I’m not keen on the concept of twittering in church (even with ministerial approval), but I do think it’s a brilliant marketing idea and the sort of thing that actually makes church active in this century. The key, of course, is that some of us go to church for some sort of peace and quiet, which might be disrupted by Mr. Type-e next to us:
If worship is about creating community, Twitter is an undeniably useful tool. The trick is to not let the chatter overshadow the need for quiet reflection that spirituality requires. At Westwinds, people can ask questions about the sermon that the pastors will answer later, or they can tweet in real time and hope another congregant offers insight. Some use Twitter as a note-taking tool. Often, it’s pastor-directed, with McDonald preaching while Voelz taps out, “In what way do you feel the spirit of God moving within you?” Discuss.
Again, I think twittering in church gets directly at the question of what the point of church is: Is it to spread the word of God? If so, then Twitter seems like it might help. Is it to hear (and interact) with a sermon? If so, Twitter might help. Is it a quiet spiritual experience? I’d forgo a tweeting church.
Your thoughts? Would you twitter? In fact, do you?
May 6th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
My personal annoyance with Twitter aside, I don’t go to church but I know that Twittering in church would probably cause my father to have an aneurysm.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:45 am
It’s worth noting that the twittering was encouraged during “contemporary worship” so I think your father could go to a different service and escape the tweets.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
yeah, my dad calls the contemporary service the hippy service because there are always acoustic guitars.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Yes, those darn hippies can’t learn how to plug their guitars in! Just kidding.
May 9th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
No. In an unprogrammed Quaker service, silence is crucial. It’s hard to wait for guidance from the Light when you are typing loudly away on a keyboard.