I know things like Facebook, Twitter, and even Blogs are transitory. For as much time as we spend on them now, in a few years they will cease to capture our imagination and new vessels for connection will reign supreme. For some this transitoriness is reason to avoid them altogether. The trendy, the momentary, are to some reason enough to avoid something. I understand and respect that (although I am amused by the churches that just now are admitting that there may be something to this internet thing). But I also believe that just because something is transitory doesn't mean it lacks value.

The image that comes to mind here is the Tibetan Buddhist practice of creating sand mandalas. These intricate mandalas are meticulously created by "painting" with colored sand sifted through funnels and layered into intricate patterns. Each mandala can take weeks to create, but are often ritually destroyed shortly after their completion. This destruction is meant to represent the transitory nature of life. What I love though is the belief that even though something may be transitory, it still holds spiritual significance.

While it may seem silly into once sense to compare things like Facebook or Twitter to spiritual practices, the benefit they bring has similar effects. Those notebooks we passed around in jr. high were simple and very transitory – but they were a point of connection. It was a way to express ourselves and broach the big topics that might not naturally arise in lunchtable conversation. The form isn't important, all these things will one day be replaced by some new format, it's their value as a community building tool that makes them worthwhile. The point is building community. So I value transitory tools – they are beautiful for what they are right now no matter where the future leads.

Now before I get jumped on for confusing the virtual world with reality or something, I have to admit that I feel like the person I am online is more "me" than what I act like around actual physical people. Yes, I'm weird and probably have serious issues or something, but that's the way it is.  I can think of a number of reasons for why it is the case. In my day to day interactions with people, I don't often (ever?) have the chance to be myself. I generally am trying to hide who I really am, or at least what I think about things, from family and acquaintances because I hate conflict. I'd rather have a semblance of a relationship than not pretend to be who they want me to be. Mike knows the difference, and gets to listen to my rants about what I wish I would have said at say, MOPS, but I let the facade continue.

Or I am not me because, I am simply trying to divide my attention between having a conversation with people and paying attention to my two very demanding kids. Since I am with the kids some 95% of the time, I feel like the "me" I most often portray to the world is the brainless, tired, too-stressed-to-form-complete-sentences mom. I think the other students at Mike's seminary must think I am either completely stupid or utterly anti-social since I generally have to ignore them all to chase after the kids when I'm down there. It's kinda hard to be a self-assured empowered women when you are covered in spit-up and have the "mommy, mommy, mommy" broken record playing at all times. I haven't had time to make any friends here in Austin who I can just be myself with, so all of my public interactions are me being these strange parodies of myself and hating it.

So it is in the online world that I feel like I can be myself. On one hand, it's nice to have that outlet.  I think I'd go insane otherwise.  But I have to ask myself if I don't have the opportunity to be myself in "real life" is that really me? Hence my strange Facebook quiz dilemma. It's who I think I am, it's who I want to be, but it's not what I act on a daily basis.

So what do you think (besides that I'm a messed up freak…)? Can your online persona be the "real you"? Or is that not real if it doesn't surface in actual human interactions? Is this just me, or do others of you experience the same issue?

If you're networked online at all I am sure at some point in recent weeks you have been tagged with the Facebook "25 Things" list. And I'm sure you've also heard your fair share of people complaining about it. Now I understand the "I just don't have time to participate" complaints, but then there are those that are slightly more disturbing. Some asked why anyone would bother reading such spam from their imaginary playgroup. Others asked why they should care about boring random facts about their "friends." Finding out the details of others' lives and sharing the details of their own just seemed like too much of a waste of time. I found it interesting that people were willing to network with others, but not interested in actually getting to know them. But sometimes it is hard to get beyond our self. We want people to know us (love us, respect us…), but we aren't willing to deal with the spam of their thoughts, struggles, and mundane life details.

It reminded me of what former Vice-President Dick Cheney said in an interview this past week -

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said.

Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”

Ignoring Facebook friends and promoting terrorism might seem like a strange connection, but hear me out. Both attitudes are based on the same self-centered attitude. It is our status and our sphere that we are trying to protect. With Facebook we can simple decide to keep the Other as Other – view their input as spam to be ignored, their lives inconsequential to our existence. On the national scale that "me and mine" focus moves beyond simple brushing others aside to a stance that encourages the destruction of that which is different. Either way the idea of loving our neighbor (or enemy) is ignored in favor of protecting our own interests.

As Cheney pointed out, following the Christian principles of turning the other cheek and respecting the image of God in others cannot be adhered to if we place our own interests first. He of course sees that as a good thing and continues to call for the preemptive destruction of those different than himself. I agree with Cheney that national self-centeredness and Christian principles by nature contradict each other, but I prefer to go with the Christian principle side. Instead of our self-centeredness insisting that others love and respect us while we either ignore or destroy them, we can perhaps start to respond with that very love and respect. Not in a passive way that destroys our own self, but with strong active engagement that preserves the image of God in both ourself and the Other.

And even if we aren't quite ready to obey Christ and love the terrorist, we can maybe reach out and actually connect with Facebook friends.