19
Does your church have a “blog policy”?
Posted on May 19th, 2008 in Church Life by Fred McKinnon
Hey Everyone,
For those of you who are on staff with a church, or even for those in business who may “blog” about your business … does your organization have an “official” or “unofficial” blog policy?
We’ve been discussing this at my church lately. As an active web2.0 dude, I blog about church all the time, and some of the worship confessional videos find their way onto the top results of Google because they’ve been “tagged” to reflect our church.
In retrospect, we’ve discovered some things from time to time that come up as top results in search engines for our church that maybe don’t necessarily reflect who we are in a way that we’d prefer. For example, maybe we’ll make a joke about something in a video, but later realize it could be taken out of context and could cast a negative impression of who we are. (let’s just suffice it to say we’ve put our foot in our mouth more than once!)
So, there’s been some discussion on what parameters need to be established for church staff on what they blog, how they link to the church, etc. It’s not an effort to censure or prohibit creativity; rather, a genuine look at how we can make sure that we give a unified, correct vision for what we’re doing.
How about it – do you have a blog policy, formal, or informal? Let’s hear about it.
Fred
Related posts:
39 Responses to “Does your church have a “blog policy”?”
Would you join in the discussion? Checkout the responses below, and click "reply" to reply to someone's comment, or scroll all the way to the bottom of the page to leave your own comment in the box!
Good question.
I’m assuming you are referring to only paid staff though. We only have one paid staff at our church, but we don’t have any policy in place either way.
I understand what your concerns are, but I’m not sure I’d want to be part of any policy in that regard. It’s sort of akin to the Catholic church deciding what’s proper and what’s not in my opinion.
I can see “official” church blogs being under some sort of scrutiny in what they produce, but blogs of church officials should never be under the same limitations.
We can’t help but be human and make mistakes, but if your leaders don’t have discretion perhaps they shouldn’t be leaders, right?
I hear ya, Russell …
The whole thought of it gives me the heebie jeebies, but at the same time, what if the content you are blogging is directly linking to (so, as a result, seemingly “officially of”) the church? In other words, in my case – I have a disclaimer on my blog, but folks who watch a video Worship Confessional on YouTube may never see that disclaimer, and even if they did – do they care? At that point, it seems to be more about our CHURCH than about ME.
I think ultimately, to talk about the issue and work through it could be fruitful. I’m confident in our leadership team to work through it all, with me in the process .. but that’s the whole point of this blog … I’m reaching out to get more feedback from others in the blog community. Thanks for chiming in!
FRED
Hmm interesting question. Seeing how unfortunately most of my staff doesn’t even know what a blog is unless I send it their way, it hasn’t come up.
I have always assumed that church’s should have something like that. That’s why I try to keep my more ‘doctrinal’ or at least controversial blogs over at my ‘heat & light’ site, for which there are no links from my ‘worship blog’ (linked above). Even then I try pay specific attention to our doctrinal statement to be sure I say nothing out of line with our statement of belief on any of my blogs. I think it’s only right to represent our body accurately, and in a good light, ya know? Lastly, if something were to appear in a blog of mine which was directly linked to the church and seemed questionable, I think we all should be more than willing to withdraw it so it doesn’t cause trouble. That’s my take on it.
Shannon,
Exactly what I’ve done – there was nothing doctrinal whatsoever, just joke remarks that without knowing the context, could be taken in a way that doesn’t work out. Both were from YouTube vidoes of worship confessionals, which have been removed.
We don’t have one, but I do know that a lot of people from church read my blog.
Fred,
I’d be super interested to hear what you guys come up with. Our unofficial blog policy is essentially “be mindful” which I always am, regardless of if there’s a policy or not.
Despite being deliberate about my posting, I have experienced many negative comments about my blog over the last few years. In all except one occasion the people were upset because they didn’t read the whole post or took what I said out of context. (On the one unique occasion I took the post down.)
Because you can’t control how people take things it is impossible to be completely non-offensive.
The only options I see here are not blogging or removing all references/links to the church from your blog.
Firstly, great post topic.
Second, we have no blogging policy, specifically, but we do have a policy concerning unity outside the office environment. That most definitely includes blogging, as well as offline conversations with members, visitors, and everyone else.
For me personally, I have zero links and minimal mentions of my church. The great thing is that I don’t post on theological issues very often anyway. My blog is more of a commentary on technology and web trends.
However, when referencing my church or my business (updatable.cc), I always use positive language and commentary.
[...] post that I think us church-technology-interweb types ought to consider and hash through. Please go over and chime in with your thoughts and experiences. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS [...]
