Not so fast!

Last week I talked about the more concrete barriers that held us back from adopting social media. This week I'm going to continue on the same line of thought in terms of why churches are not adopting these new media forms, but I'd like to veer a little more toward the fears that churches have about the use of social media. The purpose of this post will not be to debunk, insult, or diminish the fears churches feel. Instead, I'm going to focus solely on what pastors have said about the potential dangers of social media. In general, these fears fall into four categories: Opposing content, gossip, safety, and disconnection. The first three are more physical and come with specific examples to justify their presence. The third is far more abstract both in its conceptualization and its rationale. For the sake of time this blog post will address the first three. A future post will try to tackle the challenge that is disconnection.

In 27 interviews with Methodist pastors across Michigan I asked about their perceptions of social media. Specifically, I asked what they felt were the benefits, uses, and harms. Throughout those conversations some interesting perspective arose. The most common theme was that social media was an amazing tool because it facilitated the construction of stronger faith communities. At the same time, this form of communication was dangerous because it encouraged a sense of disconnection from physical attendance. Although this perspective represented an overwhelming majority of thoughts, other underlying fears crept into the discussion as well. Particularly, pastors and youth directors mentioned the devastating power of gossip, challenges to people of faith from the presence of opposing content, and the constant threat internet users are under from those who wish to do harm. In some cases, churches have adopted this new form of communication and done little, or even nothing, to ward off the dangers. In other cases, churches seem somewhat paralyzed by their inability to address those fears. Most churches lie somewhere in the middle, attempting to walk the line between open communication channels and administrative oversight. For each of these fears there is, of course, a grain of truth. At the same time, many underlying concerns are unfounded. Let's take a look at each one.

Of the concrete fears cited by pastors and preventing adoption of social media, the most common one is gossip. The idea that people can, with a quick flick of the enter key, spread malicious, hurtful untruths around the world is devastating to an organization focused on the construction of healthy, supportive communities. A number of pastors and youth directors even shared horror stories about an individual in their congregation making a post to Facebook that quickly had devastating effects on members of their congregation. To be sure, there is significant danger in the expediency. If anything, social media reinforces Mark Twain's assertion that "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." Perhaps now we might say, "A lie can travel all the way around the world before the truth even finds its shoes." So we can't discount the danger in social media as a tool for gossip. On the other hand, an outsider sitting in on an intercessory prayer group meeting (face-to-face) might often consider the content of the meeting to be purely gossip. As people of faith, we are interested in the lives of our brothers and sisters. Social media provides us with a tool to maintain accountability and, ultimately, provide the healing love that can only come from other Christians. That isn't to say we should all poke around in other people's business, but (to paraphrase one individual's responses) the church cannot offer that healing if the brokenness isn't seen. We are all broken and, if the family is functioning properly, we are going to hurt each other. Just as social media accelerates the speed at which that harm can be done, so too does it accelerate and facilitate our ability to respond with the healing power of Christ's love and reconciliation.

The second fear pastors cited in my conversations with them was the idea of opposing content. This is a slightly broader category that refers to the presence of comments that diminish, disrespect, or otherwise devalue beliefs that are central to the faith. Such criticism can take the form of blatant posts on a church's wall that slam central tenets of the faith. They can also take the form of comments intended to belittle an individual for their beliefs. Opposing content can additionally be statements from clergy that misrepresent or undermine the teachings of the church. Although each of these forms of opposing content can be detrimental to the church, they also open the door to further discussion about topics pertinent to the faith. For example, if an individual foes out of their way to post critical comments on the wall of the church, it becomes an opportunity for evangelism. The trouble with this scenario is that most people who would go out of the way to post on the wall of a specific church would likely already have a damaged relationship with those individuals (Do you see where this is going?). Social media can be a tool for, not only reconciliation, but reconstruction. When a community is faced with an individual who feels alienated, marginalized, or harmed, it becomes the role of the church to open our doors and our arms. The same response can be given to the individual who experiences harsh criticism for their beliefs. What would it say to the world if an army of believers stood up and said, "even if this person has a problem, we still love you?" In an environment where numbers mean everything (i.e. SOPA/PIPA, Susan G. Komen for the Cure), one critical comment can be countered by a community. Moreover, as dramatic shifts in cultural norms and values taking place, the church should take a vital role in facilitating the conversation. What can be considered opposing content to one individual could be the basis for a new and deeper understanding of God for another. The point here is that social media can easily become a place for the destruction and minimization of God, but it also holds the potential to flood the world with The Message. Unlocking this potential, however, requires participation and some churches are simply not capable of engaging in that conversation.

Safety was the final fear pastors cited in my interviews. Out of all three, this one was the most concrete and the most worldly. The idea of safety on the internet is becoming a hot topic in academic literature, especially as it pertains to children. In terms of churches, though, the fears are again both solidly grounded in fact and somewhat disconnected from reality. Although there were a number of different themes that I might get to in a future post, I want to touch on the two most common: Images and Prayer Concerns. The idea of images on the church website or Facebook page is a sticky one because there is legitimate legal ground to be worried about. Using images of people for publicity purposes can get a church into a lot of trouble, especially when the image is of a minor (here's a nightmare for you: Mom moves kid to hide from abusive father, picture on Facebook gives away location...). At the same time, much of this form of content is actually contributed by the individuals themselves. We still need to fight through how some of this works, but the bottom line is, there is real danger in unfettered pictures and identity tagging. At the same time, this is a door for church members to take a more proactive, participative role in their church. The same is the case for prayer concerns. Praying for one another is central to the mission of most churches. Going back to the beginning of the denomination (mid 20th century), we created complicated phone trees to get the word out in times of need. In the last 10 years or so, we moved to email. Now we can get the message out even faster. But we worry about letting the wrong message slip out. Again, there is need for concern. Some prayer needs are confidential and should remain so. However, most concerns benefit from the instant response available through social media. It goes back to information control. There is no danger in my sharing personal information if I find no danger in sharing that information. The challenge is to create the culture where people know the difference.

You might have noticed the common thread in my responses to these fears. I feel like I should reiterate the fact that I am not trying to diminish or marginalize the fears listed above. They all have legitimate grounding. Instead, I have tried to point out the double-edged nature of social media. On one hand, this is a powerful tool for building our community and introducing individuals to the power of God's love. On the other hand, these tools have the potential to harm the church deeply. Here is my advice to church leaders and those seeking change in the church: If there is a fear that seems to challenge the use of these tools, and this fear seems insurmountable, avoid these communication forms. Let others go before you and learn from them. If your organization has adopted these tools without regard for their dangers, take a moment to consider which issues might be most salient to your congregation. Consider what damage could be done, and think about how to prevent it. My final suggestion is this: It is impossible to address the dangers we see in social media through technology alone. Reacting to gossip in constructive and effective ways, using opposing content to foster and facilitate conversations that lead to a deeper understanding of God, and teaching people how to protect themselves and their loved ones in online environments all sound like perfect jobs for the church. Instead of ignoring changes in communication patterns, or keeping the sheep away from the Valley of the Shadow of Death, let's embrace the change. I encourage church leaders to carry the mantle of responsibility and engage their congregations. Just because people in your congregation are "old" doesn't mean the rest of the world isn't broken.