The Reason Your Church Must NOT Twitter
Anthony Coppedge has recently released a new e-Book titled “The Reason Your Church Must Twitter“.
For $5 bucks, it’s a steal.
And in typical style the evangelical community at large has been singing (or tweeting) its praises.
If that’s how you roll then you can read a few of those “positive” reviews below and then you can stop reading this post; you’ll have more than enough reason to drop the Abe Lincoln:
- http://thedigitalsanctuary.org/
- http://blog.jimwalton.org/
- http://marybethstockdale.wordpress.com/
- http://terracecrawford.blogspot.com/
- http://www.youthpastor.com/
- http://www.strategicdigitaloutreach.com/
- http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/
- Ad nauseum…
If you’d like some of my personal thoughts about the book (and remember that they are my thoughts, not yours) then you may proceed with caution.
Twitter has, without question, burst onto the world-wide scene. The recent plane crash a number of days ago showed the world the power, and especially speed, of Twitter as a news medium:
Within minutes there were hundreds of Tweets about the crash, complete with pictures from eyewitnesses and even one person who was on a NYC ferry headed to the crash site to pick up passengers.
That’s amazing power, all thanks to the mobile phone and a social networking tool called Twitter. News spreads like wildfire when you can tell 100, 500, 1,000 people at once with a single Tweet.
But let’s jump out of the “digital fishbowl” for a second and remember that the vast majority of internet users are not on Twitter.
This limits the power of Twitter because the only people who can get the information are the ones that are part of the service (and let’s not forget that only those who are “active” during the news break will get it when it’s “hot”).
This is classically understood as the “network effect” or “network externality”: The value of the service increases (for all users) as more people use the service:
The classic example is the telephone. The more people own telephones, the more valuable the telephone is to each owner.
But, all that to say, should this necessarily stop you? Perhaps not. That doesn’t bother me.
But here are a few things that I find “interesting” and that do bother me, if you will:
Number 1: Power User?
Anthony is not what I would consider a Power User of Twitter. With far less than 1k tweets on his main handle, I’m not so sure I call that “experienced.”
The pure and simple fact is that the more you use it the more you know about it. There are more users out there with far more experience that could bring insight with a bit more depth.
Number 2: Authority?
In addition, Anthony only had 433 followers at the time of his launch. That’s not impressive and doesn’t even make him close as a “Twitterati” contender.
You can see the jump in his followers, after his launch post, but even then, his follower count is a bit low to be producing an “authoritative” source on how to use Twitter.
It wouldn’t take me 3 seconds to think of 10 more experienced Twitter users who I’d trust to provide an equal and balanced review. And no, I don’t even put myself in that bucket either.
Number 3: Adoption
The most “obvious” reason that Anthony states a church must use twitter is may not be the worst reason in my book but it’s certainly not the best. He suggests on page 4 that “Twitter is a free and simple way to connect churches to the cell phones of their congregation, volunteers and staff.”
Wrong. Dead wrong.
You see, technology used effectively considers above all else, especially for the church (those that are “in”), one thing: Adoption.
Trying to get more people connected and using Twitter is hard enough for many. Trying to then tie it together with the use as a mobile application and communication device is terrible. You essentially made the barrier of adoption even higher.
For many, the battle to prove that Twitter is worth anything to anyone is like ice-skating uphill. To then say that the “obvious” reason that a ministry must use twitter is to tie it with a mobile device is like ice-skating uphill in Texas mid-summer. Just not gonna happen.
I’ll submit that, in theory, the practice could be valuable. But throw that at any executive pastor worth their weight and I’d be hard pressed to believe you’d win hands down.
Number 4: Equal Treatment Please?
It’s a two-sided coin but only 1 side is shown. Simply put, there isn’t an equal treatment of why one shouldn’t use Twitter. Now, it’s obviously apparent that Anthony is arguing one-side, but any ministry who wants to be strategic with their approach is going to ask the hard questions, many of which aren’t answered in Anthony’s treatment.
Number 5: Strategy Wah…?
Strategy for ROI is suggested by no specific strategies are given. As a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes product development lifecycle and business application ROI, this as the poorest suite, not to mention that Social Media ROI is still is the bane of most, if not all, of enterprise businesses in the marketplace.
If the Fortune 50 can’t get it right and have blown billions of dollars trying, then it might be wise to investigate this a bit further perhaps? I would have loved to see some actual ways of measuring the effectiveness (page 59)… but after being in the space for as long as I have, even I’d have trouble here.
So What? What’s the Bottom Line?
So, with the combination of the issues of “critical mass” usage as well as “adoption” concerns, I find the book, as a comprehensive resource and argument, not as strong as some others may have pronounced.
