2 minute read
It’s perturbing when people demand unconditional loyalty to their ideological “ism”s. I affirm traditional creedal orthodoxy, but distance myself from conservatism. I’m fond of the Anglican tradition, but want no part of the bureaucracy that is Anglicanism. I support nonviolence, but am leery of pacifism. I believe in gender equality, but am tentative about latching onto feminism. I respect thoughtful people who don’t believe in God, but find most proponents of atheism to be every bit as obnoxious as those of theism. While I love my country, I’m critical of patriotism.
This aversion has nothin’ to do with avoiding labels. Whether used as nouns or adjectives, labels are descriptors that help people make sense of the world and communicate effectively. No, the issue is that once nuanced principles get distilled down to simplistic ideological agendas, loyalty and advocacy usually replace understanding and curiosity as the chief motivating factor. People start off using these categories for good, but soon get stuck in these overly simplistic mental ruts premised upon tribal identities, false dichotomies, and all sorts of other poor reasoning.
Many Christians today demand others uncritically subscribe to their pre-packaged ideologies.1It’s stifling for those who don’t see the world in this way. Why is it so incomprehensible to chuck these freshman-level scripts and instead intentionally listen to a large diversity of perspectives, commend that which is commendable, critique that which ought to be critiqued, glean whatever elements of truth, beauty, and goodness one can find from all the views, and synthesize them into a meaningful, coherent belief system? Forget “ism”s. Some of us value complexity and nuance.
Interesting factoid: the first “ism” doesn’t appear in English until 1680 and they didn’t become popular until the 19th century. It’s a product of Enlightenment culture where everything had to be neatly categorized and consolidated. That systematized mindset is not how my mind works, though.2 It’s true there are some “ism”s that are sufficiently accurate. I begrudgingly use them as approximate description of my outlook–examples include open theism, classical liberalism, and sacred humanism–but in my dream world we’d drop ’em like a bad habit.
The original beatniks defied categorization then as now. Their writings don’t neatly fit within our contemporary ideologies, but my hunch is they had no issue with an occasional rhetorical use of an “ism” and “ist” here and there. All the time, though? Lord have mercy. I dunno. Maybe I’m projecting, but I imagine these wordsmiths groaning at those who seem unable to reference ideas without dependence upon an endless barrage of such terms: classist, fascist, imperialist, sexist, racist, ableist, etc. This “ism” carpet bombing is a brutal use of the English language.3
Pre-packaged anything is basically inferior, right? Don’t get me wrong. I love me some pre-packaged butter and garlic mashed potatoes, but they’ve never as good as the ones grandma makes. Home cooked is always better. Ideas are the same way.↩
In recent years cultural anthropology has explored the differences between analytical thinking cultures and holistic thinking cultures. Personally, my thought processes definitely fit in the holistic thinking camp.↩
I often agree with the content of these arguments, but usually they lose me with how they say it. That rhetorical method is just awful.↩
