Just started reading this:  “Social media helping many places of worship deepen bonds of community” — http://jwi.se/gvAuIc

This article grew  on me.  Even further on in this post,  which may contain paragraphs I actually composed before this one. My first reaction was that it was another fluff  piece about how these “with it” churches (usually huge mega churches)  were ”out on the bleeding  edge”  and “being relevant in this Social Media Age”.  I agree  with the sentiment that churches can indeed be “more relevant” by being in touch with their people where they are,  and be in touch with people who might find  them more attractive by learning of some of the activities or outreaches of the church.  But I want to avoid the trap we have seen in the past history of the church in “adopting” a new media channel in order to “proclaim the gospel”,  and some even claim “more effectively”.  Well,  here comes the new version of the numbers game.  And now,  “thanks be to God”,  we can electronically record our “hits” and visits ad get email addresses and ,  well,  it’s just “heaven” for the “butts in the pews: people.  Now we can add the “online member” notch to out evangelical belt. (Remember,  I am still in the process of reading  the above referenced article.  It’s just that the thoughts and reactions that arose  in me as I begun reading it were ones  I decided to go ahead and write up, while they were “fresh”.)

Just as “military” ideologies find support and expression in right wing theologies (ie nationalism),  this post from a site called “Commercial Appeal” is a PR piece for the latest “cool” which has begun to strike me as just that:  “Commerical Appeal”,  and it is following the same pattern as the radio evangelists and televangelists did when they “claimed the airwaves for Christ” and hailed that “New Media” as the thing  we ‘ve all been waiting for to “more effectively proclaim the gospel”.

Let me  interject a note of moderation here;  or a “standing back” from this extended rant on communication and culture and church.  There is a lot of TREASURE in understanding  and studying  and experimenting with Social Media,  and the church DEFINITELY needs to be;  HAS TO BE,  looking into this VERY SERIOUSLY.  That said,  I also see the need for us to approach this as a serious theological issue.  We need to be cultural anthropologists about this,  and educate ourselves in finding ways to better understand online culture,  and its EFFECTS.  These effects range  from revolutionary (in good ways and bad ways) to depersonalizing and isolating.

If we aren’t careful,  we will too easily dismiss the things that Sherry Turkle has talked about in her book,  Alone Together.   I was turned off by a lot of how  she wrote this book,  having far  too many anecdotal complaints sprinkled in a very undisciplined fasshion throughout.  She was accused  of being luddite all over the Web.  She is not,  but she rushed herself a bit to hurry to her concerns.  It was a bit of a departure from her previous works which took us  on a journey through several fascinating cases.

So be careful not to lump me into some “contrarian” category.  I share the enthusiasm of many “social media experts”.  But my experience tells me,  and church history re: technology tells me,  that adoption can be overly-zealous and fall victim to unwittingly importing some unfortunate drawbacks that come with full adoption of assumed methodologies and business models,  and the warnings of McLuhan that the “medium” itself infects and in some cases BECOMES the message.  Books have been written about McLluhan’s “the medium IS the message”.  I think of this every time I hear people say that the medium itself is neutral,  an can carry any message. Communication anthropologists say “not so fast” and “not entirely true”. 

Don’t know how I’m going to approach this,  but the “epidemic” of “Social Media Ministry” has reached  the point where some actual anthropological studies are going to be needed.  As much as I dislike much of the anecdotal feel of so much of Sherry Turkle’s Alone Together,  I also long for a contrarian/sober approach to all the online utopian orgasms happening out  there.

Now here’s a glimmer of light in all this:  YouTube videos of their outreach work in low-income neighborhoods (youtube.com/user/christchurchmemphis).

I like that a lot. 

“However, it’s not just Christians spreading the gospel online.”  Whoa whoa,  nice shootin’ Tex!  Just a dag-gone  minute there!  Discussion about memories of an old building are “Spreading the  gospel online?”….let’s be a little more discerning.  The You Tube thing is much more like it.  

Putting texts online.  That’s a big one.  But thus far,  I want to see a move WAY beyond pushing the text through new channels.  It takes a biit  more than “YOu Version” and the thought that I have 999 translations in my pocket to draw me in.  The attraction for me in this New Media is not the “new distribution channel”,  but the interactive possibilities that actually challenge the notion of the authority of text.  Not reject the notion;  but threaten to push the boundaries of the nature of that  authority.  I happen to think that if Paul were to have had the Web,  the very notion of what his letters represented may have been much clearer.   If Paul had been given the  opportunity to carry on an extended back and forth starting with the content of his  lettters,  what he wished to convey would have taken on something quite different than what we have come to after centuries of analyzing of the various forms and translations and cultural contexts of his  letters.  Had Paul sent these as blog posts that invite comments and engagement,  how would he have framed his narrative differently?  

“The teachings of the Koran and the Old Testament are also going viral, often in 140 characters or fewer — the limit for a tweet on Twitter.”

That doesn’t excite me.  The words from a text injected  into twitter,  like some magic potion.  It reminds me of the  guy you used to always see in the background of a camera shot at major sporting events holding up a sign that says “John 3:16”.  Even the verse reference seems to hold magical quaities. Sorry,  but this is NOT “spreading the gospel online”.  In this culture,  the “world of text” and the status of the “written word” are changing.  Traditional theological communities are having difficulties separating  and deciphering where the authority lies;  often defaulting  to the notion that traditional theological writers and their  “teachings” define that authority for them.  And that approach tends to align itself with the centuries old text/print culture (especially since the Printing Press,  where words and their authority shifted from SPOKEN to WRITTEN and/or PRINTED). 

“But this is reaching someone who might not come in the synagogue door”

Yes,  the remote, distant user who avoids religious meetings.  I’m sure they’re out there.  And yes,  there is the opportunity to gather endearing personal info about your pastor or rabbi.  I agree that these things are good.  But we are still left with how well we understand and leverage the unique qualities of this kind of conversation.  It’s not  just a matter of “”taking advantage  of it lest we become irrelevant”.  That approach can easily veer into rejecting distinctive and important approaches  by our community to the cultural ideologies against which they are often confronted. 

Anybody who knows me and my history knows I am not one who opposes the adoption of new technologies. Quite the opposite.  I am,  and encourage others toward “early adoption”.  But as my theological and media studies tell me,  the processes of change in communication and the media effects  upon culture are extremely complicated and often grow on us unawares.  The effects of the written word becoming more authoritative as oral cultures adopt not  only the technology of writing but also the consciousness of writing and written documents,  is the subject of numerous studies in communication and culture.