Clergy Accountability Online
Image © Spencer E. Holtaway | Flickr | Used under Creative Commons license.Should churches monitor the online activity of pastors? At least one conference in the United Methodist Church thinks so, and is now requiring pastors and ordination candidates to sign a disclosure agreement (downloadable below) covering clergy activity on social networks and other websites.
The policy was implemented by the Kentucky Annual Conference and applies to “any and all MySpace, Facebook, or other blog and website accounts.” (MySpace? Really?) By signing the agreement, clergy are agreeing to allow the conference to “examine” the accounts. Clergy are required to add the KAC as a friend on each account, and by signing, they demonstrate an understanding that “any information of a questionable nature on these sites that are written and/or posted by me, could affect my status as a Candidate/Resident in the Ordination process with the Kentucky Annual Conference.”
The document goes on to say that officials will regularly check their accounts and that they will be held accountable for “material that would be deemed questionable in light of the Social Principles and Doctrinal Standards of the United Methodist Church or that would show lack of judgment in understanding the standards and ethics of a United Methodist clergyperson.”
I’m glad there’s growing concern for clergy accountability, but this policy seems like overkill to me. And it’s actually unnecessary because there’s already a natural accountability with social networks. To some extent, we’re all held accountable for the things we post online, by our friends, family members, co-workers, and employers. For example, I’m friends on Facebook with a number of my co-workers, including the president of the company I work for. But I didn’t “friend” them to comply with a policy, I did it because I wanted to. And when I post anything, I’m always conscious of what I write. My rule of thumb is not to post anything that I wouldn’t be comfortable putting on a billboard next to the interstate.
I understand why the policy was implemented, but it doesn’t even address the biggest dangers of social networking for clergy-- the stuff that can go on in private messaging. No one would stalk someone, initiate an affair, solicit a minor or do something illegal on a Facebook page-- these things only take place in the shadows. And this agreement can’t reach that far. The only way it could would be for pastors to keep their account passwords on file with church officials, and that’s not going to happen. While that level of accountability might be necessary for some people, it should happen voluntarily in the context of a close relationship (e.g. spouse), not under a “Big Brother” mandate.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of the agreement is the part that attempts to enforce the Doctrinal Standards and Social Principles. Now I’m all for confronting heresy when necessary, but the United Methodist Social Principles have no legal binding power. Yet this document seems to be threatening to withhold ordination from those who post something “questionable” in light of those principles. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding a major point, but doesn’t that mean that this conference is holding its not-yet-ordained clergy to a higher standard than it’s holding its elders?
This is not the way to attract younger clergy. With what seems like an increasingly complicated and grueling ordination process, is it any wonder that more potential pastors are going the non-denominational route?
Questions: Should pastors and church staff be held accountable for what they post on social networks? If so, how should this be done?
Shane Raynor is a managing editor for Ministry Matters.
Connect and Subscribe: Facebook | Twitter | RSS
(Photo Credit: Spencer E. Holtaway)
Download:
Disclosure AgreementSign in or sign up to add a comment
Feeds
Comments
Great point. It seems that our denomination is always shooting itself in the foot when it comes to attracting and equipping young clergy.
First it tells them they have to go to one of a handful of UM seminaries (the majority of which are quite pitiful in comparison to schools the UM no longer recognizes such as Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary!) or else they cannot be ordained.
Now it tells them that it will monitor their online social networking accounts and hold them to the Social Principles.
Meanwhile Bishops and other "tenured" Denomination leaders gather and publish openly heretical statements with zero consequences.
*facepalm*
And we Methodists wonder why we're becoming more and more irrelevant as a denomination in this country?
The agreement states "material that would be deemed questionable in light of the Social Principles and Doctrinal Standards of the United Methodist Church or that would show lack of judgment in understanding the standards and ethics of a United Methodist clergyperson will be determined by the Board of Ordained Ministry and my assigned Barnabas Team." That is pretty vague and leaves a lot of gray area. There are no definable boundaries to avoid and so if I were a member of this conference I would close my Facebook account and be done with it at least until I was ordained.
I agree with you Shane. I think this will turn off A LOT of younger potential clergypersons to an already ridiculously grueling process.
1. Patronizing - Any policy that communicates, "We'll be watching you" treats those being watched as though they were children. Wesleyan accountability is based on mutual, loving relationship, not on threats. This policy smacks of those in authority "lording it over" those beneath them. Sound familiar? This is not Christian accountability.
2. Redundant - As a United Methodist elder (and previously as a candidate for ordination), I am accountable to my bishop and my annual conference for everything I say and do that might be deemed inappropriate for my station, especially in a public forum. Why would I need to sign a statement reaffirming this accountability with regards to social networks and blogs, but not with regards to other public arenas?
