Well, hello everyone. Welcome to the live cast. It's good to see you all again. My name is Paul Feasy, and as always, I'm joined by Glenn Scrivener down in Eastbourne. Hello, Glenn.
SPEAKER_02Hello, Paul. Just glad to be with you and not cancelled after last week.
SPEAKER_01No, we're we're all very relieved after last week. So if you've um if you've not seen last week's episode, this is a bit of a follow-up. So today we're talking about moving beyond cancel culture. Uh last week we were looking at the results of an anonymous survey that we'd we put out there for people where people could fill in unsayable opinions. Um things that either it might be opinions they hold, it might be opinions that you know other people hold that they just wouldn't wouldn't feel comfortable saying out loud. Um and last week we had a bit of a look at that, we pulled out some of the the ones that stuck out to us the most. Um but we wanted to kind of talk about it a bit more because um there was so much more that could be said, and most importantly, we didn't actually get a chance to open a Bible at all last time. But if you need to see if you've not heard that podcast or seen this that video, you can find it as podcast um314 uh at speatlife.aud.uk forward slash SLP. Or you can find the video on our YouTube channel with the title uh This Survey Will Uncover Deeply Held Racist Beliefs. Which which it did. Yeah, and yes, there were some, undoubtedly.
SPEAKER_02Yes. But yeah, I the irony of it was that the person who said this survey will uncover deeply held racist racist beliefs then went on in their next opinion to to say that older white men are the problem. Yes. Uh and the delicious irony was uh was explored much. It was not lost on us, at least. It was not lost on us. And you can check that out. And you can also dive into these two and a half thousand unsayable opinions. So the the link to the Google Sheet is uh in the description box, uh, both to last week's livecast on YouTube and in this week's live cast on YouTube. And if you don't already subscribe to YouTube, what are you doing? Take a good look at yourself, figure out your priorities in life. Um you need to be subscribed to uh to speak life. But um but now we're we're figuring out how to move beyond cancel culture because you know, as as you say, Paul, last week I only got a chance to actually hold up the Bible as a prop. Very Trumpian, you know? Yes, very Trump-like. And uh I gassed a whole bunch of protesters just so I got my photo up to hold up my my Bible like that. That's that's that's the similarity between me, me and Trump. Um but one other thing that we didn't get to last week um was a comparison um between um two different radio shows. And this is what we wanted to bring to you last week, but I I I think I think it is helpful. Um so if you live in the UK, you might know Simon Mayo. Um he co-presents um the film podcast, you know, the five live what what are they called? Wittertainment, the Church of Wittertainment. It's one of the it's one of the uh most popular podcasts in the UK. And it's um about film and and the cinema. And uh he co-presents that with Mark Kermod. He also has a show, or used to have a show, on Radio 2, where he had a very popular segment called Confessions. And um Paul, describe describe for the people what uh confessions was all about.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, well, someone would have written in um and they would describe something they had done in their past uh that they were confessing to. Um and the panel, there was I think it was three or so, would would have this read to them, and basically they would have to make a decision at the end whether this person was forgivable, you know, what they'd done. Was this person worthy of forgiveness or not for this terrible crime they had committed? Whatever it might be.
SPEAKER_02And they they quite often were like pretty, pretty nasty things that people had done in the past.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, there's a whole mixture of things really, wasn't there?
SPEAKER_02But um yeah, definitely some other things. Some of them were trivial, some of them pranks, and some of them like like truly dreadful.
SPEAKER_01I don't think there was anything ever there was never never anything like criminal was there. A murder. And then I dumped the body in the lake.
SPEAKER_02But she's sorry about it now, so I think she deserves it.
SPEAKER_01It was a long time ago.
SPEAKER_02It was back in the 1980s when attitudes were different. To murder. I mentioned the attitude's a different thing because um on BBC iPlayer, I've I've been really enjoying Alan Bennett's Talking Heads. Have you seen any of uh any of that?
SPEAKER_01I I know of it. I I've not seen what is that old ones or new ones? They've they've redone them.
SPEAKER_02So he he wrote them back in the 80s and they've redone them with like Martin Freeman and and um uh oh Maureen Lippmann and other other people like that. Yep. Um but on a on a couple of them, one with one of them with Amilda Staunton, um, she plays this busybody from the 1980s um who actually goes to prison um for her harassment of other people because she just can't help but comment on other people's lives, and she can't help but involve the authorities and report people to the police when they haven't been doing anything wrong. She's clearly uh an old, you know, horrible individual. And this is clearly described and you know she's like an old Karen. A grey-haired Karen. Um and she goes to prison for this. So clearly, within the narrative structure of this program, it's being you know shown to us that that her views are not correct. Um, but she does express a racist view, or maybe two within within the program. Um but you can't click on this program on iPlayer without this this massive pop-up coming and saying, Do you want to proceed with this? Um this this woman expresses views that some viewers might might think um are you know beyond the pale, you know, disturbing. Um But we we want viewers to know that this um this um show was set in the 1980s when attitudes were different. And what was fascinating to me was that they were throwing an entire decade under the bus. Like in instead of saying this woman is clearly like saying things that are unacceptable, they were unacceptable in the 1980s. She was sent to prison in the 1980s for these uh attitudes. But no, the BBC today are gonna throw the entire decade under the bus. Oh my words you know 40 years ago.
SPEAKER_01So when you get to the point where it says, you know, this this program, you know, this next film contains um contains racial supremacy and uh allusions to colonialism and invasion. Um but it was set in uh a galaxy far, far away a long time ago.
