In Part I of this article, I spoke about the harms of cancel culture and established that as Christians, rather than taking the cancel culture route of solely denouncing and ostracizing people we disagree with, we are called to respond to injustices with a heart for justice, while also inviting those who are participating in injustice into repentance and the merciful love of Jesus. I proposed that this alternative to cancel culture can be known as “redemption culture.”
But what does redemption culture practically look like? In theory, having a redemptive response to disagreements and injustices sounds great, but what are practical steps to creating this culture of redemption?
Note: Since much of cancel culture occurs within the sphere of online interactions/social media, this article focuses on how to approach online conversations. However, these communication tips can be easily translated to in-person interactions as well!
Relationship is Key
In order to be successful in any endeavour, we have to be able to clearly identify our goal. Once our goal is identified, we have to identify and enact methods that align with our goal. As followers of Jesus, when we encounter an injustice online, what is our goal?
Ultimately, as Christians, our goal is to invite everyone we encounter into a relationship with Christ. When we encounter something online that we perceive as unjust or untrue, cancel culture demands that we respond with swift retribution. However, as followers of Jesus, we believe that in Christ that we find the ultimate sources of both Justice and Truth. If Jesus is our source of both Justice and Truth then our goal should be to invite any person or movement that is unjust or untrue towards relationship with Jesus!
One of the best ways to invite someone into something new is to start building a relationship with them. And in this context, when I say “relationship,” I don’t necessarily mean a warm, cozy, “let’s-have-a-BBQ- and-sip-margaritas-immediately” kind of relationship. What I mean by “relationship,” is the simple basis of trust, respect and mutual understanding that exists between two people who want the best for one another, even if they struggle with or disagree with one another. Essentially, to build a relationship with someone is to model the Christian principle of love - which is not primarily defined by warm feelings and intellectual agreement. Rather the Christian principle of love is to most fundamentally “will the good of the other” (CCC 1766).
It’s also important to note that “building relationship” cannot, and should not, be a tactic to coerce people into believing the message of the Gospel. If building a friendship with someone is ever approached as a mere means to an end, we risk using someone and therefore violating their inherent dignity as a human person. Jesus did not love his disciples merely because he wanted them to follow him; Jesus drew close to his disciples in relationship because he loved them unconditionally, as children of his Father. In order to pursue friendship with someone, we must do so with the same unconditional authenticity with which Christ loves us.
At present, most online controversies are conducted with an approach of debate or argument, where people on both sides of a disagreement are focused on either “winning” or “cancelling.” In this online atmosphere of intense disagreement, there is also a profound scarcity of healthy relationships. We don’t trust one another. We don’t respect one another. We don’t understand one another. We don’t have a relationship with one another. And without the underlying foundation of a trusting relationship, even the fairest debate is not going to be effective. If our goal is to start by building a foundation of relationship between parties who disagree then I propose that we don’t just need to discard cancel culture. If our goal is to build relationships then I propose that we also need to shift from an approach of debate to an approach of dialogue.
Dialogue vs. Debate
I have always been someone who loved a good debate. The gratification of earning the title of “winner” in a debate was something I chased. When I would go on social media and see something that I perceived to be unjust or untrue, my knee-jerk response was to start a debate with the goal of winning.
However, as I got deeper into the world of social media, I quickly realized that arguing or debating people with who I disagreed wasn’t working. Debating people, for the most part, wasn’t changing people’s hearts or minds, including my own. If anything, argumentation seemed to most often result in damaged relationships and people hardening their opinions even more than before the debate started.
Then, a couple of years ago, I was introduced to the distinction between “debate” and “dialogue.” In fact, since I discovered the difference between dialogue, I have built an entire podcast that is focused on using dialogue as a means to humanely approach controversial topics.
Here’s the difference between debate and dialogue:
Debate: The goal is to win the disagreement by affirming one’s own views and discrediting the views of your opponent.
Dialogue: The goal is to maintain or build relationships in the midst of a conversation about a common concern. Dialogue is still seeking the truth of the matter, but with an emphasis on the importance of relationship
Debate is primarily focused on establishing who has the superior argument or the most credible, convincing data. Dialogue can incorporate an exchange of argumentation and data, but it is primarily focused on building relationships as a means to achieve a better outcome for both parties.
In a deeply polarized online culture where we are seeing a scarcity of authentic relationships and an overall sense that we don’t trust “the other side” (whatever the “other side” happens to be), I don’t believe debate is going to work in most cases of disagreement. If you don’t trust someone, don’t respect them and are closed off to understanding them, then why would you be open to having a fair debate? Debate is not a bad approach, and I personally love a fair and civil debate. However, without the goodwill, trust and understanding that is fundamental to any relationship, respectful and effective debate are not possible. Once we have built the foundation of relationship, we can incorporate debate. But in this drought of relationship, I believe we need to prioritize dialogue.
