We saw in Part 1 the effect of the shift from considering intent to focusing primarily on the felt (subjective) impact of an offensive act or speech. What about the question of whether people are inherently fragile or not? Is there validity to the growing trend of ‘safetyism’? In this article, we explore the untruth of fragility and emotional reasoning.

We hear the language of ‘safetyism’ daily when people say things like, “the most important thing is that you’re safe.”

Is it actually the most important thing? I mean, I’m not advocating recklessness, but should we be sheltered from every possible hardship or threat?

We see it also in the overprotection of kids and youth in public even though we in North American society live in what is statistically the safest era in history. My generation and older remember walking to the corner store as kids without even a second thought, and that was in a time when crime rates were objectively higher—and in my case, that was in Trinidad. (Maybe ignorance was bliss!) 

Today, we live in an age where a lot of the dangers of previous generations have been effectively reduced (e.g. implementation of mandatory safety belt laws, child seats, stricter regulations on children’s toys, etc) and crime rates in many areas are objectively less than in the past. Yet still, many today live in perpetual fear and anxiety, feeling the need to shelter their kids and even themselves from the bad world ‘out there’. 

But is it appropriate to seek to cut off all risk? Have we perhaps gone too far on a good thing? Could it be that the advent of a 24-hour news cycle and media that constantly parades endless examples of crimes and dangers at every turn has created a culture paralyzed by panic for fear of the boogeyman who doesn’t exist or magnified his smaller stature to seem giant? Could it be that the constant stream of breaking headlines delivered to us from the glowing rectangles in our pockets has caused this pandemic of fear and concern about fragility?

I’m obviously not referring to instances and situations where there is objective danger—but how often have we sought to find out the objective statistical data to see if our responses and fears are appropriate? What if our fears and anxieties are out of step with reality?

Safe spaces to retreat from danger

This trend has been pejoratively referred to on college campuses as ‘snowflake culture’ – a label often brandished while pointing to images of the latest college tantrum directed against merely having to contemplate another viewpoint. The examples (which have sometimes been cruelly mocked) are myriad – and many today take advantage of this to paint these things in the worst possible light (this is not my goal here). These trends have led to the invention of ‘safe spaces’ in some college campuses as retreats for students who feel threatened by the presence of opposing viewpoints which they view as threatening.

Lukianoff and Haidt recount the story of a 2015 article from The New York Times, an essay about safe spaces created by students at Brown University entered the public eye. The students were preparing for a debate between two feminist authors on whether if “rape culture” is endemic to American culture. Wendy McElroy, who was expressing the dissenting viewpoint (disputing that America is a rape culture), had herself been brutally raped as a teenager and badly beaten as an adult by a boyfriend which left her blind in one eye. However, in spite of this, she didn’t think it helpful to tell American women that they lived in a rape culture and perpetuate a victimhood mentality. The debate was to have her and the opposing viewpoint (Jessica Valenti) present their cases (on what is admittedly a sensitive topic) in a public, civil discourse.

However, some students at Brown objected that bringing in McElroy would “invalidate people’s experiences” and be “damaging”. This was before she had even stepped foot on or said a word in the campus. The students tried to disinvite McElroy from the debate. However, when that didn’t work, they created a ‘safe space’ – equipped with blankets, colouring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music and a video of frolicking puppies along with people trained to deal with trauma to help those who felt ‘triggered’ recuperate.

This was one of the earlier reports of ‘safe spaces’ on campus that appeared in the public eye and was met with incredulity. Couldn’t the students who disagreed simply choose to not go to the talk? How is it that the mere presence of an opposing viewpoint such as McElroy’s be perceived as such a threat to safety? Though the debate topic may be difficult and even painful to hear, should emotional discomfort be considered ‘dangerous’ to students?

Candles or fires

At issue here is whether or not we see ourselves as candles or fires. Nassim Taleb (a professor of risk engineering at New York University) notes that a candle can easily be extinguished by a wind, and so it must be protected. However, to a fire under the right conditions, the wind can strengthen it to burn brighter. 

It is sort of like our immune systems which require stressors to learn how to adapt and become more robust. Our bodies are incredibly designed to be efficient systems. If we were to shelter a child from all germs and attacks on their immune systems, their immune system would never expend the energy to develop defenses against anything. Then, a minor bug or virus could end up having an incredible toll because the body’s own protection system would be unprepared – having never fought off anything before. The irony is that in seeking to protect the child, the parents may end up setting them up for disaster.

