By: Obed Pineda
The contemporary phrase “cancel culture” is defined as “the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, emphasis mine). It is clear from this denotative description that this current common exercise is the same as protesting against a person, product, or business through a boycott. Admittedly, on the surface this modern way of boycotting appears to be a noble and just exercise seeking for equality and positive change, but the true essence of these types of movements unveil the fatal flaw that must not be overlooked; it hinges on the public opinion of the vast majority. Ironically, the movement that heralds equality practices quite the opposite by ostracizing and marginalizing anyone who voices an opinion contrary to the popular one. The polarizing number of supporters these kind of movements are able to garner (via social media platforms) casts a domineering shadow that can intimidate any rival into silence. Ideally, this kind of influence should be capable of improving and building society up through mutual, amicable conversations originated by these demonstrations. Yet, instead they have been more successful in destroying the fabric of civilization known as conversation by drowning out civility and oxygenating the flames of vengeance with anger and resentment. The reason for this being so triumphant is because no one is really interested in doing what is morally right, but rather the desire is to live in a world where “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6, 21:25). It is wise to mention that what is described by the inspired penmen in this Scripture is the source of the great turmoil and instability Israel suffered after the godly generation that conquered the promised land before them had all perished (cf. Judges 2:7ff). During this obsidian, tumultuous period in Israel’s history, anarchy reigned the land because everyone believed to be correct in their own form of justice. This is problematic because the implication is that justice is relative to private interpretation and it denies the reality of morality and righteousness (cf. Judges 19-21). If justice is open to personal interpretation, then peace can never be achieved due to the constant conflict between antipodal interpretations of right from wrong. For this reason, what commonly proves to be the true basis of a cancel culture movement is usually one of a personal and selfish interest. It is valuable to keep in mind that even though the term “cancel culture” is fairly modern, the premise behind the strategy is in actuality an old practice that can be traced back to the first century. The concept is basically to stir up a large percentage of the community in one’s favor, and using that large support as a weapon against an adversary, putting immense pressure on him to succumb and acquiesce to the demand being made. Ergo, cancel culture is weaponizing society to use against a foe for one’s own personal agenda. This is no different than what David’s son Absalom exercised when he sought to seize the throne from his father (cf. 2nd Samuel 15:1-6). Absalom presented himself as a better judge than the king, subtly implanting in the ears of the people “Oh, that I were made a judge in the land, and everyone who has any suit or cause would come to me; then I would give him justice…In this manner Absalom acted toward all Israel who came to the king for judgment. So Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel” (2nd Kings 15:4, 6). The same is true of Demetrius the silversmith who labeled Paul as a threat to their worship of Diana, when truthfully his worry was losing his prosperous business (cf. Acts 19:23-29). Similar to Absalom, Demetrius colored himself as a devout worshiper of Diana who was concerned that “the temple of the great goddess Diana may be despised and her magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worship” thus provoking a huge uproar in Ephesus (Acts 19:27-41). There is no question that these two Biblical examples illustrate the lethal threat that transforming society into a weapon poses. Although both of these examples verify that the driving force behind the social movement was personal gain, they do not manifest the cruel depths that arming society for egotistical benefits can reach. Remember that the Son of God was mercilessly crucified because “the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus” (Matthew 27:20). The diligent student of the Bible knows very well about the envy and jealousy the chief priests had of Jesus of Nazareth. He posed a serious threat to their authority and social standing among the people because of His teachings and care for the lowest class of the Jews; the poor. The popularity of our Master was of great concern to the religious leaders of that time period, because their political careers were in peril. Their desperation and greed was so deep, that they even “plotted to put Lazarus to death also, because on account of him many of the Jews went away and believed in Jesus” (John 12:10-11). The abyss of their depravity did not end with seeking to kill the innocent Lazarus solely because he served as evidence of Jesus’ coming on behalf of God (cf. Acts 2:22), but their willingness to compromise their personal, patriotic values for the sake of achieving their ultimate goal of ridding themselves of Jesus. This they did when they coerced Pontius Pilate to sentence Jesus to death by unashamedly exclaiming “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15)! It is curious that their claim is immediately proven to be strategic and hypocritical since the man they asked to be released was a known insurrectionist against Rome (cf. Luke 23:18-19). Judea was a known as a hot zone by the Roman Empire because the Jews were always attempting to overthrow Rome’s yoke from their necks. Lamentably, their hatred for Jesus was more potent than their hatred for Rome, since they would rather submit to Caesar than to Christ. Indeed, using influence to arm society for acquiring one’s own goals is a deadly snare to fall in to. It is even more dangerous to be the one stirring those flames to life. The chief priests who persuaded the people to demand Christ’s crucifixion failed to weigh their bargain of “His blood be on us and our children” (Matthew 27:24-25). Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 A.D. confirms this fact, but it also warns of the dire consequences of creating a weaponized society.