Recently a church that I am loosely affiliated with started a social network service. Initially I joined in part to keep in touch with people who, since the beginning of this church’s whole ‘planting process’ have seemingly forgot I exist, merely because I’ve chosen to not be fully involved in the church. Of course, and with little surprise to me most of them have still forgotten I exist even while I am a part of their “social network.” I’ve had to tell myself the folks who haven’t kept in touch do not matter, and be content with the few that have (who coincidently, have actually kept in touch outside of the realm of the social network, if that says anything).

It has been very interesting to me to see the ghetto that this church has created through their social-network. They have in many ways, whether intentionally or not isolated themselves from that which is reality. To me this is somewhat expected since the church is in the birthing stage, and the network is being used primarily as their bulletin in many ways. It’s going to be interesting to see how this social network service develops and adapts as the church develops and adapts.

I have a few concerns about a church sponsoring a social network.

First, let me just say that I’m an strong advocate of open forums that entice discussion and the exchange of ideas. I believe that any society that list the freedom of speech and expression as the first amendment to their constitution demands a certain level of open discussion in all arenas. So you would think then, that I’d advocate a church sponsored social network site for the sole purpose of it’s ability to provide an open forum for the church and the community to hold discussion. However, in my experience in dealing with Christians, or the church I’ve found that open discussion is not something that the church is entirely too comfortable with. Actually, in all truthfulness I’ve found that the church is not very open to discussion at all in most instances. So, I feel that if a church is going to sponsor a social network service then they need to be clear on the fact that it is going to in part be used to create an open forum for civilized discourse and discussion, not just talking about your favorite movie, restaurant, book or Christian musician. The church has to understand that this forum has to exist for the community outside the church to be able to create discourse and discussion too, and has to respond appropriately to that discourse and discussion. They have to realize that discussion is not limited to the social network sites bulletin boards, or forums. On occasion a member of the site may post a blog entry, or make a change to their profile page that might create discussion. The church has to be prepared for this, and respond in a manner that’s not confrontational, or assume that the party inciting the discussion is making an attempt at confrontation either. I can tell you, as a member of the community served by the church whose social networking site I’m a part of they have not been prepared for discourse or discussion. It’s almost as if they thought they were creating themselves a fantasy land to talk about stuff that is really insignificant. Sure, they’ve got threads on their forums for prayers and praises and needs of members of the church and community, but conversation outside of the realm of “church talk” is sort of unheard of.

That brings me to my second point. There would be no problem with just having “church talk” on your social network site, if you marketed it as simply a virtual fellowship hall. This particular church certainly doesn’t market their social network service as that, and I’m fairly certain the leadership of the church does not want it to be that. Take for instance this scenario: I’ve been engaged in conversation with an individual based on a blog entry they wrote (of which I do not have permission to reproduce, so please do not ask for it). This particular individual made a statement that I felt needed to have some sort of concrete evidence. It was, in my opinion, a very loaded, over generalized, judgmental statement about a topic that I had a vague understanding of. So, to better understand the topic I asked for some sort of research or evidence to back up their statement. Well, good night folks, you’d think I asked the individual to step outside so I could kick their ass, at least that is what they’d have you to believe. It turned into a mud-slinging contest, and for a moment, I thought I was on a campaign trail. I was not harassing, rude, insulting or derogatory in my requests. Nor was I any of those things in the many comments that followed my initial request. I simply wanted information that backed up what the individual was saying. They eventually provided some evidence, most of which wouldn’t even be considered valid in even a high-school research paper, but I digress. However, they didn’t provide those resources until they took a few personal jabs at me, including calling my manhood in to question and referring to me as a coward. The individual did eventually apologize however, I’m sure if you ask them they’d tell you that I’m no different then the six girls who beat up the girl in Polk County then posted it online for the world to see. All because I wanted what many of you have asked me for in the past: PROOF. The point of all that was that the individual assumed that I was making an attempt at some sort of confrontation. I would assume that they thought since we were both part of a church sponsored social network service that holding intelligent, civil discourse that wasn’t some how related to God, Jesus, the Bible, or the Church was inappropriate. My conversation, the words that I typed, and the thoughts that I provided were all well within the social network service terms of service and in my opinion well within the two paragraph blurb on the main page about why the church created their social network service.

Which swings me into my third concern. If the intent of your social network site is to be a virtual fellowship hall, or church lobby then there will be a need for an extensive terms of service notice as well as, policing. Quite frankly I’m a HUGE fan of social networking services. I am probably connected to the majority of the services that are readily available. I comply to each services terms of service, and expect those who use the service with me to do the same. If a blurb that states “We’re here to connect, and share about yada yada yada” is all you are planning to use to guide the use of your network, then there will be folks who will come along and push the boundaries. You must clearly define what those boundaries are or you can not be surprised when they’re pushed to the limit or if they are even crossed.

In closing, I have a feeling that as a result of this latest incident I’m probably going to be asked to not use the network any more. Which won’t bother me that much, since like I said the entire reason I’m a part of it has sort of been in vain.

I’m interested in what you think though.

• Do you think that churches should have social network services? What about corporations? As that seems to be the latest trend in the business world too.
• What should a church or corporations social network service terms of service look like? What are some key elements you’d be sure to include in it?
• What would you do for the folks in your church who do not have internet access, thus eliminating their ability to be a part of this vital part of your ministry?
• What other feedback do you have to provide on this subject?

If you’re uncomfortable commenting publicly please feel free to shoot me a line at will|at|willyoungband|dot|com, as I am really interested in what your opinion is on this subject.

One Response to “The effects of social network services on the church”

1. Donna Says:
   July 24th, 2008 at 4:22 pm

   I think a limited range, highly moderated social network for a church is a good thing. However, it is not the place for philosophical or political discussions, as I think those are better accomplished face to face if in fact the participants know each other. Some people are different online than in person, and think the goal of a church social network is more for keeping people up to date with needs, prayers, and events. Like your case demonstrates, too easy for hurt feelings.

   It also depends on demographics, in my younger-skewing suburban church I dont know anyone who does not have an email but then again they still mail out paper newsletters so some probably do not have email. But there is free internet at the library, so anyone who wants to get on, can.

   Also, my husband and I went to a church when we got married 20 yrs ago that we complained about it being ‘impersonal’ despite all we did was show up for mass every week. Once we actually started volunteering and showing up for things we got to know people we loved it, and still go back there for some events despite a church opening up closer to our house that is now our regular church. (a social network to keep in touch would be great) If you are annoyed that you are ignored in your church but choose not to be involved then you have only yourself to blame.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website