The Church Times has at last discovered blogging! For some time now the Church Times has thought it necessary to have an computer column which dispenses rather indigestible advice on how to use computers in ministry.
In a comically inept article on blogging it suggests that there are "too few" Church of England clergy maintaining a blog - that there are more in Scottish episcopal church - and that English Anglicans ought to have something equivalent to the Methodist system of their ministers registering their blog on a central site. No doubt some-one will write into the letters column and put them right - and my last count I was aware of around 60 Anglican clergy blogs.
For the benefit of non-anglicans The Church Times is one of the two weekly papers covering the Church of England (with token nods to our episcopal sister churches in Scotland, Wales and Ireland). The Church Times used to be aimed at the liberal- catholic end of the Church ( leaving The Church of England News to bow to the needs of evangelicals) and was noted for its robust and intelligent journalism.
More recently it has undergone a change of ownership, the inevitable design change which has left it visually incoherent, and is now known more its "quaintness", than for its intelligence. I often wonder why I read it most weeks - and even more why I pay for it - and I guess its little like my local rag the Keighley News which I skim read on the oft chance that it has something to say that I really shouldn't miss.
In fact the Church Times first carried a column about blogging, by John Davies, back in August 2003.
And my monthly indigestible :-) column has written several times about blogging in the past.
The main article to which you take exception links to four CofE bloggers (not counting TA) and 3 Scottish ones.
Yours in comic ineptitude
Simon
Posted by: Simon Sarmiento | 25 February 2006 at 15:24
Yes, I thought Simon must have been nodding too: but he obviously reads your blog!
Posted by: tony | 25 February 2006 at 16:54
Sorry Simon your comments simply confirm that I don't read the Church Times as often or as carefully as I should and was unware that it had covered blogging before.
I didn't take any exception to the article - I just thought it poor for those who do not know what blogging is (the majority of Church Times readers?)
Your article has as a key element of its argument that there are too few "British" clerical bloggers - that it seems more "popular" in Scotland and that British Methodists "seem" keener than Anglicans I just wondered where the "facts" are to support these assumptions - I always believed facts to be basis of good journalism.
As for "indigestible" your write-up on "How to Blog" is a case in point. What would paragraphs two and three mean to a newcomer? Rather than mentioning "servers" amd "free-hosting" would it not have made more sense (ie to encourage others to start blogging) to have said that you can run it on any computer linked to the interent and that there is no risk involved. (the two most common questions I receive from clergy are: "do I have a good enough computer" and "is there any risk of viruses". Then without any explanation of what a "comment" is you proceed to explain how to stop them.
The fact that it is "so easy" is obscured by a description which contradicts the very facility.
Posted by: Tom Allen | 25 February 2006 at 17:12
Not sure that I agree Tom with your general critque of the Church Times, but the computer slot is very poor - often leading to more questions that answers. I tried to follow the recent RSS article and became totally confused. It reads like something for computer experts - and when it obscures something as creative and accessible as blogging then that is a great dis-service to the Church. I have written to CT to say so but doubt they will listen.
Posted by: Father John | 25 February 2006 at 17:28
Tom - I think you're being a little harsh here. Condidering how much effort CofE clergy go to to write their sermon material every week anyway it does surprise me that more don't blog it as well (Although in some case we are blessed that they don't).
As for the Methodist bloggers: I think that they have made more of an effort to link together with each other online what with theConnexion.net and the Methodist blogroll / web ring etc. You'll usually only find most of the CofE clergy bloggers by chance clicking on sidebars.
Posted by: Dave Walker | 27 February 2006 at 15:35
Dave
hmmmm not sure of the connection with sermons - i have never blogged a sermon and not sure that I ever will - two completely different mediums and I rarely preached from a script anyway.
The point about the Methodist blog-roll only goes to show how few there are compared with Anglicans and that was my critique of the CT article.
Posted by: Tom Allen | 27 February 2006 at 16:10
One slight difference is that theConnexion.net is not primarily for clergy (although we do have a number of them). Also theConnexion.net is not at all official, just Richard and I as friends running it.
Our goal was/is precisely to make it easy and risk free for all Methodists to try out blogging among friends.
Posted by: DaveW | 27 February 2006 at 16:17
I continue to be impressed by the Church Times' robust and intelligent journalism. I look forward to it every week, and to reading important items of world news left out of the mainstream media, not to mention some of the cartoons. :0)
Posted by: Karin | 27 February 2006 at 16:22
Tom - my point about sermons is that clergy have to think of something vaguely intelligent to stand up and talk about for 7 / 45 minutes (delete as appropriate) every week, so why not use the work that has already been done to connect with people locally (or wherever) rather than just the 3 / 300 (delete as appropriate) people who turn up on a Sunday morning. Though yes, I accept that a sermon 'as is' doesn't always make the best reading.
