civil partnerships …"

Labels are offered as a short-hand summary of who a person is and what that person thinks. They alert us to what we are about to hear. They also predispose us to either listen more intently or to ignore and dismiss the speaker.

Like many others, I have often been on the other end of a label; several in fact. In my time I have been called 'evangelical', 'radical', 'conservative', 'feminist', 'pro-life', 'academic', 'social activist', 'Christian philosopher', 'family values promoter', 'ecologist', 'justice advocate', and (in my Christian Herald articles) 'pacifist' and 'anti-American.'

It is interesting that those who give people labels have often very little to go on. It is easier to apply the label 'anti-American' for example, if you don't know that the person concerned has twice lived in America and goes back to speak three or four times a year at the invitation of many friends there!

Nor do people necessarily know what precisely is implied by some terms like 'feminist' or 'social activist'. And it is not unusual for some people to be given seemingly incompatible labels, like 'conservative' or 'radical' depending on the point of view of the speaker. What is evident, however, is that the labels do have an effect on people who are being introduced. The person so defined might be greeted with warm enthusiasm and applause, along with a knowing nod of approval from those on 'their' side, or with muted hostility and reserve from those who have already decided they will dislike what they are now about to hear.

The problem with labels is that they are so inadequate. How can the complexities of human experiences, ideas and passions be summed up by one banal term? How can the word 'pro-lifer' begin to uncover all the arguments involved in the debate about abortion or euthanasia?

The other problem is that they come with so much ideological baggage. Those who choose labels for their own self-definition inevitably buy into a cluster of ideas, some of which they actually might want to reject if they gave the issue a little more consideration. And people begin to see themselves as members of a group or club, bound up with other people through a common label. They are often defined over against another group, embodying principles which others (the opposition) do not hold.

Whilst it is congenial to find people with whom we agree, it is also dangerous if it means we end up as part of a tight 'inner circle', defending ideologies and interests, rather than finding points of contact with others or allowing ourselves to use discernment. And the process of becoming entrenched is an easy one. People who accept labels can find themselves selective in their sympathies, intolerant of those who think differently, and incapable of genuinely appreciating what the other side has to say. They can be mean-spirited towards those whom they regard as less orthodox, or enlightened, or radical or conservative than they.

Before long, they can begin to form power-cliques and even start to use authority or intellectual intimidation to shut down debate. When this happens within Christian circles, it erodes the power of the Gospel to challenge and convict. For in an atmosphere where nothing is open, even the Holy Spirit can be quenched.

If we are in any doubt about the danger of this, we only need to read the Gospels. Very often people around Jesus tried to label him. The Scribes and Pharisees regularly tested him to see if he was one of them, and could be admitted into their club. And when the answers he gave did not fit, they found other labels to describe him: "Friend of tax-collectors and sinners" (Luke 7:34; Luke 15:2), "Samaritan" and "demon-possessed" (John 8:45).

The problem was not only that their labels failed to do justice to Jesus or else were wildly inaccurate. They also gave those who opposed Jesus a reason for not listening to him. And the result was disastrous. For even though they were in the very presence of Jesus, they never saw the miracles, never heard the truth and never encountered the person that he really was – their longed-for Messiah, and the Son of God.

Describing a person's views and sticking a label on them are two very different processes. For a proper description takes time. It requires that we enter into what they think, consider what they say, look at what has brought them to that position and present it faithfully to other people, even if we ourselves disagree. It also requires that we acknowledge that our interpretation of that person is bound to be partial and limited. Our description must stand open to correction. But a label does none of this. It simply categorises a person, sums them up in one word, and then files them away.

One name, however, is different. It was first given as a nickname, but readily embraced by those who received it. Acts 11 reports the first use of the label 'Christian'. Yet from the start it was always more than a label. It was a statement of faith, a mark of commitment, identifying those who believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God and were willing to give their lives for his service.

Ever since, millions have shaped their lives around the content of that word, and many have faced death rather than relinquish it. Today we choose other labels, so that people know we are this kind of Christian and not that kind. But the highest calling is to be a follower of Christ.

And 'Christian' is one label I never refuse.

