On Friday, February 10, 2012, Wheaton College held “Rhythm & Praise” chapel. Little did any of us know, but the weekend would include a public and embarrassing debate hosted by Twitter–one painful 140-character statement after another.
But tweets had started chapelgate on Friday morning. Apparently, a number of students had decided this year to tweet during and immediately after chapel services, using the hashtag #chapeltweets. Throughout the year, this hashtag had been used off and on to identify tweets about Wheaton College chapel services. A quick review of old #chapeltweets reveals they were a mixed bag: some included affirmations of chapel services, participants therein, or elements thereof; some included derisive remarks about the chapel services, participants therein, or elements thereof. February 10 was no different. Some students affirmed the group of largely minority students whose gifts and energy were essential to organizing that morning’s worship experience. Others derided the worship leaders and their worship style. Of the derisive remarks, many were racially insensitive.
- “Apparently the Asian santa claus dropped off one of his elfs on stage #chapeltweets”
- “Someone call batman, the Jokers black brother is on stage #chapeltweets”
- “Black girls talkin’ during the prayer… #comeon #showjustalittlerespect #chapeltweets.” (I hope the irony of this last post is not lost on readers.)
Some other hurtful, insulting, and racially insensitive remarks were deleted and are no longer publicly accessible, for good and for ill.
Of course, many of these remarks were met by voices of disappointment both during and immediately after the chapel service. Some who were involved in the chapel service indicated that they were deeply hurt by some of the tweets. This cyber-confrontation set off a longer discussion about the #chapeltweets, themselves. The controversy has been swirling for the past 60 hours. Here are just a few of my thoughts:
- Some of the original tweets and ongoing comments expressed discrimination based upon race. Taking measure of worship experiences according to whether or not they typify your own experience is wrong. Using derisive and racially charged language to characterize an unfamiliar worship experience is hurtful and insulting to the body of Christ at Wheaton and at large.
- Lack of intention does not absolve people of responsibility for the effects of their words. We need to care for and love others with our words, and that means being careful with their likely effects.
- Many have claimed that because a given #chapeltweet was not evidently full of hate, that it was not racist. This is not true. Racist remarks need not be evidently full of hate.
- It doesn’t matter whether #chapeltweets has been going on for the past semester, the past year, or the past decade. It doesn’t matter if #chapeltweets is typically sarcastic or satirical. These things do not prove that the tweets were not racially insensitive. There is a difference in quality between a tweet about HoneyRock chapel that mocks the use of certain props and a tweet about Rhythm & Praise chapel that uses racially charged language to ridicule. One cannot coherently claim, “Sometimes I ridicule things because they’re associated with black people, but I ridicule everything. Therefore when I ridicule things because they’re associated with black people, those aren’t racially insensitive comments.” That is incoherent.
- #chapeltweets, no matter the chapel service in which they are posted, reveal a serious lack of respect for chapel. Regarding this chapel, one person tweeted that it was ”Obnoxiously loud and didn’t take any talent.” Is chapel a talent show? Or a worship experience? If it is the latter, then it should be a moment in which we examine our own hearts before God and give to him the glory he is due. Spending that moment either evaluating the talent of those organizing and executing chapel or ridiculing the service is not consonant with worship.
- Some responses to the controversy have demonstrated a serious lack of respect for authority. Many have been outrightly dismissive toward messages from faculty members and from the Chaplain’s office. Some have publicly claimed–literally, for all the world to see–that the Chaplain has no idea what he is talking about. This type of disrespect should not characterize our relationships. Moreover, it calls into question the credibility of claims that the original #chapeltweets were respectfully playful remarks.
- Some who were engaged in the discussion were using deceitful tactics. For example, someone hijacked the photo, bio, and name of a student to create a new account closely resembling the student’s original account. It differed in only one letter. The forged account was used to post tweets that contradicted the student’s support for the Chaplain. This forgery and deceit is out of order.
- Some who were engaged in the controversy were clearly bullying others. Tempers flared and people on both sides engaged in bullying behavior. Thankfully, these instances were few. But they were disturbing. One tweeter repeatedly accused the posters of negative #chapeltweets of doing the work of Satan and their relatives of drunkenness. On the other side, there was an attempt to intimidate students and faculty by someone purporting to be affiliated with those who govern the College (I trust that person is not affiliated with the administration or the board and believe this was an attempt to abuse authority the author did not have).
