Loving Through Dialogue
What is so distinctive about this point in time that earns it the designation of being a “Cancel Culture?” Surely, there have been other times when society has been strongly rewarded for complying with a norm and penalized for going against the grain. These thoughts and more were in my mind as I sat to read Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott’s, The Canceling of the American Mind.[1] I have heard a lot about this concept in the media, and to avoid getting caught up in the hype, I first wanted to have a clear definition of Cancel Culture. After a chapter of processing, Lukianoff and Schlott (finally) land on this definition:
…the uptick, beginning around 2014, and accelerating in 2017 and after, of campaigns to get people fired, disinvited, deplatformed, or otherwise punished for speech that is- or would be-protected by First Amendment standards and the climate of fear and conformity that has resulted from this uptick.[2]
At the risk of being too simplistic, I am going to camp on this definition for a bit and share several of my thoughts and lingering questions as well as tie it into my research. (All in roughly 1000 words!)
Comparison of the Printing Press to Social Media: The authors claim that this trend is distinctive to all the historical instances that we can think of where individuals were disempowered from voicing viewpoints that were contrary to popular opinion.[3] They theorize that Social Media has served as a disrupter in our time much like the printing press did in the 1450’s.[4] The printing press- something I see as a major advancement in society was, in its time, seen as deeply concerning by many.
Question: Despite our worries regarding Social Media, might we some day look back and see it as a major advancement for humanity?
There is a gap between legally codified values and society’s reinforcement of those values: Lukianoff and Schlott exhaustively document this reality in the various case studies that make up much of the book. In the final chapter of the book they declare: “Free Speech Culture is so important because its reach is bigger and broader than the First Amendment’s.”[5]
For years, I have heard the claim that “culture eats strategy for breakfast.”[6] In other words, what declare as our intentions and/or values and reinforce in formal structures is not as impactful as how we actually behave.
Question: Can we add a new truism that goes something like: “culture eats our legal code for breakfast?”
Bigger Picture concerns about Fear and Conformity: Lukianoff and Schlott spend a lot of time thinking about cancel culture in an educational context[7], but I found that my mind went to the context of my topic of research: the Christian Community. Today, churches are being pushed to expand their worldviews to include people that are from a wide range of backgrounds. As I read articles like this one[8], where there is documentation of new cultures coming into the Evangelical world, I get both excited and apprehensive. Excited for the reinvigorating force that new worldviews can introduce, and apprehensive because such change can feel really disruptive, and we Evangelicals don’t always welcome new points of view- even on things of low doctrinal importance, like styles of worship music or language spoken in services.
“Cancelling dissenters undermines faith in all of the institutions we rely on to understand the world. When trust in experts crumbles, the result is an epistemic crisis.”[9]
Question: What happens in our churches and religious communities if people are not able to raise unpopular opinions for fear of being “cancelled”?
A Free Speech Culture: Lukianoff and Schlott suggest an antidote to the current Cancelling Culture: a Free Speech Culture, one that they describe as a live and let live state of pluralistic acceptance. Could we have such a thing in a Church body? How would that work? I continue to return to the concept of primary, secondary and tertiary doctrine- a triage of sorts for our worldviews, and hopefully increased clarity on what issues are important enough to cause division, and which ones we just have to let go.
Question: How is Cancel Culture different than Religious Legalism?
Bonus Question: For the things that are not primary, or essential but that we may have unconsciously infused into our culture: how do we set a stage for robust discussion without feeling challenged?
A Look Ahead: I have not heard anyone say that they are looking forward to the upcoming campaign season in the US. In fact, in the Christian community most of us are not talking about it at all. I suspect that lack of dialogue is an attempt to maintain civility.[10] What if we thought about it differently? Lukianoff and Schlott describe cancel culture as an attempt to “shrug off the accountability” of listening carefully to what others are saying so “we can either refute it, accept it, or adopt a new position.”[11] How radical would it be if we could have such discussions about politics in the Christian community?
Question: In the community of Christ, are we shrugging off a responsibility by not being willing to listen carefully to each other?
In John 13, we read that Jesus instructed His Church to love each other as He had loved them and that the world would see Him through that action.[12] In his commentary on this passage, Larry Richards observes: “Christlike love is a witness to the world that Jesus is real.”[13]
Question: How does the way we do or do not listen to each other in the Church community provide a testament to the grace we have received?
If, indeed, our society has achieved the dubious status of being a “Cancel Culture,” then let’s lead the Church to be countercultural.
_________________________________________
[1] Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott, The Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust and Threatens Us All—But There Is a Solution (Simon & Schuster, 2023).
[2] Lukianoff and Schlott, 30.
[3] Lukianoff and Schlott, 33.
[4] Lukianoff and Schlott, 6.
[5] Lukianoff and Schlott, 298.
[6] Sometimes I hear “lunch” instead of “breakfast”… I remain agnostic in the exact phrasing.
