Naznet, Facebook, and the Pastoral Search Process

[Mike Schutz]

One of the more interesting aspects of the internet is that it has taken control away from the traditional gatekeepers of information. In the olden days, publishers controlled what authors we read and whose opinions were seen by the masses, studios and broadcasters controlled which films and videos we saw, and music execs controlled what music we heard. All that has changed.

In much the same way, district superintendents no longer control how much information a congregation, and a pastoral search committee from that congregation, has when it comes to potential pastors. Members can read what folks post to Naznet, Facebook, and other sites, and develop opinions about potential pastoral candidates.

Do you think that such information has had, or may soon have, any influence on the pastoral search process? Do you think that reading someone's Naznet posts is helpful in a pastoral search? Is posting on Naznet helpful or harmful for pastors? An extension of their ministry, or a potential danger?

[Shea Zellweger]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the influence of the internet in this area grow over time. It's already shifted the way many churches begin their processes- prior to online job boards, it wasn't as though a church could put an ad in the local classifieds and expect too many results, so they had a DS, or a Bible College, or some other entity send them a candidate. Now a church can post an ad and receive hundreds of resumes from all around the country. I suppose that's a two-edged sword, but what isn't?

On the other hand, I've noticed that a lot of church officials are not comfortable "talking shop" online. Some just refuse to do so on facebook and insist that any communication be routed through their official email address while others feel that email is too impersonal and try to move to telephone conversations as quickly as possible. I hope to see that change in the future.

As for churches and candidates, I can't say whether FB, NN, and other sites are helpful in a church/pastor search, but I'm fairly certain they contribute to that search in many cases, so it's something to consider. I feel like being eliminated because of something I say on Facebook or NazNet is just an indication that I wouldn't have been a very good fit anyway, but others may feel differently.

[Hans Deventer]

Do you think that such information has had, or may soon have, any influence on the pastoral search process? Do you think that reading someone's Naznet posts is helpful in a pastoral search? Is posting on Naznet helpful or harmful for pastors? An extension of their ministry, or a potential danger?

If we ever were to call a pastor from the US, what I would know from him/her from NazNet, would definitely be an influence. And very helpful indeed.

However, it does NOT tell us how a person actually functions in a given church. The fact that one can write great and insightful posts on NazNet, says little or nothing about that. And it seems one can even behave like a jerk here and have a successful ministry in the local church.

So we need to beware. Posts on NazNet say something, but in no way everything.

[Randy Wise]

One of the more interesting aspects of the internet is that it has taken control away from the traditional gatekeepers of information. In the olden days, publishers controlled what authors we read and whose opinions were seen by the masses, studios and broadcasters controlled which films and videos we saw, and music execs controlled what music we heard. All that has changed.

In much the same way, district superintendents no longer control how much information a congregation, and a pastoral search committee from that congregation, has when it comes to potential pastors. Members can read what folks post to Naznet, Facebook, and other sites, and develop opinions about potential pastoral candidates.

Do you think that such information has had, or may soon have, any influence on the pastoral search process? Do you think that reading someone's Naznet posts is helpful in a pastoral search? Is posting on Naznet helpful or harmful for pastors? An extension of their ministry, or a potential danger?

Corporate line-Not officially, (wink wink), and I think thats the truth of the matter. But what you post whether you follow close to a tradition or are more open minded with new thought processes has to be noticed and reflected upon by those reading such posts. So I believe it would be reasonable to state what you post can have a impact on a employment opportunity.

Randy

[David Pettigrew]

I was once contacted by a laymen involved in the pastoral search process based on my naznet postings. It wasn't the right timing, but I thought it was kind of neat.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I'm pretty sure that just about every church preparing to meet a prospective pastor has at least someone who googles the pastor's name, so the church boards are no longer relying as much on the DS's knowledge of the pastor. I'm pretty sure most DS's are perfectly happy with that. From my limited experience most of them just want the church to feel they've found a good match. Also, I have the idea that many DS's have done some pastor's name googling themselves.

