USA Today: Bloggers keep the faith, contentiously
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY Tue Nov 27, 8:23 AM ET
"For Christ's sake, stop!" declared the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Rev. Frank Page, pleading for civility in the Baptist blogosphere.
ADVERTISEMENT
Episcopalians and Anglicans duel incessantly over their faith and future in the Anglican Communion.
Catholics focus on every topic from liturgy to law to spirituality.
These are faith bloggers - uncountable voices who contest, confess and consider religious beliefs, doctrines and denominational politics in their posts.
Although every faith has its bloggers, U.S. Christians may be among the most vociferous of the watchdogs, philosophers and ecclesiastical groupies.
"You can change minds and form hearts. You can bring to light the best humanity of the Church, which rarely gets covered - the people who get up every morning and give the best of themselves because they believe," says Rocco Palmo, 24, of Philadelphia. His blog, Whispers in the Loggia, covers the U.S. Catholic church and Vatican minutiae, down to the lace on the pope's vestments.
...
Labels: blog
posted by Brian at 8:48 PM
9 Comments:
So is it wrong to tell someone that their wrong?
I don't think that's what the article as a whole (the entire article is not posted here) is saying despite what the first paragraph might suggest. It is more of an overview of how some faith-related blogs operate and the roles they sometimes play in addressing wrongs in the church. Sometimes it is done is with a gracious spirit and other times it is not. You don't have to venture too far into the blogosphere to find this is true.
This plea quoted in the first paragraph addresses a specific instance in which Page was asking that people tone down the harsh tones of the debate and begin to approach church conflicts in a Biblical manner and not to engage in personal attacks. Part of this message was lost in the way the USA Today article was written.
Disagreeing is fine. Debate is fine. Discussion is fine. Yet there is a proper ... civil, if you will ... way to do it and that is what Page is saying. You can read his entire column here: http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=26293
What might be the bigger issue ... and maybe this is what Brian was getting at with posting the article in the first place ... is the place of blogs as a conduit for airing these disagreements even if it is done in a civil manner. Do we air "family" business in public? To that, I say ... depends. Personal attacks, obviously not. Insinuations, rumors and innuendo — no. Topics revolving around theology, missiology and ecclesiology can be insightful.
I posted the article just to say we aren't alone in our questions about blogs. But I thought Tammie's conclusions were pretty good.
So is this blog primarily a discussion between believers, and especially believer's in the CGGC, or is this blog primarily a public forum?
I realize both elements are there, but how do we view what the goal of this blog is?
Andrew,
Good questions.
Based upon the header of the blog and the posted guidelines, I would say that everyone (believer or non-believer) is welcome to post (as long as he/she includes a name). But, only those registered with Brian as "Team Members" or "Contributors" can make the initial posts. The guidelines (posted on 10/27/06) state "Team members will be limited to Churches of God people, both pastors, leaders, and regular attenders since this is the purpose of the blog."
I would say that yes, this blog is a "public forum" - but that doesn't mean there cannot be guidelines about who can post and what can be discussed.
By joining the conversation on this blog, we agree to abide by the posted guidelines. This isn't intended to sound harsh, but if someone wants to join a different kind of conversation, they can go elsewhere to do it.
In an age of diversity, "public" doesn't equal "full inclusion." Inclusion presupposes exclusion. In other words, there has to be clear guidelines about who is left out, so those who are included will feel welcome to take part in the discussion.
Brent, my question was in regards more to who reads the blog than to who writes the blog. My question restated is: What is the primary intended audience for the blog? Is the primary audience CGGC or the general public, i.e. seekers?
Tammie, I agree that personal attacks have no place in civil discussions. I also appreciate your understanding that disagreement and debate are fine. I would add that they are healthy. I see debate as iron sharpening iron.
Does anyone have an answer for my first question?
Andrew said, "Brent, my question was in regards more to who reads the blog than to who writes the blog."
Interesting question. Certainly a blog can have an audience, though it was never the intention. But since there is an audience, the intended audience for this blog is CGGC leaders (pastors and laity).
I was trying to get there in my first comment, but I guess I didn't quite make it.
No, it's not wrong to tell someone they're wrong, but as I said we need to do it in a gracious way — as the Scriptures tell us to restore a brother gently.
Thank you Tammie. Gracious correction according to Scripture is a good thing. You have my permission to tell me I mispelled "their".
Thank you Brian. You've clarified my understanding of what goes on in this blog. Anything we say, we need to consider the audience.
Post a Comment
<< Home