Boyink! - Spring Forward on the Web

How’s that for an attention-grabbing headline?  Mostly I just wanted to use the phrase namby-pamby to see what kind of search traffic it’ll bring…

Here’s what’s on my mind today - and this is inspired by this thread over at Godbit which is around the issue of, on a church site, having a member blogroll - a list of links to the blogs published by members of the church.  The main issue is around the content of those blogs and how they might or might not reflect well on the church, and what the church might do to mitigate any potential damage through the use of link agreements, positioning statements, review committees, moderators, having the blogroll be located seperately from the main site, etc.

It’s distressing to me, and I think the overall terrible state of church websites can be - partially at least - traced to some of these issues.

It’s funny - I don’t consider myself a rebel, a revolutionary, or a renegade.  I’m just a guy in flip-flops, living in a small ranch house in a conservative community, driving a station wagon, and trying to keep the bills paid.  But this discussion, the ideas being proposed, and the out and out fear behind some of them really surprises me.  That it’s coming from a group of fellow tech and web-heads is also a surprise.  I’ve been involved in similar discussions with less-tech-savvy pastors and church staff and hearing these concerns from that group is no big surprise.  The web is completely and fundamentally changing how we connect and interact with each other and some of those changes are diametrically oppposed to how the church has traditionally functioned.

Here, in no particular order, are some of the fears I’m hearing and my reactions to them.  I apologize if they aren’t quite well-ordered or are repetitive.  This is one of those posts that I need to get out so I can move on to the work I really should be doing…

Your members are doing bad things while not in church (and even while in church).  It’s called sin, and we are all born sinners.  Since I didn’t see the notion of using blogs and comments to correct, uplift, or support each other I can only assume the real concern here is protecting and controlling the public image of the church.

There’s a subtle - yet persistent in all of this discussion - distinction between “the church” and “church members”.  “The church” has an image, “The church” can have official or unofficial support of something, etc.  I don’t see that distinction.  The church members ARE the church - even our kids know this because we teach it to them in Sunday School.  Any time a church building is destroyed by fire you read about the pastor and members saying it was “just a building” and “the church lives on because it’s people live on”. 

I see no way you could post a disclaimer on a church website blogroll saying “the views presented in these blogs may not represent that of the church” - because those bloggers are the church.  Their views may disagree with the views of other parts of the church - but that’s OK because it’s the truth.  I think we need to get over this notion of a church needing to always present a unified front on everything.  It’s just not always true, and trying to hide the fact that it isn’t always true makes us hypocrites.

The internet, blogs, and discussion forums aren’t allowing any new “bad things” to happen.  People are sinning, people are disagreeing with the church teaching and people are saying bad things about the church now.  Yes—right now at work, at a coffee shop, at a small group meeting, on the phone or in email.  Keeping it off the website doesn’t make it go away. In short - you have no control over your church image.  None.  You may think you do, but it’s a facade of control.

Along these lines, I don’t agree with the idea that a church shouldn’t set up a means for open conversation (and yes, disagreement) for it’s members. Disagreement with teaching by leadership should not be discouraged or hidden.  When we do so we are hypocrites - with our happy faces on, smiling for the visitors, pretending all is cool.  And - sometimes leaders are just flat-out wrong and need to be corrected.

Look - the conversation is happening anyway, it’s more of a decision to be part of it or not, and to be able to provide (on the part of a pastor) direct input, teaching, and correction to the conversation.  I think if more churches don’t start doing this they will quickly find themselves set aside, outmoded, and irrelevant (and isn’t that - being relevant - what so many churches are after these days?).

I just have to wonder - what’s the real fear here?  If the image of the church is tarnished (and is the the big C or little c church we’re concerned for) - then what?  Fewer people come, donations shrink, and staff members have to be let go?  We lose the church building?  Why is our primary concern for the church image rather than our effectiveness at the task the church was charged with?  Why do we what-if all the negatives but not what-if the positives?

What could (or would) your church do if it had nothing to lose?  No building, no staff, no “image”, no worldly possession of any sort?  If it’s different than what you’re doing now, should it be?

