When Nuances are Ignored

I occasionally hear someone remark about how much they admire another because the one they admire is so clear, so black and white when it comes to what they believe.  It is as if being crystal clear about what you believe somehow compensates for the deficiencies that exist in the reasons for your belief.  This doesn't work for me.  I don't see much value in speaking or writing for the sake of clarity as if an issue is as clear as black and white, when what is clear is that there really are gray areas to be reflected upon. We can ignore the subtle inconsistencies or deficiencies in an opinion if we wish, or act as though there is a strong yes or no on every issue, but I am not sure it really helps anyone in the name of clarity and with great passion to be less than accurate.  On many important issues there are subtle differences in ways of thinking or not easily seen evidence that make huge differences.  And I find that often people on either side of an issue can end up being the ones unable to recognize subtle differences, or they just ignore them in the name of passion.  My dictionary says that nuance is a noun, not  a verb.  At the very least we should be able to use it as a gerund - nuancing!  We have trouble with nuancing, or making fine distinctions or differentiations or in recognizing subtle variations that distinguish between two similar things.

Now, before someone insists that there is something worse than recognizing gray areas:  making no decision at all or having no opinion, I get that.  But lumping together different perspectives and ignoring slight differences just because it is easier or takes less effort to paint with a broad brush often ultimately causes more problems than stopping to consider the nuances.  You can paint a repaired fender with paint that is only one small tone different in colour from the original, and in some lights it will look just fine.  But the car is going to be moved and different angles of light will eventually show the difference.  Then it just looks like a bad paint job.

The issue I am thinking of today has to do with theological opinions.  Christians often have trouble nuancing when it comes to doctrinal matters, and those who criticize Christians and Christianity tend to lump together anyone who believes, as if a right-winged Calvinist Fundamentalist is the same as a believing educated Methodist professor at Duke.  Options available today regarding how one views the Bible, the concept of revelation, what the church should look like, the ways in which God deals with sin, or how Christians should interact with their world are myriad.  Lumping together someone who believes the Bible with someone else who believes the Bible may be a total mismatch.  Our passions about various issues shouldn't cause us to over look the differences, or we will end up making big mistakes about where people stand on all kinds of very important issues, causing us to respond in ways that simply do not fit, or that are quite unhelpful and unproductive in the long run.