In Defense of Disagreement

Our public discourse happens primarily online. Public opinions are communicated quickly and broadly by using social media platforms that connect readers with messages instantaneously.

The rate at which we must process these messages has necessarily progressed as rapidly as the technology that makes all of this possible. The near overwhelming rate of speed that ideas collide causes the public to long for simplification--for shortcuts.

One such answer to the overwhelming and rapid pugilism in our public discourse has been called "cancel culture." Cancel culture reduces a position to the least charitable reading and calls for collective judgment to condemn both the message and the sender. Cancel culture nullifies future and past messages by the sender. The person, and their ideas, are eliminated from public discourse--making the field of qualified messengers smaller. The hope is, over time, there will be less information to process, fewer perspectives to have to consider carefully. Maybe our human brains--our analog tech--will be finally satisfied when there are only a few of us left to read online. Only the pure will remain.

Cancel culture has opened the door to punishing individuals and groups alike through public embarrassment. Anecdotally, a common expression of what I am talking about is when an airline loses your bag, you publicly broadcast your complaint on social media, tagging the airline. It's the equivalent of hoisting the power--which we only have now recently--of something like grabbing the airport broadcast microphone and announcing the error at LAX, JFK, and Heathrow simultaneously.?That will teach them.

Even though I have, I am embarrassed to say, participated in that kind of corporate clapback, I would never grab the mic at the airport. So, why should I behave that way online? I can do better.

Recently, an aspiring author named Sean Feucht pursued a publishing contract with Harper Collins--one of the biggest and best publishers in the world. Harper Collins has many Christian book imprints, two of whom combine to make the market share leader ahead of my company, B&H (according to recent market research by NPD). I know many of the men and women who work for these companies, and many more who have in the past. I know them to be people of integrity who feel called to serve Jesus faithfully. They are Christians.

Even though one acquisition editor--there more than a few who work at Harper Collins--tried to outline a publishing deal with Sean's agent with what is known in the business as a "Deal Point Memo" (the memo outlines the biggest parts of a contract that are most commonly negotiated, such as the advance and royalty rates), the negotiation halted because the employees at Harper Collins no longer wanted to move forward. So, Sean clapped back.

Sean Feucht claimed online that it's a "dirty little secret" that Harper Collins doesn't want you to know--employees there "don't like Christians." The purpose of the message, one would assume, is to punish Harper Collins for abandoning the prospective deal. In a word, they: disagreed. (Feucht also claimed they were under contract, but a Deal Point Memo is not a contract . A Deal Point Memo is a form used commonly to illustrate the prospect of working together. If they had a contract, it has not yet been shared).

There is no secret: many Harper Collins employees love Jesus and His followers. They have published wonderful books that I have enjoyed my whole life long. I can't imagine my life without C.S. Lewis as a part of my spiritual formation. God has used Thomas Nelson and Zondervan--Harper Collins Christian Publishers (HCCP)--in amazing ways. I wish they hadn't been falsely accused of failing to like Christians. They are my not business competitors first and foremost--they are our brothers and sisters first and foremost.

In Acts chapter 15, Paul and Barnabas find themselves in a serious disagreement. As their missionary journey continues, plans are being made about the future. Paul insisted that John Mark should not be allowed to join them. After all, John Mark had betrayed the Apostles in the past by deserting them in Pamphylia (v.38). Barnabas disagreed. And the disagreement was so sharp, that the company divided and parted ways.

What happens in Acts next is the ministry of the gospel continues. Paul and Barnabas (and John Mark!) preach the gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world. Disagreement did not cancel Paul's future. Disagreement did not cancel Barnabas. And even though John Mark deserted Christians in Pamphylia, God continued to use John Mark to carry on the mission of God.

Would it be that Christians could disagree with one another, even pursue God's calling in opposite directions, without seeking to undermine how God might powerfully work through them in the future. We don't "have" to clapback at one another.