cancelling the ‘cancel culture’
Paul Johnson explores ways that we can constructively handle disagreement at work, in church, and in life as a whole.
Paul Johnson is Professor of Paediatric Surgery at the University of Oxford, Director of Oxford Islet Transplant Programme, and Clinical Lead for NHS England Thames Valley and Wessex Surgery in Children Operational Delivery Network.
Like many of my fellow baby boomers, one of my prized possessions as a teenager was my jean jacket! Covered in badges and sewn-on patches declaring my undying support for my favourite bands of the moment, it also contained multiple pin badges that attempted to make amusingly profound statements. My favourite badge was one that quipped: ‘And the meek will inherit the earth, if that is alright with everyone else’! As I reflect on our current ‘cancel culture’, I imagine similarly ironic, but less graceful, badges might declare: ‘I believe in freedom of speech, as long as everyone is saying exactly the same as me’, or even: ‘I am intolerant of intolerance as long as there is no tolerance of views I can’t tolerate’!
Every week, we hear about some celebrity or other who has been verbally abused or silenced on social media because of a view they have expressed. Sometimes this is appropriate and protective when extreme, toxic, or dangerous rhetoric is being spewed out. However, the vocal minority have frequently decided that a particular view or belief is unacceptable. Rather than engaging in persuasive and respectful discussion, the individual is condemned and ‘cancelled’. This is followed by an expectation that those views are no longer expressed. Ultimately, this leads to a culture where nothing emotive or controversial can be discussed at all. It also leads to hypocrisy and power abuse, with individuals or political institutions cynically using the silencing of their opponents to enable their own extreme views to be unopposed. ‘Cancel culture’ also impacts our professional lives, where avoidance of disagreement has replaced robust but courteous debate, and bland consensus all too often prevents careful consideration of alternative thinking. Even sadder is how ‘cancel culture’ has permeated our churches, with denominational tribalism resulting in Christians cancelling each other from behind uncrossable ‘party lines’, and Jesus’ call for believers to be recognised by love and unity being undermined. I often wonder what someone with zero knowledge of Christianity would glean about Christ’s core teaching by observing our sadly competitive church-planting strategies.
Respectful, two-way dialogue is an essential tenet for any healthy society. Freedom of speech is a key component of that. It enables broader thinking, allows different viewpoints to be considered and is necessary for intellectual and spiritual growth. It is appropriate to place some boundaries and accountability on free speech, particularly when it promotes personal harm or activities that are unequivocally illegal. Nevertheless, for freedom of speech to exist, we also must allow things to be said that we profoundly disagree with.
how has our ‘Cancel Culture’ arisen?
Digitalisation has certainly greatly compounded (or even created) our current problem. Individuals’ views can be propagated globally as soon as they are posted, while ‘a faceless herd’ can give their responses instantly, with little or no accountability. Frequently, responses are deeply personal and venomous rather than addressing the issue in question, and social media companies are slow to intervene. Indeed, some digital platforms seem to proactively use algorithms that prioritise divisive content. Therefore, some of the origin of ‘Cancel Culture’ has been a well-meaning societal swing to try to redress such unacceptably harmful and extreme behaviours. However, throughout human history, we have struggled to hold balanced, middle-way positions on many things, whether these be political ideologies, societal behaviours, health trends, or even clothing fashions. As Richard Foster has highlighted in his excellent book Streams of Living Water, church history has also been a story of doctrinal pendulum swings, rather than it mirroring the balanced cohesion that we see in the life of Jesus.1 In our ‘Cancel Culture’, in addition to the trend to relativism, we find ourselves in the position that valid attempts to prevent harmful free speech absolutism have led to the equally harmful situation of free speech being silenced altogether and mob-rule dictating what is allowed to be discussed. In turn, the growth of Christian Nationalism has arisen from a flawed attempt to recreate free speech, driven by a highly political, rather than gospel-centred, agenda, resulting in the very people that Jesus prioritised being victimised.
At the heart of ‘Cancel Culture’ is a society that no longer knows how to negotiate disagreement in a healthy and safe way.
