Viewing entries tagged
Social Media

Comment

Does Social Media Silence Debate?

Woman thinks to notebook A recent New York Times article explored recent survey data that led researchers to some thought-provoking conclusions about social media’s effect on civic discourse. It’s pretty common knowledge by now that people tend to surround themselves with people who agree with them on things. Conservatives and liberals tend to want to live in different kinds of places (75% of consistent conservatives want to live in suburbs or the country, 77% of consistent liberals the city), and they more consistently say most of their friends share their views. That’s on top, of course, of the childhood instinct to gravitate towards people like me.

But how does social media interact with this situation? Does it make it better? Worse? Here’s what this recent research found:

  • People are less likely to voice opinions when they think their views differ from those of their friends. Since their feeds are dominated by people they like, find interesting, or tend to agree with, social media can intensify this tendency and keep dissenters quiet. In fact, people who use social media regularly are less likely to express differing views in the offline world.
  • No politics at the dinner table? Social media is like the dinner table, only more so. Most people said they would be more willing to discuss something controversial at dinner or at work than on social media.
  • Educated people and thoughtful people are quieting down. People with more education are less likely to weigh in on a Facebook debate, as are people with moderate views. People with less education, and people with more fervent or extreme views, dominate the debate.

So it would seem social media is indeed providing a liturgy for our lives, a set of repetitive habits (shaped by algorithms) that affects how we think and act even offline.

What do we do about this? How can we make sure our online habits are having a positive effect on our social interactions and our political discourse?

I recommend two articles to help you start thinking:

Comment

Comment

5 Social Media Tips that will Help Increase Your Donations by 50%

Recently, I was delighted to be invited to contribute to Hootsuite's blog as part of an effort they're making to provide more nonprofit-specific tips and resources. Here's my first entry (the original can be found here).

**

Did you know 73% of first-time donors never give again? They don’t feel a part of the organization, they don’t feel appreciated—often they don’t even get a thank-you note—so they leave. That means the vast majority of what your fundraiser does will actually just be plugging holes, rather than growing your donor base.

But here’s another stat: if you get even a 10% higher donor retention rate, your donations go up by 50%. Immediately. Think about that for a minute. Your $1 million budget could become $1.5 million, if you just got a few dozen more of your donors to stick around. And social media can play a huge role in making that happen.

The first trick is building a thank-you culture that extends to your social media. Supporting a nonprofit is usually a social act. Mega-philanthropists put their names on art galleries so that other people will see it. 67% of people who like a nonprofit’s Facebook page say they do so because they want their friends to know they support the organization.

Here are 5 tips to help you build a Thank-You culture on social media:

1. Make sure your social media team and development team are well connected. You need to know what’s going on in the fundraising calendar so you can be of value to it, but it works the other way too—you’re going to be learning things about your donors and their trending interests that are gold for your development director. Get a CRM that helps with this, and preferably one that integrates easily with your social relationship platform.

2. Follow your donors and talk to them a lot. The easiest place to do this is Twitter, by creating lists and adding them to your dashboard. Monitor it daily and talk to your donors about what interests them. Let them know you’re listening. Consider doing this on both staff individual profiles and the corporate one. When a chat involves John from development, the organization, and the donor, suddenly you’re working as a community on a shared project. You can talk about your organization, but only a small percentage of the time, and only after you’ve figured out what elements of your work interest them most.

3. Connect the social to the real. For example, if you have events, use tools (EventBrite is one) that allow people to see which of their Facebook friends are going, and after they sign up, have a confirmation page that invites them to share the event with their friends. If you can, set up automated emails afterwards for people to share it, and thank them for helping. Take photos of the event, and post them on social media afterwards and tag your donors, thanking them for coming.

4. Tell your donors’ stories. There’s an art to telling your donors’ stories. (Learn more about how to do it here.) Why do they support your organization? Why do they care about this kind of work more broadly? What personal stories do they have that illustrate why it’s important to them, or how your organization’s work has touched them? Regularly write brief blog posts (with photos if possible) sharing their stories, tagging them, and telling the world how special your supporters are!

5. And… say thank you! The obvious one. When somebody donates, post on social media saying “thank you” and tag them. Link it to the donor’s story or a brief reference to something you know about them, or to what that amount of money allowed you to do. “Thanks to Joe Ross for his donation this week! We provided water for four more kids in Africa with your dollars!” or “Megan Carter, you are the best! Thanks for all the help licking envelopes (and talking Star Trek!).”

