Such a paper would look at best practice for using youtube, facebook, twitter, church websites and even blogging. It would encourage the church to take ourselves into the 21st century. It would want to demonstrate to young people that we really are alive and ready to put ourselves where they are.
This week the Methodist Council - our last but one governing body before conference - will discuss a paper headed "Social Media". Far from being an exciting exploration of social media it is a miserable, petty, ill thought out attempt to stilfle discussion within the Church.
The front page of this sad document says it all:
"The guidelines paper sets out how staff or officers of the Church should behave when using social media.
The goal is to ensure that the Church and individuals engage positively with social media but do nothing to harm the reputation
"All involved should do nothing to bring the Church into disrepute. Members of governance bodies have particular responsibilities in how they report from or during meetings.
"Breaking the guidelines repeatedly would be a disciplinary matter that could lead to dismissal.
"The paper discusses online defamation as one risk.
"Bringing the Church into disrepute is already grounds for a complaint against anyone in the Church. This paper makes clear that online media could give rise to such a complaint.
"Failure to address this could lead to reputational damage to the Church."
The author of the document claims to have consulted "A selection of existing Methodist bloggers". I certainly wasn't "consulted" and those that were didn't share their involvement in the consultation. It would be interesting to know who comprised this "selection" and why the wider Connexion were not invited to comment.
The paper drones on for a solid 26 pages, about 18 of which are all in the same negative vein. At the end is a wonderfully patronising guide to emailing. There are just three paragraphs that suggest social media may actually be a positive benefit to the Church.
Some of the comments are just silly. At one point Methodist Bloggers are told "Don’t do or encourage anything illegal or improper"
However the all time favourite must be the sentence that really gives the game away. It refers to public discussions "as moderated by the Methodist Recorder". Ah they were the days, when Methodists could only express a view through the pages of the Recorder, who could then be relied upon to "moderate".
Those days are gone. The issues we need to address are transparency, legitimacy, and building relationships within the denomination. The days of a handful of well-connected people being able to control internal discussion and decisions are in the past.. No amount of "guidelines" and "disciplinary action" will stop that. If countries like China and Iran are struggling to stifle online discussion how on earth does anyone think the Methodist Church can?
But the real weakness of the paper is the complete failure to look at the many very complicated issues that can arise with social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Basically anyone can set up a page on many of these sites. For example a single church member could set up and own a page on facebook for Tat Bank Road Methodist Church. Last time I checked the British Methodist Church hadn't even registered and protected our own corporate logo (the one that I have put provocatively at the top of this page and which I have no right - or every right - to use) so they could even make it look official. There is one Methodist facebook group that does use the logo and another that doesn't. The Methodists in Britain page on LinkedIn doesn't use it.
Then supposing someone sets up a page for the Tat Bank Road under 15s youth club. Who is responsible for that? Should adults be allowed to join as "fans". Is it permissible to post pictures of young people at camp for example? Several young people in the circuit have asked to be my "friend" on facebook. I don't think thats appropriate and I have told them. I fear certain other adults won't take the same approach. Online grooming is a real danger. There are huge child and vulnerable person protection issues here, and yet the paper on social media focusses on blogging - probably because one or two feathers and egos have been ruffled in Church House.
If we are going to have a paper on censorship sent onto to Methodist Conference by the Methodist Council let us call it by that name. Please don't display to the world how little the Methodist Church knows about social media and how much we fear it.
The best course of action would be to withdraw this paper from Thursday's meeting and invite others to contribute. They may even have a word with me. In my day job I have been writing guidelines on the use of social media (each never more than one side of A4 paper) for nearly ten years. Not only that, I've had to sort out solicitors letters and even instigate disciplinary action on two occasions: I'd really caution any organisation against taking that course of action.
The prospect of the Methodist Church issuing fatwas against bloggers will hold us up to ridicule.
Time for a sense of proportion and time to be positive about the new opportunities that await us.
Posts
14 comments:
A "fatwa"? Riiiiiiight.
Yes, thank goodness for media professionalism.
Like you David I was not consulted and have not seen any reference on the other Methodist bloggers sites about this consultation. Perhaps there has been no mention because people who were consulted were not allowed to comment - if your reporting of the contents of this report are accurate then it may be that the 'guidelines' have already been applied.
You do raise some interesting points and I would have thought given the relatively small number of British Methodist bloggers that all of them could have been consulted - I will have a look at the report and may even post on it when I have done so.
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
Yes, well - I suspect the real problem was the fact that the Church was (deservedly) embarrassed by Island Parish, and the fallout in online discussions. I moderate an egroup for Methodist Ministers, and we have long been under suspicion in certain connexional quarters, because we're not "under control".
