Are they divisive? I would like to address my last question first. I do not think name-tags are particularly divisive in themselves. In fact it would seem that we have them BECAUSE WE ARE divided, and use them to try to help sort out the division. That being said, to cling to a name-tag as if it has some sort of scriptural mandate can be divisive. I do know churches/pastors who do not fellowship with others because they don't have the right "name".
Are they helpful? Are they confusing? The name-tags may be helpful in the short term and general sense. They allow us to give a quick answer that identifies us in a general way. When you answer, "I am a Calvinist", I may not know exactly what you believe, but I at least have a good idea of what you do not believe. Association or convention name-tags serve the purpose of identifying one as a general supporter of that group. In fact, with the smaller associations, they can be quite effecient in identifying what you believe. But to be identified with a group as large as the SBC, or as ecumenical as the ABCUSA, provides little to no insight into where one may actually stand. When we get into names such as independent, fundamental, conservative, moderate, and liberal, we get into terms that have such broad and multi-defined (or undefined) usage that they, in my opinion, indentify almost nothing. Independent means unaffiliated to me, but a large number of "independents" are actually affiliated with some association or fellowship. I read just last week an old-line Primitive Baptist elder speak of the "liberals" in his sub-denomination. If you know a little about the present state of conflict among them, it has meaning, but if a person is thinking of liberal in the broader context of the whole Baptist denomination, he would have absolutely no idea of what the elder was speaking, and, in fact, be misled. Conservative & liberal are so often used to mean someone that is more "conservative" or more "liberal" than the one speaking or writing, they have about lost their value. Another harmful aspect of "name-tags" is that you are often not allowed to choose your own, but are stuck with the one someone else chooses for you.
I reserve the right to define what I believe. That is partly because my theology is so confused that I don't really feel like I fit in anywhere .
Finally, if we could just get the heretical non-Baptist "Baptists" to quit using the name Baptist, we would go a long way toward solving the problem . If you need anyone to define who are the Baptists and who are not, I am available
.
Are they helpful? Are they confusing? The name-tags may be helpful in the short term and general sense. They allow us to give a quick answer that identifies us in a general way. When you answer, "I am a Calvinist", I may not know exactly what you believe, but I at least have a good idea of what you do not believe. Association or convention name-tags serve the purpose of identifying one as a general supporter of that group. In fact, with the smaller associations, they can be quite effecient in identifying what you believe. But to be identified with a group as large as the SBC, or as ecumenical as the ABCUSA, provides little to no insight into where one may actually stand. When we get into names such as independent, fundamental, conservative, moderate, and liberal, we get into terms that have such broad and multi-defined (or undefined) usage that they, in my opinion, indentify almost nothing. Independent means unaffiliated to me, but a large number of "independents" are actually affiliated with some association or fellowship. I read just last week an old-line Primitive Baptist elder speak of the "liberals" in his sub-denomination. If you know a little about the present state of conflict among them, it has meaning, but if a person is thinking of liberal in the broader context of the whole Baptist denomination, he would have absolutely no idea of what the elder was speaking, and, in fact, be misled. Conservative & liberal are so often used to mean someone that is more "conservative" or more "liberal" than the one speaking or writing, they have about lost their value. Another harmful aspect of "name-tags" is that you are often not allowed to choose your own, but are stuck with the one someone else chooses for you.
I reserve the right to define what I believe. That is partly because my theology is so confused
that I don't really feel like I fit in anywhere .Finally, if we could just get the heretical non-Baptist "Baptists" to quit using the name Baptist, we would go a long way toward solving the problem
. If you need anyone to define who are the Baptists and who are not, I am available
