Labels, Part 2

I’ve still got labels on the brain. Let’s take a step backward.

What is a label?
A search for the definition of the noun “label” left me generally unsatisfied, until I saw this aspect of the noun in the Oxford American Dictionary: “a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or thing, esp. one that is inaccurate or restrictive.” I would love to know the etymology of how this connotation of label has come to be.
Regardless, it is precisely this restrictive quality of most labels that explains my hesitation and unease* in applying labels to myself. In psychology labels (the DSM IV** is full of them) can be convenient for diagnosis or classification, but this convenience should always be weighed with contextual care and an understanding of the complexity of humans.

I feel that using a spiritual or religious label is much the same: any label fails to do true justice to the unknowable essence of God.


What does a label mean in a religious context?
A religious label can, I believe, hold at least three applications. Let’s consider these applications through the lens of the label “Bahá’í”.

1) Firstly, a Bahá’í could be any person who follows the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, whether or not that person has knowledge of Bahá’u’lláh. To the extent that we all strive to hone our spiritual qualities, we are all Bahá’ís. Ironically, as Lukas recently pointed out to me, the only person who ever was really a Bahá’í, who actually managed to perfectly follow all of Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings, was his son ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. The rest of us are quite human and do our very best.
It is in this sense of the word that I see myself both as a Bahá’í (and as a Christian).

2) Secondly, a Bahá’í is a person who accepts Bahá’u’lláh as the most recent Manifestation of God, and therein recognizes his teachings. This should not involve blind acceptance, but rather independent investigation that leads to greater certainty.
For most Christians, being Christian in this sense implies accepting Jesus the Christ (Christ meaning “Anointed One”) as one and only way to God. More reflections on this detail likely to come at a later date, following further investigation on my part.

3) Thirdly, any particular religious label implies a belongingness to that particular religious community. I talked in Labels, Part 1 about my sense of belonging to the Presbyterian and Lutheran churches when I was younger. This includes acceptance of a particular doctrine: certain rituals and traditions, and, usually, a particular system of polices and governance. In my view, though this use of the label is important and can even lead to transforming communities, this seems trite when devoid of the other applications of the religious label I've already expounded.

So does any one of these applications of a religious label matter more than the others? Can we do without any of them? Of this, I am not so sure. I am most comfortably rooted in and have my biases towards the first, but am striving to move more into the spaces of the second and third applications of the Bahá'í label (while hopefully further reclaiming also the Christian label). I don't see the Christian and Bahá'í labels as being mutually exclusive. I also feel that I can only arrive at these latter two versions of labeling myself by more fully embodying the first (along with continued investigation). There are so many writings and I have so much to learn! I want to be as cognizant of these labels as possible before using them for myself. But, I trust, that at some point all of this will become clearer.

More musings on labels are likely to show up again at some point in the future.

* How appropriate that "unease" refers to mental or spiritual discomfort.
** For criticisms of the DSM, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders#Criticism