Whilst the secular world is attempting to address this by defining rules of engagement and bringing in protective legislation and accountability into social media, Christ-followers can help model a different way – a way that helps people flourish as unique individuals made in the image of God and within communities in which different viewpoints are not only listened to respectfully, but encouraged; a society where Jesus’ call to ‘love others as ourselves’ is taken seriously, rather than trumped by self-motivated agendas. In short, we are called to promote and demonstrate Kingdom values. John Stott reminds us: ‘the Church is to develop a Christian counter-culture with its own distinctive goals, values, standards, and lifestyle – a realistic alternative to the contemporary technocracy which is marked by bondage, materialism, self-centredness, and greed…such a Church – joyful, obedient, loving, and free – will do more than please God; it will attract the world’.2
learning to model a different way
One of my most formative experiences as a young Christian medical student, was attending a debate on abortion between two eminent and equally devout Christ-following gynaecologists. One had an absolute view that abortion was never indicated, whereas the other held the view that in a fallen world there were a few situations when abortion was the ‘lesser of two evils’. What impacted me most about the debate, however, was not the arguments that either put forward, but rather the respectful, kind, and loving way in which the two profoundly disagreed with each other. Indeed, as soon as the debate was over, the two adversaries left the stage and went to have lunch together as brothers in Christ. Central to their interactions had been their ability to disagree well. Acknowledging my own ongoing learning-curve with this, I outline some of the key principles of Christ-like disagreement:
1. we separate the issue of disagreement from the person with whom we are disagreeing
In the current era, issues under debate quickly become personal rather than detached and objective. Our sensitised amygdalas become triggered easily, and before we know it, we are reacting, not responding, and the person we are disagreeing with becomes an adversary that we need to defeat, rather than an equal with whom we have a different viewpoint. As Ortland points out: ‘we often display a reactive, all-or-nothing mentality that ultimately reduces the other person to our disagreement with them’.3 Unchecked, such depersonalisation quickly cascades to animosity and anger, and, as Dallas Willard warns us, anger is closely intertwined with condemnation and contempt.4
We also tend to categorise our ‘opponents’, passing judgement and associating them with characteristics and unrelated views that we assume they must have. Paradoxically, we observe this with my generation’s ready use of the ‘woke’ label. Rather than trying to understand alternative ways of thinking and acknowledging compassionately that our generation might have contributed to the next generation being more vulnerable and less prepared for conflict, instead, we resort to invalidation and insults. As Christ-followers, we acknowledge that even the most extreme person is made in the image of God and profoundly loved by him. We rejoice that rather than adopting our reductionist approach to complex image-bearers, God’s ‘Enneagram Test’ has a unique category for every one of us!
2. in humility, we learn to truly listen to others, remembering our mutual journeys of growth and transformation
Whilst it is clearly important to have conviction about things that are clearcut, we need to be cautious about extending similar dogmatism to grey areas. Humility is an essential requirement for healthy disagreement. Human interaction is primarily about connection, and we must discern honestly that our disagreement is not about our own power or control but truly reflects the heart of Christ. We not only put across our own beliefs in a humble way, however certain we are, but in humility we also listen carefully and respectfully to the other person. We resist presuming that we already know their position. Wolterstorff’s Dialogical Imperative is helpful here: ‘you have not represented your opponent’s position fairly until you have seen them sitting across the table and you represent their position and ask them: “is that what you believe?” Only then can we disagree.’5 In Christian debate, we acknowledge that we are each on a journey of transformation, and, as God’s people, we look back with humility at the rigid positions we may once have held about some secondary issues, which we agree now were misplaced. One of the greatest challenges for every generation is to discern between what is enlightenment and what is compromise. With unshakeable conviction, we hold onto the irrefutable primary truths of faith. With humility, we accept that on some other things, ‘we don’t know what we don’t know’.
3. we ensure that all our conversations are fruit-flavoured
Although this article focuses on disagreement, the Apostle Paul reminds us that all our interactions need to be done in a way that is worthy of our calling: ‘let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone’. (Colossians 4:6) Sometimes we will have to be robust and persistent in our disagreements, but this can always be done in a way in which the fruit of the Spirit – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control – are evident within us. Peter reminds us: ‘in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect’. (1 Peter 3:15) Occasionally (and this needs to be discerned carefully), we do have to detach ourselves from the person with whom we are disagreeing, but even ‘shaking sand from sandals’ can be done graciously.
4. ultimately, we obey Christ’s command to love others unconditionally
With conflict and disagreements rife in our world, it is poignant to remind ourselves of the answer Jesus gave when asked what the most important commandments are: ‘The most important one…is this:… Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” The second is this: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” There is no commandment greater than these.’ (Mark 12:29-31)
The crux of learning to disagree in a Christ-like manner is not for us to learn how to win our arguments better, but for us to take the commandment to truly love other people more seriously and to remove the barriers preventing people from discovering God’s love. It is not unloving to disagree with people, but it is grossly unloving to disagree with them in a toxic manner or to cancel them altogether.
conclusion
As Christ-followers, we are called to model respectful dialogue where differences can be expressed boldly, but safely, and where all our interpersonal interactions are governed by unconditional love. For us to do this, we need to be deeply rooted in the One we are serving. Henri Nouwen’s powerful and inspiring words summarise this perfectly: ‘Dealing with burning issues without being rooted in a deep personal relationship with God easily leads to divisiveness because, before we know it, our sense of self is caught up in our opinion about a given subject…But when we are securely rooted in personal intimacy with the source of life, it will be possible to remain flexible without being relativistic, convinced without being rigid, willing to confront without being offensive, gentle and forgiving without being soft, and true witnesses without being manipulative.’6