SPEAKER_02So uh just And it's just like yeah, why is it why is it treating the viewer as such an idiot that they can't see that this woman's views of course this woman's views were repugnant. They were repugnant in the night they're repugnant in any decade. Yeah. But it's just this this moral superiority of of you know the date is 2020, and haven't we moved beyond all this all this stuff? Anyway, why was I saying this? Anyway, Simon Mayo and his confessions, people would go on and they would they would confess to things they had done, and then the panel would vote on whether the person deserved forgiveness, which is a horrible, you know, confusion of categories there, uh which we have remarked on before on this show. But Simon Mayo is no longer doing that show on Radio Two. Instead, on Radio One, there's a very interesting successor to confessions, and the successor is unpopular opinions with Greg James. So before people would confess the things they had done. Now people confess the things they think, but would never say because they are unpopular and unsayable. Um we've got we've got a clip of uh uh Ricky Gervais being on the show, just so you get a a sense of the sorts of things that are said. Should we have a look at that?
SPEAKER_04Oh, come and give us your unpopular opinion. Something up till now that you've been scared to say. We've had Sophie and James and Amy and Aaron, and finally, Ricky. Oh. Um uh um This feels dangerous. Uh human is a plague. And the the world would be a better place if all people were wiped off the face of it and went back to nature. And I can't wait for that to happen one day.
unknownGood.
SPEAKER_04Ricky, a pleasure to have you on the show.
SPEAKER_02There is Ricky Gervais being uh yes typically kind of impishly um kind of hateful.
SPEAKER_01I love this pure disdain. Pure disdain for humanity. Yeah, humanity's a plague. And I can't wait for it to be over.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. I mean, all the signs were there with the office. Like this is the way he thinks of humanity, and I I love the office too, but um maybe that makes me an impish misanthrope as well. But um it so it used to be that the stuff that you did is what you needed to confess. Now it's the stuff that you think. And certainly with our survey, we uh we had about 450 uh contributors to the survey, and lots of them got in touch with me to say, oh gosh, it felt like I went into the confessional. It felt it felt like I I I've unburdened myself of these terrible, terrible opinions that couldn't possibly be spoken. But actually a lot of them um were could be said, I would have thought. And ought to be said.
SPEAKER_01There's yeah, a large, a large majority were ones where you you you could potentially see how there's room for a discussion on issues, even if people may disagree, um, or even if the the the mood of the day would run against it. Um you'd hope you we you'd hope there'd be room for discussion. There were definitely some in there which were beyond the pale, uh undoubtedly, that we commented on last week. Um But by by no means would I say it was the majority was was like that. It was things most of us again, it was probably a largely Christian response, I guess, although there will be non-c there are non-Christians in there, undoubtedly, people do identify that sometimes. Um so a lot of things would it be would be things that as Christians we would hold to be orthodox belief. Um kind of views on morality and all kinds of things that just don't you know that just kind of jar against society and you know rub people up the wrong way a bit.
SPEAKER_02So I think so something that's interesting is people kind of assumed that because we're having this anonymous survey, that the anonymous survey would uncover deeply held racist views and bigoted views, and it would just be this festering cauldron of hatred. Um and I don't think that's the experience. I mean, you can go um onto YouTube and you can you can click on the link and you can see all two and a half thousand opinions. Um I I don't think um they are any spicier than what you'll see on Twitter, and they're probably less spicy than what you'll see on YouTube. Um and what's interesting to me is I think public, the public internet is actually now more hate-filled than the private. Because the public internet is f is is fueled by performative outrage. Um and it's it's it's an it's an entire ecosystem that's driven by outrage. And the whole point is that other people see you getting outraged, and then there's a a battle between two entrenched positions, and and and actually the public internet is more hateful than the private internet. I think we're seeing a shift, and I I think more and more people will just start to take things into private spaces and onto private pages and onto Discord servers and things like that, because actually it's the stuff that's out there in the open that is the most hateful.
SPEAKER_01Well, it's because no no tweet or video goes viral by by saying something moderate and well considered. You have to say something outrageous in whatever direction for engagement. So Right.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. All the incentives are towards outrage, whereas all the incentives for our survey were towards um stating your opinion the most peaceably, you know, sanely that you possibly can, in order to say, isn't it crazy that people are trying to cancel this opinion?
