Not enough faith leaders stop wringing their hands over the perceived impact of social media on worship attendance long enough to ask deeper theological questions about the changes that accompany the rise of social media today. Exploring such questions might enable religious leaders to help shape its impact.
For example, consider this issue: Christians take embodiment seriously--we believe in a God who became flesh, after all--but is embodiment limited to face-to-face, in-the-flesh interactions? Tired arguments over what is real engagement and what is not real persist, usually suggesting that face-to-face is real and virtual interactions are not. But if we apply some robust thinking to this issue, these categories don't hold up. People move seamlessly between virtual and face-to-face interactions all the time, and they don't experience one as real and the other not. Sure, sharing a laugh on Facebook is different from getting a cup of coffee with a friend. But is it any less real that a telephone conversation with your mother? No. So then, how is Christian community embodied well online?
Or think about this. The models of church that structure a faith community's thought and practice will have an impact on its ability to embrace or resist social media influences. For example, a hierarchical church structure that locates authority atop the ladder may have difficulty using social media because social media encourage people to share information with friends rather than wait for word from on high. On the other hand, a flatter church structure in which clergy and lay people share power may struggle with the idea of a pastor who uses social media to reach those outside the community. What can we learn about social media when we think theologically about models of church?
And what's new about new technology, anyway? Faith communities have adapted to new technology before--the printing press and the telephone, to name a few. We've done so without losing core beliefs, right? Wrong. Core beliefs have changed. The earth is round and it rotates around the sun, after all. Perhaps we ought to engage core beliefs with the reality of changing technology to test those core beliefs and see whether new theological insights might emerge. Or does all the glitz and glamour of these particular changes just distract us from following a steadfast and loving a God? It's worth exploring.
Christian doctrines themselves might be changing as well. For example, if, as some doctrines teach, the preached word can save a person, or lead to the salvation of that person, what happens if the Word of God is conveyed digitally over Twitter or on YouTube? Is the means of salvation different? So then, does the definition of salvation change?
One thing that is new is how far we can look into communities online. I call this, "communities in high relief," in an essay I wrote. Social media shine light on relationships making them more vivid and certainly more public. Mark Zuckerburg famously talks about social media mapping relationships, making them more visible. What a blessing this could be for oppressed communities who are often hidden and silenced by those in power. However, it might also bring to light ugly disputes, making them even worse under the glare. For better or for worse, social media can throw communities into high relief. What might we ask theologically, then, about communities?
Another thing we've learned from observing innovative pastors is that the best social media practices in churches arise organically from the life and leadership of that faith community. For example, one church hopes to nurture small group connections between meetings so they use Facebook groups. Another church wants to share their view of progressive Christianity with a wide audience so they broadcast worship and study material. While some stretching is required (another best practice involves willingness to experiment with new media) the most effective uses of new and social media in congregations seem to be those that "fit their flow," as one pastor said.
Six research fellows--Monica A. Coleman, Jason Byassee, Kathryn Reklis, Lerone A. Martin, Jim Rice, and myself--reflect on these questions, best practices, and more under Findings at www.NewMediaProjectAtUnion.org.
Religion and social media - Religion News Service
Religion And Social Media: Can They Mix? - SocialTimes
Social media brings religion to the masses
April 1, 2011 ~ Religion and Social Media | Religion & Ethics - PBS
Video: Religion and Social Media | Watch Religion & Ethics ...
"wait a minute, let's not do that!"
"Christian doctrines themselves might be changing as well. For example, if, as some doctrines teach, the preached word can save a person, or lead to the salvation of that person, what happens if the Word of God is conveyed digitally over Twitter or on YouTube? Is the means of salvation different? So then, does the definition of salvation change?"
That's a real paragraph that exists in this article. Mind blown.
So, when a young Jew is taught that a being that created the entire Universe has a personal interest in how much skin they have on their member, a Catholic that grocery store bread and wine becomes flesh and blood because a priest does some hocus-pocus over it on a Sunday morning, or a young Mormon that an angel whispered the secrets of life and death to an 1800s conman in upstate New York, these kids can properly evaluate these nonsensical claims.
Or, put another way, the internet and social media will likely accelerate the pleasing exodus away from religion we are seeing. And the believers can’t burn the internet or put it on their Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
I can't quite grasp the logic here. If, by this troubled question the implication is that only the 'preached' word can save or lead a person to salvation, the how does this argument also apply to the 13 letters of Paul, included in the New Testament - Romans, Corinthians. These letters form the backbone of many church's interpretation and application of Christ's words. Now, Paul's words weren't preached, but written and by that form, technically, 'digital' as they were conveyed in a form that was not verbal. Early social media.
If social media, to this article's author, is such a frightening or disturbing concept then the letters of Paul need to be re-examined under the same light.
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
With either science and technology all people of religion keep changing their minds about the lies in their book
Science Flies You To The Moon; Religion Flies You Into Buildings!
"Religion flies you into the World Trade Center" Colin Flannery
Worse!, it was known to be round. There is a statue in Ephesus seen with my own eyes and it is the proof, an emperor with his foot on a globe and the inscription 'ruler of all under foot' the megalomaniacs usually understood themselves to be the ruler of the world.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidjlull/6002318133/
Part of a long tradition of globe wielding emperors, a tradition maintained by medieval kings down to and including the British royal globus cruciger, with a crucifix sitting proudly on top, not that they knew what it was about at that stage, Christ, ironic ruler of a world his faith had darkened.
This proves that what Ptolemy knew and what was measured to an incredibly high degree by Eratosthenes, for a first attempt, and its sphericity was common knowledge and not just the musings of academia, until a north African called Lucius Lactantius and a bishop called Augustine decided it cant be true as how would the people on the other side of the world be saved if they were unreachable and how is the dome and vault of water above us able to exist in such an anti-Christian model.
So I’d say remember when the earth was round would be more appropriate here as the story is far more damning to these adopters of technology, understanding and science.
Church is a business.
It is simple: If the church can find a way to make money from social media (online giving, etc.), they will embrace it. If not, they will emphasize the importance of "in person" gatherings on Sunday... where they can pass the offering plate while preaching about the bleesings of giving and hint at the punishments awaiting those who don't. It is a time-honored strategy passed down through generations.
Its all good! Live and let live no matter where! Have an awesome day!