The hostility of social media disagreements has created an atmosphere where we believe we must always be on the defensive. Dialogue allows us to take down our walls of defensiveness and build trusting relationships.
But what does “doing dialogue” actually look like?
Two main principles of having effective dialogue are the exchange of stories and the importance of context in conversation.
Know Their Story
In order to have a relationship with someone, I have to know at least part of their story. Our stories explain our context and reveal how we arrived at our conclusions.
Social psychology confirms that directly attacking someone’s views not only diminishes someone’s openness to change but most importantly, this approach damages relationships. Psychologist John Gottman affirms that often when we lead with an outright debate of someone's views, the effect will often be damage to the relationship, rather than inspire a change of heart. Likewise, social psychologists, David Gal and Derek Rucker confirm that a direct attack on someone’s views more often than not will lead a person to stand their ground even more, rather than being open to changing their mind. This phenomenon is commonly known as the “backlash effect.”
If we are focused on building relationships, what does that mean for our actions?
Next time you encounter a post online that you disagree with, I challenge you to not only read the post but to inquire about how this person came to believe what they believe.
Instead of commenting a couple of sentences of pointed vitriol, ask questions like:
This is interesting! How did you form this idea?”
“Have you always agreed with this idea, or has there been a journey that has led you to this place?”
“Can you share a little more of how you arrived at this conclusion?”
Or, briefly share the story behind why you have come to believe something different from what you see in the offending post. Sharing your own story can be a way of initiating an exchange of stories, which can often humanize a conversation that has started to go badly.
Public Confrontation or Private Conversation?
The comments sections on social media have too often devolved into a linguistic version of a basement fight club. Jesus didn’t take his disagreements to the floors of a fight club. He healed the wounds of the very men who sought to kill him (Luke 22:51).
If we want to be followers of Jesus on social media then we need to not only conduct ourselves with charity in the comments section, but we also need to know when to get out of the comments section and take the conversation into the sphere of private exchange.
Sometimes when we see an injustice, we may be called to proclaim the truth publicly. But if our goal is not just to state what is right and just, but to call the person who is being unjust into relationship with Christ, then it is essential that we swallow our sometimes prideful tendency to “take someone down” in front of a crowd, and humbly move the conversation into a private exchange, where trust and clarity can more effectively flourish.
As someone who has spent countless hours in online debate, I have rarely seen someone change their mind in the comments section. Too often the comments section is where relationships die and minds don’t change. Mostly, it’s people going back and forth, with little movement forward. There are exceptions, but often the framework of online disagreement is not conducive to the listening disposition and thoughtful exchange of stories that are most effective in opening someone’s heart and building a trusting relationship.
Make sure your methods align with your goal. The goal of redemption culture is to respond to injustice while inviting people into a relationship with Christ. So next time you’re in a disagreement online, ask yourself: Is my goal better achieved publicly or privately?
Allow the Holy Spirit To Lead
As followers of Jesus, when we encounter situations in life where we want justice to prevail and relationships to be built, it is essential that we remember that the Spirit of God is infinitely more powerful than we are. As humans, we are going to mess up and say hurtful things and ultimately we are going to be imperfect communicators. If we want to truly build a culture of redemption, then we must pray that the Spirit would empower us to communicate as bold and gracious witnesses to the truth of Jesus Christ. Jesus promised his disciples that “The Holy Spirit will give you the words to say at the moment you need them.” (Luke 12:12) Especially when we are speaking about matters of grave injustice, we need to depend on the Spirit to guide us in how to approach these important and difficult conversations.
Likewise, as Christians we believe in a God who can work miracles and so when we encounter someone who is standing for something unjust, we are invited by the Lord to pray for them, knowing that God is able to transform their heart and mind with infinitely more tact and grace than we'll ever be able to.
So I challenge you: next time you’re scrolling on your phone and you encounter something you perceive as being unjust, take a pause, close your eyes, and ask the Holy Spirit how you should respond.
I believe that much of the division and hurt that is happening online is a result of a culture that is trying to promote justice, but divorced from the God of Justice. A culture that asserts the supremacy of “my truth,” but divorced from the Spirit of Truth. If we want to be successful in inspiring people to act in Justice and Truth, then we need to be drawing as close as possible to our God who is Justice and Truth.
Did you read Part 1 of this story? Check it out below.