SPEAKER_01Not everybody read that, but that's that's right. It's just to point that out, you know.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, yeah. There there were a few inflammatory things. But um and one of the things that makes this survey so apt um is that just last week, uh J.K. Rowling and 150 others signed a letter published in Harper magazine about free speech and denouncing the restriction of debate uh around the world. And uh so we we spoke about this last week, these 150 uh signatories. Interestingly, once the letter was published, a few of the signatories then said, Oh, I didn't know I'd be on the same letter as J.K. Rowling. Oh no. And they they kind of withdrew their name because somehow they were adjacent to a so-called transphobe, um, which is like if you want to undermine a letter about freedom of expression, way to go. Brilliant. No, I believe in free speech. But not that, yeah, not that free speech. Um but there have been other uh responses to this cancel culture letter. Um so there are 150 signatories to the one that J.K. Rowling signed. Um, but then there was uh a different letter and uh published in The Objective, and it had 160 signatories. So yeah. In terms of one upmanship, it's very it's very very partridge-esque, isn't it? Uh yeah. There's that sketch with the the you know Alan Partridge saying to the farmer, you know, how many cows do you have? I have a hundred cows. I've got 104 friends. Um hundred and fifty. Well, we can we can find 160 signatories to our letter. And uh what what do the 160 signatories um say? Well, let me let me show you. Um it it singles out J.K. Rowling, Rowling, however we're saying this. Um Rowling, one of the signers, has spouted transphobic and transmisogynist rhetoric, mocking the idea that trans men could exist. Um or or just questioning whether um gender is really so mutable. You could put it one of the other ways. One of those two ways. Maybe she's spouting transphobia, or maybe she's citing science. You never know. Um, and likening transition-related medical care such as hormone replacement therapy to conversion therapy. Are you not able to liken one thing to another thing? Um, because it it seems perfectly possible to liken the fact that um in one area of sex and sexuality you say I'm born that way, and in another area of sex and sexuality you say um I can transition just simply by declaring myself to be the opposite gender. Pick one, you know. And if J.K. Rowling is is saying that, is she allowed to bring out that comparison? Anyway, she directly interacts with fans on Twitter, publishes letters littered with transphobic rhetoric. Um if you read her tweets, um try and f try and find phobia there, try and find hatred. I I certainly can't. And she gets away with platforming violent anti-trans speakers to her 14 million followers. What does she mean by violent? We'll get into that in in a little bit. And certainly we we found on the um the survey that trans issues um were um the the the number one issues that were cited. We would you would would that be fair, Paul?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I think off the top of my head uh something around 280 or so people made reference to issues of gender or transgenderism um itself. Um you know, a a typical example would be well, we've got some typical examples, haven't we? Yes, we haven't. So here we are, we've got some typical opinions that were shared uh there. So a very typical one, you can't become a man or woman just by saying that's what you are. Uh transgenderism is getting way more attention than it deserves given how many people are actually transgender. Uh what else we had so someone said any changes in how a person views their sexuality or gender should be left until adulthood and not encouraged in children. Seems relatively p a reasonable kind of thing to suggest. Even if you disagree with it, can can you at least say it? Yeah. Uh there are only men and women, and a number of medically intersex people so small as to not really enter the popular debate. Uh another one said gay and lesbian activists made a strategic blunder when they allied themselves with transgenderism. I think that's probably a reference to uh the uh well the uh the undeniable um clashes going on between transgender activists and the gay and lesbian community to deal with issues of sexual.
SPEAKER_02Um community is is tearing itself apart over the T, really. And you know, Stone Stonewall, I mean the the Gay and Lesbian Alliance has broken off from Stonewall uh this year, with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance accusing Stonewall of homophobia and Stonewall.
SPEAKER_01And I think I think what it shows as a number of people I think someone actually said on the thing like the LGBTQ community is i i it's just a very all-encompassing title, but uh as a community there isn't really a single community there. Um you know, it it's it's a relatively meaningless phrase.
SPEAKER_02Well it's it's inherently um it's inherently unstable because yeah, especially the L and the T. Um yeah, if if you're a lesbian, it's really quite important. Your your immutable gender is really quite important, and the immutable gender of your partner is really quite important to you. Um and the T says the very opposite, you know, the L says born that way, and the T says I can declare myself to be a woman any moment. And and if you don't fancy me, I'm a trans woman, and if you don't fancy me, you lesbians, then you you you are being transphobic, you know. It's an un it's an inherently unstable alliance, and yeah, it's showing itself to be such at the moment.
SPEAKER_01Well, it picks at a number of other things as well. I mean, just the other day someone told me I couldn't have an opinion on something because I'm a man, but I'm pretty sure by their thinking next week I could decide to be a woman, so it it it it under it just does away with so many uh creates so many issues. Um anyway. Uh so the next one sa another person says suicide rate in transgender community and how it is high regardless of the acceptance and progressivism of their community. So saying there that there's a there's a high suicide rate amongst transgender people, regardless of how accepted they are or where they live. Okay, there we go. That was the Yeah.
SPEAKER_02You know, and that's either true or it's not, you know. It's either true or it's not. Um but someone like um Graham Lineahan here, um, he on Twitter has been chucked off um in four words. Uh if you want to be free of Twitter, don't we all want to be free of Twitter?
unknownYes.
