Blogger Beware! A response to the consultation

British Methodists have until lunchtime on Monday to respond to a recent paper seeking to suppress Methodist involvement in the new kinds of social media, though mainly blogging. This is my response:

Dear Toby,

This is something of a hurried response to the consultation on the use of social media in the Methodist Church of Great Britain.

I am sorry that I have been unable to take part in the online discussion. I am working flat out on a big contract in my secular employment and have little time for involvement in other matters.

Firstly can I welcome the Methodist Council's decision to open this discussion to more people than just a handful of approved Methodist bloggers as previously - all of whom I suspect were Ministers.

My initial reaction on seeing the paper prepared for Methodist Council was one of profound disappointment.

You will be aware that a couple of years ago the Faith and Order Committee had issues with the "tone and content" of my blog. This was just about six months after I had started the blog.

I looked through the material and noticed that there had been one or two robust discussions. In particular I had taken up the Methodist sell out on gambling.

The problem for the Faith and Order Committee was not the "tone and content", it was the realisation that the connexional machinery was in the process of losing control of discussion and debate within the church.

That is why the first draft of the paper was so much about "discipline", "dismissal", "disrepute" and even at one point "criminal". I don't believe that the leadership of the Church understands that we now have the potential to develop a lively micro-media around Methodism that will inevitably challenge the status quo.

Just one example: during the last few months the BBC have been airing "An Island Parish". What happened on the Isles of Scilly happens across the connexion on an annual basis.

After the  broadcast of each programme  my blog received a massive surge of "visits" as people "googled" on the internet. On average I had about 2000 hits each week, specifically on that one issue.

From the comments and emails I received I know that many were Methodists keen to know the fuller story, prepared to discuss the issues raised. They were looking for information about Methodism that is no longer available in the mainstream media (we are rarely newsworthy) and is clearly suppressed (I think in your paper on social media you used the term "moderated") by the Methodist Recorder.

If part of the intention of those who promoted the original paper in the Methodist Council is to put the clock back they are onto a loser. For example I have already registered the url www.methodistpreacher.tv. With changing technology it is conceivable that within just a few years there will be a host of micro-media channels around every possible subject, including Methodism.
 

Therefore we will see an expectation for greater transparency and open debate within the Church. Unless those in leadership understand this, then we will see an almighty and unpleasant collision.

I remember in the early days of my blog, when I could count my regular readers on one hand, asking some pointed questions of you about the position of a member of our staff at Church House who had seemingly misused her role in Methodism to acquire a  well paid quango job. My inquiries were treated with contempt. You were the person who treated that inquiry with contempt.

Since then I have seen no evidence that attitudes towards the social media  in Church House have changed (though two of your staff answer my questions promptly and fully)  The paper currently under discussion tells me that the intention is suppressing and managing ideas, not encouraging them.

So basically I start from the position that this paper is superfluous, except for those who are desperate to control.

What was particularly telling is the anxiety about "reputational damage" to the Methodist Church.

In my 25 years membership of the church I have seen some truly exemplary and wonderful work by many God fearing people intent on proclaiming God's love

But I've also seen plenty of reputational damage. I've seen behaviour on the part of some paid employees (or "office holders" as Ministers prefer to be known) that would simply not be tolerated in secular employment.

I've known several young women leave a Methodist Church because of inappropriate behaviour by a male clergyman. I've heard with my own ears a Methodist Minister boast of making hurtful and spiteful comments to a vulnerable homosexual. I've seen a vendetta waged by a Minster against a Superintendent that led to a serious breakdown of health.

All these issues were escalated through the appropriate channels.

However these purveyors of "reputational damage" have been carefully protected,  allowed to continue poisoning the Bride of Christ.

So why the sudden concern about a handful of bloggers speaking out of turn?

And if we are going to start pursuing errant bloggers why aren't we pursuing others who have brought the church into disrepute?

 

Rachael Lampard for example, just down the corridor from you in Church House, turned up at a secular conference and ridiculed the Methodist Church. The material has appeared on my blog. It was already in the public domain. Her speech actively sought to bring the Methodist Church into disrepute. Did Rachael Lampard face disciplinary action? Did anyone even take her aside and have a quiet word with her? I doubt it.

 

Then two weeks ago the man who I believe is most keen to suppress the Methodist blogsphere, David Gamble, currently President of Conference, but also the Connexional Secretary responsible for legal matters, went to a meeting of another denomination and had a "Gerald Ratner" moment. He talked of the church going out of existence. He talked us down big time. Were we a plc our share price would have fallen through the floor. Were we a plc David Gamble would by now have picked up his P45.

 

So before we start witch hunting a few difficult bloggers let us get the affairs of Church House and the connexional leadership in order.  

 

There is just one other point I want to add. I'm sorry and surprised that the social media paper did not address the important challenges that sites like facebook, youtube and myspace can pose for churches and those within them.

 

Earlier I mentioned inappropriate contact between clergy and young women. Online this contact could be an even bigger issue. The paper nowhere seems to address how the Church should give guidance to Ministers, office holders or members on how we should behave online, who it is permissible to link to, who it is wise to avoid.

 

These are the real issues about the use of social media that need to be discussed and dealt with carefully. I fear it is only a matter of time before one of those who have done so much private damage to local congregations and individuals will do the same sort of damage online and more publicly. These people groom and the internet offers opportunities unimaginable just ten years ago. It will be no excuse for the Church to say that there was no guidance in place nor any call for such guidance.

 

The fact that these issues are not addressed speaks volumes about the motivation for this paper.

David