What to does it mean to be centrist, middle, moderate, or third-way? Scot McKnight recently did a great series on Adam Hamilton' book Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White: Thoughts on Religion, Morality, and Politics. (I have the book and look forward to reading it.) Scot refers to perspectives like Hamilton's as "Third Way." My cyber-friend and fellow Presbyterian Beau Weston calls his blog The Gruntled Center: Faith and Family for Centrists. Bruce Reyes-Chow, moderator for the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., recently posted about Musings on the middle way.
I relate to the general concerns of many who use these terms. Like many, I, too, grow weary of the harsh rhetoric and "gotcha" style of public debate. While I suspect many would classify me politically and religiously right of center (at least in my PCUSA world), I keep myself at arm's length in many "conservative" Christian circles. I agree that dogmatic identification with "left and right" ideologies or "conservative and liberal" probably isn't healthy. Yet, the language of "centrist," "middle," "moderate," or "third way" is not attractive to me.
First, "center" and "middle" are between two things. They are decidedly binary and define the person by identifying who they are not, namely, not the poles on the extremes. "Moderate" works the same way as an antonym for extreme. On the surface, "third way" seems to get out of the "middle" metaphor. But without giving the term content, "third way" can be any set of constructs that isn't one of the other two ways. Again, the metaphorical phrase is anchored in being contra to two poles and thus is defined by those poles. What is a centrist, moderate, third way person for?
To illustrate further, construct in your mind a checklist of conservative and liberal positions on a range of issues. I hold the following positions on some theological and political issues: Economically conservative (not libertarian), old earth theistic evolutionist, opponent of abortion on demand, advocate of aid and free trade to address global poverty and advocate for women being in all varieties of service and leadership within the church. Am I liberal or a conservative? Am I a centrist? If so, in the center of what? If my constellation of positions is a third way (i.e., neither left nor right), could there be a fourth way? Fortieth way? Four hundredth way? The continuum and third-way metaphors don't clarify anything for me.
Second, there is the adage that the only thing in the middle of the road is roadkill. 🙂 There are strong overtones of blending and compromise. I'm not saying this is necessarily true of actual belief and behavior by a centrist. I'm speaking to the images called up by the metaphors. For instance, take Hamilton's book title, "Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White." Isn't gray a melding of black and white that is neither black nor white? Isn't this a gradation between binary realities? "Seeing color in a world of black and white" seems like a more fitting metaphor to me.
Third, when some people use centrist terms to describe themselves, they immediately contrast themselves with the strident mean-spiritedness of one "extreme" or the other (usually whichever extreme they see themselves emerging from.) Thus, for them, "centrist' becomes more a matter of civility and less about the specific constellation of positions one holds. It is about taking a particular posture toward others. I see this element reflected in Weston's blog name, "The Gruntled Center." However, I would make the case that there are also disgruntled people who call themselves centrists, and I know people who line up pretty well with left and right ideologies who are quite civil. Therefore, if "centrist" (… moderate, middle way, third way) is to be a synonym for "civil," why not just call it being civil? If it is not a synonym, what makes one centrist?
Fourth, I'm distrustful of centrist terms because, too often, I've seen them used in triangulation. Here is a scenario of how it works in a deliberative body. One camp is stridently pro-life, believing abortion should be legal in only the rarest of cases. Another camp is stridently abortion-rights and believes abortion should be totally at the mother's discretion. A third group believes abortion should be totally at the mother's discretion but avoids strident tactics. This third group positions itself as the "reasonable" and "thoughtful" camp, seeking a "middle way" to get the support of those troubled by stridency, knowing they already have the votes of the strident wing that shares their position. They have two sides of the triangle, which often means they win. (This could just as easily be the strategy of a "moderate" pro-life camp.) Thus, the third way is less of a third position and, more accurately, a political strategy for capturing votes.
So then, how would I label this impetus for something different than what we've had? I honestly haven't a clue! I think part of it may be that we are trying to combine too many variables into our "centrist," "moderate," "middle way," and "third way" constructs that don't have any inherent correlation with each. (Many don't like the present levels of incivility, but is civility necessarily related to a particular set of positions?) So how might we break down some variables that get caught up in this dialog about a new way of debating and relating? Over my next few posts, I will share some of my reflections on these issues.
Leave a Reply to GruntledCancel reply