Who We Are Is Who We Are

Posted by Scott McClellan on February 3rd, 2010 at 1:12 pm

This is my Editor’s Letter from the January/February issue of COLLIDE. A couple people have mentioned it to me so I wanted to post it in this space for anyone who missed it or would like to comment on it.

I once heard character defined as who you are when no one is looking. Soon after I heard this, I discussed the idea with a friend as I scanned a dark, deserted intersection for cops before rolling through a stop sign; my friend was nice enough to point out the irony. Oops.

I think one of the problems with blogs, Facebook, and Twitter is that no one is looking while we type. It’s just us when we type things we probably wouldn’t say out loud—#CharacterTestFAIL. We craft posts, status updates, and comments that drip with bile, cynicism, bitterness, hopelessness, anger, jealousy, and self-pity. We set out to attack organizations, celebrities, and peers because they need to be taken down a peg. Then, we click the “Publish” button. As I see it, there are three tragic aspects of this kind of behavior.

First, our willingness to broadcast the worst things our inner monologues can conjure. We take what ought to be an internal struggle with sinful flesh and package it for an audience of friends, strangers, and search engines. We want everyone to see, and be entertained by, our nastiness.

Second, we think it doesn’t matter. We don’t get into screaming matches in the hallways of our churches. We don’t criticize and humiliate our neighbors when we have them over for dinner. Therefore, we’re nice people, right? Because we don’t have to look our victims in the eyes, we can pretend they don’t hurt. We allow ourselves to believe that the fruit of the Spirit need not be present in our online lives—we only need to be faithful “in real life.” Never mind the real lives of others we’ve assaulted.

The third tragedy is that other Christians look on as we behave this way, and they say nothing. Whether they don’t recognize what’s going on or they don’t have the nerve to speak up, their silence (or applause), allows the cycle to continue. Though we’d never watch idly as a fellow Christ follower vandalized someone’s property, we stay mum as they vandalize the sites and esteems of others.

As you read this, some distant corner of the Internet is being firebombed by one of our brothers or sisters. I wonder if we could change that. We’d have to start with a long, hard look at the lives we lead online. We’d have to resolve to communicate Christ’s light and life everywhere we go, even the Internet. Then, we could urge our friends and neighbors to be just as resolute. The next time we witness an act of e-vandalism, we could respond by trying to make peace, bring clarity, and inspire meaningful conversation, or we could keep our flamethrowers ready. I know which direction I’m leaning toward.

echo-collide-blog

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

16 Responses to “Who We Are Is Who We Are”

Right on. I've had to stop subscribing to some of my favorite blogs because of the amount of poison coming out of them. Makes me want to be poisonous too. Bad thing.

posted at 7:30 pm on February 3rd, 2010 by Jonathan Malm

Sorry, how can this be "hot" or "fresh" when it is the editor's letter in the Jan/Feb issue?

posted at 8:26 pm on February 3rd, 2010 by Kristin

Thanks for the reminder, brother. To paraphrase James 3:6, "The keyboard is a flame of fire. It is a whole world of wickedness, corrupting your entire avatar. It can set your whole online profile on fire, for it is set on fire by hell itself."

(Aside, to Kristin — It was "hot" and "fresh" to me, and meaningful, too. :-) )

posted at 9:38 pm on February 3rd, 2010 by Dave

Didn't mean to upset you, Kristin. When we tweeted, "Hot and fresh out of the blog oven …" that was just our way of saying, "New blog post …"

As I mentioned at the top of the post, I wanted to post it for anyone who missed out or wanted to comment on it.

posted at 9:50 pm on February 3rd, 2010 by ScottMcClellan

I appreciated this as well. I may put a link to it on my blog – or copy the whole thing there, giving credit of course. Is that permitted?

posted at 4:19 pm on February 4th, 2010 by patti

Nicely said. I've been committing myself to getting the snarkiness out of my online commenting for a while now. It can be harder than it seems, and like in the rest of our fallen world, there is plenty to encourage us to do otherwise.

posted at 5:00 pm on February 4th, 2010 by Bruce Nuffer

I'm a pastor — and I love interacting with congregation and community via facebook, twitter, blog, etc. Advice on how to stay "real" and funny/ fun / interactive without crossing into "too much?" Where and how do you draw lines effectively? How do you manage interactions with "secular" folks as your congregation watches? Also, what responsibility or role should credentialing boards or denominational authorities play in setting social media standards for its clergy?

posted at 5:06 pm on February 4th, 2010 by Adam Roberts

I am a former youth pastor, and some of my former youth from years ago are online, and its often sad to see their posts. they wouldn't have said those things in public back in the day. its poor testimony, and a lesson for us all.

posted at 5:19 pm on February 4th, 2010 by Dean Moore

Well said, my brother. Thanks for posting it because I did not see the original. We believers need to realize we are created as New Creatures so that we can be salt and light to a fallen darkened world–that includes the internet. God still thinks that revenge is best left up to Him.

posted at 5:24 pm on February 4th, 2010 by Walter Leyerle

Credit is always appreciated, Patti.

posted at 5:36 pm on February 4th, 2010 by ScottMcClellan

That's awesome, Bruce!

posted at 5:37 pm on February 4th, 2010 by ScottMcClellan

I'm not sure I have the answers, Adam, but I heard Jon Acuff from Stuff Christians Like share his take recently. He said, "mockery is a great shortcut to laughter but it removes your ability to speak love later and the love later matters more to me than the immediacy of the laugh." In that thought, you could probably replace "mockery" with "bitterness," "snark," etc …

posted at 5:39 pm on February 4th, 2010 by ScottMcClellan

Well said, Walter!

posted at 5:40 pm on February 4th, 2010 by ScottMcClellan

Great blog post. With all the transparencies that technology affords us these days, we as Christians have to understand more about how our personal character reflects Christ. Not sure if anyone has ever heard of HeartStyles, but its a character assessment tool designed by Christians for Christians. It's worth noting for this particular topic.

posted at 8:35 pm on February 4th, 2010 by Jason Faber

thanks scott thats very helpful. i work on a credentialing board in a mainline prot. church and we are working on how to communicate w our clergy candidates about effective social media use. the standards are the same as in any interactions what youve pointed out is great… the tendency is to somehow think those rules dont apply online. seems similar to how people will act in road rage scenarios. i would love to hear your thoughts about how clergy and other church leaders use facebook for relationship building. im afraid many clergy are afraid of being publicly accessible and interactive and so they stay away which is a shame and reflects an older model of clergy ministry.

posted at 5:27 pm on February 4th, 2010 by Adam Roberts

Interesting info – I have often warned our youth pastor and others about the content of their interactions on fb and the access (friending) they have allowed minors. All need to be careful who they are friending in context with postings they allow.

posted at 9:37 am on February 5th, 2010 by Nancy

Church Media Group, Inc.