As a person who's had someone do an internet smear campaign against them, it crossed my mind that I'm glad I'm at this stage in my career. Otherwise, in a pastoral move process I think I'd do some preemptive explaining.

Also, having been on NazNet as long as I have I admit that there have been times when I'd see what some pastor posted, either in actual words in just in general attitude, and have shaken my head that they'd want that kind of stuff out for public view.

In fact, I've even wondered about little things, like how many posts a day a pastor does or what avatar he or she uses and thought it might come into play.

To some extent it's more good than bad. If a pastor likes to enter into deep and meaningful discussions on theology or enjoys debating current events it might be a good thing for a prospective church to know that.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I was a little surprised that even naznet private messages are accessible via google.

[David Pettigrew]

I was a little surprised that even naznet private messages are accessible via google.

What?

[Jon Twitchell]

What?

I think he's pulling our legs.

I almost wrote the same thing, and then figured he was looking to tease whoever responded first.

If he's not pulling our legs then there's a problem... because vB's not supposed to work that way.

[David Pettigrew]

I'm pretty sure that just about every church preparing to meet a prospective pastor has at least someone who googles the pastor's name, so the church boards are no longer relying as much on the DS's knowledge of the pastor. I'm pretty sure most DS's are perfectly happy with that. From my limited experience most of them just want the church to feel they've found a good match. Also, I have the idea that many DS's have done some pastor's name googling themselves.

As a person who's had someone do an internet smear campaign against them, it crossed my mind that I'm glad I'm at this stage in my career. Otherwise, in a pastoral move process I think I'd do some preemptive explaining.

Also, having been on NazNet as long as I have I admit that there have been times when I'd see what some pastor posted, either in actual words in just in general attitude, and have shaken my head that they'd want that kind of stuff out for public view.

In fact, I've even wondered about little things, like how many posts a day a pastor does or what avatar he or she uses and thought it might come into play.

To some extent it's more good than bad. If a pastor likes to enter into deep and meaningful discussions on theology or enjoys debating current events it might be a good thing for a prospective church to know that.

There was a time when I resembled that remark. I'm not nearly so enamored with my own opinions and the need to share them with others as I once was. I now just assume every member of my congregation will read every one of my postings.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I think he's pulling our legs.

I almost wrote the same thing, and then figured he was looking to tease whoever responded first.

If he's not pulling our legs then there's a problem... because vB's not supposed to work that way.

I'm certainly not above that, but I wasn't pulling anybody's leg. Just prior to posting that, I googled myself, and was surprised to see a PM I had sent to Jeremy. I just did it again, and was not able to find it. It may have been that it was in that "stored in your personal computer" section - which would be my mistake. Again, this time, I was unable to locate what I saw earlier. Perhaps it isn't even possible. Scott could enlighten us there. Not meaning to alarm, and really wanting clarification.

It would also be helpful to know if the group discussions can be googled.

[David Pettigrew]

Wow, I can't believe you said that to your own son, Dennis. You better hope no one else googles it.

(Ok, I'm doing the leg pulling now.)

[Dave McClung]

Do you think that such information has had, or may soon have, any influence on the pastoral search process? Do you think that reading someone's Naznet posts is helpful in a pastoral search? Is posting on Naznet helpful or harmful for pastors? An extension of their ministry, or a potential danger?

I think it will help churches make wiser choices. When we were searching for a pastor, we were given a resume that looked too good to be true. When I searched the internet, I was impressed by the absence of the pastor's participation -- no web site, no participation of any kind. I did find one instance where the pastor had allowed his name to be used in a commercial endorsement, but there was no mention of ministry. The absence cause me to dig deeper into his record. I learned that the resume was mostly hype. For example, one paragraph said about one of the churches he pastored, "attendance varied from 40 to 150 during my pastorate." When I investigted, I learned that the church was running about 120 when he went and less than 40 when he left.

