Bishop John

I enjoy social media. I have recently commenced using Twitter (@tasbishopjohn).  I have had this blog for some time.  I am also on facebook, and I am a major user of the diocesan website.

I guess I am a fairly outgoing, social being and my experiences with social media have been enriching. I intend to continue in conversation through using them.

I believe that the essential principle in the use of social media is that we are to be Christlike.

Our Conversations are to be ‘in Christ and in context’

All conversations, including social media, occur within a culture. The culture of Christ, the way and rule of Christ, the kingdom of God, calls for the Holy Spirit to have free reign in transforming us into the image of Christ and producing the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

Our conversations whether by social media, face-to-face or letter are to be graced by the love of God and love of neighbour. We are called to be a holy people indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Social Media during Meetings

We are in Christ and we are to be Christ in whatever context we find ourselves in, including the context of meetings where individuals have access to social media.

I have come to the conclusion that the use of social media to comment on meetings while they are still in progress can be extremely unhelpful.

Decision making involves process and if process is not allowed to complete, people can be hurt and poor decisions can be made.

Firstly, Social media can be used to report conclusions, or describe process as it is occurring. To report process as it is happening can breed misunderstanding. If someone is giving a blow by blow description, “Fred is opposing Mary’s view and Mary is not happy” I think this violates the safe environment in which debate and decision making should happen. A wider audience now has the commentator’s opinion of Mary, and Fred’s view on Mary, and both Fred and Mary have no recourse. People who experience this will soon not contribute to discussion and debate and consequently increase the chance of a poor decision being made.

If social media is to be used it can and should be used to report the actual decisions (e.g.“Synod has decided to increase the missions’ budget by 25% over the next 3 years”. ) or occurrences incidental to the process (e.g. “The meeting has been extended to 6pm, drinkies will now be at 7pm”) or constructive comments after the conclusion (e.g. “I appreciated the points that Mary made”).  It is inappropriate to take the substance of the conversation, while it remains in flux, and place it in a different forum.

Secondly, there is a maturity question – we have seen in the media in recent times that even some well known people have been bitten by the messages they have sent through social media.

While participants in meetings, such as Synod, may well be mature people, we are all capable of lapses and mistakes; there are no guarantees here. This begs the question where does confidentiality fit in. Do we know when not to twitter? In my view, the safest thing to do is to encourage social media to only be used in the breaks when there is more likelihood that decisions rather than process will be reported and people will be less likely to act on the spur of the moment and communicate something that they and others are likely to later regret.

We are accountable to follow the way of Christ

Relationships are the key to our life together in Christ. Jesus said, “Love one another as I have loved you.” (John 13:34)

Our comments on social media are an extension of our tongue. James (3:8-10) warns us:

“No one can tame the tongue – a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with is we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so.”

Conversation has the power to both nurture and damage people, therefore we must be wise in speaking by whatever medium.

Let’s deepen our relationships through social media

God put us on this earth to love Him and to love one another. Used appropriately social media enrich our relationships and can assist us in building a healthy church … transforming life.

+John 🙂

See also, Tweeting Synod: Healthy for Whom? and “How tweet it is”

A Memoir of Old Age by Bishop Montgomery, 4th Bishop of Tasmania (courtesy of John & Susan Pilbrow):

Memoir booklet: Old Age by Bishop Montgomery

“One last word, with bowed head. The thoughts, the anticipations of Christ’s people are manifold. So many have passed on that we long to meet again, for love’s sake, out of gratitude. Many of our own generation, and our best loved; a greater number probably of those whose written words have been beacon lights for us; a great company. It fills that future beyond the door with bright hopes. But all that pales before the deepest of all longings. ‘One there is beyond all others.’ It is not unreal language on the part of the aged to long for the vision of Him, to ask when they may hope to see Him to Whom they owe everything upon earth, Whose names are revealed in Scripture, they repeat with growing intensity – their best, dearest, truest, life-long Friend, Support, Comforter; the revealer of the Father, the sender of the Spirit. To see Him face to face, to bow down before Him – If the messenger’s advent means that, and it surely ought, then he is an angel. Then the departure from this earth of ours is but to enter the home for which we have been being prepared all through the years…”

I remain deeply moved by Bishop Montgomery’s faith and devotion to Christ as seen in these beautiful words of trust as death approaches.

