What's in a word

I am always thinking about words: how funny they can be, what we fruitlessly attempt to communicate, etc.. I am drawn to what our intentions are behind the words we use. That is why I am looking for a new word.

I have some things in mind, but the search is still open.

The word I’m looking to replace is liberal. Not for the en vogue reasons (Republicans turned it into the L-word, it has lost its majesty in a newly conservative world, it doesn’t completely describe me), but for the linear, oppositional reasons.

Liberalism is, in its nature, inseparable from the enlightenment. Liberalism in its most traditional sense has always revealed a world view—not a view based on a laundry list of political positions, but one that manufactures two elements of human nature: the need to be open and willing to change and the need to maintain traditions and structures. Liberalism was so easily painted as a hostile position, both from its traditional sense to its 1960s-radical sense. Working in philosophical and theological circles, it is easy to see how an obvious reticence (or even open hostility) can arise toward liberalism. This is especially true when painted as a response to “our more naturally conservative nature” and in light of the confusing “traditional” liberalism with modern liberal politics.

Many of my peers decided in the early 90’s to abandon the term liberal to a more politically advantageous and appropriately descriptive term: progressive. The suggestion is, of course, that liberal is too tainted to continue to use (though nobody sees the kooks on the right abandoning the c-word). And from a theological perspective, perhaps it is. The problem, however, is that progressive doesn’t leave the same gene pool. It comes from the same enlightenment mindset in which human beings exist within a continuum and if we work at it, we might progress to the next step. It shares DNA with the idea of social evolution: that we can achieve something called progress within society.

In a postmodern world, the notion of a progressive person or a political label such as liberal are becoming much less useful, and worse, confusing and confounding.

Perhaps a more honest approach to labels (other than the obvious rebellion against them) is to see them less as describing a person and more about describing a movement. This is what is so appealing to many of us about the Emergent movement, within and outside of the church. Emergent, by the nature of its very idea cannot be a descriptor of an orthodox theology or creedal worldview, but a means of emphasizing a couple of shared principles to see change in the community. It is a movement in every traditional sense of the word. In this way, emergent as a term has more in common with civil rights, equal rights, and public safety movements than it does with institutional or denominational affiliations.

But like terms that have come before, emergent has taken on a life of its own. It appears to be seen by many as either a fad or a holy grail, neither of which serve to empower the term. Perhaps the very pursuit of a descriptor that can describe my worldview is another attempt to form a new creedal statement—creating further opposition and confusion.

What ideas do you have about liberalism?