Matt Schmucker Demanded I Blog About Technology and Community
I don't know why he "selected" (read, "commanded") me to do this assignment. But, hey, Schmucker is the shadow government behind all the 9Marks conspiracies, and when he says "jump" you don't ask questions before, during, or after the jump. I think he's descended from czars or something; so he's used to ruling and getting his way.
Case in point: I'm blogging about the use of technology in churches as an effort to build community. You've probably seen at JT's blog the link to some social networking software developed at Mars Hill and now purchased by Zondervan. Other churches are using Facebook. Some use blogs. Me. I'm old-fashioned. I use a black-and-white "membership directory" with photos and contact details. I use it to schedule lunches and dinners, though I have to use this ancient piece of technology called a telephone (land line; I don't have a cell phone... which is also old... or a crackberry which is newer... but isn't that getting old, too?).
Anyway, we can't escape technology. Every since some caveman (young earth guys, please relax; it's just an expression) used a stick to whack berries off the high limbs, we've been technology obsessed and immersed. There's no escaping it. First came notches on trees, then the abacus, then calculators, then personal computers. Technology is a part of life. That's a given.
But what role should it play in the life of faith? What uses are appropriate and inappropriate for the gathered life of the church?
I really don't know. Matt made me blog on this. But here are some early thoughts. I'd be interested in yours. And just to prove I really don't have any good thoughts about this, I need you to know that most of these thoughts (the good ones, anyway) came from a pastor's conference call I had the privilege of participating in yesterday.
1. Technology can't be used to build "community" for those who don't have it. So, don't make this a big part of your strategy. Most older members of most churches aren't connected and don't want to be. And, they remember the days when you actually had to talk to people to say you had some fellowship. You're probably not going to serve them well by going Facebook on all the announcements, etc. And as one young, hip pastor pointed out, we don't want to encourage the "ghettoizing" of the young members of the church. The young are over connected. Encouraging them to "build community" by going tech probably won't be helpful for any Titus 2 ministry you're planning. A third group that this won't work for is the poor. Most of the world doesn't have computer and Internet and wi-fi access. Some of the poor in our churches don't. And if we're talking a non-U.S., non-Western part of the world, even more don't. So, if doesn't work for 1st century Jerusalem then it's probably not necessary to what Christ had in mind when He built His church (His community, gathering, assembly).
2. Which brings me to the second caution: we should avoid thinking of technology as in any way essential to being the church. Some folks write as though the future of the church depends on this thing I'm typing on. It doesn't. Never has. The Bill Gates of Hades shall not overcome the church Christ builds. There's always something the culturally savvy tells us is do-or-die for the church. They forget that Jesus said He'll build it--without computers--thank you very much!
3. Don't use technology in any way that actually undermines community or contradicts the nature of the body. For example, virtual communion is a bad idea. The very nature of communion is spiritual fellowship together, as the assembled community. Or, I would argue, preaching at a camera and beaming the image into homes, across laptops is not the same as being the body. If the technology undermines all the "one anothering" that's supposed to be going on, it's not helpful to community. The problem: the prospect of this happening is probably more likely than we think. Most of the technology "solutions" the advocates offer are actually voyeuristic avoidance of genuine life-on-life community.
Perhaps the western church has been so long without genuine community, life together, that we've sunk to the point where pixels easily replace people. Be careful that in the name of building community, you don't actually end up demolishing community.
In related news not controlled by Matt Schmucker:
Justin Buzzard offers some guidance about using Facebook.
Respected pastor Josh Harris only spent one week on Facebook.
1. "Most older members of most churches aren't connected and don't want to be."
Why is this? Has anyone chased this down?
2. Josh Harris recently picked Facebook back up...according to the linked post. I'm just sayin'.
3. I think The City could be useful for an American house-church network or a church with a centralized small group structure. Members have true community in their small group/house church. The technology allows them to intermingle with members they wouldn't normally see or be involved with.
Posted by: Don Gale | Nov 20, 2008 7:25:41 PM
1. Part of it is fear of the technology. Another part is old habits die hard, and new ones are hard to form. Seems headway is made with older folks who learn from their grandchildren who are more familiar with the technology. Still not likely the local senior men's Sunday school class is gonna twitter and Facebook. Where I grew up, they just sat in the local Hardee's restaurant for half the day sipping coffee.
2. Aaaaarrrghh!! Note to self: Read the updates buried at the bottom of the blog post. Note to Josh: Do we need to check in with the CovLife accountability partners?
3. Do you see a biblical warrant for conceiving of community, fellowship and mutual care in terms smaller than 1 Cor. 12:25? (The post and the comments are a little snarky--too much McKinley reading--but I'm honestly and seriously asking here)
Thanks for commenting!
