5 TERMS I WISH WE’D USE MORE CAREFULLY

I don’t necessarily mean we shouldn’t use them. But when we sling them at each other without definition, or explanation as to how they apply, then we’re not being responsible are we?

So in the interest of a more adult conversation, let me vent (in a perhaps un-adult way) my beef about overusing these five terms.

“TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME”

It does exist, as does any knee-jerk hysterical response to anyone, Left or Right. Some people seem to have an obsessive hatred for Trump, spouting endless tirades against him or grabbing any opportunity to attack, like robotic Javert’s salivating over Jean Valjean’s demise.

But let’s not mistake legitimate or even passionate objections for derangement. A derangement includes disarray, imbalance, and possible mental instability. Passionate objections are criticisms laced with anger/outrage. They’re hardly the same.

Labeling anything Trump says or does as wrong just because he’s Trump, or looking for any new way to accuse him, or stopping at nothing to bring him down, sounds like TDS to me.

Criticizing him for words, policies, or actions you disagree with, does not.

“PEARL CLUTCHING”

The image of a shocked Victorian lady clutching her pearls over an offensive remark is effective. It implies needless puritanism or feigned outrage over something the pearl-clutcher herself is either guilty of, or excuses in others.

But let’s not mistake honest protest for dishonest pearl-clutching. Speaking out against an obscenity or injustice is legit, provided you yourself are not doing the same, nor excusing it when someone on your side of the aisle does.

Acting mortified when someone you disagree with does a certain thing, even though you (when no one’s looking) do it too, or saying “I’m shocked!” when someone you want to discredit says something, then going “crickets” when someone else who you support says the same thing, then that’s Pearl Clutching.

Having a strong reaction to something deeply offensive is not.

“CONVERSION THERAPY”

Gay-affirming folks can be susceptible to labeling any non-affirming counsel to people struggling with homosexuality as “Conversion Therapy.” The sinister label evokes images of coercion, shock treatment, deception, and cruelty. No wonder it works! Convince people that anyone saying “I’ll help you overcome this” is akin to someone performing lobotomies on gays and lesbians, and the alleged lobotomist becomes permanently discredited.

But let’s not mistake counseling people to resist sexual expressions that are at odds with their world view, while exploring options aligned to their faith, with attempts to somehow alter the direction of someone’s sexual desires.

Promising a complete and permanent change of homosexual attraction, or coercing someone to enter counseling out of guilt or fear, or engaging in bizarre or hurtful practices in the interest of making someone straight, all seem wrong enough to warrant a negative label.

Offering Biblical guidance and support for dealing with unwanted same-sex attractions does not.

“MAGA CHRISTIANS”

Just as TDS does exist, so does the phenomenon of believers who tolerate no criticism of Trump, view his presidency as somewhat Messianic, align Republicanism with Christianity, or challenge the spirituality of Christians who didn’t vote for Trump. (In fairness, though, “MAGA” stands for “Make America Great Again” and I can’t see how anyone could deny this nation’s greatness, or object to seeing it becoming even greater.)

But let’s not mistake the choice of, and ongoing support for, a president with some kind of blind, cultic allegiance. Many Christians (myself included) voted for Trump and continue to appreciate much of what he’s accomplished and is still accomplishing. And many Christians (myself included) are willing to criticize his words or actions when we feel they’re wrong, while continuing to appreciate his words or actions when we feel they’re right.

If I blindly condone all things Trump or condemn anyone criticizing him without considering the merits of their criticism, then I guess I’m MAGA.

If I voted for him, pray for him, and favorably view many things about him while objecting to other things about him, then I guess I’m not.

“GAY LIFESTYLE”

Unlike the previous four which can be legit, this one can’t, so let’s just retire it. Old and commonly used as the term is, a gay “lifestyle” doesn’t exist; never has.

There is certainly a “stereotypical” gay lifestyle – drugs, disco, promiscuity, flamboyance – but like most stereotypes, that description applies to the few; not the most, and certainly not all.

So you needn’t adopt false ideas about homosexual people in order to view homosexuality as a sin, just as you needn’t adopt stereotypes about people living together in order to view fornication as a sin.

Some people have sex before marriage with many partners; others live with the same unmarried partner for decades. In both cases, the sin of fornication is being practiced, without any particular “lifestyle” involved. The same is true of homosexuality, a sin Biblically condemned, but without any particular lifestyle assumed.

So – – – what do you think? Does this seem fair to you?

More to the point, if we must resort to labeling, can we at least define the label, and explain why we’re applying it to someone?