I have recently engaged in several conversations regarding the way Asbury practices communication. Generally, we are talking about things like event announcements through traditional media such as a website, magazine, postcards, etc.
On the other hand, there are people in the church who are beginning to question alternative forms of communication, namely social networking. As I've been thinking about this, I've come to realize why the church has been hesitant to adopt these "new" forms of communication. This trouble essentially comes down to the way the church has understood the strategy of communication. The church's communication strategy is as follows:
1. Pulpit- this is where the majority of substantive communication occurs. Things like vision, identity, and purpose are established through the pulpit.
2. Event announcements- this is the real bulk of where we spend our money as a church. We want to let people know how they can get involved in an event or program because we believe that Christian discipleship will occur at this level.
The problem to adapting to new forms of communication is really a struggle to understand the place of the pulpit. The real beauty of something like Twitter, for instance, is not so much that it has the ability to announce events (which it does), but really in the way that it intersects daily life. This intersection with daily life is really about thought process paradigm shifts. So, in some ways Twitter becomes the place where you are going to influence how people think about the world, how people interact with others, and how people even view themselves. For a church to engage in these emerging forms of communication is not a matter of being "relevant," "trendy," or "cool" it is really about interacting with the way people are thinking about and experiencing life.
If this is true, Twitter in some ways is a new pulpit; Facebook is a new "hospital bed" (the place pastoral care happens). Twitter, in some ways, is the place where you shape vision, identity, and purpose. Essentially, this is a matter of being incarnational. I am going to speak the Good News in the ways that actually intersect life, the ways people experience their daily life. Twitter is a way for the church to proclaim Gospel, but only if we too can begin to have a paradigm shift ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
you had me until the last paragraph. I loved the beginning. The question of communication, is a question of power. Where does the power reside. In top down, command and control organizations power is centralized and authority to communicate is given "delegated" to a chosen few trusted individuals. The problem with this, is that it no longer works for life change or communcation. The top in our society is always the slowest to learn or the last to find out. Plus, when we view the pulput or the pastor as the expert, or THE leader, then it becomes a consumer transaction and you become responsible for me. You get info to me, and it's your responsiblity.
Virtual community however is a thin community. if my community twit's me while I'm in the hospital I'm gonna be pissed. That aside, communication wise, it gives power back to the people who it belongs to in the first place.
If we can learn this with communication, maybe we can learn this with discipleship, leadership, mission, and everything else.
great stuff man!
Twitter is a way for Gospel to be proclaimed b/c it is decentralized. A centralized pulpit has some place in our world, but the Good News is much more grass roots than a central pulpit, which is why social networking can be a way for that proclamation. However, genuine Christian community (which was not the aim of this post) is not possible through virtual relationships. It MUST be found in tangible human connection.
Interesting distinction.
something for me to think about.
For me, the two are intertwined. Community in my mind takes presence. That is the nature of incarnation. God's method of transformation.
I'm not sure the good news is really good news a part from it. to me it's a pretty thin gospel. almost gnostic. a dis-incarate message to me via twitter, or a video venue, looses the power and presence of community, shared history and that is no real gospel at all.
I'm fascinated that you can make a distinction and I'll think about it some more. But I'm interested in how or why this is okay for you. To me gospel always comes with presence, proximity and to make it an idea, in which I ascend to, it to decontextualize in such a way that I'm no longer proclaiming or inviting people into life with us and God, but to an idea, void of community, or at least void of much of what makes community.
There is no gospel without community in my mind.
Can you tell I'm not a fan of video venues?
loving the discussion.
Post a Comment