Self-fulfilling Fragility

Thus, the myth of fragility becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As students and young people are told that they are fragile, that opposing ideas are dangerous, that disagreement is harmful, and that emotional hurt warrants heavy-handed action from supervising powers – they end up actually becoming more fragile. They come to believe that they can’t handle such things, set up intellectual ‘safety’  bubbles and set themselves up for greater anxiety and conflict later in life as they haven’t developed the skills to deal with conflict. We must not focus on preparing the road for the child, but rather the child for the road.

As ridiculous as all of this may sound to some, perhaps consider – how might you have isolated yourself in an ideological safety bubble of sorts? Both political conservatives and liberals can be guilty of this. Is your unwillingness to entertain opposing viewpoints or ideas due to a hidden belief in ‘safetyism’? Have you securely encased yourself within either a liberal or conservative echo chamber? Are all of your conversation partners or all of your social media feeds filled with voices you already agree with? Or perhaps you’ve so entrenched yourself in your theological beliefs on certain debated topics (such as complementarianism vs egalitarianism, continuationism vs cessationism, eschatological positions, etc) that you are unwilling to hear the best arguments (not just the weak examples) from the other side and engage honestly about it? 

How might we, in less extreme forms, be doing the very thing we ridicule? Are we candles or fires?

Wisdom for the flames

What does God’s Word have to say on this? Are people inherently fragile and in need of protection – or are we robust and need to shed the coddling?

Again, Scripture gives us a good balance to think within. It tells us that both situations exist. There are legitimate situations and persons who are fragile and in need of protection. For example, small children and those who are vulnerable to exploitation or unable to defend or provide for themselves are in need of our protection.

Psalm 82:3-4 instructs us to give justice to the weak and maintain the rights of the afflicted. Proverbs 31:8-9 tells us to speak up for the rights of those who are destitute or poor or needy. Isaiah 1:17 tells us to seek to correct tangible injustice and oppressions. James 1:27 tells us that it is the mark of true religion to care for those who are vulnerable and Jesus himself tells us not to despise little children in Matthew 18:10 and Mark 10:13-16.

Notice though, that there are clear categories and objective criteria for determining these vulnerable groups which must be offered protection. It is not subjectively determined (i.e. not just someone saying ‘I feel threatened’).

Also, for some of them – such as small children – it is not an indefinite period of ‘coddling’ but rather something which must be adapted to be appropriate with their age, growth and maturity level. Speaking about spiritual maturity, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:2 that milk is for children and solid food for the mature, implying that there is an expected change in how one is to interact with someone based on the level of maturity. There is also an implication that maturity necessitates putting away childish things (cf. 1 Cor. 13:11).

Preparing the Child for the Road

Scripture and experience also tells us that the hard lessons of life can bring wisdom.

For example, Job, in response to his friend, Zophar, observes that “Wisdom is with the aged, and understanding in length of days.” Later, young Elihu – who was timid to speak before the older friends – said he reasoned, “Let days speak, and many years teach wisdom” – recognizing that generally, age and experience bring wisdom. Now, to be sure, all of Job’s miserable comforters were rebuked by God by the end of the book – but the statement that wisdom is often gained by the aged through life’s experiences holds true.

James 1:2-4 says, “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” [emphasis added]

Romans 5:3-5 says, “Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.” [emphasis added]

In fact, for the Christian, there is great confidence that God is working all things – even the trials and difficulties of life – for good (Romans 8:28). Thus, it would seem that Scripture – in contrast to the untruth of fragility – tells us that we are not fragile, but rather robust and need challenges and trials in this life in order to grow and build character. One may even say that they are necessary to build character and guaranteed for the Christian (see Acts 14:22 & 2 Timothy 3:12). Our Lord even uses unpleasant experiences to discipline us to produce righteousness and peace for those who are trained by it (Hebrews 12:11). 

To shelter oneself totally from all oppositions would be to rob oneself of growth opportunities.

What can we learn?

What we see is that, in contrast to some who will just ridicule this whole trend of growing fragility, a biblical worldview gives us a balanced perspective. We see that there are legitimate cases of vulnerable people who need to be protected due to objective (and sometimes temporary) criteria – so it would be unwise to say that we shouldn’t think about safety and protection of the weak. However, it also shows us that much of the overreaction of ‘safetyism’ is unwarranted and even ultimately harmful in setting people up for failure in life. Nassim Taleb notes that:

“Much of our modern, structured, world has been harming us with top-down policies and contraptions… which do precisely this: an insult to the anti fragility of systems. This is the tragedy of modernity: as with neurotically overprotective parents, those trying to help are often hurting us the most.” (pg. 23)

Coram Deo

For many creatives like myself, we’ve perhaps noticed the increase in such messaging in movies, TV, advertising, etc. Creative media is often the vehicle to carry and spread these messages, and Christian creatives would do well to think deeply about the type of messaging they propagate. Sometimes, while well-meaning, we may end up perpetuating the cycle of ‘fragile’ thinking instead of helping people grow from the trials which we must all face to mature.

