I get asked on numerous occasions why I immerse myself in the online world of blogging, social-network services, online chats and the like.

Carlos posted a great entry that sums it up, please check it out.

I commented back with this (I’m posting, so you’ll have a better idea of why this entry resonated with me):

Well written and I couldn’t agree more.

I feel like what was once my small, semi-dedicated circle of friends has expanded through this vast world of online relationships. I’ve “met” people that I wouldn’t have otherwise had the opportunity to meet, that have let me in to their lives and who I’ve let in to mine. To me it’s not a “network” of people whose names I can drop, it’s a family. It’s people who are willing to lend a hand from 900 miles away even if it’s through an AIM chat.

Thank you for this concise and poignant statement. It resonated with me immensely.

I know that there are many out there who say that online relationships are unhealthy. I’ve always, and will continue to beg to differ. I think it is very possible to maintain a very healthy lifestyle, and maintain very healthy relationships even if a large number of those are online. Let’s face it, we’re living in a new world.
I could go on for quite a while telling you how Alex has inspired me with his dedication to his ministry and to the people of his community and to his family, or how without thinking twice he answers my e-mails when I have questions that in the grand scheme of things are completely a waste of his time. Or I could tell you how both Carlos and Heather have given me not only a sound biblical example of parenting, but a realistic “We don’t have all the answers but dang it we love our kids and we’re trying our hardest to be the best, Godly parents ever” example of what a parent should be. I could tell you how Anne and Crystal have reminded me on numerous occasions that the only way you’re going to get anywhere in life is to remain transparent, and to constantly be on guard when it comes to matters of the heart. I’d probably also mention how Chris, reminds that you do not have to agree with someone to know that they are right, that they are wise, and that they are thinking about things well outside the realm of anything you could possibly grasp. (Consequently, I’ve met Chris in real life, and he does the same in real life as he does online.) I’d probably even tell you about Pete who reminds me continually that life DOES indeed come at you fast, and the only way you can deal with it is to fully embrace what is thrown at you.

That’s just SOME of the many people I follow, you can always check them out in my blogroll, and in time I’ll be adding some more of the blogs I read either via their feeds or online that are not currently up there.

The point I’m trying to make with this, is that I’ve grown physically, mentally, emotionally, relationally and spiritually as a result of the blogosphere. I’ve also done a lot of growing as a result of my “real life” relationships, but I can not and will not allow others to write off relationships formed via the internet as if they lack substance, because, well they clearly do not.

Thanks again Los for sharing your heart.

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.