Opening the presentation of the Passion to spontaneous remarks by any passing tweeter turns out NOT to be a way to turn up the W.Q of the service, it does not enhance the prayerfulness and or the drawing of the faithful into recollection of Good Friday.
No, it seems from the story that informality and unpredictability aren't positive values in enacting ritual. (Tiny Clue: the word "ritual" means established or prescribed procedures for a religious or other rite, observance of set forms.)
And yet, the service that is the hook for the New York Times article was considered a "success" by TPTB at venerable Trinity Episcopal.
[T]he Passion play experiment was considered a success despite the interloping characters. “If someone chooses to interact with us mischievously, that’s fine,” said the Rev. Canon Anne Mallonee, the church vicar. “The opposite of engagement is not mischief, but apathy.”And what is the opposite of "sporadic"?
...“I’m a sporadic worshiper,” said Anne Libby, a management consultant in Manhattan who often follows the services on Twitter between occasional visits to Trinity.Other non-liturgical religious settings may profit more from Twittering:
The connection, however slender, has drawn her closer to the church community, she said. She has never tweeted back during a service. She does not always follow every word.
Experts say there are many degrees of openness for religious groups tuning into social media. Some carefully restrict access and even require proof of membership. Others, like Westwinds Community Church in Jackson, Mich., do not. There, Twitter comments appear on monitors behind the pulpit during services. (Some recent tweets: “Nice shirt, pastor!” and “Jesus is a joke.”)Yes, I can see how that sort of, er... acclamation, could lead to deeper relationship, and a more vibrant faith coommunity.