There are studies saying that porn doesn’t cause relationship problems, but I think you’ll find a lot of people who disagree with that because they’ve had a negative experience. People will warn that porn leads to all sorts of ills, but as porn consumption has boomed, the rates of suicide, divorce, and rape have declined. So while there might not be ‘proof’ that porn causes harm, and while it’s been around in some form forever, I think it is still important to keep the dialogue going.

As one of my mentors used to say, “The truth is in the tension.”

Great line, Julie. This made me smile.

I was at the conference in Durham that’s mentioned above – though I had to leave before the Bishop spoke, I was able to see it on you tube and become thoroughly irritated by his simplistic approach – again, the word ‘gnostic’ was bandied around, apparently on the basis that anything that doesn’t take place face to face is denying the physical nature of our being. Which makes both people who use the phone a lot and St Paul gnostic I guess.

Personally, I think the key factor in social networking is the interactivity, which happens at the time the communication happens, so anyone who doesn’t interact is not really going to get it. But because it leaves behind words on a page, it can be read afterwards and judged as if it’s something static that’s been produced for consumption by third parties.

I agree that we need to move on from discussing the medium and start working out how to use it to transit the message to a wide range of people for whom there is no big issue in going online.

And I agree that it is likely a generational reaction. Twenty years from now, it will thought of just as email and texting are thought of – an extended form of communication.

All communication has the potential for misuse or misunderstanding.

As for the Pew stats on internet users and neighbors – I’d refrain from making causative statements here. There could be any number of reasons why for that stat: Maybe internet users live in areas with less available/reliable neighbors. Maybe their support connections are outside their immediate community. Lack of contact with neighbors doesn’t mean they lack human contact. It just means they don’t connect with their neighbors.

Can’t we like anything celebrate it in moderation and enjoy its benefits without always having to hear the voice of doom and gloom (and accusation)?

Isn’t that what the good Bishop is also suggesting – moderation? Perhaps my Canadian ears hear his tone and phraseology differently than you do, Julie or I could simply be wrong. This wouldn’t be the first time.

And I admit, one study isn’t the final argument for anything. I included it to show that the fear of isolation is often unfounded. But Bill, I really don’t get the power of the “don’t rely on neighbor” thing as proof of isolation. I fit that demographic, I help my neighbors but don’t rely on the eldery, the dying of cancer, or the drug addicts that live around me for much of anything. But because I don’t spend my afternoons chatting over my white picket fence as I exchange cups of flour with my neighbor doesn’t mean I don’t have community.

I think I’m just sick of this conversation happening in the extremes. Either we are told to fear the internet or we are seen as consumed by it. Can’t we like anything celebrate it in moderation and enjoy its benefits without always having to hear the voice of doom and gloom (and accusation)?

Regarding the Pew Study, it does say this on page 9 of the pdf,

Users of social networking services are 30% less likely to know at least some neighbors.

Users of social networking services are 26% less likely to use their neighbors as a source of companionship, but they remain as likely as other people to provide companionship to their neighbors.

Internet users are 40% less likely to rely on neighbors for help in caring for themselves or a family member. Those who use social networking services are even less likely to rely on neighbors for family care, they are 39% less likely than other internet users, or 64% less likely than non‐internet users, to rely on neighbors for help in caring for themselves or a family member.

Internet users are 26% less likely to rely on their neighbors for help with small services, such as household chores, repairs, and lending tools, but they remain as likely to help their neighbors with the same activities.

So it’s not quite the slam dunk negative response to Wright’s concerns that Julie suggests.

I’m sorry I jumbled several thoughts together and was unclear. I was questioning the motivation behind posting it to Ur with the particular tagline they used, not the motivation behind releasing a clip. I didn’t realize someone had posted it there without your knowledge or consent, though, and I apologize for my assumptions in that regard.

I also thought it was a balanced and loving response. As Bishop Wright also mentioned, he would have a similar concern about TV. And again, sorry for leaping to some wrong conclusions.

That being said, I completely agree with all of your points, Julie. The Pew research is fascinating, and it flies in the face of the notion that social media kills “real life” relationships.

I too am a blogger and an introvert by nature. I also live in a very small town in East Tennessee. Facebook, Twitter, and blogging have helped me connect with all kinds of people I might not otherwise connect with. Many of these online connections later evolve into face-to-face relationships.

This whole thing is probably more of a generational difference than anything else. I hate to put someone as brilliant as NT Wright into this category…but folks are normally suspicious of things they don’t really understand.