On a sort of related note and a good example of how comfortable the younger crowd is with some of the tools we've been discussing, check out this latest post on the blog for my church - manna? in Holland MI.

It's just a small example of how God can find a way for the church to use the internet in a way that I never would have expected - posting an introduction of yourself on the website homepage for a church that you've never visited.

I agree with Mike B. that this type of discussion is much more important than when to use javascript, etc. I think the most important questions the church has to answer with regard to technology are questions of strategy. Unfortunately, those are the questions that are usually the most ignored.

I think part of the reason for the divergent views on this issue is that we have divergent views on the nature of the church. On one hand, there are those who seem to believe that the voice of the church should ultimately be in the hands of the leaders. On the other hand, there are those who seem to believe that the voice of the church should be in the hands of the people (including the leaders who are part of the "people" as well). I fall in the second "camp."

In my opinion, the biblical approach to church leadership is that leaders are meant to guide but not control. Leaders who seek to control do so primarily out of insecurity and fear and that greatly hinders the mission of the church more than we could perhaps ever imagine.

Today's culture is looking for authenticity. To me, the most authentic church websites are those which reflect the belief that everyone in the church has something to contribute to the church's voice. When someone says something that doesn't reflect the historic faith, then the leaders can guide and counsel the one who is speaking. But I don't believe that leadership's role is to control what people say beforehand. I think 1 Corinthians 14:29 is telling on this point - "And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment." Notice that the judgment comes after the prophets speak, not before.

I also don't think that there should be a dichotomy between the life of the church that members see and the life of the church that the "outside" world sees. One of the most intriguing things I have ever learned (and that has shaped my view of the church ever since) was when I heard Robert Banks (at the time a professor at Fuller) mention almost in passing that in the first century, the "living room" of a house was actually partially open to the street and that it was perfectly acceptable and normal in the culture of the day for people on the street to wander in to the "living room" uninvited. That provides an important context to 1 Corinthians 14:23 - "If therefore the whole church should assemble together (which largely happened in the living room of a house) and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?" The "ungifted men or unbelievers" were those who had walked in off the street uninvited.

That creates a picture of the church in my mind which is not commonly held. One where the life of the church (both good and bad) are lived out fully in complete view of the unbelieving world. One where our faith is lived out fully in the public square. I think the concept that Mike B. is advocating - of linking to the blogs of people in the church and allowing a virtual conversation to take place in full view of the unbelieving world - is a modern fulfillment of this public demonstration of the life of the church and is crucial to the success of the church in today's technological world.

Acts 20:7-12 is another passage of Scripture which I think is important when we consider the nature of the life of the church. Verse 7 says that Paul began talking to the disciples. The Greek word is dialegomai, from which we get our word "dialogue." Initially, Paul was discussing matters of faith with the disciples. Then in verse 11, it says he "talked with them a long while." The Greek word here is homileo, referring to more of a one-way address. I think it's important to note that the dialogue came first and then the direct address. Paul and the disciples discussed the subject matter, allowing everyone's opinions to be heard and then Paul took that discussion and used it as the basis of the thoughts he wanted to share directly (and I'm sure if it was necessary, he gently corrected anything from the earlier discussions which he didn't agree with). Paul didn't control the conversation. He guided the disciples after allowing them to have the open discussion. I know I'm reading a lot into the passage, but that's how I see it.

In my experience in leading house meetings, I have found this to be by far the most effective approach and the one which leads to the greatest growth in people's lives. In one house meeting we led for about three or four years, I can truthfully say that there were only one or two times when someone said something which made doctrinal bells go off in my head and in those cases, I didn't have to do any correcting - other people at the meeting provided the guidance and correction. Even unbelievers in the meetings had valuable things to contribute. And I should hasten to say that I am definitely a stickler for correct doctrine.

In the first century church, people discussed the faith in the presence of unbelievers. Although I believe the same should be true in face-to-face meetings of the church today, I also believe that the internet provides us the opportunity to do the same in the virtual world. If we don't take advantage of that opportunity, I believe we are not fully expressing the life of the church in the public square.