For consumers of media and participants in our culture, we must learn to critically evaluate the messages which are sometimes subtly portrayed and communicated to us through news, education, and even the entertainment we consume. We can ask – how does God’s word give me wisdom to see what are the true elements and what are the false narratives? 

This will require a robust Biblical worldview and a systematic development of one’s theology which will not come from passive consumption of our secular culture’s products. We must strategically carve out time for us to invest in our spiritual maturity and theological development if we are ever to be able to recognize and respond to the issues of our day. Don’t underestimate the long-term impact of scheduling 20-30 minutes a day or a few hours a week to studying God’s word and reading books to help you deepen your theology.

The ‘culture wars’ are ultimately determined by discipleship. We’re always being discipled – it’s just a question of “by whom are we being discipled”? The culture in the days and years to come will directly reflect how effectively we’ve been discipled and have made disciples. Never underestimate the often silent and unnoticed power of a mom teaching her kids, friends reading together, small groups studying God’s word, sharing the Gospel with a neighbour and many other simple, faithful discipleship opportunities. Each of these flames together can make up a fire that the winds of trials may blow to energize and spread as we burn for Christ.

But how do we deal with the strong pull of emotional reasoning in our times? It is to that ‘untruth’ that we turn in our next article.

The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning

Our last article looked at whether we are, at our core, fragile in need of sheltering or robust and able to learn through trials. In this next series of articles, as we continue interacting with the ideas in Lukianoff & Haidt’s book The Coddling of the American Mind, we’ll seek to biblically engage with the ‘untruth’ of emotional reasoning.

Cognitive Distortions

In the 1960s, Aaron Beck, a psychiatrist at the University of Pennsylvania developed what has come to been known as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). Beck noticed that his patients would get caught in a feedback loop in which their irrational negative beliefs resulted in severe negative emotional states which distorted the patient’s reasoning and motivation to find evidence to support their negative beliefs. Thus, it became a self-perpetuating downward cycle. There were three common patterns of thought Beck noticed: “I’m no good,” “My world is bleak” and “My future is hopeless.” Many of us experience these types of thoughts in a fleeting way, but depressed people hold all three in an enduring psychological state. Lukianoff and Haidt make some very helpful observations using CBT on the ‘untruth’ of emotional reasoning.

What they noticed was these same distorted patterns being exhibited and even encouraged on college campuses. Some of the cognitive distortions include:

• Emotional reasoning – letting our feelings guide our interpretations of reality (e.g. I feel threatened therefore I must be in danger)
• Catastrophizing – focusing on the worst possible scenario as likely
• Overgeneralization and dichotomous thinking (e.g. I always get rejected by everyone)
• Mind reading and assuming motives
• Negative labelling of oneself or others
• Negative filtering to focus exclusively on the negatives and discounting positives
• Blame shifting instead of taking personal responsibility

Perhaps you have caught yourself doing some or all of these at some point – I know I have! The phenomena of ‘microaggressions’ in large part can be traced back to many of these cognitive distortions and focusing on impact rather than intent (something we covered in a past article in this series). Lukianoff and Haidt note that:

“If someone wanted to create an environment of perpetual anger and inter group conflict, this would be an effective way to do it. Teaching students to use the least generous interpretations possible is likely to engender precisely the feelings of marginalization and oppression that almost everyone wants to eliminate.” (The Coddling of the American Mind, pg. 46)

Ideas Have Consequences

Lukianoff and Haidt note the shift which happened as a result of these changes. Around 2013, a shift started happening and now it is a majority opinion on college campuses that students should not be exposed to “offensive” ideas. In a survey conducted in 2017, 58% of students said that it was important to them to be in a campus where they are not exposed to intolerant or offensive ideas. This was a sentiment endorsed by both very liberal students (63%) and very conservative students as well (45%).