This is, to be frank, an embarrassing situation. There is no getting around that. Notwithstanding the best efforts of some civil participants (who are to be commended), this controversy has been a shamefully conducted public dispute over shameful behavior, and there’s no unringing the bell. Some have been hurt. Many have been embarrassed by their own actions or the actions of others. What to do?
Everyone should ask themselves, “What’s the next right thing I can do?” For many, this would involve an act of repentance–maybe for racially insensitive tweets, maybe for disrespecting authority, maybe for deceit, maybe for bullying. For some, this involves standing with those who were hurt and/or creating teachable moments for those who harmed others. For everyone, this should involve a respectful posture toward the College response and an extra measure of grace. Let us pray for wisdom, patience, repentance, and grace in the coming days. Let us pray for reconciliation.
Thank you Dr. Toly. I appreciate your firmness but also your gentleness in dealing with this. We all need a healthy reminder of God’s grace when thinking about this embarrasing situation. But we all also need to understand how our actions affect others. I assure you that many of the opinions expressed thus far on twitter do not reflect the entire student body. They are a (hopefully) small and vocal group. Please continue your work in reconciliation in this matter. It is much appreciated and well-articulated.
-Andrew Thompson
RA of Traber 7 and concerned Wheaton College student
My husband, daughter and I were just finishing up at the gym and had almost forgotten about the Rhythm and Praise Chapel on Friday, but we rushed over and I was so glad we didn’t miss anything but the first couple of minutes. I knew it took courage and boldness to stand in front of the entire student body with this message. I felt so proud of my young brothers and sisters for representing well.
God has brought us through challenges like this before and with maturity, growth and repentance we can get through this as well. God’s grace is sufficient. We all need to call on Him. This is not the first time for some of these negative responses after a Rhythm and Praise Chapel and I was praying we were in a better place now. I prayed that people’s hearts would be open and receptive to the presentation and that we would appreciate the creative gifts that were being displayed and offered up. I am personally saddened and disappointed about this “chapel incident” and to know that some people feel this way.
Sharing our personal journeys and positively pouring into the lives of those people who God sends across our paths have been the highlight of all 22 years here at Wheaton College for me and my family. It has been a mutual exchange that I wouldn’t dream of trading. My life has been enriched because of most of my experiences at Wheaton. I am glad for the privilege of spending countless hours with students from all over the world and learning from their personal experiences. Catching those teachable moments with the Wheaton College Gospel Choir is something I truly enjoy and it gives opportunity to pass along history and experiences. As one of the most racially diverse student organizations on our campus we have the opportunity to interact with each other and share the love of Christ on a regular basis. It is our honor to demonstrate the radical love of Jesus! We all certainly have our “moments” as human beings and we use them to learn, grow and advance the Kingdom of God.
We stand as a choir with the students who have been hurt and we will make efforts to show love God’s as much as possible. Freedom of speech should never be taken for granted. We will continue to pray for the hearts of those who feel it necessary to express their opinions in such a negative and irresponsible way. We do NEED each other. I love you all with the love of the LORD!
Tanya D. Egler, Director
Wheaton College Gospel Choir
I’m just a privileged white male who is not a sociology major and so therefore has no legitimate views on the subject, but mentioning race doesn’t seem equivalent to being “racially insensitive”. “asian Santa Claus” doesn’t seem racially insensitive. “The Joker’s black brother” doesn’t seem racially insensitive.
And chapel deserves to be disrespected. Does anyone who attends (mandatory) chapel really think that it’s about worship? Is that what chapeltisements are about? is that what the quasi-political lectures about white guilt are?
Many chapel “services” that I attended were worthy of derisive mockery. Sometimes services that are organized by racial minorities might–gasp!–be worthy of derisive mockery as well.
- James Hampton
2011 December Wheaton grad
James, I deeply regret to hear of your impoverished views of chapel and respect for others. Your willingness to see brothers and sisters in Christ subjected to public “derisive mockery”–that you even see this as a worthy mode of communication–along with your faux self-deprecation here are both symptoms of the broader problem with which we are dealing.