SPEAKER_02You you you can you can end the madness now. Just tweet those four words and um you'll be carried off to the incinerator. Um men aren't women though, and that's that was enough for Graham Lineahan uh to get chucked off Twitter. Uh a year earlier, uh Megan Murphy, a feminist, um, got chucked off Twitter for calling a trans activist he, um, which is biologically um correct, but not how um uh Jonathan Stroke Jessica Yaniv wants to be called, and because he wanted to be called she and and uh Megan Murphy called uh Yanev he's I can see I can see you struggling to work out what to say as you're saying it, like this that look in your eyes going as uh what the uh Yeah, yeah. And we'll we'll figure out we'll figure out why this is such a minefield. Um theologically um what's what's going on? And I I think kind of um one thing that's going on is the Overton window. Um we probably haven't discussed the Overton window on this show before, but it's it's kind of uh sociologist um forget the last name, Overton, said that basically there is a spectrum of ideas on public policy and social issues that are considered acceptable by the general public. And um the Overton window is at times wider and at times narrower. It at times is further to the right and at times is further to the left. But I don't think anyone denies that the Overton window is getting smaller and that it is heading towards the left, um, increasingly so. And so there are narrower and narrower um ranges of views that are acceptable in public discourse. And if you are outside that window, um you are considered a a heretic. Um and and and it does get quite um religious like that in the in the most negative sense of the word. Um there are inquisitions held, there is uh excommunication, um, there is the burning of witches and that sort of thing. And um it is incredibly religious what's going on, and I I think we can't understand our times without understanding them through a theological lens. So on the on the next slide, what we've got is this kind of understanding of the world that has the the sacred at the top, and then there's you know the political that exists underneath it, and there's the the secular sphere, and and the the political exists within the secular sphere, but but the sacred used to be um all about God, right? Um so um on the next slide, you know, the the the sacred, well let's just keep the slides up, but yeah, the sacred I think is is you know it it used to be let's keep the religious religious and let's keep the s the secular secular. Um but there there always has been something of supreme value and that diverting from that was a matter of kind of uh existential threat to your society. Society. And there always has been the highest ideal up at the top of the totem pole. And if people speak against that highest ideal, there has been this sort of blasphemy charge that people have been subject to. And what we're f what we're finding is you can't get rid of blasphemy. Um, because you can't get rid of God. You can't get rid of something being the ultimate ideal, the ultimate sacred. It used to be God. And then the political, once that was at the top of the tree, the political used to be, oh, you could have your Whigs and your Tories, and they could battle it out, but they weren't they weren't talking about existential issues, and it didn't have that religious flavor to it. And you could have your art and literature, and art and literature could just be art and literature, and who cares about Shakespeare's politics? You know, he wrote good plays, let's just enjoy that. That's the way things used to be. But since the death of God, to use um Nietzsche's phrase, there's been a power vacuum. We've taken God away from the sacred spot, but you can't have nothing in the sacred spot. We're learning this. Um, you know, nature abhors a vacuum. So things have been elevated. So with God out of the picture for what is sacred, politics has arisen into that sacred space. Um and, you know, so many of the survey answers were things like, you know, can I can I vote this way and still be considered a Christian, or can I vote that way? And and you know, um, we we consider political issues to be so fiery, to be so heaven or hell, political leaders to be, you know, angels or demons. Um the political gets bumped up uh a category, but then you get um what was underneath politics, sort of entertainment and sports, that gets bumped up into the political. And so, you know, enter you know, writers like J.K. Rowling are sort of brought in, and then on the other side, there's actors that, you know, acted in Harry Potter on the on the other, and and then suddenly we need to know their opinion, and it becomes incredibly heated. Sportsmen um are now wearing political slogans on their backs. So, you know, Premier League footballers um, you know, are wearing Black Lives Matter. Now, you know, we've got no problem with Black Lives Matter as a slogan, but as an organization, um there there are there are issues. And is it okay? Would it be okay for a footballer to just put on their on the back of their shirt every Black Life Matters? Or or you know, it's something that expressed the exact same sentiment, but that wasn't also a political institution that has all sorts of political objectives and aims. Um well, no, and and so politics has come into um just sport. I just want to go and watch the footy. You know, can I can I can I just go and watch some people kick a ball around? No, that's gotta be political, and that's gotta be about statements. And you know, Dostoyevsky says, you know, without God, everything is permitted. And I think we're finding the exact opposite. Without God, everything is preachy. Really, really preachy, and it's exhausting. That's what I think, anyway. That's that's the that's the theological frame in which all this is being played out. And and that's why you get witch burnings, and that's why you get inquisitions, and that's why you get excommunications. And what is cancel culture? It's excommunication by another means. It's it's a secular excommunication that's going on. And it's the labeling of those outside the camp as those with whom you can have no dealing. You know, there is no reasoning with a heretic. They're already condemned. This is what's going on um in our in our culture wars. But where is the hope? Well, I I I I think um what we want to have a look at is um three things that usually um should be held together, but they've been torn apart, and then three other things that ought to be carefully distinguished but are smudged together. Um and let's let's have a look at the the the three things that ordinarily um should be held together, but instead they are being divorced in our public discourse. So we must not divorce love and truth, faith and works, and faith and reason. Um that we must not divorce love and truth. Um what I've got in mind is is things like Ephesians 4, uh, where Paul writes to the Ephesians, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is Christ. So, I mean, truth and love is always going together in the Bible. You know, Jesus comes in John 1 verse 14, full of grace and truth, and truth and grace, it's a truthy grace and a gracious truth. And in the Bible, you are not to separate what is real and grounded in reality from what is kind and accepting and gracious. But these days we don't so much want truth anymore, and in the name of kindness, we need to be inclusive of everything that we like, uh, and the truth be damned. And what what what are some of the results that we we see in uh in social media in our cultural discourses, Paul?
SPEAKER_01Well, I I guess the it's that divorce, isn't it, of uh, as you say, love from truth, is it we w when everybody is desperate to uh to be seen as loving, or I suppose uh y you could say there's a big focus on people's feelings, isn't there? Um it's it's a case of almost people are not willing to deal with facts anymore if facts make them feel bad. Um the danger is of course you can go too far one way or the other. You know, and I I would say at the moment we're definitely living in an age um maybe maybe it's just online. I don't know so much whether it's this same in person, but we're living in an age where it is feelings before facts. And you know, this is w that might be your truth, but this is this is mine, and how dare you you know say those things despite the fact you could back those things up. Um Of course you can go too far the other way, where you have a kind of Ben Shapiro-esque facts don't care about your feelings type thing, where effects effectively you are a fact machine uh but you have very little care for the damage you do with the facts, the way you might affect other people. And I think that's just that you know that's uh the way we are online, particularly, you know, that it's just obvious, isn't it, all the time. You see lots of times people just refusing to deal with facts that are given to them or ignoring facts and just saying I find what you say. I mean the JK Rowling thing is a perfect example, isn't it? You know, it doesn't matter what she's actually said or the facts that she's presented I don't have to deal with them because you've you've offended me.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. Because she is a phobe, and I know she's a phobe, so I don't need to deal with any of the truth that she might be bringing. You know, I've already I've already dismissed her as a turf, and so I don't need to, you know, deal deal with facts. And you know, as someone on the survey said, can we can we at least bring up um statistics about suicidality or something like that? Um can we at least bring those facts? Um, but you you can't if already someone's decided you're a hater, and your your facts just lead to hate, so we're we're not gonna we're not gonna deal with facts.