[7]Additional fodder on the need for free speech in college: Stephen L. Carter, “College Is All About Curiosity. And That Requires Free Speech.,” The New York Times, January 24, 2024, sec. Magazine, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/magazine/college-free-speech.html.
[8] “The Relentless Focus on White Christian Nationalism Is Spreading a Racist Myth | CNN,” accessed February 3, 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/03/us/white-christian-nationalism-racist-myth-cec/index.html.
[9] Lukianoff and Schlott, The Canceling of the American Mind, 86.
[10] “The Looming Contest between Two Presidents and Two Americas,” The Seattle Times, January 25, 2024, https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/the-looming-contest-between-two-presidents-and-two-americas/.
[11] Lukianoff and Schlott, 31.
[12] John 13:34-35
[13] Larry Richards, “The Teacher’s Commentary” (Wheaton, Ill: Victor Books, 1987), 741.
About the Author
Jennifer Vernam
9 responses to “Loving Through Dialogue”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I love this. The antidote to cancel culture is the church loving one another, listening to one another, respecting one another. As a pastor i’m challenged and encouraged by your thoughts here! Thanks.
Brilliant as always.
You wrote, “Question: How does the way we do or do not listen to each other in the Church community provide a testament to the grace we have received?”
Tim talks about grace. Sadly it is missing in many of of our churches.
Having Immigration on the brain, I come across those churches that are deeply involved in the resettlement process (my focus) and those who will have nothing to do with resettling refugees. These churches actually see refugees as “poisoning” our American purity (whatever that means, says the Oriental now called Asian American).
It is a dramatic failure when one applies the verse, they will know us by our love for each other.
Greg and Rikki describe canceling as, “For the purposes of the book, we define being canceled as being punished, being removed from a position, or getting fired. (p.315)
I would like to add to their definition, “being excluded based on my faith.” (something to read about in my not yet finished blog).
Oh before I forget, Religious legalism = Cancellation? Does prohibition qualify?
Selah…
One las thought, you wrote, “Question: Despite our worries regarding Social Media, might we some day look back and see it as a major advancement for humanity?”
YES, absolutely. However, I look forward the the safeguards that will also be put in place to protect our young from being cyberbullied, sold drugs, and victims of predation.
Selah.
Jen, as always, your post is so helpful (and instructive!) in part because of the Socratic method you often use when you write. A couple of your questions stood out — questions under “Bigger Picture concerns about Fear and Conformity” and “A Free Speech Culture.” The reason these stood out is because I wonder how my theological tradition and other similar ecclesial systems, particularly within the connectional/presbyterian structure with all of its checks and balances, will navigate present and future questions that I know people are bringing up in places where they feel secure to talk about it, but unwilling to bring it up in other settings for fear of getting “cancelled,” even if it’s in the form of a question. I can’t remember if I mentioned this to you or not, but one of my interviews from the fall of 2022 recommended Tim Muehlhoff’s and Richard Langer’s book, Winsome Conviction: Disagreeing Without Dividing the Church. I’ve started it, but I’m hoping to dig into it more later this semester.
Hi, Jen,
Wow. Your questions spurn much critical thinking.
Yes. There is nothing new under the sun. In so many ways we can cancel out those who don’t agree with us. Linking it to legalism was brilliant.
I come back to John’s post about grace. If we extend grace and remain curious, it does open up avenues of honest discussion…which is needed. And at times we do need to stand on what we know is true in an unwavering fashion.
We so need the wisdom to know what is needed and when.
I was excited about your NPO project the first time I heard you talk about it, and now I’m even more convinced of how important it is. Obviously, this is something you’ve been pouring immense amounts of energy into, so I want to ask you to elaborate on one specific thing: How can/should churches (or The Church more broadly) decide on which issues are primary, secondary and tertiary? It seems like that’s where a lot of the conflict lies.
You are spot on, Kim. Deciding what issues are primary is like identifying which hill you are willing to die on. (For that matter, its also on which hill you are willing to let your fellowship die!) I am just starting to identify thought leaders in this area, so I can start to collect my thoughts on what falls into the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary buckets. I would love some recommendations, if you have any.
Despite our worries regarding Social Media, might we some day look back and see it as a major advancement for humanity?
Love your questions Jennifer! This one made me think of an article I read a few weeks ago about Gen Z being the first “global community” due to the digital revolution and social media. There is a shadow side to social media that we are standing in, but there is also the ability for youth to see how war (like the one in Ukraine) affects “the other” which has the potential to nurture a sense of compassion like never before. Being connected to “those people” (their feelings, thoughts, impact) on the other side was not as accessible as it is today. Just like the printing press, more access to being able to hear or listen to more human stories has to be a good thing right? Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I think it has the potential for good just like any tool. Thanks for sharing these reflective questions and your thoughts on the reading!
Jennifer and Adam, I hope it’s OK to hop on here since I mentioned this topic to Adam. I am a bit freaked out by how social media will impact the younger generation, especially my grandchildren who are currently in elementary school. Help me understand a bit more about how to encourage and discuss the healthy use of social media. What gives you hope that it can be used for good? At what ages?