It is an interesting thought. I think coming up with a what if list might be a little overboard and nitpicky.
I think any person on a church staff should represent themselves in a light that is pleasing to God and exemplifies thier fiath and church. I dont think it has to agree with the church, but i think it needs to respect it.
Really it should be a common sense policy…
“hey staff…on your blogs…don’t curse, so vids of you drinking, and avoid posting pics of nude women.”
common sense. my 2 cents
I do not say anything that I would not feel comfortable saying with a group of people at coffee. It is me. It is not me in a pulpit. But, it is the “real” me, without too many filters. Otherwise, why even blog?
If a church cannot trust you to blog and have judgment enough to deal with your mistakes, missteps as you would have in any endeavor, then why work for that church? Either you are not qualified and rightfully untrustworthy or that church is no place for “real” people and sucking the life out of you anyway.
Not that I have an opinion or anything…
I think this is a good discussion.
We don’t have anything in place, but it would be good for us to talk about it as some of our guys get going blogging.
My opinion though is there should not be a policy. I think their is something valuable to the honesty of blogs. A policy might actually hinder some people from being themselves. If they cause issues, their are most likely already employer.employee policies in place that would cover blog issues.
Great post. Two years ago I purchased the communications package from Granger Community Church and it included a blogging “best pracitces” document. We haven’t really implemented it per say, however, I’ve forwarded it to folks who are ministry leaders (lay & staff) who wish to blog. We rely heavily on the common sense of our people who do blog currently.
Looking forward to seeing what you guys come up with!
There are but a few bloggers at my church, and no staff that blog (none with any consistency yet). I/we haven’t even begun to consider a blog policy, but I think it would behoove us to, at the very least, have this discussion.
While most churches will NOT have an explicitly stated blog policy (yet), it seems that there are some unspoken guidelines that some of us are governed by with respect to what kinds of posts are made on our blogs — don’t call people out, no crude jokes or language, watch how you represent your organization, limit specifics, use good judgment and common sense, etc.
There is a fine line in identifying an “official” church blog/site and a “personal” blog/site that has a connection to the church. While we may make strides to help minimize and have some accountability towards what is on such blogs, we cannot expect to get everything right.
It makes sense to discuss and generate some guidelines, but I would hate to have a policy instituted that would stifle creativity and sincerity. Overall, I think there needs to be plenty of “breathing room” with such guidelines, yet maintain a standard of fairness, integrity, accountability, grace, and humility when it comes to content that may be questionable.
Still, we need to remember that we can’t expect to please everyone.
Very cool subject Fred. I think policy = protection for the church/ministry and the employee. But exactly what the policy says is the real question. I’m going to look around for some examples. In the mean time, this post is quite interesting especially the second half: http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/blog-anonymously.php
Great post. Over time, my guess is that more and more churches will set up blog policies, as many corporations have done, although they will likely be looser and perhaps in most cases simply based on scriptural commands regarding love and edification.
Although many of us naturally recoil at the mention of a policy, there can be a good side to it, as well — depends on the policy. As the saying goes, “Freedom is greatest when the boundaries are clearly defined.”
Louisville’s biggest alternative newspaper (The LEO Weekly) recently did a cover story on us (Sojourn) called “Smells Like Holy Spirit” that basically pointed out that while we “do good deeds” in the city, support the arts, help clean up neighborhoods, etc., we’re essentially, in their view “fundamentalists” with “regressive beliefs.”
Did I blog about it? Sure — and put up links. But as a deacon and an unpaid volunteer, I was careful not to offer commentary that would go beyond what our Elders would wish — and in fact, didn’t offer a response at all but merely linked to (and excerpted) our worship arts pastor’s (Mike Cosper) response, which had been agreed upon by all the pastor-elders.
Now, we don’t have a policy yet on that kind of thing — so basically I just made up my own: “let the elders come up with a response, and then print that.” But as the church grows and more and more people are blogging about more and more aspects of the church’s ministries, it might be a good idea to have a policy of some sort, simply to keep everyone on the same page.
Hmmm…Worship Confessional? I’ve never seen anything inappropriate in a worship confessional that I’ve taken note of.
Shannon,
It wasn’t doctrinal things at all – more like, for example, on #15 (now-removed), I made a comment that someone who’d provided breakfast brought “taramasou” (ie. rum cake), and that it was good, and we were “buzzing” on the platform. Obviously, just a joke .. but in retrospect, not in good judgment. So, because of blogging it, and tagging it to our church on YouTube, it was the 4th link down on Page 1 of Google for our church. I can understand why our leadership (myself included) wouldn’t think that was a good representation to the public of who we are. Another complaint was something very similar … one Sunday, someone forgot to bring food for the greenrooom, and someone on the video in the background was joking saying “food, food”, and picked up a tinytown brochure and said “feed the children” … which was taken as an inappropriate joke. (although I qualified the whole scene).