SPEAKER_01There's often a uh the the strange thing is again, there's often a real righteousness about a self-righteousness in in people who want to do that, you know, like well those people are beyond the pale, so we we don't have to listen to them. But of course, again, you could you don't have to look far to people to to say to find examples of people who would who who would have said in history, and I'm sure there are still plenty of people today, who would say, Well, we don't need to listen to them because they're a woman, or because you know they're they're they're they're black or they're Jewish, or you know, it's really easy to label someone and then just say, Well, therefore I don't have to listen to you.
unknownYeah.
SPEAKER_01And actually we know that that is that's there's terrible hatred in there and bigotry and where it leads, so yeah.
SPEAKER_02And actually, maybe you're bringing up the facts in order to help the other person because maybe their flight from reality is not helpful to them. Um and there's just a terrific Jordan Peterson clip um which we're gonna play to you where he he just talks about um don't uh demand that the world agrees with your account of yourself or your account of reality. Don't ever do that. For the sake of your sanity, you need to actually be contradicted by the world of fact that is out there. You need to listen to people out there who are contradicting your view of reality, and if you don't, you'll go crazy. Um so this is this is Peterson's clip. I think it's uh very wise.
SPEAKER_00If if the world is required to r to validate your identity, you're done for. And the reason for that is that every single one of you have a pathological direction in which you're likely to go, and that's because every temperamental virtue comes with a temperamental vice. And so the only, you know, you think you're sane, it's like you're not. You're not even close. If I put you alone in a cave for two weeks, you'd be done. You can't you can't be sane when you're old. And so what happens is that your parents, if they have any sense, train you, roughly speaking, to be vaguely acceptable to other people, and they keep nudging and winking at you every time you're a moron so that you you get nudged into something approximately acceptable. And you're glued in enough to pay attention so when someone raises an eyebrow or doesn't find your joke funny, or something rather subtle like that, you immediately revise your identity. And we're always nudging and tapping each other non-stop, exchanging information about how to stay safe. And if I'm forced into a position where I have to validate your identity, it's like, what if your identity is wrong? What if it's pathological? What if it doesn't serve you well? And I start validating you think I'm your friend? I'm not your friend at all. I'm mirror for your narcissism, and you will disappear. And I see this happening all the time with people. If you're fortunate, you're surrounded by people who like you now and wish you'd be a little better. And they'll let you know when you think of that. And then you think you don't even have to think that much more just like is this person like rolling your eyes? You get rolling. Basically, you're fortunate that people don't validate your damn identities. Like, what makes you think you've got your identity figured out? You're really complicated and you're close as hell, because you can't represent yourself entirely. You're the most complicated thing that exists. How are you gonna come up with an accurate definition of your identity? You got a hundred people out there helping you out if you've got any sense, if you're vaguely tolerable, and you know, they're kind of hinting at you what not only what you are, but what you might become. And you should welcome the validation of your identity. Now, malicious, well, that's a different story, but it's it's not that easy to separate out accurate criticism. Especially if it hits you right where it hurts, which is where you're wrong. You can't be separating that out from maliciousness or hate speech. It's like good luck. Good luck. You never learn anything without pain. And often when you receive a piece of corrective information from someone, it's like if you could throw that person in jail, you would. That doesn't mean they're wrong.
SPEAKER_02So yeah, we don't want others to be just a mirror for our own narcissism. I mean, he says it so boldly, but but if if I am lost in a view of myself and of reality, um, and you come uh about and bring your facts, um, that might not be because you hate me, it might be because you love me and you want to bring a dose of reality. Um, because I I think we need to put love and truth together. Um John Stott put it really well as he was um commenting on Ephesians 4 and that truth about um truth and love. He says, Our love grows soft if it is not strengthened by truth, and our truth grows hard if it is not softened, softened by love. Um, yeah, we need to we need to hold on to that. Let's not divorce love from truth. Uh and then the second thing, let's not divorce faith from works. Um we've noticed before that so much of what's going on, as especially with sort of identity politics and you know, woke um social justice movements, um, they are a kind of hyper-Protestantism. It's a kind of a an ongoing um rumbling of reformation. Certainly that's the way they want to present themselves. Um, but what's what's been the criticism of Protestants, it's that we believe in faith and not works. Because we believe in we're saved by faith alone, without works, um, the criticism has always been, oh, so you don't care about works. Well, no, actually the reformers did care about works, and they had a great doctrine of saying we are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone, and faith always leads to works. But in this hyper-Protestantism, what really counts is your beliefs alone. And in the absence of gods, it's your political beliefs that matter. Okay? So we are saved by our ideology alone, and our ideology remains alone, and it doesn't matter if we actually have never gone out into our community and made a single difference in the real world. What really matters is the statements that you make online.