Isn’t derisive mockery often used to effect social change? Satire, irony, and sarcasm are all rhetorical devices that I don’t think Christians are supposed to avoid. My friends and I engage in “derisive mockery” with each other. Are we somehow unloving or worryingly unchristian for doing so?
There’s a limit, of course, and perhaps these tweets crossed the line into bullying. But approving of the mere cracking of jokes doesn’t strike me as a symptom of a broader problem, even if the jokes dare to mention race (not all jokes that mention race are racist, obviously).
My faux self-deprecation is a result of real deprecation from interacting with sociology majors and sociology profs at Wheaton. There’s your broader problem.
WOW! I’m so sorry you feel that way.
James, your views are not illegitimate because you are a white male. Rather, they are destructive and poisonous because as a Christian, you are so carelessly uninformed about what racism entails. I understand, actually, because I used to share your perspective. I used to get frustrated by people who got offended by what they considered racist, when in my perspective the comments were not even about race. But that was before I had a son who is Asian. It was before I entered into the world of the minorities I live among and saw our society from their perspective. It was before I realized that when you are a minority, the world revolves around race because you are continually categorized by race and don’t have the opportunity to just be “color-blind” and pretend it doesn’t exist the way your white peers can.
Of course the term “asian Santa Clause” is racially insensitive. I can’t imagine any possible meaning or intention in which that tweet could be considered uplifting and positive. Nor is it constructive or productive in any way. There could not possibly be any purpose behind that tweet other than to offend and make light of another person. And there should be no place for that in the body of Christ.
There may be a place for “derisive mockery,” as you indicated. I am not a Wheaton student and have never been to a Wheaton chapel, but I’ve been in Christian circles and specifically Christian college circles enough to know that there is plenty that goes on that should not be just accepted because it’s handed to us. But there’s a big difference between constructively and personally (i.e. with your name behind it so that people know who you are) confronting poor quality, lack of worship, incorrect theology, or even just boring-ness behind a chapel program and hiding behind an anonymous name to make a comment about a specific person that is at best non-constructive and insensitive and at worst flat-out derogatory.
In this case, the comments were not constructive. They were not intended to bring about change for the glory and honor of God. They were simply immature and hurtful comments put out there carelessly in an attempt to get a few laughs at others’ expense.
I am saddened not only that members of the Wheaton community would put this sort of comment out there in the first place, but that others in our community would not see anything wrong with it. As Christians, we are called to a higher standard than that.
Pingback: Twitter Is All in Good Fun, Until It Isn’t – NYTimes.com | Noah J. Toly
Satire and irony are different from derisive mockery because they always have an end, and that end is improving something that is fundamentally unjust. Derisive mockery is simply tearing someone down for the sake of building yourself up. What exactly are you protesting through “satirical” chapel tweets about a worship chapel?
I agree with these completely, I find the event horrific and sad, yet when a black man stands on stage [in a recent chapel] and calls Southern Baptist church “dead,” implying my church does not have the presence of the Holy Spirit, no one finds that worthy of discussion. Even if twitter is a bad place to make these claims, the pulpit may be even worse. Just food for thought. There is more here than just white racism present here. Carelessness with words and sensitivity needs to be considered across the board. I hope good can come of this. #praying
Was he being racist against himself? He was making a statement about himself. And he made it clear at the end that no one needed to change and there was no way that was better than another.
Thanks for this post. Several people (including another commenter below) have mentioned this previous chapel message in which a speaker made these negative comments about the Southern Baptist church. It is important to note that the appropriate response is one that critically examines the claims of the speaker and bases evaluation of the claims upon the quality of the assumptions, assertions, and arguments that the speaker makes. That might result in noting that the speaker should tame some of his or her rhetoric or that the speaker’s argument was full of non sequiturs. That is different from saying, “I don’t like it, so I’m going to express my contempt for it through mockery and insult.”
I don’t think “derisive mockery” has a place anywhere, to be honest. Even among friends or family, it promotes disrespect of each other and disrespect of human beings on a basic level. I have closely observed several people who engage in “derisive mockery” in the general course of conversation and am sad to report that they respect almost no one. I don’t think that is the right attitude for Christians to have in any context.