Not only do these public thank-yous make the donor feel appreciated; if these kinds of things happen regularly, they can create a culture of giving on your social profiles. Other people who don’t give see this stuff and start to imagine themselves being thanked like that; or at the least, think of giving to you as something that people like them do. If they see giving to you as a normal part of membership in that community, rather than as a big jump, you can help your donor acquisition as well as your donor retention!

Comment

Comment

The social media effect

What good social media does to your website's traffic and your organization's public visibility.

Here's the whole realm of possibilities of what social media can do and how it translate to search engine rankings, IF you're using it well. I don't have a ton to add here, but it's a good visual representation of the complexity and the potential of the internet. Things really have gotten a lot more complicated than just sending out a mass mailer and hoping for the best. Thankfully, they're also a lot more measurable.

6220ce44737b3c76b656074041860962

Comment

Comment

Is Facebook dying?

Some are saying so—but is it true? And should it affect your strategy?

One of the hot topics lately is whether Facebook is doing down the tubes. There was the study that predicted it would lose 80% of its users by 2017, there are a number of blog posts wondering how much longer it’s going to be dominant with niche users getting more and more active on other platforms, and of course there’s always been the yuppie hobbie of complaining loudly about how terrible Facebook is (on Facebook).

A few things to consider:

  1. Facebook is still the biggest social network, by a million miles. (You can’t count Google+’s numbers; more people are using it but the stats are still wildly inflated.) Even if it were dying, it would take forever to die.
  2. Facebook is still the only social network that allows you to do everything—text, pictures, video, post links, etc. And since everybody’s always adapting, there’s no telling what changes it could make to become cool again tomorrow.
  3. On the other hand, this topic is a good reminder not to put all your eggs in one basket—on ZERO social networks do you own your followers’ information; if any of them go out of business you’re in trouble. Even “capturing” email addresses is of limited value, because people can give you spam-catcher ones they don’t really use, or change them and forget to tell you. Ultimately, the core of using any communications method in nonprofit operations is to maintain a relationship with a person—and in a healthy relationship, you know more than one way to get in touch with them (and they remember to tell you when they move). What are you doing to build a relationship of mutual value with somebody, across multiple platforms?

Comment

Comment

Let Your Donors Go Public

American charity is changing from a private thing to a public one. Drive that trend.

Historically, Americans have treated donating to nonprofits as a pretty private thing. In the mid-19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that even being wealthy in America was something you were supposed to be subtle about—dressing like everybody else, doing your charity work behind the scenes. Even after the rise of mega-wealth in the late 19th century, when suddenly there were philanthropists able to shower multi-million dollar gifts on cities, those high-profile gifts are the exception rather than the rule. Unless you’re building Carnegie Hall or something, charitable financial support is supposed to be something you do under the radar. And if you did mention your support of an organization, you never, ever mentioned the amount.

That’s changing, and it needs to change more.

The reason is, and I know I sound like a broken record on this one, people are social. They do what their friends do, they value what their friends value, they get their cues about what’s important from social messaging both subliminal and obvious.

You might be worried about donor privacy, and you’re right to be—after all, plenty of people (for now) expect that their donations are private things, and certainly nobody wants you giving out their e-mail address. But I’m not suggesting a violation of privacy—I’m suggesting adding fundraising (and non-financial support) tactics that create opportunities for visibility for people who want it.

And in this area, the demand from potential donors is way ahead of the supply from nonprofits. Your donors (and your future donors) are asking for this.

We now have crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter, where you’re supposed to actively promote the fact that you just gave, in order to help the campaign reach its goal (otherwise they get nothing). But even short of obvious examples like this, the way that people interact with nonprofits on social media demands that those nonprofits find ways to “make the private public” as marketing professionals like to say. Done tastefully, it’s good for the donor AND for the organization.

