Churches on Social Networks

Posted by David Drinnon on Jun 1, 2008 | 500 commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.equipthem.info%2F2008%2F06%2F01%2Fchurches-on-social-networks%2FChurches+on+Social+Networks2008-06-02+04%3A00%3A00David+Drinnonhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.equipthem.info%2Fchurches-on-social-networks%2F

Joe Suh with mychurch.org always has some interesting insights. I often read his contributions to the Digital @ Leadership Network blog. In a recent post, Joe referenced his presentation on churches and social networks. Oddly enough, he made this post the same week we had an internal meeting at Second to discuss if and how Second would leverage the social networks for ministry…particularly YouTube, Facebook, and MySpace. Just look at the stats. Social networks are significant opportunities for outreach, but we must be wise on how we do it. Here are top two issues that concerned us:

1. Mixed Messages: Each of the social networks are driven by ad revenue; therefore, our church brand and message wouldn’t be the only one on the page. We can’t control what ads are placed on our page and this is a major red flag. For example, our student ministry a promo video on YouTube called “Chair or Date Promo.”

We discovered soon thereafter that a video called “2 sexy girls on bed making out” appeared under the “Related Videos” section of the page. This video was visually noticeable since it had two girls in their underwear together on a bed. Now how was that video related? It was posted by a YouTube user called ‘daretodateX’. Apparently the word ‘dare’ in our video promo title and the word ‘dare’ in the user name who posted this pornographic video was the connection. Jesus was very clear, “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come.” (Luke 17:1). The Living Water, we are so anxious to share, may just as easily lead thirsting souls to muddy water. By all means, the church should take great caution.

2. Political Messages: One of our church members established a group on Facebook called ‘Second Baptist Church, Houston, TX’. Several of our staff joined this group. The group profile even included a beautiful picture of our worship center. However, there was no disclaimer anywhere indicating that this was not an official group for Second Baptist. Moreover, the ‘Related Groups’ section of the page included a group that was definitively against a particular presidential candidate (very clear in the title). This became a significant issue for the church since this group and its ‘related’ group gave the appearance of a political affiliation (or a lack thereof in this case)…a violation of a non-profit’s 501c3 status. Of course, we contacted the individual and he changed a setting on the group page to removed ‘Related Groups’. Suffice to say, a perceived affiliation or connection between the church and a political candidate or party could jeopardize a church’s non-profit status. Of all churches, we know. We were investigated on this very issue years ago because someone left campaign literature on our church information desks and kiosks without church approval.

So is this enough to say, “Pass!”? Personally, I am not there, but I can certainly make the case for it. I believe the opportunity is too significant to abstain altogether from creating a presence online for our church…especially given the reach of our church. In the end, we concluded that we would extend our official online presence to YouTube and Facebook, but not MySpace. The bottom line issue…controlled vs uncontrolled content. Here is a powerpoint showing page layouts of controlled and uncontrolled content from each of the three. We now have a strategy, but I will share that for later.