Some thoughts on labeling others’ theories

My posting has been infrequent lately. That’s because I’ve been working on an old paper of mine which isn’t on philosophical theology. But it’s also because I’ve been working on a couple of very exciting blog-related things behind the scenes – stay tuned.

My recent exchange with Brandon Watson got me to thinking. This is going to be boringly methodological, but I need to think about this issue, as it’ll come up again and again. As a philosopher, I’m interested in evaluating theories on their merits – consistency, fit with the evidence, coherence with what else we believe, explanatory power, and so on. When I look at the history of theological debate, it is very often marred with the ugly weapons of rhetoric – speaking to coerce (your opponent and/or the rest of your audience), rather than to rationally convince. Some ways of talking about and labeling one’s opponents are ways of expressing mild to moderate contempt for them. For instance, Jehovah’s Witness are often referred to as “cultists”. Now, there can be a point to that, in some contexts, depending on what’s mean by “cult”, but I think that in the context of a theological debate, just refute them, if you can. Don’t try to score cheap points with the insinuation that they’re mind-numbed robots. Similarly, “heretic”, “conventional”, “fundamentalist“, and “liberal”.

My first (knee-jerk) reaction was to say “no negative terms” – only descriptive ones, or at least ones which the labelees will happily accept. The problem is that sometimes negative terms (e.g. “anti-trinitarian”) seem apt, and sometimes they’re also enthusiastically adopted by the people in question. And sometimes, self-chosen terms are so chosen precisely because they’re misleading. (e.g. “pro-choice”)

So on further reflection, it seems there are just distinct desiderata for classifying theories. We should satisfy as many as we can, but they sometimes do conflict, and choices must be made. I’d list the following.

1. Choose terms that the theorists themselves would choose, or at least tolerate.
2. Choose descriptive terms – ones which relate in easy to remember ways to the content of the theory itself.
3. Avoid negative terms. (e.g. non-X, anti-X, X deniers)
4. Avoid terms which are commonly used to express contempt.
5. Avoid terms which (unfairly) associate a theory with a despised “heresiarch”.

What’s really important, I guess, is not the words, but how they’re used. When the above (and any other rules of thumb) are broken, it’s particularly important to be clear about the meaning of the terms.

Can anyone think of more?

As an illustration, consider my use of the term “modalism“ on this blog – as applied to many to whom I apply it, 1 is violated, but I try to be clear that I’m not getting any mileage from the fact that the term is commonly used to label a certain family of heresies (4). The term is so apt, because there’s no better one, and it respects 2 and 3 and 5 above.

I imagine that some people will object to 5 – it just seems too useful, at least for apologetic purposes, to call Jehovah’s witnesses “Arians“, and United Pentecostals “Sabellians“.

Perhaps an egregious example of violating 5 from the past will help. Archbishop Tillotson (English, 1630-94) was a famous “latitudinarian”, and on the Trinity, as I understand, he was sort of a mild subordinationist, who upheld the idea that the Father is “the font of divinity”. In 1693, he published some older lectures of his, with the express aim of distancing himself from the Socinians or (as they preferred “Unitarians”) of the time, who were the subject of an intense controversy. For his efforts, apologist Charles Leslie (1650-1722) wrote a tract a few years later mercilessly blasting Tillotson as, you guessed it, a “Socinian“.

Sorry, but that’s fighting dirty. I also think it’s fighting dirty to call JWs “Arians”. Their views are based on a sort of school of Bible interpretation, not on some theory of the 4th century. Lumping people into these categories unfairly suggests that they’re so stupid as to be making some old error which everyone now knows is a ridiculous, uninformed error made only by rank amateurs. Well, maybe. But better to just skip to the evidence showing why their views involve egregious error.

Technorati Tags: heresy, apologetics, Trinity, Arian, Sabellian, modalist, Socinian, Unitarian, Trinity