Skeptical? Think about these stats:

  • 67% of people who liked a nonprofit Facebook page said they did so because they wanted other people to know they supported the organization.
  • 47% of American learn about a nonprofit from social media (i.e., they hear about it from somebody else interacting with it publicly).
  • Nonprofits that involve Twitter in their fundraising (allowing their supporters to, for example, retweet donation requests) make 10 times as much in online donations as nonprofits that don’t
  • If a friend posts a charitable donation on a social media site, people tend to:
    • Take time to find out more about the charity (68%)
    • Ask the friend about the charity (58%)
    • Have more respect for the friend (i.e. the donor benefits socially, 51%)
    • Donate to the nonprofit themselves (39%)
    • Share the donation opportunity with even more people (34%)

And if you need one more reason to let your donors go public, consider this: this idea isn’t a social media idea. Marketers have taught this for ages. This is where Livestrong bracelets came from; it was a way of turning private support into a craze of support. But social media can empower you in this arena in unprecedented ways.

Let it.

Comment

Comment

Why is social media so expensive?

If these tools are free, why does it seem like it costs so much to get anything tangible out of them?

Why is social media so expensive?

The real issue: you are not currently budgeting for social media outreach, so when you start hearing about Facebook ads, or hiring a new full-time staff member or a consultant, you can feel the weight of that extra cost, and it’s not fun. If these products are almost entirely free, why does it cost so much money to make them work? Is there a cheaper way to do it?

No, there isn’t. You can hire your college sophomore nephew to save money, or try to do it all in-house, but the reality is doing those things usually won’t get you actual financial results. That’s why most nonprofits (which tend to try to do social media these ways) languish with feeble Facebook pages, and Twitter accounts that are really just press release outlets that nobody reads. So why spend even half the money if it doesn’t buy you anything?

What if I told you that there was a free agent development specialist out there who I could pretty safely promise would bring in several hundred new donors in his first year? Maybe you couldn’t jump and get him instantly, but wouldn’t you be inclined to try to find the money in the budget next year? After all, most new development directors will barely have gotten started by the end of their first years; the learning curve is steep, they don’t know your donors, and they far too often end up drowning in paperwork just trying to keep up with old grants. A fundraiser who could sidestep that entire process and start dramatically increasing your base quickly would be a godsend—not least for your existing development director, who could suddenly start focusing on growing relationships with individual donors rather than finding them and bringing them on board in the first place.

Oh, and I almost forgot—this development guy is willing to work for you for less than half of what you’re paying your current one.

This is how you need to think about social fundraising. Done poorly, it’s nearly worthless. Done right, it’s like tripling or quadrupling the capacity of your development director, creating a pipeline of new donors and dramatically reducing the need for her to waste her time proving your value to people.

If you’re like a lot of nonprofits I know, your budget is pretty stagnant and it’s a lot of work just closing the gap at the end of the year. If you knew that spending some money now could expand your budget year after year, and you’d be consistently ending your fiscal year with conversations about what to do with the extra money, you’d be silly to complain that it cost money to make that happen. This, of course, doesn’t mean you can afford to do it right away—but it’s something to plan for.

(Feel free to get in touch with me if you want to discuss this further.)

Comment

Comment

How can I justify risking embarrassing my organization by going social?

Anybody can post nasty comments on your Facebook page. Some words of comfort for the guardian of your organization's public image.

How can I justify risking embarrassing my organization by going social?

The real issue: somebody has told you that absolutely anybody can post on a Facebook wall or mention you on Twitter. You’ve safeguarded your organization’s reputation for a long time, and intentionally putting it in that situation sounds absolutely irresponsible. After all, people could publicly complain about you!

The answer: if people are going to publicly complain about you, wouldn’t you rather they do it in a place where you can respond?

The idea that you control your organization’s image is a myth. You can do a lot of things to influence it, but ultimately, if people are badmouthing you in large numbers, your problem might be with your organization—not your PR strategy. Your reputation isn’t a china dish waiting to be broken at the slightest touch; it’s an organism that thrives on positive interaction and word of mouth. You don’t get those things if you refuse to interact with people, and if you cover your ears when they’re complaining about you, you won’t like the results.

I’m not aware of a single example of negative comments hurting a brand’s image on social media—even in cases where the organization itself was lousy and deserved as much negative publicity as it could get, people were saying those negative things anyway. Getting on Facebook didn’t create the problem.

If you’re interested in exploring this further, Gary Vaynerchuck’s excellent (and short) book, “The Thank-You Economy,” explains this in much more detail. He has some great examples from Ann Taylor and other major brands that were able to turn criticism to their advantage due to the fact that social media allowed them to control the space where complaints were happening.

Comment

Comment

How do I navigate the shift from prospecting letters to social media prospecting?

