13 Comments on Blogging and the local congregation

Alan on Thu, 5th Jun 2008 4:59 pm


I can’t imagine any reason why anyone would care, as long as you’re responsible (and I can’t imagine anyone would seriously worry about that!)

I’ve posted about our congregation and the PCUSA many times and I link to our congregation’s website, the PCUSA, and MLP. In addition, I’ve been outspoken on other folks’ blogs as well. Yet, I’ve never had a single person in our congregation talk to me about my blog. Either they don’t know, or they don’t care (nor should they.) My pastor knows, but doesn’t care (nor should he.)

Again, I honestly do not understand what the big deal is about your blog. I honestly don’t want to seem rude (and this question isn’t meant to be rude) but are these people all 98 years old and simply don’t understand the Internets? Or do they just have nothing better to worry about? Most congregations are seeking out as many ways as possible to maintain a diverse web presence (blogs, websites, podcasts, videocasts, etc., etc.), yet your congregation seems to want to treat the ‘net like a box full of angry bees.

Yes, we all know about the horrible blog train-wrecks out there in which Pastors frankly embarrass themselves, their congregations, the PCUSA, and Jesus Christ on an almost daily basis. But if folks in your congregation bothered to spend more than 30 seconds reading your blog, that wouldn’t be a concern, I think.

Quotidian Grace on Thu, 5th Jun 2008 6:21 pm


When I started my blog I was employed as a part-time staff member of my church. I had been inspired to begin blogging after attending a Christian Educators conference where the keynote speaker spent a lot of time talking about using the internet as a tool for educators and pastors. I told both pastors and the staff about the blog when I began it and everyone was very supportive.

I made a rule for myself that if I couldn’t say something nice about something or someone my church, I wouldn’t say anything at all. The down side of that is appearing to be a witless cheerleader, but I didn’t want the blog to become controversial but a tool for communicating with the congregation (among other audiences). I did, and have, reserve the right to express my opinion on happenings in the PCUSA, however. That has not been a problem.

This year I have been constrained from posting about some events in the presbytery because of my role as Moderator. I made one inadvertent mis-step this year posting about something and learned later that the presbytery had not communicated yet to the people involved, so I apologized and have been careful about that since then.

When people at presbytery or at church make remarks about my posts to me in person, I’m reminded who my real-life readers are. And that is a good thing.I have emailed posts to people at church or the presbytery when I want to be sure they heard about it from me (sometimes they don’t know I blog) and not from someone who makes a remark to them and then they are surprised. I’ve always had good responses about doing that. I think that is important because then they don’t feel that I’ve been “talking behind their back”, so to speak. Sometimes they start reading the blog regularly, but mostly they don’t but are happy I shared the post with them.

Hopefully your congregation can appreciate your blog as an expression of your faith and walk with Christ and with them. I agree with Alan that a review of your archived posts should alleviate their concerns about it.

Mark on Thu, 5th Jun 2008 9:20 pm


Thank you both for your comments. I invite others to comment.

I feel … compelled … to state that the blog owner is not responsible for the content or vehemence of other who choose to comment on the blog. 🙂

jodie on Fri, 6th Jun 2008 1:46 am


To answer the question, I don’t think any of the non-anonymous bloggers that I’ve come across talk about their own congregations. I am anonymous (though you know who I am) and I still only talk to other bloggers about the topics they choose to talk about. When they let me.

So, bottom line, there is little data from which to respond. I think some people feel intimidated and most people don’t care. Churches have all types of people, and no matter what you do or say, someone will always make sure to tell you it was wrong and could have been better. What you have to decide is whether and how, as a leader in the congregation, you plan to modulate your life in response to the vocal feedback of the few.

