Blogging and MY local congregation

June 11, 2008 by
Filed under: Religion 

It’s been a few days since I posted the question about blogging and the local congregation.  I’m still mulling over the question.  I can’t seem to let it go – blogging is reflective of several major parts of my personality (the top 3 on my Goals for How to Live My Life), and I’m entering a new phase of my relationship with the congregation (though it will probably look a lot like the current phase).  This question/problem is gnawing at me.

This post is kinda stream of consciousness.  Please keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle, pull back on the bar until you hear the click, and hang on.

So far, the comments on blogging about one’s congregation (and the comments, concerns and complaints received offline) fall into a few categories:

  1. Be who you are.  You’re good enough, and people will always pick on what they don’t like.  (With a tiny bit of “what’s wrong with them?!?”)
  2. You should never write anything negative about your congregation.  If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything.
  3. It might make things more difficult for you (and usually for the speaker) if someone in the congregation gets upset about what you write.
  4. You need to be sure you’re willing to take the consequences that come with writing about the congregation.
  5. You should always discuss any criticisms with the subject person first.

Surprisingly, nobody is talking about the upsides that I see of a person blogging about their congregation, positive or negative.

    Zoloft affects chemicals in the brain that cialis 10 mg may become unbalanced and cause depression, panic, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive symptoms. In inclusion, the right nutrients are what are known as PDE-5 inhibitors, which cause blood to flow to the penis during sexual arousal after the pill has been taken. cheap generic tadalafil and levitra typically work within an hour after taking the pill. https://unica-web.com/watch/2014/list.html 5mg cialis online The main symptoms of this disease include delusions, hallucinations, bizarre behavior, disorganized speech, and other negative symptoms. Hallux rigidus (HR) is tadalafil super active acute or chronic inflammation of the stomach -gastritis, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and Barrett’s Esophagus.

  1. For positive posts, a potential member/attendee sees good things about the congregation.  Pictures make an even greater impact.
  2. For positive posts, having individual feedback on the congregation can be more effective than the “insider” church website.  Today’s seekers take individual reviews of a product, place, or service more seriously than the “advertising” of the “seller”.
  3. For positive or negative posts, the leadership gets a chance to “read the mind” of the blogger.  (Of course, the good blogger knows this …)
  4. For negative posts, the blogger may provide early warning of a problem within the congregation.

There are a few other conclusions to draw from this stream of posts and comments.  It seems to me that my fellow bloggers see me differently than the folks from my congregation.  Some of that has to do with the fact that each side sees me in a different forum – the folks at the church see me in person and the folks online see me only through my writing (more rarely in person).  It feels like the folks from my congregation see me as a nice guy, a little strange, and I have this annoying habit of blogging.  The folks online seem to see me as a thoughtful writer, measured in criticism, sometimes prophetic, and sometimes a bit of a loose cannon.  It really does feel like the folks online understand me better than most in my congregation – the online community has a level of activity and intimacy that is missing in the church model of one to a few times a week interacting in groups.

I’ll be honest – all of this feels a bit like a personal attack to me.  What I’m hearing is “we really like your gifts, but we don’t like the way you’re using this one.”  What I’m feeling is “we want you to be yourself, but not this part of you.”

All of this has me tending toward a decision never to blog about my congregation – good or bad.  There are side-effects of that decision.  This will likely decrease my feeling of being connected to the congregation.  This will likely increase my feeling of being an outsider in the congregation.  It probably won’t hurt my faith, though it will be something of putting at least part of my light under a basket.  This will also reduce my ability to ask others for help with issues that come up through my work in the congregation.

Blogging only the good is not an option for me.  There is no way that my psyche would allow it.  I’m a person with a scientific mind – unchallenged ideas are of little value.

I haven’t made a decision yet, and I value your feedback on it.  I particularly value the feedback of people from my congregation – either here on the blog, in e-mail, or in person.