Proven vs. unproven techniques and a tricky transition.

How do I navigate the shift from prospecting letters to social media prospecting?

The real issue: mass mail letters have a proven rate of return; social media doesn’t. Much like making a switch from snail mail newsletters to e-mail newsletters, transitioning from one to the other creates risks of losing people along the way who aren’t on top of the technology. How do you handle the transition?

The answer: gingerly.

As I’ve noted elsewhere, for now, snail mail prospecting still has a decent rate of return—you might not make our money back on the first round, but even that 5% of the recipients who end up donating will more than reward your effort over the next few years.

But you’re aware that it’s unlikely you’ll see the same kind of results from younger generations, even as they age. Gen X and Gen Y do not process information the same way—the want their information in smaller doses, more frequently. Their brains are being trained by TV, YouTube, Twitter, and other similar things. In addition, they’ve been marketed to their whole lives, are skeptical of scams, and prefer to support fewer organizations but know them more intimately. (That last bit is increasingly true of a suspicious older generation as well.) Seven-page letters from complete strangers asking for money go straight into the trash can, and I don’t think that will change in 20 years (in fact, I think it’s likely the trend will go the opposite way).

So since you have potential donors who you know won’t respond to snail mail letters for 20 or 40 years (if at all), you know it’s worth investing in prospecting techniques that will work now.

Some thoughts:

  • Social media prospecting is painless to ease into.  Smart social ads, strategically targeted, can help you find precisely the kind of donors you’re looking for and connect with them for as little as $0.13 per new like or follower. Even $5 a week, let alone $5 a day, can pay off.
  • Let your desired donor base and social success guide your snail mail prospecting. Is it a goal to have a younger donor base? Then don’t bother sending letters. Are you seeing at least as good results from social prospecting? Ditto.
  • Don’t ditch your donors. Be aware of who your existing donors are—their ages, situations, technological preferences. If you don’t stay on top of this information in the normal course of operations (as many nonprofits don’t), you may want to send out a survey asking people about how they prefer to hear from you—or even a quick checkbox survey directly in an e-mail. You won’t get everyone, but you’ll be able to start phasing out forms of communication you don’t think have a future.

Comment

Comment

How many people over 50 are really on Facebook?

Are enough current donors on Facebook to make investment worth it?

How many people over 50 are really on Facebook?

The real issue: running a nonprofit means a lot of decisions about what’s really worth your precious time. If social media is mostly a young-person thing, and everybody knows young people are not a good source of nonprofit revenue, why should that time be spent trying to attract people with money who aren’t there?

The answer: 60% of people age 50-64 are on Facebook, and 43% of people 65 and over are on Facebook. Source: May 2013 Pew report.

That's definitely enough to justify your attention.

It started when the new grandma got on Facebook to see pictures of her newborn granddaughter. Then she realized half her high school class was on Facebook, and reconnected with dozens of friends she hadn’t talked to in years. Then she told the REST of her friends, who started getting on Facebook too.

Many of them use it at least as actively as their kids, and some of them use it more actively than their grandkids. I recently saw a community on Facebook that had attracted 30,000 senior citizens.

Many of those people will still open a snail mail letter—but with the tiny fraction of them who will actually donate as a result, you’re at least as likely to get them to donate using methods that allow them to get involved right then and there, while you’re fresh in their minds. And you’re more likely to keep them.

Comment

Comment

Is social media any use with churches and ministries?

Thoughts on technology and God.

This article originally appeared on Virtue Online as a product of a larger project on church polity for the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA). Featured photo is by the incredible Trey Ratliff of Stick In Customs.

If you’re not a pastor and you’re under 30, it’s probable that church isn’t at the center of your social network. You might have Christian friends, but you likely didn’t meet them at church. Of course, statistically, there’s a better than three-in-four chance that they aren’t involved in a church at all.

As I pointed out in a prior article on religion and young people, Ross Douthat’s 2012 book “Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics” documented how the decline of the mainline churches in America coincided with their conformity to political trends. But it’s equally true that the decline of the American church’s influence on Millennials has coincided with its conformity to inhumane social trends. I don’t mean abortion or marriage revisionism. I mean the way we order our lives as individuals and communities; or put in more fashionable terms, how God fits into our social networks.

Based on the trends I see in younger generations (trends which are the product of decades of social change, not Facebook), the Church will have to revisit this issue of church polity if it is to regain an active presence in the lives of Americans.

