Over the edge

In recent years, right-wing Christians have frequently criticized some evangelical centrists for their seemingly unprincipled stance. To commit to “the center” is relativistic—defined not by the pursuit of substantive goods like truth and goodness, but by a relative position among current options. This pragmatic relativism accommodates the times, balancing contemporary views. It is, therefore, “safe.”

Yet, an alternative is emerging on the right that, while distinct in motive from centrism, operates on a fundamentally similar logic. I am describing the online dissident edgelords.

A recent example of this was a short debate hosted by Steve Deace with Ray Fava, who runs the X handle @evangelicalDW, discussing the rise of anti-Semitism on the new Christian right. The key moment came when Deace highlighted a tweet Fava reposted from Michael Spangler, a relatively high-profile pastor among the right-wing dissidents known for controversial views on race and Jews. In the tweet, Spangler responded to my essay against anti-Semitism by declaring Jews to be “Christ’s sworn enemies.” Deace also cited Spangler’s infamous tweet that said “Jews are evil” and “Whites are supreme.” When pressed on why he reposted this and whether he endorsed Spangler’s views, Fava equivocated: “I do believe that Judaism is evil. … ‘Whites being supreme’—I get why people would be uncomfortable with that.” He added, “Sometimes I promote views or articles that aren’t mine but advance the conversation.” Fava dodged a clear stance, suggesting these reposts and his appreciation for these figures are merely in service of shifting the Overton window—the range of acceptable discourse.

This exemplifies how online edgelords embrace their own form of relativism, particularly in their speech. Too often, their rhetoric is driven not by a concern for enduring truth and objective goods, but by a desire to push the boundaries of respectable opinion rightward, to transgress contemporary pieties. While centrists defend incremental change, edgelords seek a rightward lurch. Yet this, too, is a relativistic response to the options of the day, lacking a clear pursuit of substantive goods. Centrists hover while edgelords push—with a direction but often no clearly defined goals.

Some justify this approach by arguing that normalizing extreme views creates space for less radical ones, allowing Christian social positions that were previously deemed “dangerous” to gain a hearing. This, too, is more pragmatic than principled. And truth is jeopardized, or at least marginalized, in this deployment of edgy rhetoric. There is a genuine dilemma in this game: Do you really think you can control the beast once it has been unleashed—that you can slow the transgressive-train once you have supplied it steam? Furthermore, your alliance with the most edgy views and figures likely will discredit you and the positions you seek to put forward. Lastly, reasonable exchange is lost, as your potential interlocutors can no longer trust your word. When edgy online figures “wink, wink” at hateful statements or proposals that seem cruel, but then just say they merely intended to press the public to think outside of the Overton window, it is difficult to pin down what they actually believe, and trust is eroded.

What we need instead is biblical boldness. Such speech isn’t primarily about being edgy or confrontational; it’s driven by a commitment to truth and a willingness to bear the consequences. There’s no evasive retreat to claiming one is just trying to “shift the Overton window” here. That tactic is another form of safety—a way to dodge the cost of one’s words, to avoid suffering in service of the truth and love of neighbor. Scriptural boldness means speaking truth in love and bearing the cost, conforming one’s witness to the cross. If our speech aims only to push opinion rightward, we risk losing sight of Christ, trading truth for relativistic calculation. Those whose motivational lodestar is simply to transgress contemporary social norms, to puncture pieties, can quickly find themselves quite comfortable transgressing the law of Christ and abandoning piety altogether as politically disadvantageous. For Christians, this simply cannot be the way.

In our debates over politics and culture, let us pursue the good and speak the truth, as opposed to pushing ambiguously rightward and availing ourselves of all possible means without regard for the way of Christ. The rule of Christ, not placement in relation to the Overton window, is our goal.