2 minute read
Ideology is one of those expansive words like “culture” that encompasses a lot. Merriam-Webster defines ideology as “a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture; the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program; a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture.” Ideological purity, then, is a social demand for alignment with a manner of thinking or a framework. Conform to the accepted standard or be aggressively attacked, passively shunned, or be passive-aggressively undermined.
When I think of ideological purity in a religious or spiritual context, the first historical anecdote that comes to mind is the English Puritans for obvious reasons. The Puritans were dissatisfied by the so-called “popish remnants” left in the Church of England after the Elizabethan Settlement. They felt compromise was intolerable. Only a fully Reformed Christianity like Calvin’s Geneva was permissible. Puritanism was a strident, indefatigable march towards an aspired Protestant perfectionism devoid of any lingering Roman Catholic influence. It was also truly obnoxious.
The word “compromise” is rather tricky. People often talk past one another because the word contains two distinct meanings. The first refers to the process of give and take where neither party gets exactly what they want but everybody gets part of what they want. This is what therapists mean when they talk about the necessity of compromising in marriage. That’s good and virtuous. The other sense is when a vessel’s hull is badly damaged. A ship that’s compromised is a ship that’s sinking. That’s bad. It requires context clues to know which of these meanings is intended.
Unfortunately, in the present zeitgeist many if not most Jesus followers fail to distinguish between compromise’s two meanings as metaphorical puritanism has become the norm. In this mentality, any sort of comprise is an inherent vice. Everything is adversarial; nothing is civil. Even the acts of being curious, listening carefully, expressing appreciation, understanding other perspectives, building bridges of friendship, and working together on limited points of overlap with someone who radically disagrees is seen as an unacceptable betrayal of one’s own tribal ideology.1
The original beatniks were anything but puritanical, and I don’t just mean their aversion to pious scruples. They resisted ideological purity, so it’s in their spirit that I say, “Fuck all puritanism.” Look, civility ain’t sexy and praising compromise ain’t gonna go viral. Also, I know few people who’d fess up to ideological purity. What’s strange is that nobody thinks they’re doing it yet, in my experiences, it’s damn near omnipresent in Christian culture. There’s a reason people exist in their comfortable echo chambers. Few truly value the healthy cross-fertilization of ideas.
It’s a disturbingly low bar, but at this point I pretty much like anyone who values human dignity, reason, and dialogue. I can make it work with voices as divergent as Tim Keller and John Shelby Spong.↩
