I see so many tweets that I have no idea what they’re talking about. Apparently, they are either an inside joke or meant for closer friends, or fall victim to the 140 character limit. Which is why I am posting this. In my focus of much of my social media communications, the issue of what it means to “be the church†in the social media sphere requires some conversation. Twitter can only serve as a notification channel. And that it does very well.
But blogs, it seems to me, represent a way to invite conversation that often can only be sparked by something longer than 140 characters. And it is particularly true in this conversation about the church and social media that we need to be having the discussions about what’s enhanced and what’s missing in online community vs face to face community.
But now I feel more strongly than I ever have that we in the church need to be careful about how high up on a pedestal we place technology. Although social media have significantly impacted and expanded the relational and social landscape, there remains a call for the church to live or be present as a distinctive body. This is not a call to reject social media. On the contrary, it is a call to ask how we as a body are to be, in fact, distinctive; a “city set on a hillâ€. I am thankful to God to those inthe body of Christ who have undertaken the task of bringing online tools to the community of the faithful. Now it behooves us, the church, to be faithful stewards of the tools, and not let the typical content channels dictate how we are to BE in this space.
MUCH MUCH more coming.
Larry,
I think the operative words here are the “can”, “should”, “intend”, or even “called to..”
One certainly cannot be challenged on the reality of the church NOT , by and large, providing the supportive realtionships. And I am largely as skeptical (as in “more than a little”), and yet I keep coming back to what the call is; what makes the church distinctive. Hauerwas once said that the church should be where we find out what true friendship is. My long time attraction to The Church of the Saviour has laways been drawn to them just because of this issue.
So yes, I am drawn to this quesiton many a time too. I guess my approach to that has been to say that yes, the “way we are” exists alongside “the way we should be”, and that we remain in and behind the body of Christ because of commitment, and that the deeper ways of relating are partially achievable and partially apocolytic, and we never know what bnelongs on what side of that barrier. I say much of this not so much as a reply to you alone but to others who might be reading. I am reasonably certain that we both observe this in much the same way (of course, feel free to do a “yeah but” if need be).
I’m in agreement with you on this. Relationships are layered in every instance, so the technology is one layer. But every relationship that goes deeper requires more care and cultivation.
However, one could legitimately question if the church can provide the kind of supportive relationships that you call for. Is it within the capacity of the church to provide what we ar seeking in deep, supportive relationships today? I know that sounds more than a little skeptical and perhaps radical for those of us inside the church, but as I survey the landscape I’m led to this question.
Thanks for pushing on this through you posts.
Larry