Tanya, You so completely rock. You are a tremendous gift and your ministry is a beautiful picture of the Kingdom. Can’t say it enough. Wheaton is such a better place for your faithfulness and example. Blessings to you and Calvin as you continue in this calling.
James, did you read any of the article? Regardless of the intent of the tweets they were hurtful to people in the Wheaton community. The appropriate response would be to engage this incident with an attitude of humility instead of defending the use of “satire.” Humility is required on both sides, the offended and the offenders. You don’t need to be a sociology major or a minority to engage in the act of reconciliation. It’s not about YOU, it’s about bringing healing to this community, it’s not about whether you get it or not, it’s about whether you are willing to stand with your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Denying that there is a problem simply because you weren’t offended leads to more hurt. Stop the cycle of ignorance and engage with an open heart.
Wait, what? It’s okay to express disapproval of the tweets–that’s “engagement”–but dissenting from this view and expressing approval of some aspect of the tweets is a failure to engage, and proves how ignorant, un-humble, and closed-minded I am?
…you get the irony of that, right? Humility in these discussions means being open to other views. Seems like you’re not open to mine. At least I’m considering the other side’s position, even if I disagree with it.
As a former undergrad at Wheaton, I unfortunately missed out on the chapel that incited such hurtful comments. But to use the word ‘incite’ seems to have already abdicated ground to those who wrote the tweets in question. The Rhythm and Praise chapel was not the cause of such comments, as if they ‘provoked’ or ‘deserved’ such mocking. Rather, they were the stage; their own gift to the student body was usurped. While the chapel was conducted on stage, the real performance that day occurred digitally, by a handful of students peppered throughout the audience. With all the safety of a ‘backstage’ or ‘private’ performance (with its anonymity and false sense of license within insulation), the locutionary act carried the psychological devastation of a ‘frontstage’ or ‘public’ performance. Such is the ‘stage’ of the controversy.
I use this word ‘controversy’ not to define the problem as it truly is, but as it is in its present state. A controversy connotes a dispute over matters akin to opinion–that is, over a matter that is amorphous or fluid and therefore is difficult to settle upon it’s true shape and nature. For those who do not consider the hue of ‘controversy’ to justly color this situation, it is their duty to ‘clear things up’ and arrive at definitions, thereby elevating the problem out of a place of dilute controversy to the place of scandal. For this situation to be truly understood for the scandal that it is, things must be ‘tightened up’ or ‘grounded’. It is my hope that administrative responses and student government responses will accomplish as much.
If I were to contribute one thing to the ‘tightening up’ that will be necessary for civil discourse, it would be in regard to the question of the seeming disjuncture between the illocutionary and perlocutionary force of the utterances. As a quick explanation, the ‘illocution’ of an utterance is what the speech is doing (promising, pronouncing, mocking) and the ‘perlocution’ of an utterance is the effect–be it material, legal, or psychological–of the speech (a minister’s pronouncing makes a couple husband and wife). The problem in our case is that the illocution of the distasteful tweets was understood by the performers to be non-racial mockery. However, the perlocutionary force of the utterances was unavoidably racially charged given the ‘staging’ of the utterances. Here’s why: in the ‘tweets’ outlined above by Dr. Toly, the psychological effect on all their readers is that racial images, stereotypes, feelings, and narratives are conjured up–recalled from an already known racial ‘bank’ of shared knowledge that we all have, given our growing up in the United States. Though unspoken and never ‘taught’ explicitly, we all know the racial stereotypes and emotions associated with black men because we are ‘taught’ and ‘re-taught’ such racial elements in such events like these tweets. The writers of the tweets might even have not explicitly understood themselves to be re-calling racial elements, but subconsciously it must have been the case, otherwise the tweets would not be funny in as much as humor assumes a level of shared knowledge. We have all regressed in the progress of racial reconciliation in as much as such racial elements have been re-inaugurated.
