So who are you? Or better yet, what are you? If I asked you that question in a religious context, what would you say?
“Christian?” “Protestant?” “Baptist?” “Calvinist?” “Methodist?” “Fundamentalist?” “Lutheran?” “Charismatic?”
You’d probably answer with a religious “label”, right? And I’m here to tell you that’s okay. Yeah, it really is. And if you answered with a hand full of labels, that’d be alright too! Regardless of what you’ve been told, or taught, labels are not evil. They are not even a problem per se, in the sense of describing what you believe in a short conversation.
Peter himself uses this idea in regards to Jesus in Matthew 16:13-17:
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
Jesus openly claimed the titles of the Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah, because that’s who he is.
That’s what he is. Similarly, believers in the early Church courageously claimed their beliefs in the presence Roman authorities, and in the face of certain execution. In 112, Pliny the Younger (a governor of the Roman territory of Bithynia) reported upon his persecutions of believers in his province by saying, “I asked whether they were Christians”. Everett Ferguson writes,
“The martyrs, by confessing the faith, gave testimony to the authorities and others who heard. The death was a blood witness to Jesus Christ and faith in him. There recurs in the acts of the martyrs the confession, ‘I am a Christian.’”
Now, I’m aware that there are many anti-labelers out there, who believe that we shouldn’t call ourselves anything but “Christ Followers” or something similar. And I agree to a point. We definitely shouldn’t call ourselves anything less than “Christ Followers”, but being more specific than that isn’t a sin either. And I even agree with them, that God is not a Southern Baptist, or a Republican…but that doesn’t mean that we can’t be Southern Baptists or shouldn’t be Republicans. God’s not an American, or a Texan, or even a lawn-care maintainence technician for that matter. So by their logic, we should all be sitting on golden thrones in glory, or at least walking around in the ancient Middle-East with a group of 12 disciples following us. I mean seriously folks, that’s just silly…
We should be grateful for our labels, for they should speak of the truth that we cling to. You can call yourself a “Protestant”, and not feel like you’re being divisive or presumptuous. When you do so, you are proclaiming with your mouth, what you already believe in your heart. As Protestants we should be willing to affirm things like the The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:
Article I. We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.Article II. We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.We deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.
You shouldn’t be ashamed to be willing to affirm and deny things, according to the teachings of God’s Word.
Christ did it. The Apostles did it. The early church fathers did it. The reformers did it. In fact, Martin Luther famously did it at the Diet of Worms when he said, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”
So folks, believe me when I say that you can call yourself a Baptist, and it’d be alright. In fact, if you truly believed in the Baptist Distinctives:
- Biblical Authority
- Autonomy of the Local Church
- Priesthood of All Believers
- Two Ordinances (Believer’s Baptism and Lord’s Supper)
- Individual Responsibility and Accountability
- Saved Church Membership
- Two Officers (Pastors and Deacons)
- Separation of Church and State
…then I don’t know why you wouldn’t want to affirm those beliefs with the “Baptist” label.
We need to shake this idea of “it may be truth for me, but it may not be truth for you“. 
Truth is truth is truth is truth. One truth fits all, if you will. If you believe something, be willing to affirm it, and understand that it is a duty we owe to ourselves to teach that truth. John Broadus explained distinctive truth in this way,
“We must teach these views in order to be consistent in holding them. Because of these we stand apart from other Christians, in separate organizations, from Christians whom we warmly love and delight to work with. We have no right thus to stand apart unless the matters of difference have real importance; and if they are really important, we certainly ought to teach them.”
My point? The real label maker is Truth. Our labels don’t change or make truth, they only seek to explain and distinguish that truth from other claims. I’ll let Charles Spurgeon have the last word: “I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.”
“And though this world, with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us;
We will not fear, for God hath willed
His truth to triumph through us.“
What say you?