But, again, for $5 bucks, it’s a steal.
Reasons Your Church Must Not Twitter:
So how does this practically apply to one’s desire to provide an adequate, robust, and effective proof case for Twitter as a ministry and church tool?
Just one thing is required: Education.
If you’re not interested in learning how Twitter can be used for ministry and your church, then you shouldn’t use it. Here are some reasons that your church MUST NOT Twitter:
- You don’t care about web technology as a tool for ministry. Your position is firm and set. You’re not budging.
- You’ve used phrases like “technology is unbiblical” and “the internet is evil” and “I don’t see the internet in the bible”… Twitter is definitely not for you.
- You’re not interested in being creative in engaging both your congregation and the world for the Gospel.
- You’re more interested in doing “church” your way than being open to the Holy Spirit.
- You don’t know what a “blog” is. Twitter is a “micro-blog,” so start with a “blog” sir.
- You’re scared.
- You’re not interested in being more “relational” to your ministry and the people you serve.
- You’re “dead.” What this means is that you’re not “alive” or “breathing.”
- You can’t possibly fathom having 10 seconds a day to type 140 characters (or less). Preposterous!
- You’re too “cool” for it.
All that being said, I’m actually quite impartial to whether you decide to use it or not. Anthony’s review is obviously slanted to those that already “understand” the culture and doesn’t provide as much support for the fundamentals of social media engagement, etc. but that wasn’t his intent (it appears).
For those that are in the know, it’s already obvious.
But for those that are hesitant and need some more education about it, take a step back. It’s ok. It’s not important that you use it instantly or today; it’s more important that you understand it’s power and it’s place in the online-puzzle of social interaction online.
So, take a second and think about it. I’ve found that Twitter and coffee mix well.
On one final note, Anthony’s a great guy and his heart is in the right place. Big ups to him for sticking his neck out and writing the eBook!
Leave a Reply
48 Responses to “The Reason Your Church Must NOT Twitter”
Speedlinking - February 4, 2009 « Thoughts of Resurrection
[...] I enjoy using Twitter I appreciate the perspective at The Reason Your Church Must Not Twitter. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Executive Pastor of Congregational [...]
Check These Out! [Feb. 5th 2009] « Gbrenna.com
[...] Reason Your Church Must NOT Twitter – Sarcasm… there’s really no good reason why your church shouldn’t twitter! [...]
Twitter for Ministry Strategy 101 - ChurchCrunch
[...] new here, you should subscribe to the RSS feed for updates!I recently took a little time explaining my perspective on Twitter for Churches and a new eBook that had been published and offered up a few [...]
Twitter: Ultimate Guide - ChurchCrunch
[...] have been a number of guides, blog posts, and even eBooks that have been written explaining Twitter. I think I’ve found one that’s worth bookmarking finally on my Delicious [...]
Mosaic - Introducing church to twitter
[...] an interesting post on why churches should not twitter – if you’re wondering or have [...]
Twitter for Your Congregation @ Continuing Alumni Education
[...] to one of Coppedge’s critics two of the major drawbacks of Twitter in the congregation are the need to educate congregants about [...]
The Twitter Debate all over the World! « Turn your ears… a worship blog
[...] John Saddington – The Reason Your Church Must NOT Twitter Best reason a church must NOT use Twitter: “If you’re not interested in learning how Twitter can be used for ministry and your church, then you shouldn’t use it.” [...]
Twitter and the Church: To Tweet or Not to Tweet | Sharefaithblog.com
[...] ChurchCrunch talked about the book and responded with a hold on a sec approach in this article. [...]
- 4,964 feedburner + twitter followers
Open Thread: Pets in the Office? 
Great post. You can clearly do more damage than good if you do not understand the technology and/or services you are using. But even if you do and your target audience doesn't, you can alienate or exclude them without even realizing it. Easy to develop an "in-crowd" mentality amongst the initiated. Then instead of sharing more, you are actually restricting information flow.
word up. love your style.
“Twitter is a free and simple way to connect churches to the cell phones of their congregation, volunteers and staff.”
So why not use a service such as Tatango?
It's free and the only thing your audience needs to adopt is text messaging.
I do see where Anthony is headed: three years ago MySpace was the hot thing. Few had even heard of Facebook, let alone registered an account. Yet, as 2009 begins, Facebook has not only caught up, it has surpassed MySpace in number of users. Same thing for YouTube. Now everyone and their mom has a YouTube page so we're seeing newer sites such as Vimeo and 12 Seconds becoming the place for people to flock to.
