Over the past
several weeks there has been a lot of coverage related to supposed controversy
over the booking of entertainment talent for president elect Trump’s
inauguration celebration. The band of
Talledega College, a historically black school, encountered widespread criticism
after announcing they would perform. Country star Toby Keith was also
criticized despite explaining that he has performed for several presidents
irrespective of their political party or platform.
Others have
been shamed into backtracking from their initial acceptance of the invitation
to perform. The Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli backed out of consideration after
allegedly saying he was “getting too much heat”. Just a couple days ago,
Broadway star Jennifer Holiday also backed out and issued an apology, saying
her initial acceptance was an example of a lack of judgment and that her “only
choice must now be to stand with the LGBT Community” and not perform.
If reports
are to be believed, there have been several others who have refused to
participate ranging from Elton John and Adam Lambert to high school marching
bands and even individual members of the Rockets and the Mormon Tabernacle
Choir.
Before we go
on any further, I want to point out that I do not really have a problem with
individuals deciding not to participate in the event because they believe their
participation would somehow compromise their integrity. I also do not have a
problem with those who decided to perform or have done so for previous
administrations. This article is not about the politics whatsoever. Rather,
what I want to point out is a particular observation of how the interaction
between worldview and culture influences the perceived ethical or moral value
of the decision itself.
Many who are
associated with liberal or progressive agendas are horrified by the thought of
Donald Trump taking office as the President of the United States. Several of
these performers see performing for Trump as somehow legitimizing the event and
would rather use the opportunity to highlight the antithesis between certain
values he appears to represent and their own. Many ordinary people who are fans
also see the participation of cultural icons, particularly those they identify
with, in his inauguration as somehow betraying important values they hold dear.
Frankly, as a
Christian there are many things that Mr. Trump appears to represent that I also
find quite concerning, but what I find more interesting is the way that these
withdrawals and public refusals are being portrayed and responded to. It seems
that it is now a virtuous act to stand on principal and refuse to participate
in adding the perception of legitimacy to a cause that is morally opposed to
liberal and progressive convictions. Those supposedly standing up for their “principals”
are praised for their courage and integrity.
What is
interesting about this is that the underlying logic has so frequently been
denied to Christians whose convictions have run afoul of the quickly changing
cultural mores. We have seen the criticism levied at company and charity
executives who do not “get with the program” regarding company policies support
various progressive agendas. We have seen it with pharmacies who are not
comfortable with dispensing drugs to end pregnancies. We have seen it related
to doctors who choose not to perform certain procedures and we have seen it
with photographers and bakers who choose to not participate in homosexual
weddings.
The idea that
one should stand upon principal and refuse to participate wherever values would
be compromised is something that is increasingly only seen as virtuous if the
values are those of the new morality. Indeed, to take similar stands for traditional
values is often decried as hateful and even criminal.
For example, it
was not long ago the State of Colorado ruled that Masterpiece Cake Shop must
supply cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies despite the fact that the
proprietor was a devout Christian and felt that to do so would compromise his
moral convictions. The court ruled that “his religious objections to the
practice did not trump the state's anti-discrimination statutes.” Since the
shop sold wedding cakes, they could not refuse a client that wanted to purchase
one. Cultural progressives applauded this (and other similar decisions) as a
triumph of equality. However, when high end fashion designers Tom Ford and Marc
Jacobs refused to design a dress Melania Trump, this logic seemed to disappear.
Although the
First Amendment is specifically concerned with political and religious speech,
the roar of the crowd is growing stronger by the day. Cultural revolutions are
not complete until the new consensus is enforceable through the coercion of the
crowd and/or the power of the state. The divisions that this election has
highlighted (and perhaps deepened) are complex and varied. Attempts at reducing
them to simple explanations are bound to fail. What is clear, however, is that
we are seeing more clearly the response of a new and still insecure orthodoxy
when it perceives itself to be challenged and the picture is troubling for those who wish to proactively engage the culture but whose convictions are antithetical to its newfound morality.