SPEAKER_01Where do where do we see that, Paul? Well, yeah, social media is rife with this stuff, isn't it? It's just so easy to to to wave a flag for something and to be seen to do the right thing, uh, and then just do nothing about it. I mean, how uh I mean this was something I wrestled with, I think I mentioned it a few weeks back, to do with the whole you know, Black Lives Matter thing. If I just put up a black image, you know, a blank black square as my picture on Instagram or um Facebook um does it really achieve anything? You know, it's easy to do. I mean at the moment there's this thing to do with I don't know if you've seen the PTSD stuff on Facebook. Do 25 press-ups a day and you tag someone every day to do this challenge and you know to raise awareness, and I've been tagged to do it. And you know, I'd be I'm I'm I'd be happy to do it. I haven't started it, but then there's also a little bit of me that goes, Well, what what do I achieve after 25 days of just filming myself do 25 press-ups a day? Oh you film yourself as well. You do film yourself, so I'd be yeah, but again, but so you have to yeah, there's a there's that, but but again, what I I could get to the end of that and think, what have I really done for post-traumatic stress disorder? And it may be that you know, those things are it's tough to know with things like that, because there may be someone who has PTSD who sees all that and goes, I'm really glad that people are thinking about this in some way. I feel seen, I feel like. May very well be true. But there may be others who see exactly the same thing and go, man, this is just such so tokenistic, you're not doing anything to help. Like so easy to wave your flag, um, and just virtue signal. And we know that we know that kind of that kind of thing crops up on the internet all the time, don't we? I can say the right thing and be seen to have the right beliefs.
unknownRight.
SPEAKER_02Right. And you know, how how are you actually impacting your community? That's it's all you get is the signal on social media. You don't actually get the virtue. So it's it's virtual si v virtue signaling without the virtue very often. Um to which James chapter two says, What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, Go in peace, keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. And I don't think action for James means, you know, changing your profile pick on Instagram. Yeah, probably not. Um Yeah, it probably yeah, you should probably have more of a real-world impact. Your beliefs should lead to more of a real world impact. And if your beliefs are largely flags that um help you navigate the social media space, then what what good is that? Um virtue is is for actually love of neighbor. Isn't that interesting how how very concrete the scriptures are in terms of, you know, it doesn't say love the world, you know, God loves the world. The Bible doesn't really tell you to nurse a love for the world in your heart, it tells you love your neighbor, the actual person in your actual life that's you know proximate to you. Um that's that's a real um that really undercuts virtue signaling when you're oh I need to love my neighbor. Okay. Um so we've divorced love from truth, we've divorced faith from works, we've we've also divorced faith from reason, and again, we're hyper-Protestants these days. And um, you know, and so there there is in in Protestant faith um more of a suspicion of reason. Um but there ought not to be because from faith we are meant to seek understanding. Faith seeks understanding. That's that's kind of uh how the the Christian church has has thought of things um down through the centuries. Um and so um so we we should really be interested in evidence. We should really be interested in reasoning, we should really be interested in an evidence-based discussion in which there's persuasion and that sort of thing that that happens across the aisle. Um but but what is it that we see instead, Paul?
SPEAKER_01Uh well, I mean similar to what you mentioned earlier, that people people will just say, well, y if you believe these things, therefore we we don't have to uh engage with you. I d I don't have to com be confronted by what you're saying, I can dismiss it uh out of hand. Um I think part of the reason I think there's a there's a a fear of uh of having discussion as well. Um a fear of changing your mind. You know. What what if some what if someone what if you have a discussion with someone and they convince you you know you know, disaster. Um because we do s I think we see uh you know, we I think it's a strange thing, isn't it? That often when other people change their mind and say, ah, okay, I hadn't thought of that, we often take that we see that as quite an admirable thing in other people. But if we are to do if we were to do that, we we almost feel like we it's a weakness that we've lost, you know. Um but actually change changing your mind isn't the worst thing.
SPEAKER_02It's actually what repentance is, like literally the Greek word is the word change of mind. Um but if um if there is no God in your worldview, then the political is the sacred, and therefore your your identity um is wrapped up in your political beliefs so tightly that it would be like you know negating your very ex existence to change your mind on some of these things, which again is why we we need to have actually God in the place that God ought to ought to sit. And that that might free us up to be uh to to hold on to our our political beliefs um with much um uh of a looser grip. Um but instead, you know, and part of the thing that social media is doing is that we're all siloed off into our little echo chambers, and therefore the whole ecosystem actually rewards just playing to your bass and just just you know, you just tweet things that your kind of people like to hear. And you're not really trying to reach out and persuade anyone on the on the other side, because people on the other side are not going to read your tweets anyway, because they don't they probably don't follow you, but even if they did follow you, the algorithm would mean that you know they don't see your stuff. And so nobody nobody's trying to reason with the other side. Everyone is just trying to play to their own entrenched bases, and so we get these echo chambers and um and reason goes out the window, I think. Um but you know, come back, come back to Jesus, and you get love and truth brought together, you get faith and works brought together, you get faith and reason brought together. Um but then on the other side we need to think about um how we differentiate things. Um and and we need to differentiate these these next three things. We need to differentiate between words and violence, between sins and crimes, and between persons and ideas. And the first thing um we we need to differentiate between words and ideas, um, and we'll see what happens when they get collapsed into one another. But I mean, the first thing to notice about words in the Bible is that words are incredibly destructive and hurtful. The Bible knows that you know, um, words hurt. So, you know, Proverbs 12, verse 18, reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. Reckless words pierce like a sword. Um Proverbs is full of that kind of language. You know, words have a serrated edge and they are like a a sword thrust in Into your heart. And the words of the prophets are often hurtful, right? You can have righteous, hurtful words that hurt people's feelings. Certainly Jesus, when he called the Pharisees whitewash tombs and, you know, you know, nests of vipers and all that, you know, you're the blind leading the blind, and that fox herod. Um, you know, when when Jesus spoke in those ways, um, many people were hurt. You even read about that, you know. Some of the Pharisees were hurt by what Jesus said. Um and, you know, so we've got to have a category that words can be robust and words can hurt. Um, but we also must say that words are not themselves violence, that there is a different thing called violence, there is a different thing called force. In the realm of the flesh, there is this thing called force, there is this thing called the sword, but in the realm of the spirit, we are never to take up arms, we are never to use violence or force. And the Apostle Paul is really clear about this in Ephesians 6. He said that the only sword of the Spirit is the Word of God. So the the only offensive weapon that the church has at its disposal is the word of God. It is preaching, it is argumentation, it is reasoning, words, right? And we are never to take up the sword in the cause of Christ's kingdom. We are never to use violence in the in the cause of Jesus. In 2 Corinthians 10, Paul uses very military language to say how we um we tear down all these um uh let's let's have a look in in in 2 Corinthians uh where is it, 2 Corinthians 10. The weapons we fight with from verse 4, the weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, our weapons have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. So it's military language, but it's totally non-violent language because it's all about argumentation, it's about reasoning, it's thoughts. Um and so in the Bible there is this real radical distinction between words and violence, and we are to use robust words, but we are never to use our fists, never to use swords, never to use um violence. But these days um we're kind of smooshing together the idea of words and violence. Um how how do we see that, Paul?