Christianity and community

For Christians West and East for centuries, God wasn’t just a personal savior or shrink. From the earliest days of Christianity, church leaders were concerned with how to build their whole lives as communities around God, starting with the famous “communism” seen in the Book of Acts. As the church grew, the thinking did too—and a thousand years later, God could still be found at the center of European social networks, which were built around the local parish.

If you were building a town, the first building to go up would be the church, and everything else would be built around it. Older cities have regularly spaced churches at the heart of each neighborhood. That meant that church and the community were one; institution and organism were united. You lived around the church. Christian feast days dominated the calendar; church and its members were your social center. In England, local barons even outsourced taxation related to public goods to the church (that tax was called a “tithe;” maybe you’ve heard of it). Church was a crucial spiritual, social, political, and economic force in your life. Worship itself, as Alexander Schmemann puts it, far from being a “prayer break” or a “period of spiritual refreshment” separate from the secular or profane world, was designed to be a liturgical act performed on behalf of the whole community as part of its seven-days-a-week redeeming mission.[i]

Theologically, at the core of this was a paradox of the Christian faith: the dynamic of individual and group. The Church has routinely dealt with efforts to resolve Christian paradoxes, and (as Douthat again points out) has tended to err on the side of mystery; of letting God be God. Was Jesus fully God or fully man? Yes. Is God a god of justice or of mercy? Yes. The paradox of Christian community starts with just such a paradoxical question about God (is God three or one? yes), and ends in a question about the nature of the existence of humans created in God’s image: does God care about the salvation of your individual soul, or is the Christian life something inextricably linked with the Church? Yes.[ii]

Interestingly, modern social science has vindicated this paradox in the form of social network theory, a relatively new field that demonstrates the inadequacy of the Enlightenment paradigm of individual-versus-group. Social network analysis has instead revealed the complex interplay of individuals as members of groups, demonstrating that the happiest people are the ones with strong ties to others (and to their friends’ friends) through a diverse array of groups and shared relationships; in fact, we barely have an identity as individuals apart from those influences. And in a finding that would have been unsurprising to the early Church, we’ve found that “religious sensibilities are partially hardwired in our brains, and they are related to our desire for social connection to others, not only a spiritual connection to God” (emphasis mine).[iii]

The individual and the 20th century

Yet for theological reasons that are not the focus of this piece, the American church (under the influence of certain strains of Protestantism) has been less comfortable with this tension, and has mostly focused on the salvation of the individual soul. Many churches talk about the importance of community, but it’s rarely clear why theologically, and the core communitarian worship element (the Eucharist) is de-emphasized or even skipped. At the same time, since the mid-19th century, the United States has grown from an agricultural and merchant society to an industrial and eventually post-industrial one. We have grown from a society of small towns and parishes to a society of cities and suburbs and geographical mobility. Close-knit families, once economic engines (think of the family farm), have ceased to be common or economically important (or so it appears at first glance). And local churches have become things we look for after we’ve found a job someplace, not things around which we build a lifetime.

The inevitable result of these theological and social changes is the impossibility of the parish model I’ve just described. Columbia sociologist Robert Nisbet pointed out as early as 1952 that while the American church community (individualistic as it was) could survive for a while on the inherited capital of strong social ties from bygone eras, sooner or later the conservatives’ arguments about the central importance of family and church to human life would ring hollow. When institutions have no clear, concrete benefits to us economically and politically; when we can’t see their significance to the larger community or the world around us; their psychological benefit is reduced and people start to slip away from them or seek ways to redefine them.[iv]

T.S. Eliot saw this coming as well. Writing in 1938, he said:

“In its religious organization, the church has remained fixed at the stage of development suitable to a simple agricultural society, and the modern materialistic complication has produced a world for which Christian social forms are imperfectly adapted. There are two oversimplifications of this problem which are suspect. One is to insist that the only salvation for society is to return to a simpler mode of life [i.e. to double down on the parish model]. This policy appears utopian. The other is to accept the modern world as it is and simply try to adapt Christian social ideals to it. The latter resolves itself into a mere doctrine of expediency, and it is a surrender of the faith that Christianity itself can play any part in shaping social forms.”[v]

