Sometime during the first months of my life, that original label was pulled off by my parents and replaced with one “Mennonite.” The old label hadn’t yet stuck hard enough to rip my skin. Any observer would now make some different assumptions about me.

I wore that label in my childhood and teen years with a growing resistance to it. In my family’s world, the church denominational label was the uppermost in the list of identities pasted on my back. And I didn’t like it that way.

Even as a young adult leader, I tried sticking a generic label on my back. But when I wasn’t paying attention, people kept scribbling “Mennonite” on that blank label. It seemed impossible to replace it, given my involvements.

Does it provide critical information for others to know which denomination I belong to? Or, with which political label I would most closely identify?

In my view, our insistent use of labels and categories contributes to our difficulties in working together toward helpful outcomes. We don’t usually benefit much after deciding what label we wear, and it’s even less helpful after we decide what label the other wears.

Labels and categories often breed bias and misunderstandings. Oh yes, I realize that there can be some benefits. I’ve been around for a few years. I’ve heard all the logic behind the necessity for labels and categories.

Just take a bit to consider with me the high costs of what we consider normal in this regard.

• Obsession with preferred labels can get confused with a healthy sense of identity. It’s not the same concept.
• Our loyalty to labels and our allegiance to categories can severely limit our ability to learn new things and to grow beyond where we are.
• Labels make us think we already know what the other thinks, values, and lives.
• Labels are generally ways of organizing people into categories, so that we know how we should rank one another.
• Skin colour is also a type of label. We think we know what “they” are thinking.

Even though some of my hatred of labels was unhealthy, I sometimes just wanted to adopt something new—simply to confuse the predictable image.

Most importantly, I just wished we could actually talk openly about the issues, rather than just assuming that certain viewpoints belonged only to a certain label.

Do you get my frustration? Why are some valid questions and topics out of bounds—simply because they are associated with the wrong label?

In the Church environment, once a debatable issue is labeled “conservative”, “Reformed”, “charismatic”, “liberal”, “Anabaptist”—and the list is endless—we are severely limited, usually, in how we are able to consider the points of strength and the limitations.

It’s just the same with social and political environment: once an issue is labeled “conservative” or “liberal” or “capitalist” or “socialist”, we can’t seem to have any meaningful discussion about the critical points of the issue, or that issue’s effect on society.

We often feel compelled to stay at war with the other label, rather than really consider the critical issues—apart from the label.

Our go-to labels always float to the top: they select our vocabulary, stir our passions, design our memes, and limit our perspectives.

In case you now assume that I’m suggesting a vanilla, free-floating and relativist approach to theology, doctrine, and social issues just re-read the blog post “As We Are One…” You’ll better understand the basis of what I feel about the dangers of labels and categories.

My bottom-line appeal is that we of the Church can grow in our ability to consider discussions and debate and viewpoints on doctrinal and social issues on the merits of that issue’s components—not on the basis of which label that issue wears.

The end. I think. Of this series. But I’ll be thinking and writing something.

• What if we Christ-followers would still consider The Cause, defined by The Cross, as an overarching and governing category of unity and belonging and action?
• What if we who wear the Christ-label determined that any other cause, though worthy, is not even remotely capable of destroying the unity by which we pledge allegiance to The Cause?

If Jesus wishes his followers to be completely unified through a first allegiance to The Cause, how would he expect us to respond to the immediate social, moral and political matters that impact us locally and globally?

Is there anything unique about the way in which Christ-followers engage current issues and needs? Or, are we most effective when we adopt popular strategies?

This post partially addresses those questions. Hang in there with me.

Part 2: Justifiable Hostility

Over four decades ago, I was a young pastor in newly-formed church made up of eager learners. I was an outsider, learning to function in another language and culture, as well. Suddenly, the peaceful growth of the little group of believers was invaded by a new and radically-different set of teachings.

The people who arrived in the community to correct our “false teaching” were very aggressive, and began attending our worship meetings. A favourite tactic was that immediately at the end of the worship services, the newcomers would stand and launch into hostility-packed speeches meant to ridicule and to correct everything that we had just considered.

I felt powerless. There was no apparent way to bring the situation into control. And every day the new arrivals aggressively pressured the community members to reject what I was teaching and living.

This continued for many weeks—while I anguished and sought for a way to resolve the matter. The stress levels even produced symptoms for me that felt like heart problems.

In my praying and in my anxiety, God seemed to show me a plan of action. It rather surprised me. I was to avoid any teaching plan or direct response that would correct or challenge the new version of Christianity. I was to teach and live without initiating any direct reaction to, or contradiction of, the new ideas. So that’s what I did. To the best of my ability, I prepared my teachings as if nothing had changed.

