The Power of Naming
There is power in a name, and enormous amounts of power can be exercised by the one who bestows a name. The very act of naming is in and of itself a performance of authority.
We give names in order to give recognition and even to prove ownership, such as when we name a boat or a child, or even give a pet name to our loved ones. And we also give names in order to protect ourselves from having to understand a person, a people, or a thing. Giving a name, in this way, is actually giving the one who names the ability to control what appears to be uncontrollable, and offers a pardon from having to know more about that which he or she has named. It is a way to dismiss someone or something without having to grow or learn. This kind of naming is the fodder that empowers racism, homophobia, and grudges.
We have all used this naming power many times. When we disagree with someone, the temptation to put a name on them is immediate. If I can give this person a name, I can box them in without having to listen. I might give them a political title or refer to their generation, nationality, or hometown.
Jesus was called a glutton and a drunk, when the authorities wanted to box him in (s. Mat 11:19 NIV).
There are Christians who assume the power to brand other Christians with titles like “Emergent”, so that those who don’t assume the “orthodox” beliefs can all be rolled into a convenient ball and targeted as one, neat group to be discussed by those who wield the naming power.
Sometimes names are given as a reminder of who someone claims to be, but isn’t exemplifying. Jesus used this when reminding those who knew how to live like God, but weren’t. “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men’” (Mat 15:7-9).
Christians! Christianity is about Christ; it’s not about Bible translations, doctrines, or buildings. When we make Christianity about something other than Jesus, we assume the power to give it the name that we want it to have. And anyone who doesn’t believe that it’s about what we believe it is about also is given a name, such as “heretic”.
Keeping Christianity safely in our box keeps us from having to know what being like Jesus really is. Instead, we can simply learn what our denomination or personal belief system is about, and then we only have to know what that is.
Learning to really be like Jesus is a lot messier. And we have learned that messes must be contained, whether they are what we see as messy people, messy things, or messy beliefs.
In His dust,
Johnny
© 2010 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved
May 18th, 2010 at 7:57 am
Hey Capt.
Again great post. The problem that I am currently struggling with is how do you balance personal beliefs with denominational beliefs. I agree Christianity is about Christ, and when we find what that actually looks like it does get messy. But how do you actually have a right picture of Christ without having some belief of what Christ looks like. We all say the Bible gives us the right picture of Christ, yet there are different intrepretations and beliefs even when it comes to the sole source of Christian doctrine.
I have to run, I will post some more later.
Thanks for your discussion and post.
Loren
May 18th, 2010 at 8:01 am
What I was trying to say earlier was that there has to be some kind of belief system, and are all belief systems equally valid?
May 18th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Hey guys. Long time no post. I definitely don’t want to assume anything, but in my mind:
“It’s not about
Bible translations - I think he may be referring to the old guard who strongly position themselves behind the KJV. Surely that relates to other translation fanatics as well, but I just haven’t seen a rigid following to other versions. It would be awkward to take this position with all of the scientific data and research available today that clearly challenges any strict adherence to translation because new information is constantly surfacing. EX: We now know that some books attributed to Paul, were not his. JDEP for the Pentateuch, words were added, redacted, etc…
Doctrines - WOW, how to unpack that. Who is right, who is wrong. Certainly the Bible is riddled with conflicting theology (to say the least). So to say “This or that system is correct” is impossible because there is no systematic theology that is smooth and seamless in the Bible. Too many years, too many authors, too many cultures, too many worldviews, too many revisions, too many agendas, too…well you get the picture.
It can’t be about buildings because Christians didn’t really start meeting in buildings until the 4th century (if memory serves).
Theology is messy because we all think differently and values change over time. I don’t think Jesus was looking for a system, he was looking to prioritize a couple of values. Love God, or value a global concern for people and that our actions effect others. Love your neighbor, or ensure you respect the thinking, actions, and decisions of people around you, including people who aren’t like you and protect the helpless.
