Hollowell.  10[th] after Trinity   20[th] August 2017

Do you use Facebook ?  I don't and sometimes I feel, slightly guiltily,  that by not using it I am putting myself outside the " mainstream of society ".  
Mark Zuckerberg, the man who started Facebook has undoubtedly had an enormous influence on the world of today.  
Those posts(as  people call them)  that people put on Facebook pages are, from what I read,  an integral part of the lives of millions, nay, billions of people.   For good or evil and a lot of it, according to the newspapers at least, is pretty evil.   
But never having posted anything on Facebook, indeed I am not sure how to do it in the first place, I am not in a position to speak with any authority at all on the mechanics of it. 
It is said, however,  that 28% of the world's population use Facebook in a given month.  There is of course even a Hollowell Facebook page. It's very useful,  bringing people together and fills a gap.  Better than the noticeboards.  
But I'm beginning to wonder if Mr Z has a bit of a " God complex".   For I noticed the other day that  this founder and boss of Facebook says that it could be to its users what churches are to congregations.  ¨it could help them feel part of a community"  he opined.    That's a bit rich : the man who helped a whole generation to replace real friends by virtual ones, on line communities talked to via a mobile phone or tablet,  is now concerned about people feeling unconnected ? 
He was putting forward the idea not so much that Facebook is an alternative to Church, but rather to suggest groups that Facebook users might join,  anything as one commentator put it,  from Locksmiths societies to addiction groups, bell ringers and Baptist organisations. 
Mr Z now seems, then,  to be thinking of moving people from online to offline  groups in the real world. He was quoted as saying " People who go to Church are more likely to volunteer and give to charity  -  not just because they are religious, but because they are part of a community. 
But there are fundamental differences between Facebook and churches. 
For one, churches are messy. They are not organised by any algorithm or tailored to the individual end user. Far from it: a church service is not made for any one person: the same liturgies have been spoken and the same songs sung by millions of people all over the world, in many cases over the course of the centuries. We can't just flick past the bits we don't like by running our fingers across a screen : we are confronted with discomfiting Bible passages, impenetrable mysteries, harrowing truths. Unlike Facebook, a church tells us that we are not at the centre of the world
Rather than encouraging us to show off our best side at all times, a church compels us to examine ourselves in the round, to face up to those things about ourselves that we would like to pretend aren't there. A good high church service may be rich in poetry and imagery, offering a taste of the incomprehensible; a good low church service may be disarmingly spare; a good evangelical church service may allow the congregation to drop their usual self-consciousness and throw themselves into proceedings with uninhibited emotion. They all offer different ways of being human, of opening ourselves up.  Facebook meanwhile presents us with impoverished, narrowed versions of ourselves  -  the version we think most of our friends think we are, all the better for those likes and shares.
And churches, at their best, bring us into contact with people we would not necessarily think of as friends. There are cliques, of course. But we all come to the same table and drink from the same cup and sing the same songs and say the same prayers. The Lord's Prayer, after all, is not in the singular, but the plural: "Give us this day our daily bread." It's a breaking down of barriers, an awareness of mutual responsibility and dependence, a sometimes a celebration of brokenness. It's an unsanitised experience of humanity, and all the healthier for it.
Of course, churches can be depressing places too. Far too many services are dreary, perfunctory affairs ( what about this one ? )  -  which, given the material and ideas at their disposal, is pretty much unforgivable.  Churches can also be toxic and abusive; they can leave their members and sometimes ( as we know ) leave pastors  hurt and drained and resentful; they can turn passive aggression into an art form. They can be as superficial and as focused on appearances as the worst of Facebook. That's because they are made up of people. Churches show the worst of us, as well as the best.
But that best is worth clinging on to. There is a place in the world for Facebook; there are times when I would rather be confronted with a picture of a cat or an ice cream than with a glimpse of eternity. Yet a good church is more than just a social network: it's a place of transcendence, space, silence, peace, devotion, richness and depth. No matter how grand Mr. Zuckerberg's visions may be, they will never compete. 
The challenge for us here in Cottesbrooke and throughout the benefice is to get across the message that church can in all kinds of ways  -  not  just safeguarding - be beneficial to everyone, making the villages where we live better places.   I think we need a Big Conversation about that.