A very large factor in our pastoral search was podcast. Two pastors were eliminated from consideration after members of the board listended to several of their sermons. The pastor who was called received a lot of support because people liked his podcasts. The day of the "trial sermon" is over. We, laymen, expect to be able to listen to a number sermons before we select.

If I were a pastor:
1. I would be very careful about posting extreme or highly controversial views on the internet.
2. I would do my best to get along with others.
3. I would make sure the information I post about myself is 100% accurate. People check.
4. I would be loyal to my denomination and to my leaders.

[Rich Schmidt]

I now just assume every member of my congregation will read every one of my postings.

I wish mine did! It would certainly save a lot of time...

I'm pretty much an open book. So while I don't post anything on NazNet (or elsewhere online) that I wouldn't want someone else to see, there's very little that I'm holding back. :)

[Shea Zellweger]

I wish mine did! It would certainly save a lot of time...

I'm pretty much an open book. So while I don't post anything on NazNet (or elsewhere online) that I wouldn't want someone else to see, there's very little that I'm holding back. :)

That's basically my position as well. I have debated a few times whether or not to get involved in certain threads because it might not be politically expedient to do so, but then I figure that political expediency is not a valid reason to say or not say something, particularly if I really do believe that a pastor should be open with the congregation and become a part of the church community. If that community does not want a pastor with socialist leanings, wouldn't it be better for us to know that about one another ahead of time, rather than creating tension after the fact? Likewise as a parishioner, I'd rather know Rich Schmidt faithfully watches this or that controversial television program before voting on him than finding out a few months (or years) down the road and having my perception of him changed.

At the same time, I keep my privacy levels on Facebook as high as I can, because I don't feel I need to be judged according to who my friends are. Some of them are a little... rough around the edges... and I don't need the church NMI president scoping me out, only to discover one of my friends posted something inappropriate on my wall, and I've not yet had the chance to delete it...

[Wilson Deaton]

This is a two-sided coin. I've read some things that have been written here and thought, "I'm glad I don't pastor that church (or on that district)..."

Wilson

[Rich Schmidt]

Likewise as a parishioner, I'd rather know Rich Schmidt faithfully watches this or that controversial television program before voting on him than finding out a few months (or years) down the road and having my perception of him changed.

Is that a Dexter reference? :D I'm looking forward to August, when I'll finally be able to watch season 4...

[Shea Zellweger]

Is that a Dexter reference? :D I'm looking forward to August, when I'll finally be able to watch season 4...

It's going to blow your mind.

[David Pettigrew]

Nothing to do with political expediency on this end. I just no longer feel effective ministry and being overly opinionated go well together.

[David Parker]

We really are in an 'information revolution'. Sometimes it can surprise you...

Several years ago I had an initial meeting with new clients to list their home. They were both elderly. The meeting went well and we made an appointment to do the paperwork to get their home on the market. They called a few days later to cancel the appointment because they had checked out my personal website and were disturbed to discover I was a Christian. They had been hurt and exploited by 'Christians' in the past and didn't want to do business with one of 'us' again.

I was able to address their concerns and they kept the appointment. I sold their house. They were happy with me and they even gifted me with a hand made quilt after closing. But it really impressed on me that anything that is on-line is now visible to anyone...even an elderly couple wanting to sell their home.

[Bill Morrison]

Nothing to do with political expediency on this end. I just no longer feel effective ministry and being overly opinionated go well together.

My Dad pastored in the COTN for 43 years. He made a big point to NOT get political with his church members. He felt it would greatly hinder his effectiveness as pastor if he did. I am not even very sure who he voted for, and I lived with him. Many of us who have been on Naznet for more than a week can probably see the wisdom in his point of view, even if we take a different approach. Perhaps Naznet IS a good place for us to have political discussion: I certainly hope some of the Naznetters I read express themselves here RATHER than talk in the same way with members of their local church as they do in their posts!