The second (and most important) point I want to make about this is that the perlocutionary force is always tied to the position of the performer. The writers of the tweets are wondering why such an uproar is taking place because they did not take their position of power into account. To them a joke is a joke–all fun and no animosity. The problem is that all such racial comments, though supposedly not ‘racist’ (one wonders if a racist statement has ever been uttered) are such because they were spoken from a position of power as white people. Racism = prejudice + power. From the point of view of those hurt then, a joke with racial elements + power = aggression. Because positions of privilege are almost entirely invisible to those who have them, it’s understandable that these performers ‘had no idea they would be taken so seriously’ or ‘don’t understand why it’s so bad’. Reconciliation, if there is to be any, will have to be done at this level.
While I mentioned above that we need to recognize this problem for the scandal that it is, we might use this theme because we find such occurrences so rare or atypical. But I would challenge such thinking. The negative comments regarding Friday’s chapel affords us a rupture in the seams of a racialized veil–a single beam of light that emits from a cracked door. If we were to look through, we would find an entire closet of Wheaton’s house filled with such occurrences to the degree that such comments and performances would not be seen as so atypical. For reconciliation, this door must be flung open. But even now, I must correct myself again. I use the term ‘closet’ to connote a hiddenness, but racial performances are not so compartmentalized and tidy. It’s the invisible air we breathe. Regardless, this door is heavy and its hinges rusty. Such exposure and willingness to see takes incredible strength and courage. Again, if reconciliation is to be achieved–If this door is to be flung open–it will be done not by individuals but of a community that finds its identity and function in a very different performance: the atonement.
Flinging open this giant door will have major consequences. It could be a terrible thing for Wheaton. I pray it is the BEST thing that happens at Wheaton this year. I have hope because of the Gospel. As Christ has been to us, so shall we be to others. Christ is our only hope for reconciliation. I am praying for restoration and reconciliation and for JOY on this campus. Thanks Gomez for your articulate response and your encouragement. This campus misses you. Dr. Toly, I am grateful for your willingness to convict our community, for both the offenders and offended. Blessings.
Dr. Toly, thank you for your thoughtful and firm (and public) handling of this issue.
James,
Perhaps a first step of importance is to consider who we are first. If we consider ourselves Christians first, then the first thing we are called to do in relation to others is to love them even at our own inconvenience. Take an example from Paul where he states that he will never eat meat if it proves damaging to the younger brother in Christ. I humbly appeal to you to evaluate that principle earnestly and apply it to your current Wheaton settings, as we all must.
Peace,
Daniel
That’s a great response, and I take it to heart, but it seems like that principle is only being applied on one side. If the offenders can be faulted for not forgoing their right to make jokes, for the sake of their brethren, why can’t the offended be faulted for not forgoing their right to express their feelings, for the sake of their Chapel-tweeting Christian brothers and sisters?
James, there are things to which people that bear the name of God do not have “rights.” There is no “right” to insult or mock others–in this case, brothers and sisters in Christ who were in a very vulnerable position of leading the community in worship and sharing their worship practices. There is no “right” to insult or mock others based upon their race or ethnicity or practices that are associated with people of Christian belief in their race or ethnicity. These quite simply are not established as “rights” among Christians (and the latter is rapidly deteriorating as a right in society at large).
There is a place for both grief and anger in the response. There is a place for grace. No one should seek to hurt, mock, or insult the offenders while they are expressing their disappointment and outrage at the events. But ignoring the offenses and refusing to act to improve a climate in which these things often go unchallenged is not the way forward.
“The problem is that all such racial comments, though supposedly not ‘racist’ (one wonders if a racist statement has ever been uttered) are such because they were spoken from a position of power as white people. Racism = prejudice + power. From the point of view of those hurt then, a joke with racial elements + power = aggression. Because positions of privilege are almost entirely invisible to those who have them, it’s understandable that these performers ‘had no idea they would be taken so seriously’ or ‘don’t understand why it’s so bad’.”
Garrett, well said! I don’t think the majority of people (black or white) truly understand this definition of racism, and it would behoove the ENTIRE Christian community to come together and look at the true roots of these issues. This problem isn’t just pervasive at Wheaton, but in many other Christian institutions as well. Until we as a Body can advocate for each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of race, people on both sides of the argument will continue to be misunderstood.
