Welcome from
Eric O. Ledermann

about.me/ericledermann twitter.com/ericledermann facebook.com/ericledermann Eric Ledermann

Thanks for stopping in. Pour yourself a cup o' jo, take a load off your feet, and check out what's here. You are looking at my ramblings about issues of faith, life and culture—they are my own and are not necessarily shared by those with whom I work, live or otherwise engage.

My journey has led my family and me across the country where I have been introduced to a lot of people and a lot of different ways of doing things. One passion, though, runs through all these experiences: building beloved and sustainable community. "Sustainable" community is kind of a strange notion, as communities (people) change constantly, and things are always in motion. So, the latest chapter of my life has led me to the notion of "impermanence"—not an idea that comes naturally in a culture that likes to build monuments to our greatness for future generations to view and admire. But, I'm trying to practice my awareness of impermanence—the idea that nothing is permanent, nothing is forever, and things are always in flux.

Feel free to share your comments and engage in any conversation that may be happening here, but just know that I do reserve the right to delete any spam or anything I deem inappropriate or offensive. I look forward to dialoguing with anyone who cares to dialogue!

Peace and blessings,
                   Eric Ledermann

To subscribe to my blog
enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Book Store

Twitter Feed

BlogPost: Labels

Dont-Label-MeThis past Sunday I spoke about perserving our history while remaining true to the present, and trying to look forward to see what might be around the corner. I used the word “conservative” to describe the work of historians. Then, at this week’s Wednesday morning Lectio Divina Bible study, the issue of labels came up. One person mentioned “conservative” and “liberal” perspectives in relation to an issue we were discussing. Another responded something to the effect of, “I try not to use labels because there is no way any one label can fully describe someone.”

It made me think. Labels, which are often broad generalizations at best, are not always helpful. The words “conservative,” “liberal”, and even “progressive” have a lot of baggage around them these days, and they are thrown around in different contexts to mean different things. And in the spirit of that response, I realize I am at times a liberal-conservative-progressive, and sometimes a progressive-conservative-liberal.

I used “conservative” on Sunday in its original etymological meaning: to conserve, preserve, remember. As I have understood the term, conservative is the tendency to conserve or preserve things, to not move too fast to adopt the “new” or “innovative.” The term “liberal” typically refers to a perspective that welcomes many perspectives, learning to appreciate the gifts each has to offer without the need to judge positively or negatively. The focus of liberalism is to seek understanding, regardless of agreement, in order to discover hidden insights. And, of course, “progressive” is the tendency to want to improve what is and discover the new or rediscover the old in a new way. I’m sure there are other ways of looking at these words, but this is generally how I have come to understand them and use them.

Some use these labels as either self-identifiers or accusations of incorrect thinking, depending on which camp you mostly find yourself. Either way, there is a lot of baggage around these labels, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to use them to express what we might be thinking.

For instance, I am conservative in many ways as I look to the past and recognize truths that our ancestors have discovered and responded to in certain ways, and sometimes feel we have lost sight of their discernment which clouds our view of the present. We can learn from old and ancient ways, mimicking them at times and learning the consequences of their storied decisions, or learning from former mistakes. I am a liberal in the sense that I do, despite what some may say about me, try to understand other perspectives regardless of where or not I agree with the perspective. I may argue for or against a perspective, but my goal is also to seek deeper understanding beyond the issue of agreement. And while I seek to preserve the past to better understand the present, I try to broaden my understanding of diverse perspectives and ways of being and doing (past and present), and tend to lean toward the “innovative” to try new things and discover new ways of being and doing that might produce fruit. I cannot fully put myself in any of these camps, and not sure I really want to.

I appreciate the push back on these labels, and I think I need to be more careful about when, how, or whether I use them. It’s cumbersome to use a label and then have to always qualify it. At the same time, labels are how our human brains work. We categorize things in order to wrap our minds around them. This is how we make meaning out of otherwise chaotic and confusing circumstances. I’m not sure we need new labels, so much as we might need longer, more intentional, and deeper conversations across the labelled boundaries we’ve drawn. After all, the purpose of labels is not to “define” people, but to better understand them.

I invite you to comment on your experience around labels and how we might better communicate with one another. Thanks for reading!

2 comments to BlogPost: Labels

  • Dwayne Fink

    Dwayne Fink
    5 5 2015
    Thanks for the ideas on labels. Some thoughts that come to mind:
    * The present Supreme Court is pretty well labeled as 4 (mostly) consistently “conservative”, and 4 (mostly) consistently “liberal” justices, and one justice labeled as “swing voter”. When a change in the court occurs, the President in office, looks for a prospective judge with philosophy close to his. Philosophy seems to boil down to one or the other: conservative or liberal. With life-long tenure, change in court majority opinion comes slow – extremely slow.
    * The Supreme Court is supposed to determine if a decision is within the bounds of the Constitution, or must be rejected because it is not. Many times these decisions are decided with a 5 to 4 vote, hence are open to review when the order of the court changes. One excellent example is the Court’s nullification of the death penalty, by a 5 to 4 vote in 1972. Shortly thereafter the order of the Court changed from liberal to conservative. In 1976 the death penalty was reinstated.
    The 48 states responded like boys in a candy store with pockets full of change. All came out with full sacks of candy – all combinations of candy. And so that is what we have today, as many combinations of laws (candy) as the human mind can imagine.
    * I have some other thoughts, not yet caste in stone: difference between hope and faith; standing at the Constitution’s outer wall looking inward toward the great constitution vs. looking outward to the infinity of possibilities, with the constitution at our backs as guide; major changes in our lives/society come only infrequently, and they are all surprises. However, where we live (the way we live) puts us in a nearer position to the good (or bad) when it strikes.

  • Steve White

    Thanks for the thoughtful overview of labels, especially those prone to carry political overhead in the unceasing political campaigning we seem to have. I wish we had more nuance in these descriptions – somewhat like the Inuit language having 20 different ways to describe that for which we use the word “snow”.

Leave a Reply