Mr. Coppedge is known as a Technology Evangelist, so he's just doing what comes natural to him and that is attempting to stay ahead of the curb; stay on top of trends.
The problem, as John pointed out, is adoption. I'm sure Anthony didn't intend to make it sound as if Twitter should be a local church's primary means of communication, but that's the way it came out.
While Twitter is cool, in the local church it is still an accessory and can't (at least not yet) replace email or text messaging.
wow dude. your comments rock…! kickin' it man.
Wow, man. This was an intense post, and I applaud you for wanting to keep the standard high. The standard of actually leading before speaking out on something. I’m thrilled that Anthony has written something, and that it’s available for almost free. But to me, you have to have some insane experience with something before you start shouting from the rooftops, or the PDF pages in this instance.
I agree with Jonathan, Twitter’s not caught up to SMS or email q-u-i-t-e yet. I’m sure you definitely understand this as well, but I’ve seen you lead with Twitter and I also see it as a tool that churches do need to start using. If some programmer’s out there wanting to make some quick cash, offer a web account for $1 per month that lets you merge the Facebook group technology with Twitter, hooking in the option of using your phone to SMS the tweets to the group as well. Now that will get the church moving! Perhaps I shouldn’t have posted that and found some friend to build it with me, lol. Thanks for leading, @human3rror!
Wow, man. This was an intense post, and I applaud you for wanting to keep the standard high. The standard of actually leading before speaking out on something. I'm thrilled that Anthony has written something, and that it's available for almost free. But to me, you have to have some insane experience with something before you start shouting from the rooftops, or the PDF pages in this instance.
I agree with Jonathan, Twitter's not caught up to SMS or email q-u-i-t-e yet. I'm sure you definitely understand this as well, but I've seen you lead with Twitter and I also see it as a tool that churches do need to start using. If some programmer's out there wanting to make some quick cash, offer a web account for $1 per month that lets you merge the Facebook group technology with Twitter, hooking in the option of using your phone to SMS the tweets to the group as well. Now that will get the church moving! Perhaps I shouldn't have posted that and found some friend to build it with me, lol. Thanks for leading, @human3rror!
i lead because others have led me.
i'm just a follower at heart.
Your church shouldn’t use Twitter if you don’t read ebooks
I appreciate a differing perspective, but hope to help set a few things straight:
1) I didn't realize I should have been a Twitterati before trying to help the average non-Twitterati church leader.
Seems to me that not coming at it from the pinnacle of Twitter success makes a stronger case for Twitter than from the techno-elite;
2) I make the case throughout the e-book that Twitter doesn't REPLACE anything; it simply creates alternative communications methods AND helps reduce email spam (even the stuff we sign up for from our churches);
3) Why use a service like Tatango when allows for non-Twitter users to follow? Free is free is free; and over 750% growth means Twitter will likely be around when others won't;
4) I fully disagree (but in love, bud!) with John's assessment that adoption is harder with Twitter. I'd almost agree with that if I couldn't simply type in 40404 from my cell phone and type in "follow username". But, I can. And more to the point, when it's that easy, you're REMOVING barriers to entry rather than creating them.
Again, I'm totally cool with this review. Yes, I did pick a title that used the imperative word "Must". But, as John points out, marketing is still a part of the equation and making a strong statement provides both positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. Good press; bad press. It's still press. And, when it all comes down to it, people will make up their own mind anyway. It's my hope that by keeping it very simple and straightforward that it'll do what Terry Storch says in the Foreward: "It'll lead to a conversation that needs to be had." THAT is the success factor for me.
Blessings,
Anthony
you mention ROI
I agree that the 'Return' is small right now. as you point out, "the vast majority of internet users are not on Twitter".
but so is the 'Investment'
how much investment is actually required to setup a free Twitter account for your church and to use it to share information with those who choose to follow?
I appreciate churches and other organizations that provide numerous communication options // website, blog, RSS, email subscription……and Twitter
keep up the good work…….love how you are "exploring the intersection of technology and the church".
perhaps. if it reaches critical mass like facebook, then it'll become more important. but even not all churches need facebook either. only in wisdom.
Dude I love this post by Gary Vaynerchuk. Totally sold me on the idea and how to bring the "haters" into the fold of at least understanding.
http://garyvaynerchuk.com/2009/01/31/its-not-stal...
hatah, you mean.