3. Ignorant - Related to point number two, it is apparent those responsible for crafting this policy lack understanding of the nature of social networks and blogs (they specify MySpace, for goodness sake!). I am reminded of a conference leader who once advised a roomful of young people to "join the conference's list of friends on the facebook." Had they any real understanding of the nature of social networks and blogs, the people who crafted this policy would no more have done so than they would bother crafting such policies for behavior in or at public libraries, school functions, theaters, retail stores, amusement parks, restaurants, airports, sporting events, museums, parades, etc.
As a United Methodist elder, my relationship with the United Methodist Church is based on a covenant. The accountable nature of this covenant is explicit. I am not, as this policy seems to imply, somehow more or less accountable in the virtual world than I am in the real world. I am accountable to my covenant everywhere equally. By asking candidates and ordinands to sign this policy, the Kentucky Conference is essentially saying, "We didn't really mean the whole covenant relationship thing."
The idea that such a policy will alienate young clergy simply is inaccurate in KY. I believe that we've more than doubled our young clergy and ministerial candidates in the past few years because KYUMC promotes a welcoming and empowering environment for young clergy and we have a Bishop who makes young people a priority in word and action.
The policy simply helps remind us that the stuff we post online isn't done in a vacuum, but instead impacts the people that we are connected to. I don't think that it is the big deal that this article makes it out to be.
1. Could that purpose not be served by a simple statement that says just that? (i.e. "I understand that social networks, blogs, and other online forums are public arenas, and that I am accountable for my words and behaviors there as elsewhere," or words to that effect.) In fact, the statement does much more than provide a gentle reminder of the public nature of these online forums. The policy of the VAC (provided elsewhere here) seems much more in the nature and tone of a friendly reminder, even if a bit more verbose and informative than my own suggestion.
2. Does the KYAC require all clergy and candidates to sign similar statements regarding their behavior in other public forums? Of course I am being rhetorical here to demonstrate that the policy is superfluous, except as a means of the institution flexing its muscles in threat. Big Sister/Brother is watching.
Part of what is helpful here is clear guidance about how to approach the use of social media. This is sound advice that everyone can learn from. It also includes some well clear words about what acceptable and problematic uses of those media by clergy look like.
Here is that policy:
Preface: With the quick rise of social media in human society; businesses, sports organizations and other entities have begun creating guidelines for the responsible use of social media by their constituents.
The reason for these guidelines is to assist their members in the appropriate use of social networks in an effort to prevent people within the organization from being abusive or abused through social media. The church is no different.
The Internet and rise of social media offers the church both positive and negative elements of human community and interaction.
Throughout human history new forms of communication continuously develop as each one
rises and falls from one time to the next. The question becomes “how does the Christian
community adapt new communication tools to the mission of the church?”
The following are guidelines, not rules or regulations, created in an effort to inform the
Christian community about appropriate behavior online. These guidelines are not about
limiting what we can do through social media, rather the question is as a member of the reign of God, what is the best use of social media for Christian community and outreach?
Christians are called to remember that in all interactions we are members of the body of Christ, and what is done in the physical and virtual world has an impact on the mission of God in the world.
Clergy and laity are accountable to one another and have a shared responsibility for living the gospel in all relationships, including those online. While the reality of human sinfulness is
always a part of human life, guidelines can help us remember the grace with which God has
touched human life and transformed human behavior to reflect the presence of Christ.
Guidelines:
• Discern what the purpose of the social media is for you.
• Is social media a tool for ministry or your private domain?
• Think before you post something always remembering that social media is a public forum.
• Weigh whether a particular posting puts your effectiveness as a pastor or Christian at risk.
• Remember the Internet is instant communication, anything can be forwarded and saved.
• Do not use commentary deemed to be defamatory, obscene, proprietary or libelous.
• Exercise caution with regards to exaggeration, colorful language, guesswork, obscenity,
copyrighted materials, legal conclusions and derogatory remarks or characterizations.
• Post only what you want the world to see. It is not like posting something to your Web site
or blog and then realizing that a story or photo should be taken down. On a social networking site, basically once you post something it may be available, even after it is removed from the site.
• Do not discuss pastoral concerns or coworkers or publicly criticize The United Methodist
Church or conference personnel or colleagues.
• Know and follow the Book of Discipline and biblical understandings of community.
• Be cognizant of your association with the United Methodist Church in online social
networks.
• If you are United Methodist clergy or laity, ensure your profile and related content is
consistent with how you wish to present yourself as a member of the Christian community.
Social media communication with previous parishioners and “friending” on Facebook or
other social media.