If this is an attempt at control and censorship, it will fail. If the Connexion is going to use the threat of disciplinary proceedings to stifle discussion, that will simply pour fuel on the fire.
But let's not jump the gun! Perhaps we've got hold of the wrong end of the stick, and our leaders are really doing their best to protect the reputation of the Church - let's see what comes out of the Council. Thinks - wouldn't they be better advised to trust responsible Methodists to do their stuff online in a Christian manner?
Loads of time effort & money spent on this - what a waste of Kingdom resources when they could have given advice about how to use modern media to 'serve the present age' & reach this generation - how far from the ideals of the Wesley's can we get? again embarrassed to be Methodist.
I was TOLD in a previous circuit to stop writing on a blog & not use Myspace by my super & chair & have never gone back to it. use FB now to keep in touch with friends only. I said nothing that was bad or wrong, but my no Christian brother became a friend & amazingly started reading sermons & talks, & he had cartoon pictures of whiskey bottles in the hands of kids I think. I was told this was all too 'dangerous' to be involved in.
the recorder moderation is ridiculous. I approached them for some publicity for a tasteful modernisation of a Church in a previous circuit only to be told by the lady on at the record that i was a disgrace to Mr Wesley because I was destroying one of his fine preaching houses.
yet the lunatic rants of an ex president get on the back page.
Wouldn't read the rubbish if you paid me.
It's quite dire isn't it. Like you David, I've worked in an independent capacity, moving around different clients, and have frequently been required to sign company specific documents detailing their policy on email use, internet access etc. Even when working in strictly regulated environments such as banks, they never went on like this.
It's not completely clear whether it's "supposed" to apply to all of "us", or whether it's an employment terms and conditions doc, or a poorly worded combination of both.
It repeatedly makes the same point, which is actually all that needs to be said anyway, such as "social media should not change our understanding of confidentiality". Which is about it really - when dealing with people on the internet, you should go about it in the same manner you would whilst dealing with them through any other medium.
And if they can cite comparisons with the policy of the BBC, Sun Microsystems and others, and then infer that they have consulted with a number of existing Methodist bloggers, surely their sites deserve a reference in the document ? That way, those making a decision could get a handle on what's already going on.
A poor effort on the whole I think.
I'm a Methodist Blogger and I haven't been consulted. However, I mainly use my blog just to share my sermons with members of the congregation who missed church and want to catch up on them. All charity trustees and employees are required not to bring the organisation they represent into disrepute. That has always been the case and social media are just another way of sharing your opinions.
I've picked this up on my own blog.
This Methodist blogger (who wouldn't expect to be consulted by the Methodist Council) is VERY surprised to read all this, because I thought I was in a good relationship with Church House and using my blog to help them!
Perhaps Dave of
http://42.blogs.warnock.me.uk can enlighten us, since his blog mentions that he will be going to the Methodist Council!
Olive, I would have expected you to be one of the people who they did consult given the positive nature of your blogging and dare I say the fact that you are probably the most senior Methodist blogger.
I would not expect to have been consulted as I am not sure that Church House even know my blog exists - my sitemeter indicates hardly any visits form London or anywhere near there.
Perhaps they have consulted the President and Vice President hence the use of the word selected.
This is news to me but I am not convinced that it is as worrying as you feel. Our situations are different but as a minister I accept that I should exercise restraint in any critical comments re the church (albeit where appropriate they will be expressed in a fraternal manner). But that is normal in any employment. Your situation is not that of being on the "payroll" so you probably have more freedom re such criticisms.
I am confident that there is no agenda to limit proper debate.
I think that we just need to hold back and see how this pans out.
David, while I think your language of 'fatwa' is intemperate, I do think there are issues of transparency that need to be addressed in a report that calls for transparency from others. See here.
Interesting take on it David. I am a Methodist Blogger from South Africa and I wonder if our leaders will follow suit soon - who know.
Living in Grace,
Delme Linscott
www.delmelinscott.blogspot.com
Thanks for all your comments. It is clear there is some unhappiness about this paper and we still don't know the identity of the mystery consultees who have been wheeled in to give this paper spurious credibility.
The interesting thing is that blogging is now clearly seen as a force to be reckoned with - or controlled.
I'm working away from base at the moment so my blogging will be sporadic.
I'm glad I raised this. It will be interesting to see if the Methodist Council send it back for a considerable re write and insist that others are given the chance.
We should certainly ask our younger members what they think. They have a far better grasp of social media that many of us middle aged to elderly bloggers!
"Blogging ... controlled"?
Next week's lecture: "How to nail jelly to the ceiling".
:-)
Post a Comment