Cancel Culture: Forced To Choose

  • Posted on:

In today’s society, there is still much to be understood about “cancel culture” and its implications. Clearly, associations mean something, and Christians ought to be wise about those they partner with. Still, the idea of Christians using cancel culture as a social tool should make all of us wary. The discernment aspect of “canceling” someone is incredibly important. After all, every Christian should agree that it is a very grievous sin to be inviting heretics to preach in our churches. It would certainly be wise to extend this cancellation effect to pastors under church discipline as well. But where exactly is this line drawn?

Can it be a sin not to cancel someone?

“We Were Rachael’s Church”

In January of 2018, Rachael Denhollander gave a victim statement at the sentencing of Larry Nassar. In her statement, Rachael emphasized the cost of coming forward due to her continuous advocacy for sexual assault survivors. The Washington Post covered her statement, highlighting the lack of support Rachael received from her own church. This deficiency in her church eventually resulted in Rachael’s departure; another heavy price to pay for speaking out.

“Her own children recently asked her about this, why they stopped going to the church they belonged to for five years. ‘It was painful to have to search for a church again because we really, really loved the people at our former church,’ she said. ‘That simply was part of the cost of coming forward’ as one of Nassar’s victims, she added, and also speaking out against how churches handle sex abuse allegations.”

Lori Johnston – Washington Post, “This former gymnast raised an army to take on Larry Nassar. Can she take on sex abuse in churches next?” – February 15, 2018 1https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/02/15/this-former-gymnast-raised-an-army-to-take-on-larry-nassar-can-she-take-on-sex-abuse-in-churches-next/

A few months later, Rachael’s former church decided to release a statement of their own. The title of the letter, “We Were Rachael’s Church,” was created in response to the Washington Post article. The church leadership admitted that Rachael had left a few weeks before her public victim statement and that the statement itself resulted in: “confusion, sadness, frustration, introspection, fear, and had a host of other thoughts and emotions.” The pastors of Immanuel Baptist Church admitted that after some self-examination: “we saw we had sin to confess.”

“Our particular failures did not stem from discouraging the Denhollanders to pursue justice in the Larry Nassar case. We did not discourage them in their pursuit of justice; in fact, we applaud those efforts. Rather, our failures stemmed from not listening to and properly understanding Rachael’s concerns about our invitation to have Sovereign Grace Church leaders preach to our church. We simply did not have the categories to fully discern what Rachael was saying at the time.”

Immanuel Admin, “Our Pastors’ Statement to the Washington Post” – May 31, 2018 2https://web.archive.org/web/20190228170812/https://immanuelky.org/articles/we-were-rachaels-church/

The Specifics Of Sin

The response statement from Rachael’s former pastors was clear: they believed they had sinned. The sin at play here appears to be “not listening to and properly understanding” when the former church member raised her concerns. At this point, my own concerns started emerging. What section of the Bible commands the usage of categories for discerning listening? You are in sin if you can’t comprehend what is being said?

What kind of sin is that?

The letter then stated that they had reached out to Rachael, where the pastoral wrongdoing against her and her family was forgiven. “It is a deep joy to us that the gospel can restore our relationships when we fail,” the letter stated, despite the fact that Rachael had not actually returned as a member to the former church. At this point, it was obvious the letter was omitting some key details. To get the missing pieces, we need to go back a few months to January 2018. Rachael had been interviewed for Christianity Today, where she elaborated on the church’s “lack of support.”

“The reason I lost my church was not specifically because I spoke up. It was because we were advocating for other victims of sexual assault within the evangelical community[…] Because I had taken that position, and because we were not in agreement with our church’s support of this organization and these leaders, it cost us dearly.”

Rachel Denhollander interviewed by Morgan Lee, “My Larry Nassar Testimony Went Viral. But There’s More to the Gospel Than Forgiveness” – January 31, 2018 3https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/january-web-only/rachael-denhollander-larry-nassar-forgiveness-gospel.html

Rachael stated she had brought a mountain of evidence to her church leadership, detailing the sexual abuse conspiracy in an associated friendly organization. Despite her pleas, Immanuel leadership continued to support a denomination that had: (In the words of Denhollander) “one of the most well-documented cases of institutional cover-up I have ever seen, ever” 4ibid. The organization in question? Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM).

In a nutshell, Rachael claimed her former church was supportive when they ignored her request to cut ties with Sovereign Grace Ministries. She had compiled a list of evidence against SGM and shared it on Facebook5You can read the full Facebook post here: https://web.archive.org/web/20190201013420/https://www.facebook.com/notes/rachael-denhollander/response-to-sovereign-grace-churches/1720170721396574/, but her own church leadership had still not”canceled“ the association. After a few months of self-reflection, their statement of repentance makes their perspective clear: not canceling their support of SGM at the request of Rachael Denhollander was a sin.

Is It Really A Sin?

Marvel Is It Though GIFfrom Marvel GIFs

Amid the drama, it’s not entirely clear that Immanuel leadership ever took a step back to see the big picture. On the one hand, a member of your congregation has approached you for your association with sexual abuse conspirators. On the other hand, the organization you had partnered with for years was claiming innocence. In fact, the ministry had released a statement in response to Denhollander’s drama, calling the issue a false narrative.

“…the decisions of Rachael and others to publicly pronounce SGC and its pastors guilty of sexual abuse and conspiracy, on the basis of false allegations and with no direct knowledge of SGC’s history or the facts, have profoundly damaged the reputations and gospel ministries of innocent pastors and churches.”