Tags: , , ,

Comments

5 Comments on Blogging and MY local congregation

  1. Bryce on Thu, 12th Jun 2008 12:01 am

    2. Mark, I am a fellow member of your congregation who knew you first in person and then began reading your blog. I have read your blog faithfully for a few months now and I feel compelled to respond to your most recent post. I have very mixed feelings regarding blogging about our congregation. I believe in the power of open communication and I think that your thoughtful discourse is a huge asset to our congregation. I hope that you choose to continue writing insightful and meaningful posts about your life as an active Presbyterian in today’s contemporary church culture.

    Having said this, I believe the area in which people feel tension surrounds specific stories of conflict that you discuss in your blog. Those involved in the church are able to read very easily between the lines and can sometimes tell who you are speaking about, despite your careful attempts to make it completely anonymous. Sometimes it appears that you seem to be searching for your readers and fellow bloggers (especially those that have zero connection to your congregation) to support and vindicate your choices and your analysis of the conflict. This is inherently not possible in that your readers are only exposed to your reading of any particular situation. The blog and its readers cannot act as moral judge for the blogger.

    In this particular regard I do not believe that your blog is doing the church, or your readers for that matter, a service of good. The blog is most useful when you are able to discuss your congregation in an open way being mindful of ALL perspectives of an issue involved. In situations where this is not possible for the blogger to do, perhaps you could consult with other people involved and ask them to weigh in on your blog (or another blog). This would at least open the reader to see all sides of a situation and a more full, and therefore fair, picture of the conflict.

    I do not see the issues the church has with your blogging as an attack on you personally, but rather as an engaging conversation for dealing with church and community conflict in the Digital Age.

    I know that your presence in our church community is welcomed, and as a faithful and considerate blogger you are helping the church grow into the 21st century. Do not allow these ‘growing pains’ to cause you to run away and hide. Continue your well-needed and very well-appreciated level of activity and continue to challenge your church to grow in faith…

    God bless,
    Bryce

  2. Mark on Thu, 12th Jun 2008 10:12 am

    3. I just want to answer one point in Bryce’s note:

    “The blog is most useful when you are able to discuss your congregation in an open way being mindful of ALL perspectives of an issue involved. In situations where this is not possible for the blogger to do, perhaps you could consult with other people involved and ask them to weigh in on your blog (or another blog). This would at least open the reader to see all sides of a situation and a more full, and therefore fair, picture of the conflict.”

    I have yet to delete a comment on this blog that wasn’t spam. I do require identification on this blog (at least a name and e-mail address) because that’s necessary to prevent spam. That identification doesn’t have to be something that could be used to determine the exact person. I have at least one commenter who hides his identity for very valid reasons, and I wouldn’t know who he is except that he told me in e-mail.

    I welcome discussions by church members here. Unfortunately, very few have been willing to engage me here. For that matter, I have received unsolicited feedback on my blog from only 4 people – all on staff at the church (and you’re not one of them – I consider this feedback solicited by me). I have received solicited feedback from two or three others – one of them you. Most of the “concern” (which may be “complaint”) is expressed anonymously through someone else (on staff), and I only know of one case of that where the blog post in question wasn’t shown to the “concerned” person by a staff member.

    In other words – I’m ready and willing to be told that I’m wrong. I promise to do my best to accept such criticism or correction in the spirit in which it is given, though I am just as fallible as everybody else and may occasionally fail.

    This may say something useful about the nature of disagreement, communications, and conflict within this congregation (and many others).

  3. Jeff V. on Fri, 13th Jun 2008 10:06 am

    4. Mark,

    This is not an anonymous post…I am the infamous Pastor mentioned in your posts!

    Here’s my encouragement: that we Bible Study on blogging. I’m actually serious about that…. Perhaps we could do 1 Corinthians, or another of Paul’s letters. What do you think?

    The questions that seem important to me are…

    How is “building up” the Body of Christ part of a blogger-member’s mission as a Christian and part of the body of Christ – in service to Christ, and building up the community of believers? That’s what seems to be at stake in, e.g., 1 Corinthians. How does my individual right and experience relate to the need to build up the whole? One doesn’t negate the other, but one needs to be conversant with the other, it seems to me.

    How does our Christian faith and ethics in general guide our mode of communicating with each other – blogger or non-blogger?

