Social Media and The Church - A Critique

Hold on a moment Cloakey; what's this? Aren't you an author of the case in favour?

People in my position (which is to say a public minister of religion with a care to express a view to a wider audience) should always know where the failings are with those things that they would otherwise gladly extol. I will always write warmly about social media, especially blogging - but I would be acting in an imbalanced way if I were not to devote some time and effort reflecting on the weaknesses that exist within it, of which there are many. I don't think that there is a more effective way of undermining my own position than to ignore its pitfalls. I believe, too, that I have a basic duty to balance. 

I spoke in a recent post about how social media can work for a church, and how a gulf is broadening between those who are conversant with all of this, and those who are not. To be sure, social media is of profound value in attracting people to our doors and to the Gospel. Of that there is less and less doubt. Attracting people to the doors of our churches only deals with one section of our society however, and is in danger of ignoring that other section - the ones already within them. 

Accessibility - social media attracts and enters many people's lives in the space and time where they are. However, it is also as true to say that social media is a considerable obstacle to the majority of practicing Christians. If everyone reading this now thought honestly about the parish community of which they are part (if they are part), they would not perceive a population well blessed with the gadgets of our age or their means of communicating. Statistically, ours is a community of those of advanced years on average and of that number only single numbers of percents of them would, for example, have a Facebook account, let alone be able to do something with it. What is normal for our 'average' Christians (please forgive the term) are books, penned letters and telephone calls. How so many people can communicate meaningfully in 140 characters or less, Twitter-style, is a mystery to most of humankind, let alone my parish nonagenarians. In our quest to further the cause of social media, we need to be absolutely clear who is included and who is excluded by this development.

Infection - An important thing in my own missiological thinking, it is something with which we need to exercise care. Taking bloggers as an example, and as I have said before, among its joys are the freedom to write ones thoughts, engage in dialogue, and to learn new things through the widely acknowledged 'community' of blogging. That is great in the good times, but perilous in the bad. Blogs have, for many, a kind of mystique which is neither earned nor warranted. That it is written means that it must be true - or so some think. The danger is, that any whacko can write a blog (you are reading the words of one such person now). I am free, in absolute terms, to peddle any twaddle I like - dodgy notions, ropey theology, skewed personal prejudices, plain simple heresies. That I would do so wearing a dog-collar means that some could, and would, be seduced by my words. I see it in other places. Collusion in the blogger-reader-commenter relationship is considerable and in my opinion, dangerous. Infection is great when it the right virus that gets passed on. Social media at its least potent is a happy process of leaning on doors that are already ajar; preaching to the converted. 

Potential for harm - fortunately, in most civilised societies, it is still not acceptable to insult people to their faces simply for having a view different to our own. Name calling is still mostly found on the asphalt of school playgrounds. Invective is typically moderated by being in polite company who can challenge and moderate a good old rant. Except for social media. The playground for the passive-aggressive, the front-row seat for the name caller and the soap-box for the ranter - social media provides the 'behind the glass' phenomenon that allows civilised people to regress to a reduced base place! Only since I have ventured into the world of social media have I been insulted so aggressively, been called names that would shock most people, and witnessed the aggrandising withering of the perpetual victim (none of which would have ever happened had I been standing there with them, all 6' of me). This stuff I can handle. I know people who have also been subject to this stuff who could not, and were hurt by it. Social media allows a freedom that can promote growth and the best of encounters, but is also a gladiator's pit where the lions will, and do, bite hard. 

