Introduction

 We have come a long way over the past few months.  We started eight weeks ago, with an introduction to the issue at hand.  We began by discussing paradigm shifts that churches need to make for growth.  If churches are to survive the everchanging culture which has been made even more volatile following the COVID-19 pandemic, certain mentality and culture shifts need to take place.  We have discussed the shift from looking inside to looking outside, the shift from a stakeholder mentality to a teammate mentality, the shift from a consumer to a discipleship culture, from a country club to a hospital mentality, from a pastor driven to a people-driven culture, a shift from the church building to the church people in evangelism, and the shift from the church as a building to the church as a community.  You can find an introductory discussion of these issues here.  In the final article in this series, we discuss one final important shift that must be made for churches to survive: the shift from a cancel culture to a unified culture.

The cancel culture movement is all around us today.  This is the idea that if we do not like you or your ideas, we can simply cancel you.  This happens very obviously today in the struggles over morality, sexuality, and gender.  Oftentimes those on the conservative side are simply canceled or considered as irrelevant by the left.  Basically, if one side does not like you and they have enough support on their side they can simply declare that your vote or opinion does not count for whatever reason they deem appropriate.  What many believers today do not realize is that the cancel culture has crept into the church.  Churches regularly struggle with the cancel culture mentality; in many senses, this mentality survives and even thrives in the church because it is all about getting what one wants and removing opposition.  Yes, churches today can be so carnal, and church politics can get very dicey!  I have seen churches cancel those whom they did not want to follow or associate with over and over again and again.  They have removed pastors for non-biblically based issues and have taken over the leadership of the church all because one party did not like the approach of another.  They have ostracized those who are not like them and pushed out those who see things differently.  This stuff divides good churches! 

This mentality is carnal and incredibly unbiblical.  The New Testament picture of the church emphasizes unity amidst diversity.  In fact, this is what can make the church strong—different people with different backgrounds coming together and uniting around the one main thing they have in common: Jesus Christ.  If we understand the New Testament portrayal of the church as a body, then we cannot merely cancel someone who does not agree with us; we need them!  We need their viewpoint and perspective, and we need their ministry in the body and service to the church.  In our culture today we are shaped to view everyone who agrees with us as friends and everyone who does not as enemies.  I do not think this is how Jesus wants believers to act towards one another!  When we try to cancel a believer who does not agree with us we are only serving ourselves, not the body.  We are making church about us rather than about Jesus Christ.  When this happens, all kinds of evil can be permitted and practiced in the church and people will use whatever means necessary to get what they want.  We should not be surprised at this, however, for James 3:16 reminds us For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing.

In addition to all of this, canceling someone who disagrees with you is not a biblical strategy for conflict resolution.  The Bible gives clear steps to take in resolving relationship drama and restoring broken relationships, and this does not include canceling a person or group of people who might view things differently.  Churches that are poised to succeed in the coming days need to exchange the cancel culture mentality that surrounds us today with a countercultural mentality: an emphasis on unity.  Believers can be unified amidst diversity.  Believers can practice forgiveness and seek restoration.  Church members do not have to agree on everything, and they can still respect others in the church without attempting to cancel them.  Much heartache and conflict would be reduced in the church if believers simply valued unity above their own desires.  Instead of canceling those who disagree, believers should instead value and cherish them and treat them with the love of Jesus Christ.

I have one final observation regarding the cancel culture in the church, and that is this: the church cancel culture movement often exists in hyper-congregational churches.  A hyper-congregational church is a church that views church government in much the same way as they view government in the United States today.  The people wield the “power,” deacons are the representatives of the people to help them get what they want, and the pastor is there to preach and teach, and we will let him lead to the degree that he leads where we want to go.  But the emphasis in this type of ministry is on the role of the people in the say of the church, and these churches often emphasize that they are “congregationally governed”.  I believe this is a misunderstanding of Scripture.  But more practically, many times it is a misunderstanding of a church’s own doctrinal statement.  Most hyper-congregational churches are not as congregational as members like to think, at least not in their church documents.  In my previous ministry, the doctrinal statement was clear that the pastor is to “listen to God and not to men” and to lead the people as he believed God intended.  In practice, however, we were a hyper-congregational church that gave far too much power to the people and left me as the pastor helpless in many cases to do what I believed God would have for the church.  Now do not misunderstand my meaning, I believe in congregational church polity.  But the congregationalism of a hyper-congregational church (and yes, this is a nebulous term) is a far cry from what I mean when I talk about congregationalism.  When I was pastoring, I was constantly reminding our members that we were not merely congregationally governed; we were congregationally governed but pastor/elder-led.  The “pastor-led” part was often left out in favor of the “congregation makes all the decisions” mentality, which I would take as hyper-congregationalism.  I would describe the relationship between congregational authority and pastoral leadership as mutual submission.  The church calls a pastor as a matter of congregational governance, but with that calling, they are willfully giving him the authority to be their spiritual leader and willfully submitting to his leadership.  Congregational governance and pastoral leadership should work together, not be in competition with each other.  Scripture only demonstrates the authority of the congregation in a few areas—calling church leaders, admitting and dismissing members, and church discipline.  But the Bible never clearly tells the congregation to rule.  The Bible only group that the Bible describes in terms of expressing oversight or ruling well are the pastors!

The cancel culture mentality works best in churches when they view the power as in the hands of the people.  When this is the case, the church is always about them and getting what they want rather than submitting to the spiritual leaders God has given the church.  This type of culture easily accommodates a cancel culture mentality because the people hold all the power, and the purpose of their “vote” is not to discern the will of God but to get what they want.  Such church cultures are incredibly toxic for church leaders who serve in them, and their hands are often tied in their attempts to lead a church forward.  The church easily becomes inner-focused and will fight about insignificant matters that have no eternal significance.  In their haste to wield the power and cancel the culture of anyone who tries to change what they like, these churches often suffer greatly because if they have a godly leader who tries to lead from what he finds in the Bible, they will cancel him too.  This is the reality of the cancel culture movement in churches, and I know it well, for I was one who was on the receiving end of this type of philosophy of ministry—I was one who was canceled by church culture!

Final Thoughts

For churches to thrive today, they need to leave behind the cancel culture mentality and embrace a culture based on unity so that they can exemplify the heart of Christ and move forward together based on the bond of Christ.  Churches that focus on looking in and getting what they want are already not healthy, but if this mentality continues, these churches will not fare well in the coming years.  Ministry today is getting more and more difficult; times are hard on churches!  But some churches are growing and thriving even during this time.  In my own experience, the items mentioned above and in this series of articles play a key role in determining which churches will continue to grow and which churches will continue to decline.  Based on the criteria I have written, which church will yours be in the coming years?

Questions to ask of your church:

 1) How do people in your church handle conflict?  Are relationships restored, or do you have people who have been estranged for a long time?

2) What do you do if someone does not agree with you?  Do you make it your mission to cancel them, or can you have unity amidst diversity?

3) Have you seen ungodliness being excused because someone sees things differently?  What comes out of our lives when we disagree with someone is often indicative of deeper issues.

4) How do you and people in your church view authority in the church?  Is the pastor a leader or a lackey?  Do you view your vote as a way to get what you want or to determine the will of God for the church?

5) Cancel culture can also come from the leadership of the church.  Have you seen your church leaders try to cancel someone who did not agree with them?  Do you see any works of darkness coming from their life in how they handle these types of situations?