S5: E2: Civil Dialogue
S5: Civil Dialogue
E2: Canceling White Ethnicity, British heritage, Male Heterosexual Identity, Christian beliefs, and Working for a Living
"Canceling Culture" has probably been used in the colloquial sense for about a decade. But this rather ubiquitous expression functions like an umbrella for more defined words like “canceling”, “calling out”, “calling in”, and “boycotting”.
Like many movements, it started with good intentions by adopting nuanced reactions to sexist, anti-Semitic, racist, bullying or otherwise offensive or damaging action by a person, a group, a community, or a company. Many legitimate cases have not reached the public square, whereas others have been a global spectacle. Ironically, movies will be made of these spectacles, but that conversation is for another day.
For example, men like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby have been “called out” and “cancelled” because of their crimes against women. Some would say their incarceration demonstrates they have been cancelled as people. Elizabeth Holmes was “called out” and “cancelled” for her false and misleading claims of revolutionizing health care with a simple and inexpensive blood test. And, don’t forget the “cancelation” of Bernie Madoff as a result of his Ponzi schemes. So many lives ruined including his own family. There are many more who’s public names have been removed from buildings, streets, foundations, funds, the media and so on. They have been “cancelled” in a thorough sense. Similar to the practice of ancient historians, these global spectacles have been written out of history.
But “Cancel Culture” as a movement has moved beyond nuanced reactions to something like a big red nuclear button frequently pressed when civil dialogue is not employed. Like adolescent children going through puberty, the big red button is hit to bring everything to a halt, much like an elevator on its ascent or train towards its destination.
In 2020, some examples of childish tantrums using the big red button include the attempted cancellation of actor Chris Pratt for sharing his Christian beliefs. Ironically, his non-Christian friends from the cast of The Avengers came to his defense. People wanted to cancel Kevin Hart and Dave Chapelle for doing what they do best – comedy. The pubescent mob also wanted to cancel J. K. Rowling for her alleged transphobic views in her books of fiction along with Bari Weiss, David Brooks, Jesse Singal, and Malcolm Gladwell. I’m not citing these examples because I agree or disagree with any of them but to simply shed light on the ludicrous movement that is “Cancel Culture”.
It’s not just people that are lined up in front of the “Cancelled Culture” firing squad. The police, government, community programs, monuments, statues, cultural symbols, patriotic songs, nursery rhymes, church hymns, and even professors from a number of universities, colleges, and schools are being fired upon by the tantrums of “Cancel Culture”. What started out as a noble cause has drifted into the hands of an angry mob who want to cancel significant elements of culture that even include skin color, gender, religion, and tradition. In short, a white heterosexual Christian man who earns a living through work needs canceling – and I fit that category.
In many ways, “Cancel Culture” has become a loud voice from the fringe with a totalitarian heart and the civility of a pubescent child coming to terms with their hormones.
I like what entrepreneur Andrew Yang had to say, “I believe that our country has become excessively punitive and vindictive about remarks that people find offensive or racist and that we need to try and move beyond that, if we can.”[1] Well, to use the slogan of former President Barack Obama, “Yes, we can!”
To that end, I want to take a brief look at civil dialogue in the life of Paul seen in his written work in the New Testament. Undoubtedly, Paul had a remarkable ability to discourse with a wide range of people managing personal conflicts, those within the church, and reasoning with people in positions of power. If we look at civil dialogue from the perspective of three categories, it becomes clear that we need more today than an adolescent tantrum from the pubescent mob: ignorance, worldview, and sin.
Ignorance
Disputes emerged in the early church among Christians. Paul was wise enough to fathom some of the arguments were because people lacked information. We must remember that when Paul was alive the canon of Scripture (Genesis through Revelation) had not been compiled. That happened about 367AD. So, all the church had was the Old Testament (Genesis through Malachi – or the Hebrew Bible) and a bunch of letters circulating the churches.[2]
Paul wrote in his letter to the Corinthian church, “I do not want you to be ignorant” (1 Cor. 10:1). He said the same thing to the church in Rome (Rom. 11:25). What followed in Corinth were issues that needed more information about orderly worship, the practice of Communion, marital divorce, spiritual gifts, the resurrection of Christ, unity and so on. It appears the church was ignorant about two things: how to handle these issues, and how each issue was grounded in Christ (or Christology). As a side, the advantage that we have today is the canon of Scripture that addresses these two foundational things.
What we learn from Paul is an acute awareness that civil dialogue may not be taking place today because of ignorance – or a lack of information. Look at it this way, swimming and drowning look the same from a distance, but more information helps you to see who is having fun and who needs immediate help.