I think the church has to go down these paths.  We’ve got to get comfortable with providing places for open and public discussion.  We’ve got to realize that the internet is going to prevent the traditional heirarchies of power and knowledge from being the norm going forward.  We’ve got to get over the impulse to control, and spin, and hide our people.  We’ve got to realize that people will find a place to have their say - and the internet gives them an unlimited audience regardless if we like it or not. 

Recommended reading:
The Cluetrain Manifesto for Churches
Church Web Sites Are Easy
We Know More Than Our Pastors (PDF) by Tim Bednar

 

Comments are closed, but you can read the comments other people left.

1. Daniel on July 19, 2007

   Boyink, You bring up some excellent points. I think this is common issue with churches in general. There are churches that have your point of view. Unfortunately they don’t seem to be as successful outside of large cities. Here in San Francisco we have the MCC church that accepts people are sinners and help them to strive to live better lives. Even here though many people feel that MCC is too liberal and not “churchy” enough.

   It seems church goers feel their church must have that conservative and judgmental look on life. I single woman who has a baby out of marriage can still be a good Christian. And her one decision shouldn’t reflect poorly on the church. In fact it should reflect positivity on the church, because she can show how she was able to overcome the adversity of raising a child by herself and still follow church teachings.

   I think when more churches figure this out they will be more relevant in todays society.

2. Kristi on July 20, 2007

   Hi Boyink,  I came actually over from the forum.  I appreciate your post, and I can tell that it comes from a heart passionate for sincerity and honesty of Christians that brings God his due glory.  I also appreciate your blog and site (great portfolio)!

   I don’t think I started the discussion over there out of those fears you mentioned.  Useless piety and shallow dogmas protecting public images disgust me (and we know God has disdain for them as well).  I agree with a lot of what you said, and I do think that the body of Christ is called in this age to reach out and share God via the internet.  I agree that “the conversation is happening anyway,” but I don’t necessarily think that this is the main reason for our calling to engage in it.  I suppose my main concern (when I mentioned “opening cans of worms”) had more to do with the church fostering more “online community” than face-to-face/arm-to-arm/voice-to-voice conversation.  I know they way God wired us relationally rubs roughly against the way many of us spend our free time, which is in front of a screen.

   I should have been more clear when I posted the question; maybe I could have shared that some of the reservations I had also had to do with the concern for neglecting the more personal means of sharing the gospel.

   Thanks again and God bless!

   (PS) Your spam comment protection box required me to write “hell86” in it.  I hope that has no significant meaning! (kidding)

3. Mike Boyink (Author) on July 21, 2007

   Hi Kristi - thanks for the comments.

   Here’s the thing about online communities - and I’ve seen it in every (successful) one that I’ve been a part of:

   One natural outcome of a good online community is people getting together offline.

   As you say - it has to do with how we are wired.  I see in the online Jeeping communities I’ve been part of (heck, I’ve driven 14 hours *each way* on a weekend to meet people in person that I’ve gotten to know online. 

   I’ve read that the teleconferencing industry fights this as well - companies that implement teleconferencing programs actually see their travel costs rise rather than descrease - because the technology brings people together that normally otherwise wouldn’t, and then the natural desire is to visit in person.

   For the church - I certainly wouldn’t look at the online side as an alternative to what they are doing now—as I agree we don’t want to replace face to face interaction with digital.  But definitely do it alongside those other outreach modes, and be confident in the fact that if it’s successful people will end up in face to face relationships as a result.

4. Frank Johnson on July 21, 2007

   Mike:

   I think the real concern here is a loss of control on the part of leadership. So much of church leadership these days is concerned with control and it fosters the fear you talk about here.

   Unfortunately, some leaders (perhaps many) in the church today started down the path to becoming pastors because of their insecurities and the promise of control. Our leadership has been steeped in the concept that they are supposed to control every part of the life of the church - in many ways, that’s their identity. If they lose that control, they lose their identity. It’s insecurity that is driving much of the hesitation to allow what you’re advocating.

5. Robert Lombardi on August 29, 2007

   I can understand the concerns of the leadership. The church is supposed to be a light to the world, and the leaders are responsible before God for their management of it. I don’t know what kind of bad messages are put on these members blogs, but I can imagine a situation where member X is furious over something and feels compelled to gossip, slander about the leadership or other members. Now, because this is broadcast on the church’s website, the church members are somewhat responsible for authorizing the broadcast of this slander through a website that was supposed to be an encouraging and loving outreach to the community and members.