Sovereign Grace Staff, “A Response to Allegations Against Sovereign Grace Churches” – February 13, 2018 6https://web.archive.org/web/20190419234002/https://www.sovereigngrace.com/sovereign-grace-blog/post/a-response-to-allegations-against-sovereign-grace-churches

When looking at the situation overall, the statement of repentance becomes a baffling proposal. Immanuel was in the middle of a totally irreconcilable situation! Denhollander had presented her case and wanted her pastors to take her side. Meanwhile, Sovereign Grace Ministries7This organization is more recently known as Sovereign Grace Churches (SGC) presented their own side of the story, essentially accusing Rachael of defamation. It would seem as though the sin of not canceling was actually the sin of not taking sides.

“Don’t Misunderstand”

The letter of repentance issued by Immanuel staff would have actually made sense if it had stopped two paragraphs short. Adding qualifiers makes the entire letter nearly incoherent. Instead of acknowledging the double jeopardy of the big picture, the pastors thought they could acknowledge both sides.

“Sadly, many will view our listening to Rachael (and the concerns of other abuse victims within our own congregation) as a condemnation of Sovereign Grace Churches (SGCs). It is not meant to be any such thing.  While we lament the victims who have experienced abuse while attending SGCs, we do not have any information that would lead us to the definitive conviction that SGC leaders have broken any laws.”

Immanuel Admin, “Our Pastors’ Statement to the Washington Post” – May 31, 2018

Even though they had time to investigate the evidence for themselves, the statement by the Immanuel pastors made clear that they had not uncovered knowledge of any illegal misconduct. Despite the fact that this was “one of the most well-documented cases of institutional cover-up” Rachael had ever seen, there was not enough evidence for a criminal indictment. A quick glance at the facts we have established sheds some much-needed light.

Playing both sides of a situation like this doesn’t even make sense. Is there guilt or not? The fact that Immanuel tried to acknowledge the validity of both distinct viewpoints makes the statement sound delusional. The claims made by SGM and Rachael Denhollander are totally irreconcilable. This leaves us with one final way of interpreting the statement of repentance. Immanuel repented for not listening to Rachael, not because they believed her side was true, but because they thought canceling SGM was the equivalent of listening.

The Facts Don’t Even Matter

After reading this post, you may feel the need to read each linked article for yourself, digging into the specifics of the civil lawsuit or the various relevant statements. If you want to reexamine the facts of the case, I won’t stop you. I would suggest, however, that you think about a truly appropriate course of action for all involved. Things might have looked different if Denhollander, Christianity Today, and others had been more clear on the details of their complaints. Perhaps SGM could have made its internal judiciary processes more transparent. Speculations aside, it should be obvious that the biggest failure of all the actors was Immanuel. If one party asserts innocence, and the other makes claims of “a serious problem that damages the gospel,”11See Denhollander’s Facebook post you can’t pick both sides.

I won’t stop you from doing your own research. After all, the point of this post was not to determine who was right and wrong. The purpose of reviewing this cancellation drama was to show how cancel culture is presented and how not to respond. If your church members warn of an associated denomination that is heretical or in bad standing: please, cancel them. It would be a grievous sin not to cancel them. However, If a church member is complaining of an association that has done no wrong and is in good standing, canceling them to save face is an act of selfishness. Without a trial or proper accountability, you would be rendering judgment on the organization based on hearsay, a thoroughly unbiblical principle (See Deuteronomy 19:15). The concept of witnesses and trials are all essential applications of a Christian’s commitment to finding the truth of a matter. Ignoring them is perilous.

“There is, therefore, something awfully sacred in the obligations of truth. A man who violates the truth, sins against the very foundation of his moral being. As a false god is no god, so a false man is no man; he can never answer the end of his being. There can be in him nothing that is stable, trustworthy, or good.”

Charles Hodge, “Systematic Theology, Vol. 3” – 2020 (9th printing), page 438

Sources:


  • The Admin Avatar
  • Author Information:
    Unconscionable Admin — Founder of the Unconscionable Life, he is a Christian, a husband, and a father. Politically, he is a Christian Nationalist. Ecclesiastically, he is a reformed Presbyterian. In general, he is a dissident.
Mustering the Redeemed Right

Francisco Franco, like every other dictator, is a controversial figure. Some time ago, as he came up in conversation, it occurred to me that I didn’t know much about the man. Charles Haywood’s article, On Franco, soon came to my attention, which I read with great interest. At the end of it, he asked […]

The Iowan Idol Smasher and Christian Political Action

In many circles, Christian Nationalists are easily identified by their stance on blasphemy laws. A man who believes in enforcing them is often considered a Christian Nationalist, regardless of whether he affiliates as such or not. Much of the rhetoric surrounding these laws can just as easily be applied to the destruction of idols. […]

The Problem With Categories

As we engage in political discourse among our own camps, we find ourselves automatically shifting from one category to another. A hearty discussion on “political power” would be incredibly productive among Right-wing friends who understand the nature and purpose of such a thing. Outside of these like-minded friends, the discussion devolves very quickly. The […]

Ye Meets The Evangelical Elite

On the 4th of February, 2022, The New York Times published an opinion piece by David Brooks. This article, “The Dissenters Trying to Save Evangelicalism From Itself”, outlined the experiences of multiple evangelical leaders who were “breaking ranks” from the evangelical world. The columnist featured names such as Thabiti Anyabwile, Kristin Kobes Du Mez, […]

Power Dynamics and Rape

The first time I watched this video, I was astounded! I had no idea that the woke crowd thought that David’s sin with Bathsheba was a case of rape. My initial reaction was to find some humor in this farcical claim and to ignore it forever. Unfortunately, something about these claims stuck, and I […]

Commitments and Committees

The PCA has a wonderful habit of asking questions nobody asked. As someone who has only recently started to dig through the history of this denomination, I have found myself viewing reports and statements on questions I would never have dreamed to ask. Today, I will be briefly looking at the Ad Interim Study […]




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *