Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Carre Gardner on August 27, 2009 at 10:52am

I'm curious to know how anyone in this day and age could possibly think that social networking is "of the devil." That's like asking if the telephone is of the devil. It's just...a reality of the day and age in which we live. As well, it seems moot to ask how social networks can be redeemed, as though they were somehow sinful. People are sinful and need redemption: social networks are just tools.

As with any tool, they have potential for great good as well as great harm. In our ministry, Facebook, Twitter and our missions blog have helped the average "Joe" sitting in the pew of our supporting churches to better understand the life of a missionary. My goal is that through our blog, those "Joes" will see that missionaries are just regular people like they are: we have the same struggles, fears and victories. What may be different is that we're willing to be poured out for Christ, whatever it takes. We want them to start taking missionaries off the pedestal; to see that with that same commitment on their part, God will do miracles in the kingdom of heaven even through them.

The downer to us about being more exposed to our supporters this way is that we more often have to defend ourselves and our daily choices to our supporting churches. In the days of the quarterly, one-paged, mimeographed newsletter, missionaries didn't talk about what they were reading, or eating or drinking or doing for entertainment. In the old-style newsletter, you had just space enough to tell about the leaps and bounds that were being made for the Kingdom of God, add a few prayer requests, and all the missions committees were satisfied until next quarter. With the social networking available today, missionaries are much more "under the microscope." We've had our book choices criticized, our relational methods called into question, and our spirituality doubted...not because we're different from any other missionary who's gone before us, but because our lives are so much more accessible.

Our great hope is that by observing us--yeah verily, even under the microscope--the "average Joe" in the pew will someday think, "Hey, they're not so different from me. If God can use them maybe He can use me too."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Justin and Leah Conley on September 4, 2009 at 12:53pm

Obviously, as most everyone has said, social networks are not of the devil or of God but are of man, due to the creativity that was given to him by God. This can be used to bring honor and glory to God or man or some other false god, like all things that man creates. Man will either use it to worship God or something else.

There are many dangers, as with all tools, that go along with social networking. Many have been repeated by people, that it will become addictive, serving as entertainment and most likely gossip. Another problem is that it creates security risk for those in closed countries. A slip of the tongue by anyone can cause missionaries that are not even involved in the conversation to become at risk.

Another issue that is less thought about is the new pressures that come. "To whom much is given, much will be required," though originally spoke by Jesus, is a proverb that the west often uses to explain responsibilities and obligations given for anything that they have. Since social networking brings relationship online and bridges previously held bounds of distance and time with many people at once. This means that many people might unconsciously hold certain expectations of demands in this relationship. For example, any missionary without some type of social networking ten years from now may be considered a weak relational person. Kids answer text and facebook quicker than a phone call. So in ten years a missionary who only contacts his church via a printed newsletter every few months, or by phone, or merely visits, may be seen as missing half of the relationship. Thus, people might be more apt to drop them for the missionary who they feel more connected to, who is sending video, photos, blogging, even instantly chatting from the other side of the world, etc. one who does not or cannot do this might quickly become disconnected from the church. Remember that in ten years these texters will be moving into positions of those in charge.

Another aspect of this problem is with the demand of connection if a missionary is involved in social networking. For example, Mrs. Smith from First Baptist of Anywhere writes to you and you do not get back to her for three months. With these new expectations of instant connectedness, you might begin to lose some of that relationship, especially if other missionaries come along that are connected and ready to give them that type of relationship.

Likewise, there is more material to be judged. Most missionaries have partners from all over the denominational/social/political spectrum. When you begin to blog about what God is doing, how you are teaching, what you are teaching, what you are doing, what you are not doing, etc., someone will have a problem with it. Since there is more material to judge you will not be able to please everyone. Prior to social networking, I believe many churches and individuals, though big a major doctrine, likely assumed that their missionaries were doing what they wanted. However, now the details are expected to be available for all to see. If it is not available, then that missionary is being to closed off and not communicating well in that relationship (i.e. not including the people as they see inclusion).

This can of course be redeemed, since truth might be proclaimed to more people. More people might be encouraged by what God is doing around the world. God can bring people closer to the field that they might get a taste of His global work and see their call to go and partner with others going.

My ministry has definitely been helped by these things. For now, working as the youth leader, it is literally necessary, since this is by far the main means of communication. It is also great because people have began to associate this as being a part of something.

