The New PC(USA) Moderator on blogging

June 23, 2008 by
Filed under: Religion, Web/Tech 

Bruce Reyes-Chow, the brand-new Moderator of the PC(USA), spoke about blogging in his post-election interview.  He spoke about the Internet and blogging in particular.

Reyes-Chow, a 39-year-old San Francisco pastor, husband and the father of three daughters between the ages of four and 11, said that blogging and using Facebook and other social networking sites “is part of my  way of being, how we naturally engage with people.”

He believes being transparent and prolific will “help people  feel invited to participate in the church in new way.”

He also recognizes people have “concerns about why we share so openly,” especially on the occasion when he places his political views online.

“I see something and I think, ‘That’ll blog,’ and I put it  on,” he said.

It contains vitamin B5, B6, and D, all of which work together to boost buy viagra generic sexual drive. Through a combination of manual adjustment, soft tissue therapy, and trigger point therapy – while medical viagra lowest prices students move on to individual specialties. This is a vital knowledge about the medicine then first best viagra pill take all the possible information on any entertaining event in the Austin city. This happens when the blood is not levitra prices supplied properly to the penile organ.

During his campaign for moderator, someone asked Reyes-Chow if he could tell the person something about himself that could not already be found on his blog. “Not really,” Reyes-Chow said. “I am an open book, pretty much. I am excited about connecting with folks and using my spiritual practice of blogging.”

It sounds like Bruce has more or less the same view of blogging that I do.  Compare this to what I wrote a while back (after a very different emotional experience than Bruce’s):

As I have written, some of my most important core values are honesty, openness and authenticity.  When my pastor asked me, “Is there anybody that you run your blog posts by before you post them?” it hit me hard.  Most of you agree that I may have a been a little too open and have said one thing
out of frustration that you wouldn’t have said, but that it’s my blog and that I’m being careful enough by leaving out names.  …  One of the things that I love most about Camp Johnsonburg is that you truly can be yourself – warts and all – and you will be accepted (and even loved).  Some folks have rougher edges than others, and it IS possible to get too far outside of the bounds of acceptable behavior for camp, but for the most part it’s a place where 90% of the folks who come there feel at home.  I expect that from the local congregation too – after all, isn’t that what we’re called to do?  I realize that this may be an unrealistic expectation, even if it is a valid expectation.

I’m glad to see that someone else sees the usefulness of transparency in our community.  (Note – other commenters here have said the same thing – this is just the first time I’ve seen it in a press article.)

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments

7 Comments on The New PC(USA) Moderator on blogging

  1. Shawn Coons on Mon, 23rd Jun 2008 11:53 am

    2. Mark,

    As someone who reads your blog and reads Bruce’s blog I see a difference in the “transparency” that you two have. Bruce doesn’t seem to blog about specific criticisms of people (by name of any other identifying characteristic) or his church. I know Bruce must have frustrations at time about his congregation and the people in it. Maybe he has less than the average pastor but I know he must have them. But he keeps it off his blog.

    I’ve never talked to him about this but I would guess because he thinks its probably not his right to be revealing about other people on his blog. I think the transparency that Bruce talks about is his openness to revealing himself. When you blog about specific things that happened at your church or specific people there you are now giving all your readers impressions of these events or people. As an outsider I have no idea what’s going on, and while I know and respect you I also know there are many perspectives to every happening.

    Being open and transparent is great. But when you venture into the territory of writing details about other people’s events and motivations then you have to be really careful. I try never to blog anything about my church unless it is positive, and then in general terms. I don’t want anyone in my church fearful that something they said or did will end up on my blog and embarrass them.

    I don’t have a Bible in front of me to find the specific passage but I am reminded of the passage where it says that if someone has sinned against you then you go to them. If they don’t listen bring a couple of people. If they still don’t listen then you can bring it before the church. The larger community outside the church isn’t involved in that progression.

    Just my $.02

  2. Mark on Mon, 23rd Jun 2008 12:15 pm

    3. The passage that you’re looking for is Matthew 18:15-17.

    Why do you assume that I didn’t follow steps 1 (talk to the person) and 2 (take a few others and talk to the person)?

    I interpret the “church” in that passage as what we refer to as The Church – the group that includes all followers of Jesus. Jesus didn’t have a building or Session or even a congregation when he said that.

  3. Shawn Coons on Mon, 23rd Jun 2008 2:06 pm

    4. I never said that you didn’t do steps 1 or 2. My point was that nowhere in that process is there a general airing to the public. There may not have been churches as we know it at that point but there were distinct communities of believers, and I believe that the intent of that passage was to limit the scope where the complaint was aired.

  4. Mark on Mon, 23rd Jun 2008 2:20 pm

    5. Two questions. For the purpose of these questions I’ll temporarily accept your stipulation that “the church” in Matthew 18 is referring to a congregation.

    1. What if the offender IS the church? Or something synonymous with the church, like a major committee or the Session?

    2. How exactly would one go about implementing “If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church;” (Matt 18:17a) in today’s world? Ask for time during worship? Request space in the newsletter? Stand up and shout in the coffee hour? Pastors have church-wide outlets for their thoughts, ideas, complaints and exhortations. I don’t think members do – by design.

    End of temporary stipulation.

    How about verse 20 – “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” How does that apply to the Internet church blogging community? Are we a church? Are we The Church?

    Last – I believe that you are concentrating on the few negative posts about my church. You’ve ignored MANY others. Taken as a whole, I think it’s a fair representation of our congregation.

  5. Mark on Mon, 23rd Jun 2008 2:22 pm

    6. Another question:

    At what point does my personal experience cease to be something that is bloggable in your eyes? When do I have to muzzle myself because someone else might be able to identify themself in the story?

  6. Jon on Thu, 26th Jun 2008 1:17 pm

    7. You mentioned Biblical parallels. To me an interesting comparison would be Paul’s polemic in his letters and as described in Acts. Paul (1) confronted leaders specifically when he disagreed with them; (2) sometimes acknowledged public arguments with other leaders; and (3) polemicized against those with whom he disagreed, but without using their names (“Judaizers,” for instance).

    I kind of just consider it bad form to complain about people with whom I live, work, etc., in a public forum. Will I talk about my kids’ teachers on a blog? My boss? Coworkers? Probably not. I sort of figure, if they wouldn’t want it to be public, I will try not to make it so.

  7. Mark on Thu, 26th Jun 2008 1:23 pm

    8. Yeah, I’m looking at Galatians 2 – particularly the part where Paul talks about his disagreement with Peter.

    I think Paul was the first church blogger. Some might say that he didn’t make things public – he just sent them to a particular church. To that I say – I didn’t know you were a Galatian, Corinthian, Ephesian and Roman.

    Did Paul break the Matthew 18 injunction by mentioning his disagreements with other leaders to 3rd parties?

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