Thanks Dr. Toly,
I do think it is worth noting that the advent of social media, especially on Wheaton’s campus, may be drawing Wheaton students further and further away from established Christian principles of community and reconciliation. While chapel (I believe) is an event that is established to sponsor vulnerability and togetherness as a body, the idea of these “chapeltweets” (seemingly a bonding experience on the surface) isolates students and confuses students into thinking that the “sign of the self” is the same thing as the self. Students easily see the symbols others have set up for themselves, and after “understanding” that person, fail to see the need for deeper communication or vulnerability. It’s scary man. It’ll be interesting to see how Wheaton responds (remember, I’m on the outside now haha) and whether that is viewed as legitimate talking point. I genuinely believe the simulacrum matters here: regardless of how you feel about race, the ways in which we communicate to each other need to be addressed, and social media is changing that. My two cents anyways…thanks again Dr. T.
Daniel Mulitauopele (’10)
Thank you Dr. Toly for your evenhanded wisdom on this important subject. Hopefully this will be a valuable learning experience for those who are unacquainted with the damage caused by derisively mocking someone else’s race. Better late than never. God help us all.
Pingback: some uses of words – more than 95 theses | Noah J. Toly
No excuse but possible cause? I am a generation older than the Wheaton students. This may surprise you. I have to speak of my own shock and disappointment regarding the African American series chapel (Feb. 6) just a few days preceding the chapel causing all the uproar. I was wondering if the student tweets had anything to do with the chapel given by Brian Bantum in the African American series? Now, right up front I will say that I know he was trying to make a point (and that he is mixed race). However, we all realize that it doesn’t matter if you are just trying to be funny or make a point when you make direct fun of someone else or indirectly mock/make fun at someone else’s expense (look at #2 and #3 in Dr. Toly’s Chapelgate above). I will also say up front that I am not a white, southern Baptist and I was still taken back by many of the derisive remarks made by this speaker.
This speaker used condescending and disrespectful language toward white, southern baptists numerous times, made insinuations that they did not worship as soulfully as blacks, used the urban term white-bread to the students in the audience (even asked a question like is it possible for everyone in this room to become a black Pentecostal), made fun again of white, southern Baptists’ music preferences such as Michael W. Smith, made fun of how white, southern Baptists clap or hardly clap at church, called such church a “dead” church, talked about his Korean/American girlfriend having more “soul” than …(why compare races at all?), that he turned from a white, southern Baptist into a black charismatic (is one better than the other? – he made it sound like it is). My opinion is that most of this particular sermon was laced with unnecessary condescension toward whites and particularly white, southern Baptists. He could have made his point without doing this.
Could you call this some type of reverse racism? I know the tweets were wrong. Did someone ask the tweeters what caused the emotion in them to send the tweets? Did someone call Brian Bantum on the carpet for all of his jokes with racially insensitive and religious denominational elements that mocked? Perhaps this should have been done. His talk could have ignited some bad feelings in the tweeters. I know his talk was disturbing to me.
I won’t preach now because I know you all know about God’s teachings on loving one another. Praying for this to eventually work out for the good of all.
Blessings to Dr. Toly and to all the Wheaton students.
Thanks for your post. You make a good point about the speaker’s derisive remarks. Several people have mentioned this in the past few days, but you also suggest that it may have been one of the proximate causes (though not an excuse) of some of the racial insensitivity that was shown last Friday. I suppose it’s possible.
More importantly, a I mention above in response to another comment, it is important to note that the appropriate response is one that critically examines the claims of the speaker and bases evaluation of the claims upon the quality of the assumptions, assertions, and arguments that the speaker makes. That might result in noting that the speaker should tame some of his or her rhetorical excess or that the speaker’s argument was full of non sequiturs. This is what I hear you doing, and I appreciate the tone with which you do it.
We could all learn from careful and circumspect critiques such as the one you offer. Rather than expressing contempt through mockery and insult, we might express that we found a speaker’s claims–apart from the race or ethnicity of the speaker–inconsistent, indulgent, or disturbing.
Again, thanks for this post.
Pingback: Beyond #chapeltweets | Noah J. Toly
Pingback: The Soapbox: Racism without Racists | Noah J. Toly
Today I’m Praising God for His Holy Spirit who moves mightily in our hearts! Keeping HOPE alive!