*Churches* do not have to use twitter. It's just another tool for pastors and leaders to put in their toolbox if they're trying to reach everyone on every level. If a church needs instant communication then they can choose from an assortment of tools (I'm thinking of one in particular
). However if a pastor wants his sheep to be able to sit inside of his/her thoughts/emotions/prayers etc. then Twitter is an *amazing* thing. I look forward to talking to my pastor about it. Having him share his thoughts on his sermon preparation and then delivering that sermon and then following up with supplemental thoughts and feedback would be awesome! It's like the old adage of a good presentation…"tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em….tell 'em….then tell 'em what you told 'em". I have yet to read Anthony's book, but have it on my short list of todos. Thanks for putting it all out there John and Anthony.
thanks for dropping by. it's a good and important conversation to have. let's leave it all on the table…!
I doubt that twitter can be a completely effective tool for disseminating church status and information, it would require at least 60% of the congregation to be registered and following the Church Twitter name. Which I am not sure will ever be.
Besides with so many updates happening in just a few minutes I doubt that you can guarantee that important information will be read most of the time.
I just think that a blog provides the best resource, with twitter filling in gaps on the side with small updates.
In the sidebar.
In regards to point number 2. Twitter most definitely replaces something for me. Many SMS or email replies and even some not-so-needed blog posts when I could just sum it all up in 140 characters quickly. Saying that it doesn't replace anything is a bit far-fetched. I'm sure the amount of email and even SMS messages people have sent after they have signed up for Facebook or Twitter has diminished quite a bit. I know it has for me.
I'm kind of scared, because I know this kind of talk always leads to @human3rror pleasing us all with his ability to supply the facts here at churchcrunch!
inept? or adept? i can be both.
You must have seen the inept error, LOL. I quickly went back in and changed it to uncanny…….my mind was off that morning! I wouldn't even label those that hate me as inept – what a rude term. Uncanny – that's you!
If non-Twitterers can still follow a Twitter feed using SMS opt-in, is the "adoption" conversation really about SMS opt-in adoption rather than Twitter adoption?
Perhaps both. but seriously. how many people are just rss'ing someone's twitter feed? (oh wait, i am…)
good point here.
great conversation, glad it's here. and a huge AMEN to anthony's comment above.
good thoughts, but to be honest, this entry was a little confusing at first. i know you're all for churches twittering, but what are some (or one?) other reasons that a church may not find Twitter helpful to their ministry? the ones you listed are true, but also quite sarcastic. i'm not offended by any means, but i'd like to hear some more thoughts from the flip side. i've been wanting my church to get on twitter and in order to argue my point, i also need to understand the opposing view.
the biggest reason i can think of for NOT using twitter is that a very small percentage of the church will use it/is already on it. not to say this # can't increase, or we can't embed the tweets elsewhere (blog, site frontpage, etc.) and still communicate via this great tool. but still, my church has been around for 20+ years and the demographic leans more towards older people and their kids, with a decent and growing # of young adults. i would imagine Twitter would be most useful to the YA (my) age group.
anyway.. just some thoughts
I signed up for a twitter account recently. I've been following a few people. I'm 29 and think i'm pretty technologically adept, but I really don't get it too much. I'm really into facebook, and I'm all over that. But not really seeing why I should be into twitter, if I have facebook to keep up with all my peeps. Appreciate the the post.
Sure thing! it can take some time to get used to. dive it or dive out. don't have to do it.
no pressure, of course.!
Can I point out that I was an early dissenter to Anthony's Twitter view
http://www.churchtechy.com/2009/01/i-am-not-anti-...
I'm not against the tech, I useit myself albeit very minimally.
However, the biggest anti-factor for me or the church I attend is that Twitter doesn't work fully in the UK yet. For example – they "don't support SMS to my phone" yet!
And since when was it a requirement for someone to be an "arti" or have an "ology" to qualify to write about the positives of a product? If that was the case, most of us would never hear a tenth of what we do.
Definitely. couldn't agre with you more. nice points on your blog post, btw. you're quick.
Only quick because I was given a heads up on Anthony's ebook launch
special………!
free stuff rocks.
because you're AWESOME!
that's my thoughts in response to your thoughts.
I'm totally for twitter and totally against it… at the same time. This all depends on the context of the ministry in which it's being suggested. I think it should get a fair shake. I also think the treatment in the book didn't give an adequate handle on both sides.
I've got a post coming out soon to start with a 101 strategy suggestion.
true. adoption is the biggest factor. great points here. thanks for them.
bleh. sleepy. ;0
This is a great conversation on Twitter and is totally needed. I am a Twitter skeptic right now, but I am trying to see the light! I am teaching a course on "Internet Ministry" at Biola University and I want to give my students the lowdown on Twitter. I do agree that Twitter may be a first attempt at a much better Web/SMS integration tool. We need to understand the implications of this technology now so that we can be ready as it evolves. See my latest blog post on this.