Informatively interacting with others means affirming that people have a capacity to reason. Paul despised idolatry but he showed respect to the Athenians who worshiped idols as reasoning people (Acts 17). Rather than dismissing them, he reasoned without compromise. He did the same with Felix, Festus, and Agrippa as men in positions of power (Acts 24-26). Love expressed as respect for the other is foundational for civil dialogue without trying to make the other your best friend.
Peter tells us, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander” (1 Peter 3:15-16). You might have the information that is lacking but share it in a civil manner with respect.
Worldview
Undoubtedly, American Christianity is driven by experiential truth. This type of drive is prominent among Millennials and Gen Z. So, in general, experiential truth can be called a recent American Christian Worldview developed over the past 30 years. However, people like me who came to America as an immigrant (now citizen) tend to bring with them a different worldview. Admittedly, British and American worldviews are not worlds apart. But what about all the other people who migrate to America with a worldview that is a world apart?
We read about this conundrum when Luke writes about Paul in the church at Ephesus saying, “Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God” (Acts 19:8). It appears there were some in the church that had a different worldview of “the kingdom of God”. What Paul did was different than recognizing ignorance, or a lack of information. He adopted the ancient method we still learn about today in high school: ethos (who is speaking), pathos (how that person is speaking), logos (what that person is saying). In short, when worldview was the issue at hand, Paul was persuasive.
Also, unlike a Sunday morning sermon, he took three months to persuade in the synagogue. I can imagine that Paul would have respectful one-on-one conversations and small group chats in addition to the whole community in the synagogue. Furthermore, “He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord” (Acts 19:9-10). Not only did he take time to persuade people with a different worldview, he took people with him so they could learn how civil dialogue actually works. In the performative stage-production of a Sunday morning service, we would do well to remember that discipleship is far more effective than theater – another subject for another time.
What we learn from this is that civil dialogue is not Sunday morning monologue but a long conversation of listening and comprehending the why, who, how, what and when of an issue with others. The equity of time is a remarkable equalizer. Think about the rule of law prior to 1776 between the Colonies and Britain. Ironically, I am British but now a citizen of the United States of America. We get along nicely, right?
Paul was skillful in choosing the right time and appropriate place to enter civil dialogue. It was no accident that he met in the Synagogue and at the hall of Tyrannus. Civil dialogue often requires a practical and suitable location. It is not wrong to hold off until a more appropriate time and place. I don’t know about you but I’m tired of watching videos of fights in McDonalds and tribal stand-offs in neighborhoods.
Sin
When Paul wrote about sin, he used a completely different tone than addressing ignorance or opposing worldviews. It was clear cut. Let’s go back to the church in Corinth where he wrote, “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate” (1 Cor. 5:1). The actual sexual sin Paul is pointing out to the people is not what I’m trying to highlight. My point is that he gave no quarter to it saying, “This is wrong, and you know it so cut it out!”
When it came to sin Paul was uncompromisingly resolved. To the church in Rome he wrote, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Also, “For the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). If the reader thought Paul was an arrogant man throwing religious stones at people, he also wrote to Timothy saying, “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners – of whom I am the worst” (1 Tim. 1:15). An intelligent man like Paul concluded, “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). I don’t see arrogance but a compelling resolve.
What we learn from this in civil dialogue is that we must stop calling sin a “mistake” or “a lack of judgment” or even “a lapse of morality” and call it out for what it is. Paul makes it clear the consequences of sin are dire. It does not take more information or the equity of time but courage to say because “even pagans do not tolerate [it]” (1 Cor. 5:1).
Paul had the courage to be unpopular. In several cases his life was at risk, and he took several physical beatings. However, calling out sin brought transformation to the Greco-Roman world. When we are willing to have courage, quite often others are inspired to enrich public discourse with civil dialogue.
The “Cancel Culture” movement needs to grow up in many ways and stop reaching for the big red nuclear button like a child in a tantrum. Yet, we must remember there is some truth in the origin of “Cancel Culture” especially when it involves sin. The task before us may be challenging but it is not difficult. Is each issue a matter of ignorance, worldview, or sin? Once the issue is determined, it requires a specific approach, not the tantrum. Are we prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks us to give the reason for the hope that we have in Christ? Can we do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience?
As a Christian, it is my view that civil dialogue is best demonstrated when Christ is central to the argument, entering the public square loving God with all my heart and with all my soul and with all my mind (Matt. 22:37 adapted).
Consequently, I welcome civil dialogue with anyone who wants to cancel my white ethnicity, male gender, British heritage, heterosexual identity, Christian beliefs, or the fact that I work for a living.
In my next blog, I will further explore how civil dialogue can positively shape the message you want to share.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/15/politics/andrew-yang-snl-state-of-the-union-cnntv/index.html
[2] https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-28/367-athanasius-defines-new-testament.html