in defense of tweeting

Some of you might be surprised by the title of this post given my general incredulity at Twitter. (I mean, seriously: it's called Twitter. On which you tweet. My favorite term related to all this is "twitwits" - used for those who post on Twitter incessantly about what they're doing every milli-second.)

Now that I've gotten my cynical comments out of the way (!), here are some further thoughts - prompted by an article a friend sent me today. I have to say I was intrigued to see that its author is John Piper. Here's what he has to say (with my thoughts after):

Why and How I am Tweeting
Read this article on our website.

June 3, 2009
By John Piper

"I see two kinds of response to social Internet media like blogging, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and others.

One says: These media tend to shorten attention spans, weaken discursive reasoning, lure people away from Scripture and prayer, disembody relationships, feed the fires of narcissism, cater to the craving for attention, fill the world with drivel, shrink the soul’s capacity for greatness, and make us second-handers who comment on life when we ought to be living it. So boycott them and write books (not blogs) about the problem.

The other response says: Yes, there is truth in all of that, but instead of boycotting, try to fill these media with as much provocative, reasonable, Bible-saturated, prayerful, relational, Christ-exalting, truth-driven, serious, creative pointers to true greatness as you can.

Together with the team at Desiring God, I lean toward response #2. “Lean” is different from “leap.” We are aware that the medium tends to shape the message. This has been true, more or less, with every new medium that has come along—speech, drawing, handwriting, print, books, magazines, newspapers, tracts, 16mm home movies, flannel-graph, Cinerama, movies, Gospel Blimps, TV, radio, cassette tapes, 8-Tracks, blackboards, whiteboards, overhead projection, PowerPoint, skits, drama, banners, CDs, MP3s, sky-writing, video, texting, blogging, tweeting, Mina-Bird-training, etc.

Dangers, dangers everywhere. Yes. But it seems to us that aggressive efforts to saturate a media with the supremacy of God, the truth of Scripture, the glory of Christ, the joy of the gospel, the insanity of sin, and the radical nature of Christian living is a good choice for some Christians. Not all. Everyone should abstain from some of these media. For example, we don’t have a television.

That’s my general disposition toward media.

Now what about Twitter? I find Twitter to be a kind of taunt: “Okay, truth-lover, see what you can do with 140 characters! You say your mission is to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things! Well, this is one of those ‘all things.’ Can you magnify Christ with this thimble-full of letters?”

To which I respond:

The sovereign Lord of the earth and sky
Puts camels through a needle’s eye.
And if his wisdom see it mete,
He will put worlds inside a tweet.

So I am not inclined to tweet that at 10AM the cat pulled the curtains down. But it might remind me that the Lion of Judah will roll up the heavens like a garment, and blow out the sun like a candle, because he just turned the light on. That tweet might distract someone from pornography and make them look up.

I’ve been tweeting anonymously for a month mainly to test its spiritual and family effects on me. In spite of all the dangers, it seems like a risk worth taking. “All things were created through Christ and for Christ” (Colossians 1:16). The world does not know it, but that is why Twitter exists and that’s why I Tweet."

Although I rolled my eyes when I read Piper's response-by-poem (I know, I'm still too cynical), I like the two responses to social media he outlines at the beginning of his article - in short: Option 1 = social media is bad, so we should stay away! Option 2 = social media provides outlets where redemption is needed. Like Piper, I think Christians should be engaged with social media - it's another opportunity to be in the culture, but not of it. We don't have to go back that far in history to see the damaging results of Christians withdrawing from the culture where God has placed them (think 20th century America: the fundamentalist movement, etc.) A few specific points to note:

+ Piper's distinction between leaning and leaping into the world of social media. This is so much more than mere semantics! I really appreciate his call to enter into the use of social media thoughtfully and intentionally. I think that implies an ongoing awareness of the realities outlined in Option 1.

+ Piper's point that "everyone should abstain from some of these media." This underscores the necessity of knowing ourselves well enough to know if our tweeting/blogging/posting/etc. are truly means of grace & redemption in our world - or whether they will help us live more fully in our real-life communities - or whether they help/hinder the idea of a healthy rhythm in our daily lives.

+ the fact that Piper tweeted anonymously for a month - why did he do this? "mainly to test its spiritual and family effects on me." Good for him. How many times is that a factor in my decision-making - about social media or anything else?? Definitely a good kind of check to put in place - a way to help us lean instead of leap.

So, you might ask, will I be signing up for Twitter this afternoon? Nope, not planning on it. But it's not something that I'm 100% sure I'll never do. Kind of like Facebook (I almost signed up the other day - basically because I was very bored. Definitely not a good reason.)

And will John Piper's tweeting point to true greatness? You can be the judge. One of his tweets today is: "Is there a name for unintentional suicide? Yes. It's called THE DESIRE TO BE RICH. (1 Tim. 6:9-10). But now that you know..." Not bad for 140 characters or less.