BILL

[Shea Zellweger]

My Dad pastored in the COTN for 43 years. He made a big point to NOT get political with his church members. He felt it would greatly hinder his effectiveness as pastor if he did. I am not even very sure who he voted for, and I lived with him. Many of us who have been on Naznet for more than a week can probably see the wisdom in his point of view, even if we take a different approach. Perhaps Naznet IS a good place for us to have political discussion: I certainly hope some of the Naznetters I read express themselves here RATHER than talk in the same way with members of their local church as they do in their posts!

BILL

Bill,
Thanks for such a great post. I think what Dave meant by "political expediency" (and certainly what I meant) is in regard to church politics- there are a certain group of people in every profession, including the pastorate, who do not share their opinions on certain matters if they feel it would be harmful to their careers. I was saying that if an opinion of mine is going to cost me the chance to pastor a given church, that church probably isn't a good fit for me anyway, so withholding information for the sake of political expediency doesn't make sense to me. There are plenty of other reasons for me to not share certain things, I just don't think the fact that some DS might read it and add me to his/her "black list" is a good enough reason.

[Tim Bourland]

Do you think that such information has had, or may soon have, any influence on the pastoral search process?

Yep! In my former life as an interim pastor, the church board refused to interivew 2 of the 3 prospects submitted by the DS simply because of what the board members had searched out and found that those 2 prospects had written on public forums on the internet.

[Ryan Scott]

Yep! In my former life as an interim pastor, the church board refused to interivew 2 of the 3 prospects submitted by the DS simply because of what the board members had searched out and found that those 2 prospects had written on public forums on the internet.

That's fantastic - the internet is once again saving people time and expense.

[Billy Cox]

Yep! In my former life as an interim pastor, the church board refused to interivew 2 of the 3 prospects submitted by the DS simply because of what the board members had searched out and found that those 2 prospects had written on public forums on the internet.

I second what Ryan said... and I figure if they want a self-censoring poser, they deserve to be led by a liar.

[Rich Schmidt]

I second what Ryan said... and I figure if they want a self-censoring poser, they deserve to be led by a liar.

To be fair, there's a big difference between being "slow to speak" (as the Bible instructs) and being a liar. Being cautious is not the same as being dishonest.

[Billy Cox]

To be fair, there's a big difference between being "slow to speak" (as the Bible instructs) and being a liar. Being cautious is not the same as being dishonest.

Of course there is a difference, so why is it even relevant to this conversation? One could speak slowly and still cause offense to the ignorant or to those who listen poorly.

Let's say that pastoral candidate 'Joe' is no fan of James Dobson's political activism, and that fact, if known, would be patently offensive to the pastoral selection committee at 'Shady Pines' church. Should candidate Joe keep his views on Dobson closer to the vest on public forums so as to not disqualify himself from consideration by churches who see Dobson as the fourth member of the Trinity?

[Rich Schmidt]

Of course there is a difference, so why is it even relevant to this conversation? One could speak slowly and still cause offense to the ignorant or to those who listen poorly.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your post, Billy, but you seemed to be saying that anyone who would be cautious with their public statements is the equivalent of a liar. I disagree. Strongly.

To use the "Joe" example you gave: What if Joe would like to help these sorts of people shift their view of Dobson and of political activism? (What if he feels called to it?) What would be the best way for him to do that? I'm certainly not suggesting he lie or hide his views if asked directly. But he might choose to be cautious in the answers he gives. And he might not bring it up if they don't. (Jesus didn't always answer questions directly, either, but we don't accuse him of being dishonest, do we?)

Or what if the Dobson issue isn't really a big deal to Joe? He's not a fan, but it's so far down the list in order of importance that he chooses not to bring it up. Would you consider him a poser and a liar?

Again, forgive me if I misunderstood your earlier post to which I was replying. Oh, and my "slow to speak" reference was intended to communicate keeping one's mouth shut, or not being in a hurry to speak up. I didn't intend it to mean speaking slowly. :)

[Shea Zellweger]

Forgive me if I misunderstood your post, Billy, but you seemed to be saying that anyone who would be cautious with their public statements is the equivalent of a liar. I disagree. Strongly.

