True Christian community

I recognize this blog has been left derelict lately, but it seems a good place to share this, which will also end up on my Facebook profile.  It will not end up on my other blog, Pray Around The World, because it's not relevant, but I mention that as an excuse to get in a plug for it, because I've been devoting a lot of time to it and haven't yet seen what God plans to do with it.  I could use some traffic over there, is what I'm saying.

We toss around the word "friend" pretty loosely, and I was thinking last night that what I really treasure are true friends.  Another phrase I use too loosely is "Christian community," which tends to be a substitute for "church," "group of people I hang out with at Church," or "random people who will occasionally mention God separate from cursing."

But true Christian community is what I want and need, and true Christian community is made up of the truest of friends.

The Catholic writer and speaker Matthew Kelly talks about "The Best Version of Yourself."  In fact, he talks and writes about it A LOT.  He even registered the domain "theBestVersionofYourself.com," and if you have ever heard him speak or read his stuff (both of which are well worth your time), you have heard/read that phrase umpteen-gazillion times.  God wants us to be the best version of ourselves.  We are called to become the best version of ourselves.  The purpose of being here is to become the best version of ourselves.  You get the picture.  (N.B. Kelly is similar in many, but not all, ways to a secular speaker/author who deals in the same general message, Marcus Buckingham.  And not just because they both have funny accents.)

And he's right.  He's also right that a true friend is one who helps you become the best version of yourself.  And true Christian community is nothing more or less than a network of friends devoted to helping each other become the best versions of themselves.  But how?

Here are the elements I've identified as ones I'd like to find in friends and in Christian community to help me become the best version of myself.  They are also the things I feel most called to offer to others who are fully devoted to becoming the best versions of themselves.

1. Prayer.  True friends pray for each other.  I would love to be part of a Christian community in which every member prays for every other member every day.
2. Care.  True friends show concern for each other.  They check up on each other.  They help each other out when they see a need.
3. Share.  I can't become the best version of myself alone; I need to learn from others.  As I read and study the faith and learn from the lives of saints and sinners, I want to share what I've learned and soak in what my friends are learning.
4. Dare.  This is the area where most people fall short, or at least it's where I fall short and just about everyone I know does, too.  True friends dare each other to get better; they challenge each other not to settle for who they are today, or for what the easiest next step is.  They lovingly and prayerfully challenge their friends to reach for their goal.  Most people don't do this, because they don't want to come off as self-righteous, arrogant, or preachy.  A few people do this, but usually they do it without establishing the bonds that come from mutual prayer, sharing and caring (so they come off as self-righteous, arrogant and preachy).  But I believe you can thread that needle; the people closest to me, who I know want the best for me can challenge me that way, and I wish they'd do it more often.
5. Bear.  The flip side of daring friends to grow is bearing with their weaknesses and faults.  Christians get a bad rap for focusing on judging each others' sins instead of loving each other in spite of those sins, and, let's face it, the evidence to support that rap is pretty thick.  A true Christian community, a true friend, can bear with your faults, not by pretending they aren't there, but by loving you no less because of them.

The essential thread that runs through all these things (and doesn't remotely rhyme, by the way) is mutuality.  You can say you do all these things for a friend, but let's face it; if you don't make yourself as vulnerable as you want others to be, or if you see your friend as an object to be worked on rather than a fellow subject to accompany, all these things fall flat.

So there you go, in a pithy rhyming bundle: Prayer, Care, Share, Dare, Bear.  I would love to find a Christian community of friends who are whole-heartedly sold-out to a commitment to do those five things for each other.  Would you?

What the USCCB's FB Fan page might say about the church and social media

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.

Paying Taxes, Citizenship, and issues of faith

Purpose Driven Connection's Scot McKnight has an interesting piece on paying taxes as a form of worship.

He cites a lot of the same passages I've used here, so as you might guess, I generally agree. I might argue that he goes too far by calling it worship, though.

Opposite ends of the spectrum

The Catholic News Service does a pretty good job with it's Facebook page in raising the issue of how the Church should respond to the Pope's call for priests to use social media. Here's a blog they've cited a couple times in which a priest who has been out in front of the curve shares what he's learned.

It's a good start, and it's good to see Catholic laity like Matthew Warner struggling with how to do more by studying the data (he uses Erik Qualman's excellent Socialnomics video here.

