Separation of Church and Blogs? (Page 1 of 2)

I would just hope that the blogger's uphold the name of God and write posts that are uplifting. You never know what churchgoers do on their own time.

Maybe the bloggers who want their blogs listed on the church's site could agree to a 1 Cor. 10:31 "code of conduct for writing" or something.... that's the kind of "can of worms" I was thinking of earlier

Hmm, I've seen church sites with links to their pastors' blogs, but I haven't seen member directories.  There would have to be a strict code of conduct there, I think.  If it's linked to on the church site, it has to meet the expectations of the church's vision.  I.E. if members were discussing theological differences that they have with their leaders (doesn't matter the perceived size of the issues) it just wouldn't work.  If I was a pastor I would be very wary of the idea, anyway.  Not that I think that discussion of issues is bad, but it needs to be highly moderated if it's public.  And we all know that we all blog about issues... They'd have to think of who might be reading and what kind of impressions they're sending out.

Being a blogger I still think it would be a fun idea if it could be pulled off.

Last edited by michael (2007-07-17 09:58:19)

that seems like a fairly wise solution, maybe brand the sub-site differently and add a big fat disclaimer saying "the opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the church..." etc

maybe you could have like some type of approval process for bloggers, like they have to have a trial period for X amount of time during which their content is reviewed by a panel against a specific list of criteria. If they pass for the specified length of time with a certain score or whatever than they become "official" or "approved" affiliates and be linked on the main site. Then you could have like a quarterly or monthly review or something like that to keep them honest. I would imagine that these reviews would extend to how well they moderate their user comments as well, placing that responsibility on the blogger.

/2 cents
-Rhino

Last edited by Rhino (2007-07-17 10:19:31)

Mike -

While I agree with you that it's a sad state that we can't always trust church members, your comparison of blogging to verbal conversations is not an apple to apple one.  What's said by a church member out in the community or within the walls of the church building are not automatically associated with the church - things published on the Internet are, though.

A few years back, my wife and I were approached by one of the elders of our church about the pornography we were involved in.  We were shocked at the allegation, so he directed us to bring up the church website (which we built and host).  He then directed us to click on the link to our design site at the bottom of a page of the church site.  From there, he directed us through a couple of pages to an old link to a site we'd created long ago during BC times, and then to a "sponsor" link on that page, which brought up an extreme pornography site where before it had been a site for lingerie.  We'd forgotten about the site that contained the link that had gone over to the dark side.  Fact was, though, the person that complained to the elders had found their way to a porn site and was upset that the church would condone such a thing.  Real bad juju, to say the least.

It's not that church members are out to give a bad witness, but it sometimes happens and, once it's published on the web, there's a certain "life of it's own" that happens that can cause black eyes to the local church and the overall Christian witness in general.  As Christians, we're not perfect - just redeemed, but the world at large has a different perception of us.  The Catholic church is reeling from heavy payoffs for past abuses of a handful of priests, and scandal in protestant leadership and controversy over gay bishops and the like aren't changing the world's opinion of us either.

I think it's better to err on the side of caution than to be too open to major damage from a minor slip of the fingers.

That's my 2 cents :^{>

I've had a lot of experience with non-profits in general (religious and not) being downright fearful. Right now I am running a community site of people from a non-prof (religious) site... while my site states on the home page that it is not directly affiliated with the org, and while they do not disagree with my content, they are still calling for me to close it down simply because they aren't in control (and no, I'm not shutting it down: they will live and it will be okay).

While I can see not being completely indiscriminant of who you link to, if they are so worried about content, what kind of members do they have? Maybe there is a bigger problem.

Mike -

I'm not disagreeing with you on the big picture view of this.  I've seen forums and blogging work fine on and connected to church sites.  I'm an advocate for churches embracing technology and the Internet and using them to the glory of God.  I'm just trying to say it's not a black and white issue and some churches are going to quantify risk versus return differently than others, with valid reason.

And no, we cannot put limits on God - He is always sovereign.  And no, scandal and abuse are not part of God's plan but rather the behavior of a fallen world - He does turn it around and make lemonade out of the bitter fruit, though.