In fact, Bishop Montgomery died shortly after writing these words. His missionary discipleship is an example for all Christians and Tasmanian Anglicans in particular, to be proud of and to emulate. May it be so.

Feel free to email bishop@anglicantas.org.au if you wish to receive this document in your email as attachment.

See also, Bishop Montgomery: 4th Bishop of Tasmania.

I hope to listen to this program on ABC Radio National although looking at the participants I am not sure if they will get to the deep issues of difference in the world’s religions and the impact of each religion’s particularities on attitudes to fanaticism and violence.

God After Ground Zero  –   http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2011/3310933.htm

11 September, Sunday 6pm, repeated Tuesday 1pm and Wednesday 2am, ABC Radio National with Rachael Kohn.

See my ‘Fanaticism and Faith’ at Ethos (engage.mail).

An excerpt from the article “Fanaticism and Faith” that I recently wrote for Ethos (engage.mail) re 10th anniversary of 9/11:

…Crouched on the roof top of our Buenos Aires’ home, peering towards the sound of machine gun fire, had not been my vision of missionary service.  Yet here I was hearing the sound of extremism in Argentina. One extremist group had Marxist motivations to liberate the poor and oppressed, the other group had passion for the protection of the ‘Patria’, the traditional culture of the nation.

Three decades later in Hobart, the Cathedral was packed. Present were the Prime Minister, Governor, dignitaries, military, the media, weeping family and friends. Terrorism had claimed a young Tasmanian and we were gathered to recall his life and seemingly pointless death by bomb blasts in idyllic Bali. If September 11, 2001 epitomises religious fanaticism in the name of Islam, the cost of such fanaticism was brought home to Tasmanians in a flag draped coffin, carried from Bali to a sorrow-filled Cathedral…

Read the rest of my article here. Read more articles from Ethos (engage.mail) here. The Editors’ note,

Welcome to the September issue of Engage.mail.

In recognition of the tenth anniversary of the attack on the Twin Towers, we’ve asked John Harrower to reflect on the link between religion and terrorism. And as the Federal Government’s strategy to stop the “people smugglers” has been thrown into disarray, Doug Hynd reflects on the loaded language we use in connection with this issue. Tim Foster reviews the recent debate between John  Lennox and Peter Singer. And finally, you’ll find you’ll find part two of a summary of the submission to the Inquiry into the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Victoria), which examines its effects on religious freedom.

Grace and peace
Denise Cooper-Clarke, Ian Packer, Gordon Preece

The Mercury Hot Topic, “RIGHT TO DIE” on Monday 5 September 2011 on page 15, included this article by Dr Noel Roberts (Lenah Valley), “Terminally ill deserve support”:

Neil Francis (Letters, September 1) supports euthanasia on the basis of quality of life considerations.

He mentions that in jurisdictions where it is legal, the loss of participation in life’s activities is the reason given by 75 percent of those requesting euthanasia.

This situation is all the more reason for upgrading palliative care, which not only alleviates the pain but just as importantly renders emotional support and in many cases allows people to continue their participation in life.

Fear of a diminished life and a sense of being a burden to others as death approaches is natural, but to see euthanasia as a dignified response is misguided.

Persons who are suffering are the same person they were before their illness and warrant our support and protection.

The laws and safeguards that have been put in place in the few countries that have legalised euthanasia are regularly ignored and transgressed.

There is no way of regulating “intentional killing”.

I refer readers to an article in Current Oncology Vol 18 No 2 “Legalising euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls.”

– Dr Noel Roberts (Lenah Valley) The Mercury, Monday 5 September, page 15

See also, Euthanasia and Elder abuse  and  Synod motion: Euthanasia and MPs’ resplies.