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