Sara on Mon, 9th Jun 2008 10:07 pm


We need to determine how to use the time we are given. We can take that time and complain or we can lift up the great gifts we are given. When posting a blog you are given that same choice but you have no control who reads what or when. It is for the individual to choose but everyone needs to realize that the most critical part of a blog is to be anonymous. If we are mentioning names and places that can allow people to “connect the dots” you open yourself and others up to criticism which may or may not be intentional. By mentioning the church you attend and then say that your pastor talked to you it is very easy to find out who that is. I think it’s important while writing to know that whoever you specifically bring into the blog you have then given permission to have a say either in the blog or in person. Good or bad, maybe we should only discuss in detail the things we won’t be offended by if others respond to it? If we are talking about how we can’t stand a person who has made us feel uncomfortable we need to be ready to accept that they may read it and respond. Jodie’s comment that “someone will always make sure to tell you it was wrong and could have been better” needs to apply not only to the congregants who are being written about but the blog writers too. How are we to be leaders of a congregation and the people who are judging them for not being perfect? How can we change when we are not even comfortable enough with ourselves to open up to what may be hard and different? At what point do you draw the line? My Sunday school classes always taught us that only God was perfect but for the life of me I try to fit others in that same role. I try to make others fit into roles that not even I can live up to. I am not perfect and I do make decisions on impulse more than I should but I still have faith in my church and the members of it to help guide me on my journey of faith. We shouldn’t blame the church for what it has failed in but ask how we as members can get it to the place that we feel it should be and that needs to start within ourselves.

Mark on Tue, 10th Jun 2008 8:42 am


Sara,

Are you saying that we should never criticize the church? That we should only talk about the positives and ignore the negatives?

Or are you saying that we should never criticize the church on a blog?

How can we improve the church if we are unwilling to hold it accountable for mistakes? How accurate is a “rose-colored glasses” picture of a congregation?

I totally agree with your words on the need for the blogger to accept the consequences of what is written – intended or unintended. I take that very seriously. In blogging about the church (good or bad) I know that the consequences could eventually go so far as to cause separation of me from the church. On the other hand, the consequences of stifling criticism or emotion could have the same effect.

Christine Kooi on Tue, 10th Jun 2008 1:53 pm


I don’t think the blog–a public forum–should be the first place to air criticism or frustration, particularly once you become a church officer; instead problems should be first worked out privately among the affected parties (see Matt. 18:15-17). Nor should it be a place to vent frustration about whatever obstacles or difficulties you may face as a member of the diaconate. There’s already way too much unedited criticism and backbiting going on in the Presbyterian blogosphere. That said, I think constructive criticism is a perfectly legitimate use of the blog.

Mark on Tue, 10th Jun 2008 2:27 pm


As far as venting frustration about what happens as I serve as a deacon, I quote what I wrote in this main post:

“I believe that I have shown an adequate track record of handling sensitive information (within the youth group or Project Open Door, for a few examples) while blogging about the church.”

Obviously this is my personal opinion. I feel (yes, feel) that I’m not being given credit for good judgment in my past handling of sensitive issues. When I’ve said that to the folks expressing concern, I get a reply along the lines of “No, no. That’s not it. We’re just concerned.”

Christine,

Do you feel that it is always improper to offer an opinion on the blog first? What if it’s a good opinion? How about a bad opinion? How bad is too bad? Is it OK to write about something that slightly irks you as opposed to something that upsets you?

Is there any place for feelings on a non-anonymous blog? How about feelings about being in community?

Christine Kooi on Tue, 10th Jun 2008 2:52 pm


Speaking personally, if I discovered that a fellow church officer or congregant blogged to the whole world (or at least that part with internet access) about a problem he or she might have with me before talking with me about it, I would feel hurt and angry.
Shouldn’t feelings about being in community start within that community first?

Mark on Tue, 10th Jun 2008 4:39 pm


Some examples:

A) The deacons did a really good job with Deacon Sunday. The sermon was great and meant a lot to me.

B) Our pastor ran a bit long with his sermon this week, and it caused the whole service to run long. It was a really good service, but maybe they could have used a shorter hymn in order to keep the service on track.

C) In Fellowship Hall last week, I was approached by another member. She said something that really got me torked. I can’t believe her gall.

I submit that A and B are fine to post without talking to the folks involved first. C does require an attempt to talk to the appropriate people first.