To use the "Joe" example you gave: What if Joe would like to help these sorts of people shift their view of Dobson and of political activism? (What if he feels called to it?) What would be the best way for him to do that? I'm certainly not suggesting he lie or hide his views if asked directly. But he might choose to be cautious in the answers he gives. And he might not bring it up if they don't. (Jesus didn't always answer questions directly, either, but we don't accuse him of being dishonest, do we?)

Or what if the Dobson issue isn't really a big deal to Joe? He's not a fan, but it's so far down the list in order of importance that he chooses not to bring it up. Would you consider him a poser and a liar?


I don't think we can know for certain whether someone is posturing, but I think we can know if we are personally doing so. If "Joe" sees a conversation on NazNet about Dobson and says to himself, "This is not an issue in which I want to invest my time because it's unimportant to me," or "I'm not going to say anything because I'd rather not offend others," then I've got no problem with that. If Joe is specifically thinking to himself that sharing his opinion might cost him that job at Shady Pines, then yeah, I'd say he's doing a form of lying.

[Billy Cox]

Forgive me if I misunderstood your post, Billy, but you seemed to be saying that anyone who would be cautious with their public statements is the equivalent of a liar. I disagree. Strongly.

No that wasn't my intent. I worded my previous statement a couple of different ways and then opted for the edgier version.

As for me, I would rather be rejected based on my authentic self as opposed to being embraced based on my ability to say what people want to hear. That's not an accusation against anyone else, just where my heart is.

[David Troxler]

About what to say and when to say it...
There are times we "keep our cards to ourselves" and times "we lay all our cards on the table."

I understand the need to be quick to listen and slow to speak. Timing of when to speak and when not to speak is crucial. I liken it to being able to bring out the right tool for the job. Not every tool is needed for every job, however, there are times when a situation requires a new/different tool or approach. This is not being duplicitious, but does, in my estimation, offer discernment and discretion. This is like the parable when we bring forth new treasures as well as old.

If the hypothetical Pastor Joe doesn't approve of Dobson and Shady Pines church does, will dialog cease before it ever begins if this becomes the only issue of importance. We are much more complex than that, and if we only look to an issue of a "political" nature, we are being a kind of racist...not to gender or ethnicity, but to what one thinks.

The bigger issue is, why does that have to be the first question people want answered? (My mind is made up and I/we shall not be moved.)

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

As for me, I would rather be rejected based on my authentic self as opposed to being embraced based on my ability to say what people want to hear. That's not an accusation against anyone else, just where my heart is.

The issue with me is that it's not really about me. I have political views...so what? Sometimes not going there at all leaves the door open to do what really matters, which is minister Christ to people. I may have some fun talking about such things in a closed group with peers, but out in public I take a more vanilla route and when I do enter into such discussions I try to tread lightly (sometimes rather challenging on NazNet with it's many established relationships). "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22)

[David Pettigrew]

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. - Matthew 7:6

[Hans Deventer]

The issue with me is that it's not really about me. I have political views...so what?

Well, for way too many people, your political views are who you are, while your religious views....... so what? :smilies1390:

[Steven Martinez]

Threads like this seem to prove to me that as a Church we have abandoned the theology of God's calling for the Pastoral office and replaced it with a theology of Congregational fit. It seems the impact of such shift will create a Church where the prophetic aspect of pastoral ministry will be done away with especially if we will not even interview people face to face and rely on non-contextualized forum posts or podcasts of sermons. Do we need the Holy Spirit still or will Facebook replace the Spirit of God as well?

[Billy Cox]

If the hypothetical Pastor Joe doesn't approve of Dobson and Shady Pines church does, will dialog cease before it ever begins if this becomes the only issue of importance. We are much more complex than that, and if we only look to an issue of a "political" nature, we are being a kind of racist...not to gender or ethnicity, but to what one thinks.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If Shady Pines church really wants their next pastor to be a Dobson fan, isn't Pastor Joe doing them a big favor by making his views known on a public forum? Or are you saying that Pastor Joe should be silent on issues that might hurt his employability in places like Shady Pines?

