The New York Times reports that Facebook and churches are partnering to reach more people. But how many readers caught a church planter’s Freudian slip?
Two Sundays ago, a NYT article caught my eye. Facebook aims to become the virtual home for religious community. It wants churches, mosques, synagogues to embed their religious life into its platform. The pitch is simple: churches can “go further farther on Facebook.”
The article highlights the megachurch Hillsong and its new church plant in Atlanta. Sam Collier is the church planter. He sought advice from Facebook developers on how to build a church. A Facebook team met weekly with Hillsong’s church planting team.
I have reservations about this. I’m not on Facebook but I’m not opposed to it per se. I’ve seen Facebook help the local Hispanic community keep abreast of developments in our food pantry. My concern comes more from Origen of Alexandria’s cautionary note.
Origen said Christians are free to plunder the Egyptians, but forbidden to idolize their gods (c.f Exodus 3:21-22). Israel took Egyptian goods and services as they departed Egypt but were warned not to idolize them.
How’d that turn out? How will this Facebook partnership turn out for the faith community? I don’t know. I do know I have a few questions.
For starters, at a recent “virtual faith summit,” Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s COO, said, “Faith organizations and social media are a natural fit because fundamentally both are about connection.” Really? Look at how their respective business plans define connection.
God’s business plan is to “marry” us. In Genesis 2:1-3, we find the Hebrew melakhto, which means “God’s business.” In the ensuing verses, the mystery of this business begins to emerge. Yahweh (Covenant-Keeper) brings Eve to Adam in covenantal love. He connects them in nuptial union, reflecting the mystery of the triune God as well as the gospel.
Is this the “fundamental connection” Sheryl Sandberg is referring to?
Facebook’s business plan is also about connection—product, consumers, advertisers. But product isn’t goods and services. It’s more seductive: advertising. The longer Facebook holds viewers’ attention, the more revenue it makes. It fosters consumerism.
Consumerism is idolatry. Is this the “fundamental connection” the church affirms?
And don’t think churches aren’t affirming it. When Facebook says churches can go “further farther” on its platform, it’s wise to ask what direction Facebook is taking the church further farther. If it’s consumerism, then further farther is disastrous.
We also have to ask: why technology? Older church traditions saw technology as a branch of moral philosophy. In other words, technology only tells us what can be done. It can’t tell us whether it ought to be done. That requires religion, wise sages steeped in the faith.
I know Sheryl Sandberg is bright. But is she a wise sage?
Another question: Robespierre and Trotsky felt that all revolutions end up eating their own. Social media is a revolution. There’s ample evidence it’s destroying us. How many American churches ask whether this partnership with Facebook will consume their church?
A few. They tend to see the church’s practices as physical, embodied, like the sacraments. They’re patient, so further farther holds little appeal. One pastor likened Facebook to just showing up at Target, parking my car and opening my trunk. “The church is not Target.”
For these churches, I recommend a few wise sages, like Jacques Ellul. He wrote The Technological Society. He raised 76 questions about technology. Who’s addressing them?
I also recommend Neil Postman’s Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Postman coined “technopoly” to describe a culture blind to asking the best question: why this technology? It only asks how can we use it? Does that sound like idolatry?
I close with a Freudian slip. At the end of the article, Sam Collier says Hillsong Church has “never been more postured for the Great Commission than now.” He credits Facebook for his church plant being able to “reach the consumer better.”
Oops.
Correcting himself, Collier says, “Consumer isn’t the right word. Reach the parishioner better.” Too late. He made a Freudian slip, which is defined as an unintentional error revealing our true subconscious feelings. But I wonder how many readers caught it?
So interesting. I’m on the socials but just barely – I’m a little scared of them but also know they are here to stay. I routinely reference people to read this article – its a bit dated but the section on human/AI relationships is worth it.
Oops.
https://medium.com/deep-code/what-is-the-problem-with-social-media-5ec873f7a738
Thanks, Tony, for offering some additional insights on this.
It’s going to be interesting to see how churches respond to people who have some technological fatigue after managing their entire lives remotely for the last year.
You are right about Facebook. They control content, even when your content will appear. It’s a consumer driven media stream that reaches only a select few, mostly an older crowd. Sharing the message of the Gospel, should be accompanied by the Holy Spirit, the Word and the fellowship of the believer. Churches appear to be moving to Apps which allow you to direct calendars, announcements, messages and studies directly to the individual. Nothing will ever replace face-to-face, evangelism, fellowship and study. We’re interested in reaching the next generations now, so we use their input which media they’re viewing. Great article. Thanks.
We used facebook quite heavily during the first 6 weeks of the shut down when our community leaders asked churches to not meet in person. Then the cry was “flatten the curve”. I even went facebook live for a couple of minutes on an almost daily basis . We started meeting in person immediately at the end of the six weeks. I’ve noticed that those who before the shutdown were not relationally well connected to others in the church are the ones who have been most reluctant to come back in person and they continue to use Facebook as their connection. We continue to use Facebook live on Sunday morning and our number of views is usually twice the number of physical attendance. Usually, only those who were part of our fellowship before the shutdown leave messages so that I know who is watching. We do have one family that would prefer to be here in person, but they have a foster child who has leukemia and is undergoing chemotherapy. The doctor discourages any physical interaction with anyone unless absolutely necessary.
We will continue to use Facebook or switch to some other live stream, but I think the ideal is for face to face relationships not electronic. Discipleship happens best in physical presence relationship, but at times we must resort to letter writing , phone calls, internet or yes even facebook.
Humankind invents tools (technology). They are agnostic. Humans use them for good or evil; consciously or subconsciously. They invent language and the language can be used to uplift or destroy. The way you use the word ‘consume’ and ‘technology’ is illustrative. Consume has many meanings. It can imply destruction, squandering, and devouring. It can also imply engagement (engross). And yes, the church is ‘selling’. And that can imply trickery or manipulation, or it can imply persuasion on the merits of the good news. Let’s be careful of our judgement on our tools and our language. Sages don’t become luddites. They are interested in the root or core of our inner beings and our actions.
I didn’t quite get this sentence.
“ One pastor likened Facebook to just showing up at Target, parking my car and opening my trunk. “The church is not Target.””
I’m missing something. I’ve been trying to fill in the gap but can’t figure it out.
Dwight: My bad for being unclear. The pastor I am referring to feels that Facebook ultimately nurtures more of a sense of consumerism than sacrifice, commitment, etc. Facebook unconsciously fosters a sense that I “show up” for church when I want to, park my fanny in a seat, open the trunk, and the pastor pours in precious pearls. I get a fill-up, so to say. Consumerism.
Readers:
Jacques Ellul asked 76 questions of the technologies we use. Note this article that appeared in today’s New York Times: “41 Questions for the Technologies We Use, and That Use Us.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/03/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-lm-sacasas.html?referringSource=articleShare