A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life

A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life
___
I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, –that unless I believed, I should not understand.-- St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)

Friday, June 17, 2011

The Board of Ordained Ministry as Social Media Police

Jeremy Smith at Hacking Christianity has written a post on the Kentucky Annual Conference's decision requiring candidates for ministry to open all their social media to BOM review. Jeremy has concerns about this, as do I.

Jeremy writes,
While I applaud integrity and exhibit it in my own word and deed, integrity enforced by fear is not what we as clergy are called to preach and teach and I reject efforts that put that on the clergy. There's enough fear in the system already: fear of the future, fear of upsetting the wrong people, fear of speaking prophetically.

Personally, I think every business and church needs a water cooler: the place where people gather to complain about their bosses. It's the pressure-release valve that allows the individual to vent in healthy ways. Does that mean Facebook is all about pastors griping about their congregation? Of course not, I rarely see that and I know a LOT of pastors. But pastors (just like employees) need space to express themselves and release…to hold them accountable via an illegally-created online profile in an impossible-to-police method is not the way.

For a church to be prophetic, it must allow space for thoughtful musings. What would the BOM do if they saw pastors updating their statuses saying they "struggle" with Rob Bell's 'Love Wins'…would that become a mark on their chart? What if they shared a link for immigration reform…would that become a question of whether they heart America? What if people like me have really weird humor…would that become an issue?
Jeremy is spot on. Now I am not suggesting (and I doubt Jeremy is either) that pastors, nor anyone else, should not be held accountable for what they say. Indeed, I argued for the significance of such accountability in a recent post, but what such a policy will ultimately do is have a chilling effect on serious theological and ecclesial discussion and debate. Some of the best theological and moral discussions I have had of late have been on Facebook.

Now, I have no doubt that most members of Boards of Ordained Ministry in every Annual Conference will allow for such theological, ecclesial, and moral probings, but there are always a small handul who may very well use opinions expressed in social media threads by candidates for ministry against them. Some people are able to react rationally when someone expresses a different point of view on a hot button issue, and some are not.

It's the latter individuals who are of concern.

What do you think?

13 comments:

John Meunier said...

I think the alarm over this idea highlights the "lack of trust" issues that the APEX report found.

Tim Bonney said...

When I use social media I don't generally broadcast to the world, I am generally having a conversation with my friends. It seems to me this could be akin to ruling that you have to turn over all your private email to the Board given that many social media conversations are private and not public conversations.

Anonymous said...

Wow. That is beyond that pale for a BOM to do. As a probationer/provisional, I find that terrifying. BOMs have a hard enough time, at least in my experience, not getting personal with the folks it interviews. I am fairly certain most of them aren't reading all the papers and watching the sermons we give them anyway; why should they be reading our facebook posts if they aren't willing to read the work we are alredy submitting in full? This is eerily 1984, for me. I wonder if this has anything to do with what happened to Chat Holtz in the North Carolina Conference?

Richard H said...

A couple of thoughts:
1. I've heard the older generation Conference members who tend to gravitate to positions of authority complain about all electronic communication and social media as a waste of time - not "real ministry."

2. Those BOM people must have WAY more time than I do if they will be perusing everything.

3. Sounds like a real junior-high-like attitude. If we can't respect our candidates for ministry, why even consider ordaining them?

4. Are we allowed any forum where we can say what we might think at the moment where we will not have every possible nuance under review?

Acky said...

One of the problems with this ruling is something to which, I believe, Jeremy alluded. There is a real danger in statements being taken out of context. I may be making a sarcastic remark to a family member who I am sure will get the real meaning. However, the BOM member who doesn't really know me or the other party could take an Onion or Stephen Colbert like statement as sincere.
When I try to explain their understanding is incorrect, how far will I get.
I also do photography and photography critique at DeviantArt. That name puts some off. If I comment on the beauty of a photograph of young lady, does that fall into a flirt catagory in their eyes.
There is too much left to personal interpretation with potential for misunderstanding in this decision, which could easily undermine a career and even a life, not to mention destroying a calling for false reasons.

Pastor Jason Wellman said...