    Could we construe the scriptures to mean that we not “criticize” the church? Does building up the church preclude our being critical of it? If it is OK to criticize each other and the church, then how are we to offer our criticism (the old fashioned word is “rebuke”) of the church and each other?

    Is there something to your commenter’s proposition that whatever individual or group might be offended by public communication offered in a blog needs to be worked out with that person first, before blogging it…? That person cited Matt. 18:15-17 (excellent guidance here). Might that form a sort of “blog-ethic” in communicating?

    Speaking personally, I must also echo the caution about anonymity. That seems a very thin veil when the community (and its cast of players) is known and very public. People can easily figure out whom you’re speaking about. There also seems to be special sensitivity around children.

    Lastly – to say how you are a gift to the community, Mark; and you have such gifts for service in the church! I offer my encouragement not to feel that anyone is second-guessing, judging, feeling ill-will toward you, or that you have done something wrong. If one (like myself) offers you caution or food for thought, or says, “be careful – saints are fragile!”, that is not a criticism of you or your judgment. *I* need people who give me wisdom and feedback – and I really do seek to listen to it. I would encourage you to do so as well…. To quote the great 60s radio group FireSign Theater, “We’re All Bozos on this Bus” – we’re all learning, and we’re all God’s works-in-progress.

    Again, thanks for your ministry, Mark – and look forward to your receiving further your gifts for service among us.

    My pastoral $.02.

    In Christ’s peace,

    Jeff V.

  4. jodie on Sat, 14th Jun 2008 3:14 pm

    5. Jeff (and Mark),

    If you are talking about a blog bible study about blogging, that would be a welcome difference from pastors who use blogs for vitriol, name calling, and to rant and rave at other pastors and members of other congregations, “devouring each other” over matters of church politics and doctrine.

    As an experimental media I thought at first the internet would provide a rebirth, of sorts, of the kind of thing that happened when the Federalist Papers were first printed, when some of the authors wrote anonymously to let their arguments stand on their own feet and not be influenced by the political weight of the authors. It can still happen, but the ease of word processing doesn’t encourage succinct well-seasoned thinking. People can just bang something out and off it goes. Mud, muck, gold and pearls all mixed together.

    Be that as it may, I think the blog sphere is the last bastion of true democracy and the free marketplace of ideas. In the church or out, with ethical blog owners who are willing to publish opposing points of view provided they remain civil and within the same bounds of normal, if at times passionate discourse, it can be a great media for sharing lessons learned, floating new ideas, vetting old ones, refining minds, and sharing faith journeys.

    One comment about church chatter. Maybe controversial, but try it out for size. It is a long-standing tradition in church life that small groups of people exert strong tangential influence. Big givers threaten to suspend giving if they don’t get their way. Giving is supposedly kept secret, but those “on the inside” always know who they are. Vocal minorities get their way by squeaking loudly. Silent majorities put up with nonsense to keep the peace. A certain lowest common denominator tends to prevail. All of this works by keeping names and details “confidential”. If brutal honesty and complete transparency were allowed, eventually a much deeper and authentic community would ensue. Fussy whiners would grow up, and abusing bullies would be brought under control, and everyone would feel more enfranchised.

    That is not to say we should not be gentle with those who are at times week and fragile. To the contrary. But without transparency, it takes two seconds for people to game the system.

    I am a cross-cultural person, and I recognize that some cultures hold stoic privacy in high regard. People are ashamed of being seen week or naked –metaphorically and literally. But there are other cultures in which nakedness is not something to be ashamed of. These I think are the cultures that experience the deepest sense of community. I would not advocate literally sitting naked in church (the 60s are way past us), but I think we have a long way to go before we can say that we value vulnerable honesty more than stoic privacy and our real faces more than our masked personas. Public feedback is essential to building true community and authentic character. It can be clumsy at first, but with time it will sort itself out.

    Mark’s blog pushes this envelope just a little. I think the apostle Paul would applaud his pushing.

  5. Jeff V. on Mon, 7th Jul 2008 9:54 am

    6. Well said, Jodie, and excellent grist for this virtual mill.

    Jeff V.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!