Cancel Culture, Hypocrisy, Humility, and the Search for Truth

Image via Pixabay

A few weeks ago on my personal Facebook page, I posted a video of Stephen Colbert being asked about his faith on his TV show.

I thought his answer was thoughtful and thought-provoking, and I was impressed with how he talked about faith in a non-faith context, making his convictions known in an approachable way to his audience.

If you haven’t seen it, take a look!

I’ve watched this a bunch and still really like it. He talks about sin, separation, and resurrection hope, without ever using the words.

It reminded me a little of Paul sharing the Gospel at Mars Hill in Acts 17.16-34.

There, amongst a non-believing audience, Paul doesn’t quote lots of Scripture or go into Jewish history or share his testimony or give a clear presentation of the cross and resurrection, as happens elsewhere in Acts when the apostles are preaching the Gospel.

Instead, feeling out his unchurched audience, Paul speaks about God in broader way, as the Creator and the Lord of life, reaching out to the world in His love and provision, and calling people back to Himself.

Colbert acts similarly here, sharing faith in a way appropriate to the context of his audience. Some no doubt feel he could have gone further, and he certainly could have, but I still think it was a wise and thoughtful way to talk about his faith.

Several people questioned me about sharing this clip.

Their concern, interestingly, had nothing to do with his theology or his presentation.

Their concern was that he had made fun of conservatives and Trump supporters in the past, and as such, I should not publicly be sharing this clip.

I would argue that we probably need to give professional comedians a pass on mocking others, since it’s their literal job, but some felt that since he had done that, I should not be endorsing anything that he had to say, even if it was about faith.

I find such thinking concerning.

It is not new. We live in a “cancel culture.” When we don’t like what someone says, we want them to stop talking and we often want to dismiss everything they say, shutting them down completely if we can.

As long as we are the ones doing the cancelling, we are righteous in our actions.

When others are doing it against our views, they are obviously godless communists censoring free speech.

But walking in fairness and integrity means that we only truly have principles when they apply always, not just in our favour and against our opponents.

In a recent article that I wrote on the Canadian Freedom Convoy protests of 2022, I opened the column on this controversial topic with the sentence, “First things first: I’m aware that this column may be a bad idea,” a nod to how highly contentious the topic was and how people might react.

One commenter disagreed with the piece and said, “His opening sentence was his best one, and he should have stopped talking right there.” It gave me my best laugh of the day. “I don’t like what you said, so you shouldn’t speak at all!”

I think Christians do things like this a lot. Often towards other Christians.

There are dealbreakers in the faith, to be sure. Although where to draw those lines is itself debatable, I would suggest as a general rule that for me those lines would certainly be the traditional creeds and confessions of orthodox Christianity, with some other areas included.

But there is much in the faith beyond that, where Scripture is less clear and where fellow believers who love Christ and revere His Word may well disagree on interpretation.

So we launch attacks against fellow believers, often diminishing them or rejecting them, although we mutually agree on all the major things; since we hold different views on less-clear biblical matters, we brand them as heretical and/or deceived.

So a pastor refuses to let his church use a certain ministry’s worship music, because he disagrees with some of that church’s theology/practices, even if the songs themselves are sound.

A bible teacher gets rejected entirely because, even though one agrees with 90% of what they teach, the 10% of disagreement on minor theological matters means we must dismiss the full 100%.

A church refuses to associate with other churches that don’t completely line up with its confession of faith, because it doesn’t want to “compromise.”

A congregant leaves their church, even though they love the teaching, people, ministry, etc., because there is a minor point in the faith statement that they are opposed to.

A person can’t acknowledge anything good that a leader does, because said leader belongs to a disapproved-of church or denomination.

I find this “all or nothing” view of faith and theology and ministry and life very troubling, for several reasons.

• First, there is a built-in arrogance and self-righteousness to it. The unspoken presumption is that my theological views are so perfect that they cannot be questioned and I cannot be wrong and I could never be dismissed, but yours are such that I feel free to pass judgment and dismiss you. The apostle Paul knew and saw and understood more than any of us, and nonetheless confessed, “Right now, here on earth, I know in part,” (1Cor 13.12). God breathed His Scripture infallibly through Paul and others, but we who interpret those words are not ourselves infallible. Surely no one’s theology is perfect, and we should be humble enough to admit that and humble enough to extend that same grace to others in disagreement.

• Second, no one would want to be cancelled or dismissed themselves. Thus the Golden Rule of Christ gets broken (Mt 7.12). No one would ever say, “Find something about me that you disagree with, and then literally dismiss and ignore and maybe even try to cancel everything else that I’ve ever said! Cut me off and don’t associate with me!” To treat me that way would be to dishonour me. Therefore I should not seek to dishonour another in the same way.

• Third, the approach lacks an honest approach to pursuing truth. Wisdom that comes from Heaven is both impartial and sincere (Jam 3.17). Impartiality and sincerity mean that we seek truth by listening well, even to dissenting voices, in order to impartially and sincerely weigh out where the truth lies. Silencing and dismissing people short-circuits this process.

• Fourth, the approach lacks grace, compassion and love. We are commanded to “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love,” (Eph 4.2). “Bearing with” means “put up with” – the term suggests patience and understanding, not dismissal or ignoring. Married couples “put up with” a lot of disagreement in order to maintain unity and love one another well, presumably because they are in agreement on the major and most important things; believers should treat others the same way.

• Fifth, these dismissals never happen consistently, which suggests a hypocritical approach. No one is ripping David’s Psalms out of the Bible because he committed adultery and killed a man. No one is rejecting the doctrine of justification by faith articulated by Martin Luther, who also wrote some horrifically anti-Semitic things that would get him cancelled today for sure. No one is throwing aside the influence of Calvin because he mercilessly burned a man at the stake. No one is suggesting that MLK’s alleged moral discretions means we must reject his calls for justice. And again, most importantly, no one is saying, “If you don’t like everything I’ve ever said or done, feel free to reject me!”

• Finally, I think the apostle Paul would see things differently. During the previously mentioned Mars Hill sermon, Paul literally quotes pagan worship poetry about the Greek god Zeus as a way to point his audience to Jesus (Act 17.28). He appropriates idolatrous and sinful words of praise to a false god and says, “There is something about these words that testify truth about the true God.” It is staggering and challenging. It would be as shocking as me getting up on a Sunday morning and reading Hindu scriptures about Hindu gods as a way of testifying about Christ. And yet Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, saw truth in the pagan text and did not reject that truth, even if he was of course not embracing the pagan theology.

If the apostle Paul can see God’s truth in idolatrous worship to a pagan god, and not be concerned about endorsing idolatry or Zeus, then surely I can quote Stephen Colbert, who worships Christ, without endorsing everything that he ever said.

Surely the great things we agree on concerning God, Scripture, Trinity, Christ, Gospel, Incarnation, Cross, Resurrection, Salvation, Eternity, Second Coming, Final Judgment, etc. can unite Christians, as they are things that lead to reconciliation with God and eternal life.

Surely we can recognize God’s truth in brothers and sisters in Christ who may share different theological convictions on some disputable matters.

Surely we can acknowledge God’s truth that we see in something or someone without having to reject the entire package because of the things that we cannot agree with.

Surely we don’t need to treat people with dishonour because we don’t align with them on everything.

I want to do better than the knee-jerk, all-or-nothing, cancel culture, throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater spirit of this age.

I want to pursue truth with both impartiality and sincerity, and remember with humility how much I do not know.

I want to acknowledge God’s  truth where I see it, without having to worry about endorsing everything the person or ministry believes or has ever said.

I want to do better.