Perhaps this illustration will help. When someone walks into a church (especially 50 years ago) his clothes communicate certain things. In fact, people even determine whether or not this is a big thing depending on his appearance, and perhaps a booth or something. A guy that comes in with a clean hair cut, shaved or trimmed beard, nice slacks or suit, and some printed material to hand out conveys to the people that he is legitimate. People think, this must be big, true, professional, and he seems prepared to do this work. Someone who walks in with holes in his clothes, shaggy beard, etc., could not hope to gain the respect and interest of a congregation. Well, printed material is not quite as impressive, and although clothing is important to many people, the younger generation will not look as much to that for legitimacy. They will look towards technology. To see if a church, store, or anything else is legitimate, professional, and active, the younger generation looks to the internet. “How can it be good or legitimate if it does not even have a website?” Of course many of the previously mentioned things will be important. However, “to whom much is given, much is required.” The internet is available and everyone is on it. It is a given, not an extra. Nice clothing in our country is affordable and is also a given, not an extra. Printed material is affordable and easily made, thus it also is a given and not an extra. Future generations will, whether consciously or unconsciously determine a great deal about a work and the person doing the work based upon the givens of the past, clothing, etc., as well as the givens of the future, technology, social networking. It will not become less a part of relationships, but even greater than we could really think. Obviously one-on-one relationships will always have the highest priority and role. But social networking is an ever increasing necessity for these new relationships.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric & Beth Yodis on September 4, 2009 at 9:35pm

Are social networks of the devil or of God? hahaha. I laugh every time I see this question. It's right up there with the question the church struggled with in the early sixties: "Is it o.k. for women to wear lipstick?" (Answer: "It isn't a sin, but it may lead to temptation.") I think that MOTF (Missions on the Frontline for those who are not yet accustomed to internet-speak) should strive to be a sanctified site. For example, we need to be careful to use sanctified abbreviations, which is something I have been doing on facebook for some time. Thus, versions of the famous "lm#o" becomes "lmbo" or "lmro", and versions of "OMG" become "OMGn" (Oh My Goodness). For example, "OMGn, my bff loves motf. did you see bill mccombs prof pic? rofl and then I lmro and I'm still lol!"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barry Owen on September 5, 2009 at 5:07am

Eric, Eric, Eric, Eric. I saw your post this morning and I am still laughing (yes, lol). I think you caught the essence of all that can go wrong with social networking groups. It made my day. Thanks for the yuks. Barry

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linnea Boese on September 5, 2009 at 4:59am

I don't live in a "Restricted Access" country, except that I wrestle with ongoing restricted access to the Internet--we still have that old difficulty of uploading anything, even getting a homepage to fully load before the fragile connection cuts off. Yet I find that people in the U.S., even at our hq, expect us to have full access. It is the modern way. So when in the big city I dedicate my time to using the broadband access for all it's worth, and the responses I get from certain friends and supporters helps me realize that it is worth the effort. Not every U.S.-based American is into this social networking thing either, but there are those who find it their one best way to maintain connection. For all that people say about the frivolous short status posts on Facebook, I find that some people respond to my short posts, or even send lengthy messages, when I have never had them respond to an email prayer bulletin or even personal emails. And for those people, the social networking is the only way to connect with them. Some are young; an amazing number are elderly. One widow friend, when she first saw my fledgling Frontline homepage, responded with tears, saying she finally understands what we are doing in ministry -- and she has known me "well" at least 15 years.

I see it as similar to what we do as we study a new culture and determine how best to become acceptable communicators and members in that culture. We want people to have a heart for what God is doing through our ministry, and to have them feel as though they are truly partners in it. For some people, this Internetworking is definitely their comfort zone. So we should do what we can to enter it.

On the other hand, I agree that often the Internet, or just the computer, can become too much of a refuge and too much of a distraction from the current cross-cultural environment with all of its challenges. We need to ask the Lord daily to give us wisdom, to direct us into the activities that he has for us in each moment-- to give us the grace to go to the door and meet visitors with grace and love even when we just managed to get connected to Missions on the Frontline, and know it may not happen again this day!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christie Murphy on October 13, 2009 at 2:57am

Social networking is a vital element of my on-line English classes for my seminary extension students. We only see each other once a month, but they have several e-learning tasks to do each week. One is to chat on the forum. This gets them more connected with each other and with me, and makes sitting down to the computer to do English much more fun and motivating. Besides, as relationships deepen there is the chance to impact each other's lives in a way that wouldn't happen otherwise, because of the geographical distance.

is anyone else out there using elearning in seminary teaching?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page