can we tweet to Christ?

Read: Twittering in Church, with the Pastor's O.K.

I just finished reading the above article, as well as another fantastic article from Time, titled How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live, found through my friend's blog The Poptimist. The main thrust of these comments and musings are based on the aforelinked article, commenting on the use of Twitter in the church.

Initially, I'm very adverse to it. It's almost revolting to me. I'm adverse to the opening comments, saying Twitter in the church came about after thinking about "ways to make the church experience more creative — ways to 'make it not suck.'" So Twitter is the answer to making church 'not suck?' I'm sure this wasn't the intended meaning of this pastor's wondering, but it's a valid question.

Again, to what extent do we need to change the medium of church to make it relevant for culture? My main concern is a McLuhanian concern: if the 'medium is the message,' then doesn't fundamentally changing our medium fundamentally change out message?

The article rightly, although possibly shallowly, states, "worship is about creating community." I say it might be shallow because the article did a succinct job of describing a church community devoid of God. That's a church community based on one-another, rather than based on a shared relationship with God.

The unchanging, righteous God created humanity for community with one another through community with himself, by the blood of his Son and in the unity of his Spirit. This is relational and private community. This is unique, trusting, honest and vulnerable community. This is the community epitomized in early house-church movements, where families opened their doors to dear friends on a daily basis to worship, share, struggle and grow together. This is the church as envisioned by Paul and pronounced by Jesus.

I see this Twitter trend as a movement to try and reclaim that intimate community on Sunday mornings in mega-church settings. The churches with the financial and technological backing to make these things possible are almost assuredly going to have attendees in the thousands - in these churches the greatest concern is creating intimate, vulnerable community.

But doesn't it feel like this solution, tweeting, is a farce of true community? Because isn't vulnerability based on an intimate knowledge of another person, rather than a 140 character text flashed on a screen during a sermon? Is there any sacrifice being made in order to encourage growth through Christ? Or is this just allowing church to feel more intimate on a Sunday morning, which still acquiescing to the parishioner's need to stay in comfortable chairs and the even more comfortable anonymity of assigned screen-names?

I think the draw of Twitter in the church is based on a very real need - that of true relationship, true community, and a knowledge of true identity. But I don't think Twitter fills this void. We weren't created to tweet. There might come a point where we finally realize the model of the mega-church is a non-sustainable example of Christianity's fall into cultural conformity rather than a natural progression of the growing Church.

Those things said, I am in no way adverse to utilizing technology to challenge and grow a ministry. I use mass texting in my youth group, and am still seriously considering using Wiffiti in limited ways on Wednesday nights at HYPE Youth Group (and that's almost exactly what the article is about). When Pastor Todd Hahn stated in the article that, "It's a huge responsibility of a church to leverage whatever's going on in the broader culture, to connect people to God and to each other," I think he hit on truth. But I think these things need to be carefully explicated in light of scripture and theology, and bathed in prayer and guidance by the Holy Spirit.

That said, it would be interesting to examine ways Jesus used current cultural trends to leverage his ministry. I might dig into that a bit; if I do, I'll post some of my thoughts here.

Comments are welcome on this post! What are your reactions to the Time article, or any of my statements?