[Billy Cox]

It seems the impact of such shift will create a Church where the prophetic aspect of pastoral ministry will be done away with especially if we will not even interview people face to face and rely on non-contextualized forum posts or podcasts of sermons. Do we need the Holy Spirit still or will Facebook replace the Spirit of God as well?

Is the role of pastor truly prophetic though? Keep in mind that in the OT, prophets who were on the payroll tended to be false prophets. I think we commonly think of the pastor of prophet in terms of confronting the surrounding pagan community, but the biblical role of prophet nearly always confronted the people of God...which adversely affected their prospects for employment and long-life.

[David Parker]

The more likely scenario is that some of the church will see an ally and some will see an opponent whether it is politics, Dobson, or whatever. Rarely are churches unified in such things. Wouldn't it be better to focus on ministry and confine the political debate to close private relationships rather than let a public posture detract from the mission?

[Steven Martinez]

Yes! Paul certainly thinks so. The letters of 1st and 2nd Corinthians seem to suggest that speaking for God (prophecy) is a part of being a pastor and Paul argued that making a living by preaching the Gospel was perfectly valid. If the pastoral role is no longer prophetic in its ministry then we are in deep trouble.

[Billy Cox]

Yes! Paul certainly thinks so. The letters of 1st and 2nd Corinthians seem to suggest that speaking for God (prophecy) is a part of being a pastor and Paul argued that making a living by preaching the Gospel was perfectly valid. If the pastoral role is no longer prophetic in its ministry then we are in deep trouble.


It's also worth noting that Paul took a job as a tentmaker in Corinth, perhaps so that he could be free to be prophetic with payroll pressure.

[Gina Stevenson]

It's also worth noting that Paul took a job as a tentmaker in Corinth, perhaps so that he could be free to be prophetic with payroll pressure.

You did mean without, no? [since I can't change it, just tho't I'd mention it, then you can edit it and the ones who do tend this particular forum can then delete this one. ;)

[David Troxler]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If Shady Pines church really wants their next pastor to be a Dobson fan, isn't Pastor Joe doing them a big favor by making his views known on a public forum? Or are you saying that Pastor Joe should be silent on issues that might hurt his employability in places like Shady Pines?

Billy,
I'm certainly not advocating silence as a means to be employed by a congregation. I'll cite two examples that I am familiar with.
In one case, a Nazarene pastor was offered a church in tobacco country. It was related to me that the DS made it clear the pastor was welcome to preach on anything except tobacco. The church had a large portion of its donors in the tobacco industry who contributed generously to the church but were not full members because of the denomination's stance on trafficking in said product. The pastoral candidate declined the offer knowing full-well he would have had his mouth bridled and hands tied on that issue should the Spirit prompt him to address it otherwise. (Btw-This example is from over 25 years ago.)

In a more recent example, a youth pastor had agreed to serve in the church of a denomination other than his own. It became evident that his beliefs and practices were in conflict with the political drift that his employer denomination was taking at the general level down to his local parish. His question of conscience was to remain in a place that was contrary to his beliefs or admit his differences and leave. In this case, he waited for a few months to try to reconcile the matter, but eventually departed. In this case, it was at great cost, since that was his bread and butter and he and his wife did not have connections elsewhere to be hired promptly back in his own denomination. They had gone where money and housing were offered that trumped what others would have tendered.

Sure, there are times to let your potential church employer know your agenda and their agenda match. And there are times that other things are more important. I just don't think that the first issue of a church looking for pastoral leadership should be the political footballs. When they are the first line of questioning, it is usually the sign of other, more spiritual issues.

[Roy Richardson]

I think it will help churches make wiser choices. When we were searching for a pastor, we were given a resume that looked too good to be true. When I searched the internet, I was impressed by the absence of the pastor's participation -- no web site, no participation of any kind. I did find one instance where the pastor had allowed his name to be used in a commercial endorsement, but there was no mention of ministry. The absence cause me to dig deeper into his record. I learned that the resume was mostly hype. For example, one paragraph said about one of the churches he pastored, "attendance varied from 40 to 150 during my pastorate." When I investigted, I learned that the church was running about 120 when he went and less than 40 when he left.

