When someone invites you to see a movie, and you have not heard of the movie before, it would be common to ask, "What kind of movie is it?" If the response is "Romantic Comedy," the label helps you in determining how interested you may be.

One great benefit of labels is that they serve as a sort of shorthand. In other words, labels summarize details for convenience. This allows conversations to move faster and can keep discussion moving forward instead of always having to explain each and every detail of everything, which results in never really advancing conversation.

Labels can also be problematic. If you use a label and the person you are talking to does not understand what you mean by the label, communication breaks down.

Christians have many labels. These can be a great blessing to the church as we seek to honor Jesus in building up one another spiritually. Even “Christian” is a label used to explain lots of details about people who belong to and follow Jesus (see Acts 11:26; 1 Peter 4:16).

"Trinity" is an extra-biblical label used to summarize a biblical reality regarding the nature of God. Trinity is such a common label that I use it frequently and often with little or no explanation.

But if I have good reason to believe that those listening to me will not understand my intention, I feel compelled to go into further detail. This is because I want to be understood and I want to benefit those who are listening.

One good example of a common label that can be very helpful, but nevertheless controversial is “Calvinist.” Some value this label and others despise it.

Does it have a place in conversation? I hope so as I find it helpful in certain contexts. But I have also found it to be unhelpful at other times. If I am speaking with someone who understands that unbelievers are spiritually dead; that God alone causes sinners to be born again according to His sovereign grace bestowed upon the elect in Christ; and that this is the sort of thing that people mean to summarize with the label “Calvinist,” then I will use the label.

But if there is a high likelihood that my conversation partner or partners are unaware of the common meaning of the label, avoiding the label only seems prudent. After all, I am aware that there is a fair amount of misunderstanding regarding these issues and that the label is sometimes defined as something rather bizarre.

I may find it better to explain the biblical concepts directly from Scripture and avoid the shorthand. This is because I love those with whom I am speaking. Hopefully, a time will come when the label will serve us both well in our communication.

If it is the spiritual health of the church that we are seeking, then some measured thoughtfulness is in order when it comes to using the convenience of labels. Toward this end, questions such as the following may be helpful guides:

• Is it likely that the use of this label will be understood the way I want it to be?
• Will the use of the label in this setting lead to unfruitful conflict?
• Would it be best if I explained the concepts instead of using the label?

May the Lord help us to speak the truth in love for the spiritual growth of everyone involved and may He do so for His greater glory in the church, labels and all.