Posted by: Thabiti | Nov 20, 2008 8:56:29 PM
Pixels replacing people, demolishing community...Yikes that's painful but helpful stuff Thabiti.
I was wondering about the church history side of things. Do we have any record of how God's people have reacted to new things in the past, be it paper, printing presses, or obscure and obsolete advances like rotary phones? Any chance the church has wrestled through this and we can learn from that, either good or bad?
Since there's nothing new under the sun I'm thinking that the best way to deal with technology is to start by answering the philosophy question well, not the technology one. (something Healthy Church Member does for us all.) So I see a certain genius from Czar Schmucker's assignments.
Technology should not scare us. It should serve us. And knowing what we're supposed to be doing at least gets us started at the right place.
Posted by: david | Nov 21, 2008 12:00:06 AM
Good thoughts. I am always skeptical of trying to build community using technology, but I have seen technology aid in it even with my own church. As a body we haven't decided to use facebook for everything, but as more and more members get it it has become a great communication tool and planning tool. And yes, Joshua Harris is back on facebook, he has been again since August.
Even though Facebook has become almost standard communication at my church, I have experienced how technology has taken away from community in a bigger sense. Gone are the days of visiting each other just to talk, the phone, skype, email, chat, texting, etc., have taken away from that. Just today I noticed the disconnect that has happened in the past few years as text messaging draws people's eyes away from those around them to a tiny screen to send a small and probably insignificant message.
I must admit, I have a love/hate relationship with technology.
Posted by: David Wickiser | Nov 21, 2008 12:04:21 AM
My friend Thabiti,
I like the subtle dig in your closing comments:
-Justin Buzzard offers some guidance on using Facebook
-BUT, "respected pastor" Josh Harris dumped Facebook after one week.
J
Posted by: Justin Buzzard | Nov 21, 2008 2:32:57 AM
I love technology. I'm a technology geek. But it's problematic for me in the church. As Thabiti said, the older generation isn't connected 24/7 the way the youth are. So I can't use facebook to communicate with the seniors in the congregation. I could use it with the younger generations, but...not all of them check it everyday. Some are still on MySpace primarily, some do more texting, etc. It seems I would have to keep up with half a dozen different virtual locations or forms of communication.
Mars Hill is large enough that "The City" may work for them, but in a smaller church, I think people would loose interest in it after the first month or two (MH may experience this itself after a longer time). I say this because the young people who are more likely to use the tech, will think it's "cool" to begin with, but when their friends from school and other churches are locked out of the network, they'll head back to Facebook or wherever those people are to be found.
Besides, I would really like to see people turn of the TV and disconnect from the internet, and interact with each other face to face. It seems the youth are increasingly unskilled at such personal socialization. That can't be good for them in the long run.
And if people are unplugged, I think they'll be more likely to read their Bible, or some other good book.
I know "The City" has a Bible reading plan thing built right in, but I doubt most people will use it that much.
Just my thoughts, but I'm in a rural, small town community, in a small (75 or so on average) church. Maybe it's different in that big ol' city!
Posted by: Brance | Nov 21, 2008 5:32:35 AM
Ok...slight misreading on my part. I read, "Most older members of most churches aren't connected and don't want to be," as "Most older members aren't connected to the body and don't want to be," instead of "Most aren't connected to technology." So it makes more sense now. My initial reading probably had to do with churches where the older people seem content to just be there and "fellowship" with the other older people. Almost like they're reluctant to serve.
RE: Thabiti's comment #3:
How do we define "body" in 1 Cor 12:25? We're all the Body of Christ, but we're also part of our respective local bodies. I would define a house church as an individual "body", even if it belongs to a larger network body. Is a small group a body? I'm not sure. In a medium to large-sized church, small groups and d-ship seem to be the only way to have meaningful, sustained fellowship with other members. You'll usually only see the other members on Sundays.
I see a small group as a small body within a larger body within The Body. A good small group structure wouldn't be divisive; I think it better equips and enables members to care for each other and serve together. My question, maybe for another place and time, is: Apart from small groups, is it possible for a church of 300+ to be united in purpose and so connected that all suffer/rejoice together and that all have "the same care for one another"?
Posted by: don gale | Nov 21, 2008 9:41:08 AM
I enjoyed the article. I think your right on--even with me being a techy geek. I don't feel technology is an absolute necessity in the faith community, just like having a piano is not a necessity to sing praises to the Lord (I know some may gasp at this...sorry). However, just like the piano, it can add a wonderful element to the service...just as long as the the piano (technology) does not become the focus or essential element.
Thanks
Posted by: Brent Gay | Nov 21, 2008 11:37:14 PM
Thank you for the post. Is there a chance you could post some more on the technology gap between the urban poor and the young and connected?
Posted by: Jeff Cole | Nov 22, 2008 8:30:52 PM