Regular readers and anyone who goes to St Silas will be aware that there’s quite a handful of bloggers in church, and you can find links to most of them on GadgetVicar. It’s been an interesting new dimension to church life that I have never experienced before. I’ve been meaning to write down my thoughts on church and blogging for a while, and then almost decided not to, but a few things have finally encouraged me to get round to posting. And apologies in advance, this is a bit of a long one.
Firstly, there’s been a few new bloggers in church lately. Secondly, Graham wrote a very thought-provoking blog about the St Silas blogging scene, and links to some of those “newbies”. And thirdly the power of the bloggers has been evident in church recently through David referring in church to particular posts or issues the bloggers have been touching on. For example, I think I recall correctly that last Sunday evening’s sermon on “creating community” was even brought forward a week to respond to a debate that emerged among some bloggers on that subject.
And the final and biggest reason for posting my thoughts on blogging in church is that Beat Attitude has kicked off the debate by “guest blogging” here on GadgetVicar. So I can’t not enter the debate now it’s been started!
So clearly us bloggers have influence within St Silas. Many people read them, our Rector reads them (and writes one himself), and when folk comment on each others’ blogs, it generates a permanent, easy-to-follow record of the debates and discussions.
However, with that influence comes tremendous responsibilities. Just like newspaper columnists have obligations to think carefully about what they write because they know society is watching and reading, so bloggers in a church have a similar onus. Posting in the heat of the moment, writing something offensive (or something that could be widely interpreted as offensive), or mentioning people (especially non-bloggers) by name, can all often lead to confusion and hurt.
I also feel that we, the bloggers, have a responsibility to be aware that we are not the only “voices” in church. For example (and I dredge this up reluctantly), take “Welcomegate”: there was debate and change in the church in the area of welcome because of what I wrote when I first visited. As I’ve mentioned before, I was very humbled and thankful to have caused such self-reflection with the church, but I’m very aware that I wasn’t the first person to say that St Silas wasn’t welcoming.
So why didn’t previous critics cause such change? Who sought out, listened to, debated and acted upon their views? And what about non-bloggers in the church who have views on the “community” debate I referred to above? Or on any other issues? What and where are their views? How confident are non-bloggers in giving their views on life in St Silas to friends or leaders in the church? Who listens to the shy, quiet types who have great insights into how St Silas works, but nobody else understands because we’ve never sat in their (literal and figurative) seat?
A wee part of me wonders if there’s an “influence deficit” where the bloggers have more influence than others. I know that the leadership team does do things like listen, visit homegroups, take time talking to folk on Sundays, and spend heroic amounts of time and energy during the week responding to members’ needs. And it’s very likely that with my head stuck in the clouds of the St Silas blogosphere I simply haven’t noticed that lots of people are listening to non-bloggers. But I do know that one or two folk (both bloggers and non-bloggers) have made it known how hard they feel it is sometimes for “ordinary” members of the church to make their views heard – though admittedly that’s probably the case in medium and big churches everywhere.
If there is such a deficit (and it’s very likely that I am wrong), there’s two things we could do.
First, turn everyone into bloggers. After all, blogging is a great tool – it’s simple, free, has a wide audience, and has allowed people in the church to follow and debate the views of folk they might not otherwise have met. Indeed, I’ve read with great interest the views of a few St Silas bloggers I have yet to meet and probably wouldn’t recognise in person. And I’d commend blogging as a way of expressing your views – if you can think and talk, you can blog. In this internet age, I even think we in St Silas could do more to harness technology to communicate – perhaps setting up an internet forum, using text messaging, and so on.
But going exclusively down that road is clearly not going to work, and neither should it. Blogging is just a means of communication, and doesn’t make the messages contained in them any better, holier or more credible than other ways of conveying a thought. Indeed, if a blog is badly written, inappropriate or boring (not that any St Silasites would do that!), it’s often worse than saying nothing at all. So we must ensure that blogging is not the only or even best way to exchange views and shape the ideas and practices of the church. For sure it’s one way, and arguably a useful and important way, and could arguably even count as a spiritual gift, if used wisely. But it’s not the only way and not the only gift.
The second thing we could do is encourage an atmosphere in the church community that’s even more conducive to listening. It’s a difficult balance to get right, but while those who blog have (rightly or wrongly) a key role in creating and shaping debate in the church, we bloggers must also be careful not to entirely dominate and pre-determine that debate. Meanwhile those who read blogs must keep them in perspective – they’re just the views of one person and not the whole church. Finally, non-bloggers must find the confidence to use whatever means of communication they are comfortable with to express their feelings on the church.
I reckon homegroups are the key to this last point. They are the opportunities through the week in which the church gathers in small groups and safe spaces to talk, share, encourage and reflect. If there is an “influence deficit”, and again there may well not be, it’s down to the discernment and sensitivity of homegroup leaders and members to allow every member their say on what they like or dislike about church, what they want changed, where their faith is strong or weak, and what they see as the challenges for individuals and the whole body.
There have been many calls from our leadership to strengthen the homegroup structure, and I think that’s great. Hopefully in time, issues raised in homegroups can be (like the blog debates but hopefully even more so) the talk of the pews, the inspirations for sermons, and the catalysts for action.
