![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/962\/2018\/10\/open-book-981405_1280-300x200.jpg\")
I\u2019ve written<\/a> in the past about the fascinating rise of \u201cexvangelical\u201d or Christian culture\u2014created largely by those who grew up in conservative churches but have since repudiated aspects of their theological upbringing. Maybe one reason I find this content so intriguing is that I understand where it\u2019s coming from: as someone who grew up in 90\u2019s-00\u2019s Christian culture, I think there\u2019s more than a kernel of truth in some of the critiques of American McReligion (did anyone really need a Christian-branded knockoff of every mainstream band?) Far be it from me to deter anyone from trying to love God and follow Jesus even while feeling disillusioned by the church (however understood)\u2014in fact, this path can often lead to a deeper appreciation for the church\u2019s rich history and tradition. It certainly did for me.<\/p>\n But to be sure, there\u2019s a lot I disagree with in the \u201cexvangelical\u201d (or, perhaps more accurately, \u201cprogressive evangelical\u201d) space. Perhaps my greatest difficulty with this \u201cmovement\u201d is neatly epitomized by a particular theological-rhetorical development I\u2019ve recently noticed: something I\u2019ll call the \u201chermeneutic of harm.\u201d<\/p>\n I\u2019ve only recently noticed this concept, but it seems to have been percolating for some time. I first encountered it in the writings of Matthew Vines, author of the popular book God and the Gay Christian<\/a><\/em>. In Vines\u2019 words<\/a>:<\/p>\n In Matthew 7, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warns against false teachers, and he offers a principle that can be used to test good teaching from bad teaching. By their fruit, you will recognize them, he says. Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Good teachings, according to Jesus, have good consequences. . . . If we\u2019re taking Jesus seriously that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, then that should cause us to question whether the traditional teaching [on same-sex sexual behavior] is correct.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Popular writer Rachel Held Evans echoes this sentiment in her recent book Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again<\/a><\/em>. She writes that \u201c[s]piritual maturation requires . . . embracing those stories that move us toward wholeness while rejecting or reinterpreting those that do harm.\u201d And over the last year or two, I\u2019ve heard additional versions of this approach promoted on multiple podcasts, blogs, and other venues.<\/p>\n As should be apparent, this approach to interpretation is very far from anything resembling traditional exegesis. What is understood as authoritative is not interpretive tradition, the plain meaning of the text, or the overarching message of Scripture: what is understood as authoritative is any given individual\u2019s classification of a given principle as \u201cgood\u201d or \u201cbad.\u201d The hermeneutic of harm is, in a very real sense, the fullest flowering of Christian Smith\u2019s \u201cmoralistic therapeutic deism.\u201d (It also likely goes hand-in-hand with various trends on university campuses, which Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt ably discuss in their recent book The Coddling of the American Mind<\/a><\/em>.)<\/p>\n What exactly counts as harmful or as \u201cbad fruit\u201d? Your guess is as good as mine. And indeed, this is the precise puzzle underpinning Alasdair MacIntyre\u2019s classic book After Virtue.<\/a><\/em> In MacIntyre\u2019s telling, modern life is fragmented by competing traditions of moral inquiry\u2014utilitarianism, Kantianism, Thomistic Aristotelianism, and so forth. This breakdown, in turn, precludes the possibility of meaningful debate.<\/p>\n Suppose a Kantian\u2014one who rejects any framework in which human beings are treated as means to ends\u2014adopts a position opposing slavery for that reason. A utilitarian\u2014who prioritizes achieving the greatest good for the greatest number\u2014has no reason to treat the Kantian\u2019s antislavery claim as legitimate in any way. Each person\u2019s parameters of moral reasoning, the very framework within which the debate unfolds, are simply too different to allow for sustained systematic reasoning towards a definite conclusion. As MacIntyre would say, the two paradigms of moral reasoning are incommensurable.<\/em><\/p>\n At first blush, MacIntyre\u2019s insight seems obvious. So how does this matter in practical terms?<\/p>\n Consider the problem of hate speech on social media. There\u2019s been a lot written about how tech companies have struggled to articulate clear standards for what speech is acceptable or unacceptable on their platforms. Tech behemoths have promulgated murky codes of conduct devoid of clear standards, sparking outrage from both far-left and far-right quarters. On the surface, this looks like administrative breakdown. But for anyone who\u2019s read MacIntyre, the practical effect of recent countermeasures isn\u2019t hard to ascertain: online, what qualifies as \u201chate speech\u201d often appears to be any attempted invalidation of another person or group\u2019s rights-claim.<\/em><\/p>\n If someone argues in the abstract that they should enjoy a given right\u2014that religious liberty should be protected, that LGBTQ persons should have greater freedom, etc.\u2014there\u2019s no problem. Where problems arise is when one party questions another\u2019s assertion. If Bob asserts that he has a right to healthcare as a native-born American, and Angie steps up to say no, Bob, you don\u2019t have that right<\/em>, Angie will likely face the wrath of the algorithms. In denying that Bob\u2019s assertion of a right is legitimate, she has \u201charmed\u201d Bob. (There may be some asymmetry in the enforcement of online hate speech norms, but the chain of reasoning generally seems to follow this template. It\u2019s also worth noting that there are far more coherent conceptions of hate speech than this one: philosopher Jeremy Waldron\u2014a Christian, incidentally\u2014makes a particularly interesting argument in his book The Harm in Hate Speech<\/a><\/em>.)<\/p>\n The operative concept here is right<\/em>: in deploying such language, the speaker invokes the rich (and heavily Christian) tradition of reasoning about human dignity from a transcendent perspective. (After all, one cannot coherently argue for the social construction of rights while simultaneously denouncing the moral evils of the past.) When push comes to shove, most of those who employ the hermeneutic of harm acknowledge the existence of a timeless moral law. Rights-claims\u2014which fall within that law\u2014are thus sacrosanct.<\/p>\n