Frank

I'd think once a person is vetted, it may help the Church run more functionally not funneling everything through one person ... or what what most of us familiar with workflow call "a log jam."

Similarly with blogging. Just like you check out a person to see if they're appropriate for Sunday school - same with blogging. Then cut them loose, occasionally checking in - in part to check up, but also to make sure the layperson is well provisioned for their task.

yeah that does make good sense to me the more I think about it. At the time I just never gave it a second thought, it seemed like the logical thing to do and anyway thats how it was always done. In retrospect it does seem like it would have made more sense to just trust the people to which you assign the tasks to do their job correctly and provide a certain level of oversight without interfering too much.

meandean wrote:

I agree w/Boyink - do we censor these people in other contexts?

Not sure how it works in your church, but I do know from my own experience that back in the days when I used to help teach sunday school in mine all the stuff I wanted to present had to be reviewed by a person appointed to do so. If she deemed something as inappropriate, she told me to nix it ...

And here Paul just sent Timothy out with merely a letter or three! Jesus with just verbal instructions to the 12. What were these guys thinkin?

Seriously, there's an excellent book out there called "The Speed of Trust" that addresses situations like this.

I'd think once a person is vetted, it may help the Church run more functionally not funneling everything through one person ... or what what most of us familiar with workflow call "a log jam."

Similarly with blogging. Just like you check out a person to see if they're appropriate for Sunday school - same with blogging. Then cut them loose, occasionally checking in - in part to check up, but also to make sure the layperson is well provisioned for their task.

C'mon folks - do we really want to micro-manage our churches?

I do agree that this is (or may quickly become) an issue needing attention in the local church.  There are so many bloggers out there, and I know if someone wants to put 2 and 2 together and see what church this person is attending, a lot of times it is easy to do.  You can learn a lot about a church by listening to what comes out of its members heads/hearts/mouths although it is true:  we are sinners saved and grown daily by God's grace. 

It may not be a good idea to promote the "voice" of one, two, twenty, 100 people to seem to speak more loudly than the voice of Christ.... maybe that's more of the potential problem than others.   Initially I just wondered if linking a blogroll might be a fruitful and useful idea for churches or not regarding building community.  I think from the replies on this thread maybe there would be more problems caused when attempting to regulate / not regulate something like this for said reasons....  It's worth thinking about much more.

I agree w/Boyink - do we censor these people in other contexts?

Not sure how it works in your church, but I do know from my own experience that back in the days when I used to help teach sunday school in mine all the stuff I wanted to present had to be reviewed by a person appointed to do so. If she deemed something as inappropriate, she told me to nix it. It wasn't just me that had to go through this process, all the sunday school teachers had to do the same thing and I was just an assistant. So, to answer your question, yes they do. I never thought of this as censorship or editorializing, just as good stewardship and paying attention to the message the church was putting forth.

Look, there is some Scriptural guidance on this - in terms of a persons maturity - found both in Titus and Timothy.

I'll paraphrase them here:
If a person is good enough to work as volunteers in your church's Sunday school &/or Nursery, then they're good enough to blog.

Can't have it both ways.

Where did you find the printing press quote?

Whups...my bad.

http://library.thinkquest.org/16541/eng … inting.htm

But just to be clear - I don't see a total free for all, but more of a gentleman's agreement to "play nice" -- and if someone happens to note something not nice we'll deal with it then -- and have the process for dealing with it at least thought out in advance.  And I hope that process would be more about caring for the blogger than "protecting the church"...;)  But let's start from a position of trust and openness rather than distrust and review committees (yea, security guys don't like me either...;)

But - I don't see a separation of "personal blog posts" and "show on the church's website blog posts" -- at least in the idea that originated this thread.  It's my blog, all the posts are on my time, and are inherently my opinion.  Either link to the blog or not .

Just as an aside - these are the kinds of issues I'd like to see covered at the Christian web conferences because they are strategical, high level important decisions to be made.  Much more pertinent to the local church, IMHO, than whether to use Javacript or not.

http://frogstar.soylentgeek.com/wav/bbdntknw.wav 

ahahaha that's awesome I guess you're right about that.

