Cancel culture ∙∙

Cancel culture ∙∙

“I don’t know whether he is a sinner,” the man replied. “But I know this: I was blind, and now I can see!” – John 9:25

Isaiah 5:20-21

 20 What sorrow for those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light, and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.

 21 What sorrow for those who are wise in their own eyes and think themselves so clever.

Cancel culture, also known as callout culture, involves publicly denouncing individuals or products considered to be at fault, aiming to damage their reputation and credibility.

Cancel culture operates on certain assumptions that can have significant consequences for individuals or products deemed at fault. It often categorizes people into two distinct groups: those considered ‘woke’ (morally progressive) and therefore good, and those not considered ‘woke,’ who are viewed as bad. This black-and-white perspective can come across as both arrogant and naïve, overlooking the complexity of individuals. It’s important to understand that individuals can evolve their opinions, perspectives, and ideologies as they gain new experiences, information, and insights.

While it is crucial to call out prejudice and bigotry, the definitions of these concepts can be highly subjective. Who decides what constitutes bigotry in our society today? Who determines which groups are favored and, thus, potential targets of bigotry and discrimination and which groups are not? These determinations often reflect the collective mindset of those canceling others. It begs the obligatory question: who controls the controllers?

Accountability for past actions is not just important; it’s essential. Yet, cancel culture frequently denies individuals the chance to take responsibility and make amends. Instead, the focus is on leveraging real or imagined incriminating evidence to cancel a person outright. Apologies are not accepted, and there is no room for reconciliation, redemption, or forgiveness. This approach ultimately stifles personal growth and transformation, leaving no pathway for individuals to recover their reputation and credibility. The seriousness of this issue cannot be overstated.

It brings to mind the oft-repeated phrase used by Shakespeare in his plays. “Off with his head” (Henry VI, Queen Margaret).

The sentiment was likely popularized and became part of modern English slang through the Queen of Hearts in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. The Queen, a vile monarch filled with blind fury, was quick to issue death sentences at the slightest provocation. She repeatedly commands “off with his head,” “her head,” or “their heads!”

Instead of simply seeking accountability, cancel culture has evolved into a tool for belittling, shaming, and insulting individuals. Those deemed unsuitable or troublesome are effectively ostracized from public discourse. Such audacity! While attempting to highlight actual or perceived bigotry, do the cancelers inadvertently reveal their own biases? Could they be bibliophobic or Christophobic?

What is the impact of cancel culture on public discourse and conflicting views? The emergence of cancel culture has fostered an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Opportunities for dissenting opinions, education, and unity are lost, creating a form of modern-day bullying. Ironically, this behavior resembles the bullying these individuals strive to eradicate. What’s really going on?

The Father’s absolutes are just that: always true and right, never varying, changing, or compromising. He provided them to serve as a moral compass.

Contemporary society has largely abandoned the concept of moral absolutes. People are absolutely sure that there are no absolutes, believing that whatever one thinks is right is right for them. The only certainty is uncertainty; the only thing that you know for sure is that you can’t know anything for sure.

The trouble is that we cannot live without absolutes. When we abandon the Father’s absolutes, we inevitably create our own. This phenomenon is nothing new and has been around for millennia.

Judges 21:25 In those days, Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes.

Ecclesiastes 8:11 When a crime is not punished quickly, people feel it is safe to do wrong.

REFLECT & PRAY

When the Word of God calls something evil, it is evil. When it labels something as bitter, no one can make it sweet. The Father is our absolute authority (Stanley).

Father, help me to embrace and consistently live by Your moral absolutes. Guide me to avoid rushing to judgment against those with whom I disagree.

INSIGHT

The Father’s perspective often contrasts sharply with those blinded in their moral judgment. Individuals suffering from moral blindness call evil as good and good as evil.

Isaiah 5:20-21

 20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and think themselves so clever.

A subtle interplay exists between self-deception and arrogance. When people reject the Father’s authority and absolute standards, they elevate themselves as the ultimate authority.

They redefine words and rules to suit their preferences. Sin is rationalized, and truth is replaced by error and deception. These new definitions of sin erode moral standards.

People use the Father’s vocabulary but not His dictionary (Wiersbe).

Psalms 12:2 People lie to each other, speaking with flattering lips and deceitful hearts.

“People in any generation can senselessly and defiantly reject the idea that they are doing wrong because they have no moral anchor” (Gary V. Smith). Good things are reinterpreted as evil, while evil and immoral acts are twisted to appear good.

“Without an absolute standard of divine justice, false human reasoning and uncontrolled passion can rationalize and justify almost any act, particularly if the primary criterion is ‘Will it benefit me?’ When sweet and bitter, light and darkness, and good and evil are relative values based on wishes, whims, and selfish ends, righteousness, and justice do not exist” (Gary V. Smith).

In New Testament times, most Jewish leaders opposed the Lord Jesus Christ, firmly believing Him to be a sinner. In their view, He was canceled. When He healed a man born blind, instead of responding in faith to the miracle and worshiping Him, they called out the blind man and canceled him.

The blind man retorted, “Whether He is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see” (John 9:25).

In response, they threw him out and ostracized him from the synagogue. The Lord Jesus Christ found him and spoke with him.

John 9:39 Then Jesus said, I entered this world to render judgment – to give sight to the blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind.

In modern terms, we would say the Lord Jesus Christ came to expose “wrong thinking.” He unveiled the masks of misjudgment, misperception, and misunderstanding. He judged righteously through the lens of reality and Truth, turning darkness into light (Isaiah 42:16). He encouraged people to recognize and embrace the good when they see it and reject what is paltry and evil.

“Those who admit that they do not see are given sight. But those who insist that they can see perfectly, without the Lord Jesus, are confirmed in their blindness” (William MacDonald).

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

 11 For this reason, God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,

 12 They will be condemned for enjoying evil rather than believing the truth.

Wrong thinking is a downward, slippery slope leading to even more wrong thinking. The Father will send a powerful delusion, causing belief in ultimate falsehood from the enemy, prompting them to reject the one true God revealed through His Son, the Savior of the world (Fee).

¯\_(ツ)_/¯6-14-3

© Dr. H 2024