Sara on Fri, 27th Jun 2008 7:53 am


I think that first and foremost we need to think about where this criticism is coming from. If you have never talked to the Pastor about the length of his sermon or the great preaching that was done by a deacon, plus or minus I think that blogging can be used ( not necessarily by you 😉 ) as a passive aggressive way to complain about something that a person isn’t comfortable about saying in person. While we all make mistakes and may blog about something that we would rather take back at a later date, we can’t. The main difference between a blog and talking to people is that when “you” blog it is there as a permanent reminder of the wrong that was done. While we as a congregation may have moved on the hurt is still there for everyone to re-live. When we concentrate on blogging about negative and lose sight of the positive we end up losing the message that is supposed to be conveyed. We are told to “turn the other cheek” and take the good and bad of following Christ, so maybe the sermon ran long, is that something that needs to be talked about? What about the message that was conveyed? Maybe we should be trying to be the force of good in the world when everyone else sees the negative. It is so easy to look at anything and see the fault with it before the blessing, maybe that is where we are all going wrong with this entire discussion. We have missed the blessing of how we are all actively debating what we should be doing as Christians to be truthful to the Gospel but also truthful to our church in who we are.

I understand Mark’s point about how difficult it is to put out your feelings in a public forum and then to feel judged by what is written. I would feel hurt if all of a sudden someone came up to me and told me to edit the way that I feel and what I think. On the other hand there is the “blogee” to think about. How would your mother feel if she read a blog where you talk about how she is getting old and she had no intelligence? While you may feel comfortable sharing your “opinion” would she feel good after reading that message even if she knows that in her heart?

One of the greatest things that Trevor Buser, a seminary intern, told me was to look at everyone and everything as a creation of God. I will be the first to say that it is easier said than done. For better or worse we need to realize that sharing our feelings at the expense of someone else is not the way to go no matter where that is, in person or in a blog. Is the meaning to improve the old or trash it, to talk about your feelings or hurt someone else’s? There are many good examples that have been posted about the good experiences and my only point is that we should look at the bad in the same way, perhaps a place to improve instead of where we went wrong. No blog is perfect but maybe we can start the dialogue of what can be accomplished if we blogged about ideas for improvement within the church and leave the criticism to those who are not members.

Mark on Fri, 27th Jun 2008 10:32 am


I hear 3 things in Sara’s note:

1. The bloggee is more important than the blogger, when it comes to feelings.
2. You can never publicly criticize anyone or anything in an organization to which you belong. (This is NOT the same as “you have to be prepared for the consequences if you do”.)
3. I keep hearing people saying things like “you can’t take back what you’ve written”. So far, nobody has pointed to one posting and told me “you shouldn’t have written THAT”. This almost seems in itself to be passive-aggressive. “We don’t like what you’re doing, but we won’t confront you directly on it.” All I get is vague “do you think about what you post before you post it”.

If you don’t like something I’ve written, SAY SO. Tell me in person, put it in comments, put it on your own blog. That’s how bloggers operate. I don’t know of any blogger who allows comments who is not expecting to be criticized at some point. Honestly, I feel that this is a more honest way to discuss things – to have each side say what they think clearly and to the point. We’re doing an awful lot of protecting of feelings of people who are unnamed and unwilling to stand up for what they think.

Sara on Wed, 2nd Jul 2008 5:21 am


By no means did I say that someone’s feelings are more important than someone else’s. The only thing to remember in a blog is that we are seeing the world from your side only and the other person’s perspective isn’t always known or voiced. From what I am reading here, you want to be criticized and expect it but when has made any point to discuss your blog you seem to get really defensive and seem to feel violated. Either you take the criticism or you ignore it, why do we need to then blog about the criticism you have received? The point I am trying to make is that if you are writing about someone and they never hear it you are still talking about someone behind their back. You are not really addressing the issue and now you have also told the internet what has happened and possibly given a way for others to figure out who you are talking about.

If you are trying to gain the respect and trust of people who read this and the people who know you personally, just remember that they may find it hard to confront you in person about the topics you post for fear that they will end up as another story as some nameless person on a blog. Just look how you have posted about the criticism that that you received so far, for people who may not know you the way I do they may think they will receive the same response. I have heard that there are people who only read your blog to make sure they aren’t on it. So since you can’t have it all, we all need to think about some things. Is it worth it to you to write something negative and then have to listen to all the criticism afterward? Does it solve your concerns or fix the problem you are blogging about? Why do you choose to publicly talk about the people who have hurt you? Does all of this belong in a place where our call as Christians is to love our neighbors?

I would love to talk more about this in person at some date and maybe we agree to disagree. See ya soon!

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