SPEAKER_01Well, I mean, uh as we said, the the words are people will say your words are violence, that people people are doing violence to each other because of the things they say, even though, you know, it they're not being physically beaten or anything like that. Um so that's very common on social media or the idea of you know, you'd see that in the idea of microaggressions, people say even if you're even if you're not coming in out and even saying overtly you know antagonistic things that in some way you you may be being aggressive towards people in a way perhaps you don't even know. Um but is it also entirely dependent on it?
SPEAKER_02And I need a safe space? Yeah. And you might, you know, maybe twenty I don't know, thirty years ago, if if someone said, you know, there need to be safe spaces in universities, people would have thought, oh my goodness, is is that because there are pitchfork mobs that are, you know, like panic room or something.
SPEAKER_01No, you need a panic room. You'd think that's what it was twenty years ago. You would have thought that kind of thing, a safe space would be that kind of thing. Um but now a safe space appears to be a place where no one no one challenges anything, I believe. In any way. Um I suppose the opposite though is we have this silence is violence. Uh is the other end of the spectrum, isn't it? So not only are your words violence, uh if you don't say anything, that's also violence. So you just you y I mean you can't really win in the on this front, can you? Yeah.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, yeah. And I think it's coming from I I think a Marxist view of the world is is a reductionistic, materialistic view of the world. There is no realm of the of the spirit, it's all flesh, and therefore a Marxist analysis of the world can be quite um profound in in describing there are power players at work in the world, and the Christian says, of course, there's there's all sorts of power plays going on in the realm of the flesh. But when you deny the realm of the spirit, then for the Marxist everything becomes power plays. And and therefore violence is justified because there's nothing else but force, there's nothing else but flesh bumping up against flesh. Um and so I I I think there is a very great danger that um this distinction between words and violence will be gone. And I, you know, and therefore physical violent confrontation is the only thing left. Um so we really need to come home to the Bible, we really really need to come home to Jesus to actually have a justification for this realm of the flesh, uh realm of the spirit, in which argumentation, words, and reasoning can actually take place. Otherwise, it all becomes violence. Um the second thing that uh we need to differentiate is uh the difference between sins and crimes. Um there is overlap between sins and crimes. Some things that are sins are also crimes, like murder. Um, some things are sins that ought not to be crimes. Um, and we we've you know taken a view that adultery itself, um, while it might be considered sinful by various people, not just Christians, um, it is not something that we prosecute. Um and so there's there's there's a distinction between sins and crimes. But I think that's that's really helpful because someone can say something utterly repugnant, utterly wrong, utterly evil, and you can still say, yeah, but we sh we shouldn't call the cops on them. This is not um the jurisdiction of the police. This is not the jurisdiction of the state. It is wrong, and there should be censure, um, but that censure um perhaps should not be you go to prison. Um But how how are we seeing that distinction between sins and crimes uh being torn apart?
SPEAKER_01Well, uh in our in the kind of cancel culture of today, isn't it, that you know, if someone says something online, um it's not a case of oh, oh that was a bit ill advised or we didn't like that. It's more now we we end you, you know, off to jail with you into the incinerator. Um you know. Um that that's what it is, isn't it? You we will find your place of work and tell your employer what a terrible person you are. We will reveal your details online so that people can, you know, harass you and whatnot. Um Right, right. Yeah.
