Label Obsession

Labels can be important. My brother-in-law is a Chevy man. He wouldn't dare buy a Ford truck. Some of the girls in my church will only buy certain jeans - Seven for All Mankind, Paper Denim, True Religion. They claim they can't wear Gap, Old Navy, or Levis. There are folks who will only drink Starbucks; there are some who refuse Satrbucks. I grew up only liking Campbell's pork-n-beans, but my wife has converted me to Bush's. From cars, orange juice, and footballs to handguns, beer, and carburators, we like our labels.

And then there are styles: We have punks and preps, goths and guidos. Emo. Geek. Hippie. Gangsta. Cowboy.

And then there are Christians: Conservative. Liberal. Evangelical. Mainline. Orthodox. Calvinist. Pro-life. Pro-choice. Pre-millenial. Post-millenial. Pan-millenial (it all pans out in the end).

And then there are denominations: Methodist, United Methodist, African Methodist Episcopal, Episcopal, Evegelical Free, Evangelical Covenant, Presbyterian Church-USA, Presbyterian Church of America, Pentecostal, Pentecostal Holiness, Church of God, United Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, Southern Baptist, American Baptist, Independent Baptist, Missionary Baptist, Free Will Baptist, Non-denominational, Mennonite, Brethren, Lutheran, Wesleyan, and the list goes on and on.

And as if the denominations were not enough, we have now created more labels for our churches: Purpose-Driven, Willow Creek Association, and now, the really hot one...Emergent.

I, for one, am tired of the labels. It seems to me that the labels do two primary things: 1) They show everyone how we misalign ourselves, or 2) They try to announce that we are somehow better than everyone else. I was sitting with a group of pastors doing what pastors do best - talking about churches. We started talking about a guy that had started a network of churches in tattoo shops.

"What kind of church is that?" one of the pastors asked.

"It was a postmo...an emer..." He turned to me and continued, "What would you call it, Jonathan?"

"I'd call it a church."

I can remember being part of groups that longed to be in a "purpose-driven church." I can remember talking about my church as an "emergent church." But now it all seems so...well...stupid. What is an emerging church? It depends on who you ask. Ask Tony Jones and you'll hear about a theological conversation. Ask John O'Keefe and you'll get a nice rule of pinky. Ask D.A. Carson and you'll hear it's insensible. Ask some megachurch pastors and you'll hear it's about the lighting, candles, and music.

For me, the label became pointless when I realized how many people were trying to fit into the packaging of the label. Rob Bell's book "Velvet Elvis" hit the shelves and sold faster than paparazzi photos of Paris Hilton. These coorporate church pastors are reading the book. And they are getting their churches to read the book too. Rob's church is considered by folks to be an emerging church. Rob's church is huge. These pastors want huge churches. They want to tap the younger crowd and do the cool thing. Rob can show the way. Rick Bell. Rob Hybels. The purpose-driven velvet Elvis going fishing in the Willow Creek! I recently talked to a pastor who told me about a new worship service they were starting. He said that it was going to be "darker and use a more Emergent kind of music, like Chris Tomlin or David Crowder." A few months back I was talking with a group of church-planters who identified their churches as "emergent." Most were trying to fit the Bush label on the Campbell's can. The "Emergent" label, after all, is cooler. Forget the theological deconstruction/reconstruction/conversation. Let's kill the lights so we can be labeled "emergent."

I suppose if I wanted to, I could call myself "green." I hike. I enjoy being among creation. I recycle. I eat hormone-free meats, and I occassionaly buy some organic snacks. Sure, I am green. I am green-er than many other folks who don't recycle, stay indoors all the time, and only eat precessed foods. But then again, I'm not as green as many others who march for environmental causes, grow their own organic crops, and always choose paper instead of plastic. Then there are even the folks who will not wash their cars because of the run-off and the folks who choose neither plastic nor paper - they bring their own. I state all of this only to show one thing: most anyone can claim the label if they want to.

The reality is that most folks would consider my church to be "emergent." We are certainly part of the theological conversation Tony talks about. We fit every descriptor in John's "rule of pinky." (Rule of thumb, he says, is too modern!) And I'm sure D.A. would say we are, at times, insinsible. But still, I'm just not sure I am comfortable with the "emergent" label. After all, what does it mean? When a label fails to say anything, what good is a label in the first place. And when the label does say something that is, for all intensive purposes, an elitist assertion (i.e. "We are more progressive than you." "We exegete culture better than you." We have grappled with our theology more than you." "We are closer to the real church than you are." "We are more authentic than you are." "We know more of what it means to live in community than you do."), what good is it to the Kingdom of God?

God is not pleased with the deviciveness of the Church. God is not pleased with our misaligning labels whether they are old ones (conservative, liberal, contemporary, traditional) or our new ones (purpose-driven, Willow-back, or Emergent). Why can't we just leave all the labels behind? Why can't we just be the church? Why can't we just love Jesus and love people?

And why can't we all just love Macs more than PC's?