I am not sure if this is any different from what companies are doing before they hire an individual. Many companies invest a great deal of time researching the social media lives of possible employees. They want to make sure that the person seeking employment can work within the ethos of the company. For example, if someone posts pictures of themselves wasted and in questionable situations, then an employer may find that they are not suitable for employment.

If we are about the business of the Kingdom, wouldn't we want our pastors (myself included) to be morally upstanding? There should be no difference between our "work" life and our "home" life. What we say and preach should match how we present ourselves on facebook. When one signs up for facebook, they willingly forgoe the right to privavcy, especially when personal affairs are concerned. If someone is worried about loosing that privacy, don't sign up for facebook.

I think really it is a sign of the times in which we live and minister. The Church doesn't have time to waste on inaffective pastors who say one thing and do another. They need to find qualified, Godly leaders who are willingly to lead the Church with integrity, all the while being held accountable.

Just my opinion....

Allan R. Bevere said...

Thanks to all who have expressed your point of view. This is too important to pretend that it is irrelevant.

Rev. Nathan Mills said...

I think we should allow BOOM to monitor phone calls and record every worship service and Bible Study. We could use them to make sure everything is up to snuff and that clergy provide quality service.

All of this is a tactic of a dying system that keeps communication and change from happening. t is out of a cooperate belief that if you are perfect they will come, things will be better, numbers will get better.

The question for clergy or persons seeking ordination is do you want to be apart of a system that does not want change, but instead wants more data, and more measurements without the ability to discern what any of it means and what should it should change. If you want to be a part of a cooperation than welcome. If not stay away.

Why are we here, and how did we get here?

Is the church supposed to be a cooperation? Will more cooperate solutions save us?

PamBG said...

I do think that if a person puts something "out there" on the internet, that the person needs to take responsibility for what they have said.

However, I sometimes worry that what I call The Institutional Church (of all denominations) values mealy-mouthed mediocrity in its pastors over people who take considered positions and who stand up for what they believe.

For me, it would be a much greater sign of The Kingdom if people with passionate beliefs on both sides of a Hot Topic could express those views honestly, could avoid ad hominem attacks on each other and could agree to disagree. I'd much rather be a member of such a fellowship than one which disciplined its pastors - and maybe even lay people - for holding opinions.

Rev. Nathan Mills said...

1. Do you think that this policy is intimidating to ordinands, especially younger technological natives?

2. Do you think this policy increases truthfulness or increases self-consciousness?

3. What would be the benefit of more truthfulness vs the benefits of more self-consciousness?

4. What would be the downsides to more truthfulness or to more self-consciousness?

5. What are the personal benefits and consequences, and what are the denominational benefits and consequences?

Allan R. Bevere said...

However, I sometimes worry that what I call The Institutional Church (of all denominations) values mealy-mouthed mediocrity in its pastors over people who take considered positions and who stand up for what they believe.

Yep... which is one of the reasons I blog and refuse to avoid controversy.

Kurt M. Boemler said...

1. Do you think that this policy is intimidating to ordinands, especially younger technological natives?

I'm a digital native and a provisional Elder, so yes.

2. Do you think this policy increases truthfulness or increases self-consciousness?

I think it means I can outsmart any digital immigrant who whats to spy on me and adjust my privacy settings accordingly. But to answer your question more directly, it increases self-consciousness in the same way middle school girls increase self- consciousness of their peers by scrutinizing each other's outfits.

3. What would be the benefit of more truthfulness vs the benefits of more self-consciousness?

Truth sets us free. I think I read that somewhere. What's funny, is that as I write this I'm self-conscious about the fact that someone on my BOM might read this and not be happy with it. But I'd rather be punished for my truthfulness than to sin though not being true to who I am.

4. What would be the downsides to more truthfulness or to more self-consciousness?

More truthfulness would lead to a lot of discomfort for those who don't want to know the truth...who aren't comfortable with the ugly parts of being human, with the hard parts of the struggle of following Christ. More self-consciousness would result in more cynicism, more skepticism, less people coming to the Church and more people leaving it. I think that more truth leads to less cynicism and skepticism.

5. What are the personal benefits and consequences, and what are the denominational benefits and consequences?

What's good for souls is good for the church.

Kurt M. Boemler said...

I forgot to check the box for follow up notifications. This is me commenting and checking the box.