The Danger of Labels

"The masquerade is over; it's time to ... use the dreaded 'L' word, to say the policies of our opposition ... are liberal, liberal, liberal." -- Ronald Reagan, 1988

Simply put, labels such as conservative, liberal, radical, reactionary or progressive, are dangerous and really have no place in the Church or in the ministry. Labels are a crossover from the world of politics. They have unclear meanings that are relative to the user and can be easily misconstrued. Labels place people in boxes that are often inaccurate descriptions of their position on other issues. Labels ultimately result in branding.

Labels are a crossover from the world of politics.

The terms "left" and "right" came into use after the French revolution. In the French National Assembly, the "liberals" sat to the left of the president's chair, the "moderates" in the center, and the "conservatives" to the right. Those on the left were designated "liberals" and "radicals" because they wanted to make major reforms in politics and the economy. Their opponents on the right became "conservatives" and "reactionaries" because they were aristocratic nationalists who wanted to return to the status quo of the ancient regime. Those in the center were the "moderates" who were looking for a compromise. This dichotomy may have made sense during the French revolution, but once the principles of freedom and constitutional law were established (in America, at least), the "liberals" gradually became "conservatives" by defending the new status quo of liberty and limited government. Turnabout being fair play, in the 20th century the collectivists who pushed to eliminate economic freedom and expand the role of the state became the "liberals" or "progressives." Having adopted the favorable titles of "progressive," "modern" and "advanced," they scorned the opposition as "right-wing" and "reactionary." Thus, in the twisted world of political labeling, what the 19th century liberals supported--free enterprise capitalism and laissez faire government--the 20th-century liberals opposed by pushing for big government and interventionism in the marketplace.

Thus, the 19th century liberal ideals became the policies of some (but by no means all) 20th century conservatives.Label confusion has reigned ever since, and the political spectrum has become a rhetorical version of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first?" routine or as Alonzo and Oscar used to sing, “I’m my own grandpa.”

Consider this confusion: Marxists, Communists and other socialists became the "radical left," while the Fascists of the 1930s in Italy and Nazi Germany were designated "right wingers" simply because they opposed the "Reds." But the only difference in their political philosophy was nationalism vs. internationalism. The fascists were in fact socialists as well. As the 60’s folk song said, the one on the right was on the left, and the one on the left was on the right and the one in the middle, was a Methodist!

If labeling can have such consequences in the political spectrum, consider how much worse it becomes in the religious world. Catholic conservatives may emphasize papal infallibility, the veneration of Mary and long to hear Mass in Latin, while their liberal counterparts long for expressive worship, tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In the Protestant world, liberal and conservative terms are largely used in reference to the role of women in ministry and social issues.

Furthermore, labels have different meanings in different contexts. One can be theologically conservative, economically conservative, socially conservative, libertarian conservative or politically conservative. (For example, the wife of conservative presidential candidate Barry Goldwater was also an avid supporter of Planned Parenthood.)

Being “liberal” and being “conservative” mean different things to different people, depending on the definition of both the one using the term, and those hearing the label. “Liberalism” can denote an attitude, a philosophical orientation, a set of policy and voting preferences, or a theological orientation.

To put it bluntly, a Pentecostal who is considered “liberal” in one region, may fit in better with the “conservatives” in another region of the United States, while a “conservative” in some districts may be thought quite “liberal” in others. I once told someone, I am a conservative on holiness and doctrine, liberal on giving, radical on prayer and worship, progressive on outreach methods and a bit reactionary on my music preferences. Huh? The meanings of labels are relative to the user and can be easily misconstrued. Who decides what defines a “conservative Apostolic” or a “liberal Apostolic”?

In my home district I prefer that our adult women wear their hair up, while other pastors insist it should be down, and still others think women should wear hats and scarves. Who decides which is most conservative?

Labels ultimately result in branding.

Labels put people in boxes, which often cause us to make incorrect assumptions about each other. Labels cause us to avoid actual discussions about beliefs or ideas. When someone's alleged philosophy is labeled, thinking stops and name-calling begins. We usually hear, He is a liberal, instead of; he holds some liberal (or conservative) positions.

Bernard Goldberg, author of the bestseller Bias, offers two numbers to prove his point about labeling. First, he says that a six-month search of The New York Times showed that the word "conservative" popped up in news stories 1,580 times; "liberal" only 802 times. The use of terms shifts the focus away from ideas and toward personalities. He is a conservative judge. She is a liberal senator.

“Branding” refers to the process of turning connotations into denotations. At the outset, words such as liberal or conservative have what semanticists would call "attributive" definitions -- they simply mean "one who believes or advocates such and such." Over time, though, a label may be associated with various connotations and stereotypes until it ultimately becomes "referential" rather than attributive - its definition is less a matter of what one believes than the kind of character that person is perceived to be.

If labels are necessary, Scriptural terms are found in abundance. These adjectives could include words such as: ungodly, wicked, effeminate, righteous, pure, lovely, faithful, whoremonger, carnal, joyful, shameful, holy- the list of choices are lengthy.

The solution is clear. Because labeling is divisive and misleading, it serves no beneficial purpose in the Kingdom of God. We need to avoid non-Scriptural terms that have secular connotations attached to them, and have no common definition. Furthermore, we should attempt to identify the position someone holds on specific issues, rather than make general assumptions about them on other issues.