Facebook and fear – a challenge for the church
Last Friday the attention of the global financial world focused on the launch on Nasdaq of Facebook, the social networking phenomenon created by a Harvard dropout whose fortune now stands at several billion dollars.
This development coincided with a weekend Comment article in The Irish Times and a number of reports in the Irish press in recent weeks about cyber-bullying which uses the internet and mobile phones to target individuals and groups. The education systems in these islands have long been aware of such activity which at best is hurtful and at worst has been directly linked to students in their teens and twenties committing suicide. The Times Education Supplement was reporting on such a development prior to 2009.
Today the abuse of the internet and social networking is all-encompassing. A site at Cambridge University called “Library Whispers” was set up to permit students some release from the pressures of examination revision but it quickly turned into a “forum of hate”. It had to be taken down in the past fortnight as it quickly became toxic and personal. Its co-founder Oliver Rees admitted: “It had to be shut before something really bad happened.” On the now-redundant site, Rees says: “Because of an unfortunately large number of individuals who abused Library Whispers and who posted the worst sort of bullying and abusive messages on the site, [it] has had to close…” there was no other option
A Dublin secondary school recently suspended four pupils for cyber-bullying which included staff members as well as fellow students. Perhaps this action attracted more attention than it normally would because one of the students was the son of a politician.
For some time the educational systems in Great Britain and Ireland have encountered students attacking teachers on the internet. School-gate parents have set up sites which have attacked heads and members of staff. Professional careers have been put on hold and indeed ruined by some of these activities.
At least schools and teachers do not have to stand alone. Schools and their support systems of local education authorities have in place policies to guide them when such incidents occur. Advice is available to the head teacher and governors from the next tier of advice and management. Teachers also have unions to consult with and receive support from.
And at least there are sanctions to be employed against perpetrators. Ultimately the school has the possibility of expulsion or suspension which it can explore and employ if so determined.
Whilst most churches have codes of conduct for employees and volunteer leaders, there are no codes in circulation which cover other individuals associated with the church who may use the internet and social networking facilities to attack individuals – lay or clerical – or groups within a congregation. Generally people who resort to such tactics have scant regard for the truth of the total picture and indeed they remain determinedly blind to both the intended or unforeseeable consequences of their action.
Again, unlike the schools, the church does not seem to have any sanctions which either a parish or the bishop can impose or could employ. Excommunication would sit lightly with such an offender and would be used to feed his/her propaganda and sense of self-justification. That having been said this must not be permitted to offer a bye-pass of this problem which is here to stay and is growing both in numbers of incidents and impact upon targeted recipients
It is highly questionable whether such circumstances will be permitted to continue. In a time of increasing litigation the liability of a church – either as a parish or denomination – remaining inactive regarding an established response will be questioned. Clergy and vestries should know how best to respond, and likewise bishops and their diocesan administrators. These policies of response need to be in place now, and not be those of a hastily enforced series of ad-hoc, crisis management decisions.
In the final analysis the Church rightly claims to be a charity. But with the benefits of that status, Charity Commissioners will increasingly be looking towards the Church for evidence of effective management in this area of cyber abuse. With charity status comes the provision of effective management training and skills. Theologically, the problem should be attracting Gospel-based concern about the sanctity of the individual, the spirituality of truth-telling and the calling to account of wrong-doers, namely repentance.
When the Bishops and the Standing Committee of the Church of Ireland decided after advice proffered by Board of Education support staff, that a process was required which led to the establishment of the Safeguarding Trust child-protection process, there were those who protested that such a step was not necessary. In the light of the sad revelation of incidents within the Church of Ireland and other churches, such protests would not now be countenanced. This area of social networking most certainly requires a similar initiative which as well as dealing with the downside of its abuse with its impact upon the Church, upon individual clergy and church members, could also guide the good use of these facilities which most definitely can be employed positively and in a grace-filled manner by the Church.
This suggestion is not made just for the good name of the Church which seeks to represent Christ and to be a beacon in the world, although that must be kept to the fore. Rather it is for “the avoidance of sin”, and to prevent hurtful emotional abuse which within and without the Church can drive individuals to suicide. Cyber bullying and cyber abuse can be a major contributor to the ultimate denial of the sanctity of life. The Church has a major educational task before it in this critical area as well as codifying its response and guiding its staff and members in good management practice.
Houston McKelvey