Certainly on the Protestant side, there are some pretty big players doing well by social media. I stopped typing that sentence so I could share Purpose Driven's daily devotional on my FB profile.

But these are churches that existed pre-social media looking to adopt new technology. I think the other end of the spectrum isn't theological or doctrinal but organizational: new churches that are starting now are building to greater or lesser extents around social media as a foundational building block. My friend Andy Fernandez's I Am Ministries may be a good example of that. He's in the process of building a "church without walls" with a house church structure that dates back to the earliest collections of believers, but he also has an active and engaging website, a Twitter feed and a Facebook feed to engage his members through their days.

More reflections on social media and faith

In my last post, I tried to hash out a quick argument for WHY the Church should engage social media in its mission, but I didn't really say much about HOW. Let me take as a way of categorizing these the purposes in Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life. Keep in mind that fundamentally, I see the value of the church engaging in social media as a means of providing believers with ways to surround themselves with messages that support them in their faith walk while exposing non-believers to the Christian message. My sense is that to date some church leaders have been enterprising in using social media, but mostly in non-social manner - as one-way broadcast media instead of as hosts of conversations. The latter requires some significant changes - not only do leaders need to be able to relinquish control of the agenda and engage others in dialogue, but believers who currently participate as passive receivers of messages need to develop their own voices.

Worship:
I don't believe you can conduct sacraments via social media, but couldn't we do more to prepare for them? Currently there are several outlets that post the readings for daily and Sunday mass, and that's certainly a start. Many churches post audio and video podcasts of worship services after the fact. But couldn't an enterprising church post video/audio of the songs to be sung at upcoming Sunday worship so parishioners can get familiar with them first? Couldn't there be chat sessions and other conversations using Twitter, Facebook, etc. on the themes of the readings?

Community:
This is the most natural function of social media, as parishioners can and should develop "friend lists" and groups to deepen the bonds of community established face-to-face and continue their church relationships throughout the week...just like they do with other friends. While I have seen several ministries use Facebook and Twitter to ask for prayer requests, I'm never quite sure who's doing the actual praying for those requests. It seems more in keeping with the local nature of church to engage smaller scale prayer boards with groups of participants who agree not only to submit requests but to pray for the intentions raised by others. As impressive as a Facebook thread with 750+ comments on it may be, it doesn't seem realistic to think that those 750 people are taking time to pray for the intentions of the other 749.

Discipleship:
"Distance learning" it used to be called. Education suing social media tools is not that new, but traditional educational institutions have been slow to embrace the possibilities this format brings. Unlike one-way educational platforms (including online "self-taught" classes), using social media engages the participants in teaching each other content. One attempt I've tried in this arena is a Facebook study group - between 25-75 people have registered and between 6-30 have very actively participated in studies on books (One Month to Live, Purpose Driven Life) and Bible studies. This format has the added benefit of building a sense of community while fostering spiritual growth.

Service:
Coordinating service projects and other service-related ministry, as well as promoting their work, seems to be something the faith community is adapting social media for already.

Witness:
One of the benefits of social media is that participants who are believers have a very easy time witnessing. It can be awkward to raise a faith conversation with a non-believer you know (or one you don't). Posting status updates that reflect your faith or tweeting about what you're doing at church are far less intimidating. There's also a dimension of witnessing via social media that I find charming: you never know who's going to respond. I'm by no means the best at this, but I continue to be surprised to draw a reaction from someone I didn't even consider when I posted my update.

Initiating a theology of social media

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.

Opening argument

Personally and professionally, I’ve been confronted with a situation that has caused me to resuscitate some theological struggling I last put down more than 13 years ago: what does it mean to be a person of faith and an American citizen? In my work for an issue-based advocacy organization, and in my dealings with colleagues, friends and family, I’ve been struck full in the face by this sense that segments of our society have cultivated a set of behaviors that are, in a word, idolatrous.

Here’s what I mean: I have always struggled with people who easily identify their political views with God’s will. But what I’ve seen more of lately, and what troubles me even more, are my encounters with people who appear to care more fervently about whether you believe in the political worldview they subscribe to than whether you believe in the God they subscribe to. It happens on both sides of the political aisle, and it happens with things beyond politics, and my guess is it happens to everyone at some point or another, me included. But it bugs me when I hear someone talking and think, “If this person had to choose between his or her political leaders and his or her God, God would lose every time.” Or “This person really believes that the world will be brought to ruin if his or her side loses.”