Fair enough. I guess I just envisioned the process as being much more informal than this. You do raise a good point imho - the tendency definitely exists for communities such as this to regulate themselves if enough members care enough about the integrity of the community.

I hadn't thought of it this way but now that you mention it that does make sense. However I feel like we're talking about two separate issues. I'm not talking about any type of censorship or editorializing for a blogger's personal writing  - anybody can do whatever they want on their own time. I was referring more to the situation where the blogger desires to be included in the larger community of the church and/or its website. As people have stated previously in this thread, there seems to be a need for a certain level of accountability and moderation for this to happen "safely".

The more we talk about this, the more it seems to me like the answer lies somewhere in the middle ground between your free-for-all approach and my locked-down committee process.

I don't understand why "management/linking policies/approval committees" is such a horrible idea to you. I understand your point about it killing off some interest in participating, but isn't it true that if people are motivated enough they will participate regardless of the cost of doing so? The management policies I was talking about earlier wouldn't be a ponderous bureaucratic process with a bunch of argument and paperwork flying around; as I envision it, it would be like a pastor and maybe a couple deacons or other appointed personnel reading through blogs a couple times a week, digesting what they say, then maybe making a check mark on a paper or in a spreadsheet or something. Not like they are going to be devoting all their time to it.

http://frogstar.soylentgeek.com/wav/bbdntknw.wav 

For one...because I'm just wired to abhor that kind of thing.  It's one big reason why I'm self-employed and didn't do well in the corporate world, and left a big church for a small one.  I *hate* the idea of some tie-wearing committee sitting in a room reviewing my blog posts to see if I get a smiley next to my name or not.  I'd naturally question how people would get elected to this committee, what qualifies them, and what rules they use for assigning smiley faces or frowney faces.  I'd lament the time they spent reviewing blog posts rather than doing any number of more valuable things to further the spread of the Gospel.  And I'd wonder why we couldn't just deal with issues if or when they came up rather than setting up a group to go looking for them -- letting the community self-regulate and self-correct.

It just smacks of elitism to me "this group of people knows what's best for you to be blogging about, and what's best for the church to be saying on the web".

And - it runs opposite of what's valuable about blogging to me - having a place to speak my mind without any kind of editorial approval process.

All I can say is, for me personally, I wouldn't bother with it and it would cause me to look for a different church, one less inclined to be so bureaucratic and more community-minded and missional.

Link to them, blogroll them, encourage and engage in threads and comments with them.  And yes, be prepared for some issues to arise but deal with them bibilically.  But keep the "management/linking policies/approval committees" to an absolute minimum, and implement as needed.  Too much of that stuff up front will kill the value before it ever has a chance to grow.  But definitely go down that path - and prepare to be amazed at what God can and will do with it.

I don't understand why "management/linking policies/approval committees" is such a horrible idea to you. I understand your point about it killing off some interest in participating, but isn't it true that if people are motivated enough they will participate regardless of the cost of doing so? The management policies I was talking about earlier wouldn't be a ponderous bureaucratic process with a bunch of argument and paperwork flying around; as I envision it, it would be like a pastor and maybe a couple deacons or other appointed personnel reading through blogs a couple times a week, digesting what they say, then maybe making a check mark on a paper or in a spreadsheet or something. Not like they are going to be devoting all their time to it.

I think that the value of a system like this lies not so much in the actual process of the reviewing, but rather in the conditions that it could inspire in the minds of the actual bloggers. The ideal result would be to create a situation not unlike a digital panopticon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon). If subjects believe that people are watching them all the time, they are much less likely to transgress than otherwise, even if they are not being watched.

Maybe I'm just overthinking the whole thing. I just feel like your approach is too utopian and doesn't fully account for the fact that humans are flawed...our existences are intrinsically busted and if left up to our own devices we will eventually do bad things. Now obviously I am speaking in generalities here, please don't think that I am talking about any one specifically.