IMHO, neither is a seriously big-deal, but opens our eyes to see how others can perceive us, and encourages me to be more careful what I write or say … not to stifle my style, but I’d try to season my words with “salt” regardless of style, and thing wisdom says “choose carefully what you’d say” at any given time.
We have a few active bloggers at our church. I notice some people use disclaimers on their blogs, but there is no policy that I know of.
Followup…
I’ve read all of the comments so far and love the discussion. I agree that a discussion about blogging is healthy for a church, but I’m almost positive I would have no part of any official policy on my personal blog. If I were staff I would probably consider resigning before I entered into a censorship agreement.
Blogs are simply a reflection of the person behind it. If we are “filtering” our blogs from the real person behind it, we are only faking it to the world. The world needs to know that Christians fail often but keep trying to get it right.
a few bloggers on staff here have been asked to put a disclaimer on their site. i haven’t. i wonder if they read mine… >:)
I think 99.9% of us are not necessarily gonna go out and intentionally post something that sheds a bad light on our church.
Of course there is the occasional gaff. Sometimes we might say something in frustration or even in jest that is taken way out of context and blown into epic proportions.
I would also add that if one’s personal beliefs (doctrinally) are at opposite ends of the spectrum than your “church’s” then why the heck would you be on staff?
Not that that affects anyone specifically in the conversation, but in my opinion if a church has to put in place a policy that dictates a list of do’s and don’ts for PERSONAL blogging, that’s a wee bit overboard. Why not just suggest a general set of guidelines for representing the church.
Common sense dictates that this should include while blogging.
Maybe it could read something like this:
Don’t make a donkey out of yourself and those you serve and work with when you’re out in the public’s eye.
Anne, after all your “boobie” posts you can bet that disclaimer request is on it’s way.
Hey Ya’ll .. thanks so much for you comments (and yes, Anne, I bet you would have some requests, especially after TODAY’s post, haha!) … I hope most of you are “subscribed to comments” and come back to keep the discussion going.
Special thanks to Pete over at http://transitionpete.org/blog/?p=1535
He graciously gave up blog space to ask people to come here and comment … a huge, selfless act, thanks man .. so ya’ll go visit HIS SITE too!
I am hopeful that this information will prove vital to those involved in our discussion, and will also be fruitful in my upcoming Worship+Web2.0 workshop this summer at the National Worship Leader’s Conference in Austin, TX (oops, did I just let the cat out of the bag in a COMMENT?!)
Interesting comments. Do you (anyone who cares to answer) think that if the blog is part of an official church ministry website, a policy would be more appropriate or necessary than if it were your personal blog?
[...] http://www.fredmckinnon.com/myblog/2008/05/19/blog-policy/ [...]
I’ve been thinking about this for a day or so (since you posted) and here are my completely unfinished thoughts on the matter. I see it as a trust issue. Look at it like this:
1. Does the church in question have a policy in place, on paper, that defines acceptable public behavior by its employees and representatives? If non, then why implement a blog policy? If we trust our representatives to act appropriately in public, shouldn’t we expect the same in the blogosphere?
2. Does the church in question have a written policy about what can and cannot be said during sermons, Bible studies, and other similar situations? If not, then why place the same sort of limits on a blogger? If they are trusted enough to stand before the people and proclaim the good news, then why not on the blog?
3. Does the church in question have a written policy on what topics are off-limits whenever said representative has guests over to their home? If not, then again, why the lack of trust in the blog world?
Again, this is just my incomplete thoughts on the matter. I completely realize sometimes bloggers are going to make mistakes, offend someone, say something they shouldn’t have (I know I have at least once), but the church leadership needs to deal with those things on a case by case basis just like they would any other life situation.
That’s my 1 1/2¢!
Jeff,
Great questions. I think it’s important to clarify that this issues at hand aren’t so much about what “I say” … but on how it directly linked back to the church.
In other words, if I said on my blog “I got a buzz from the rum cake”, it would be one thing … however, if I said this and linked it and tagged it to my church and church site, that’s a different idea.
In this case, that’s how it all came about – it wasn’t so much about what I said – it’s the fact that I said it from the church, in my church office, with other church staffers in the background, and tagged it with keywords for my church, thus making it show on as a top ranked hit for our church in search engines.
So, maybe it should be more about a “link policy” than a “blog policy” … then again, I guess it helps demonstrate one’s search engine optimization effectiveness!