I kept trying to build bridges of trust and understanding. I worked to diffuse the growing hostility, antagonism and tensions. It felt like the plan was a failure, much of the time. However, I also began to notice positive results. Individuals began to talk to me about the contrast in communication and styles of influence. Some began to take notice that hostility and ridicule aren’t the most effective methods of inspiring changes.

That painful experience began in me a life-long journey to better understand what unity means for Christ-followers. It also led me to better understand the tools and skills that are more likely to be effective in influencing people and bringing about positive changes.

I have never been the same. And this series of posts is yet more of that same journey.

So, when I watch the interaction of Church with the issues of our time, I keep thinking: “In what ways will the Church have the most impact and actually inspire changes in individuals and changes in our world?”

It’s sorta like a tool box. Tools are for creating things, for fixing things, for surviving.

All of us collect our own set of tools in people skills and in leadership skills; and we find that certain tools become our favourites.

What people-skill tools do we admire and esteem in leaders? If we Christ-followers are in the least serious about the unity that Jesus and the Apostles held up to be ideal, we must seriously consider where we are acquiring our tools.

It is so convenient to pick up free tools from the loudest voices in our culture. It isn’t long until these become normalized and admired. And once we get used to a source for our tools, we continually reinforce our dependence on that source. You want an example of that? I didn’t think so.

After 45 years of marriage, I have some different tools in my tray from when I started. I’m still learning that not all tools actually inspire change.

In 45 years of filling leadership roles that involve groups of people, I have also had to review my collection of tools, and to reject some that do nothing to inspire people.

It seems that hostility, outrage, and ridicule have become the more common tools for achieving results and fixing differences between individuals and groups—even so among Jesus-followers.

Hostility seems rather fun. At least it is when I have the power to be hostile.

Hostility seems necessary. It establishes the order of intelligence, of worth, of authority.

Outrage is satisfying. Outrage is the way to announce a superior position. It’s the way to embed my emotions into my principles in a way that gains the attention my principles deserve.

Ridicule is a subtle form of hostility. I don’t think it ever inspires meaningful change.

If I can’t make a confident statement about my principles without sounding outraged and hostile, I’m not very smart. On the other hand, my softly-spoken responses can be dripping with hostility. That doesn’t inspire change either.

Is hostility ever justifiable? Is outrage ever acceptable? Is ridicule ever effective?

Well, those of us who claim the Christ-label have one place to go for those answers.

If it matters at all what Jesus lived and taught, we will try to actually follow. By his example and teaching, I conclude that hostility, outrage, and even ridicule are sometimes justifiable—when I am willing to voluntarily give my life for that very person I’m feeling hostility toward.

That’s how Jesus exhibited hostility toward an oppressive and misguided religious system and its leaders:

• He spoke and acted with integrity, with principle, with passion, with authority
• Then he voluntarily gave his life for the very worst of those he opposed
• Through his resurrection he established the beginning of an entirely new order of justice and life and peace—not yet fully realized

He could do that because he could distinguish the persons he loved from the system he hated. I don’t seem to be so skilled at that.

“Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.” (1John 2:6)

Now, back to the idea that some of the causes that I am passionate about are actually worthy, necessary, and ultimately good for our world: What shall I do about those?

What’s the outcome I’m investing in?

• Is my main passion that we arrive at a result? Or,
• Is my main passion that I inspire people to own and invest in a worthy cause that will lead to worthy results?

When we fail to inspire healthy changes, and only determine to arrive at a result we will reach for the wrong tools. The same is true in the Church, in family, and in community.

Why can’t we Christ-followers seem to lead the way in choosing relational tools that actually inspire others toward the outcomes we are passionate for?

Whether, or not, you celebrate it, the Boston Red Socks won the top place in major league baseball. We can notice individual players and staff and give credit or blame to what someone did as an individual. Or, we can rightly refer to the winners as one entity, a team of players and staff organized as a unit. We can say they are “one.”

This year, I didn’t care which team won. I didn’t really care if the individuals played as “one.” However, that really, really mattered to those involved in the story.

Many people identify as Christian, a label given in the first century AD to those who organized their faith and life after the divine person called Jesus Christ.

This blog, and several to follow, are especially written with such people in view. You may, or may not, identify with the ideas and concepts I will write about; but I ask that you think carefully about the main ideas.

The title of this series, “As We Are One” is taken from the famous prayer that Jesus Christ prayed (see John 17) when he referred to his followers pleading, “Father, may they be one, even as we are one.”

