What’s a sideways hug? You know, it’s that sort of hug that’s not fully engaging but still make you spill your coffee. It’s a “hug” where one displays of affection to another by putting one arm around their shoulders, rather than both arms around them. Now, if it’s to avoid temptation, sending mixed signals, or causing discomfort, then it may well be justified. But, we’re not here to talk about the pitfalls of physical content amongst Christians. We are here to discuss whether or not Christianity is side hugging others socially. By socially, I mean via social media. In a few posts regarding online church, virtual discipleship, and internet ministry, some have suggested that church cannot happen online, community cannot happen online, and real ministry cannot happen online. If that’s true, then Christianity cannot happen online even through the ever increasing influence of social media.
Those who object claim it’s a sideways hug. It’s impossible to wrap your arms around someone in a virtual world, even if I do type (((((HUGS))))). Further, since there is always an out, “I never got your message,” “The server went down,” “Facebook must be changing things again,” and the like, there’s never any real commitment. Detachment from a difficult ministry situation is only an off button away.
Someone recently told me that a “real” church, as defined by the Bible, is Hands on, covenanted, baptized believers doing God’s work God’s way at place like Jerusalem, etc. Depending on how you interpret that, it could completely disassemble any notion that real church can happen online or via social media. Let’s consider that definition:
Hands on – Church requires physical contact or “hands on.”
Covenanted – Some sort of more than a sideways hug commitment to one another.
Baptized – Real Water in which to be immersed.
Doing God’s work God’s Way – The regulative principle of the Missio Dei?
At a Place – Church needs a physical place.
~~~
Of these elements, which are necessary for church?
Would you add any?
Which of these, if any, can be checked off as “possible” online?
Or
Does that do it?
Is that definition the Christian Social Media Church Killer?
Can online church ever be more than a sideways hug?
~~~
For a related post see: Is Internet Church More Real Than Real Church?
Missionary in the Andes Mountains Cloud Forest Region of Ecuador. My last name, "Labrador," is the word that's used for "Vine Worker" in the Spanish Bible, and it's OK with me. 
William Floyd on 'We Don't Need No Education' ~ The Apostle Paul
Miguel, I don’t know about social media killer but I wholeheartedly agree that we need a tangible presence. A on-line ((((hug)))) cannot even compare to a real one. But the thought is nice.
Miguel,
I would argue Paul used the social media of his time to do “God’s work God’s way” and it was so powerful we still use it today. Of course he wasn’t forward thinking enough to start a facebook fan page, he most likely didn’t have a good enough connection to keep a blog, and he probably just couldn’t think of a good twitter handle. SO he wrote letters…
The detractors of this point of view will point out that Paul founded most (though not all) of the churches he wrote to, and often said he was planning to join them in person (they are of course correct). Online connecting is 2 dimensional flat and lacks many aspects of what community needs to be for transformation to happen. What one posts on Facebook and Twitter can be a stylized ideal of themselves. They can like all the right posts, re-tweet all the good things, and say only the clever things that come to mind. They can ignore and or hide all the junk and sin in their lives simply by never posting it. Because of this we cannot evangelize and or disciple people properly only in cyberspace.
Social media, however, can act as a giant echo-chamber amplifying any message. As Christians we must use the media of our day to reach out, to form new communities (places where actual community can happen). Ours is a message far to important to be left to the old ways of doing media.
P.S. I wonder how many people decry online ministry but watch televangelists and or listen to church podcasts…
Miguel and Tom,
After being kicked out of church, social media has been such a wonderful tool of the Holy Spirit in our lives. The instant two way interactions with like minded believers from around the world is wonderful. So many IC followers of Jesus rely on social media as a way to still connect with others in the Body of Christ in life giving ways. The Holy Spirit, being like the wind, is not limited by distance.
As ekklesias mature around the world, they too will birth new growth where ever they are planted. It has happened here and I know it is happening elsewhere.
A “sideways hug” is a cute way to put it Miguel. Social media ministry is definitely lacking in that personal human touch. However, social media ministry is still a valid ministry. It is able to affect and to heal and to correct just as powerfully as real-time, real-people-together ministry. As Tom pointed out above, most of the New Testament is letters, the social media of the first century.
While it can be powerful and nutritious, I’m not prepared to call social media ministry “church” and don’t think it is a substitute for believers physically gathering together. If we dispense with assembling together in this manner I fear we take on a gnostic view of one another. God loves people after all, not blog accounts.
Church has to be built on a better foundation than the internet but for now at least it is a great way to communicate and learn.
I would agree with this in one way, but only one. One must take into account that online, people have time to think about their answers, rationalize, and answer according to logic and reasoning without knowing or taking into account the feelings, past, taboos, fears, etc. of the other person.
Person to person communication doesn’t allow for this. A shift of the eyes or shrug of the shoulders just at the right moment can “say” a lot, and conversationally, people must respond to what was said (instead of inferring what was meant), and maintain civility in order to maintain the conversation. Not so online. This must be considered here.
I say both has it’s advantages and disadvantages, and if both are used to edify, both are fine. Either can take over a life, either can seclude from real life. Moderation and listening to the Holy Spirit are key in any situation.
I am so NOT a fan of a sideway hug, I’d rather take a retweet or a like on social media!