Community - Church is, and the Body of Christ is - community. Community, until the last two or three years, has been made up of people talking to and with other people, in proximity. Social media allows people at the opposite ends of the world to converse in real-time, and that is where it is at its best - but also friends and even married couples who have begun to rely on social media perhaps more than a chat over breakfast. I can, if I so chose, communicate with an entire world of people over an entire day - without speaking a word or moving from my seat. I have long been a supporter of 'e-churches' and was associated with i-church in its early days - yet I wondered how such a disparate gathering of eclectic folk (all wonderful, some still firm friends) could be regarded as community. It had a sense of the diaspora about it, yes, but also the feeling of a hidy-hole for the disaffected. Anything that stops people being in physical proximity with other people has the potential to erode communities if left unchecked. As a means of communicating with real-people, social media is priceless, but it needs to have a heart to galvanise people in the temporal arena too. In other words, social media should be a means, never the end. 

These are just some thoughts that, in the spirit of honestly and transparency, I express here. These thoughts have always been there and so you may be reassured that I am not having a change of heart. However, we are in the early days of social media, so it remains deliciously edgy and experimental at times. That is fine, until we use it as a potent tool among those who don't understand it. 

Concerning the Other Type of Messy Church

This post will appeal to my boss, because on this issue we are probably of a like mind. This post is also rooted in the issue about which I may even venture to write a book.

This is not a post about Lucy Moore and her work. This concerns our church buildings in their rather unique place in our world. They are, in many ways, a cross between our homes and retail outlets. You will all be amply qualified to assess your home for its accessibility and welcome to your guests. I am amply qualified to comment on accessibility and welcome offered by retail outlets.

Neil Pugmire wrote a book called '100 Ways to Get Your Church Noticed', a tome that does well what it says on the tin. In my former life, the marketting men had much to say on how to get people to the front doors of our emporia, and in all our present lives, we will have views about how he like our homes to look to the eye of a passer-by or a visitor. However, getting people to the door is half the battle. In commercial terms, not a thread of carpet was ever sold to a person who never entered the building.

Churches, of all breeds age and churchmanship, seem to disregard the fact that they are places that provide something. It may be a place, an act of worship, a venue for an experience with God, a meeting place, a place to learn about churches, a concert, passing curiosity - all of these things represent, to forgive the terminology, the 'product' of a church. Frankly, the more of that 'product' that is taken up, the higher the footfall, and in the end, the greater the conversion rate (commercial and spiritual meanings intended). 

Let me illustrate my point from the perspective of a shop. How many carpets would be sold from a unit that closed its doors all day? How many would be sold from a shop that didn't put on its lights or kept the place warm? How many rugs would be transacted in a store that was a mess and behind whose doors was a pile of detritus that customers would be caused to climb over before they could get to what they came in for? How long would people remain in a store if the ambiance were a cross between the funereal and grumpy possessive? This is before I ask the same questions about your homes and how your visitors would experience them!

There are so many questions like this. The answer, of course, is not many. In Britain, many of us are blessed with some stunning churches that are half empty and rarely visited. We have a mandate to make disciples of people, yet one of the finest vehicles to that is the place from which we minister. Sadly I have lost count of churches that are in every way possible 'closed for business'. Ranging from damp cold, to mouldy smell, to piles of discarded pew sheets on the messy desk that I have seen inside the front door. Our visitors will judge our love for Our Lord by how we hove His house. Our visitors will recognise, quick as a flash, what is important to us. Does the church look like a dishevelled recording studio? Does it look like a faded museum of ancient artifacts? If it were your home, would you dream of having dinner guests sit at a table already cluttered with the dirty pots from breakfast or the innards of a knackered toaster? 

I urge every one of you reading this, who has an interest in their church building, to step outside the door and re-enter it with a camera. Take a picture of the first impression you get. Print it A3 in colour and be honest about what you see. Of course, this assumes that the doors aren't locked in the first place, which is more of the case these days. Evangelism is about 'going out', of course. But why, when we spend hard-earned shekels chasing them do we consistently neglect those who have felt called to visit us? There is a business statistic that I heard once: that only 1 in 14 customers enter a shop without ever having been affected by it in some way beforehand (recommendation, prior visit, advertising etc). Those are the ones who have more to do with the remaining 13 than any other. I wonder if a correlation can't be made in those who visit our churches for the first time.