We recognize that there are many different ways that individuals and organizations think about using and managing social media. We all have different ways of interpreting the role of social media in our lives and organizations. This is a short description of our most current thoughts, acknowledging we will evolve in our thinking and nuance over time. 

Jesus (And the Bible) teaches us a deliberate way to process conflict

In Matthew 18: 15-20, Jesus’ plan is simple and powerful: go to the person one on one. If that doesn’t go well, take another with you. If that doesn’t go well take the church (or the authority of church) with you. 

This process protects us from gossip, misunderstanding, triangulation, and many other sicknesses that beset us personally and in groups when it comes to managing our relationships. If we are followers of Jesus, these are not just suggestions, but commands to live out. 

The key exception to this seminal text is found in Galatians 2:11-21. Paul confronts Peter to his face, but also in front of others. The impression we get from the text is that Paul confronts him in a public way because of the public nature of his sin. 

In light of these biblical texts, as a general rule, MHV social media platforms will allow public confrontations that are clear, gracious and quick to the point. However, we will not allow longer, ongoing conversation on social media streams because we are convinced that these conversations should not be wrestled out in the comment stream of social media, as all conflict resolution is relational at its core. 

We have a responsibility to the whole, not just to the one

As a church leadership team we have a responsibility to manage and curate the environments we have been given authority to lead. When we gather as a church we don’t allow anyone to grab the microphone and say whatever they want. Rather, we intentionally structure that space and time, while creating other forums for other types of interactions. In the same way we view our social media platforms as gathered spaces that we are accountable to manage for the sake of all that are watching and participating, not just one person’s agenda or need to speak. 

Some might interpret this as censorship and/or a misuse of power. We believe, however, that each space and place of communication requires intentional thinking and management. Failure to do so would be irresponsible. Therefore, we prioritize different audiences in our communication and our allowance of communication depending on the environment and purpose of that gathering space. 

Practically speaking, often more harm than good is done through arguments in social media comment streams. We want important conversations to occur, but typically the most constructive place for this is a different environment than on a social media platform.

The groups we are thinking through as we post and moderate social media

When considering our communication, there are several groups we keep in mind:

• Primarily, we consider our own church family and those who are committed to finding the way of Jesus together in our church.
• Secondarily, we consider those who are not believers and/or are investigating life with and Jesus. Too often believers fight in public and injure the winsome communication of the gospel. Family business should be done within family contexts.
• Thirdly, we consider those who are from marginalized people groups. The Scriptures place a high value on caring for and listening to disempowered and marginalized people. This includes but is not limited to: women, people of color, refugees, and the LGBTQ community. 
• Lastly, we consider Christians from other church communities and/or no church community. We believe that the biblical model is to work out your faith mutually submitted to one another within a local church. As such, believers should primarily work out their grievances and struggles within a local church and not through disconnected assertions online.

It is important to consider how we process the above convictions in light of our current cultural context. There are many great opportunities available to us with and through social media. But, there are also many potential pitfalls and dangers in front of us when we process life, theology, pain, and so forth on social media.

Considering the “call out” culture

Social media is a form of democratized communication. People who didn’t have a voice or a platform now can communicate to a wide audience without any mitigation or controls placed upon them. The flow of information is no longer controlled by a few “experts”, which has enabled many disempowered people to confront and challenge power structures in a way that is right, healthy and a helpful correction. As a result, this has brought a lot of freedom and encouragement to so many. 

In light of all of this unmitigated communication, some have become overwhelmed and deeply offended. In this free and open space and time, people are free to “call out“ anyone as they see fit without ever being responsible to process face-to-face or within the bounds of any commitments or accountability. These interactions can devolve into unfair and reductive assertions. This is why, at times, it may become necessary to block and/or delete those who persist in arguing in unkind ways and in unhelpful ways.

Our desire is to be open to being “called out” and not to disregard people or opinions we disagree with. We want to be open to challenge and build ways of learning and listening that take critique and challenge seriously. 

While we appreciate this free flow of information and critique, as pastors and leaders (for the reasons described above) we choose not to have moderated spaces on social media for these purposes. People have their own profiles and platforms to say whatever they want; we choose to not have the comment stream on our social media enabled for these purposes. We will work to build safe and clear alternative forums for conversation. When we choose to delete or block people from commenting, our intention is to create another forum to talk which best suites this purpose, not to silence them.

Considering the Goldilocks and Double Bind cultural moment we live in

Most of us know the old story of Goldilocks and the three bears. In the story, Goldilocks goes through a series of experiences where she works to find the perfect set of experiences. The story has created a series of terms, “The Goldilocks Condition”, “The Goldilocks Effect”, etc. Simply put, it is the phenomenon of trying to find the perfect set of words, ideas, temperature, or experience. An experience that fits “perfectly” in between the various complicated experiences one might encounter.

Along with the unmitigated communication and the corresponding short attention spans of our current cultural moment, there is an expectation that complex problems can be solved with a few simple limited statements. The limits of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram require that we say a lot of things with a few simple words. There are many complicated and emotional realities that cannot be adequately addressed with such limited communication. Thus, acknowledging the Goldilocks condition, communication on these platforms is never going to be quite right in describing difficult and challenging realities.

Common responses that represent Goldilocks thinking is:

• “But you didn’t say enough about…”
• “So what you are saying is _______________” (insert a negative implication that is unintended)
• “You said this, but what about ____________” (ignoring what is said and shifting attention)

In light of this, when communicating in this present anxious and emotional context there are a few things that are true:

1. We never have adequate time or space to say everything we want to say (by breadth and depth or adjacent topics or implications)
2. We don’t have adequate space or time to say all that we aren’t saying (by negative implication or unfair reduction)
3. We have to start somewhere and commit to build and learn as we go

This phenomenon leads to what systems thinkers call a double bind. A double bind is when you lose no matter what you do or say. In emotionally and/or politically charged scenarios, we lose when we don’t speak up or when we do. If we speak, we lose because we didn’t say enough of one thing, or too much of another, or omitted a different thing all together. 

The net result of all of these frustrating demands is that very few people want to say anything at all. And many of those who speak simply exaggerate positions or demonize others in order to try and make a point. Nuanced, careful, balanced communication is passed over or attacked, leaving many who are leading bruised and confused.

As we stated before, we appreciate challenge and critique. But, as followers of Jesus, we value caring and gracious responses even more. The call of the Scriptures is to do hard work to believe the best in others. We are called to start from a place of humility and appreciate what is being done and said, and not simply just attack what isn’t. 

Even though we are living in a Goldilocks and double bind world, we as leaders at MHV choose to speak and lead knowing there is always more to say and learn. We will do our best to humbly listen and speak, and will not allow demanding and unkind assaults to stop us from leading to the best of our ability. 

We know not everyone will agree with the thinking and intention laid out here. We are aware that we will be accused of control on the one hand, and allowing painful conversation on the other; or we will be accused of not addressing what we should as quickly or as slowly as others think we should. This is a double (or quadruple!) bind which we will do our best to navigate carefully and graciously as they arise.

Please continue to pray for us as we do our best to lead full of grace and full of truth.

If you are reading this because you had a comment deleted, were blocked and/or know someone who was, feel free to reach out to us with any questions or comments you have: info@milehighvineyard.org