I know everyone is unique, but I don't think of myself as dramatically different than anyone else. I'm guessing, then, that this may be a common occurrence and you, too, have experienced it. Maybe not. Here's your chance to find out if I'm as far out there as some have suggested or not. Does this ever happen to you?
I'm talking about an idea, a basic concept, but I have to do it with illustrations. I am a Christian. So someone finds out that I'm a Christian and they immediately start to question me about how I could be a Christian when so many people have been killed by religion. "What do you mean?" I'll always ask (because I always figure it's a good practice to determine what they mean rather than infer it) and sometimes they'll point to the fanatic Islam-types who kill people. "What does that have to do with me?" I'll ask. "I'm a Christian." Then they'll invariably come to the Crusades. "Those were Christians." So here I am, a Christian, being asked to defend something with which I disagree. I hate that. Or a Christian will find out that I'm a Calvinist. "Oh," they might say, "how can you be a Calvinist when he burned that guy at the stake?" Already I'm someplace I never would go. I didn't burn anyone at a stake. I don't favor burning anyone at a stake. And, bottom line, "Calvinism" came into being long after Calvin burned Servitus at the stake. So ... what's the question? "Oh, you know," they might go on, "you Calvinists don't believe in free will." Maybe it's not free will. Maybe it's that we believe that humans have no choices or maybe it's that we believe that the atonement wasn't sufficient for all sin or maybe it's that we believe that God doesn't love everyone. There are a host of "Calvinist" beliefs that will be trotted out and I'm supposed to explain how I could possibly believe in them. Oddly, I don't. Generally it's a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation. Sometimes it's dead wrong. And if I ask, "Where did you get that?" they'll say something like, "From Calvinists I've known." So, again, I'm left standing here trying to defend positions I find indefensible and trying to explain beliefs I neither know nor hold.
It happens in lots of places. It's not just religion. It might be Intelligent Design. I'm not in favor of putting it in science, but if I say that I believe in Intelligent Design, suddenly I'm anti-science, a lunatic intent on overthrowing the scientific world with my whacked out religious beliefs as demonstrated by (and they'll list names I've never heard) and (they'll list things they purportedly did or said that are not what I think). Science, philosophy, religion, politics, it happens all over the place. Labels are placed. Positions are taken. Battle lines are drawn. And I, somewhere not likely in any of those places even if I'm somewhat related to them, stand out here defending myself on issues and beliefs I've never held. Does this ever happen to you?
It's odd to me. It's like we believe there is some sort of monolith of beliefs. Everyone who is vaguely associated with whatever the position might be is immediately considered perfectly aligned with that monolith. No one deviates. There are no individuals. And if you protest and say, "Well, maybe some believe that, but I don't" you're shouted down as ignorant, stupid, or a liar. As if I don't know what I believe? As if I don't have the intelligence to believe what I believe? As if the only possible belief is that monolith? As if I don't have the right to come to my own conclusions? It's like saying "All Evolutionists believe the same thing." Of course that's nonsense. There may indeed be commonalities found, for instance, in the title, "Evolutionists," and there would likely be some rudimentary agreement, but after that I would expect each individual to vary, sometimes wildly. That's what I would expect. I know that I don't think like other Republicans. I know that I don't have the same theology as other Christians in general or other Calvinists in particular. I know I deviate in what I think as an American from other Americans. I know I don't fall in line with all Intelligent Design theorists even though I like the idea.
When I'm talking to someone and they express a viewpoint different from my own, I often try to ask questions. It might be easy to lump them with others who have expressed a similar viewpoint. However, I know that I've been too often lumped in piles I don't fit and taken lumps when they want me to defend beliefs I don't have. So I think I'm doing people who differ from me a favor by asking them for more details. I (blindly, perhaps) think that they might be individuals and they might have viewpoints that differ from the main. And I prefer to think that they're intelligent enough to have thought it out. If not, they'll prove me wrong and I can live with that. But I know how much I dislike having to defend beliefs I don't believe. I've done it for so long that I rarely, it seems, get to defend what I do believe. I hope not to subject others to that same torment. Does that ever happen to you?
3 comments:
Mmm…well…yes and no.
There certainly is a danger in the use of labels to either attach a deliberate designation as derogatory (sorry, but “Darwinian evolutionist” comes to mind as such a label) OR the use of labels to stereotype a group and refusing to believe individuals within that group could be anything outside the label. Like thinking all divorced fathers are dead-beat dads.
However, on the flip side, labels are handy for communicating. If I tell you I am an atheist—this “label” gives you more information about me. It may not mean I am like Dawkins, or I hold to the same things Hitchens does—but you can rely upon the idea I do not believe in a god. If we start to call any designation a “label” and demand its basic definition does not apply to all who hold to that label, we start to lose the ability to communicate.
