3 minute read
Andrew Kerbs posted a meme on his @deconstruct_everything Instagram page that’s been widely distributed on social media. It reads, “A major problem in evangelicalism is that the question is never asked, ‘Does this theology cause harm?’ but rather they ask, ‘Is it true?’ Once an evangelical has determined a belief to be ‘true,’ harm caused is irrelevant and can be blamed on moral shortcomings of the victim rather than blamed on the harmful theology itself.”1 I’ve endlessly gone back on forth on that, but my tentative conclusion involved thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
Yes, I’m down with this idea that the question of whether a belief or practice causes harm should be an integral part of our theological formulations. For example, the era of Western colonialism was set off by the widespread belief within European Christendom that non-believers are less godly and deserving of basic human dignity. Therefore, violence against them was permissible. In fact, it was a noble task to seize these new lands for Christ and subdue its savage inhabitants in His name. Such incredible horseshit. There the interpretive lens of harm 100% needed to be used.2
No, I’m not down with harm prevention seizing control role of all critical thought.3 That’s equally dangerous. I’m a big fan of Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. Among their arguments is that the expanding idea of harm in American culture, which is serving as an interpretive lens for determining truth, has had unintended consequences.4 I agree with that, too. The perception of potential harm is a valuable tool to include, but it doesn’t veto all else.
I couldn’t choose between these options, so I synthesized them.5 What I’m instead trying to do is bring together the best of a classic liberal arts education with a commitment to E.Q.6 It’s a commitment to the life of the mind synthesized with empathy, compassion, and, yes, sensitivity to harm. I’ve increasingly learned to use attunement to potential harm not as an alternative moral or epistemological standard in and of itself, but as a check engine light for my theology. It lets you know something is off, so you should probably proceed with caution and run a diagnostic ASAP.
The original beatniks were pretty postmodern in interpretative methodology. That may provide a helpful template here for beatnik Christianity as well. Andrew Kerbs is right about getting stuck in the true vs. false dichotomy, but there’s another path forward. Truth can be multivalent in nature where there are other interpretations, meanings, nuances, and prioritization that also legitimately correspond to factual reality but do so in a more gracious fashion. It’s wise to use the interpretive lens of harm to prompt exploration of other possibilities that better sync truth with love.7
Full disclosure: I offered a little grammatical assistance.↩
The failure to do so was evil.↩
I’m classically liberal in the sense that I believe in a liberal arts education, the marketplace of ideas, the principle of free speech, and the importance of exposure to a diversity of perspectives, including hostile ones.↩
Namely, a catastrophic impact upon the mental health of young people.↩
I reject the premise as a false dichotomy and am instead using nondualistic, holistic methods of thought.↩
i.e. emotional intelligence.↩
To be clear, I’m not at all advocating for moving away from a commitment to facts. There my perspective is unwavering. I am NOT in any way, shape, or form supportive of reality-warping, relativistic, and/or propagandist bullshit like Kellyanne Conway’s insane “alternative facts.” A multivalent view of truth still holds that truth is that which corresponds to reality. There are alternative interpretations, but there aren’t alternative facts. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously put it, “You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.” I ain’t having any of that post-truth nonsense.↩