Praying for you and praising God for your ministry on our campus as well Brian. You are a strong man of God.
Let us be quick to hear , slow to speak (tweet) , slow to anger. . . James 1 :19
Can another alumnus chime in here at length? I hate to give it the ol’ “back in my day” but I think something really needs to be said about the role of the internet in all this.
In anthropological terms (check me on this, Howell), something called ‘negative social sanctions’ are employed to ensure social acceptability. In the Wheaton context, this would probably mean saying “dude, that’s racist” when someone says something out of line. Imagine what would have been like to verbally say what was in those tweets in the middle of a circle of friends. My group at school wasn’t exactly sensitive, but even with us it probably would have at least resulted in some awkward silence or a counter-joke at the joker’s expense, and at the best of moments, a private confrontation asking the joker to think seriously about what he said and repent (and I was so blessed to go to a college where that actually happens). From there, the joker would know that he stepped over the line and not say anything like that in the future and, if he really thought about it, start to evaluate his inner attitudes and attune them to be more like Christ and less like a shock-jock stand-up comedian.
I take interest in this event, because I personally benefited from this kind of admonishment. I don’t remember the stupid things I said being racial in nature, but I can’t guarantee that it would not have been if the funniness yield was high enough or tweeting was ‘in’ or I didn’t happen to run with a racially mixed group. I have been saved from this unfortunate situation by the accidents of time and place and grace alone. Thanks be to God.
But now, there is no mediation, no social sanctions, Tweeting puts your thoughts straight into print with all the hesitation of a tap on a touchscreen. This is a very bad situation for everyone, and merits deeper thought than just labeling people ‘racist’. Racism is a sinful attitude and it should be dealt with as such, and the internet is a cold place for responding to sin.
Tweeters: if you weren’t trying to be racist, then why did you publish very racist-sounding, derisive jokes on what is basically an electronic billboard for everyone to read? The internet, and especially Twitter is not your private space to post things that have no consequences. Tweeting your random thoughts is the same as *printing them in a global newspaper*. Even if you didn’t meant them to be racially offensive, consider your audience and more importantly, consider your own attitudes and reasons for publishing anything you write. “The internet is written in ink.” the great Aaron Sorkin wrote in “The Social Network”. There is no editor for the internet, sorrowfully. Tweeting is not thinking, and your peers and professors are not ‘thought criminals’ to fire back at you for publishing your thoughts in that way. You gave them no context and no ‘deeper meaning’ (if there even was one) to prove that you are not in fact, prejudiced, selfish and mean. We need to retool the old maxim for the 21st Century: “If you can’t say something nice in 140 characters or less, best not say anything at all.”
Responders: Please do not be blind to the role of mass media in this. People think stupid things, sinful things and even racist things, and the reality of our time is that those thoughts fall from the sky like leaflets without any opportunity for thoughtful criticism or loving admonishment. I don’t mean to minimize the wrongs of racism, but I would encourage us to treat it as sin, rather than just an ‘issue’. Of course it is the tweeters’ faults that these issues have entered the public forum, so it’s natural that it would spark a public response, but I believe it would be especially merciful and Christlike to take the fight out of the digital realm and respond to it privately, confronting the offenders personally, not just in the Record or online. Public forums and prayer meetings are useful, because they are personal, getting people together in one room. It is the goal of the ‘priesthood of all believers’ to respond to sinners as priests to wayward congregants, not as illumined academics who now have a new and exciting issue to put down some juicy liberal arts-backed opinionating on the ‘Hegemony of Socially Instituted Racial Psychology in the Evangelical Mind’ or something. I’ll be praying for healing for my former campus this Lent and a greater sobriety toward the callousness of the internet and the realities of sinful attitudes.
Word times a million, AWilg.
I guess I would say that the *only* place where this can really be addressed properly is in person. Online, it’s so easy to get defensive and spout nonsense back & forth. Fingers get itchy, and you type things you would never say out loud. But if you’re looking into the real human faces of people who have been hurt who are on the other side of that glowing screen, there’s so much less to say, and prayer/repentance is really the only response.
I am taking this opportunity to examine my own social media presence; I think that I have been snarky at the expense of love and charity too often.
