Christians are called to opt out of cancel culture

In 2008, Rick Warren, the pastor of the California megachurch Saddleback, hosted the Civil Forum on the Presidency between the two presidential candidates, Barack 0bama and John McCain. Later, Obama asked Warren to deliver the prayer at his inauguration.

Of course, many on the left side of the cultural spectrum attacked 0bama’s choice of Warren to deliver the prayer. But Christians also went after Warren for his association with Obama’s inauguration.

I’ll admit I’m not all that familiar with the optics of a move such as Warren made. But the way I figure it, even if Bubba asks me to pray at closing time at the local redneck juke joint, I’ll jump at the chance.

What better opportunity to go before the Father and proclaim his name in the presence of the people who need him more than they know? Perhaps the evangelical naysayers hadn’t considered the opportunity that Warren’s prayer in front of the nation presented before they attempted to cancel him.

Some evangelical Christians are pretty good at "canceling" others, but contrast how cancel culture tries to coerce folks to submit to an agenda with how mature believers are to spread their message: "Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others" (2 Corinthians 2:11).

In my younger days, my goal was to back people into a corner and intimidate them into baptism. I’m still very passionate about speaking the name of Jesus to people who are messed up in the same way I once was.

Now, however, I am more about persuading. I want to make an appeal that gives people an opportunity to change their minds about the direction of their lives.

I really like Phil, but he’s not actually talking to what’s going on.

We have been actively financially supporting things that are against Christian values. We have also folded to the PC imposed on us for decades, again, against our Christian values. In accepting their PC values, we have never gotten acceptance of us for our values in return. Effectively, we’ve told the PC crowd they were right, yet, we haven’t been willing to use the very rules and laws we agreed to, back against them. After all, doing something fair against evil is evil too, right? Wrong.

We have been far too permissive and unwilling to stand up and righteously proclaim the truth. We have been too willing to go along, offering near permanent forbearance to sin. We are not to accept sin or encourage it in ourselves or others.

We can work with such people, but it must be in reason and in love, and it must not compromise ourselves before God.

Jesus never partook in sin to help bring people to God. He only met them where they were and in a place He made no compromise in supporting others’ wrongs. We must do the same.

Phil is not saying anything unbiblical, but he is addressing a problem that is not effectively “there” with these current issues. Yes, if a person has gone after you in public, you can choose to not go back after them. Also, if a screwed up person has done something wrong to you, you can tell them so and say you can still work with them, but you now need to be more cautious.

For instance, if someone was a child abuser, you do not give them your daughter to babysit. You trust them with what is appropriate to share and not something that encourages their weakness. You also hold them to a higher standard—the same as you should have. If you cannot, you have not properly instructed or encouraged the other to the point you can trust them to that extent. You also do not provide any money to them for which you cannot assure its proper use, such as giving an alcoholic bum cash. This person-to-person accountability is important.

In the absence of personal involvement, we are left with our distant involvement to correct bad behavior. In our example with Whoopi, it is to hold her to her own words and to decrease financial gain to her and those profiting off her bad behavior.

Phil is correct with those we can more directly work with. Communication and distant transfer of monies earned completely change that one-to-one accountability. We are doing right when we impact what little we can, from far away.

"For instance, if someone was a child abuser, you do not give them your daughter to babysit. You trust them with what is appropriate to share and not something that encourages their weakness. You also hold them to a higher standard—the same as you should have. If you cannot, you have not properly instructed or encouraged the other to the point you can trust them to that extent. You also do not provide any money to them for which you cannot assure its proper use, such as giving an alcoholic bum cash. This person-to-person accountability is important. In the absence of personal involvement, we are left with our distant involvement to correct bad behavior. In our example with Whoopi, it is to hold her to her own words and to decrease financial gain to her and those profiting off her bad behavior."

Using the example of of not hiring a child abuser to babysit your daughter as analogous to not doing business with corporations which support liberalism is problematic. One one hand child abuser babysitter places your daughter in imminent danger, is not the same as doing business with an entity that supports polices that foster such, yet also supplies you with materials which directly or indirectly enable you to combat such policies, even if only by saving you money to do so. Esp. when all the competition is supportive to varying degrees of the same liberal ideology, and a volume driven economy leaves dissenting competition as noncompetitive in price and variety.

After major corporations suspended or stopped political contributions to GOP election objectors in order to punish those who voted to overturn the election, and or in response to the Jan. 6 protests at the capital, then I informed them that I placed a moratorium on supporting their business (except Comcast since it has a monopoly here)

However, despite searching, there are no online conservative alternatives which are competitive in price and variety to the likes of Walmart, Amazon, etc. (eBay was not listed in the above list, but it was founded by a French-born American billionaire, who is the largest stakeholder in the company and a major donor to Democratic Party). Thus using more expensive alternatives can mean having less to choose from and less spend afterwards to do ministry which supports Christian purposes and morals, though we should try and God will bless our efforts.

And the increasing lack of alternatives is akin to what 1st c. Christians faced in a country of pagans. In that context, 1 Corinthians 10:25 allows that "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake" (1 Corinthians 10:25) but not taking part in their religious feasts.

Thank God for your commitment to the Truth!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.