Of course he also demanded his disciples leave their parents, wives, and children to camp out with him for several years. I am quite sure my kids would not like Jesus if I decided to abandon them for him…no wonder pk’s have issues.
May 19th, 2010 at 3:54 am
I also would add that his “love your God” statement was also a metaphor to believe in global harmony, that we are tied together as humans and that bond is much larger than an individual. That we should surrender to the larger context.
I imagine the OT theology was quite different though, God was an agricultural and war god.
May 19th, 2010 at 6:00 am
John,
Great insights. “We are tied together as humans and that bond is much larger than an individual. That we should surrender to the larger context.” Who would define the larger context? Global harmony could only be reaced with sometype of unifying factor and values that all held, and believed in. Thus the larger context would have to be defined. Is this possible when we all think different and with ever-changing values. What would it mean to respect the thinking, actions, and decisions of others? It would depend on what your values on right and wrong is.
I think people tend to gravitate to a certain camp (relgion, denomination, because they are joining a group with shared values. The bigger question is can we say that any particular group has a correct belief system. Yes, when it is defined against their own worldview. However, when defined against others the answer would be no. Because it would be heresy (stand outside the dogmas of what it would be compared to).
So what should our response be? How should we strive for global harmony?
Thanks for the discussion and insights!
Loren
May 19th, 2010 at 7:12 am
Hey Loren.
I agree with you. I was just attempting to give a Biblical perspective (in modern terms).
I don’t think people join groups primarily for shared values as much as protection, acceptance, belonging, etc.
I also don’t see how it would be possible for one group to claim objective truth over another since all philosophical or theological truth is subjective. (Some say math is the only truly objective truth.)
It seems like you are trying your best to adhere to christian thought, but logic is really getting in your way.
May 19th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Hey John,
I agree with you as well. All truth, philosophical or theological truth, is subjective. Is it possible for individuals/groups with differing truth interperation to co-exist or even accept a different groups/individuals truth interperation? I don’t think so, because it would render their truth interperation invalid. (Because they would then see that there might be a alternative valid truth interperation.)
My statement that truth is subjective would render me the name “heretic” within the Christian community. But it would also give me the same label within other religious communites. Even tolerance movements have their own truth claims, so it might even apply in that community.
So, what do you do? Can their be unity within the world community, and even within Christian communities. (Baptists truth claims are only objective within Baptist circles. It is subjective within Methodist cirlces. Etc…)
Thanks…
Loren
PS: Logic can really get in your way sometimes, but its a a good thing.
May 19th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
That’s the problem with critical thinking, it is the enemy of religion. Good luck
May 19th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Have a listen to N.T. Wright talk about the importance of reason. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgjHXRUisZQ
May 19th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
I like NT Wright, but in my perspective he falls short.
He says, “Reason as an independent voice, over, against, or even to trump scripture…is rationalism or humanism.” Does that mean if reason challenges scripture, then our thinking must lose by default? So again, he starts with a presupposition that scripture is authoritative and ultimately all else must acquiesce to it. It seems like he really hasn’t moved in position, but has changed the language.
May 20th, 2010 at 7:56 am
Whether or not all else must acquiesce to scripture will depend on how you define authoritative, and your interpretation of scripture (again all subjective). On the NT Wright’s page he has a paper on the authority of the bible, and he says things like:
“First, there is an implied, and quite unwarranted, positivism: we imagine that we are ‘reading the text, straight’, and that if somebody disagrees with us it must be because they, unlike we ourselves, are secretly using ‘presuppositions’ of this or that sort. This is simply naïve, and actually astonishingly arrogant and dangerous. It fuels the second point, which is that evangelicals often use the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ when they mean the authority of evangelical, or Protestant, theology, since the assumption is made that we (evangelicals, or Protestants) are the ones who know and believe what the Bible is saying. And, though there is more than a grain of truth in such claims, they are by no means the whole truth, and to imagine that they are is to move from theology to ideology. If we are not careful, the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can, by such routes, come to mean simply ‘the authority of evangelical tradition, as opposed to Catholic or rationalist ones.’When people in the church talk about authority they are very often talking about controlling people or situations. They want to make sure that everything is regulated properly, that the church does not go off the rails doctrinally or ethically, that correct ideas and practices are upheld and transmitted to the next generation. ‘Authority’ is the place where we go to find out the correct answers to key questions such as these. This notion, however, runs into all kinds of problems when we apply it to the Bible. Is that really what the Bible is for? Is it there to control the church? Is it there simply to look up the correct answers to questions that we, for some reason, already know?