I'd appreciate if you'd elaborate a little more on that, if you don't mind.   It's not really too OT.

Mike -

While I'm with you on the concept that the church needs to embrace technology in general and, more specifically, the Internet in order to reach out to the ever-changing world both outside and inside the church, there has to be some direction and stewardship to it all.  Should we play gansta rap during worship because a portion of the world's youth are drawn to that?  Ain't gonna happen, but your broad argument would include that approach as well.  Yes, the Internet is a new mission field, but we must approach it in a Christian manner, not a worldly one.

As far as differing opinions with leadership and the expression thereof, there is a right place and a wrong place for that.  Disagreements will happen - that's a fact born out of our fallen nature.  But what should take center stage - the disagreement or God?  By its very nature, the disagreement depends upon a  focus on self and the more time and energy spent focusing on it, the less time and energy is given to God.  If a person has a beef with the leadership, should they leap up in the middle of worship service and chainsaw open the can of worms for everyone to weigh in on?  If you think that's okay, I'll not be planning to worship at your church, if you don't mind.  In a similar fashion, an unmoderated discussion of church matters on a church sponsored site that airs all the dirty laundry in a church's hamper is only going to stir up division and pretty much guarantees those seeking a place where God hangs out will look elsewhere.  I imagine worldly folk will gladly join into the fray, spicing things up with more "No, ME!" dialogue, but it's just not going to show God to the world.  As I read the Bible, I don't see God championing free speech.  I do see Him promoting edifying speech, encouraging speech, Gospel sharing speech.

Leadership does need accountability or they will lose touch with those they lead and the God they're supposed to follow.  I left a church recently when, as a leader myself, I learned the vast majority of the leaders would not change course while admitting they had erred against a Scriptural mandate.  Though a minor point, when combined with a general trend toward laziness about discipline, my wife and I could no longer effectively worship there.  Should the congregation, in their ignorance of the machinery of the leadership, be turned upside down and likely broken in two by our publically voicing our beef?  I don't see that bringing glory to God or helping them strengthen their relationship with Him.  Instead, we alerted key people who are watching and nudging where they can while the leaders lumber slowly back on track.

I've been on both sides of this discussion in real time and have found that a cautious inclusion of the Internet is the wisest course.  Most congregations, regardless of their worship style or denominational affiliation, are still operating on a 50's mindset and don't know how to harness the power of these new technologies without these technologies harnessing them.  Thnings are improving, though.

Well...don't get me wrong here -- I'm certainly not recommending the installation of a discussion forum entitled "church grievances"..;)  But...I do think the church has to be using online tools -- and being open to someone starting a thread of "The music was too loud" or "I didn't agree with the scripture verse that was used to make that point".  And yes, I would have a problem if it degenerated to personal attacks, etc -- so I guess that does imply some moderation.

Heh...and my church actually does allow/encourage questions and discussion during the teaching....;)   But it's more around the text, what the text means, what it doesn't mean, and yes -- differences of opinion exist (even amoung our teachers).  That interactivity is one of the things I highly value about the church (I don't think I could go back to one where only one person spoke the entire time).

While we are small we have good numbers of attendees from both the local college and the local mission.  Sometimes what those folks have to say is way more relevant, insightful, and downright powerful than what the teacher has (and the teachers will be the first to admit it).  Keeping this interactivity as the church grows is actually one of our largest challenges.

Back to the "should the church be online" question -- when I hear people not wanting the church to go online *at all* -- because of "what may happen"...I just think that they're going to end up as a rock in a stream - slowing down a portion of the flow while the world goes around  them.  I understand implementiing cautiously - but lets also be bold and react to things as they happen rather than implementing with so many rules/processes/committees that it prevents people from ever using them in the first place.

And overall -- to answer the question that the topic of this thread asks, No -- no seperation of church and blogs for me, thanks.  Inherently they can't be seperated as those bloggers  -- they are the church.  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.

And...just because it occured to me while driving today...I wonder how many similar conversations were had after the printing press was invented...

Can you imagine?  People reading the Bible for themselves -- without church leadership there to guide/control/moderate! 

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.