Methodist blogroll that may prove my point or Toms, I'm not sure ( http://www.wesleyblog.com/wesleyblog/2005/02/methodist_blogr.html ). But there do seem to be quite a good number.
Posted by: Dave Walker | 27 February 2006 at 18:00
hmmmm just had a look at Methodist blogroll - and spotted some familiar and excellent British blogs ( 4 in total) - so I randomly clicked on 8 others and have yet to find a British one - all the ones I found were North American which does not really support the CT article's thesis.
Karin delighted to hear that the Church Times has an "impressed" reader - and even more someone who looks forward to the cartoons!
Posted by: Tom Allen | 27 February 2006 at 19:46
A bit harsh Tom: I find Simon's column always worth a scan. There have been times when he's alerted me to something I didn't know, and when it comes to techy vicars I come out on the high side. I think for the context, it's doing a good job in the wordlimit available.
Of course, since CT featured my blog, my life has been on fast-forward, I've enjoyed fame beyond my wildest imaginings, and Hollywood are expected to produce the film of the blog sometime next year, starting Tom Cruise in the role of me.... err....
Posted by: Paul Roberts | 28 February 2006 at 07:47
Paul I guess as a techy vicar the column will be really useful - but I wonder whether that's the problem in that it assumes too much knowledge and might leave the bulk of Anglican clergy readers with the impression that computers are only for the techy. For me the whole point of blogs is its very ease of use which should encourage clergy to use a wonderful tool - that's what I meant by "indigestible" - as for the article I still think that it could have been better researched, and more accurately headed. There was nothing personal about I had no idea who Simon was when I wrote the post in five minutes.I want to encourage clergy to use blogs - not give the impression that its hard to use and full of pitfalls and that there are only a few techy Anglicans doing it.
Posted by: Tom Allen | 28 February 2006 at 09:03
I wish my blog was as well discussed and debated as this one!
Posted by: Tiffer | 28 February 2006 at 11:04
Tough words Tom but as usual close to the bone. I read my Dad's Church Times each week - but really as a way of keeping up with the "stuffy church" and making some sense of what happens in our parish. As a professional I would agree that it is poor journalism- and the computer column is a classic of not being clear who it is writing for - like Paul I think I am fairly computer savvy - but it often confuses me. My question to the Editor would be - who is aimed at "clerics" or "geeks" - at the moment the latter and it ought to be the former. But it is not the only column with problems - I thought the Wormingwold thing was a spoof!
Posted by: James | 28 February 2006 at 11:39
Life having been on the busy side of late, I've yet to read last week's CT and the column in question, but if I, about the least technically "ept" person in the entire UK, can manage a blog then surely anyone can!
I agree with Tom that blogging my sermons feels odd(though I did create a sermon blog for the parish in the hope that this might encourage discussion from the pews...but so far though Wonderful Vicar is keen in theory neither he nor the Reader have posted anything, so I've not publicised it at all...definitely don't want it to appear an exercise in self promotion) but often things that I'm mulling over on the blog will inform my sermon reflections, and occasionally vice versa. I was asked today why I blog...mainly, I guess, because it satisfies a need to write and to think aloud....and the blogging community has replaced the group with whom I used to discuss Big Questions over a glass of wine during training.
Posted by: Kathryn | 28 February 2006 at 18:10
Good to have the perspective of another of the supposed "not as many other" English clergy bloggers. It also suggests that clergy bloggers blog for a variety of reasons. My own being (very naively I now realise) to offer something which would cut down on the number of people asking for comment and advice and only later did I go public at the inital group of 40 readers suggestion.
Of course what happens once a public blog becomes well-known is that a whole new group start to read it and to email - I used the software which locates readers across the world and was quite staggered.
My blog is more "personal" than "vicar" so I blog about things (particularly music) which have nothing to do with my role as a Vicar and conversely rarely comment on parish events. Few church members read the blog, and it is not aimed at them.
I hope after Easter to start a Parish Blog and have found that "Richards Blog" has given me lots of ideas for the particular angles of a parish blog.
Posted by: Tom | 28 February 2006 at 18:46
If "Fr John" who commented above, but whose email address as given here does not exist, apparently, would like to get in touch with me, I should be glad to get his further comments on why the RSS article in particular was so hard to understand.
Posted by: Simon Sarmiento | 03 March 2006 at 10:35
The nomination of the winner depends on the capability and spirit of the personality to finish the race.I like the post very much as it contain informative in knowledge.I like pics of Chelsea shares of the beauty of running in Madison, Wisconsin.I want to congratulate the winners for the nomination race.I want to know suggestion from others.
Posted by: Coach Outlet Online | 26 November 2011 at 07:02