As we read the Bible we discover that the answer to these questions seems in fact to be ‘no’. Most of the Bible does not consist of rules and regulations—lists of commands to be obeyed. Nor does it consist of creeds—lists of things to be believed.”(http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm)
He goes on to view the Bible as a grand narrative, which is the view I tend to hold. (While there are some great systematic theologies out there, I believe that narrative theology holds up better [not ironclad] in light of reason.)Does the Bible answer all questions of life, no. Again, to some this would be considered un-Christian, but I also believe that God is revealed in Nature, Scripture, and Jesus (which I believe there is some theological terms to describe the three fold revelation?).
The real underlying question is can faith, reason, and science be in agreement with one another and how does that play out in the lives of people here on earth? Ultimately faith, science, and reason cannot prove or disprove a ultimate reality in which we can symbolically call God. Science cannot reasonable be the utlimate and finality authority on all of life. Which is the Bible the ultimate authority on all of life, or is it the authority on the ultimate reality?
May 20th, 2010 at 10:25 am
I see you are still reading Paul Tillich’s work. He really was an incredible force in the theological world. He made a solid effort to define God, but ultimately (forgive the pun) he eliminated the biblical God. So, you can buy into Tillich’s existentialism, but your belief will be much different from 99.9% of Christianity.
btw…I have to agree that science and reason can’t disprove the existence of God, but it also can’t disprove the existence of Thor or little fairies that live in the garden.
May 20th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Yep, and I believe different than the majority. Hope you are doing well! Tell everyone we said hello.
“If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation. When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles–and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God.” http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-18.html
June 9th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with your observation of the power inherent in naming. This fact is but one component of a good name study; i.e. the (original) Hebrew names of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego suggest an observant Jewish upbringing; an ancillary point otherwise missing from the narrative. However, I must disagree with the notion that categories within Christianity are intrinsically nefarious, dangerous, or scripturally “verboten”. Certainly, naming can be abused – but isn’t this more properly termed “name-calling”? Especially when the category doesn’t fit or is intended to harm; i.e. Jesus was *wrongly* accused of being a drunk and a glutton. Followers of Christ were first called “Christians” in Antioch – a designation which exists to this day. The “Emergent Movement” in your example is named for Brian McLaren’s church, the “Emergent Village”; this seems to me a fair label for those who assume his yoke?
I think categories (and names by extension) are absolutely essential! In upbraiding the Galatians, Paul fights to maintain the purity of the Gospel by drawing a line in the sand. On one side, Christianity; on the other, anathema. Historically, the Church catholic has executed the office of the keys in much the same manner. From the Jerusalem synod in Acts to the creeds of Nicea, Athanasius, etc.., the Church has at key times in her history been forced to defend the Faith from heresy. The aforementioned creeds are as much an attempt to address a contemporary heresy (on one side, Christianity, the other anathema) as they are a method of describing orthodoxy. If you read C.S. Lewis, such are the halls of the house he deems “mere Christianity”. But the halls are not made for lingering; it is the rooms which contain the fires and chairs necessary for comfort.
Intramural disagreements – of which Christians are assured in plentitude – should not actively be avoided in the name of unity. Rather, such debates should be embraced and gracefully undertaken in a manner befitting the Christian (follower of Christ) name. In that spirit, I submit the above comments and leave you with a final question; if one’s doctrine is wholly Christocentric, how might Christianity be about anything other than doctrine? Provided such a definition, might a Christian rightfully conclude that doctrine is life?
Thanks for your willingness to engage!
SDG