SPEAKER_02A policeman will show up at your workplace and just just to check your thinking. Yes, yes. Wow. You know. Thank you, branch of the thought police. Um, and even that that category of hate crime, it's a perfect example of sins and crimes coming together. A hate crime. Well, then you're asking a judge to be able to judge the thoughts and attitudes of a human heart. Who is capable of judging the thoughts and attitudes of the heart? Well, Hebrews 4 verse 12 says the word of God. Christ Himself is able to judge the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. But a human magistrate that that we probably shouldn't give them jurisdiction over that. And and and I think we should probably also like stop accusing people of stop pretending to know the motivations that other people have when they when they give their views. So, you know, people talk about this dog whistles. Somebody, somebody just, you know, they said one thing, but I know what they really meant. It was a dog whistle that was summoning all their friends from, you know, like, well, I'd not if you can hear the dog whistle, it mustn't be a dog whistle, it must just be a whistle. Um But this, yeah, this claim to know the motivations of other people or or the gaslighting accusation, you know, someone is just gaslighting me. Um and you're like, well, maybe, maybe, maybe they're just stating uh a fact that you consider to be inconvenient. And you know, you're having a kind of a Megatu um response from from Zoolander. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. You know, that that's also part like whenever somebody accuses somebody else, like whoever they are, on whatever side of whatever disagreement they have, if someone like accuses someone else of of uh gaslighting, all I can think of is is Will Ferrell just saying, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Um Yeah, may you let's let's not be judging the the thoughts and attitudes and motivations of other people's hearts. Um we're just not in a position to do that. But again, you take God out of the equation. Now we have to step into the void and do stuff that we are not fit to do. Um so you know, let's let's bring back God. Um and then we can have a true distinction between sins and crimes, and um that might take some of the heat out of some of this stuff. Um and then finally, there's the the difference between persons and ideas. So on page one of the Bible, um, persons are given the most incredible dignity. We are made in God's image. And in the New Testament, um, you know, you you go to a place like Galatians 3 and you you see that we are all one in Christ Jesus. Okay, so we have this this infinite dignity and worth that are given to us as persons. Um, but ideas um can be ridiculous, ideas can be stupid, ideas can be garbage. People are never garbage. And we must never treat people like they are garbage. But sometimes ideas are total garbage and need to be called out as such. So we need that distinction of persons and ideas. Um but where where does that go wrong, Paul?
SPEAKER_01Well, I mean I I think again we just see it all the time online, don't we? That if you I mean the J.K. Rowling thing again will be an example. Um I've seen a number of people say J.K. Rowling is denying the existence of trans people or whatever, or denying their identity. Um and and as I read it, she's not doing that at all. She she she's questioning the ri the reality of of whether gender can change. But she's not saying if you are a trans person I don't recognise you as a human being or anything like that. Um yeah, I mean it and you see it in other circumstances with all kinds of things, whether whether it's an issue like that or just hey, you have you have put forward a view. I mean, uh we saw it a lot of times on the um on the survey when people say, I really struggle to see how someone can be a Christian and vote conservative. Um you know, like that you must be a terrible human being to have voted that way or to vote that way. Um and that kind of came up a number of times. Um and you know, my experience has been, you know, there are people I know who vote different ways to me. And if I just think about that issue, I think, yeah man, they must be terrible. But when you talk to them, you kind of realize, yeah, but they're actually they're actually like good people. And I don't know how they came to the conclusion that they should vote this way or that way. Um maybe they tell me, and I still don't understand why I don't follow the thinking or agree with it. But it doesn't mean that they themselves are garbage. You know?
SPEAKER_02Right, right, right. And I and I think, you know, again in our survey, there were lots of people who um they expressed things well. I think um sufferers of gender dysphoria should call forth all our sympathy and care. Um, but putting them on a conveyor belt towards hormone blockers and surgery might not be best for them. That that was, you know, very commonly the the sort of thing that was said. Um and you know, what would it what would it look like to actually um to love the sufferer of gender dysphoria and and to hate the conveyor belt towards surgery that so many would have them on. Um and I think it would look like saying, um, I love you, I want to hear you, I want to understand you, and I want to speak a truth that says um there is male and there is female, and actually receiving your gender as a gift will be part of um this wrestle that we all have with our own identities, but it will be part of the wholeness that Jesus wants to offer to you. Let's wrestle together. Um we need to discover ways of um of loving the person even as we hate the idea. Um and on online um that's very difficult to do. But when when when you see it modeled well, you go, ah, that that looks to me like the way of Jesus. They've loved the person well, even if they've hated the idea. Um and we need to recover what it means to do that online, I think. Um one one last one last thought as we wrap up. Um you know, Proverbs 15 is where I think of the use of words all the time. Um so Proverbs 15 verse 1. Um here we go. Lost my place. Proverbs 19. Proverbs 15, verse 1. A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. Um and it's this this idea that there are harsh words that are out there stirring up anger, and it's becoming more and more fraught. The temperature is rising, the temperature is rising. But then Proverbs 15 says, a gentle answer turns away wrath. And it's this idea that somehow there is a gentle approach to anger that absorbs the anger, that doesn't pay back the anger, but instead gives blessing to those who are cursing. And that somehow turns away wrath. And of course, the phrase turns away wrath is applied to Christ and his sacrifice in the book of Romans. So who is Jesus? Jesus is the gentle answer of heaven to the stirred up anger of earth. But what does he do on the cross? He absorbs that anger on the cross and rises up again to say peace and to offer a gentle word. And that gentle word kind of turns away. It's it's excruciating for him to do. It is the power, it is the pain of the cross. It is excruciating for him to do that, but it is also the path of peace. And for those who are reconciled by that love, we're set on our feet to go out into a world where anger is stirred up, and instead to in Jesus and with Jesus, offer gentle words that turn away wrath. It will feel excruciating, but it's actually the path of peace. Um let's let's see if we can do that uh this week, offering our gentle words. Brilliant. Well, Paul, um, how can people catch up with us online?
SPEAKER_01Uh well, as always, you can head to the website, speaklife.org.uk, and find information on pretty much everything we do there, or you can keep up to date with um uh all the kind of videos and resources that are coming out uh via Facebook. You can search for Speak Life UK there, Instagram, we're on there, Twitter, any social media really. Uh, you can also um get our podcasts. So if uh you are uh on Spotify or anything like that, we are just in the process of getting those onto Spotify. Um, and you can also listen to those on the website, speaklife.org.uk forward slash slp. Um so there's various ways, lots of ways you can do that um and get information about what we're doing and keep up to date.
SPEAKER_02Terrific. Well, thanks everybody for joining us, and we'll see you again soon. All right, God bless. Bye bye. Take care.