This is a sorry excuse for a blog, but to the extent that there are themes I find a need to post on, they are the role of faith in American politics (which I've studied a little) and the future of social media and the church (which I'm just getting interested in). This week, I've seen a confluence of all three on the USCCB fan page.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops runs a decent online presence - a Facebook page that works as another media relations outlet, a Twitter feed, probably some other stuff. A few weeks ago they posted a note about which cities had the most FB fans, which was fun, sparked me to try to get friends to sign up, and showed they have an interest in engaging their fans.
And then, health care reform popped up. The Conference issued a statement earlier this week opposing federal health reform, and a funny thing happened - FB fans treated it like they would any other post. They argued, sometimes in great detail, sometimes not. They asked questions. They reacted.
I don't know what transpired within the USCCB media shop, or how many bishops actually look at the page, but at least the people who run the fan page took notice. They responded. They refereed a little. A couple times, they got swept up in the conversation.
What fascinates me about this is not the issue of health care and the Church's position per se. (No, really, I mean that!) It's what this sort of interaction might mean in the future. To a much greater degree than ever before, the Church is being forced into a more interactive mode of communication with its members, which is an incredible challenge. There are less than 15,000 fans on the FB site, compared to, what, 70 million total members, but the few fans who participated in comments on the USCCB's wall showed a wide diversity of opinion, a wide range of knowledge about the issue, and a fair bit of expressed loyalty to the church and its leaders. The fact that the Catholic Health Association and scores of female religious orders took a different position on the issue sparked even more controversy.
It seems to me that this is the beginning of a new phase in the Church that it will embrace, fight, or both. The Church has been labeled often over the years as hierarchical, and I don't think I need to dwell on that point. The web, and particularly social media, are flat. A hierarchical Church can issue a statement with only limited (and relatively slow) response from dissenters among its members. A flat church will find the need and the opportunity to interact with supporters, opponents, and undecideds or mixed among its members in a much more significant way - they will get questions directly, and the opportunity to "show their work" by walking through the thinking, the Scripture, the tradition behind the rationale for a position.
Such interaction is time and thought-intensive. It is challenging, not only in the sense of being hard but also in the sense that it will feel like the authority of the Church is being challenged. The Church may choose to ignore this change, may approach respondents with a "take it or leave it" approach. It shouldn't. If the Church's positions are worth accepting, they are worth explaining in as much detail as the faithful need. Maybe more controversially, the Church may need to recognize that sometimes the people posting comments opposed to the official Church position might have some valid points that can improve the Church's vision.
No comments:
Post a Comment