While parish-based churches failed to adapt strategically to the changing times, some American churches didn’t take this lying down. Their leaders thought they had to reinvent church for the new era. They had to figure out how to help people squeeze God into one of the parts of their busy “secular” lives. In the process, however, they reinvented not only church but Christianity. The suburban church, the megachurch, was church adapted to the modern materialist lifestyle; ultimately, it provided a one-way, individualized strip mall commodity to which people could drive once a week to consume a product. If Protestantism had individualized Christian theology, the megachurch individualized (i.e. surrendered) Christian community. It gave so much ground to the prevailing culture that it conceded as lost (as Eliot predicted) the very notion that God could be at the center of our social networks. Although sometimes preaching that worship was something people were supposed to do every day with their whole lives, it failed to offer any serious model for what that should look like, and left it up to individuals to be Christian islands in a sea of secularism six days a week (and in a sea of thousands of fellow passive audience members on the seventh).

A superfluous church

Despite (and perhaps partly because of) these radical changes to church polity, Eliot and Nisbet’s predictions have to a large extent played out. Even among the most devout Christians today, church is rarely the spiritual (let alone social) centerpiece it once was, except as a therapeutic or educational gas station.

This is particularly true among young churchgoers, only 25% of whom say they subscribe to their church’s teachings (they prefer to pick and choose their favorite parts), and who are more likely to pick a church where their friends go than to build their social network from church as a starting point. Small groups are an inadequate counter to megachurch culture; they feel artificial to young people (especially the ones who already have a critical mass of Christian friends they’ve bumped into through other activities).

As busy as some megachurches appear, 75% of self-described Christians apparently lose their faith in college, hardly any can articulate what Christianity is, 82% of people under 30 don’t go to church regularly, 18% have left the religion in which they were raised, and only 4% of onetime nonbelievers say they have converted. [vi] And on the parish end of things, the typical mainline pastor has watched her church slowly die, as its spiritual and political offerings vary little from secular alternatives and its institutional and social structure remains suited for an age that is long gone. (I recently toured a beautiful Pennsylvania mainline church that is now for sale, and the way its pastor spoke of it, you’d think we were on an archaeological dig site of a long-dead civilization. It was eerie.)

Where to from here?

In light of all this, the critical question for a church leader interested in a revival of the faith is how to accomplish something like the vitality of the old parish church. It’s about more than converting people faster; the product itself is missing something it’s supposed to have.

Certain principles can be drawn from historical experience. The Church has, after all, thrived in secular cultures before, and the sooner pastors realize that that the age of Constantine in America is over, the better. Saint Paul’s awareness of the culture around him was obvious when he spoke to the Athenians, explaining Christianity in terms they could understand rather than trying to force them into a paradigm to which they couldn’t relate.  And yet the experience of the American church in the past century has demonstrated the fatal flaws of trying too hard to accommodate either political or social trends (in both theology and worship style), offering something that is so like the culture around it that eventually nobody sees the point of it.

But something new is in order. New approaches to the relationship between institution and organism are in order. The question is how to rebuild strong Christian social networks with God at their center—something the parish model did for post-Roman Europe, and something today’s church must do for a new time. Like Cleisthenes’ reforms of ancient Athenian democracy, the solution must consider human nature (e.g. social network theory), experience (e.g. tradition), and long-term social and economic contexts, and skillfully build a social network that taps into them. “Relevance” isn’t about making your youth pastor get a tattoo; it’s about building something that has clear significance beyond itself or its members as individuals.

What might this look like? It may not be the clear, exclusive, all-in commitment of yesteryear’s community. But it may not be church-by-social-media either. If the Church’s institutional experience is any indication, it’s possible that the right conclusions (though jarring to some American Christians) might be things that would not have seemed so radical to Hooker or Augustine.


[i] Alexander Schmemann, “For the Life of the World” (Crestfield, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1963)

[ii] Ross Douthat, “Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics” (New York: Free Press, 2012)

[iii] Nicholas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler, “Connected: How Your Friends’ Friends’ Friends Affect Everything You Feel, Think, and Do” (New York: Back Bay Books, 2009)

[iv] Robert Nisbet, “The Quest For Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom” (San Francisco: ICS Press, 1952)

[v] T.S. Eliot, “Christianity and Culture” (New York: Harcourt, 1948)

[vi] Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, “Religion and the Millennials,” at http://www.pewforum.org/Age/Religion-Among-the-Millennials.aspx

Comment