Toward a pastoral theology of social media
The Church has seen that technology is itself morally ambivalent – it has the potential to be used for good and for evil. Although sometimes slow to adopt technology for its own mission, the Church does in time find ways to use new technology to promote the gospel.
In his recent speech, Pope Benedict XVI underscores that social media are important tools for priests in preaching the Gospel, and this is certainly true. But I would argue that social media provide new opportunities for the Church to be the Church and for Christians to live out their faith. Five elements of our mission are to worship, to grow in holiness, to support each other in community, to serve others, and to witness to the Gospel.* Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs and other social media can all be used to each of these ends. Perhaps more importantly, the way these media are being used in the secular world offer some ideas about how they can be used by the faithful, and the defining characteristics of their use have theological implications.
One gets the sense that the Pope may have seized on the use of social media for spreading the Gospel simply because a) these media are very popular b) you can use them to articulate the Gospel and c) given a) and b), why wouldn’t you? But if we stop and reflect on what it is that makes social media unique (and popular), we can recognize that there are theological claims beneath their use that should shape how, why, and to what degree we use them. I’ll try to articulate four elements here that are worth reflecting on as a way of starting a conversation.
1) Relational. Social media are, by definition, social. They exist as systems that connect people to each other. The content and purpose of those connections varies per platform and in most cases is highly malleable. As Christians, this should be comfortable. We believe in a Trinitarian God, that is, a God that is ultimately relational. We believe we are called to follow in that relational aspect of God by developing relationships with fellow believers. While relationships can be positive or destructive in and of themselves, pretty clearly the potential of social media to move people from a world in which leisure time is defined in terms of passive consumption of entertainment to active relationship-building is promising.
2) User-generated. Social media platforms may be seen as the great democratizers of communication. In every previous media framework, producers of content have been largely separate from consumers, based primarily by the cost or exclusiveness of the means of production and distribution. So if you want to print a newspaper, you have to have access to a big printing press and a means of distributing the papers. If you want to make a movie, you need to not only have access to all the expensive filmmaking tools but also access to the network of cinemas that might show your movie. If you want to broadcast TV or radio, you need expensive equipment and an FCC license.
But with social media, none of that is true. Millions of people watched “coverage” of the earthquake in Haiti that came not from the professional news outlets through televisions and newspapers but from cell-phone cameras to Twitter feeds and Facebook posts. And if this is true for news, it is infinitely more true for opinion and entertainment. From a theological perspective, this networked model fits the recent emphasis on the apostolate of the laity – the calling of all believers to active ministry. From an ecclesiological perspective, it’s not hard to see that this new dynamic – in which power comes through a flat, ever-changing network of connections rather than an established hierarchy – is likely to be very difficult for the Church to embrace. And the church will be right in its concern that heresy and apostasy can be spread as easily as truth through this framework, not to mention that it risks glorifying the individual even more than Western culture already does. But the possibility of truly empowering the laity to live out its communal and individual calling through these technologies should be deeply explored.
3) Ubiquitous. This is technically not the fault or credit of social media themselves, but of the fact that handheld wireless devices (iPhones and iPods, Blackberries, smart phones, etc.) can access many of these media. Many Americans are always connected to these media via handheld devices. And “always” is not an overstatement. I am not the only person I know who sends and receives messages while out walking the dog. Others go even farther. More and more, the Church may find itself in a place to preach prophetically about the need for true Sabbaths, for time disconnected to the world at large so as to better connect with God. At the same time, if we as Christians are to be always rejoicing (Phil. 4:4), and pray without ceasing (I Thess. 5:17), aren’t we compelled to use technologies that are always on and used without ceasing to find ways to rejoice and pray?
4) Culture-creating. Over the last 20 years, the diversification of viewpoints enabled by cable television and radio have allowed Americans to choose more and more to surround themselves with messages that reinforce their worldview. (The converse is also true: we can better avoid messages that challenge our worldview.) The internet, and particularly social media (especially blogs), have extended that trend further. I find this personally troubling from a political and cultural perspective, as we find it easier to demonize groups whose beliefs or characteristics we only experience through the lens of commentators already predisposed against them. But taking a step back, this seems to be an extension of #2, above, with both positive and negative theological implications.
On the one hand, this affirms some themes in both testaments, themes that talk about God’s people as co-creators and as people set apart. In the past, those who reacted to the “otherness” of the Christian calling by rejecting the worst of the world frequently retreated entirely into monastic life. Now, we can remain in many ways engaged in the world as a prophetic voice while to some extent countering the cacophonous messages of a fallen world with a constant stream of messages that praise and worship God while calling us to faithfulness and discipleship.
So what does this mean for how the Church uses social media? I can’t expect to answer that question in any sense of comprehensiveness, but here are a few things I would say might be starting points:
• Use the relational nature of social media to keep believers connected throughout the week and throughout the day. Most Christians celebrate faith only on Sundays. Those who go beyond that can engage in activities only around their work schedule and the schedule of their parish. Social media allow online faith-sharing groups, truly interactive and real-time prayer groups, an endless array of discipleship opportunities, and of course more service, witness and worship moments.
• Continue to preach the need for a true Sabbath. Turning off the Blackberry is more countercultural than many people realize, and more important.
• Understand that for the Church to embrace social media means an entirely new level of democratization of ministry. Ultimately, effective social media ministers won’t be evaluated by their certification or their ordination but by their ability to communicate within the parameters of a given platform and their willingness to share themselves with those who connect with them in authentic ways.
This is only the start of an important conversation. I hope you’ll join in.
* While these five elements are easily recognizable as the five purposes articulated by Pastor Rick Warren in The Purpose Driven Life, I have encountered the same five within Catholic education on the roles of the Church.
