What is in Kelvin's Head?

Social Media and Ministry – Will I be your friend?

05/08/2014

Here’s where I’m at with social media.

Twitter

You’ll find me here: www.twitter.com/thurible

I follow whoever I like and I let anyone who wants to follow me. Twitter is the wild west – you do what you like. Part of the fun is following people who wouldn’t dream of following you back.

There are just over 500 accounts that I follow. These show up in my timeline and I keep a reasonable watch on what is going on. I miss some things in my timeline but I check twitter every day. Indeed, for some parts of my day, twitter is open in another monitor on my desk. Some of the people I follow are people who are close to me but most are not. I follow some people because they telegraph news that I’m interested in far quicker than any other media. I know things far sooner by following twitter than I would otherwise. Because I use it in this way, it is my responsibility to learn to sift and sort out what is likely to be true and what can be discarded as speculation or downright lies. As in other forms of communication, reputation is principally what determines whether I trust someone and I have huge responsibilities in working all this out. I need to be familiar with the genre to understand what I am reading.

[An example of that has just happened whilst I’m writing this post – a journalist I trust has just tweeted that Baroness Warsi has resigned over Gaza. I’m interested in that and I’m seeing that some time before I will hear it on the news.]

People ask me whether this takes a lot of time. My answer is that it takes hardly any time. And it takes all my time. It is just going on. It is part of life.

I tweet @thurible and I tweet on behalf of St Mary’s @thecathedral. The latter account doesn’t have my personality, but reflects the institution. The former account does reflect my personality. That means you get to hear what I think about God and what I think about Kylie’s head-dress. I also retweet things from people I find interesting and people I generally trust. You might hear things from me that you won’t hear in the newspapers and some people follow me for that reason. Some people presumably follow me because what I say entertains them in some way. But it is a free for all – those who want to follow get to do so without me bothering much about who they are. Three times as many people follow me as the number of people I follow.

If my tweets are retweeted by others, and they often are, then they will reach tens of thousands of people. What I think or say about the Scottish Episcopal Church, Kylie’s head-dress or Baroness Warsi could reach very many people. This is so powerful I have to think about what I say. Believe me, I do.

If I know you, or if you interact with me in ways that are clever, funny, witty, amusing, intelligent or even belligerent, there is a reasonable chance that I’ll follow you.

Facebook

Well, facebook used to be the social network to build up vast lists of friends. I’m not interested in that any more. Since twitter came along, I’ve no particular interest in adding people as friends unless I’ve got good reason to do so. I get quite a few friend requests from people I don’t know at all and I realised a few months ago that I just wasn’t interested.

You see, if I accept you as a friend, I’ll see what you have to say in my timeline. Experience suggests that those whom I don’t know will be reposting lots of things from other people that I think of as drivel.

I’m interested in you on facebook if I know you or if I’m interested in what you’ve got to say. I am far less interested in your kitten picture. However, if I know your kittens, I’m beguiled. I’m much more interested in what you have to say or in in the picture that you have taken than in things that you have reposted from other “clever” people.

A while ago, Facebook introduced the concept of following. This is more sophisticated than twitter. You can follow me without me having to be your friend and a bunch of people do that. It means you can see all my public postings but I don’t have to see the photograph of your kitten. Everyone wins.

I work fairly carefully to keep my facebook connections in good order. I use the “lists” facility to make sure I know who is receiving what I’m posting. Thus, I can continue to use Facebook when I’m on holiday but don’t let members of the congregation see my postings whilst I’m away because a holiday is a holiday and we need time off from one another. It isn’t difficult to do that with Facebook. Most people who complain about facebook haven’t bothered to learn how to use it.

[I’m starting to see comment from politicians, journalists and friends about Baroness Warsi’s resignation – some see it as principled, some see it as opportunist – I sit and think about it.]

I’m more than aware that “friends” are not friends. However, I think that it is silly for people to say that “friends” have nothing to do with real friendship and community. (As the Church of Scotland Moderator appeared to do at the end of the General Assembly). I get lots of my community online. I like living that way. Some of the people I am closest to relate to me in this way. I have known them for many years and enjoy the daily company of good friends whom I would have lost touch with years ago without this way of communicating. I’ll be praying this morning at Morning Prayer for someone whom I’ve known since 1989 whom I see from Facebook is waiting news from a significant MRI scan. Don’t tell me that’s not real.

I’m on facebook at www.facebook.com/thurible – if you are someone I know, are in my congregation, are someone I’ve met in my ministry then yes, I am likely to add you as a friend if you request that. I don’t generally befriend people in the congregation who are under 16. I don’t generally befriend people whom I don’t know at all. I get regular requests from people who have a number of mutual friends in common. I’m afriad if I see that our only mutual friends are a few of the dozen or so LGBT activists that I know well then you probably need to follow me rather than expect me to befriend you.

[BBC have a Breaking News note on their website saying that Baroness Warsi has resigned – nothing else].