Frankly, I’d like to blame media for this. I’d like to say that eddies of political society have created multiple communication channels that attract adherents to surround themselves with messages that create this insular worldview that “we” are uniquely and profoundly right and everyone who does not fully adhere to our worldview is “other.” And I believe that there are elements of political society that are intentionally creating not only these interlocking webs of communication for that purpose but are instilling an urgency that pushes the unsuspecting into the vortex. But the truth is, we each bear responsibility to some degree for the choices we make. And the other truth is, we as a community of believers need to more openly grapple with what is and isn’t the appropriate place for our citizenship within our faith-infused lives.

So…how should we as Christians interact with our political process? Let’s start with what we have and don’t have in Scripture. Perhaps the least ambiguous statement on government in the New Testament is Romans 13:1-7, which begins “Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.” If you think this was an outlying approach, consider Colossians 1:16 (“…thrones or dominions or principalities or powers….were created through him and for him.”) or John 19:11 (Jesus to Pilate: “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.”) or Titus 3:1 (“Remind them to be under the control of magistrates and authorities, to be obedient, to be open to every good enterprise.”) or Proverbs 8:15-16 (“By me kings reign, and lawmakers establish justice; By me princes govern, and nobles; all the rulers of earth.”) or Wisdom 6:3, where kings are told “authority was given you by the Lord and sovereignty by the Most High.” All of these seem to point to a very conservative view of political authority – not in the sense of the term conservative we use in political discourse but in a much simpler and more direct sense that we ought not buck the powers that be, because God put them there, whether we like them or not.

I’ll come back to that later, because there’s another point that is more specific to our culture that renders a lot of this stream of passages, if not moot, at least qualified: in a democracy, we citizens are ourselves the governing authority, kings and magistrates reference above. So in our society, if the sum of these passages is that we as citizens should do our duty as commanded by our political structure, we are being pushed not to a passive submission but to an active participation in the democratic process. For what duties does a democracy encumber upon its subjects but to participate?

Maybe that needs some further arguing. We’ll see. But let me take that point and run with it for now. If we this first round of passages orders us to be subjects of the political structure, and the political structure orders us to be active participants, then are there any limits to our activity, and to what extent do we engage our faith in that activity?

In terms of limiting our activity as citizens, maybe we should start with what Jesus did and said. Two passages come to mind: one common, one a little obscure. Matthew 22:15-22 is the common one: “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what belongs to God.” This was a response to a pretty concrete question: was it lawful for Jews to pay taxes to Caesar? But the import is more than that. It brings the first commandment very much into play: You shall not have other gods besides me. Add to this what Jesus did in John 6:14-15. After feeding the crowds, he “knew that they were going to come and carry off to make him king.” So what did he do? “[H]e withdrew again to the mountain alone.” When political power is offered to him, Jesus turns his back and leaves it behind. The kingdoms of this world are not what He is here for.

In that refusal to seize power (something the Messiah was expected to do), Jesus shows us that this life isn’t the last or most important one. Every human institution needs to be seen in that light. Pursuing the common good through political structures can be good. Work can be good. Marriage and families can be good. But none of these things are God, and each should be evaluated primarily if not solely through the lens of whether they help or hinder us in our calling, which is to love God and love our neighbor. Whenever we care more about a human institution more than about God, we break the first commandment. When we elevate our political aims above God’s, or equate the two, we are rendering unto Caesar what is God’s. So we can argue about how best to benefit the common good. Conservatives can argue, for instance, that a State that is not strictly limited will by its nature seek to usurp God in the lives of its subjects. Liberals can argue with James 2:14-17 that if we are to live up to the commandment to love our neighbor, we ought to use every tool available to ensure that neighbor is fed, clothed and cared for. And we can advocate and organize as citizens in these efforts. But we have to remember that whether our side wins or loses an issue is less important than whether we remember that our commandment is to love God and our neighbor, and that our opponent in political struggle is fundamentally that neighbor. That is the ultimate prophetic judgment that will always serve as a caution to all who would be faithful citizens.