   Biblically speaking, Scripture requires that person to bring his problems in private, to the person who has offended him. If that doesn’t work, bring two or three witnesses to help resolve the conflict. If that doesn’t work, then the elders and finally the entire church becomes involved, but only at the last step. Scripture, being God breathed, is very wise to take incremental steps from privacy to full disclosure.

   With the blog going through the main website, you risk conflicts being immediately broadcast to the entire congregation and world. Scripture does support the elders and leaders of the church to be ordained as mediators and counselors in these conflicts. You can call it information control, but I think it’s just common sense, wise handling of conflict between two parties. Like you said, we are all sinners and by broadcasting these sins through the churches main website, everyone is tempted to join in the sin. The Bible repeatedly warns of the evils of the tongue.

   “The words of a gossip are like choice morsels;
       they go down to a man’s inmost parts.”
   Proverbs 18:8

   “The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, 8but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.” James 3:6-8

   By controlling the words broadcast at the church’s website, they are in a way, controlling and taming the tongue and therefore obeying scripture. This is good.

6. Mike Boyink (Author) on August 29, 2007

   “I don’t know what kind of bad messages are put on these members blogs,”

   Who said there were?

   “By controlling the words broadcast at the church’s website, they are in a way, controlling and taming the tongue and therefore obeying scripture. This is good.”

   Uh, show me in the Bible where it says the role of the church is to tame the tongue.

7. Mike Boyink (Author) on August 29, 2007

   Actually, this thought…

   “but I can imagine a situation where member X is furious over something and feels compelled to gossip, slander about the leadership or other members”

   ...completely proves the point I had when posting this article. 

   Churches are “choosing to imagine” bad things happening vs. trusting God to use these new technologies in ways that we can’t even imagine.

8. Robert Lombardi on August 29, 2007

   “Who said there were?”

   I would imagine that their concern is that bad material would be broadcast. There’s no point in be concerned about good material.

   “Uh, show me in the Bible where it says the role of the church is to tame the tongue.”

   Let’s be clear that this isn’t just church employees. These are church elders and leaders. They are the authority of the local church. They are to edify, and discipline church members.Scripture is full of instructions in the Old and New Testament that speak of the elders responsibility to instruct and discipline the church members. This is their God given role. Too often, in America, church leaders are robbed of their authority and demoted to people who just organize programs and serve church members whatever they want. But this isn’t the complete picture of church leadership that is displayed in Scripture. They have authority under heaven to discipline church members, and church members are under a God given obligation to obey the leadership, especially when they are acting in accordance with Scripture. Taming the tongue is in accordance with Scripture, and the warnings we see in Scripture suggest that this issue is not to be taken lightly. A spark can set an entire forest on fire. Or put another way, a single person can put a whole church and community on fire. Considering the high risk and gravity of the consequences warned by Scripture, I think their concern is more than reasonable and it can be considered a good decision not to have every member broadcast through the main website.

   On the other hand, it could be a blessing to have member blogs. They could simply have a disclaimer that says that the opinions of the members blogs do not necessarily agree with the church as a whole.

   And finally, church leadership can just accept that they might need to discipline members who are causing problems. At the very least, the old fashioned black list. But I think it’s definitely worth a go. They might actually help to foster more fellowship and closer communication between church members and build new friendships among members.

9. Rob Lombardi on August 29, 2007

   “Churches are “choosing to imagine” bad things happening vs. trusting God to use these new technologies in ways that we can’t even imagine.”

   We don’t have to imagine bad things. The truth is they happen. And the Scripture warns of the gravity of the situation. It’s very serious.

   ““The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, 8but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.” James 3:6-8

   But I agree with you, it can be a blessing. But it depends on each local church to know their members and whether it will work in their situation or not. It only take a spark, one person, to set the whole place on fire. For some, perhaps many churches, it might not be wise to provide everyone with a platform that could be used to poison the entire church. But I think it’s manageable if the administration of this blog roll is careful to monitor and take measures to remove members from the blog roll that abuse the privilege. But for some churches, with limited staffing, it might not be something they want to dedicate resources too. Perhaps, given priorities, there are other ministries that require resources.

Back to Article