Google+

I’m only on Google+ because it gets you access to google’s video hangouts and we host online evening prayer there. I only know one person who regularly posts on Google+ and they post their photographs elsewhere too. I don’t monitor Google+ and I’m unlikely to add you to my account. Not because I don’t want to be your friend but because there is no-one there. You are not there asking me to be your friend anyway. Presumably google will one day pull the plug on some of this – they can’t be making money out of it.

Pinterest

Oh, I do love pinterest and I’m on that sporadically. (You’ll find my profile here: http://www.pinterest.com/kelvinthurible)
It allows you to build up collections of pics that are on the web.If you want to see my collection of Religious Hat pictures you need to find me there. If you want to gaze in wonder at my board of Baldacchinos, ombrellinos, and religious shades then there’s nowhere else to go. And as for my carefully curated moodboard of TISECesque worship – then if you’ve not seen it you don’t know what you are missing. No friends here – if I pin something on a public board you are welcome to pin it to yours. We’ll hope that pinterest have plenty of well paid lawyers to sort out the copyright issues. And we’ll enjoy it whilst it lasts – again I don’t see how they are making any money. This is the social media network of choice if I’m off sick.

Interestingly, Pinterest is a social network with significantly more women on it than men. I keep an eye on some of the “Dream Wedding” stuff for fear of what is coming my way.

Flickr

Flickr is a social network I have a profile on but hardly ever post to. I’m much more likely to post pictures to facebook. However I do use Flickr for finding pictures which people have already given their permission to be copied. I use these on the cathedral website sometimes. For example, when Peter Tatchell was with us recently I needed a good pic of him and found one on Flickr that had the appropriate copyright permissions allowing me to use it so long as I acknowledged where it had come from. Such generosity is a blessing unto us all.

LinkedIn

I always think I ought to love LinkedIn more than I do. I have a profile but don’t know what to do with it. Maybe it just doesn’t work for the church.

Others

I don’t have an instagram account but I might do one day. I don’t have any accounts on scruff, grindr, blendr or anything else which attempts to find me something carnal 300 ft from where I am. I also don’t think regular online dating can work for me but that is perhaps a post for another day. I don’t do social bookmarking though I can see the point. I don’t run any micro social networks of my own though from time to time I explore the options for the congregation. I use email so much that I’ve forgotten that it is a social media network though I’m quite sure that it is. I used to have a profile on Friends Reunited and presume it is still there but have to admit that Facebook beat it hands down. I have a spotify profile and think that it is very clever to try to make music into social media but resist most of their attempts to do so.

[The BBC now have a full report on Baroness Warsi’s resignation – pictures and responses from other people. I look at it and feel I’ve seen it all before. No-0ne links to it.]

Conclusion

Social Media and Ministry mix rather well. I don’t know what I’d do without some of it. It undoubtedly drives people to my blog and to the church website and both of those push some people towards the church. (They will push some people away too, but that’s OK – why waste the time of those who won’t be interested). Personality and ethos are gloriously muddled online. That’s the way the world is and I like it.

So that’s what I’m using social media for.

You?

Facebook, friends, pinterest, social media, twitter

10 responses to “Response from the College of Bishops”

Father Ron Smith

12/01/2015

Thank you, Fr, Kelvin, for making the contents of the SEC Bishops’ Response to the Letter from 50 people concerned about their attitude towards the openness of the Church to the prospect of its eirenic treatment of clergy and Church members – desirous of solemnising Same-Sex monogamous relationships in the context of Marriage.

It seems to me – an outsider, but a member of the New Zealand Anglican Church – that the Letter has challenged your Bishops to positive action on behalf of Christians – and others – who consider faithful Gay relationships to be equally acceptable to God as those of heterosexuals. The Church, surely, must act to affirm faithful monogamous relationships on both sides of the spectrum.

Let’s hope your General Synod will move ahead to affirm such relationships, so that the Church may get on with other aspects of its mission; knowing that human justice for ALL people is paramount in the propagation of the Gospel. If SEC is pro-active in this important matter, it can only encourage churches like my own – in ACANZP – to follow suit.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  12/01/2015
  
  The General Synod is, to some degree, inhibited from sorting this out until the bishops themselves decide to back a proposal which would allow all to flourish in the church.
  
  The synod contains the bishops and they have an effective veto on canonical legislation.
  
  I’m baffled at the moment as to why they have not rallied around a position which allows all of us, both those in favour and those against, to act according to our consciences in this area. I think that this is a position which would re-unite the church again. I know those who disagree with me on the substantive question about lesbian and gay relationships who are as mystified and as frustrated as I am that we are taking so long to deal with this and who, like me, want to get on with the business of letting Scotland’s people know that God loves them.
  
  Everyone I know says they want to come to a resolution which does not de-church other Episcopalians. The position that the bishops have taken comes very close to de-churching some of us and I remain greatly concerned for the Province as a whole.
  
  Reply
2. Christine McIntosh
  
  13/01/2015
  
  Amen.
  