A very large factor in our pastoral search was podcast. Two pastors were eliminated from consideration after members of the board listended to several of their sermons. The pastor who was called received a lot of support because people liked his podcasts. The day of the "trial sermon" is over. We, laymen, expect to be able to listen to a number sermons before we select.

If I were a pastor:
1. I would be very careful about posting extreme or highly controversial views on the internet.
2. I would do my best to get along with others.
3. I would make sure the information I post about myself is 100% accurate. People check.
4. I would be loyal to my denomination and to my leaders.





For those seeking their first parish, how do you propose to handle the podcasting issue? Record them yourself and post on your own website if you have one?

[Rich Schmidt]

For those seeking their first parish, how do you propose to handle the podcasting issue? Record them yourself and post on your own website if you have one?

You could always make audio or video recordings of yourself preaching at another church (or even to an empty room, if you wanted) and then post them on YouTube or Vimeo or some other video site. Or you could post them on a free blog at WordPress.com or Blogger.com. Etc.

[Dave Mann]

There is a new academic discipline called Informatics that is nudging up to this question. The form of the medium is a fundamental part of the message and inseparable from the communities of practice that co-evolves with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatics_%28academic_field%29

As I understand it, there are 2 schools of thought about the larger question of societal impact. The first is that a greater access to information and self-publication will lead to a greater democratization of information and with it, power, which will lead to greater understanding and progress. I like that view because I like kittens, gum drops and unicorns and everybody knows that unicorns dig democracy.

The other view is that the web helps fuel greater social dissension and increased radicalization because people with similar views can find each other and create online communities that act like amplifying echo chambers. You can add to this the addictive and anti-social tendencies associated with online interaction and you get dead kittens and unicorn haters.

I'm particularly struck by the CotN's discussions about regionalizing the manual. I'm sure that geo-paradigm will intersect with cyber in ways that are hilarious (or scary, or both).

http://churchoffacebook.com/order/

Anybody want to take bets on when the CotN sees the first request to, no-kidding, organize a cyber-church on facebook? How cool would that be. By organizing into micro facebook churches, we might even be able to come to agreement on evolution and dancing and drinking and when/if sanctification occurs.

[Billy Cox]

http://churchoffacebook.com/order/
Anybody want to take bets on when the CotN sees the first request to, no-kidding, organize a cyber-church on facebook? How cool would that be. By organizing into micro facebook churches, we might even be able to come to agreement on evolution and dancing and drinking and when/if sanctification occurs.

I would bet against it...not because nobody will have the idea, but because the kind of people who would do it don't give a rip about getting the denomination's permission nor do they care if they are counted among the the notches in someone's insitutional belt.

[Shea Zellweger]

http://churchoffacebook.com/order/

Anybody want to take bets on when the CotN sees the first request to, no-kidding, organize a cyber-church on facebook? How cool would that be. By organizing into micro facebook churches, we might even be able to come to agreement on evolution and dancing and drinking and when/if sanctification occurs.

I strongly believe online-only churches take away from the essence of what church is. I'm bothered by an ecclesiology that suggests that we don't really need to meet together in person. As much as I appreciate advances in technology, even to the point of being able to cheaply and effectively video-conference with others, there has yet to be a technological replacement for meeting with others in person.

[Billy Cox]

You did mean without, no? [since I can't change it, just tho't I'd mention it, then you can edit it and the ones who do tend this particular forum can then delete this one. ;)

Yes, I meant 'without'.

[Mike Schutz]

Reviving this thread

Would you choose to discourage a church from calling a pastor due to what you considered to be overtly political posts on Naznet or Facebook?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Reviving this thread

Would you choose to discourage a church from calling a pastor due to what you considered to be overtly political posts on Naznet or Facebook?