Sure there are deviations in beliefs within a label, but not the word “deviation” assumes a norm for the label itself! Let me use two examples:
Imagine I told you I was a Calvinist. But I also believed one could lose their salvation—no eternal security. I also do not believe God predestines people to be saved—it is completely a matter of human choice. Oh, and I believe in universalism—all get saved. But I still insist I am a Calvinist.
Wouldn’t you scratch your head and wonder why I utilize a label “Calvinist” when some of the basic premises of Calvinism I do not hold on to? Or are you saying if a person wants to call themselves a Calvinist, I cannot assume anything about their position regarding eternal security, predestination, limited atonement, etc.?
Can you see how labels, while not completely sufficient, ARE helpful in communication?
Another example. Previously you said:
Stan: …but basic, orthodox Christianity is in agreement that Man is sinful, that salvation comes through Christ alone, and only by faith in Christ can we be saved. Bingo! Christianity! There are natural derivatives. Is the Bible God's Word? If you are going to have any reason to believe anything about Christianity, you'll have to conclude that it is or Christianity loses its meaning. And what about the nature of God? Well, if you want to get right with God and be a follower of Christ, it seems essential that you'd need to have a right view of God and Christ. So doctrines like the Deity of Christ and the Trinity become non-negotiable.
This seems to me to be defining necessary elements of the label “Christianity.” I know of a few atheists who insist they are entitled to be called “Christians” because they define the term to be “Christ-like” and since they follow (some) of the precepts Jesus allegedly taught, they qualify as “Christ-like” or “Christian.” Personally, I think this is a horrible idea (I tend to agree with you “Christian” has a necessary definition regarding the deity of Christ), yet if you are saying we can’t use labels—can you narrow “Christianity” to these terms?
I appreciate what you are saying—simply because you are the label “Christian” does not necessarily translate that you approve of the actions of the Crusades. Yet on the other hand, does the label “Christian” provide more information about you? Or could it mean anything?
Oh, dagoods, I agree with you about labels. I've written another post on the whole topic of "shorthand" because we use labels that way. And they have their purpose. The problem occurs when the person reading the label fails to recognize that the label is shorthand ... and the person who is labeled (either by their own hand or someone else) is an individual.
Your example of "atheist" is a perfect example. It says something ... but not everything. It includes "no god", but how far? A soft atheist or a hard atheist? A lack of belief or a solid rejection? Respectful or militant? So "atheist" gets lumped with, say, Stalin who was also an atheist and "How can you even face being an atheist when Stalin's atheism failed to prevent him from killing millions??!"
On the other hand, if "Christian" can mean "whatever I want it to mean" ("Christian" is just an example), then the label loses its meaning entirely. For me, when I hear the label "Christian" in particular, I make few assumptions at the outset. I need to know "What do you mean by that?" before I assume what is meant. Some people mean "I'm not opposed to it." Some people, amazingly, simply mean "I'm an American." (Seriously, I've met them.)
Labels have their use and purpose and I wouldn't want to eliminate them. What I would want is to have people use them and understand them, realizing that they are people behind those labels. Find out what is intended before you assume all that the label includes.
(By the way, when I used "Darwinian Evolution" as a label, I tried to use it as a specific term. It was to differentiate between all other Evolutionists which could include all sorts of nuances. If the label didn't fit, by no means should you use it. I would, on the other hand, think that those who are proud believers in Darwinian Evolution, the kind that is intended to exclude God, wouldn't be insulted by its use.)
It's easy to get caught up in the language game that is committed to enviscerating the opposition at all costs. It is a temptation that you are avoiding when you ask for greater clarification of what others do believe.
I think having analytical philosophy taught in K12 education might help. It forces you to stop and analyze [i.e. think] before you jump in. Wittgenstein's most repeated line was "What do you mean by that?"
Btw, that was why I disagreed with the Darwin-Hitler controversy being included in the current debate over ID vs. Evolution in "Expelled". The Darwinian Evolutionists of today believe that ID is not science [what they agree on], not that eugenics is a good idea. I think one reason why they might refuse eugenics now is that a lot of those "experiments" on people and plants now look like the uninformed quackery that they were. Example: The Everglades was severely damaged by transplants that were meant to "control" the environment in the 20s and 30s.
A friend of mine told me the other day that melaleuca trees were planted there in the 20s because they soak up water and the purpose was to "dry up" the Everglades. I said, "Why would you want to dry up the Everglades?" and we laughed about it. [The Everglades is the drain field for south Florida. W/o it we'd be flooding all the time.]
So the problem with labeling in regards to defeating a person in a debate has that flaw that it likes a vacuum.
Therefore, Calvinists must agree with Calvin and thus they are complicit in Servetus' burning, and again that Evolutionists today are marching in lock step with Hitler.
Good post. I think it makes us all think.
Post a Comment