Some have pushed back against discernment that calls for silencing or removing individuals from positions of authority or teaching, dismissing it as “cancel culture.” While that label can carry a lot of cultural baggage, and such a retort carries emotional weight, the real question isn’t what we call it, but whether such action is biblical. And in Scripture, the answer is clear: there are times when individuals must be removed, silenced, or separated from, for the sake of truth and the health of the church.

Before proceeding, though, what exactly is cancel culture? Cancel culture is typically defined as publicly calling out, boycotting, or withdrawing support from an individual because of something they said or did that is considered objectionable or offensive. It can lead to individuals losing jobs, endorsements, and social standing, having significant ramifications. Some view it as basic accountability, and others, an overreaction that compromises free speech.

While cancel culture in the secular sphere can be driven by public outrage, virtue signaling, or ideological enforcement, it is not necessarily rooted in truth. In contrast, biblical discernment (assuming charges based on facts) that results in “canceling” is (ideally) driven by concern for truth, holiness, and the flock’s protection (Acts 20:28-31). The motivations, standards, and goals are different.

At its best, “cancel culture” can be public accountability, especially when genuinely harmful situations are addressed. Furthermore, sometimes public pressure brings about necessary reform, and sometimes the only way to bring about reform is to bring a topic to the public square. Yet, on the other hand, emotionally driven mob justice can be mere reactionary outrage, disproportionate consequences, and punishment without all of the facts. Nor are all ‘crimes’ equally valid.

For the sake of this article, we’ll assume the “canceling” in question is in response to fully verified and genuinely objectionable wrongdoing.

Some concerns first come from the notion of publicly dealing with others, which indeed requires wisdom and care. We shouldn’t outright dismiss such and within the text of scripture, in letters so public that we published them for centuries, we see the naming of names and calling out of individuals (1 Timothy 1:20, 2 Timothy 2:17–18, 2 Timothy 4:10, 3 John 9–10, Galatians 2:11–14). This aspect isn’t usually the most objectionable for individuals, however. Most of the concern (as far as I can tell) comes from “silencing,” “losing endorsements,” “boycotting,” or “disowning.” This is the ‘canceling’ of the individual, and in many cases, it has been denounced when talking about an individual who is a false teacher or someone who has fallen into grievous sin. Yet, scripture has some hard words on this topic. Paul in Titus 1, for example, says,

“For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach, and that for the sake of dishonest gain.” (v. 10-11).

Aside from the parallels that could be drawn concerning the nature of some individuals, notice Paul says they “must” be silenced. The reason for such silencing is their destructive teachings. Paul is, in fact, telling Titus that these people are to be “canceled” if you will. This isn’t the only text that speaks to this issue, either.

Jude opens his short letter stating that he’d rather preach about the Gospel but must address false teachings instead (v. 3-4). In the book, he pulls no punches in his descriptions of these individuals, putting them, if you will, on ‘full blast.’ Paul also warns of those who cause problems, telling the church in Rome, “watch out” and plainly, “keep away from them” (16:17). We’ll return to Paul in a minute, but John also doesn’t wince from ‘canceling’ individuals. In the little letters of John, we find a clear denunciation of false teachings. 2 John, which is often sadly overlooked, says the following,

“Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teachings of Christ does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works” (v. 9-10).

John says that those who don’t bring the teachings of Christ (contextually, John is focused on the incarnation specifically) aren’t even granted basic hospitality, which, in the case of traveling teachers, was tantamount to supporting their missionary work. Hospitality is a given for a Christian (Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; etc), yet it is not afforded to the false teacher (not necessarily, or merely, a false believer of a false doctrine) who comes as a teacher, bringing a false message. Some point out that this could very well be speaking of congregations when saying “your house” (given this is where the church would meet initially), indicating John rebukes the notion that we should allow false teachers into a congregation to propagate their errors. In either case, such teachers are not received, and in Paul’s words, “keep away from them.”

There are other texts for consideration, but one last one that will be mentioned here is 1 Corinthians 5. A text that often seems forgotten in our modern era. Paul calls out sexual immorality in the church of Corinth, calling out the allowance of this to take place and remain in the church. His exhortation is simple at first, “Let him who has done this be removed from among you.” (5:2). In verse 9 Paul reiterates, “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people…but now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality.”

Paul says don’t even associate with such an individual, and he doesn’t stop at sexual immorality, “if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard or swindler – not even to eat with such a one.” On top of this, even more difficult to our evangelical sensibilities are the lines that follow, “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Purge the evil person from among you.”

We often get this backwards, as if being “in” means no accountability and a forever safe space from being “judged.” Yet Paul says the opposite. If Paul says this about individuals who are just congregants, how much more serious would his words be to leaders in the church who were seemingly qualified for the pastorate? Obviously, such must be done in conjunction with other principles: grace, forgiveness with repentance, restoration, and so forth.

The question is: Is it cancel culture to remove or silence a false teacher or unrepentant sinner? I suppose so, but it really depends on how we understand “cancel culture.” The better question is: Is it Biblical to remove or silence a false teacher? Absolutely. Paul says of unrepentant sinners, “Do not even associate,” how much more for anyone more than a layman? Logically, this will extend to other aspects: do we endorse or platform such individuals? The answer seems obvious.