Elaine Storkey is president of Tearfund


		CHALLENGE Labels are for jars, not people ELAINE STORKEY is tired of dangerous, sweeping labels – all bar one There is such a strong tendency to give people labels. We read it in newspapers, and watch it on television every day. Labels trip so quickly off the tongue in almost any interview or panel discussion: "Now with us in the studio we have a 'gay rights campaigner' and a 'conservative Catholic' to discuss the issue of civil partnerships …" Labels are offered as a short-hand summary of who a person is and what that person thinks. They alert us to what we are about to hear. They also predispose us to either listen more intently or to ignore and dismiss the speaker. Like many others, I have often been on the other end of a label; several in fact. In my time I have been called 'evangelical', 'radical', 'conservative', 'feminist', 'pro-life', 'academic', 'social activist', 'Christian philosopher', 'family values promoter', 'ecologist', 'justice advocate', and (in my Christian Herald articles) 'pacifist' and 'anti-American.' It is interesting that those who give people labels have often very little to go on. It is easier to apply the label 'anti-American' for example, if you don't know that the person concerned has twice lived in America and goes back to speak three or four times a year at the invitation of many friends there! Nor do people necessarily know what precisely is implied by some terms like 'feminist' or 'social activist'. And it is not unusual for some people to be given seemingly incompatible labels, like 'conservative' or 'radical' depending on the point of view of the speaker. What is evident, however, is that the labels do have an effect on people who are being introduced. The person so defined might be greeted with warm enthusiasm and applause, along with a knowing nod of approval from those on 'their' side, or with muted hostility and reserve from those who have already decided they will dislike what they are now about to hear. The problem with labels is that they are so inadequate. How can the complexities of human experiences, ideas and passions be summed up by one banal term? How can the word 'pro-lifer' begin to uncover all the arguments involved in the debate about abortion or euthanasia? The other problem is that they come with so much ideological baggage. Those who choose labels for their own self-definition inevitably buy into a cluster of ideas, some of which they actually might want to reject if they gave the issue a little more consideration. And people begin to see themselves as members of a group or club, bound up with other people through a common label. They are often defined over against another group, embodying principles which others (the opposition) do not hold. Whilst it is congenial to find people with whom we agree, it is also dangerous if it means we end up as part of a tight 'inner circle', defending ideologies and interests, rather than finding points of contact with others or allowing ourselves to use discernment. And the process of becoming entrenched is an easy one. People who accept labels can find themselves selective in their sympathies, intolerant of those who think differently, and incapable of genuinely appreciating what the other side has to say. They can be mean-spirited towards those whom they regard as less orthodox, or enlightened, or radical or conservative than they. Before long, they can begin to form power-cliques and even start to use authority or intellectual intimidation to shut down debate. When this happens within Christian circles, it erodes the power of the Gospel to challenge and convict. For in an atmosphere where nothing is open, even the Holy Spirit can be quenched. If we are in any doubt about the danger of this, we only need to read the Gospels. Very often people around Jesus tried to label him. The Scribes and Pharisees regularly tested him to see if he was one of them, and could be admitted into their club. And when the answers he gave did not fit, they found other labels to describe him: "Friend of tax-collectors and sinners" (Luke 7:34; Luke 15:2), "Samaritan" and "demon-possessed" (John 8:45). The problem was not only that their labels failed to do justice to Jesus or else were wildly inaccurate. They also gave those who opposed Jesus a reason for not listening to him. And the result was disastrous. For even though they were in the very presence of Jesus, they never saw the miracles, never heard the truth and never encountered the person that he really was – their longed-for Messiah, and the Son of God. Describing a person's views and sticking a label on them are two very different processes. For a proper description takes time. It requires that we enter into what they think, consider what they say, look at what has brought them to that position and present it faithfully to other people, even if we ourselves disagree. It also requires that we acknowledge that our interpretation of that person is bound to be partial and limited. Our description must stand open to correction. But a label does none of this. It simply categorises a person, sums them up in one word, and then files them away. One name, however, is different. It was first given as a nickname, but readily embraced by those who received it. Acts 11 reports the first use of the label 'Christian'. Yet from the start it was always more than a label. It was a statement of faith, a mark of commitment, identifying those who believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God and were willing to give their lives for his service. Ever since, millions have shaped their lives around the content of that word, and many have faced death rather than relinquish it. Today we choose other labels, so that people know we are this kind of Christian and not that kind. But the highest calling is to be a follower of Christ. And 'Christian' is one label I never refuse. Elaine Storkey is president of Tearfund