• For clergy, if a “friend” is not a member of your current congregation, remember you are
friends, not their pastor. Observe appropriate boundaries and exercise care to ensure you are not a hindrance for the pastor currently appointed to that congregation and the ministry needs of that congregation.
• Remember that people classified as “friends” have the ability to download and share your
information with others.
• Be discerning on who you friend. Do not initiate one-on-one “friending” with minors and,
if a minor initiates such “friending” with you, carefully weigh the advisability and potential
risks of such an online relationship.
• Make sure privacy settings are set to allow only the online content you want visible to
show up on your profile.
When considering social media for yourself or a social media strategy for the congregation,
ask:
• What does social media mean for a faith community?
• What is appropriate for the wall of the church?
• Who is allowed to post on the wall of the church?
• What does the local church community want on social media?
• Regularly monitor your use of social media to ensure that an inordinate amount of time
and energy is not spent interacting on social media to the detriment of your effectiveness as a clergyperson or religious professional.
Security:
• Due to security risks, be cautious when installing the external applications that work with
the social networking site. Examples of these sites are calendar programs and games.
• Run updated malware protection to avoid infections of spyware and adware that social
networking sites might place on your computer.
• Be careful not to fall for “phishing” scams that arrive via e-mail or on your wall, providing
a link for you to click, leading to a fake log-in page.
• Visit your profile’s security and privacy settings. At a minimum, all privacy settings set to
“only friends”. “Friends of friends” and “Networks and Friends” open your content to a large
group of unknown people. Your privacy and that of your family may be at risk. People you do
not know may be looking at you, your home, your kids, your grandkids, - your lives.
I find the policy irritating, ambiguous, ineffective and a bit hypocritical, but it's not nearly as scary in practice as this article makes it out to be.
Yes, it is patronizing to HAVE to add the KYUMC Board of Ordained Ministry (BOM) as a friend on Facebook. But has doing so changed what I post on my page? No. I'm already friends with youth, church members, clergy colleagues, etc. and know that I need to think before typing. I am still open and authentic on my page, but I recognize that the internet is essentially a very big public place (even on websites with restricted networks like Facebook), so I need to behave like a responsible adult in a public place. (I like to think that I behave like a responsible adult everywhere, but you get my drift.) I have, in fact, posted statements and articles that stand in opposition to the current verbage in the Social Principles and have never been called out on it by the BOM or my Barnabas Team (the BOM team that works with you in your residency). I think just about every clergyperson in the UMC will at least admit that there is a lot of controversy in our church these days. If I had posted such sentiments in a disrespectful or hateful manner, it might have come up in an interview with the board, as it would demonstrate poor judgement on my part since such statements are not productive in promoting genuine dialogue in the church.
I think the policy is ambiguous because it essentially attempts to provide the BOM access to anything you post on the web, but where do you draw the line? Do I need to e-mail the board every time I post a review of my daughter's newest toy that I bought off Amazon? Every piece of E-bay feedback? Every blog comment (such as this one)?
I think the policy is generally ineffective because, as someone already mentioned, the big nasty mistakes people make online are usually made in some form of private messaging.
And I think the policy is hypocritical because it is only required of residents and candidates, not ordained clergy in full connection. I'm all for transparency...but if we're going to be transparent, let's all do it. And frankly, I think you're more likely to internet misuse (intentional or unintentional) by older users who are new to social media and don't fully understand it (like many of the ordained folks I know). I know that the policy has arisen out of some issues with, um, clergy with computers, but the problems I've heard about have not been with residents - it's been ordained clergy who are burnt-out and looking for trouble. (But of course, there may be a lot more going on that I don't know about!)
So basically what I'm saying is that it's not my favorite policy, but it's certainly not a deal-breaker for me. And in reality, it's not used in a malicious fashion. By far, the aspect that bothers me the most is that it's not required of ordained clergy; that bit REALLY rubs me the wrong way. Let's be accountable - but let's be mutually accountable, please.
And if anyone on my Barnabas team is reading this, hello! :)
I then learned that this policy was just for the residents and not for all clergy, and I was disappointed. I felt it unfair to hold the residents to a different standard than the ordained clergy (shouldn't our ordained clergy be held to the highest standard?). That really is my only beef with the policy. I do think it was created in a spirit of loving accountability and not maliciously or punitively. In practice, I think the BOM took a quick look at all of my online stuff when I applied for ordination, and that was the extent of it.
I also agree with Matt (mgjohnson30) that the KY Conference is creating a great environment for young clergy. It has been exciting to see the change in that respect over the last few years with many more young people going through the ordination process and an emphasis on church-planting and helping young leaders find places to succeed.