conversation is an engine

What’ll it be?

Are beer wars an apt analogy for churches? Maybe so. Walk with me:

My friend and I are cooking up a book proposal for how the church can use social media. But a major disagreement stands between us: Do churches really want to go where social media leads? Groundswell (Li and Bernoff), which I use as a text in my Social Media Marketing class, makes a compelling case that the end-game of social media is people participating in product development, in customer support, in sales and—generally—in decision-making. Businesses using social media only to broadcast messages (the old marketing monologue model) will be left out of the real conversation as it continues around rather than with them. Many corporate overlords resist this new communication freedom and stay out of the conversation—until forced into it.

What about churches? My friend thinks the future lies with mega-churches that typically retain control of as many outward and linking messages as they can—for the sake of efficiency. I believe nearly the opposite: that we’ll see more churches that require less control of messages so as to actually invite people to bring their voices and contribute. I see as problematic the requirement of multiple overlords, presidents, governors, lieutenants, elders, council-people—you name it—just to keep the big ship moving. Multiple overlords tend to squash multi-directional voices.

Back to beer: There will always be Budweiser and Miller. But last time I checked, that’s not where the market growth was. The growth was in the micro-brews. My explanation for that growth: people realize they want beer that tastes like beer rather than water. Same with churches, there will always be a few mega-churches around, but the real growth will take place in smaller congregations where a definite personality develops because many voices are being heard and are actually participating in directing the community. Or perhaps growth will take place in those mega-churches that make a way for spectators to become contributors with voices.

And now back to social media. I contend that social media naturally leads to a democratization of leadership and a multiplicity of voices—two genetic traits not found in the DNA of most hierarchical  mega-churches. But they could be in the DNA of smaller congregations (but, clearly, authoritarian leaders exist in any size organization).

At least two glaring problems to all this:

1. I’ve oversimplified my argument by casting big as bad. That is simply not true. Very big churches can be very relational and very flavorful (to push the beer analogy). And there is clearly an attraction for churches that hold firmly and broadcast the Bible’s message of the God bent on reconciliation. Maybe big churches can also admit a multiplicity of voices. I just haven’t seen it.
2. Even Groundswell recognizes that only a small percentage of any online population serves as creators. A slightly larger population functions as critics. But the great majority of folks online are spectators. Test your own population here. Maybe that’s the same population that fills up the back rows of any church or college class—those who prefer watching. So while I’ve noted that social media provides the opportunity to amplify one’s voice, few actually take advantage of it. Maybe that will change. Maybe it won’t. The truth is most of us are pretty happy to not lead.

What do you think? Does social media lead to a place churches really want to go?

Postscript: I believe the opportunity social media presents has a theological component that moves us closer to the creator’s intent for communication. More on that later.

###