PS: Thanks, Russ (www.russhutto.com) for the inbound link to this discussion from your blog.
I gotta say, if the Holy Spirit can’t guide the staff members of a church well enough that they avoid doing stuff to attack the church, they shouldn’t be on staff.
However, there are some things that need to remain behind closed doors, and staff people with blogs should be aware that they are NOT free to disclose things of that nature.
Yeah I enter back in on the discussion with Jeff Miller up there a couple comments back. I know you say it’s different because it’s something said “in office” and linked back to the church,etc. and I suppose that might carry with it more responsibility with it but no more warranting a “policy” than anything else. I know when I’m “out” on Fri and Sat no matter where I am, the first thing someone will say to their friend when they see me is: “Oh hey this is my Worship Leader from Church, Conner!” I mean if that doesn’t frame a context of linking back to the church I don’t know what does? Hahaha.
More thoughts…
First, Amen to Jeff Miller.
Second, I think there is reason for discussion on this topic for the same reason kids need someone to talk to them about MySpace accounts. For some reason we all think these things are private or something. Sometimes we need reminders that these are public and permanent. You may delete something, but it’s always out there in the cyberweb archives.
A reminder of that is a good thing.
Hey Mud, does your wee fella have a myspace account already?
Fred, I see what you’re saying about a “link policy,” but it really doesn’t change my view. Just like WorshipCity was saying, I’m no less connected to my church when I’m out in the community than I would be if I linked directly to my church from my blog.
Granted, a blog has a much wider audience than my personal life, but I think the philosophy remains the same. My public and private life actions are always being watched and judged by people around me, and are often seen in connection to my church. I have a responsibility to live circumspectly, and my church trusts me to act accordingly. I think this transfers to the blogosphere as well.
FYI, I’ll admit to a slight bit of “bitterness” about this kind of thing. Some of my previous ministries had “policies” like this in place, and I learned that it was real easer for the powers that be to just continue adding further policies once the first one was in place. Before long, you’re telling your staff what they can wear, whether they can have facial hair or not, whether they can host a Bible study in their home and what subjects are off limits, etc. etc.
Makes the cliche, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” take on a whole new meaning.
Great discussion, Fred.
Hey Gang,
This *IS* a great discussion. I think it’s important to clarify and add that nobody here at SSCC has “implemented a blog policy” … the leadership simply asked “is there such a thing, or what are other churches do” … and so we decided to post a blog and ask.
I wouldn’t expect the responses to be any less than they are – the thought of a “policy” turns my stomach a bit, too … and I’ve said I think the “policy” should be “be careful, pay attention to what you’re saying, etc”.
At some point, we’ll be discussing all the various discussions, and I’ll be posting the results of the conversations. In a way, it’s a bit of pioneering into new territory ..
Fred, Debbie Weil has a great book called “The Corporate Blogging Book” that looks at a lot of the issues that crop up when employees blog about their businesses, and about how different companies encourage blogging, how some of them set up guidelines, etc.
Obviously issues won’t and shouldn’t always carry over when you’re talking about a church as opposed to, say, GE or Microsoft, but you’ll still find a lot of pertinent information.
wow – i’m coming in this really late. sorry. but i’ve been thinking about this. and i think that we “church” bloggers should consider how we represent our church. i know this might sound crazy. ’cause it sounded crazy to me – at first. then i thought about a church doing a background check on someone before hiring them – considering their character and integrity before hiring them… and i think its fair for a church to want to be represented well by its leaders. i think this might be one of the reasons why James said teachers were held to a higher standard – because teachers have the ability to influence more people.
unfortunately, for those of us who blog ABOUT being in leadership at church, WE are automatically linking our church and our blog. so, i don’t think its unreasonable to be cautious and careful.
i think, for the sake of our ministry/church, we should take the initiative to implement our own blog policies. i haven’t mentioned the name/location of my current church for such reasons. also, i’ve censored some of the most “bloggable” topics because they would not have benefited my church…
ie: for the sake of my marriage, i don’t blog about a disagreement i might’ve had with my husband.
some things are better left unsaid.
now. fred. hear this – you’ve talked to me about these instances personally – and i don’t necessarily feel like you misrepresented the church or were outta line. that’s a whole ‘nuther question, not the one you’re asking.
Hey Mandy – thanks for stopping by. Thanks for the insight. I learned of a whole separate episode after we talked, the now-infamous “rum cake” episode, haha … it was even funnier. (and could be considered a misrep, I suppose)!
[...] post that I think us church-technology-interweb types ought to consider and hash through. Please go over and chime in with your thoughts and experiences. [...]