  Reply
Pam

12/01/2015

From my reading, it’s a carefully worded document that attempts not to pre-empt what may happen at Synod. Talking to each other face-to-face is always better than written communication, in my opinion. This issue does need a resolution and I’m sure that people on both sides of the debate, in good faith, would want to honour each other. Bishops have a tough job but so do the people who don’t get the opportunity to attend Synod, for whatever reason.

Reply
Chris Hansen

12/01/2015

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of being talked about by people who would rather not talk to me. This “listening process” that the C of E is going through is bull. They’ve been doing variations on that for years. Nothing comes out of it except more conversations. No progress is made thereby.

The trick is to push the bishops to take a stand and do some prophetic leading.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  12/01/2015
  
  The current process in the Church of England is related to the Cascade Process that we’ve had in Scotland.
  
  Some people have benefitted from the process here. There’s no getting away from that. It has been a good thing for some but by no means all.
  
  Some have felt very disappointed and upset that the bishops themselves now appear not to have been working in accord with the principles of the process itself.
  
  And some, like me who have been working for change in this area for years, were excluded from the design of the process and from its major set piece provincial event.
  
  Reply
FakePete

13/01/2015

I feel very angry reading that.

Reply
Steven

13/01/2015

Dear Kelvin

Interesting developments. Not much in that letter really.

What would you do if you were Primus?

The reality is the SEC has always (at least in my mind) been open to a more progressive stance on this kind of issue and yet does contain those for whom this would be (very?) difficult.

Would you seek to maintain unity by some kind of compromise (CoE and women Bishops) or would you forge on ahead with prophetic change leaving those who didn’t like it to make their own choices (like the Episcopal Church)…?

The New Testament Christians didn’t seem to care much for unity at the expense of integrity and justice.

For my own part I think it is better for churches not to try and fudge this issue (look at the terrible mess in the Church of Scotland) but to agree a position and then firmly pursue same, come what may. People would not tolerate an institution that allowed a minority of people to adopt racist positions and so it should not really be any different for those who want to maintain positions that discriminate against same-sex couples.

All this is – of course – easy for me to say.

Steven

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  13/01/2015
  
  What would I do if I were the Primus? Well that’s a good question.
  
  The first thing I’d remember is that the Primus is simply the spokesperson for the College of Bishops and doesn’t have the authority that, for example, an archbishop might think he possesses.
  
  I would however as a bishop argue in a favour of a solution which allowed people to act according to their conscience in this area. I don’t agree that people should be forced to “firmly pursue” a particular stance over this issue. It isn’t who we are. In fact I think the problem at the moment is that people are being forced to pursue a position that they don’t agree with and that situation is unsustainable.
  
  The reasons for not forcing people to marry gay couples are these:
  
  1 – No gay couple wants to be married by someone who has been forced to do so but who would really prefer not to.
  
  2 – It would be illegal anyway and our canon law determines that we will abide by Scots Law.
  
  3 – We already have a precedent with divorce – no-one is forced to marry anyone who is divorced, they can chose whether or not to do so. I think that is a reasonable compromise and it has served the church well.
  
  4 – I don’t think anyone should be compelled to marry anyone and that is the situation that we currently have.
  
  However there are some positive things that a Scottish bishop could do at the moment. Although I agree that same-sex marriages cannot take place in churches or be done by SEC priests until there is a decision made by General Synod I don’t agree that it is the case that someone cannot affirm allegiance to the canons of the church because they happen to be in a same-sex marriage.
  
  I think de-coupling those two issues is urgent.
  
  I would argue in favour of an equal opportunities policy for the church.
  
  I would try to seek a way of bringing forward a synodical resolution which would allow same-sex marriage, allow those who don’t want to be party to it not to have to be and I’d argue in favour of that as a godly compromise that would allow us to get on with our gospel business of sharing the good news.
  
  If I were the Primus I would probably be encouraging the College of Bishops to allow me to say publicly that we regretted that some people had been excluded from the Cascade Process and I’d seek to commit the College to a more consultative leadership style. In particular I’d want to say that there should never be a process about people that did not include them in the design of the structures of the conversation. I’d want to say that we would never construct a conversation about the ministry of women without women being involved, we would never construct a conversation about ethnic minorities in the church without appropriate consultation with people who belong to ethnic minorities and I’d commit the church never to make the mistake that has been repeatedly made of constructing a conversation about LGBT people without their involvement.
  
  If I were wise, I’d be learning a lot more about the experience of trans people because I’d realise that trans issues are inevitably coming our way.
  
  Does that answer the question?
  
  Reply
  1. Steven
    
    13/01/2015
    
    Yes, it does rather. Thanks.
    
    For the avoidance of doubt I would not advocate forcing anyone to marry anyone. When I said it is better to adopt a position and then pursue that I meant in terms of whether or not to permit equal marriage in the SEC (which is not the same as saying that all priests would therefore be compelled to marry gay folk).
    
    We have just filed an equal marriage petition in Belfast, so thoughts and prayers all welcome!
    
    Steven
    
    Reply