At Williams College in Massachusetts in October 2015, a conservative critic of feminism and advocate of traditional gender roles was invited to speak in a student organized “Uncomfortable Learning” series in order to expose fellow students to other ideas and challenge their thinking. The response by some students, however, was so extreme that the event was cancelled. One response written by a student on Facebook called the speaker “a misogynistic, white supremacist men’s rights activist” whose mere presence on campus would cause “actual mental, social, pyschological, and physical harm to students” because of “violent ideologies that kill our black and brown (trans) femme sisters.” This person also labelled the student organizer of the event of “dipping your hands in their blood”.

This response illustrates many of the cognitive distortions cited above: catastrophizing, mind reading, negative labelling and filtering, and blame shifting. It is an extreme example of emotional reasoning taking over.

This may sound ridiculous to some, however, again we may find ourselves falling prey to these very same cognitive distortions – perhaps in smaller ways. Our day of social media ‘slacktivism’ and the outrage culture that dominates news and online conversations can be a seductive influence even on the most level headed of people.

Biblical Lenses to Correct the Distortions

In regards to emotional reasoning, Proverbs 29:11 says that it is foolish to give full vent to your anger, but wise to use restraint. Ephesians 4:26 tells us that it is possible to be angry and not sin – so we must practice the discipline of self-control for a person without self control is like a city broken into and left without walls (Proverbs 25:28). They are vulnerable to be manipulated by any outside threat or emotional appeal.

To counteract our tendency towards catastrophizing, the Bible admonishes us repeatedly to be sober-minded (cf. 1 Peter 1:13; 4:7; 5:8; Titus 2:2; 1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:5; Romans 12:3). One of the words translated “sober-minded” is “νήφω” which carries the idea of being well-balanced or self-controlled. It’s cognate adjective “νηφάλιος” describes one who is temperate, level-headed or restrained in their conduct.

In contrast to the tendency towards mind reading, assuming the worst motives and negative labelling, God’s word calls us to be gracious. Ephesians 4:32 tells us to be kind, tenderhearted and forgiving to one another based on the forgiveness Christ showed us. James 1:19-20 tells us to be quick to hear, slow to speak and get angry because our fleshly anger does not produce the righteousness of God. We’ve seen many examples of such unrighteous anger due to an unwillingness to hear the other side out in recent times.

To correct our temptations to focus exclusively on the negatives, Philippians 4:8 tells us to meditate on the things which are true, honourable, just, pure, lovely, commendable and worthy of praise. This is what the child of God is able to do because they can be at peace knowing that God hears their prayers (cf. Phil. 4:6-7). In this way we are to let our “reasonableness be known to everyone” (Phil. 4:5). This word for reasonableness – ἐπιεικής – carries the meaning of “not insisting on every right of letter of law or custom, yielding, gentle, kind, courteous, tolerant” (BDAG). Wouldn’t that help much of this problem of over-escalation?

Coram Deo

When we face an opposing idea – perhaps instead of letting the outrage cycle take root, we should be thankful for the opportunity to refine and challenge our thinking. Or, if it is an idea unworthy of serious consideration, move on and not assume the worst of the person or impact and fall into the error of catastrophizing. Instead of jumping to the worst case scenario, one should think critically by attempting to connect one’s claims to reliable evidence. It is in this way that we can break the feedback loop of the cognitive distortions we fall into.

By using the Biblical lenses noted above, we as Christians can avoid falling into the untruths of our culture and show the world a better, more gracious way. These things do not necessarily come naturally to us as we are still plagued by our remaining sinful patterns of thought. While secular strategies such as CBT give useful techniques to address and catch these patterns, only the Gospel gives us inward power to transform through the Holy Spirit. Yet, even for the Spirit-indwelt believer, we must “practice these things” (Phil. 4:9). We must train ourselves for godliness (1 Tim. 4:7), for it does not happen to us passively, and it is scripture which God has given us to train ourselves in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16) by the renewing of our minds to discern the good, acceptable and perfect will of God (Rom. 12:2).

By using the Biblical lenses noted above, we as Christians can avoid falling into the untruths of our culture and show the world a better, more gracious way. These things do not necessarily come naturally to us as we are still plagued by our remaining sinful patterns of thought. While secular strategies such as CBT give useful techniques to address and catch these patterns, only the Gospel gives us inward power to transform through the Holy Spirit. Yet, even for the Spirit-indwelt believer, we must “practice these things” (Phil. 4:9). We must train ourselves for godliness (1 Tim. 4:7), for it does not happen to us passively, and it is scripture which God has given us to train ourselves in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16) by the renewing of our minds to discern the good, acceptable and perfect will of God (Rom. 12:2).

I pray we’d be fires that burn brightly for Christ in a dark world.

Soli Deo Gloria.