Pingback: Chapelgate | Midwest Texan
As a recent graduate and someone currently in a ministry position, I was greatly saddened by the reports of this incident. It was embarrassing for me both as a graduate of Wheaton College and as a Christian.
I currently serve in youth ministry, spending time with many students that have no experience with Christianity save for perceptions generated from pop culture. Their greatest association with Christians, therefore, is that we are judgmental, narrow-minded and generally hypocritical. My only response to such beliefs is the humble assertion that, while this is often the case, the mark of true Christ followers is the humble and devoted love of our Savior. When I hear news of events such as this, I can’t help but think that we, as Christians, are constantly shooting ourselves in the foot. I remember singing countless renditions of the line “they shall know we are Christians by our love” in the same chapel where these comments are generated and it saddens me that both come from my brothers and sisters. How can we claim to follow Christ and yet allow ourselves to mock and degrade our own?
That being said, I am certainly not without fault and, while action is necessary, I think it’s important that those of us who are not directly involved in the disciplinary process remember we ought to show the same humble love (and forgiveness) to the offenders as to the offended. While I do not question the inappropriate nature or the pain associated with these tweets, I also don’t think their authors were intending to be downright malicious. My hope and prayer is that they receive required discipline and forgiveness from all involved and continued love and acceptance from the student body. This will require humility on all sides (something my generation tends to lack, myself included). But this is how the scars of hurt such as racism will be healed: through humility, acceptance and forgiveness.
Dr. Toly, I appreciate your thoughts on this and your insight. I pray that this situation is resolved quickly without further pain.
Bryn Clark (’11)
Well, they’re not insulting or mocking others based on their race or ethnicity. They’re mocking others for what kind of music they performed. I can dislike certain music styles that are “associated with people of Christian belief in their race or ethnicity” without being committed to any other beliefs about other practices associated with those races or ethnicities.
Maybe it’s the case that they expressed their dislike in an unloving or unchristian way–through mockery–but that’s a very different sort of problem than the one you’re alleging re: asserting white cultural superiority.
alexwilgus brings up an interesting point regarding social admonishments. “Dude, that’s racist” is one example of social admonishment; why can’t ridicule be another? Is there really such a great difference between “Dude, that’s racist” and saying (sarcastically), “Yeah, I hate it when black people express themselves in chapel” in order to point out the offensiveness of the tweeter’s reactions?
I wasn’t making an argument for “Dude, that’s racist” as any sort of satirical form of proper admonishment. I was merely trying to point out the influence of the internet on the situation and how it completely bypasses any opportunity for personal contact. As for whether or not it’s ‘okay’ to sarcastically say “Yeah I hate it when black people express themselves in chapel”, I would first point out that, when you type it, it just looks like what it looks like. The same principle applies for tweets. You can’t print sarcasm without proper context, and you don’t get that context in 140 characters or less.
The second thing I’d ask is what value there is in sarcasm for sarcasm’s sake. It’s a verbal trick that’s not always appropriate. If you are taking the risk of saying something jokingly offensive, then it needs to be in exactly the right context to go over well. The reality is that we live in a world with a deep history of racial tensions. Why would you want to even give anyone a chance to misinterpret you when the stakes are so high? You can’t open yourself up to be an easy target for misinterpretation, then get indignant when people misinterpret you.
James, you misread the situation and me. Some of those insulting and mocking remarks posted during and after chapel were racially derogatory. Some were not, but were still mocking and insulting. All of that is problematic and I attend to it in my post. I do not only claim that the students were asserting white cultural superiority. Read more carefully and you will note comments about respect for authority, bullying (on both sides), etc.
As for your last point, 1) I would need to hear an argument–not an assertion, but an argument–that mocking, insulting, and ridiculing is appropriate behavior for Christians, especially toward other Christians whose worship traditions they don’t prefer. So, if you don’t prefer someone else’s worship tradition, that is an acceptable basis for “admonishment” through mockery, insult, and ridicule. You’ve got a long way to go to make that argument work. Frankly, I think it can’t be done. I think that resorting to mockery, insult, and ridicule is almost always simply a demonstration that we are being conformed to the patterns of the world, rather than being transformed by the renewing of our minds.
Pingback: Moving forward | Noah J. Toly