I think you make a good point. Certainly the church worship service is not merely individuals worshiping God at the same time.

However, the question is not whether the community CAN BE mutually encouraging DURING worship… because I would say that of course it can.

Instead, the question is whether the MEDIUM of Twitter is supportive of the PRIMARY purpose of the worship service, which is to worship God. And I think that this is precisely the problem… Tweeting tends to take attention off the service and unto your own thoughts, tends to bring focus off of God and on to personal reactions, tends to present the temptation of social networks without strengthening focus on worship.

So I would say Twitter is at best a medium whose very nature is detrimental to the primary focus and purpose of the worship service, even if it does encourage social networks, and at worst a severe temptation to mentally check out of church completely. Given those odds, I’d encourage against Twitter in worship every time.

Ben Bartletts last blog post..People and Sadness

Pragmatically, these things can’t all be done on a Sunday morning. So there is a natural division of the responsibilities of the church.

Historically, the church has set aside Sunday morning for fulfilling the worship aspect of the church, celebrating the worth of God in song and prayer and the proclamation of his Word. Other requirements for the church are fulfilled elsewhere.

The reason Twitter presents a problem is that it is oriented toward interpersonal relationships. The church sets aside a specific time for God-centered worship, and Twittering is simply a different type of activity.

In the same way that we don’t carry on mentoring relationships in the middle of the worship service, I don’t think we should be “building relationships” through Twitter during the worship service. I think there are plenty of other times to be carrying out that aspect of church life.

I also take notes throughout the message and often blog a response to it or a summary of it later.

All of these tasks help me to process the message and even the music to a deeper degree. I don’t think anyone can honestly say that something like Twitter is always good or always bad. It seems both sides have valid points and arguments, but it seems that part of the intent of church is to foster change or an internal dialogue in someone’s heart and mind. If that person is willing to publicly share that thought via Twitter or Facebook or some other medium, shouldn’t we be willing to encourage and engage in that?

crossn81s last blog post..CSA #4

Scripture provides plenty of instances of early church meetings. There is plenty in Scripture to go on when it comes to what the local church service ought to look like. One of the things that most characterizes those meetings is it is primarily a communal experience. Believers set aside this time to encourage one another through fellowship, corporate singing, prayer, and mere physical and mental presence. Any primarily individualistic activity tends to conflict with the concept of a biblical church service.

I would say (at least) two things here:

1. I think it’s very hard to make a case between “what happened in first century churches” and what happens today in traditional “worship services.” There are some vague descriptions, but our understanding of what those ideas mean today is very different than what they would’ve meant back then.

2. This creates a difficulty in resolving your last statement. I agree, to a point. Any individualistic activity conflicts with the biblical concept of church. But, most of our church services actually conflict with the biblical idea of community. Relationship happens through dialogue, through conversations, not through simply mentally taking information in. I, personally, don’t have a problem accepting this – I think the way we (Americans) “do church” today is primarily about information dump and singing songs. But, we also gather throughout the week in homes and that’s where real community can only happen.

So, we have to probe questions like “what is the church” and “what is the purpose of a service/meeting”?

(BTW, I rarely if at all respond on other people’s blogs…but you tweeted me, so I figured I owed you a response)

Rob Daviss last blog post..Some thoughts from Tim Chester on “sermons”

Epic Church has a Twitter @epicchurch and during our Gatherings at http://www.epicchurchonline.org/epiclive we use Scribble Live, http://www.scribblelive.com to host a live blogging event. People add #epicchurch to their Twitters and walla, they are added to the conversation.

Epic Church is passionate about turning the monologue into a dialogue. We have found “true” teaching happen more effectively when the cycle of learning takes place. A great read is, “Why Nobody Learns Much of Anything at Church: And How to Fix It” (http://www.amazon.com/Nobody-Learns-Much-Anything-Church/dp/1559459026)

All Pastors know that the sermon is not the most effective way to bring about life-change, yet we don’t do much to change it. Epic Church uses Twitter and the texting (http://www.mobimark.com) in of questions to help bridge the “monologue” gap.

Thanks again for your thoughts and time dedicated to writing this article. I hope it helps us really think though using this technology in our settings.

-Jake Rasmussen

Things that are helpful to fulfilling the purpose of worshipping God correctly and well as a gathered church are certainly good things. In that sense, taking notes in some form to help retention or engagement with the text can be valuable.

However, Twitter is not a note-taking system. It is primarily built for people to communicate personal thoughts and responses to friends, family, etc. If the church’s worship of God is praise of his character, prayers to him, and proclamation of his word, it seems that Twittering is attempting to meld two activities with inherently different purposes.

One brings focus on the individual, one takes it off the individual and places it on God. One is focused on what the individual has to say about themselves, the other is focused on what the gathered church says to and about God and what he says to and about us. In other words, I think the worship service (God-focused) is the wrong place for interaction about how we feel about things (interpersonally focused).

Granted, there may be extreme cases where someone comes up with a way of Tweeting that fits the right parameters. But the majority use of Twitter is a self-focused proclamation of personal perspective to other people, whereas the worship service is about communication between the gathered church and God. They may sound compatible, but again I think their purposes are disharmonious enough to bring serious detriment to worship if Tweeting were introduced.

And, frankly, it also introduces serious temptation to be entirely distracted from the worship service. Is the constant presense of that temptation really something we need to allow and even encourage?

Carinas last blog post..back4good: Successfully overcoming the blank pages of my #arra #stimulus grant proposal. Seeking $ for rapid exit from shelters for single adults.

I mean, at this point I’m arguing with personal experience which is something about which I can only take your word. It is, to me though, a little akin to someone telling me they can read books better and faster while also listening to NPR. By which I mean, that just doesn’t seem likely for most people.

@David – Yeah, you tipped my hand a bit. In general I try to refrain from note-taking as much as possible unless something just hits me that I really want to remember. BUT, it’s important to point out that note-taking can be an activity that doesn’t require constantly thinking about what others will think about your writings. I didn’t touch on it much in the article, but another problem with twitter is it causes you to spend the entire service thinking about how you’re going to talk about the service rather than how you’re going to respond to it personally.

Also, I think Ben’s comment sheds a lot of light on what makes it different as well. To speak for Ben, I think we’re speaking primarily of Twitter in the context of corporate worship, so it’s not inherently sinful, especially in day to day life. Just in that context, when EVERYTHING in the service should point to God, not ourselves.

Also @ Ben – I wonder if Twitter is self-centered and can’t be
God-centered does that make it sinful?

One thing I would point out is that this article focuses on differences in local community and online community, as well as differences in cultural ideals vs. introspection and self-criticism. I agree, but I think the nature of the church itself is much more than that; it is primarily the gathering together of Christians to worship God.

In other words, it is a God-centered experience whereas Twitter is structurally self-centered. Twitter is detrimental to the worship intent of the service because instead of God-centeredness, you are centered on your own opinions and responses. Instead of celebrating God’s character, you are communicating your own. Instead of speaking eternal truth about who God is, you are sharing momentary truths about your experience.

Twitter and the church are at odds in way that is similar to how a debate in the Senate and a debate in a Fortune 500 company are completely different. They have different goals, structures, purposes, and considerations. The twain shall not meet without detriment to one or the other. We’d be failing in our duties as Christians if we allowed something like Twitter to take away from our experience of The Church.