The term cancel culture that will be used throughout this blog refers to the “practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure” (Merriam-Wester). Cancel is understood as traditionally defined: to stop or discontinue.
Since the reintroduction of the #MeToo movement in 2017 with the allegations against entertainment mogul Harvey Weinstein, there has been a scouring of people’s social media accounts for any infraction that might discredit them. The label “Me Too” originally pierced public consciousness in 2006 through a Myspace posting by Tarana Burke in which she revealed that she was a survivor of sexual assault. By stating “Me Too,” Ms. Burke was seeking to reach out to others who had experienced the abuse and claim solidarity, remove the shame and stigma. Out of this and subsequently the #MeToo movement the cancel culture arose. Parallel to the #MeToo movement and its byproduct, cancel culture, is the debate of reconciliation and forgiveness. Should people be canceled for offenses made in ignorance? Is there a cancellation to being canceled? Can one be forgiven and welcomed back into the community?
When I first heard about cancel culture, I thought about a passage in the Bible where Paul targets an individual in the church of Corinth for incest. In the text, the believing community is counseled to cancel the offender from the congregation. Paul believes that leaving the person in the congregation will affect others. He further reasons that it is better to disassociate with such an individual than become vulnerable to spiritual corruption. To his credit, Paul is inclusive in his list of potential outcasts: “sexually immoral or greedy, or idolater[s], reviler[s], drunkard[s], or robber[s].” What is absent from the text is the opportunity for reconciliation. For that, we would have to turn to 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 which records Paul as having written to the Corinthian church about welcoming one who has repented back into the congregation. So, then, we are to forgive offenses of all kinds. One consideration to be made is the fact that this behavior is to be modeled within a church context. While the #MeToo movement is not isolated to the culture outside of the Body of Christ, the apparent lack of space for reconciliation is problematic.
To be emphatically clear, I do not condone sexual assault. What I would like to address is the indirect insistence that these offenders are irredeemable. Even from a secular perspective, this is not supported – theoretically. If a person serves his or her time for a criminal act, when released into the general public, that person is to be viewed as a rehabilitated member of society to be welcomed. The incongruence in practice and theory is recognized, however, by canceling people indefinitely we leave them vulnerable, and the likelihood of reoffending is inevitable. In tandem with thought is the notion that past violations committed in ignorance should result in cancellation even after the offense has been recognized and amends made or attempts to do so. Again, there needs to be room for reconciliation and a welcoming back into the community.
Cancel culture is not unique in its intention. As demonstrated above, there is at least one biblical example of casting a believer out of a congregation for sin(s) committed. However, if the Church modeled the canceling of an individual that was healthy and from a place of love and not retribution, maybe the world would follow our example. It is possible that if we publicly celebrated the welcoming back into the community of a person who was removed, our message of love would be more profound.
