Whatever label it wears, popular culture can never be allowed to dictate Christian conduct. This principle applies not only to pressure that leads to conformity, but also to forces—real or exaggerated—that can intimidate Christians into either silence or ill-advised secrecy.
Not too long ago, concern was publicly expressed by one who had attended a gathering in which a particular speaker was alleged to have made theologically problematic statements. Because the speaker’s lectures were not recorded, it was difficult to know with certainty just what was said. Equally unfortunate, however, was the fact that the public concerns noted above were posted anonymously.
The anonymous witness to the lectures in question later tried to explain why she hadn’t signed her name to her concerns. Among other things, she expressed the fear that if others knew her identity, they would try to “cancel me.”
For any number of reasons, this explanation rang uneasy bells with me, which I would like to explore in the remarks that follow.
“Cancel Culture”
This phrase has become ubiquitous in today’s cultural and political climate, specifically with regard to efforts directed at silencing speakers whose thinking is disliked by those in a particular environment or who hold a particular ideology, political or otherwise. Like the term “political correctness,” it is an epithet most commonly employed by persons of a particular perspective as a means of accusing, discrediting, and condemning their philosophical opponents. Hence my tendency to avoid both phrases. In fairness it should be noted that the sort of intolerance associated with these phrases can be found across the ideological spectrum in both culture and politics.
When church members allow their spiritual worldview to be influenced, even guided, by outside elements of any kind, Biblical principles and the spiritual imperatives they impose are frequently subverted. Especially is this a problem when one’s perspective becomes saturated with conspiracy-driven paranoia, the fear that one’s comments (online and otherwise) are being monitored by the powerful, and the resulting assumption that if one speaks conspicuously in a direction disliked by certain elements, negative career and personal consequences may follow.
Anonymity Not the Christian Way
The extent to which malevolent forces threaten the freedom of persons with unpopular views, whether in the world or the church, may be argued. What can’t be argued is the Biblical admonition to both speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) and to practice the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12) in our relationships with others.
One has a hard time imagining God’s faithful servants across the centuries hiding behind anonymity in declaring God’s messages to sinners. Can one truly picture the prophet Nathan sending an unsigned missive to King David regarding the latter’s dual sin of adultery and murder? Can one honestly envision Elijah wearing a disguise of some sort when warning King Ahab of the coming famine, or when he later rebuked the king for his and Jezebel’s theft of Naboth’s vineyard? Would Jeremiah have considered using a pseudonym in sending his prophetic scroll to King Jehoiakim? Would it have made sense for John the Baptist to use a false identity in rebuking King Herod’s dalliance with Herodias?
We could go on and on. But when we recall that men and women through the ages have risked far more than reputation and livelihood to speak truth to power, it’s hard to feel anything but outrage and shame when meeting folks today whose desire for self-protection of one sort or another constrains them to remain anonymous when seeking to expose sin and error.
Anonymity isn’t just a problem because it shows cowardice and compromises civility. (While this isn’t always true, perhaps the most common enabler of uncivil, ungracious discourse on the Internet just now is the option of concealing one’s identity. You can’t be held accountable if no one knows who you are.) But an equally egregious problem with such behavior is not giving a fellow believer the right to face the one expressing concern.
Contrary to what some have alleged, our Lord’s formula for conflict resolution in Matthew 18:15-17 is not at issue here. Among other things, the public teaching of doctrinal error is not what Jesus was talking about in this particular passage. Ellen White explains how someone at one time objected to a rebuke from Ellen White’s husband James for this reason, and how this reason was invalid:
Her husband seemed to feel unreconciled to my bringing out her faults before the church, and stated that if Sister White had followed the directions of our Lord in Matt. 18:15-17, he should not have felt hurt. [Matt. 18:15-17 quoted].
My husband then stated that he should understand that these words of our Lord had reference to cases of personal trespass, and could not be applied to the case of this sister. She had not trespassed against Sister White. But that which had been reproved publicly, was public wrongs which threatened the prosperity of the church and the cause. Here, said my husband, is a text applicable to the case: I Tim. 5:20: “Then that sin, rebuke before all, that others may fear” [1].
But while the passage in Matthew 18 is not relevant to the present conversation, the Golden Rule is. Most of us know the verse well:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets (Matt. 7:12).
All Christians, especially those who teach and preach, should covet the accountability which God’s Word and the fellowship of the faith community make possible. But none of us appreciate criticism offered from behind the screen of anonymity. Why, then, should we level anonymous criticism at others? That doesn’t comport with treating others the way we wish to be treated.
I realize some will object very strongly to what I am saying here, but I am increasingly persuaded that anonymous dialogue in the church over spiritual topics is much more a curse than a blessing. The networked world, sadly, has made such concealment easier. But one is hard pressed to find any evidence that such shadow-boxing has been beneficial to the spiritual life of the faith community or the overall witness of Christianity. When people don’t have to identify themselves, harsh and injudicious language becomes easier to indulge, and the Biblical message is lost. Anonymity in such settings, put simply, is not the Christian way.
Conclusion: Cancel Culture or Coward Culture?
The threat posed in various settings by what some are pleased to call “cancel culture” is far less serious than the threat to the Christian faith of what can rightly be called coward culture. God’s heroes through the ages have risked everything, including their lives and those of their loved ones, for the sake of bearing public witness to Bible truth and the resulting contrast with error. For people in the church today to hide in the shadows when rebuking wrongful teachings because they fear negative reputational or career consequences, is difficult if not impossible to justify.
What is more, none of us would welcome challenges to our own beliefs or ministry from persons whose identity is deliberately kept mysterious. For those seeking to follow Christ’s admonition that we conduct ourselves toward others the way we would wish they would conduct themselves toward us (Matt. 7:12), such behavior makes no sense.
Jeremiah 12:5 is still in the Bible:
If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? and if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?
Those today who think they can’t handle the slings and arrows of personal or professional risk on account of standing up to error and wrongdoing, would do well to hang the above verse on memory’s wall. Whatever problems may arise from what is called cancel culture, I am far more concerned about the impact on Christians of what can fairly be called coward culture. Christians need to learn not only to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15)—an imperative far more essential when your hearers know who you are—but also to speak with the underlying awareness that the results of their witness lie at the disposition of Providence.
REFERENCES
1. Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 15.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan