Social Media and the Methodist Council

Over the last few days, I have mentioned a paper which the Methodist Church is putting before its Council next Monday and Tuesday.  The paper sets out some guidelines for the use of social media and also contains a paper explaining the rationale.  You can download the paper yourself from the Methodist Church website.

Some of the Methodist bloggers have been talking about the paper - Richard Hall thinks its a sensible move forward and points to some internal discussion elsewhere - a conversation which dates back to the beginning of 2008; David Hallam, ever the controversialist, talks of fatwas being issued against Methodist bloggers and is dismayed at the lack of understanding of social media; David Faulkner kind of sits in the middle of both although wants to raise questions about the origin of the report (within non-executive, very senior meetings - Senior Leadership Team and Connexional Leadership Forum - hotbeds of social networking, I suppose? sorry, that was unnecessary ) and the process by which it came to be. Angela Shier-Jones hasn't entered the fray yet, but, I understand, is increasingly anxious about the issue (come on, Angela!) and nor has David Perry, winner of last year's Best Christian Blog award.  Dave Warnock is clearly too busy to blog on this at the moment and John Cooper's been focussing on things musical! 

There are of course other guidelines about blogging and other churches exploring social media.  There are even Christian ones issued by the Evangelical Alliance - the ten commandments of blogging!  Interestingly the United Methodist Church, the US version of Methodism, has recently launch a fantastic Web 2.0 based site thousand doors which plays with and exploits social media moving beyond facebook and twitter in what is a truly remarkable way!  Go UMC!  Seems a lot less concerned and ready to go for it than we do at times.

The paper has been through a bit of a peer review in that some Methodist bloggers have been asked to look at it.  It would be improper to out them although there is some consternation among the blogs that this has not been an open process.  Bloggers love transparency and love to be involved in developing their own guidelines - hence the discussion at the Methodist Bloggers meeting last year (shame I couldn't get there/didn't know about it?).  Note, for example, how the government developed its own guidelines for Civil Servant bloggers following the Civil Serf controversy.  Tom Watson MP, the minister responsible began a blog conversation and received hundreds of comments back.  You can still find the conversation online. The key thing here is that the minister involved the bloggers from the start - a point made absolutely clear in Matt Wardman's discussion of the process.  This is contextual guideline making (like contextual theology which the church seems to love so much - 'do your theology from the ground up', we are told all the time), rather than attempting to impose something from on high onto a system you don't really understand.  If the mandarins had imposed the guidelines the civil service bloggers, obviously an edgy lot, would have been resistant.  But here those on high (named as sources in the report) are imposing guidelines on  group which seems unaware that this is coming.  

Back to the Civil Service, the resulting guidelines amount to just 79 words:

1. Be credible: Be accurate, fair, thorough and transparent.
2. Be consistent: Encourage constructive criticism and deliberation. Be cordial, honest and professional at all times.
3. Be responsive: When you gain insight, share it where appropriate.
4. Be integrated: Wherever possible, align online participation with other offline communications.
5. Be a civil servant: Remember that you are an ambassador for your organisation. Wherever possible, disclose your position as a representative of your department or agency.

I do have to say that this is much much better than the 28 page paper which is going before the Council (sorry, Toby, but you know how I feel!).  Why?  Well, it understands what social media is all about and doesn't attempt to block it.  It realises that this is the technology of both the present and the future.  It is the technology which lots of people out there are using all the time.  It's allowing for breathing space for bloggers rather than clamping down on them.  It is open and transparent and trusts.

One of the guidelines suggests that you won't be able to tweet or message from within Methodist meetings, certainly not before the official tweets have been sent.  How daft!  So, people in the public gallery can tweet but people on the floor can't because it means they won't be paying attention.  Haven't we heard of multitasking?  Read the OxIS Report on Internet Britain - what is it, 70% of people multitask when using computers?  Just because I tweet it does not mean I am not paying attention.  Indeed, the latest discussions on micro-noting suggest that people listen more intently so that they have something to tweet about!  And is it really any different from those doing their emails, playing sudoku or planning tomorrow's funeral address?  And the idea that the official line needs to get out first is just so precious for the age of the internet.  And then there is the whole misunderstanding of the gap between public and private in social media - what gap?  How about a turning inside out, of a reversal of our anthropology?  Of things being talked about in social media which are internalised in previous public discourse and vice versa?  Of the public parade of internal conversation on blogs and facebook and twitter.  That's the point!  Well, one of them.

For those of us involved in social media, and I am a bit in my role in CODEC, then its about 24/7 connectivity, about making links, about sharing information, about enabling conversations.  I am not so sure the guidelines being offered won't shut that conversation down.  There is nothing in the paper (well, a brief paragraph) about the benefits of social networking for liberation and for the inclusion of more and more and more people.  We need to be embracing the technology, throw off the shackles of censorship and let the tweets fly!  The biggest flaw in the paper is that it doesn't proclaim this or embrace social media wholeheartedly or even make much of its strengths.  The paragraph on the strengths is so weak (and I did offer to re-write it!) whereas the following list of risks and problems highlights where this paper is coming from - conservative wariness rather than prophetic zeal.  Bring on the prophets, Council!

Not quite that easy, is it?  As I said the other day, social networking has to be responsible.  But I think it can be self regulating and needs a much lighter touch which is developed within the social media itself rather than imposed as a series of guidelines.  Indeed, the guidelines suggested are more than guidelines because repeated flouting of them will result in disciplinary action possibly leading to dismissal. 

Why do I think self regulation and a lighter touch is in order here?  

Our actions are governed by the values we hold. Methodists, ordained and lay, already hold values which promote inclusivity, social holiness, a regard for the other, a passion for Christian discipleship.  These values are regulated by our worship life, by membership, by liturgical acts like the Covenant Service, by the Deed of Union and, for the ordained, by a pledge to keep our doctrines and discipline.  In fact our values are pretty heavily legislated upon within the Methodist Church - as befits our heritage within the Wesleyan Holiness movements. 

These values can then direct the policy and we know that the best policy is created within the community to which it applies.  Imposition from outside, from a governance body which might not really have a grasp of the issues, cannot work and can only lead to feelings of rebellion and outrage - especially in the world of social networking.  We have the values in place.  Those values could be developed/crystallized in something like the Civil Service Bloggers Code which then provides proper guidelines (not rules) which could be managed through Methodism's already existing line management and supervisory systems.

And I am not suggesting a free for all.  The good bits of the paper, and the good bits of the Civil Service Code, point out the responsibility of blogging and using social media.  Confidentiality is a requirement.  Libel and slander and defamation and harassment - see yesterday's postings - are a reality within the world of blogging.  But if people are blogging or tweeting like this, then its likely they are emailing like this and talking like this - in other words the issue is not social media but values.  Jesus had it dead right: it's not what goes into someone's mouth that defiles them but what comes out (Matthew 15:11).  If the values are not right, then however much we legislate, all we will do is create more sinners!

Finally, I would suggest that Methodism needs to embrace social networking far far far more.  It shouldn't be impeding social networking at all.  It was Wesley's passion for embracing the technology of the day (public preaching, social holiness, small group meetings, hymns written to 'pub' tunes, wacky medicine) which pushed him out into the public arena.  

How good would it be for the Methodist Council to push aside these guidelines and embrace social media's own way of doing things and of regulating itself based upon the very values which are already within the DNA of Methodism - and trust the policing to our already burgeoning disciplinary processes...

Pete

Comments

[Ali Johnson]

Don't think church has full taken hold on Social Media and its power to really enhance the spread of truth. Great to see you back blogging. Keep it up!

[Gareth Hill]

Excellent Pete. I agree with everything you have said. I have said in a response to Toby that using Twitter and Facebook within meetings can often be less disruptive than getting up, walking to the other side of the room and muttering in a corner with someone. An exchange of messages via laptops allows you to check on points of confusion, even set up proposals or points of order.
As people have said in another forum, the paper expects ministers to engage in social media "in their spare time" but most of us regard ourselves as never off-line from our calling, so how would we measure those spare time moments? And more importantly, who would police that?
Local Preachers are also officers of the Church but I understand there is already a tacit acceptance these guidelines could never be applied to them in the way they could be brought to bear on other officers. That seems an admission of defeat before the process even gets under way.

[Duttyo]

Hi Pete,

An excellent, well argued post. I, like you, am worried about the lack of understanding and the level of fear expressed within this report.

Gareth's point about 'spare time' is an interesting one and again shows that this paper has little understanding of the ways in which physical and virtual presence are intertwined

[Davefaulkner]

Pete,

Thanks for this. I guess I'm the sort who can only do one thing at a time, but for those who can multitask, it's no surprise they tweet during meetings. You could argue that the paper going to Methodist Council is a piece of control freakery, but since I don't move in those exalted places I don't know what the atmosphere is like. What I do know is that the Pope is more positive than the Methodist Church - see my follow-up post.

[Richardhall]

Some good thoughts, Pete. I suspect that the paper is as long as it is because the author couldn't assume that Council would know what the new media were about. Blogging might have gone mainstream, but I still meet people who don't get it. As for Twitter...! I don't think this paper is negative about social media at all -- in fact, that we should be involved is taken for granted. And, whatever anyone says, I can't see anything in the proposals that suggests control freakery or a desire to suppress debate.

[Stuart Bell]

I'm also concerned that this document, which the author admits is only directuve, rather than advisory, for employees of the Church, will end up being printed in the Conference Agenda, at quite signficant cost, and with the risk or bringing ridicule on the Church for its apparent heavy-handedness. Come to think about it, isn't bringing ridicule on the Church a disciplinary matter? ;-)

[Bluesoul.wordpress.com]

great blog some very interesting issues, for me it is an issue of incarnation, to be in the world (digital , or real) as be as Christ inspiring as possible and it has to be a question of integrity how and what we do through social media. Isn't social media the place where people gather to talk and discuss? Wasn't St Paul on Mars hill the ancient equivalent?

[Hidihidi]

I felt it important that I add a comment, even though I have not read the paper, and only today came across your blog. I hope you don't mind. Feel free not to approve it if it is not really relevant. Thanks.
A few days ago I found a site which seems a register of Methodist bloggers. This is great for me. I am a Methodist who has not been to church for about 18 months - not proud of this, but it is just fact. In the last 3 months I have discovered Twitter, and in the last few weeks blogs. One of the ways I am using both of these is to re-engage with Christianity. I really greatly appreciate, gently at my own pace being able to read tweets and shortish posts which reflect Christian beliefs, a working out of the Christian faith in today's world, and which deep within I can identify with. Tweets and blogs are currently helping to keep me in touch with (or re-engage with) what was a massive part of my life (my Christian faith), but which I have shut out (God and I know the reasons / circumstances).
So in relation to Social Media and the Methodist Church I am a Methodist who is gaining massive help from social media on my journey, and my hope is that in time I will re-gain the faith that was once so fundamental to my life. Currently, I am following a number of blogs by Methodist ministers, in addition to blogs and tweets by other Christians, and believe that God is using this to encourage me back to Him. Instead of verbal discussions with Christians, or going to church, this is a way that I am able to receive Christian communication/input. I hope the Methodist Church continues to allow ministers to engage with social media, in the same way as they engage in conversation with people i.e. freely.
Keep up the good work - please!