"Finding Jesus on Facebook, and Checking Podcasts for a Pew That Fits" By April Dembosky

We live in a world of technology. Teens today stay connected by texting and "facebook stalking" each other. We probably all know how tempting it is to go onto facebook when we should be doing our homework. The next thing we know we've just spent two hours looking at who's dating who and what people are doing over the weekend instead of writing our term paper. When we're not on facebook, we're busy texting our friends, rather than being old-fashioned and just calling them. I am as guilty of this as anyone, but I do believe that something gets lost in translation when it comes to texting. I always feel like I need to add a smiley face at the end of a short text because it might sound angry without me actually saying it. The article I read was about churches reaching out to our generation via facebook and other technology. The main concern I have is: what if God and religion get lost in translation as well? No smiley face can fix that.

I did find this article interesting. It shows how religion has become secondary to young people's more "pressing" concerns. Churches have to scramble to find a way to get us in their pews every week. They've begun using video clips, slide shows and musical groups to attract a younger audience. They also make podcasts of sermons that they broadcast online. They've set up blogs as a way for us to communicate with each other in a relaxed environment.

While I think this is great that churches are finding ways to relate to younger people, I'm not sure that everything they're doing will turn out for the best in the long run. For example, a teacher in the article says that "a two-minute movie clip can do so much more than two minutes of sermon." While I'm not trying to say that sermons are always the most exciting things to listen to, I am saying that the overall message can be lost by just showing movie clips. I'm sorry, but I don't think watching a clip of "Shallow Hal" really cuts it when I want to learn more about my faith and God. That just dumbs down religion way too much. I think what churches need to remember is that yes, maybe they should find a way to present religion that is more fun, but that doesn't mean that the way needs to make religion simpler. While we may not always use complete sentences or even complete words in our texts, we're not stupid, and we deserve to actually be taught religion rather than just shown movies, which we can do in our own time.

Now I'm sure a lot of people would tell me that I'm being too hard on these churches and that what they're doing is great; as long as the kids are coming to church, then it can't be that bad, right? I think it is awesome that this could bring more people to church. I really do. However, I have another quote from the story for you: "he mentioned Jesus occasionally, and tossed in a Bible verse here and there, but he really kept eyes focused and heads nodding with a series of clips on the screens." The clips were from movies and also the church's summer baptism. How can that be considered church when the pastor rarely mentions Jesus? That doesn't sound like church to me. Religion takes time and effort; watching "Braveheart" does not bring us closer to God. I think in the churches' efforts to attract the young people, they're forgetting what they're actually supposed to be doing once those young people are in the pews. These churches aren't making our generation care any more about God; they're just shifting the focus away from Him. After all, the pastor "really kept eyes focused" when he showed movie clips, not when he mentioned Jesus or the Bible. To me, that means there is a lot being lost in translation.

I thought the story itself was written fairly well, but I think the reporter could have shown the side that I mentioned above. I'm sure she could have found people who didn't like what these churches were doing. There are always two sides to a story. By just quoting the pastors and congregation members who like what their churches are doing, the reporter makes it seem as if there's no other way to view this topic. No one can think it's bad because obviously no one does or else they would have been included in the article.

Also, I think it was sometimes unclear what churches the writer was talking about. In the beginning, she discussed "Journey," but then she just kept saying "church" or "churches" over and over again. I wasn't sure if she meant Journey or not. Later on, she gave more specific examples, which I thought was good. Readers need to know that there are actually multiple churches doing this; it shows the relevance. Otherwise it seems as if maybe there's only one church doing all of this, which wouldn't really be all that news-worthy.

While I may not completely agree with what these churches are doing, I'm glad I read the article. It was good to know that churches are trying to appeal to our younger generation, but I just believe they need to re-think their tactics to ensure that we're actually deepening our faith rather than splashing around in the kiddie pool.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/nyregion/26journey.html?_r=1&oref=slogin