From a pragmatic point of view it depends on what those political posts say. If the church is a fairly politically conservative church and the posts are fairly politically conservative I imagine it would work in favor of the pastor and not against.

Still from a pragmatic point of view, if the church is fairly politically conservative and the pastor constantly posts from a liberal perspective that's likely a good thing for the church to know. For the sake of both parties, it may save the church and pastor going through a divorce due to irreconcilable differences.

Now, from a more spiritual point of view, as a church member the specifics of the pastor's political posts wouldn't matter as much to me as the tone of those posts. If the pastor rips into people with whom he or she disagrees about political issues I'd assume they would rip into church people on not only those issues but on any other issue. I'd rather have a pastor with whom I might have some political differences but has the heart of a shepherd than have a pastor who lined up with me politically but treated people harshly at points of disagreement.

Finally, I think Christians - pastors and all - should conduct themselves as Christians on internet forums or sitting in Sunday School classes or in private conversations. One of my concerns on NazNet is that I see some who almost always post critical, negative, "superior" posts and I can't help but think that they need another drink of Living Water to sweeten their spirits.

[Shea Zellweger]

Reviving this thread

Would you choose to discourage a church from calling a pastor due to what you considered to be overtly political posts on Naznet or Facebook?

Depends what you mean by "political." I don't see a problem with being actively engaged in the political process of our country, or allowing our religion to inform our politics. I do see an issue when the politics begin to influence the religious activity (ie, the ____ party's views just happen to line up exactly with my view of Scripture), or when a would-be pastor is calling people to specific political action on the grounds that it's what "real" Christians would do.

[Marsha Lynn]

Depends what you mean by "political." I don't see a problem with being actively engaged in the political process of our country, or allowing our religion to inform our politics. I do see an issue when the politics begin to influence the religious activity (ie, the ____ party's views just happen to line up exactly with my view of Scripture), or when a would-be pastor is calling people to specific political action on the grounds that it's what "real" Christians would do.

I think I would go a little further. If someone regularly posted things that essentially said, "Look how stupid the people are who don't agree with my and my "Christian" worldview," it would be a red flag for me that 1) this person is close-minded, ready to dismiss the thinking of others; 2) beyond dismissing the thinking of others, this person is willing to poke fun at them in order to discredit them; 3) eventually I am likely to find myself in the cross-hairs of this person's ridicule and dismissal; and 4) this person does not have the type of humble attitude that is such an asset to the Christian community.

It's not so much the political views themselves as the arrogance and lack of sensitivity to the diversity of opinions found among a congregation and the value of those holding those diverse views that would bother me.

Of course, I would more readily see the problem if the political views being expressed differed from my own views.

Marsha

[David Pettigrew]

Reviving this thread

Would you choose to discourage a church from calling a pastor due to what you considered to be overtly political posts on Naznet or Facebook?

Yes. Though there was a time in my life when this would have disqualified me. Hopefully I'm more professional now.

[Billy Cox]

Now, from a more spiritual point of view, as a church member the specifics of the pastor's political posts wouldn't matter as much to me as the tone of those posts. If the pastor rips into people with whom he or she disagrees about political issues I'd assume they would rip into church people on not only those issues but on any other issue. I'd rather have a pastor with whom I might have some political differences but has the heart of a shepherd than have a pastor who lined up with me politically but treated people harshly at points of disagreement.

Maybe... Or they could be like Paul, who could breathe fire and drip with sarcasm in his letters, but be a timid kitty-cat in person. (2 Corinthians 10:1) :rolleyes:

[Rich Schmidt]

Would you choose to discourage a church from calling a pastor due to what you considered to be overtly political posts on Naznet or Facebook?

I don't think so, not based solely on that. But it would certainly lead to some pointed questions and conversation during the interview process. It's certainly a red flag.

[Rich Schmidt]

Just saw this article & thought of this thread...

"Watch what you say online: Your career will thank you"

http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2011/08/watch-what-you-say-online-your-career-will-thank-you.html