There isn’t another idea regarding the Church that is more consistently emphasized in the New Testament than the repeated instructions that Christ-followers are to get their act together. Together. Check it out; count the references if you don’t believe me.

So this next series of blogs may not be quite as fun as my previous posts. It gets a little more uncomfortable, I’m afraid. Even for me.

I’m tackling it because I see these things as core issues in a time when it’s easy to respond to human concerns in ways that create barriers and distance between equally-devoted Christ-followers. I repeat, equally-devoted. Maybe it seems impossible to turn the tide, but there really is hope.

If you still find this interesting, check out Part 1.

Part 1: The Cause

The Cause that you organize your life around is what produces passion in you. For many in our world, it’s as simple as surviving another day. For those of us who barely give survival a thought, the personal version of The Cause takes many shapes. Often, these personal versions are inspired by urgent, felt needs.

Writers of the New Testament, Paul in particular, often spoke of “The Cross.” Paul used this phrase to describe the essence of his preaching, and of the worldview that separated this new Christian movement from every other religious system.

In Paul’s time, “The Cross” was a type of code. It was a verbal symbol that referred to an entire message. When it was unpacked, this message included the understanding that Jesus Christ was eternally one with God; he was the Creator; the one who willingly gave his life, on the cross, for the world; the one who returned to life; the one who defeated the power of death, injustice, and sin; and by that Cross sets all free to potentially experience the living hope that all things will be restored to beauty, justice, and righteousness—forever.

For the first Church, “The Cross” became The Cause. This Cause, as it is unpacked, became the organizing idea for all Christians. It was the passion that motivated action. It was the basis for justice. It was the very thing that organized unity, and defined belonging. It contained every hope for the future, for a new Kingdom where all will be set right. It was completely worth dying for. Literally.

What has happened to The Cause in 2018, in North America?

A popular, modern version of The Cross is comparatively boring. It doesn’t provide us a compelling Cause when we reduce the message to: “You’re a sinner, going to hell. Pray this prayer. Now you’re all set.” In less than ten minutes, we’ve mostly covered that version of The Cross.

So, in order to bring some hope into an unjust and cruel world, we have adopted other more-exciting causes. The Cause, known to the first Church as The Cross, is no longer a unifying and compelling passion for many North American Christians. A passion for The Cause known as The Cross has been replaced, apparently, with a set of causes that seem more urgent, practical and productive. These are more worthy of life-investments.

These have also become toxically divisive. We’re no longer known for a unified passion for The Cause. We are identified more commonly by our passion for adopted causes, or our hostility toward other causes.

How do I know this?

It’s from what influential Christian spokespersons say. It’s from what we individuals say.

In just the past week, I have seen at least two memes posted on social media that illustrate what may have become a common “Christian Cause.” The Cross is now draped with a national symbol—one national symbol—that sets the Cross in the background.

How do we unpack that message of The Cross? Are observers to think that these two causes are now one and the same, and allegiance to one requires allegiance to the other?

Other memes insist that certain cause-oriented groups are evil. Just evil. If we jump off from there, we can easily combine a polarizing cause with The Cross. That’s powerful. Now we have a moral cause that makes “evil” people destroyable. Wait, that’s happened a few times before in world history, hasn’t it?

What if we would still consider The Cause, defined by The Cross, as an overarching and definitive category of unity and belonging and action?

What if we who wear the Christ-label determined that any other cause, though worthy, is not even remotely capable of destroying the unity by which we pledge allegiance to The Cause?

We Christ-followers will not progress toward the passionate plea of Jesus by organizing our passions around any cause other than The Cause, The Cross. Not by renewing our environment, not by ridding the world of conservatives or liberals, not by raising the moral standards of our culture, not by ensuring freedoms—or even by a simplistic way of escaping hell.

You see, when we who call ourselves Christ-ians are playing separate games, it’s like a baseball team battling a hockey team and asking for prime-time network coverage. No one will pay attention—except to grow more cynical about it all.

Of course, we must have concerns that motivate our communities to humanitarian action, environmental action, social action, and many other critical responses to the urgent needs in our world.

The Big However: The evidence that Christ-followers are actually organized by The Cause is that our practical actions (causes) are designed to be unifying—with the good of others as the goal—under one defining Cause.

“As we are one….” It sounds good; but is it remotely possible?

And what do we do with our passion for causes? Is there any hope that others will appreciate my passion, my cause, and see it my way?

That’s where we go in the next blog post. See you then.