FredMcKinnon.Com

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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¢!

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.

Hey Mud, does your wee fella have a myspace account already?

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.