Harlem Shakes and Death Stars

The White House has a website entitled "We The People," where any American can create a petition and if they get enough signatures can receive an official response from the executive branch of the U.S. Government. Rather recently an official response to a petition suggesting that the government begin constructing a real-life "Death Star," made its way around the internet. It gained notoriety for the whimsical nature of the response, the apparent Star Wars fandom the author revealed, and for being one of the possible reasons the White House raised the signature threshold that a petition must reach before receiving a response.

Another recent internet phenomenon is that of the "Harlem Shake." I admit that I hadn't seen any of the countless recreations of this video meme until today. As a casual fan of hip hop I assumed that the videos were of people dancing to a song from several years ago, and since I had my fill of the original dance during its initial outbreak however long ago, I never clicked on any of the videos that popped up in my various social media venues. However, I had seen the links to many of these videos and even a Spectrum blog listing the various Adventist iterations of the video. The impetus for my eventual viewing was an email sent out to the entire Andrews University student body chastising students for their involvement with one of the videos filmed on our campus, and insisting that this was not how Christians should behave.

I'm currently sitting in a seminary class where, for the entirety of the class period we are viewing a popular film from many years ago that won several Academy Awards. The film is quite good, and as a self-proclaimed movie buff I'm rather glad that we're watching it. When I arrived for class and discovered the film we'd be watching, it immediately caused me to reflect on the reactionary email from Andrews administration that I saw earlier today.

I can see two reasons for sending an email of this nature out to the student body. Either the administration actually believes that such a trivial, silly video is inappropriate and un-Christian, or they have received, or expect to receive, complaints from parents, alumni, donors, and/or factions within the Seventh-Day Adventist church. If the former assumption is true then the administrators involved need to develop a sense of humor or reconsider their career choices, since college students will, and dare I say should, do silly things. If the latter is true, then it is indicative of a problem I have noticed throughout SDA institutions. Instead of ignoring loud factions within the church that are intent on imposing their view of Adventism on the larger body, our institutional leaders are giving credibility to these various groups. In the case of this video they are more concerned with how dance-aphobic Adventists view their institution than on how their student body views its administration.

Andrews University students will not stop dancing because their administration told them its un-Christian, and the administration will not likely crack down on this rapid repositioning. What I believe the administrators want is deniability when they're accused of permitting such abhorrent practices on their campus. Why is that better than just saying "some of our students don't think dancing is wrong and we're not going to stop them?" Isn't there a significant number of Adventists that would object to my required viewing of a popular, secular film in seminary? Is that film allowed simply because word hasn't gotten out yet? If it did become public knowledge, would the administration demand that professors no longer show films because some people object to it? Or would they ignore the complaints? Or even better, would they support their professors? I hope they would support their faculty but my experience tells me that they would choose to give more authority to their detractors than their own professors.

The White House chose to respond to a ridiculous petition by giving a ridiculous response. They set an arbitrary threshold for signatures and when it was reached they had to respond. They could have ignored the petition, which would have contradicted their promise to the American people. They could have lied to their citizens and told them they would begin construction on the Death Star, all the while continuing their policy of not building Death Stars. Instead of either of these despicable choices, they gave a silly suggestion a silly response. In my opinion this last choice was the strongest and most appropriate. Our Adventist institutions have chosen a different route. They've chosen to tell us that they'll build a Death Star when they have no intention to. No one at Andrews is going to keep students from dancing or making videos, nor should they. But they do want to be able to say that they tried to stop them. Why not just give a ridiculous objection the appropriate response?

Our administrators have made a policy out of telling the Death Star proponents that they're building Death Stars when they're not and they won't. Our seminary teaches Spiritual Formation, but since the Death Star proponents don't want them to they call it something else. Our schools teach about evolution, but since the Death Star proponents don't want them to the church is willing to scapegoat only one institution. Our college students act like college students, but since the Death Star proponents don't want them to our administrators tell them they've tried to stop it. How about we stop telling them what they want to hear and stand up for what we actually believe. If we all tell them that we're not going to build their Death Star then maybe they can start getting over it.