“Confess your faults one to another,” reads James 5:16, “and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.”

Without a doubt, there can indeed be healing benefits in unburdening ourselves to others. Disclosures range from brand-name sins laid out in the Ten Commandments, to what we might like to tell ourselves are trivial, greyer areas of shortcoming.

But indiscretion in the who and the where we tell are now met with ever-increasing consequences when it comes to matters of the heart. A recent feature on Salon.com titled, “The Facebook divorce,” reminds us that postings to your social media outlet of choice will have a reach much further than the Friends you’ve chosen.

That can cost you money — and even parenting time.

Information shared by individuals in small group settings associated with divorce recovery workshops is arguably only heard by very few people. Yet I’ve consistently been told by family practice lawyers that no legal right of confidentiality or privilege attaches to these situations, notwithstanding the churches in which the participants meet. I personally emphasize this potential exposure to all gatherings with which I become involved.

Social networking sites like Facebook provide groups on an order of magnitude vastly greater in audience, with inversely proportionate individual protections. Here you’re more readily susceptible to making much bigger mistakes, making them a lot quicker, and making them effectively permanent.

Attorney Megan J. Erickson comments on her Social Networking Blog about a lawsuit that sprung from disparaging remarks regarding one student, posted on Facebook by his classmates. “The nature and extent of publication factors into the damages calculation in defamation actions. Suddenly ‘580 Facebook friends’-worth of damages probably doesn’t seem too funny to these four little bullies anymore.”

In “The Facebook divorce,” writer Amanda Fortini introduces the topic with a seemingly benign story from “Lauren,” who “began chronicling her divorce via status updates. Although Lauren argued that she was simply exercising her right to process her feelings, her “very private ex-husband-to-be soon grew enraged.”

If increased marital tension and acrimony were byproducts, what did Lauren achieve as a primary benefit from letting it all hang out? Little more than serving the voyeuristic interests of Internet readers indulging the “guilty pleasure” otherwise served by supermarket checkout line tabloids, Ms. Fortini concludes.

Casual gawkers aside, professionals are served as well. When it comes to marital conflict, “lawyers, particularly divorce lawyers, have come to view the site as an ‘evidentiary gold mine,’ as a recent piece in Time magazine put it, and they regularly pan for nuggets in the opposing side’s pages.”

So the world wide web is a virtual place where you gain access to wide-spread, minimal-depth divorce issues venting, at the price of undermining your image in a real-world divorce court where the trajectory of your future will be determined. “Even fools are thought wise when they keep silent; with their mouths shut, they seem intelligent.” Proverbs 17:28.

We’re talking here about a societal shift in information gathering, interest, and accountability. Its effect on us is all the greater because it’s not limited to divorcing spouses or even the legal community; it’s becoming another given in our culture. As Blogger Eric Sinrod pointed out last summer, “fully one-fourth of colleges surveyed report that they implement Web search or social networking technology to find out more about applicants to their schools.” That’s right, “social networking technology.”

“So, that funny photo on Johnny’s Facebook page showing him chugging beer while practically naked while grabbing several scantily clad girls may come back to bite Johnny when he applies for admission to a prestigious and socially conservative college.”

In a follow-up post, Mr. Sinrod noted on June 9, 2009, “Facebook has become the dominant social networking site, with total user minutes on the site at 13,872,640 for April 2009, up 699% from 1,735,698 comparable minutes in April 2008.”

In Nashville, Tennessee, WATE News Reporter Ann Keil wrote last week about a two million dollar libel suit stemming from online posts. Citing Twitter Follower- and Facebook Fan-numbers, she then quotes University of Tennessee Law Professor Alex Long. “It increases the damage in a lot of these cases. It’s going to make it easier for the plaintiff to claim damage to their reputation.”

Ecclesiastes 3:7 comes to mind here with its counsel on “a time to keep silence and a time to speak.”

Attorneys’ use of so-called “electronic data discovery” has increased 5000% in the last nine years, according to Neetal Parekh, writing for The Findlaw Legal Technology Blog, August 2009. In fact, it’s referred to as an “industry” in that piece. The American Bar Association (“ABA”) reports that providers have expanded from a dozen in 2000, to some 600 presently, and the ABA “expects to see $4.05 billion in commercial business this year….”

Amanda Fortini goes on in her Salon contribution to cite a 2008 poll conducted by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers that found “88 percent of members had seen a ‘dramatic increase’ in the use of digital evidence.” Increasingly, decisions are hinging on it.

“Lawyers hope to excavate information on lifestyle, relationships…, whereabouts — mentions of affairs or parties, say; money spent on gifts, lavish purchases or trips; photos of a parent smoking or drinking. In a custody or settlement case, such information can be used to show financial resources, state of mind, even lack of fitness to parent….

“It’s one thing to lose your head in an update,” Ms. Fortini writes, “it’s something else to lose your children because of it.”

Closer to home, I was actually sitting in on the work of a colleague when she unwittingly outed a client via Facebook mention. Her intent was to credibly share cautionary (if not deeply embarrassing) details, but stop short of saying so much than identity would be revealed. But she unwittingly said this: “Thankfully the individual had this ability to reach out to me with a ‘Friend Request’ last Thursday.” Cover blown — since this divorce counselor routinely Friends her clients and colleagues, and her Wall showed only one Friend added on the Thursday in question.

Scripture sets the standard for friendship at Proverbs 17:17, where it says, “A friend loveth at all times.” So it makes sense that those responsible for marketing and building traffic on social media would co-opt the word as a way of encouraging affiliation among its members. Your “Friends” count then becomes a metric of status.

But I wouldn’t put the roof over my head or my son’s welfare at risk for one of these point-and-click relationships.

After all, who knows which of ’em might be a social networking technology in disguise?

Dell Deaton is a divorce pastoral counselor, independently practicing since 1983. He can be reached through www.divorcepastor.wordpress.com or on (734) 668-2001 in Saline.